posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:11 PM
While I have the greatest respect for the OPs abilities in posting a work of such magnitude on this, I am not yet convinced into complete skepticism
on the matter.
There are many times in a courtroom where a lawyer in my own nation makes "much ado about nothing" in an effort to win by volume what he cannot by
Unfortunately, at first reading, I find that if one removes all those statements of conjecture, not much is left. Almost every statement by such
august personages as Sagan and others, are just their guesses on this subject. Once we remove those that contain "may have" and "might have" from
the pronouncements, I'm afraid this whale of an argument is reduced to bones and blubber. The gist of which is that the information was available in
a general way to those with the education and inclination to pursue it. Nothing else is indisputable.
Unfortunately, in the real world, jurors are often overwhelmed by the shine of well worded harangues that rely heavily on the opinion of "stars"
that are themselves just passing judgment without evidence. ATS is a tougher nut to roll than that though. We are seldom in awe of the pronouncements
that filter down from on high, and instead demand proof.
On the one hand we have the written account of the day, done by a team with little or no reason to falsify the truth. The account bears no profit for
the Dogon people, and has no appeal outside of their social structure. On the other we have the guesses and "modern myths" of the debunkers trying
to find routes for this story to have traveled, who have a vested interest in protecting the sanctity of "modern science".
I will visit the links and where they lead in more detail, but for the nonce, despite the great amount of effort that has gone into this, I remain at
some distance from accepting it as final proof that there is no mystery here. I advise others to be just as skeptical of these sources as our OP has
been of this affair from the start. Skepticism works both ways.
As you read these links and statements from different people, bear in mind that nowhere is there anything more than circumstantial evidence to support
the OPs claims that the mystery is "solved". My dear old Pappy had a saying which comes to mind about now. "If you can't blind 'em with
brilliance, then baffle 'em with bull*^@t." I have a feeling this rebuttal is getting deep.