Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: re Island of the Seven Cities

Expand Messages
  • bigalemc2
    Stan - Man! I am sorry to read that about The Island of the Seven Cities. I read pretty much all of what the skeptic said about the whole thing. I am
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 21 10:33 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Stan -

      Man!  I am sorry to read that about The Island of the Seven Cities.  I read pretty much all of what the skeptic said about the whole thing.  I am leaving a small window of hope that the skeptic is wrong, but it doesn't look good, does it?

      I had emailed with Chiasson and there is nothing about either his book or his emails that indicated he was anything but sincere in his efforts.  The thing I can't figure out is why, with all his research the skeptic's information never came to light.  Chiasson looked high and low, expecting at every turn to find some simple, mundane, explanation, as you know from reading the book.  How he could have missed the fire break explanation is beyond me. 

      I think I will email him for his side of that story.  I have found that 'professional' skeptics online - which this guy sounds like - tend to be VERY strong in their denunciations and hyper in their assailing of anyone challenging the status quo, and they leave a VERY bad taste in my mouth.  This one is no exception.  He gets my radar up, something that Chiasson does not do.  And my radar works for researchers as well as skeptics, as some of you have seen already; it is not just aimed at people I want to be wrong.   I am sitting on the fence right now, and I'll come back to you all if I find out anything new.

      As you know, there are a LOT of skeptics online about Menzies and 1421.  At the same time, there are also lots of people who support Menzies.  Certain of his assertions I recognize as going far beyond what I consider objectivity (especially late in the book), while other parts seem solid and at least intuitively correct.  He certainly does not solidify his positions before tying them into other issues and points.  That is a weakness.  The skeptics jump on his weak points and throw it all out based on those.

      The single thing that Menzies' accomplishes, IMHO, is the Piri Reis map.  His explanation of the mapping of Antarctica in an unglaciated state is a true Occam's Razor, obviating the need for pre-ice-age dating of the map.

      So, all in all, I am hopeful that the skeptics are wrong, while acknowledging that Menzies and Chiasson may have gotten it wrong.  At the same time, big freaking deal - at least they are out there exploring and trying to figure it out, while the skeptics are sitting on their duffs playing Monday morning quarterback...  (Like me . . . LOL)

      Steve
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.