> Why not indeed?
> Some seem to think (among them Graham Hancock,
> apparently) that excluding these things a priori
> makes the theorising “respectable”—
Which is ironic because often what it is replaced with is no "better" if not worse. Graham, for example, poo-poo's ancient astronauts (and its proponents if need be) only to replace it with beings from another dimension (ironically aliens themselves) apparently only accessible by taking hallucinogenic drugs. In Graham's case I find this self-serving as he is using AA as a strawman (and some of its proponents) to build up and tear down to make his own beliefs seem more "reasonable" by comparison.
Another example I would give that sticks in my craw is from a book by Alan Butler of Hiram Key fame, "Who Built the Moon?". In coming up with a list of who might be responsible he offers ( I may be missing one) God, Aliens, or Time Traveling Humans from the future. Aliens he deemed the most improbable, hard to take aliens all that seriously really, which came in a distant third on the probability meter with the much more respectable "time traveling humans from the future" beating out God for pole position on the most likely candidates of "Who Built the Moon". Another straw man offered to make his conclusion more respectable which is weird because time traveling backwards in time is nigh impossible.
> and yet
> (as I’ve noted passim), in some respects,
> ancient astronauts has the advantage, with its
> built-in explanation of why the super-duper
> high-tech tools etc. are not in evidence.
Which is awesome.
> And Atlantis: is that not behind a lot of “lost
> civilisation” thinking, even if not explicitly
> named as such?
Indeed. The lead chapter in Graham's latest book in fact.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14-Sep-16 17:23 by Thanos5150.