Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
Human History Hypothesis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="solderjunkie" data-source="post: 206147" data-attributes="member: 13045"><p>Oh I don't discount anything out of hand, my reason for being skeptical of Pye is purely because he transitions from a very rational, even compelling hypothesis on human origins to asserting bigfoot exists today and is very good at hiding. </p><p></p><p>Could he have been right? sure, but I'm more receptive to his framework than his conclusion - since nobody has found a living bigfoot. </p><p></p><p>When it comes to human origins, there is a ton of research done and quite a bit left to do, with possible breakthroughs in genetics and anthropology stacking up in the direction of a much older history. It's all nuanced and complicated with a lot of great information to comb through. </p><p></p><p>Brien Forester has done a great job with the paracas skulls, which is a tremendous discovery all by itself, Graham Hancock's books are compelling and he seems rational and not an entertainer. I won't be overly critical of Pye, but suffice to say, after the starchild skull (an absolutely obvious case of Hydrocephalus) I view him with a very jaundiced eye for promoting that to be an alien skull. To me that has all the hallmarks of a huckster looking to capitalize on other peoples ignorance of biology.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="solderjunkie, post: 206147, member: 13045"] Oh I don't discount anything out of hand, my reason for being skeptical of Pye is purely because he transitions from a very rational, even compelling hypothesis on human origins to asserting bigfoot exists today and is very good at hiding. Could he have been right? sure, but I'm more receptive to his framework than his conclusion - since nobody has found a living bigfoot. When it comes to human origins, there is a ton of research done and quite a bit left to do, with possible breakthroughs in genetics and anthropology stacking up in the direction of a much older history. It's all nuanced and complicated with a lot of great information to comb through. Brien Forester has done a great job with the paracas skulls, which is a tremendous discovery all by itself, Graham Hancock's books are compelling and he seems rational and not an entertainer. I won't be overly critical of Pye, but suffice to say, after the starchild skull (an absolutely obvious case of Hydrocephalus) I view him with a very jaundiced eye for promoting that to be an alien skull. To me that has all the hallmarks of a huckster looking to capitalize on other peoples ignorance of biology. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
Human History Hypothesis
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top