Hi again Rich,
  I must admit I'm enjoying this.  Intelligent, reciprocative, not too over
my head...  And a couple of laughs to boot..


>Maybe it is possible to stimulate debate without inflamatory statements.

Maybe.  But you must admit, it sure helps!


>But this is the problem with emails, the tone is far more dependent on the
way it is read than the way it is delivered.

Yeh.  I've seen several similar comments lately.  And I'm sure I've misread
some...


>Agreed, i have trained in the sciences and i've had one or two heated
debates myself (but usually they are not about science and occur in the pub)

I make it a rule to only argue about religion and politics in the pub!


>Your intent certainly appeared to be to put people off of watching it.

That was it's appearance, -sorry.  It IS good entertainment.  Top ten
stuff...


>> I accuse you, sir, of being closed minded in thinking, like my advisors,
that there is no place for intuition in science.
>That is not true, i certainly recognise the place for intuition in science.
Some great breakthroughs have been made on the basis of a hunch.

Well defended...

until...
>I would even go as far to say that there is room for some subjectivity.

Only some?  Try "Science of the Subjective" by Robert Jahn.


>There is certainly a lot of it in archaeology (e.g. with reconstructions).

mmmm.   I think you are confusing subjectivity with speculation...IMHO


>But it must be recognised as such. And any intuitive or subjective
thoughts/statememnts/etc must be backed up with some facts in order to be
taken seriously.

Not if it can be established that the subject BELIEVES he/she is telling the
truth...  Then it is relevent data for research.


>The theories of Von Daniken, for instance, can appear to be very
persuasive, but lack sufficient factual backing either way.

Now you're inviting me to REALLY get into trouble!
MHO is that he has been unfairly discredited and made a scapegoat and a
whipping-post!  Sure, landing strips for UFOs!  But look at a more reasoned
approach like Paul Devereux's "Shamanism and the Mystery Lines" and you will
see that he was along the right lines (no pun intended!).   What was
Sherlock Holmes' line?  When the probable can be dismissed, the improbable
is the only alternative?  Something like that...

>Personally, i don't see how we can say that the pyramids weren't built
using alien technology, and accept that it is my social conditioning that
makes me think that he is wrong.
There you go!  We can't..  Welcome to the deconditioning programme!


>What i want is solid eveidence.
Yeh,  me too.  What about YOUR OWN subjective experience?   I was
instructed, telepathically by "aliens," about over-unity technology twenty
years ago!  I've only just found out that other humans know about it too...
That's not solid evidence for you, but it is for me.  What I'm saying is
that empiricism (ie. verifiability through repitition/consensus) is not the
only way to have solid evidence.  Indeed, with what we're finding out about
the unpredictability of quarks it may not even be one.  Our own subjective
experience may be more dependable!

(But I have the feeling that you won't be too hard to persuade here!)


>this could easily drift into a debate on the existence of a deity,

We'll save that for the pub!


>The landowner himself declined to be filmed even though he had originally
agreed to.

Did he report it as an archaeological site?  To whom?  Or how was it
discovered?


>You have a very interesting style of debate, and for that i applaud you.
You are very adept at both stimulating thought and being mildly offensive at
times :-).

Many thanks for your compliments,  but "only mildly"?   -Sheoot!

I'm off to a debate about religion...
   later,  Phil