Argent

I thought you conveyed it very well. We must now wait to see if a certain someone was listening.

They are your thoughts, your ideas. Are you declaring that you are unable to present them coherently? Are you saying you can't really be bothered to present them coherently, yet expect others to put in the time and effort to understand them? Both scenarios would be strange. What am I missing? At any rate, thank you for attempting to address one of my points. Would you care to answer my the last question in my post: why are you so agitated about what appears to be a non-issue? Incidental point: since you are giving me permission to rephrase your work I could not then be plagiarising it. I think you would agree that precision in language is important in scientific discussions.

If you have a degree in biology you must have been trained in how to write coherently. I would appreciate it if you would apply those skills inf future posts. It will make them easier to read and understand. You claim that you know many people who are unaware that what you choose to call the subconscious mind has a major impact on our thoughts and actions. I shall accept that there are people who think that way. Like you I am new on this forum, but as far as I can see none of the regular posters would think anything so silly. So why are you getting so agitated about this? It is as though you had made a post to the effect "Gravity is responsible for things falling to the ground! And yet . . . . . many people, oh yes - lots of them - do not accept this." I look forward to your (unemotive) clarification.

Who are these people who make such a claim? Where do they live? Do they drink in the same bar as you? I've never run across them. Perhaps they only exist in your subscconious mind.

I am in danger of moving my own thread off topic! In WW2 Churchill was the main motive force behind the abortive Norwegian invasion attempt. Subsequently he argued for a second attempt to halt the iron ore shipments to Germany out of Narvik. Only the objections of the military chiefs prevented this. The desire for both interventions is similar to the Gallipoli campaign. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to like, but he certainly wasn't flawless.

I am working on the assumption that you genuinely want to have a serious discussion. If so could you post in an objective manner, without the bold and repetitive text and the .......... interspersed. It detracts from your argument. You are quite correct that a "culture or society does not destroy all traces of their technology and tools". That is why we have been able to find more than just traces of the technology and tools used in the construction of the pyramids. http://www.morelightinmasonry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/EgyptianMetalworking1.pdf I think we will get along better without the sarcasm. This is reminiscent of a Gish Gallop. You aren't a creationist are you? Let's stick with the pyramids until we have finished with them.

Thank you for replying. While the construction of the pyramids was a brilliant accomplishment, there is no sound reason to think that in terms of mathematics or technology this construction exceeded in any way the abilities of the Egyptians. Which specific aspects of the facing do you feel "far exceeded" their abilities? What is your reason for thinking this? What is your evidence to support this?

This seems a bit vague. Which archaeological sites do you feel are a challenge to current understanding? Or just give a single example and your reason for believing its construction methods are not understood.

I suppose on some sort of metaphysical level we do not know for sure if particles really exist. On the other hand there does seem to be a lot more evidence for them than your apparently unevidenced speculation. I can see the point of questioning their existence. That, I suppose, is what science does, but I don't see what answer you got to the questioning that made your speculation seem more likely.

And Gallipoli.

I found this item on the BBC website very interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38985425 It is an unpublished essay by Winston Churchill on the possibilities of alien life. In it, apparently, he even speculates on what has come to be known as the Goldilock's zone.

Let's agree, for the sake of this discussion, that UFOs are very definitely not alien spacecraft. Let's further consider that the answer to the Fermi paradox is that we have been visited, in the past. In that context, what sort of evidence might there be of such past visits? How would we go about searching for that evidence?

Pros: Mars has an atmosphere, even thought it is tenuous. Mars has stronger gravity than the moon. This could be good from the POV of health. Mars seems to have a much more active history whereas the moon has been essentially dead since not long after its formation. Mars doesn't have the Mother Planet staring at you, day in and day out. I think that might be important psychologically. Mars has a day-night cycle almost the sames as ours. Mars does not have the extremes of temperature found on the moon. We've never been to Mars, we have been to the moon. Adventurers seek novelty. Cons: It would be less expensive to set up on the moon. It would take less time to get there. Radiation risks are much less in transit. We already have the experience of getting there and back safely.

Was there not some thought that the tides may have played a part in the origin of life? Organic chemicals would be concentrated in tidal pools by evaporation and this could help the reactions that would lead to life. What I don't get about that is the chemicals would get flushed out at the next high tide.