47:55 - Hancock is refuting the claim in the skeptic article that "no academic would debate me." But his only example is where an academic (Zahi Hawass) actually walked out of a debate after delivering a diatribe against Hancock. Somehow, this transforms into an academic who debated him. Just the opposite of what actually happened.
49:00 - Hancock uses the dodge of agreeing with one part of Jesus Gamara's (SP?) theory about megaliths but denies the more radical part (alternate physics on gravity) while doing so. Gamara explains the "anomalous" theory of the Incas while Hancock just puts another spin on it, keeping what he likes and dismissing the rest.
50:12 - "I do not make that claim..." It's from the book of Enoch. If he isn't making the claim, why is it in the book at all? I know why, because Hancock is going to do with this book what he did with his previous work - when it doesn't pan out, claim that his views "evolved" and he wasn't really saying what he said in this book. Always a moving target.
By the way, have you read some of Hancock's previous work?
|