good banter here
Bryan, I couldn't have put it better
>Ancient history is not life or death for me, it is an interest, nothing more.
>However, ancient history is (in my opinion) mostly conjecture and supposition. Artefacts/ ancient documents constituting the only evidence. Evidence from which anyone can extrapolate the 'truth' about what happened, whether scholar or down-trodden, little man journalist.
>Kate Spence writes the same thing once- and Hey Presto, because her peers now decide they like the idea, it's the truth.
Has K. Spence got indisputable evidence that others haven't on the ancient world.
ancient history when you talk about the top bit of some hominoid
skull and then extrapolate what it looked like and how it lived,
to me smacks in the face of hard fact evidence that Hancock et al
seem to have to provide, it seems one rule for one and another rule for others.
As for corrilation (as has been said elsewhere) of any site being able to copy the constellations onto the ground such as post offices or whatever in New York, is not showing like for like.
The Giza pyramids in my eyes are a damn site more impressive than your local post office, (post offices aren't built as part of a religeous concept) BUT these pyramids built on one site, with all the WRITTEN egyptian stuff about Isis and Osiris relating to Orion and Sirius it seems one helluva coincidence that these pyramids "happen" to be layed out in a way that DOES reflect the belt of Orion, its not any old stucture and any constellation,
thats what gets me about the venomous critique of Hancock and others, on this particular matter, WHY?
why not help solve the mystery one way or the other
instead of dismissing it outright.