Re:Göbekli Tepe
by throwaway_kufu on Friday July 03, 2020 @08:35PM
(#23728949)
> 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.
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
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.