Serapeum of Saqqara. Alternative theory for the site

originally posted by: Hanslune

No I take your point to be 'we have no real evidence therefore we have no reason to not believe in x AND that all the people who study this are in some way in error or incompetent.

Well, you shouldn't, because that's not what I said.

Actually we can that beast call consensus has done just that - now again if new evidence is found or a way to re-interpret comes about this may change.

Believing something "because consensus" is the bandwagon logical fallacy. Like I have repeatedly said, I'm not saying that the current theories are wrong, but many things are based on circumstantial evidence at best, and with my experience in my profession, I tend not to let circumstantial evidence blind me from other possibilities, nor do I let "that beast call[ed] consensus" sway me when I don't always agree that evidence backs it up.

And like you note, keeping an open mind is a good thing.

Absence of evidence means you don't have anything to base a theory on but you can speculate all ya want.

Well, when I say absence of evidence, I mean empirical evidence, not circumstantial evidence. As noted by my profession, I have a high standard of evidence that isn't always met when it comes to AE theories and claims--that could be based on ignorance to all of the details, or it could be valid, but I don't make my determinations without quite a bit of research around things that interest me, though.

I have been looking for an earlier civilization since the mid 1960's - a partial realization of that came with Catalhuyuck and GT. However evidence for a post ice age civilization we don't know about - zip. I also hold that a culture might have arisen after the previous ice age cycle 130-80,000 years ago but again zip on evidence.

Maybe there is evidence, but the only things left are some of the buildings and items (maybe some "sarcophagi?") that didn't have carvings or indicators as to their age. When we are talking about datable objects, like pottery, and trash pits, and human/animal remains, most, if not all, of that would be gone if we're talking about 80-130kya.

And if a more modern culture moved in and started building around and adding to existing buildings that were built well enough to withstand such a long period, we'd never really know.

You will have to wait until the site if complete evaluated at the end the consensus may change - that is normal. What would not be normal would have been the late Schmidt stating that GT is the mother culture of all cultures or some other theory without evidence.

Yet here are some scientists, claiming that it is the first example in history of religious temple-esque structure.

I bet my life savings that this claim will be changed in my lifetime--and we're getting to the crux of why I have an open mind out possibilities that lie outside of current accepted theories.

Now is it your idea that in that 85% the other civilization is hiding? Highly unlikely, civilization locate themselves next to water and resources of stone and other items.

Well, to be fair, water and resources change dramatically over time, and the Sahara Desert and the area of AE are perfect examples of that.

But, no, I'm not saying that's my idea, but I will say that relatively superficial sampling of areas does not a complete picture make, and there's no telling what is undiscovered because...well, it's undiscovered, and may have been undiscovered even when AE was an empire. Like "they" say: We don't know what we don't know.

Let me restate this - civilizations leave MASSIVE archaeological footprints - they aren't hard to find. ...

No evidence of this other civilization have been found yet millions again MILLIONS of items clearly identifying the AE and earlier sites have been located - items for the other civilization not one single item......

We'll agree to disagree on the finality of that belief. Like I've already noted, we have quite a few things existing in AE that aren't explained well enough for my flavor. Just because these things are attributed to AE and claimed to be the product of them does not necessarily make it so.

This, I believe, is where you and I differ most dramatically--you imply that consensus is a foundation for accepting theory, and I do not (necessarily...depends on the evidence of individual things).

Being 'too rigid to accept other possibilities is being wrong - I can assure you that doing that isn't part of your initial Archaeology 101 class and that you are taught ways to avoid making that mistake - by publishing your data so everyone can see it.

I mistyped that--I meant to say that not all are wrong but that many are too rigid to accept other possibilities. Enter Hawass as a prime example.

Its better to be skeptical and build your present theory on what is known not on what you think might be missing. At the present time with the evidence we have the AE built and utilized the site in consideration in this thread.

The site, sure--I haven't questioned that. I've only proposed that the items contained within don't really have any contemporary counterparts to speak of, and that should cause pause to question if they were created at the same time. It doesn't mean that you have to assume that they were, but it's okay to ponder other possibilities.

[quoteGood talking to you.

Same, and I could talk about this stuff for days, so I understand if you want to end the line of discussion at this point.

