So why do you think that many of us, who have read and searched for many (how about 50+) years for convincing evidence, and academia world-wide do not agree with you?
What you mean to say is "Western academia", not "academia world-wide". And the answer is simple, in the last fifty years or so, Western academia has been stifled by the recently implemented peer-review system allegedly designed to improve "rigor" but has only resulted in stunting scientific progress as well as causing rampant fraud in scientific papers.
(Not to mention the fact that, generally speaking, modern academics can't hold a candle to those of a century ago.)
But regardless, I'm curious to know in you 50+ years of searching for answers which books of Hancock's you've read?
Or perhaps, just maybe, it's you that have the wrong story?
I think anyone who has honestly assessed any given situation considers the possibility that they have the wrong story. That said, however, I'm convinced of the exact opposite, mainly because of the over-whelming amount of evidence in favor of a technologically-advanced civilization in our remote past.
I'd be interested in a citation here, but even if it conveys the meaning you prefer, do you really think they would be saying the same thing nowadays, in the face of new, improved knowledge about the evolution of the human species and the likelihood of visitors from elsewhere in space?
Umm, I'm not talking about visitors from elsewhere in space. Sorry.
They were brilliant scientists, always seeking the truth. Newton's alchemy was understandable in his lifetime.
No offense, but you might want to brush up a little on the history of alchemy and Newton before making such silly statements, as nearly everything Newton achieved was due to his alchemical studies.
In case you are unaware, but from the beginning of recorded history until the time of Newton, virtually every single person in the history of scientific thought was in agreement about the reality of the Prisca Sapientae ('Ancient Wisdom'), to whom the Greek philosophers credited the origin of their wisdom and to whom the alchemists credited the origin of their art.
I wonder if you mean those people whose views are unevidenced, but which youprefer because they have more mystery surrounding them, and which provide you with a feeling of being more a member of an 'in' group who have some ancient, superior/secret/specialised knowledge which will be recognised during your lifetime?
Thanks for the laugh! Much appreciated...
Post Edited (22-Feb-13 07:36)