3 ms·

> It's not fair to expect people to do extensive rebuttals of every crank out there. Yeah but this isn’t just any “crank” out there, in this case it happens to

> It's not fair to expect people to do extensive rebuttals of every crank out there. Yeah but this isn’t just any “crank” out there, in this case it happens to be someone who is more famous and well known for their ideas than the vast majority of academics. We are talking about stopping to engage the crazy homeless person on the street. This also happens to be what the egyptologists say about Robert Schoch and John Anthony West With respect to the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. They can literally take time to hold press events to personally attack the people And state there is no evidence for these crazy ideas but refuse to address the Actual water erosion hypothesis.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
The post you're responding to literally links an SAA magazine section wholly devoted to rebutting just one of Hancock's books. You also mention that academics refuse to address schoch. Here are a few academics responding directly to Schoch: https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340100203 https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340100203 http://www.hallofmaat.com/sphinx/comments-on-the-geological-evidence-for-the-sphinxs-age-2/ http://www.hallofmaat.com/sphinx/comments-on-the-geological-... I'd like to point out that the conversation in this thread has covered topics from Gobekli Tepe to the silurian hypothesis to early agriculture to climatology to early mesoamerican architecture and now to pharaonic monuments. That's an incredibly broad range of topics and no single person is an expert in all of them. Cranks like Hancock BS about an astonishing range of stuff.
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  > The post you're responding to literally links an SAA magazine section wholly devoted to rebutting just one of Hancock's books. I didn’t say there weren’t rebuttals. I didn’t even say he wasn’t a crank, only you can’t exactly apply the “we are to busy forwarding our field to stop and address every idea from every crank” argument to someone whose ideas (for better or worse) are gaining notoriety as potentially true and correct.

AlotOfReading 6y ago

The post you're responding to literally links an SAA magazine section wholly devoted to rebutting just one of Hancock's books. You also mention that academics refuse to address schoch. Here are a few academics responding directly to Schoch: https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340100203 https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340100203 http://www.hallofmaat.com/sphinx/comments-on-the-geological-evidence-for-the-sphinxs-age-2/ http://www.hallofmaat.com/sphinx/comments-on-the-geological-... I'd like to point out that the conversation in this thread has covered topics from Gobekli Tepe to the silurian hypothesis to early agriculture to climatology to early mesoamerican architecture and now to pharaonic monuments. That's an incredibly broad range of topics and no single person is an expert in all of them. Cranks like Hancock BS about an astonishing range of stuff.

throwaway_kufu 6y ago
> The post you're responding to literally links an SAA magazine section wholly devoted to rebutting just one of Hancock's books. I didn’t say there weren’t rebuttals. I didn’t even say he wasn’t a crank, only you can’t exactly apply the “we are to busy forwarding our field to stop and address every idea from every crank” argument to someone whose ideas (for better or worse) are gaining notoriety as potentially true and correct.