Best regards, and thanks for the chat.

a reply to: Harte

Yeah, I tried looking into it a bit more, especially looking for photographic evidence, and like you, I can't really find a decent citation, so I'll relegate that comment to the unknown/unproven stack until I ever find proven truth behind it.

Of course, just because we don't have evidence of it, doesn't mean it's not there

Which leads us too...

originally posted by: Harte


Can there be such a thing as evidence of absence then?
Read my signature for the answer.

Math is the only thing that produces true evidence of absence, so in a way, I suppose that you're partially correct.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
.

Howdy

I understand that you believe in possibilities - great - continue. You do appear however to be greatly underestimating the impact of a civilization and the amount of evidence they leave behind. I believe you do so to make the possibility of an earlier 'lost' civilization possible - indeed you must do so to make the idea even remotely possible. Those who understand - those narrow thinking experts to be exact - do understand this but you don't seem to realize that this is what they are doing. This is the primary reason such a theory is dismissed you don't need to believe it but you do need to understand why they hold that idea which in turn allows them to agree with your belief in said hidden civilization. They aren't being narrow minded, they aren't limiting their view, they aren't being dogmatic they are being fully realistic based on centuries of evidence and experience.

The idea that a civilization that left behind large stone edifices here and there but absolutely no other evidence of their existence, nor of their rise nor fall that must have lasted for thousands of years - that cannot be found after 2+ centuries in a land that is very notable for being one of the best places to conserve the evidence of human existence and culture on earth is simply ........ well something not scientific.

Now if you scale that way back to a small single city or small portion of territory you might have some hope that they exist. However at those sites you say are there's or might be, the Sara, Sphinx and Osirision (MS) no a sign of their existence can be found there while AE and earlier cultural material is scattered all over the place. So even at places where they should be evidence of their existence and which at 99.9% of all other great civilization sites there is - there is no evidence.

I had colleagues who specialized in ancient quarries - I think you would agree that this missing civilization quarried rocks. They spent years going to all the known quarries and in particular looking at the debris left behind - all AE or other known groups. Is this important yes. You can watch in those dumps the first use, then use over thousands of years up to the modern era, in most of them. Again no sign of the missing civilization but a clear indication of all other known civilizations.

Now will you believe this - no, you will continue to believe in the lost civilization. What I would ask you to do is to remember why the experts don't. They do have solid reasons for not agreeing with you and until you find it they aren't going to.

Keeping an open mind and not assuming others have a closed one is a good idea

Oh one other note:

circumstantial evidence almost always exists to show that the official theory has holes, too.

There is no such thing in archaeology or Egyptology as an 'official theory*', no officials, no monolithic organization - just consensus and I can assure lots of conflict over what that consensus actually is.

www.eeescience.utoledo.edu...

One other interesting point the most excavates country in the world is probably Israel. Oddly enough they have found many AE sites with tens of thousands of artifacts - also zillions of items from earlier, contemporary and later civilizations too - number of items from the lost civilization....wait for it .... yep zilch - again.

Good luck

*In the former Soviet Union and vassal states there WAS official theory. There still remains the same in China and few other states but its fairly easy to tell as they have a bureaucracy to conduct it.

originally posted by: Hanslune

You do appear however to be greatly underestimating the impact of a civilization and the amount of evidence they leave behind.

No, I do not, that's what you're reading into it without taking into account the total of my comment. You are citing the remains of known civilizations and places that have been (basically, for argument's sake) consistently inhabited for thousands of years--I am talking about the possibility that some structures may have remained in existence for an unspecified amount of time at an unspecified (but I would argue possibly in the time frame that you mentioned) time period in our past.

Of course there will be millions of pieces of tangible evidence fount in the former scenario, whereas in the latter one, I could easily argue that, given the vast amount of changes that have occurred over such a period of time in those local areas, that there could literally be nothing found other than a few buildings or object large enough and built well enough to have stood the test of time.

But for the last time--I didn't say that it's a probable theory, just a possible one. Why you keep pigeon holing me into the realm of absolutely disbelieving archaeologists and only accepting wild speculative theory is beyond me.

I believe you do so to make the possibility of an earlier 'lost' civilization possible - indeed you must do so to make the idea even remotely possible.

