> I do commend you on rushing to Scott's defense but I am sure he
> can handle it OK. Makes we wonder if you two are kin somehow.
No, we are not kin to my knowledge... but maybe you should check with my Dad, who may have been a bit of a wild lad in his day according to some accounts. Scott and I were merely brothers in arms, albeit briefly, on the Hall of Ma'at some years ago, which is where I fisrt encountered his ideas. But I do need to confess to some bias, as Scott is a fellow countryman, hailing from Scotland, like Graham Hancock himself.
Scotland - as you no doubt know - has given the world countless inventions, ideas and innovations, and it's nice to see Scott and Graham carrying on this great tradition. Now, if only our footballers were as good... :-)
Down these last few years, there have been two alternative thinkers on these threads whose work and intellectual efforts, in different ways, I have always found fascinating to read and increasingly compelling. One is Scott and the other is Cladking.
I think what Scott has finally given us in his RVT is a unified theory of Giza which fits the evidence far more convincingly than the increasingly threadbare "tombs theory". I think - deep down - that even you know he's onto something (but no need to admit it here!)
As for coming to his defence, I wasn't really so much concerned with that as chiding Archae for spoiling what was otherwise a good line of interrogation on his part thus far... and all without wittering on about 200 ton blocks.
I think I should admit at this point, too, that I haven't bought the book yet. Sorry Scott... but true to the Scottish stereotype I am notoroiusly stingy and probably won't get hold of it till I get it second hand on Amazon... *blushes*
""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair