That said, I'd be interested to hear a discussion between Mr. Childress and someone with a deep knowledge of the subject, be it lunar phenomena or Sanskrit literature. It's not so much a matter of holding his feet to the fire as having him respond to the best available research on the subject. Frankly, my default position when I hear about the wonderful technological achievements of the ancients is more skeptical than not. But I'm always open to new evidence that's able to stand up under scrutiny.
I agree entirely, but don't hold out any hope. There are very good college and university libraries out there with open access. There are literally hundreds of thousands of academic papers catalogued online with citations to cross-reference. Guys like John Hawkes blog daily about anthropology and ancient history. Sites like Hall of Maat are host to to some of the brightest minds in academia and don't mind discussing fringe ideas...it's why the site exists. I've been reading it for years and recommend it for anyone interested in history.
The point I'm trying to make is that Childress and many more (not all) who are into the forbidden archaeology/alternative history aren't interested. It's clear they don't use academic because they wouldn't make the claims they do. I think they actively avoid the literature!
In one presentation he trots out the same old BS about Egypt being a naval trading partner with South America. He points out some similarities in early Olmec statuary and objects as indicative of Egyptian influence and leads his audience by the nose into sharing his conclusions. By extension, Egyptologists and scholars of Meso-America must be lying or complicit in the cover-up! It's self-perpetuating...
If he'd even glimpsed at the research available on maritime history, the story collapses. If he'd ever looked at Egyptian naval activity, he'd find that we actually have the boats they used! The boats that were used during the period he suggests were incapable of oceanic journeys. They weren't even designed to be oceanic. Nevermind about the depictions on tomb and temple walls or model boats buried with the dead. He could read about haplogroups and migration analyses. Intestinal worms and their evolution!
These lousy academics he distrusts aren't a united body with one voice. They all study and research in their small niche environments. In that light, the body of evidence
against his claims comes from diverse sources and disciplines. They don't support the notion of Egyptian globe-trotting. When taken from a broader perspective, the reality presented by academic research evidence is much stronger (integrity) than the reality suggested by Childress' evidence. Like many of the alternative historians, he's began with, "Surely, the ancients couldn't do that!" and then weaves an elaborate tapestry around that kernel of disbelief and incredulity.
Sorry about the lengthy argument. Basically, if Childress wanted to challenge his ideas he could do so easily. It's clear to me that he doesn't want to be challenged.