Well, you are free to believe what you want, even if you're wrong. Don't you feel that way about me and this discussion? (although I know that you are wrong because--well, I'm me and know what I'm thinking and why)

Those who understand - those narrow thinking experts to be exact - do understand this but you don't seem to realize that this is what they are doing. This is the primary reason such a theory is dismissed you don't need to believe it but you do need to understand why they hold that idea which in turn allows them to agree with your belief in said hidden civilization. They aren't being narrow minded, they aren't limiting their view, they aren't being dogmatic they are being fully realistic based on centuries of evidence and experience.

Please note that you are speaking in broad generalizations and I am being careful in my comments not to do so. I have repeatedly noted that I don't disagree with all theories about AE from what we would call scientific analysis, but there are a few that I do disagree with, and we all know that science is not infallible.

Not all "experts" have a complete understanding, and I never said that all experts are "narrow thinking."

Furthermore, and like I've noted before, I don't come to the conclusion that generally accepted theories have holes in them lightly, and that's specifically BECAUSE I research the topics as deeply as I determine necessary on all sides of the equation. In fact, I do that with most things in life--it really helps generate a great overall picture, and sometimes it causes me to pause and decide that some of the ACCEPTED (which is what I mean by "official") theories might not have it quite right.

I'm done explaining that. If you choose to still believe your own interpretation of my comments, that's up to you. Take my own words about myself with as many grains of salt as you'd like.

The idea that a civilization that left behind large stone edifices here and there but absolutely no other evidence of their existence, nor of their rise nor fall that must have lasted for thousands of years - that cannot be found after 2+ centuries in a land that is very notable for being one of the best places to conserve the evidence of human existence and culture on earth is simply ........ well something not scientific.

Okay then, we'll agree to disagree on your absolutism on that.

Let me put it like this: II had colleagues who specialized in ancient quarries - I think you would agree that this missing civilization quarried rocks. They spent years going to all the known quarries and in particular looking at the debris left behind - all AE or other known groups. Is this important yes. You can watch in those dumps the first use, then use over thousands of years up to the modern era, in most of them. Again no sign of the missing civilization but a clear indication of all other known civilizations.

Now will you believe this - no, you will continue to believe in the lost civilization. What I would ask you to do is to remember why the experts don't. They do have solid reasons for not agreeing with you and until you find it they aren't going to.

This has gone from being an enjoyable dialogue to you making false claims about me. Will you believe what I tell you about myslef, or will you continue to believe in this fake me who you claim ignores all archaeological data, distrusts all archaeologists, and just blindly believes in lost civilizations while thinking that everyone else has a closed mind?

Serious question, because at this point, the discussion is becoming pointless, as you are disregarding my actual words and inserting your own interpretation, and you are stereotyping my approach as if I'm Giorgio Tsoukalos, which while amusing to behold, it really makes for a poor dialogue.

But, hey, if I'm wrong, no harm no foul in the grand scheme of things. If archaeologists get it wrong, our "knowledge" of the history of the human race is absolutely bastardized.

In any event, though, I wish you the best, but I think I'm bowing out. We'll meet again in another thread.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Maybe there is evidence, but the only things left are some of the buildings and items (maybe some "sarcophagi?") that didn't have carvings or indicators as to their age. When we are talking about datable objects, like pottery, and trash pits, and human/animal remains, most, if not all, of that would be gone if we're talking about 80-130kya.

You're aware, I take it, that a great many datable objects from that time period have been found. No pottery because it hadn't been invented, but plenty of animal and human remains and trash pits.

So, explain why this long amount of time would eradicate all evidence of one culture but not another?

Harte

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Of course there will be millions of pieces of tangible evidence fount in the former scenario, whereas in the latter one, I could easily argue that, given the vast amount of changes that have occurred over such a period of time in those local areas, that there could literally be nothing found other than a few buildings or object large enough and built well enough to have stood the test of time.

Stone tools don't disappear anymore than disturbances of the soil again your lack of knowledge about what would survive is not helping you. Cooking fires last for hundreds of thousands of years because they are mainly carbon. Plentiful evidence would exist IF such a civilization existed and especially if they built cities. Now going father and farther back will diminish the amount that survives but given the massive amount that a civilization puts out more than enough would be found if it fact existed. The existing evidence of the AE civ will last for millions of years.

