Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

It appears that unless I agree with you, and your expert sources, then I don't know what I am talking about.

ah so youve gone from crying foul at an imagined personal attack to claiming that I support people who I havent mentioned purely because of your own dislike for them
this is actually a psycological disorder common amongst people losing an argument badly
its called transference
en.wikipedia.org...
so you turned up in this thread making claims that have been totally disproven about weights of blocks and modern day cranes and you then claim that the best source you have is flinders Petrie who has been dead for 64 years
being 64 years out of the field does actually mean that hes antiquated and totally outdated and many of his once accepted theories have been proven erroneous
he was a good egyptoologist in his day but that day has been over for far more than half a century
as of yet you havent had a day yet
the way you are going digging yourself deeper and deeper in instead of just being mature and admitting you were wrong is not going to get you anywhere

you seem to think that you have asked questions of me in the last three posts
heres what you actually offered in those posts
1) an article already discredited by crank author J Jochmans
2) a request as to what you should do to improve your performance which i answered correctly stating always consider the source and which you then rejected by naming two pseudoscientists who arent one
3) a claim that you have been personally attacked with a sentence by me that began with "please"

Now I suggest you go back to that first post and see where you went wrong by posting information that you later stated was "your uneducated opinion" pretending it was factual and then see where you have gone wrong in every post since by attempting to discredit me when all I have done is asked you to follow the forum motto of "deny ignorance"
If you can't see this very clearly BG then I'm afraid you are ignorant
and thats not a personal attack either
its me stating an already proven hypothesis


[edit on 14-11-2006 by Marduk]

The personal attacks which you have made had nothing to do with your request for sources. Your lack of providing any of your sources even after a clear request by me makes you a fine one to ask. Your condescending attempts at extolling advice to me as though you are infallible and I am no more than a naive dupe ready to believe any crackpot author I read are an example of what I meant. You claim transference, fine, I disagree.
I took a little psych myself my friend, and if I wanted I could show you the places where you have exhibited transference yourself. It means nothing to me whether you accept that I actually have read up on the subject at hand, or whether you agree with my conclusions. You clearly feel that you are right and I am wrong. Maybe so, I can't say I know for sure. I only offer my opinions, and they are contrary to the generally accepted line. I have my reasons for what choosing what theory I feel is the most likely , and I feel comfortable that my views are rational, reasonable, possible, and even plausible.
You missed my point regarding authors data versus their theories. Petrie collected a lot of good data, and that has nothing to do with his theories on what that data means. Sorry for repeating myself, but you missed it the first time.
Because someone has been dead 64 years does not change what they did. Sorry you don't find my views sensible, I must admit that I feel the same towards yours now.

[edit on 11/14/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]

Your lack of providing any yourself makes you a fine one to ask

but heres the point buddy
I am not the one making claims that have already been proven false
so the onus is not on me to provide any source
because I haven't said anything that required one
all i've done is asked you for your own sources
and they came up severely lacking
at which point you claim that it is your opinion
that is the definition of ignorance
someone offering an opinion based on nothing more than a personal belief
you may have taken Psych courses
it hasnt stopped you from being a very, very, very ignorant person has it
and it hasn't helped in your credibility at all

you know nothing
so why pretend otherwise when people may read it and think you do
heres why
www.bartleby.com...
and heres what you have actually achieved
www.bartleby.com...

if you continue to disrail this thread with this kind of crap i will report you to the mod team
remember its "deny ignorance" not "encourage ignorance"

Well at least I know I know nothing. You know everything.
I did apologize for the fed reg quote, and removed it, what else would you have me do.
You don't have to provide sources, true, but is there any better reason than that for not doing so?
Whatever I believe might be right. You could be wrong. It is possible. In my view, on some of the points I raised, I feel it is probable.

What is your position on the actual points I raised?
Here is one of many relevent points I raised which you have ignored.
Do you find the theory that the pyramids claimed order of creation suggests that they predate the 4th dynasty pharoahs makes more sense than that the pharoahs built them in the order claimed? Why build ever lesser monuments? That is contrary to virtually every other cultures pattern, which is to build bigger ones.

Your last post was really quite insulting. The threat to report me does nothing for me. If you want to, then do it, if not, then don't. Why bother with threatening me that you might? It won't make me agree with you.

