Date: 2018-02-22 14:24
The sole place you published is on another web forum then you do not have any academic legitimacy outside the web blogger realm. You could not get this accepted for review let alone publication in any reputable scholastic journal which is why you have never made the attempt and your '' arm wave is laughable. I find it to be a sham as you likely understood what I was asking for and are merely playing a creationist type tactic. I am asking whether you have ever presented any of your arguments to a reputable historical journal for consideration but when both know that you have not since it is clear that your ideas are based in flawed logic a total lack of evidence and a religious bias.
"None. That would be like asking someone who has explained why all the
experts agree the earth is round why they haven''t "submitted this idea"
to journals of geography."
That is a rather idiotic idea but does follow your semi-creationist tactics of tossing around useless analogies rather than rational answers. Journal publication, open academic submission of new ideas is where they are reviewed and debated, assessed for validity and their errors pointed out. The concept of a spherical earth is well documented, supported by empirical data which is a concept you find abhorrent obviously and does not need to be restated at every turn. You are proposed that no evidence is evidence, you have clearly stated false facts related to other historical figures to support that idea and know that these would not state up to critical review in the exact same manner that the frauds in the incestuous shell called ''creation science'' hide from venturing into the real world of scientific debate.
You sir are a fraudulent huckster too cowardly to leave the security of this pathetic self-serving realm of fellow believers and face the full force of scholarly analysis instead making such *censored*ish claims.
You do know that there are other self-proclaimed ''experts'' selling their personal ideologies in fields that they have *censored* or no qualifications in don''t you. Yes you do claim to have a bachelors degree in ''history and English lit'' and a masters in ''English lit'' though since you fail to clarify them I must assume that it is the far less rigorous BA /MA which leaves you woefully under-qualified as a historian. Basically you are trained as a mid-level expert in literature, a writer just as Graham Hancock who is selling the neo-Atlantis myth, the majority of the ''NASA Hoax'' promoters and Erich von Daniken. All of who are unqualified in the fields that have set themselves up as ''experts'' to pander to the faithful.
No sir you are making an excuse to avoid having your ideas laughed out of the room by people who in fact are well qualified and well trained and highly credentialed in the field of history.