But for the last time--I didn't say that it's a probable theory, just a possible one.

Great pretty much everything is possible so why should we take special note of that? I've never known any excavation plan to include a note" 'look for unicorns skeletons because its possible they might exist'.

Why you keep pigeon holing me into the realm of absolutely disbelieving archaeologists and only accepting wild speculative theory is beyond me.

Because that is what your writing points too with the hyperbole removed okay explain in your own words why no evidence of this civilization has come to light? Whose to blame?

Well, you are free to believe what you want, even if you're wrong. Don't you feel that way about me and this discussion? (although I know that you are wrong because--well, I'm me and know what I'm thinking and why)

I've had this same conversation 70-80 times so far since the internet came into existence - Harte I am sure has seen it too.

In the end it will end up where it started you demanding that possibility be believe it (it is) while what is actually known is used to construct actual theories if people want to speculate they can do so.

Furthermore, and like I've noted before, I don't come to the conclusion that generally accepted theories have holes in them lightly, and that's specifically BECAUSE I research the topics as deeply as I determine necessary on all sides of the equation. In fact, I do that with most things in life--it really helps generate a great overall picture, and sometimes it causes me to pause and decide that some of the ACCEPTED (which is what I mean by "official") theories might not have it quite right.

Based on what exactly?

Then if you did all this studying how come all you have is our opinion that their was a lost civilization? Pretty much everyone has had the same thought, I did once. What has made this possibility something to do to give you 'pause''?

I'm done explaining that. If you choose to still believe your own interpretation of my comments, that's up to you. Take my own words about myself with as many grains of salt as you'd like.

Yep and ends up with; 'I believe in possibilities and there is something wrong or it gives me pause about some of the existing orthodox theories and what is considered consensus and the problem is with the people who create said theories - not with the lack of evidence - yep we know that.

Okay then, we'll agree to disagree on your absolutism on that.

Chuckle, facts are facts is it closed minded absolutism to believe the earth is not flat, or that the sun doesn't circle the earth? Again your extreme skepticism is based on two things, your desire to believe in a lost civilization and at the same time a realization that there actually isn't much to zilch evidence for it so you have to search for a reason why that evidence doesn't exist.....and your solution to that is.....?

""Its because people don't have an open mind""

This has gone from being an enjoyable dialogue to you making false claims about me. Will you believe what I tell you about myslef, or will you continue to believe in this fake me who you claim ignores all archaeological data, distrusts all archaeologists, and just blindly believes in lost civilizations while thinking that everyone else has a closed mind?

You mean I suggested your constant refrain 'for others to have an open mind' may apply to you? If so I admit my guilt.

Serious question, because at this point, the discussion is becoming pointless, as you are disregarding my actual words and inserting your own interpretation, and you are stereotyping my approach as if I'm Giorgio Tsoukalos, which while amusing to behold, it really makes for a poor dialogue.

No your making the standard claim that possibilities must be taken serious and are upset that the expert don't do that. You are also upset that circumstantial evidence is included into theories with a certain interpretation while your own version of what the circumstantial evidence means is not.

Example: large granite boxes are found in the context of an AE site, in a style consistent with AE methods, and used in a way consistent with AE religion. Okay the conventional theory is that they are AE and part of religious site. You take the same CE and suggest they were made by a unknown civilization, okay. Now is their evidence for the AE civilization - yep zillions, is there evidence for the unknown civilization - nada.

What exactly do you expect them to do with that?

But, hey, if I'm wrong, no harm no foul in the grand scheme of things. If archaeologists get it wrong, our "knowledge" of the history of the human race is absolutely bastardized

Excellent hyperbole! However if evidence for the missing civ is found it will be incorporated just like GT - the problem isn't the expert but the lack of evidence.....

See ya later thanks for the excellent discussion keep searching!

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Maybe there is evidence, but the only things left are some of the buildings and items (maybe some "sarcophagi?") that didn't have carvings or indicators as to their age. When we are talking about datable objects, like pottery, and trash pits, and human/animal remains, most, if not all, of that would be gone if we're talking about 80-130kya.

You're aware, I take it, that a great many datable objects from that time period have been found. No pottery because it hadn't been invented, but plenty of animal and human remains and trash pits.

