>>282RA mixes a lot of more or less established facts with a lot of speculation and not much evidence. It's a shame really because the growing story of what some of us have been up to since we left Africa is the most important and exciting story I have ever read.<<

>>When extraordinary claims are made extraordinary evidence is needed if the claims are to be accepted. So far the picture is being revealed by the careful accumulation of evidence from artifacts, language and DNA and it raelly is amazing.<<

WHAT "extraordinary claims" did I make? Specifically, WHAT are you taking issue with? How do you expect a detailed response if you say, "282RA makes too many wild claims without much evidence therefore he's wrong, just read these books." WHAT do you specifically disagree with?? And, more importantly, WHY?

I caught this same flak on the post about the Ica stones. One poster's reasoned response was, "Hardly a year goes by when some idiot doesn't drag this up even though it's been disproven." The implication is that 282RA is an obvious idiot because he dares to question that the stones were disproven. Part of the reason just might be because THEY WERE NEVER DISPROVEN! The scientific community doesn't accept them as genuine because the subject matter is fantastic and because scientific analysis is inconclusive. THAT I can accept. That von Daniken got fooled by a provably fake one and therefore pronounced them all to be fakes is not evidence of anything and yet that was thrown in my face as inarguable evidence of fakery using as evidence a man they otherwise wouldn't give tyhe time of day to.

I don't mind debating this, in fact, I enjoy it because it's funny to watch debunkers squirm. So the debunkers' response is to level utterly general, non-specific allegations of disagreement with what I'm saying for the purpose then eliminating any chance of my coming back with specific responses.

You're supposed to be skeptics. You could at least put on an act of objectivity.