Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

We start by (yet again) fixing the quote, so that we may see the sequence of what I wrote:

> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > 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).
>
> What does that have to do with anything?

So you wouldn’t check the correctness of so wild a report⸮

> Do you mean if they were indeed real Dynastic
> heiroglyphics [sic] then you'd seriously consider the
> possibility that it was built by the Dynastic
> culture?

Doctor Femano,

Don’t put your words in my mouth. I know where they’ve been.

> > 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?

I wrote “were it confirmed that the thing really were a flying saucer” (emphasis added). Can’t you read⸮

Doctor Femano,

It’s your example. You told us that it’s a flying saucer. If suddenly it’s not a flying saucer, or unrecognisable as a flying saucer, then you’ve changed the example. All that’s left is an artifact with “hieroglyphics” on it.

Collapse of your argument.

> 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?

I wrote “necessary characteristics of a spacecraft” (emphasis added). Can’t you read⸮

Go on, Femano, try telling us that the necessary characteristics of an alien spacecraft are so unfathomably mysterious that we could not possibly have any idea of them—as in that case your grounds for calling the thing a “flying saucer” vanish and again we are left with an artifact whose only specified characteristic is that it has “hieroglyphics” on it.

> > 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 [sic].
> When did I ever say such a thing?

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,334576,334895#msg-334895

“I've never read Sitchin. The moment I found out his thesis focused on aliens I discarded any interest in his writing.”

Go on, Doctor. Give us your “I didn’t actually say in so many words” speech. Show those few still taken in by you what a lying weasel you are.

Which is more than enough discussion of your mutating hypothetical nonsense.

M.