Oh, I'm not leaving The Raven. I'm just done discussing ancient aliens in an open forum where it's too easily derailed.
Parrot, feel free to email me through my normal email. It's on my website and easy to find.
As for not having a life (though I'm not sure if that was directed at Parrot or at me, or both), one's time on a thread can be taken either way, as Gabeed said so well. Some of my past detractors, with their endless posts, made me wonder whether *they* had a life. But I guess that's in the past, thankfully.
For what I mean about a rigged game: This thread tends to, oddly, operate from a "mainstream science is absolute" point of view. Now, my questioning of that may sound unreasonable, but consider this: The very description of this forum, "Archeology", also includes *myths*. Besides, science, like any tool, is subject to the behavior of the human using it. What I have felt endlessly is that science here is some sort of impregnable rock, akin to discussing alternate religion with a devout individual. Example: "So, Mr. Christian, shall we consider the possibility that Zeus may have done this?" to which Mr. Christian replies "Show me evidence of Zeus but it won't matter because the Bible says no such thing". I know that's a somewhat silly example, as science is supposed to be anything but a religion, but oftentimes it's utilized with the same prejudice and blindness. After all, most (if not all) of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time were initially dismissed by the mainstream understanding of their time, and even thought to be utterly ridiculous. So, when I speak of closed-minds of religious-like behavior from a scientific standpoint, it seems rigged to me. There is bias that shows it. For example, one can argue beliefs, faiths, theories, whatever, but when things within this very thread are proven, and they're still not admitted to, one must question the objectivity of those he's "discussing" things with. Deepening the example, in this thread I said people silently supported me through email, which some individuals said was total BS. Yet later individuals did come out and say they had supported me. There's no myth or science needed there: My detractors were wrong, and I never got an apology or a concession of "Okay, we were wrong". If they can't even admit to being mistaken about something so clear (and so trivial), will it ever be anything but a rigged game when dealing with dogma or entrenched views? Hardly.
Now, certainly most people here (especially lately) are fair and impartial, but there is an undo amount of favor given to the mainstream views. In another thread at The Raven, recently, I saw something about how Hawass' latest tomb delve may solve the mystery of how the Egyptians moved the pyramid blocks. Um, consider this: That is nothing short of an admission that they *don't* know how, exactly, the pyramids were built, so how can they say absolutely they know what they were built for? There's a degree of faith taken with "science" here, and it spills over into this thread which was intended to be a discussion of possibilities only. The hard-stance of unassailable science has always seemed a bit out of place to me. That's why I consider it "rigged", a rigged discussion of possibilities, that is.
With respect to Montana (who in my opinion is a damn good voice of reason), actually, I *would* at one point have considered "including myself in that description", however, I have admitted to mistakes, given ground, etc. And despite my cynicism here, I think this thread is actually maintaining a much better stability. It is simply that discussions of faith do not interest me as much as possibilities of aliens, so rather than be the pro-active ingredient here, I'm going to be content to sit back and watch, to read more than write. Believe me, I'm enjoying it, and finding many insights, well, insightful. So, please continue.
Since the thread has indeed turned to faith, that is why I've no wish to derail it into my own agenda, and thus offer PM as a way to discuss aliens further, should someone choose to.