Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 36
3
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
there were quite a few pyramids built before the Gizamids
and in egypt very few afterwards

Quite right...Construction like the GP's must've been a great strain on the Egyptian economy. Because of the level of technology used, it would've been worse than the strain on any nation that tried to use modern methods today.
However, the Nubians kept pyramid-building alive (though not on such a grand scale) for about a thousand years after the Intermediate Period when Nubians ruled Egypt. Literally hundreds of small pyramids dot the Nubian landscape.


Originally posted by zorgon
That is actually a very good point... just exactly what drove the need for such huge structures. And going by the quantity of sites around the world, in many cultures, the need must have been great

Religion...Near the end of my posting back on Page 21, I pointed out that Egytptians wanted to ensure a continuing afterlife. Religion is a very strong motivation, as I'm sure you're aware...It's been a strong motivation throughout all of known human history.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The possibility exists, yes, but without an explanation of how they could have, that can withstand scrutiny, which no theory has been able to do, then it is far from proven that they built it.

I don't have a link, because this came from a book I had to take back to the library...And this was a few years ago, so I don't even remember the name of the book. I'll try & find out again (if you ask politely enough
).

However, besides all of the techniques that were described earlier in this thread, there's a different theory how they moved such heavy stone into place so accurately. An apt anology would be that the Egyptians used sand much the way we would use water for a technique similar to using hydraulics.

They would cut channels in the ground next to the point where they would be setting the stone. They'd pile up sand so that the stone-to-be-placed would be set on the sandpile. Using a channel cut under the sandpile, they'd slowly release the sand to drain into the nearby channel. As the stone began to settle into position, they could stop the sand-flow, re-adjust the stone's position, then finish draining the sand out from under it...Voila! Perfect (or very nearly so) alignment!


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIIIMarduk, I disagree. In particular, with your claim that later pyramids were far more intricate and better designed.
In my studies, I must have missed those ones. Which ones were they?

Marduk is right; He said "more intricate & better designed", not "bigger". I've already pointed out that, before Unas (last Pharoah, 5th Dynasty), there were no inscriptions, no paintings, nothing concerning the funerary practices within Egyptian tombs. All they put into their tombs before Unas were the "burial goods". Also, the skills & techniques that allowed Egyptians to build the GP's were only just first getting hammered out...Later Pharoahs could draw upon that initial knowledge & then refine those techniques even further.
Even as you look at the at the tomb-relics left behind by Pharoahs & nobles, there is a definitive evolution of their religion & religious practices through time. What made the GP's get into the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" list is the fact that they were the first of their kind on such a large scale. Then also, I think it would also be good to point out that, of those "Seven Wonders", the GP's are the only ones still left standing!
BTW, why do you think that list used the word, "wonders" in it? Everybody who saw the GP's...Well, they've still got us "wondering" even today (Or threads like this wouldn't even get started in the first place).




posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Marduk

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The possibility exists, yes, but without an explanation of how they could have, that can withstand scrutiny, which no theory has been able to do, then it is far from proven that they built it.

They'd pile up sand so that the stone-to-be-placed would be set on the sandpile. Using a channel cut under the sandpile, they'd slowly release the sand to drain into the nearby channel. As the stone began to settle into position, they could stop the sand-flow, re-adjust the stone's position, then finish draining the sand out from under it...Voila! Perfect (or very nearly so) alignment!


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIIIMarduk, I disagree. In particular, with your claim that later pyramids were far more intricate and better designed.
In my studies, I must have missed those ones. Which ones were they?

Marduk is right; He said "more intricate & better designed", not "bigger". I've already pointed out that, before Unas (last Pharoah, 5th Dynasty), there were no inscriptions, no paintings, nothing concerning the funerary practices within Egyptian tombs. All they put into their tombs before Unas were the "burial goods". Also, the skills & techniques that allowed Egyptians to build the GP's were only just first getting hammered out...Later Pharoahs could draw upon that initial knowledge & then refine those techniques even further.
Even as you look at the at the tomb-relics left behind by Pharoahs & nobles, there is a definitive evolution of their religion & religious practices through time.

