> No, seriously. My method is not purely statistically. What I
> tried to say (in an eleborate way, I agree) is that you
> cannot say a lost civilasation could never have existed. I on
> the other hand cannot say orthodox history is untrue. Voila
> c'est ça.
Well, as I said, history deals with the gathering of hard data and the conclusions (often tentative) drawn from that data. Hancock's and other "possible" histories lacking data are therefore untestable and so bypassed by people like myself. It is not possible to "prove" that something that never existed. It left us no evidence, by virtue of its non-existence, so it can't be "proven" either way. And one can always come back and say, "Yeah, well it's possible, isn't it?" Do you see how futile it is to speculate about the possible instead of investigating the tangible?
I think a better example of what you proposed is this:
1). People 12,000 years ago lived in caves, had no agriculture, had no cities, lived in small populations, and used stone tools. There is hard archaeological evidence the world over for this.
2). People 12,000 years ago lived in a highly sophisticated global civilization with a focus on sky-ground relationships. There is no hard evidence whatsoever for this.
Which hypothesis is the soundest?
By juxtaposing two hypotheses, one positive (there was a lost civilization) and one negative (there was not), you skew the analysis by requiring the proof of a negative. I cannot *prove* there was no 12,000 year old civilization, I can only say that not a scrap of hard evidence for it has ever been found, anywhere, in any archaeological dig of many many thousands so far conducted. It therefore strikes me as a most unlikely hypothesis. Since there is no evidence for Welsh purple-dotted unicorns wearing yellow jockstraps building Maya pyramids either, the two hypotheses (lost civ., Welsh unicorns) exist in the same plane, even if one is far more ludicrous. Still, one could say to either option "Yeah, well it's possible, isn't it?" and we're back to square one.