I agree. It is up to Hancock (or anyone else) to put forward an hypothesis. It is then up to others in the field to try to disprove that hypothesis. Whatever the objective outcome of this theory testing phase, we can acknowledge or concede and the boundary of knowledge then moves forward. It doesn't matter who wins or loses, just as long as we test, verify and don't have to come back to that question again unless there's significant new evidence. That's still a scientific process, even when not formalised in a journal paper. If critics do not wish to even attempt to disprove a theory - yet go to the press about it - they are working from opinion, not evidence. The same thing happened in Archaeology with the theory that the Palace of Knossos on Crete was a mausoleum (instead of a palace). Archaeologists (all of them) had been taught at uni that Arthur Evans proclaimed it was a palace, so when they worked their way up to academic positions they refused to countenance any evidence to the contrary. Again, archaeologists declined to look at the Aquatic Ape theory, that humans had migrated from Africa along the coast, foraging farther for shellfish, and had become adept at standing upright to stay in the shallow water longer (wave height) because any advantage in Natural Selection, no matter how small, selects in favour of survival of the sub-group with that attribute. I'm not championing Hancock. I just understood that a proper scientist, an archaeologist worth their salt, would devise an experiment for each of Hancock's ideas, the outcome of which would establish their accuracy. Saying "speak to the hand because the ears aren't listening" is pathetic from any scientific community. He may be wrong but the public can't be sure of that because his critics have undermined themselves with bias instead of putting some work into finding out.