First, I like the sand removal method as a very plausible method by which obelisks were erected in Egypt, and have seen a great documentary on it. But, it doesn't answer much regarding the Gizeh pyramids unexplained features. The actual possibility that the great pyramid could have been erected in Khufu's time is very remote, imo, but I concede it is possible. I have yet to see anyone put forward a theory that explains how they could have, that has not been disproven, but someone someday may do so.
As for the 'Marduk is right; He said "more intricate & better designed", not "bigger".' point, I must disagree with you. Unas tomb is not nearly as intricate as the great pyramid, even with all its decorative inscriptions considered. If painting hieroglyphs and carving artwork on the walls and ceilings constitutes intricacy, and superior design, I could agree. But, the complexity, precision, and sheer immensity of logistical challenges required to complete the great pyramid far outweigh any adornment Unas' tomb has. Anyone could copy Unas tomb quite readily, yet who can replicate the great pyramid? It may be possible, but it is a far, far tougher task.
That was what I meant by intricate and better designed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fixed quote



[edit on 8/11/06 by masqua]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Economic issues surrounding pyramid building cannot just be waved off as not requiring further study or debate. It makes no sense for Egyptians to build pyramids economically even if they could have built them (which I say they couldn't have except in inferior examples thereof), because a bankrupt society with nothing to show for its expenditures other than a large monument is in as poor a condition as a poor society that does not engage in such prolifigate excess.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

'I've already pointed out that, before Unas (last Pharoah, 5th Dynasty), there were no inscriptions, no paintings, nothing concerning the funerary practices within Egyptian tombs. All they put into their tombs before Unas were the "burial goods". Also, the skills & techniques that allowed Egyptians to build the GP's were only just first getting hammered out...Later Pharoahs could draw upon that initial knowledge & then refine those techniques even further.
Even as you look at the at the tomb-relics left behind by Pharoahs & nobles, there is a definitive evolution of their religion & religious practices through time.'


Nothing is what I found too, in opposition to what we might feel a necessity for a tomb as immense as the great pyramid, they didn't even put a body in it!
But even your 'burial goods' were absent. And as far as later pharoahs drawing on and refining techniques.... in that case, why didn't they do so, if they could have? The exquisite, subtle, and devilishly complex design of the great pyramid was never matched by later builders. In my reading, I find the quality declined quite quickly after the gizeh complex was alleged to have been built.
The tomb relics you mention are also hard to relate to gizeh, as they too were absent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
installed quote box




[edit on 8/11/06 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Marduk
there were quite a few pyramids built before the Gizamids
and in egypt very few afterwards

Quite right...Construction like the GP's must've been a great strain on the Egyptian economy. Because of the level of technology used, it would've been worse than the strain on any nation that tried to use modern methods today.
However, the Nubians kept pyramid-building alive (though not on such a grand scale) for about a thousand years after the Intermediate Period when Nubians ruled Egypt. Literally hundreds of small pyramids dot the Nubian landscape.


Just as there were a great many temples built by the Khmers throughout the Angkorian Empire (Thailand, Laos, VN and Cambodia) before the Bayon (the one with all the faces) and almost none built after it. Temples, temple-capitals, pyramids, whatever your monument-to-ego of choice is, cost money. Lots and lots of money. Just ask Donald about his Casinos.


Originally posted by zorgon
That is actually a very good point... just exactly what drove the need for such huge structures. And going by the quantity of sites around the world, in many cultures, the need must have been great

Religion...

That, and the fact that if you're claiming to be God on Earth then you'd better back it up by building something so effing stupendous that no-one will question your claim. Again, read Shelley's Ozymandias.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
for the philistines



I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
for the philistines


Shelley is talking about the statues and temple at Abu Simbel dedicated by Ramases II to himself.

Irony of ironies, first they were buried by shifting sands, then after being dug up they were drowned under the Aswan Dam. Of course the Egyptians aren't total fools, so they moved the statues and facades and re-erected them on future dry land during the construction of the dam so the tourists could still come and spend their money looking at them...