So, explain why this long amount of time would eradicate all evidence of one culture but not another?

Harte

If there was an advance civ back then I believe they would have invented pottery. Of the old civs and advanced cultures I am aware of only one didn't initially make that step (in SA about 5000 BCE? Norte Chico? Going from memory), its tough to have a civ without pottery pottery makes food storage much easier.

My favourites from way back are the 400,000 year old wooden javelins, the 75,000 year old beads, the ivory carving from 35,000 years ago, the stone tools of the Mousterian, and the 300,000 year old hearth in Israel.

originally posted by: Harte

You're aware, I take it, that a great many datable objects from that time period have been found. No pottery because it hadn't been invented, but plenty of animal and human remains and trash pits.

So, explain why this long amount of time would eradicate all evidence of one culture but not another?

To be fair, stranger things have happened, but if you're asking me to postulate the myriad possibilities why upwards of 130,000 years of climate changes, dramatic weather events, some ice ages, and a ton of other unmentioned events could possibly eradicate evidence of things in one area versus another, even just miles apart from each other sometimes, then I would ask you to create a perpetual-motion machine and have it ready for me tomorrow.

No person can explain precisely 130,000 years of possibilities, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

Again, I'm not saying that it's an absolute, it's just possible.

Why is that difficult for you and Hanslune to comprehend that point without demanding improvable absolutes from me?

That's a serious question. I mean, I could understand if I was saying that the things I mentioned, along with others that I haven't, absolutely were created by a civilization that left no trace other than a handful of buildings and objects, but that is not what I've claimed at all.

Ever.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Harte

You're aware, I take it, that a great many datable objects from that time period have been found. No pottery because it hadn't been invented, but plenty of animal and human remains and trash pits.

So, explain why this long amount of time would eradicate all evidence of one culture but not another?

To be fair, stranger things have happened, but if you're asking me to postulate the myriad possibilities why upwards of 130,000 years of climate changes, dramatic weather events, some ice ages, and a ton of other unmentioned events could possibly eradicate evidence of things in one area versus another, even just miles apart from each other sometimes, then I would ask you to create a perpetual-motion machine and have it ready for me tomorrow.

No person can explain precisely 130,000 years of possibilities, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

Again, I'm not saying that it's an absolute, it's just possible.

Why is that difficult for you and Hanslune to comprehend that point without demanding improvable absolutes from me?

That's a serious question. I mean, I could understand if I was saying that the things I mentioned, along with others that I haven't, absolutely were created by a civilization that left no trace other than a handful of buildings and objects, but that is not what I've claimed at all.

Ever.

There are many things that are "possible."
With no evidence of those things however, their possibility is not a factor.
Why should it be?

Harte

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

To be fair, stranger things have happened, but if you're asking me to postulate the myriad possibilities why upwards of 130,000 years of climate changes, dramatic weather events, some ice ages, and a ton of other unmentioned events could possibly eradicate evidence of things in one area versus another, even just miles apart from each other sometimes, then I would ask you to create a perpetual-motion machine and have it ready for me tomorrow.

No person can explain precisely 130,000 years of possibilities, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

Yet you insist that material from that period/civilization has survived in the shape of large stones and structure - and yes those items exist and oddly are found to be associated with AE material. So in your own opinion there stuff survives just nothing that is ID'able to them yet found with material from the AE.

That's a serious question. I mean, I could understand if I was saying that the things I mentioned, along with others that I haven't, absolutely were created by a civilization that left no trace other than a handful of buildings and objects, but that is not what I've claimed at all.

Yep you think that is possible and we agree it is possible just not probable or plausible and certainly not possible enough to overturn the far more plausible, probable and possible AE creation. Therefore it is the present consensus theory until such time some other evidence can show up. Again you are discounting why Egyptology don't think your possibility is better than theirs. It is simply more possible than yours by a large vast margin. Your idea remains a possibility unsupported by evidence and as an outlying speculation.

Speculation means it possible yet at this time has no evidence to support it.

....and you and we keep saying the same things over and over. We understand your position yet you keep trying to find some way around it to make it more plausible or probable than it is. You won't.

