I will respond in full after class. However, I would like to point how few quality threads you have started. You mostly post here. If you don't like
my work, then go write your own counter argument.
Frankly, if you have an issue alert a mod and he or she will look it over.
Yes, I rarely start threads. I enjoy discussing.
As I have said, I'm not trying to be offensive, mainly discussing your idea.
I will not start a thread discussing your idea, instead I will discuss your idea in it's thread. If you want people to just agree with you and state
how good of an idea it is.... I'm sorry but I don't do that.
But like I said in the op, I don't claim to know for a fact what happened.nim only offering up theories, considiering this is a conspiracy theory
And I'm only discussing them with you, as this is a discussion forum.
Yes, there is an establishment which says "what is, and what isnt" and there is lots of evidence to back up these things. But as a true scientist we
always need to question these BOUNDARIES and attempt to examine other possibilities.
Yes, but speculating without evidence removes your from the basis of your extrapolation.
I'm not saying you shouldn't, but if there are holes they will be found. If you want to discuss ideas, then prepare to defend your ideas, even if
they are speculation.
If you believe that historians know 100% accurately what happened at this time then you are welcome to believe that.
I don't, but I'm aware of why various historians say "X", and why others disagree with them.
If you think all historians agree you are sadly mistaken.
But they are well able to provide both evidence and solid theories as to why they believe this.
And your arguement neglects the theory that the pyramids belonged to a civilization much older than egypt. Can you honestly say you have done the work
to prove 100% without a doubt that this is not the case? Because I bet you have not!
Nothing is 100%, in science even the theory the moon orbits the Earth is not 100%.
However, we can look at the evidence.
We have tombs from the builders of the pyramids, dating to the time period.
We have a workers village, where the workers building the pyramids were housed.
We have graphitti in the pyramid, running between the stones with names of the pharaoh and the gangs hauling the stones.
We have the quarrys the stones were taken from, with tool marks that match the tools of the Egyptians, with similar tool marks on the pyramids as
We have carbon dating from the mortar used in the pyramid, taken from several different locations, dating back to the era of the 4th dynasty.
(Actually, the dating pushes back the date by about 200 years. Not all that much when considering we're dealing with hundreds, but means the king's
lists we have are being re-examined.)
We have a series of pyramids leading up to the ones at Giza, and the general petering out of pyramid building following the 4th Dynasty.
Each pyramid is surrounded by a temple complex, with walls, a prayer center for the pharaoh where offerings were made. Around the funerary complex
were detailed the great accomplishments of the pharaoh.
The difference between you and me is you claim to know what happened N-thousand years ago.
I dont! I had a member from my previous thread ask me to do a thread about this.
I don't claim to know, I'm simply following the evidence. If new evidence comes forward that really changes things, then I'll follow it.
As i mentioned in the beginning, i was somehwat reluctant to do so, as I wasnt really interested in my theory.
Oh for Pete's sake! Be interested in your theory! Tend it, develop it, find proof and present it! Nothing changes if you squirrel your ideas away.
Just don't accept people to stand around clapping you on the back exclaiming "Well done, now that's a theory!"
Well, technically if you want to keep referring to science, you're referring to a hypothesis, not a theory.
You are here arguing to me that whoever built this-v
Could not have built this?-v
I'm saying there's no evidence they did.
I'm saying the only thing you are basing this off of is conjecture and that you think a panel from a temple looks like a modern light bulb.
A panel which contains text detailing what it is being conveyed in the image itself.
Though lets say that it IS a battery, that's 400 years later than what you have at -
Oops, actually I'm sorry. i messed my math here.
2700 BC, and the batteries are supposedly from 200 or so BC.
That's quite a bit more.
Glad I have someone else do my taxes.
But anyway, lets say that it IS a battery.
Lets say it's just four hundred years later, like in my earlier bad math.
How much does the world change in four hundred years?
Now, what exactly is amazing about the pyramids?
Are they incredibly complicated?
No, they are actually simple designs. Stacked roughly squared stones.
You can see the precursors of the idea starting with mastabas, with their slightly tilted walls.
The step pyramids continued the idea, the bent pyramid nearly had and the red pyramid finished it.
Am I decrying their impressiveness?
The great achievement of the Egyptian pyramids is the organization that went into building them.
They had much of their workforce sitting on their heels when the Nile flooded.
They managed to, as one of the first real nations of the world, organize their people to create the great monuments.
Egypt had plenty of "currency" at the time, chiefly food, which it exchanged with other cultures and became very wealthy.
Are you also asking me to believe that this artifact which was dated to around 400 years after the pyramids, was the first or only one created?
I'm asking you for real proof it was a battery, and not what it appears to be, chiefly a ceremonial jar.
We also know that the egyptians supposedly carve over heiroglyphs.
Yep, like to wipe a ruler out of history.
Very little is actually contained in hieroglyphs, however, as they were holy writing.
For example, they never wrote down the instructions for how to make a human mummy.
Instead Bob Brier had to work off of the scrolls we have for the Apis bulls.
(Which, by the way, the temple of the bulls is much more architecturally complex than the pyramids.)
I dont really want to argue anymore about how mainstream historians will view my theory or i would be on a different website alltogether. Id much
rather discuss what other possibilities are out there.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm discussing with you.
edit on 4-2-2011 by RuneSpider because: Oops.