I just love that little historical post-script...

But the important part is "look on my works ye mighty and despair", 'cause I'm a God-King and you can't match me...and did someone just say frogs are appearing downtown, that's inconvenient...



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Of course the Egyptians aren't total fools, so they moved the statues and facades and re-erected them on future dry land during the construction of the dam so the tourists could still come and spend their money looking at them...


Yes but they had to cut them into pieces to move them... even steel cables and Sikorsky Sky Cranes were not enough...

Small detail I know... but what the heck
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fixed quote

[edit on 13/11/06 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   


Small detail I know... but what the heck

the egyptians of course didn't have access to steel cables or sikorsky sky cranes when they built them
thats because they didn't need them as the temples and statues were cut out of the rock already in situ
Small detail I know... but what the heck



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Small detail I know... but what the heck

the egyptians of course didn't have access to steel cables or sikorsky sky cranes when they built them
thats because they didn't need them as the temples and statues were cut out of the rock already in situ
Small detail I know... but what the heck

That is true for Abu Simbel, but not for the great pyramid at Gizeh. The approximately 80 ton granite slab above the kings chamber, 200+ feet off the ground inside the Gizeh pyramid is a different story. The logistical challenge of moving, lifting, and placing that piece of rock is far more difficult. It was not that long ago (twenty years?), that there was not a crane in existence that could have done that. In one book, the author interviewed the operators of the five largest cranes on earth, and wrote that none of them felt that they were able to accomplish such a feat.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   


The approximately 80 ton granite slab above the kings chamber, 200+ feet off the ground

last time I checked it weighed 65 tonnes and there were two of them
to refute something factual it often helps to actually know the facts to start with otherwise you come off looking a bit uninformed
still you'd make a great pseudosicentist are you currently writing a book

and yes youre right
it is off the groud
its situated right at the top of a long man made slope that was built first
amazing technology eh
and as for this guy who wrote some book talking to the five what was it largest cranes on earth
when you consider that there are cranes that are capable of lifting more than 3000 tons in the modern world and we're talking about a piddly 65 tons in the ancient world then you don't really have a case do you
fyi 65 tons could be moved easily by less than 150 people



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



The approximately 80 ton granite slab above the kings chamber, 200+ feet off the ground

last time I checked it weighed 65 tonnes and there were two of them
to refute something factual it often helps to actually know the facts to start with otherwise you come off looking a bit uninformed
still you'd make a great pseudosicentist are you currently writing a book

and yes youre right
it is off the groud
its situated right at the top of a long man made slope that was built first
amazing technology eh
and as for this guy who wrote some book talking to the five what was it largest cranes on earth
when you consider that there are cranes that are capable of lifting more than 3000 tons in the modern world and we're talking about a piddly 65 tons in the ancient world then you don't really have a case do you
fyi 65 tons could be moved easily by less than 150 people

I can't claim to know exactly how many tons the slab weighs, since it has never been weighed, but I have seen estimates ranging from 50 to 80 tons for the largest one. The problem that had concerned the crane operators was not so much the weight, but the height and the horizontal distance from the base of the crane. I believe that there are a few cranes in use now that can reach that far with that much of a load.
As for pseudoscience, I detest it as much as it appears you do. No, I am not writing a book. Flinders-Petrie, et al, have already done more work on the great pyramid than I could ever hope to.
I admit I am a bit uninformed, but no more so than yourself, in all likelihood.
There are numerous challenges involved in building the great pyramid that no one has yet to definitively solve, which is a point that I feel you do not appear to see.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   


I can't claim to know exactly how many tons the slab weighs, since it has never been weighed

you don't need to weigh something to know its mass
Granite, weighs 2691 kg for each m3
so if you know the diemnsions of the lintel the weight is easy to work out
Your claim that because it has never been weighed we dont know for sure is groundless. bit like the lintel