[edit on 11/15/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]

What is your position on the actual points I raised?

most of the points you raised were based on erroneous information
for any relevant points i suggest that you read the other 35 pages on which I have been posting
in fact if you had done that in the first place and not wated everybodies time I am quite sure you wouldnt have bothered posting in this thread in the first place
because all the questions have been satisfactorily answered and the pyramids were in fact built by the egyptians inside the timeline that orthodoxy has claimed for them
though not neccesarily inside the time line that Herodotus claimed

I hoped you would have directly answered the specific question. But that is my way of deducing my speculations. I ask each question in isolation, then decide which theory seems sensible and reasonable to be explained by the data. If the big one was 1st, the 2nd biggest 2nd, and the smallest one last, that is odd. It proves nothing, by itself. If I find that a majority of my answers support the idea that the pharoahs didn't build them, then the more sensible conclusion (they didn't build them, but just claimed them) fits perfectly. It might be just as you say. I don't come to that conclusion, though.
I may actually read all 35 pages, I have read most of them already though. It has been my experience that the disproving claimed is often not, and the explanations about the details of how they could have done it in the 4th dynasty are missing. I hope I am wrong. I'd love to be convinced by reading your posts. I really would. But if I can question some of it, and there is no valid explanation to answer my question, then I might not be sold on it. Skeptical, I know, but thats just me. For example, the Sphinx is claimed by the 'credible' egyptologists, Hawass is one, to have been built around 2500 BC, and heavy erosion was repaired before 2100 BC, 400 years later. Schoch says that is far to short a time for such erosion to happen.
What do you say?

[edit on 11/15/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]

If I find that a majority of my answers support the idea that the pharoahs didn't build them,

I find that a majority of your answers were based on false suppositions
so your answers are worthless unless you actually have credible facts that support the question
so far I havent seen any evidence of this in any of your writing
you're not an expert on egypt so how can you expect to give an informed answer to anything

I had hoped that your expertise, and knowledge of the subject would be a source of new, educational data which I could examine and add to the information I now base my opinions on. It is not working. In about half a dozen posts I have posed specific questions and hoped for specific answers, but I am batting zero. Nothing wrong with that, but I have not learned anything that adds to my present information base. I learned that you are certain that your, anonymous, credible expert sources have proven for a fact that my questions are already answered satisfactorily, and that there is no way in heck that any other theory could prove to be correct. I still don't agree with you, but what would you expect? You have offered me a half dozen circumspect pronouncements in response to my queries. Not quite what I find convincing enough to agree. I prefer hard numbers, theories that cover every minute detail in rock solid fashion, so that I can find no way to doubt that it is correct. It has been my position all along that you may be right, but you may not. I don't feel any different than when I first asked your position on it.

well thats just it isn't it
i made my position on this thread quite clear several times but you haven't seemed to catch it, so one last time just for you
THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT BY EGYPTIANS IN THE ORTHODOX TIMEFRAME
thats not the one by Herodotus that most people think is orthodox because it isn't
Herodotus was known as the Father of Lies for a reason
creating a supposed orthodox position based on unorthodoxically accepted evidence and then claiming that orthodoxy must be wrong is whats known as a straw man argument
people don't seem to know the difference sometimes

the rest of the stuff you presented has been proven erroneous
and I don't like to offer my opinion on that kind of stuff as you know
it is completely without merit so far

For my purposes, the information offered by the historical giant Herodotus contains considerable amounts of information of substance and his style reflects an attention to detail and accuracy. Often, his accounts clearly note whether he is relating second hand information or first hand testimony, so that the reader knows when something was not personally witnessed by Herodotus. Many writers since have been neglectful in that key area.
As for the 'father of lies' tag, there have been a number of times that overly self-confident contemporary 'experts' have denounced Herodotus' information as false only to learn later that it was not. The city of Troy is one example, I believe.
My own views on the origins of the pyramids have little to do with who proposed what theory, and are almost solely based on my own reason. If one theory is not plausible, and another is more so, I will lean towards the more plausible one. It is a common occurance for me to amend, adjust, and adapt my views upon learning new data.
The reason that your recent posts did not compel me to change any of my views is that you offered no new data.
I am still in the process of checking all of your posts in this thread, and I hope that I do find some such information in at least one of them. To say my points are not worth replying to on the basis they are without merit is fine. But without any more than that to go on, obviously I would not agree with you.

Herodotus’ claim that the outer city wall was "fifty royal cubits wide and two hundred high" (Herodotus, Book I, para 179) - 85 and 335 feet, respectively – and particularly that its length was "a circuit of some fifty-six miles" (Herodotus, Book I, para 178) fails to accurately reflect the physical evidence uncovered at the site of Babylon. First of all, it is fair to speculate rationally that the supposed height of the walls was improbable. It is unlikely that the mud-brick construction material described would have been solid enough to support the weight of such a structure, and exploration has shown that the length of this wall seems to have been closer to twelve miles around. Does this confirm that Herodotus never visited the city, or merely suggest that he was given exaggerated information by his guides

this is just one example
the truth is that when he visited somewhere he got his information from the locals and whether or not that infomation was correct he wrote it all down as truth
and when he was talking about somewhere he had not visited he got his information from travellers and whether or not that infomation was correct he wrote it all down as truth
you're much better off sticking to a far better scholar like Strabo who only wrote down what was proven as the truth
might be a good idea to adopt that tactic as well
that way you wouldn't need to make excuses for Herodotus when you have no way of verifying his information
clearly you are relying on his claims as Truth because you have no information to the contrary
this suggests that you only have this one source
and it isn't credible just because you want to think it is

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

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...

