> Look...you missed this one even by your own
> standards which is why I rang the alarm bell. I
> whole-heartedly support the Heretic Society at
> GrahamHancock.com. I want alternative historians
> to succeed in doing that which academia has
> relinquished: To be bold. But being bold does not
> excuse us from being reckless. If we condemn
> academic peer review as intellectual inbreeding
> then we should create a better vetting system. And
> this vetting begins with us. We ourselves must
> take resposibility for our mistakes.
You want to pick and choose what Egyptology has right and has wrong. That's fine and I have no problem with it but every alt has problems with at least ONE of the assumptions that changeless and highly superstitious bumpkins an 2400 BC dragged tombs up ramps. I can't think of any other of the assumptions that alts disagree with and I believe this is a comprehensive list.
We all dispute one or more of these assumptions. I dispute them all. I'm always interested in ANYTHING that supports or denies the assumptions. I know that modern Egyptologists believe these things and are continually messaging the "accepted" evidence and the translations so that everything is more consistent. THIS IS A GOOD THING. It is to be expected that a science continually tries to approach the actual reality.
I KEEP ASKING THIS and it is always ignored; WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT THEY ARE APPROACHING UNDERSTANDING? Where is their ability to predict? Why are they still unable to answer simple questions about the origin of icons and sceptres? Why can't they even determine how pyramids were built?
If they are understanding everything better then why can't one of them provide a simple definition for "eye of horus" that is consistent with the writing? Across the board they expect high quality evidence but all they have is interpretation and a total void of real answers.
If it's true Egyptology is wrong about everything then there's really no standard for alts other than internal consistency, consistency with physical evidence, and logic. The standard is the ability to make prediction and to explain evidence.
It is apparent they are wrong since they are no closer to any answers.