The problem that had concerned the crane operators was not so much the weight, but the height and the horizontal distance from the base of the crane. I believe that there are a few cranes in use now that can reach that far with that much of a load.

well as the egyptians didn't use a modern crane to move the block this problem is irrelevant
they didnt lift the block to its current position. it was dragged up the ramp made by the ascending passage and the grand gallery which in all likelihood was designed that way expressly for that purpose
www.hunkler.com...
the kings chamber is designed to support the weight of all the stone above it and distribute it throughout the rest of the pyramid. that is its main purpose.
it is the reason why it has a corbelled vault ceiling as well



As for pseudoscience, I detest it as much as it appears you do. No, I am not writing a book. Flinders-Petrie, et al, have already done more work on the great pyramid than I could ever hope to

pseudoscience is defined as any of various methods, theories, or systems, considered as having no scientific basis. science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths
what would you call statements like:-
1.approximately 80 ton granite slab above the kings chamber
2.In one book, the author interviewed the operators of the five largest cranes on earth
the first statement has been proved false
the second statement and I will have to ask you to prove yourself here
what was the name of this book ?
and more importantly who was the author. I'm betting it wasn't an accredited egyptologist



I admit I am a bit uninformed, but no more so than yourself

apparently this statement is further from the truth than your previous ones
are you on a downward spiral hehe
honestly next you'll be claiming that 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations says that its illegal for U.S. citizens to have contact with aliens when in fact it says
"NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against any
harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the [earth] after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body.."
i.e. There is no mention of alien beings or vehicles.
oh right
you already did say that in every post youve ever made here
disinformation disinformation disinformation disinformation disinformation


so you don't know much about pyramids or federal policy
yet you're making bold statements about both
if you say anything about aliens building pyramids I'll probably scream you know



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


I can't claim to know exactly how many tons the slab weighs, since it has never been weighed

you don't need to weigh something to know its mass
Granite, weighs 2691 kg for each m3
so if you know the diemnsions of the lintel the weight is easy to work out
Your claim that because it has never been weighed we dont know for sure is groundless. bit like the lintel




The problem that had concerned the crane operators was not so much the weight, but the height and the horizontal distance from the base of the crane. I believe that there are a few cranes in use now that can reach that far with that much of a load.

well as the egyptians didn't use a modern crane to move the block this problem is irrelevant
they didnt lift the block to its current position. it was dragged up the ramp made by the ascending passage and the grand gallery which in all likelihood was designed that way expressly for that purpose
www.hunkler.com...
the kings chamber is designed to support the weight of all the stone above it and distribute it throughout the rest of the pyramid. that is its main purpose.
it is the reason why it has a corbelled vault ceiling as well



As for pseudoscience, I detest it as much as it appears you do. No, I am not writing a book. Flinders-Petrie, et al, have already done more work on the great pyramid than I could ever hope to

pseudoscience is defined as any of various methods, theories, or systems, considered as having no scientific basis. science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths
what would you call statements like:-
1.approximately 80 ton granite slab above the kings chamber
2.In one book, the author interviewed the operators of the five largest cranes on earth
the first statement has been proved false
the second statement and I will have to ask you to prove yourself here
what was the name of this book ?
and more importantly who was the author. I'm betting it wasn't an accredited egyptologist



I admit I am a bit uninformed, but no more so than yourself

apparently this statement is further from the truth than your previous ones
are you on a downward spiral hehe
honestly next you'll be claiming that 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations says that its illegal for U.S. citizens to have contact with aliens when in fact it says
"NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against any
harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the [earth] after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body.."
i.e. There is no mention of alien beings or vehicles.
oh right
you already did say that in every post youve ever made here
disinformation disinformation disinformation disinformation disinformation


so you don't know much about pyramids or federal policy
yet you're making bold statements about both
if you say anything about aliens building pyramids I'll probably scream you know

Here are some anomalies regarding the currently accepted timeline, which I find worth attempting to resolve. This site is one I found does not purport to 'know' what happened, but only asks questions regarding contradictions between the evidence and the conclusions generally made from it.

