Susan Doris wrote:
> I do not disagree with any of your post. The problem is that
> people ascribe the source to some non-human divinity or alien
> or something else which they have, of course, imagined; whereas
> there is no such one.
We can easily sort fact from fiction, or probable from improbable, but to say that it is "of course imagined" as if it were impossible or an idea devoid of any reality is not exactly the scientific method nor an attitude warranted by the facts. This is a "debunkers" mentality, not a skeptic's. Divinity is one thing, which is more aptly put into the "imagined" category if not "miscategorized", but there is nothing to physically prevent paleocontact and ancient peoples were quite adamant it occurred. Not to mention these accounts never stopped and has continued to the present day, which is a significant argument against being man-made. These are where the facts end, for now, so it is what it is, but as easy as it is to lambaste the speculative leaps made by ancient astronaut theorists, the core idea itself is clearly not without merit. I tend to agree with Carl Sagan on this one.