> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > Which merely assumes that our ways of doing things
> > needs must be their ways of doing things. So much
> > for imagination. So much for “alternative”
> > thinking. The thought of the fringe turns out
> > yet again to be pedestrian and banal.
> > Try to take in this one simple fact:
> > autobiographical inscriptions were atypical of the
> > time. What we get (in high status tombs) is a
> > recitation of the individual’s titles. That’s it.
> > And again the silly presumption that we have their
> > every word and document—and again an attribution
> > to supposed “other” builders is swallowed
> > whole, despite there being NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
> > of their so much as existing.
[. . .]
> > What it takes for a start is agricultural surplus
> > and organisation of labour. Old Kingdom Egypt had
> > these. Your “lost civilisation” has nothing.
> > It has no existence.
> > M.
> So, if tomorrow someone reports that 30 feet under
> the sand a flying saucer was discovered with
> hieroglyphics inscribed all over its surface, you
> would assume it was a product of the Dynastics
> since there's "no proof" of any alien
> civilization?! Like, the saucer itself wouldn't
> serve as proof of such a separate civilization?
> This is how ridiculous the entire pyramid
> provenance argument has become.
> Yes, the evidence that the civilization that built
> those pyramids was not the 3rd millennium BC
> Dynastics...is the pyramids themselves.
He shoots, he scores, own goal.
So pyramids are flying saucers now⸮ They’re in that class of inexplicability⸮
Just when it seemed you couldn’t be any sillier—but then didn’t we have all of this before, with your Stargate nonsense⸮ I think we did:
What was it you wrote? “Why do you feel the need to extrapolate the analogy to such a caricaturish extreme?”
Bearing in mind that I am under no obligation to respond on hypothetical evidence which you’ve made up arbitrarily . . .
First thing I’d suspect in such a case is a playful hoax in the Weekly World News style. I’d want strong confirmation of the bona fides of the report.
Then I’d want to see the “hieroglyphics”. I’d want to be sure that they really were ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and not something else mistaken for same by someone with no relevant knowledge (as arguably in the Roswell case).
Then, were it confirmed that the thing really were a flying saucer—that it could fly, that it had the necessary characteristics of a spacecraft—I’d begin to suspect an (extraterrestrial) alien provenance, precisely because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of there ever having been an earthbound technology capable of producing such a thing.
Allow me to remind you, Doctor Femano, that it’s you (and not me) who dismisses ancient aliens out of hand. It’s you who insists on an earthbound “lost civilisation” (I disregard your quibbles on the phrase) and it’s you who then ties himself in knots trying to explain away the curious lack of evidence we might reasonably expect of such a thing.
I refer you otherwise to my earlier remarks.