[B4Ranch]

I've been waiting for someone to jump on His theory on "Earth Crust Displacement" was not accepted by the true scientists that know exactly what happened in our history. These days if a person vocalizes anything outside of the accepted and approved thinking they are automatically shunted off the the dark room and labeled as a quack thinker. I get irritated when that happens because it has been proven that a bias is present in almost every open scientific study. IMO, A lot of the writings about 2012 have to do with the desire to see 'your' (the authors) name in print or on the Internet. Making predictions is fun but not very scientific in most cases.

[djf]

I have “The HAB Theory” on my bookshelf.

One of the most interesting parts is later in the book when they convene a symposium of sorts to analyze the data and the likelihood that Boardman’s theory (of crustal displacement) is true.

At that time, they start to detail (and there is ALOT of detail) on various reasons about things which simply do not fit into any standard archeological models then taken as the standard. Things like the Piri R’eis map (and there are other maps that show the same), the derivation/migration of basic vegetation/foodstocks, a bunch of other stuff.

I’ll have to dust it off and read that part again to see what I can find...

[Flag_This]

"These days if a person vocalizes anything outside of the accepted and approved thinking they are automatically shunted off the the dark room and labeled as a quack thinker."

It's a pretty old story - I can think of several examples in different fields, but the "Clovis first" situation in anthropology immediately comes to mind. For a long time, anyone who didn't conform with that particular theory had a hard way to go.

How does that old quote go?

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."