So what now which method of trying to get possibility to be more than a possibility would you like to try now?

originally posted by: Harte

There are many things that are "possible."
With no evidence of those things however, their possibility is not a factor.
Why should it be?

Harte

How many times have we had this conversation about the three P's and what it means to be possible versus plausible and probable?

a reply to: Hanslune
It's never enough.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Hanslune
It's never enough.

Harte

Maybe we should make a Youtube - that seems to be the preferred method of communications these days.

How about you make a trip to Egypt and we film you with a shaking camera. Zoom into you standing in front of various glorious Egyptian monuments, hissing at tourist who get in the way, and saying in a non-astonished tone of voice - dang this looked like it wasn't made by an unknown civilization.

I mean that should do it shouldn't it?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Hanslune
It's never enough.

Harte

Maybe we should make a Youtube - that seems to be the preferred method of communications these days.

How about you make a trip to Egypt and we film you with a shaking camera. Zoom into you standing in front of various glorious Egyptian monuments, hissing at tourist who get in the way, and saying in a non-astonished tone of voice - dang this looked like it wasn't made by an unknown civilization.

I mean that should do it shouldn't it?

Me:
"Not some koind of skoy god."
www.youtube.com...

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Hanslune
It's never enough.

Harte

Maybe we should make a Youtube - that seems to be the preferred method of communications these days.

How about you make a trip to Egypt and we film you with a shaking camera. Zoom into you standing in front of various glorious Egyptian monuments, hissing at tourist who get in the way, and saying in a non-astonished tone of voice - dang this looked like it wasn't made by an unknown civilization.

I mean that should do it shouldn't it?

Me:
"Not some koind of skoy god."
www.youtube.com...

Harte

Classic - you could certainly do better heck I think some rancid butter would be more effective.

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

(nevermind, you two, I deleted the bulk of the reply and only leave this)

The fermented-bull-light-show-extravaganza is far-fetched and probably very wrong. We agree about that--let's leave it there, since we've gotten so off-topic now that I'm amazed that a mod hasn't stepped in, and I'm actually disappointed in feeling like it's necessary to perpetuate a defense of myself to people who I don't know and whose opinions about what I do and do not think concerning AE is rather inconsequential in my actual life.

Best regards.

Elmers first glue factory. Of course there's been some changes since it was Moloch Adhesive Co.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

(nevermind, you two, I deleted the bulk of the reply and only leave this)

The fermented-bull-light-show-extravaganza is far-fetched and probably very wrong. We agree about that--let's leave it there, since we've gotten so off-topic now that I'm amazed that a mod hasn't stepped in, and I'm actually disappointed in feeling like it's necessary to perpetuate a defense of myself to people who I don't know and whose opinions about what I do and do not think concerning AE is rather inconsequential in my actual life.

Best regards.

Yeah it is annoying when people disagree with your ideas but then that is what a discussion forum is for.

a reply to: Hanslune

The annoyance is not that you disagree with my ideas, it's that you mischaracterize me and my stance on the issues of discussion and the archaeological field as a whole, and have continued to do so even though I've told you that you're wrong...about me...(and I'm the leading expert in that field of study, ya know).

The reality is, you still have no accurate understanding of my ideas based on what you have repeatedly responded with--you have fabricated a "me" that isn't reality, continue to double down on it, and that creates a toxic discussion forum.

Until you realize that you have my approach to AE incorrect, why should I continue down this path with you? Disagree with my ideas; that's fine, but don't pretend that I have beliefs that I do not, even after I repeatedly...and repeatedly...explain to you that you're wrong about my beliefs.

I look forward to future discussion if you can refrain from the false equivalencies between me and others who distrust all archaeologists, think the whole history of AE is a conspiratorial fabrication, think that "Stargate" is a documentary, and sleep in David Hatcher Childress bed sheets. Like I've implied and probably stated in more words: We'll probably agree on 99% of the stuff that is in this forum, and I've learned things from you in the past, but you've really tainted that atmosphere with your inability and/or unwillingness to read and understand simple sentences about my beliefs around AE.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

An interesting response since you characterized my position incorrectly a number of time pretending my responses were over the top so I was following your lead.

Just kidding

Once we get use to each others posting style it will work out not to worry.

I think we can agree that we both hope that at some point some cultures of limited scope will be found perhaps going father back in time.