paranormal.about.com.../XJ&sdn=paranormal&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fatlantisrising.com%2Fissue8%2Far8pyramids.html
This is one example. It proposes a more plausible reason as to why the largest pyramid is attributed to the earliest pharoah, the second largest to the next, and the smallest to the last. If they had built them, would that not normally be the reverse?
'Khufu, first on the scene, would naturally have laid claim to the largest pyramid for himself, or the Great Pyramid. His successor, Khafre, now left with only two pyramids to choose from, would have taken possession of the second largest. Menkhare, the last to reign, would have had to be content with the last pyramid available, the smallest of the three.

Such a scenario best fits the actual facts, for this is exactly the succession of pyramids the Pharaoh had jurisdiction over, each in their turn. Clearly, what this suggests is the Giza pyramids came first, then the Pharaohs ruled, not the other way around.'

I thank you for correcting me regarding the federal reg., I will remove it. But, regarding bold claims, I have found you to be the one doing that. I have not made claims like your 'they didnt lift the block to its current position. it was dragged up the ramp made by the ascending passage'. I don't claim to know how they did it.
In 25 years, I have read dozens of books regarding the great pyramid. I won't list them, nor will I attempt the impossible task of proving anything to you. It is not that important to me that you agree with me. I just share my opinions. You already 'know' by who, how, and when the great pyramid was built, which I have not claimed to know, because I don't.
Disinformation indeed. I feel you are more vulnerable to it when I see the 'accredited egyptologist' condition which you require in order to decide what you believe. I make my conclusions based on the content, not the author. And fyi
I have not seen an alien and have no doubt that humans could have, and most likely did build the pyramids.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
i think at some point blackguard you should check out the motto of this website and colour your future posts accordingly



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I deny ignorance, and I post my views about various controversial topics and theories of conspiracies.
What makes you think I do any different, Marduk?
Admittedly, I sometimes stray off topic in certain threads, but I try to keep that to a minimum.
Please help me out here and show me the error of my ways.
My ignorance is hard to deny, for sure, but is there something I've missed?
Have you any words of wisdom on how I could reduce my ignorance?
Finally, could you explain how it is that you are qualified to quantify anyone elses ignorance but your own?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   


What makes you think I do any different, Marduk?

well to start with you have already posted information which has proved to be totally erroneous
then in your last post you linked to an article by JOSEPH JOCHMANS
he is probably about the worst source you will ever find
some of his antics are related here
www.touregypt.net...
he starts off by claiming John Anthony West and Robert Schoch as a good source when neither of them are egyptologists and then goes on to relate the tale of the quarry marks that in fact is a story invented by your friend and mine Zechariah Sitchin to add weight to his theory that the great pyramid is 10,000 years old and built as a prison to house Bel Marduk. Now I think you have enough clues to know that is a subject about which i am quite an expert.

so there are a few words of wisdom
"always consider the source"


Finally, could you explain how it is that you are qualified to quantify anyone elses ignorance but your own?

well I think I just explained that quite well didn't I
theres enough amazing things about the past without cranks, amateurs and charlatans needing to add to it with their own personal belief,
at the end of the day all they do is allow you to waste your time on fantasies when you would be better served by looking into the real facts instead
you might want to consider that in future and you may realise that if you hadn't spent so much time reading crap and believing it you might actually have something credible to relate on these type of forums
so far I have seen no evidence of that from you at all
can you try harder
please



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

you linked to an article by JOSEPH JOCHMANS
he is probably about the worst source you will ever find
some of his antics are related here
www.touregypt.net...
he starts off by claiming John Anthony West and Robert Schoch as a good source when neither of them are egyptologists and then goes on to relate the tale of the quarry marks that in fact is a story invented by your friend and mine Zechariah Sitchin to add weight to his theory that the great pyramid is 10,000 years old and built as a prison to house Bel Marduk. Now I think you have enough clues to know that is a subject about which i am quite an expert.

so there are a few words of wisdom
"always consider the source"


