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).
Martin Stower Wrote:
------------------------
>
> Bearing in mind that I am under no obligation to
> respond on hypothetical evidence which you’ve
> made up arbitrarily . . .
> ...
>
> ...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).
What does that have to do with anything? Do you mean if they were indeed real Dynastic heiroglyphics then you'd seriously consider the possibility that it was built by the Dynastic culture?
> 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.
But that presumes you already know its function.
How would you know that?
Since we have no evidence of anything "earthbound" ever constructing such a thing, how would you know what the "necessary characteristics" would be for such an object?
> Allow me to remind you, Doctor
> Femano, that it’s you (and not me) who dismisses
> ancient aliens out of hand.
I believe you are incorrect, yet again.
When did I ever say such a thing?
> It’s you who insists on an earthbound “lost civilisation”
Strike two; Show me where I ever "insisted" such a thing.
> ...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.
"Knots", you say? I've twisted nothing, because there's no need for knots. The evidence is pretty clear and requires no twisting whatsoever. In fact, if there's any "knot" being tied, it's by traditionalists who have turned the timeline into a time pretzel.
So that's strike three.
But ok, if you don't think it's a UFO (or a Sitchin parking dock), or a machine, or a granary, or an extraterrestrial transmitter, or a nuclear power plant or any other energy generator, then what do you think it might be?
Do you think perhaps (or definitely) it's a tomb?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Mar-17 03:44 by Origyptian.
------------------------
>
> Bearing in mind that I am under no obligation to
> respond on hypothetical evidence which you’ve
> made up arbitrarily . . .
> ...
>
> ...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).
What does that have to do with anything? Do you mean if they were indeed real Dynastic heiroglyphics then you'd seriously consider the possibility that it was built by the Dynastic culture?
> 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.
But that presumes you already know its function.
How would you know that?
Since we have no evidence of anything "earthbound" ever constructing such a thing, how would you know what the "necessary characteristics" would be for such an object?
> Allow me to remind you, Doctor
> Femano, that it’s you (and not me) who dismisses
> ancient aliens out of hand.
I believe you are incorrect, yet again.
When did I ever say such a thing?
> It’s you who insists on an earthbound “lost civilisation”
Strike two; Show me where I ever "insisted" such a thing.
> ...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.
"Knots", you say? I've twisted nothing, because there's no need for knots. The evidence is pretty clear and requires no twisting whatsoever. In fact, if there's any "knot" being tied, it's by traditionalists who have turned the timeline into a time pretzel.
So that's strike three.
But ok, if you don't think it's a UFO (or a Sitchin parking dock), or a machine, or a granary, or an extraterrestrial transmitter, or a nuclear power plant or any other energy generator, then what do you think it might be?
Do you think perhaps (or definitely) it's a tomb?
______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Mar-17 03:44 by Origyptian.
