A most stimulating response that fully endorses what I've written here and elsewhere.
> If you are suggesting that "alternative science" followers do
> not look or indeed want proof of what they are claiming, then
> I would like to nominate you for the most completley
> senseless posting award for this site.
This a high honour. Many thanks. Will there be a presentation ceremony?
> The whole point of the site (& indeed Grahams books) are to
> stimulate interest in these subjects with facts & evidence.
> Just because Graham & the majority of people in this forum
> have not read the error filled journals of deluded & mistaken
> scientists for years & years on end does not mean we do not
> rely on evidence. Do you only have scientific journals in the
> libraries where you studied? Do you not have books from
> popular presses?
Thanks, Michael, for fully confirming what I've written elsewhere: "The universities are staffed by incompetent idiots who can't see what's right in front of their faces ... expertise counts for nothing." Science and scholarship have it all wrong; Journalist Graham has it all right. When challenged on this claim, which always bubbles under the surface as it does in your posting, it becomes "We're just pursuing our interests." And,by the way, *what* "facts" does Graham produce? He relies on possibilities and specualtions in his case, not facts.
> As far as science & scholarship only applying to scientists &
> scholars; you are quite embarrassing yourself with this sort
> of brainless mush & I certainly hope your parents paid for
> your education as if it turned out that any of the tax I have
> paid has gone toward your education or salary, then I will
> demand a refund.
My tone was slightly ironic. It is a view I've read posted on this site. I did not make it up. You're own sentiments are not far off: "Leave the scientific idiots to their error-ridden journals." I'd rather those journals than hundreds of pages of nonsensical drivel. (By the way, who do I make the refund check out to?)
> Just because some of us here did not have the privilidge to
> go to university does not mean we do not read extensivly or
> we are not worthy of being branded scientists. Indeed if you
> feel that you are an apt example of a scientist then I feel
> we still have a long long way to go.
I never intimated anything of the sort. This is typical of the knee-jerk shouts of "elitist" when anyone questions the People's Messiah, Graham Hancock, who's out there battling for truth, justice, and the Atlantean way. I never said people were stupid, I never said you needed a university education to do research, I never said the public was thick. Far from it. But it's far more difficult for people to get a clear picture of the issues debated here when the airwaves and bookshelves are filled with the paranormal paparazzi and the purveyors of pseudohistory pumping out a steady stream of anti-scientific and anti-academic garbage. Rather like the public you describe, Michael, the scientists are on a quest for knowledge too, only they have the privilege of doing it for a living. What makes their endeavours so wrong and Graham's so right?
> Science is about learning & no matter where you learn from be
> it a £17,000 a year school, or the libraries & books filled
> with popular press books where the everyday Joe an go & read
> them; we learn the same physics, history ..... whatever! But
> we "in the outside world" have the advantage of deciding to
> read & believe whatever we want to instead of being told what
> to read & what to call our thesis.
More confirmation, Michael, of my previously expressed sentiments: "Science is in the business of endlessly repeating what we already know." Scientists just say what their teachers told them to say. Only non-scientists can think for themselves. Sounds realistic to me.
> Us normal people do have brains of our own & the huan ability
> to learn & deduct what we can from the evidence.
I have little doubt about it. But for various reasons unconnected with the historical profession, people today are cynical about authorities and the establishment, often with good reason. They associate universities with government. They are open to the notion that people in universities, like the government, are hiding things from them or are in it for their own selfish gain. This may be true for those scientists who work under government contracts on military hardware, but is it realistic for Egyptologists or Mayaologits? This is why Graham spends so much time cultivating his "little man" image: "I'm just one of you, battling the close-mindedness of the faceless academics." It's a cheap power-play but a successful one that evidently resonates with many people on this site. I mean, read his statement about the BSC thing. Poor Graham.
> And from the evidence I have seen from you, I can deduct that
> you are a closed minded, obstructive old school dinosaur that
> can't accept everyday people coming up with good theories
> regarding academic subjects such as the gret pyramid.
Thanks for that insight. I'd better seek therapy. I know a good stegasaurus in pschology ...
> Do the numbers of people writing their views on this website
> not indicate that the way people learn & live is changing. We
> can still learn as much as you guys without having to trawl
> through university until the menopause!
God forbid that anyone should waste their time with university education when they can just read the latest "Mysteries of Egyptian Pyramids" books. That's where the *real* truth lies. Like I say, expertise counts for nothing. So next time you have abdominal pain,you'll go straight to your journalist friend for help, or if you have a legal problem, you'll go to a mechanic. It doesn't matter what qualifications anyone has, right? Anyone can do anything. So what would old-school dinosaurs in Egyptology possibly know about the Great Pyramid? Better to consult journalist Graham Hancock for the *facts.*
> But seriously, please learn to accept that coming into a
> forum like this & posting the stuck up message you did only
> lowers your reputation & gives us the impression that our
> opinions & findings don't count.
> Hope you chill a bit then come back with something more
I see. So after this posting, *I'm* the one who needs to chill out? I've merely been presenting some of the absurdities I've read in this website in a playful manner. Funny how angry it can make people, isn't it? Is it hard to have one's faith questioned?