Finally, could you explain how it is that you are qualified to quantify anyone elses ignorance but your own?

well I think I just explained that quite well didn't I
theres enough amazing things about the past without cranks, amateurs and charlatans needing to add to it with their own personal belief,
at the end of the day all they do is allow you to waste your time on fantasies when you would be better served by looking into the real facts instead
you might want to consider that in future and you may realise that if you hadn't spent so much time reading crap and believing it you might actually have something credible to relate on these type of forums
so far I have seen no evidence of that from you at all
can you try harder
please

Like I said, I don't base my conclusions on how many letters the author has behind his name. West and Schoch are obviously not credible sources to you. They are to me. Schoch is not an egyptologist, he's a geologist. To me, a geologist is a good person to consult regarding erosion on the Sphinx. I consider the source to a point, but the information they provide, and my own sensibilities are what I base my opinions on. Whether or not the author is accepted as credible by the 'accredited egyptologists' is worth keeping in mind, I agree, but it has nothing to do with the data they collect. Just because someone draws conclusions from that data which I find improbable does not change the data. You are fond of giving advice, so I am sure you won't mind some from me. Give your own sense of reason more credit, don't base your conclusions on the academic standing of the source, rather base them on what makes the most sense to you. If the evidence doesn't support the theory it doesn't matter much who proposed the theory.
Your proclamation that you are quite an expert on the subject may be true, but the mere fact that you think it is true does not make it so.
Also, personal attacks on me do not help your case. You have asked me to 'Please try harder'. I respectfully decline.
I always try my hardest, and there is really no way for you to have any idea exactly how hard I am trying. Why did you not slam Flinders-Petrie? He was the first name I mentioned, and you have yet to recognize that he is one of my sources. Was he an 'accredited egyptologist'? And if not, what is your view on his work? Have you read any of it?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Blackguard
so far your list of sources on egyptology are
an unamed crane interviewer
a geologist and well known pseudoscience author
a discredited egyptian tour guide and pseudosciene author
a crank and well known pseudoscience writer who was kicked out of egypt the last time he was there
an egyptologist whos been dead for 64 years
and you say


Like I said, I don't base my conclusions on how many letters the author has behind his name

I had already guess that to be the case
its painfully obvious
what you are saying basically is that none of your sources are even qualified to offer an opinion on anything to do with the pyramids
I asked you to please try harder, you took it as a personal attack
this tactic is frequently seen on this site when someones bluff has been called
it doesn't do you any credit either
now do you have anything credible to say from recognised sources or are you done ?




posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


Like I said, I don't base my conclusions on how many letters the author has behind his name

I had already guess that to be the case
its painfully obvious
what you are saying basically is that none of your sources are even qualified to offer an opinion on anything to do with the pyramids
I asked you to please try harder, you took it as a personal attacknow do you have anything credible to say from recognised sources or are you done ?


I assume your reference to the 64 years ago deceased source is towards Petrie?
'Why did you not slam Flinders-Petrie? He was the first name I mentioned, and you have yet to recognize that he is one of my sources. Was he an 'accredited egyptologist'? And if not, what is your view on his work? Have you read any of it?'

From your dismissive statement that I have not named a credible source, I assume you don't find Petrie's work of any value. He is actually a recognized source last time I checked, and a pretty meticulous and thorough one at that. That makes me wonder if you have read any of his work.
You are focussing on names of authors, dissing me, and at the same time repeatedly neglecting to answer my questions. I dislike repeating myself, and since you cannot or will not discuss the points of contention I have raised regarding the actual topic of the thread, I will not ask anymore.
Unfortunately you have chosen not to give your views on any of the questions I've raised in my past three posts. So I guess I'm done. It is hard to debate when the other side bases its position on everything but the actual data. Good for you if Lehner, Hawass, et al are more your style, or more universally praised and accepted by the establishment. It's too bad you didn't actually name anyone, so I had to guess at a couple of names, sorry if I guessed wrong.
It appears that unless I agree with you, and your expert sources, then I don't know what I am talking about.
Works for me.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join