Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.