> I've been surprised and disappointed by the posts and comments
> of the current author of the month. I was expecting a vigorous
> advocacy of the ancient alien hypothesis and intelligent well
> thought out responses to critical and questioning comments.
> Instead what we got was pretty close to zilch.
> I'm seriously wondering, is this all the ancient alien
> hypothesis amounts to when closely examined, i.e. pretty close
> to zilch? Or is there solid logic, evidence and reasoning in
> there somewhere?
> Could I take this opportunity to ask the current author of the
> month, who still occupies the role through 31 March, and anyone
> else here who is interested or has something useful to say on
> the subject, what in your view are your best pieces of evidence
> in support of the ancient alien hypothesis? Ideally I would
> like to see evidence that would be really hard or impossible to
> explain by any other hypothesis.
> Although I have my doubts, which have been reinforced this
> month, I remain willing and open to be convinced.
I think you've answered your own question, Graham. There IS no incontrovertible evidence. All the ancient artifacts you've written about in your books are the product of human, not alien, ingenuity.