Paul Barford <[log in to unmask]> wrote (in <006201c34c3c$8beb2ca0$200
a63d9@Standard>) about 'Odp: Stonehenge Moat Hypothesis', on Thu, 17 Jul
>John Woodgate wrote about my comments on the "Stonehenge originally had a
>> I think that's provocative.
>Ummm, yes of course it is ! - but then no more so than anything else I write
>on this discussion list
So it appears.
>> I don't know the probability of the moat hypothesis being true, but it
>> is obviously much higher than those of LGM or Merlin.
>is it? I think you missed the point.
No, I don't think so.
>> It must join the ranks of other "what ifs" like the possibility
>> Stonehenge MIGHT have been built with the help of little green
>> men from the planet Zog, Merlin the wizard ...
>Why are either of these invalid as "what ifs"?
>There is a general consensus among those who study such things that there
>very probably is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, and among
>those lifeforms there might be some who have achieved the ability to
>traverse space. If we accept that, then surely it is indeed possible that
>the earth was visited at least once by extra-terrestrials (and just as
>likely that this was in the past as in the present or future). why are you
>so adamant to rule out the possibility and on what grounds can you do so?
That is beyond provocative; you are misrepresenting my position, which I
think is quite clear. I wrote:
I don't know the probability of the moat hypothesis being true, but it
is obviously much higher than those of LGM or Merlin.
Note 'probability is obviously much higher'. I did not rule out
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!