5 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Mickey Free's avatar

I've had a couple of things published in peer review outlets/journals, but being on empirical archaeological findings, there was little to quibble over. In fact, one journal had me leave stuff out due to lack of publication space. I took it as proof my arguments were sound and correct that no one replied or argued differently. But it could also have been because no one actually read the stuff. Esoteric information of little or no interest to the vast majority of people. This applies to much of what passes for "science", good or bad. The criticisms are often more about the critic's egos than the correctness of the conclusions. So, sticks and stones and water off Ducky Duddle's back. Politics, on the other hand, is something else entirely...or is it?

Expand full comment
Pi Guy's avatar

"Esoteric information of little or no interest to the vast majority of people."

*raises hand, stands*

I'm your guy, Mick. If it's useless, I definitely know it.

Expand full comment
TIOK's avatar

I might have been the primary source cited ;-)

lol

Expand full comment
Anna Cordelia's avatar

You mention archaeological findings. Do you have any idea why the mainstream academic archaeology community won't touch the anomalies in research on megalithic structures?

Expand full comment
Stephenie's avatar

Came here to ask the same thing. My mom just watched Ancient Apocalypse and is struggling with the mainstream disinterest.

Expand full comment