<HTML>Sure,
"we need to be careful that theories WITHOUT contrary evidence are
not ruled out simply because they only have limited supporting evidence"
I guess that depends on the quality of the evidence presented in support of the theory concerned. For example - GH amd RB offer an alternative theory concerning the groundplan of the pyramids at Giza, based on stellar alignment/representation. Said evidence is comprehensively demolished by most astronomers (AFAIK). If your evidence is junk (I know, I know - how do we decide - who has the final say?), then your theory remains unproven.
"Look at pyramid construction. Currently there isn't a theory on the table that doesn't have gaping holes in it."
True, but this doesn't mean that all theories on the table are equally valid - it's back to the weight of the evidence again
"If one comes up that isn't outrageous or outlandish or requires "advanced technology", then should it be dismissed just because there is no easily discernible evidence IN its favor(sic)?"
Yes, until such times as the evidence is prsented in its <i>favour</i> (arrogant British spelling police !!); until then, it's an interesting idea, nothing more...
"Remember, when you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the solution."
Wise words, but to which should be added this caveat "unless Graham Hancock has a book out on the subject"
;-)
And lo!, the sun comes out in Scotland ! - now <i>that's</i> weird...</HTML>
