Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point being that superficially the microlite
> plane would seem to be earlier than the jet
> plane.
> However you know that the fact is quite the
> opposite.
> If a scientist or engineer were to analyse the
> planes in great detail he may well come to the
> correct conclusion irrespective of superficial
> appearances.
> For example, advances in artificial fabrics
> technology, metallurgy and computer aided design.
> All of which the jet plane designer could have
> only dreamt of over half a century earlier.
> The devil being in the detail.
>
> A problem with Egyptology and those that follow
> Egyptology is that they often present statements
> didactically as proven facts when in fact they are
> based on little more than often over simplistic
> observation and conjecture.
> I know of no other discipline that does this, even
> in the soft sciences and humanities.

A problem with "the Fringe" is that they often try to deny, ignore or ridicule facts proven by Egyptology because these proven facts stand in the way of their fantasy about LC's, lost technologies etc.
There are still many mysteries concerning the AE, but instead of adressing those "the Fringe" try to create new, fake ones.

> I'm happy to accept your arguments as unproven
> hypothesis, but not as facts.
> In exactly the same way that I accept any other
> unproven hypothesis for what it is.
>
> The burden of proof is on those making the claim.
> What is your proof?

Proof has been given to you time and again on this message board, you choose to ignore it time and again, your choice...