So what your saying here is that by those standards of money that the Donald is a God-King?



Bet he would like that!

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

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...

So what your saying here is that by those standards of money that the Donald is a God-King?

Bet he would like that!

Yes, but in which way would he like it? The flattery his works earn him,

Or the understanding that time, and the wrecker's ball, will grind it all into dust and he'll be as forgotten as Ramases was?

Shelley, the originator of irony in the mass-media...(I'm intentionally ignoring Wilde's Ernest here because there's no thematic relevance...)

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Or the understanding that time, and the wrecker's ball, will grind it all into dust and he'll be as forgotten as Ramases was?

Well that's just the point though... that wrecking ball has missed those pyramids and I for one still remember Ramases [nice guy once you got past his god complex]

And I hear the Donald plans to live forever too...

And now Enlil is back the Lord Marduk...

S.A.A.L.M Long Live the Annunaki



[edit on 22-11-2006 by zorgon]

What happens if I completely deny any involvement in this one
are people going to shout conspiracy at me
why do i suddenly feel like Brian Cohen when told only the true messiah denies his divinity

Originally posted by Marduk
What happens if I completely deny any involvement in this one

Wouldn't believe you... your credibility is lacking lately

Here is a very interesting piece of news I just had to share with you...

An email from a friend...

He says...

Seems that a new Italian children's encyclopedia is treating Nibiru and Annunaki as an accepted fact of Sumerian Cosmology: "... the solar system counted all the planets we know besides Tiamat and Nibiru. The last one would be the farthest planet of the system ..."
www.angelismarriti.it...

This is indeed a major step forward towards wider acceptance of Sitchin's interpretation of the Sumerian myths (which is of course currently neglected in the archeological mainstream.) This publication is likely to start making big waves, hopefully a lot more than the old diagram from the 80's children encyclopedia which showed a Planet X. The fact that it comes from Italy could somehow be related to Sitchin's meeting in 2000 with Vatican's Monsignor Balducci.

Best regards,
Sol


The TRUTH will come out... :bash:

[....thinking abot Marduk tearing his hair out... ]

Interesting theory
so you think the Vatcian is in league with the Grand Negus do ya
this seems to be another Sitchin inspired conspiracy theory like the one he started about N.A.S.A picking up Nibiru on a deep space telescope and the missing elephant from a south american museum and the professional photographer who at first agreed with his claims for the rogue planet and then was silenced.
all these details reported in full on Mr Sitchins own website so they must be true
he's an economist you know, does his own publicity
The TRUTH will come out you say
yes well for all intents and purposes it has
Sitchin after 32 years in the business is still at the level of an unproven hypothesis along with every other member of the aliens did it club
meanwhile genuine research into Mesopotamian history goes from strength to strength
Real research has already proved his ideas and anyone who subscribes to them a laughing stock
and you should know better than to try and wind me up about Sitchin
I gave up worrying about his ideas about 30 seconds after I first heard them

Hi Zorgon,

Not to be nitpicky, but Nibru is Nippur (Enlil's city). Planet X may still exist, it just wasn't called Nibru. It's translated, the "place of the crossing", which is basically because it was the site of the "heaven-earth bond" (for our purposes, the "star gate" at nibru/nippur) and the place where the river was forded in that area of mesopotamia.

Originally posted by undo
Hi Zorgon,
Not to be nitpicky,

No picking nits then....

I just forgot the

brackets

Not my theory.... it is actually in the Italian Dictionary... see how History is rewritten to popular demand? LOL

Thats okay Marduk not to worry... I am sure there will be plenty warning when the Annuaki ships land to "correct yer thinking"

[edit on 25-11-2006 by zorgon]

Thats okay Marduk not to worry... I am sure there will be plenty warning when the Annuaki ships land to "correct yer thinking"

If that was the case then Sitchin would be the first up against the wall, his descriptions of the Annunaki are hardly complimetary
I'd probably be made ruler of Australia or something for my devoted service to Bel Marduk

anyone fancy a holiday away from the gold mines let me know I'm sure I could swing something with our alien overseers