Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree most passionately. I've always thought the
> pyramids themselves were the evidence. . . .

. . . but not of the abilities of the Old Kingdom Egyptians, a choice made a priori and ad hoc, to engineer a preferred conclusion—an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

> Of course that isolates them from the "context" that
> has been contrived to explain their existence. . . .

Why the scare quotes? The context is there. What’s contrived is your denial of it.

> Without such "context" they are unexplainable. . . .

See what I mean about engineering a conclusion.

> You're [sic] point of finding a flying saucer, which
> Stower is unable to grasp, is a simple example of
> the evidence being the object itself. . . .

On the contrary, I grasped the logic of the argument (including what’s wrong with it) long since:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,350289,1047352#msg-1047352

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,350289,1047422#msg-1047422

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,350289,1047613#msg-1047613

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,350289,1047641#msg-1047641

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,350289,1047663#msg-1047663

> Probably if the saucer were to take to flight, it still
> would not be acknowledged for what it is. . . .

Probably the craziest claim ever to appear on this board—and certainly contrary to my explicit statement on how I’d assess such a circumstance.

M.