Re: On what basis do you label Hancock a loon?

Posted by Anejo Joe from 162.greenville-01-02rs.sc.dial-access.att.net on April 26, 1999 at 04:30:22:

In Reply to: On what basis do you label Hancock a loon? posted by Indiana Mungo on April 26, 1999 at 00:07:20:

: Is it merely because he isn't formally trained as an archaeologist? Or is it because you have done your own extensive research that clearly refutes his theory? Or is it that you are jumping on the traditional academic bandwagon that hates to contemplate any new ideas that might eventually undermine their blind faith in traditional, unproven, questionable, and yet lovingly embraced, hand-me-down theories? Yep, thought so. Believe only what YOU know to be true - disbelieve only what YOU know to be false. Only a fool passes judgement on anything else. Indiana Mungo.

------------------------------------

I have read a number of Hancock's books and enjoyed them all. The Sign and the Seal is probably his best. But he does, in many instances, fly in the face of established scholarship. The authorities in the field have spent years researching their findings, and their conclusions are not based solely on their individual works, but on those of their colleagues as well. If you actually have the opportunity to talk with experts and to ask them questions, it becomes readily evident where the non-mainstream theories fall apart. And they fall apart quickly. It is not a case of the established experts not wanting to accept something new, it is that they do not accept something they know to be false.

Follow Ups:

Re: On what basis do you label Hancock a loon? Indiana Mungo 06:53:35 4/26/99 (3)
- Don't Blame Hancock, the system is screwy JeffW 15:03:39 4/26/99 (0)
- Re: On what basis do you label Hancock a loon? Anejo Joe 14:04:31 4/26/99 (0)
- Re: On what basis do you label Hancock a loon? Mark Indy 12:11:04 4/26/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : Is it merely because he isn't formally trained as an archaeologist? Or is it because you have done your own extensive research that clearly refutes his theory? Or is it that you are jumping on the traditional academic bandwagon that hates to contemplate any new ideas that might eventually undermine their blind faith in traditional, unproven, questionable, and yet lovingly embraced, hand-me-down theories? Yep, thought so. Believe only what YOU know to be true - disbelieve only what YOU know to be false. Only a fool passes judgement on anything else. Indiana Mungo.

: ------------------------------------

: I have read a number of Hancock's books and enjoyed them all.  The Sign and the Seal is probably his best. But he does, in many instances, fly in the face of established scholarship.  The authorities in the field have spent years researching their findings, and their conclusions are not based solely on their individual works, but on those of their colleagues as well.  If you actually have the opportunity to talk with experts and to ask them questions, it becomes readily evident where the non-mainstream theories fall apart.  And they fall apart quickly.  It is not a case of the established experts not wanting to accept something new, it is that they do not accept something they know to be false.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]