Archaeologica.org

are we reading the same text
the paragraph at the bottom of the page just mentions his two pseudoscience books
voices of the rocks gets 3 mentions and voyages of the pyramid builders gets two
so its not a frank declaration of "his views as a scientist"
its juts a sales pitch

I was quite surprised that they both don't hotlink to Amazon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Schoch

From Wikipedia, this is pretty much the bare-bones picture of Dr. Schoch.

I'm about finished promoting him to this group, as we have discussed him and his accomplishments quite a bit here.

I listened to him on a radio show tonight - more and more people flock to his viewpoints. It's worth the time for members, readers, et al, to take a look at his professional journey to date.

more and more people flock to his viewpoints

in your dreams they do
hes a good geologist but as far as ancient history goes hes a total pseudo who will never be accepted by orthodoxy
hes about as qualified to talk about the ancient world as you are beagle
i.e. not at all

'hes about as qualified to talk about the ancient world as you are beagle.'
Or any of us perhaps?

Digit, I couldn't figure out what you were talking about for a minute. I was already starting to reply to you when I figured it out.

Later let me tell you about quotes.

Digit wrote:'hes about as qualified to talk about the ancient world as you are beagle.'
Or any of us perhaps?

Todays facts are often tomorrow's foolishness and todays speculation is often tomorrow's fact. It is natural for people to talk and wonder when real facts are missing or scarce. Its not worth condemning people, as long as we know its only speculation and we're not trying to sell lies as if they are the truth. Words like "what if...", "perhaps...", "could it be possible...", they are speculation. IMO it is healthy to ask these questions.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.

Absolutely Monk. There are usually three sides to every debate, yours, the other chaps, and the correct one.
With the record of the accepted view of experts to go on I would be loathe to support any established opinion till I see real proof.
The kit for nailing your colours to the mast should come with a list of excuses as to how to explain you were wrong without looking completely stupid.
History is the grave yard of reputations.