What utter rot! If you are looking for something that you should not expect to find -- technology when it is supposed not to exist -- you absolutely should avoid comparing it to modern technology. First, because by necessity all aliens visiting Earth in the past would have technology that is likely to be different from anything we have today and will probably not look like our own planes and spaceships and moon buggies, etc.
Secondly, I do have real interest so stop telling me what I have and do not have. You don't know -- have no idea -- so find a better argument, and stop making assumptions about me because most of them are false.
As to this point:
"Jim’s statement that // the flaw is that its advocates were interpreting old actions in a modern way.// is flawed in itself, because that’s exactly as we should be looking at it. We’re searching for technology – not fish!"
If you are searching for technology, and not fish, which you are, you need two things: firstly, a very good reason (and texts are, realistically, not enough) to assume that you will find it, and secondly, given what is such an extraordinary claim, you have to rule out all other possibilities.
These gold artifacts are, one way or another, art. Artists often employ a great deal of licence, and what they make doesn't necessarily represent what they saw to exact detail. If we were to take this literally, the Egyptian art is evidence that people's heads were on sideways, which again is nonsense, but the point is that art should not in itself be a guide for what the world was actually like. It merely shows how the people of the time saw it.
As far as I am concerned you are placing too much weight on evidence of ancient texts, written by ancient people whose understanding of the world was limited. I am interested, to an extent, but I need for more evidence than an isolated gold piece that could just as easily be an abstract bird/ fish/ insect as an accurate scale model of an alien aircraft. The onus is on you, and people who believe in this theory, to provide far more physical evidence.