Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5711662" data-attributes="member: 59082">[MENTION=17239]David Howery[/MENTION], elements of Hancock's views have been "debunked" but that doesn't mean that all or even the majority of his work is invalidated. More often than not I've found that some specifics that he presents are proven erroneous but that doesn't negate the gist of what he is saying. His main point is that there is a substantial (and growing) body of evidence that there was some kind of antediluvian civilization(s). I tend to agree with this. What it actually was is debatable and I don't have a strong opinion about. At the very least, and this goes without saying, there is a lot we don't know (yet) about prehistory and our current view will evolve and change, even drastically, as we learn more. But I am an admitted alternate/speculative history and archeology buff. I don't automatically believe anything that sounds cool or bucks the "orthodoxy," but I do find that the really good ideas--and innovations--often come from the "lunatic fringe," that academia is, by and large, bogged down in reinforcing its own self-generated theories and finding ways to either eject or rationalize anything that is anomalous to What We Know As True. This is why Atlantis-debunkers say that all Atlantis myths stem from Plato and Plato was just writing an allegory, but ignore the cross-cultural allusions to a pre-flood civilization and numerous Atlantis-esque references. But in terms of speculative archeology and such, the problem is, as with anything, separating out the signal from the noise (because there are actually a lot of lunatics, or at least lunacy, in the fringe). I find that a large dose of agnosticism is healthy.[MENTION=4157]rgard[/MENTION], yeah, Gobekli Tepe is pretty fascinating. I'm wondering what they'll uncover when the other 95% of the site is dug up.</blockquote>

Verification