I think the problem with G. H. is that he gets way too specific. I think his core theory is plausible (civilization existed before our current evidence suggest

I think the problem with G. H. is that he gets way too specific. I think his core theory is plausible (civilization existed before our current evidence suggests, and that it was wiped out by some sort of cataclysm - he suggests a meteor event IIRC). This would explain a lot of weird coincidences in the development of disparate human cultures (see sibling comments for examples) My problem with him is that a lot of things he claims as hard evidence are pretty weak, but he talks like his theory is essentially proven. His ideas can spawn a lot of fun thought experiments in any case.