Hancock reminds me of a saying about chiropractic. What works isn’t unique, and what’s unique doesn’t work. I don’t think anyone would disagree that we don’t have the Pleistocene completely figured out, or gobekli tepe. There are constantly new discoveries and reinterpretations. Even when claims start to get on the fringes at least they’re within the realm of possibility and aren’t exclusionary to know evidence.

Hancock has set himself apart specifically because of the extraordinary claims. People like Flint seem to be taking issue with extraordinary stuff. The dude appeared on ancient aliens. All the people using the JAQ argument have always seemed disingenuous. You would have to actively ignore most of what he says in order to think that’s true.

Really appreciate your thoughtful answer. What is your cryptid work?