Inept Comprehension

 ugh! people are such subjective readers... years ago i had to remind someone who admonished the theory of 'holy blood holy grail' that throughout the whole book the authors professed that they weren't trying to prove anything, they just wanted to see if any accepted history supported or contradicted their theory... today, some asshat sees me with 'chariots of the gods' and says it was a favorite of his until he learned all the facts were falsified... um... the author states where there's ambiguity in accepted archaeology, and is adamant that his postulations are just that... in fact, his whole book revolves around the question How? that he thinks archeologists have failed to answer and for them to admit that they need better theories... he interrupts his recitations of historic anomalies to do this, it really is a bit scattered, which is a better argument: not well organized to support his ideas... so... what 'facts' exactly are there to be falsified?

people wantonly make the association of belief with books others read... unless one is capable of being an objective reader, there is so much being missed in the analysis of the author's statements... do i believe what i read? that is the least of my objectives; i see their motivation, how minutiae is twisted, how theories are made and later support is scrounged for, or how theories come to light from 'coincidences' that are blatant but somehow ignored. my drive is to learn of sources that i don't get to learn about from narrative history and high school science because neither need to prove where their facts and ideas come from... but alternatives to 'accepted' thought do.

historians and scientists fight like old toothless women over what 'truth' is, and 'accepted' theory is only what they can get most of their colleagues to agree on... what laymen consider history and science to be is a definite that does not exist - the only fact is that it is always changing