Mysteries of The Great Pyramid Explored...

originally posted by: Telos



P.S Graham Hancock says hi

I doubt it, he's probably too busy taking drugs and making things up for his new book.

originally posted by: GuyinKY
I meant precisely what I said. Were you hoping to change my mind?

I have looked around in Scott's forum- Its my favorite I think. He posts a lot of interesting, thought provoking ideas.

I for one have no issues with someone promoting their book especially if its a book on subjects I find interesting. You buy his books don't you , its okay to admit it.

"Admit it?" Dude, I proclaim it.

No, I don't buy his books. This is because I'm not a putz.

Harte

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Telos

Great to see you back in the trenches....

Always ready to "fight" . lol

a reply to: Harte

I'm confused by your response for two reasons:

1) You seem to sarcastically say "Not only do you admit it- you proclaim it." Then you go on to say that you don't buy his books? I'm unsure of if you have bought any of his books- have you?

2) You seem very intelligent but then you make a ridiculous statement implying that anyone that has bought one of Scott's books is a putz. Surely you can see that this is a ridiculous statement! It doesn't take an intelligent man to see this.

Would you agree that you have learned anything from reading Scott's material? I'm just curious.

For the record- I have neither purchased or read any of Scott's books. Though that certainly doesn't exclude me from being a putz.

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Marduk

So I read another guys opinion and take what he says for the gospel? Should I not take the time to read up on the reviewers credentials as you suggest I do Scott's? Epic fail Marduk, epic fail.

He, you, myself and everyone of us with a pulse and a brain are qualified to form opinions and inspire thought provoking ideas. Do you really think getting an over priced degree is essential to researching topics of any subject? You may, I do not.

"Not having the time to check Scott's credibility" isn't an indication of gullibility silly Marduk- its an indication of being busy. However I'll correct you further and state that it wasn't time that prevented me, it was merely apathy.

So basically, you can't be bothered to check any facts, yet think not knowing any facts doesn't make you gullible
dry that out and fertilise your lawn with it


Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.

So for instance, where one of Scotts chapters is based on "The emerald tablets of Thoth, the Atlantean", and he makes some ground breaking claims based on them, but didn't realise that the tablets themselves were a well known 1940s hoax. What does that say about his scholarship and more relevant to this discussion, what does that say of your support of his scholarship in this thread, in which you already admitted, you haven't read any of his books

You are gullible and credulous aren't you. Admit it

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Harte

I'm confused by your response for two reasons:

1) You seem to sarcastically say "Not only do you admit it- you proclaim it." Then you go on to say that you don't buy his books? I'm unsure of if you have bought any of his books- have you?

2) You seem very intelligent but then you make a ridiculous statement implying that anyone that has bought one of Scott's books is a putz. Surely you can see that this is a ridiculous statement! It doesn't take an intelligent man to see this.

Would you agree that you have learned anything from reading Scott's material? I'm just curious.

For the record- I have neither purchased or read any of Scott's books. Though that certainly doesn't exclude me from being a putz.

LOL

Read one of his books - from a secondhand store if possible (avoiding putziness) - and you'll see what I mean.

There is nothing to learn from Scott.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Shall I place you among those that you've placed Scott for failing to answer my question? Have you bought any of his books or not?

Please don't make statements such as "there's nothing to learn from Scott." I know you really, really want to mean that but the truth is you know it to be false. If Marduk was to think I believed you he would accuse me of being gullible- and rightfully so.

Besides, I could prove you wrong right here for everyone to read if I needed to.

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Marduk

No basically- As any 3rd grader could discern, When someone makes the claim that I am gullible (that knows nothing about me) all based on my statement that I found the material thought provoking just because said Troll (you) doesn't openly agree (I say "openly" agree because I'm quite confident and you find the material to be thought provoking and have proven such in many threads) is absolutely ridiculous.

Please point me to where I have supported any ones scholarship?

Many things I may be- easily tricked isn't among them.

You have shown how easily tricked you are repeatedly in this thread

Oh so I'm the troll now, funny, because we all thought it was you making completely unsupported statements about something you know nothing about. Laughable, you truly are gullible and credulous and now you are denying that you said things that are available to anyone to read.
Like

Please point me to where I have supported any ones scholarship?

Here

I have looked around in Scott's forum- Its my favorite I think. He posts a lot of interesting, thought provoking ideas.

and Here

I said I found his post interesting and thought provoking this makes Scott's posts relevant to me.

So now, are you delusional, do you have a bad memory, or are you just a liar...
and btw, there is nothing to learn from Scott, he's a pseudo historian, let me define pseudo for you:-

Pseudo - False or counterfeit; fake

Bearing that in mind, what would you call someone who publically supports false ideas, like you do, Oh its not as bad as all that, because apparently you think false claims are "thought provoking", when really, the thoughts that Scotts work should be provoking in you are "This is made up nonsense, which could only convince the gullible and credulous". The one rule about the gullible that is plain to see, is that usually, they think they're informed.
Like perhaps you could tell me, what dynasty the first mention of Osiris occurred in and then tell me what that knowledge has on Scotts claims that Osiris is predynastic.

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain

originally posted by: GuyinKY

 

 

says the troll who hasn't answered a single question posed to him nor posted anything to support his contentions
are you aware of the motto of this website
its "deny ignorance", not as you are demonstrating, "support ignorance"
You've posted nothing at all in this thread to support any of your conjecture and considering that you don't know any of the facts, that's not surprising
You've accused other people who don't agree with you of hatred and of being trolls and of "pretending to be intelligent" and outright called people stupid, who on the whole are clearly better informed than you and thrown various snide remarks around as if theres about to be a shortage
you bet I've reported you
Who wouldn't

a reply to: Marduk

How do I post anything to support my contentions? Do you understand what they are?

Let me say it again:

I find the ideas Scott presented interesting and thought provoking. Why does that make you mad? Why would I allow you to decide what I find thought provoking?

What questions have I not answered?

Really- Snide remarks? Whats that about a pot and a kettle...

Ahem

The topic of this thread is "Mysteries of the Great Pyramid Explored". The topic is not each other, nor is the topic moderator actions. Please address the topic.

Further off topic posts and/or personal insults will be removed, and the member post banned. Please do not reply to this post.

Thank you

bigfatfurrytexan
Forum Moderator

originally posted by: R0CR13
a reply to: Hanslune

IN 1836 COLONEL VYSE DISCOVERED AND REMOVED BY BLASTING TWO TIERS OF STONE . A FLAT IRON PLATE FROM THE SOUTHERN AIRSHAFT FROM THE KINGS CHAMBER WHERE IT EXITS THE PYRAMID . THE PLATE WAS 12 X 4 X 1/8TH THICK . IN 1989 THEY ANALYZED THE MATERIAL REVEALING TRACES OF GOLD AS IF ONCE PLATED . AND THAT IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE (GP) .

google Vyse iron plate

The gold plated iron structure served a purpose in the overall function of the GP .

It is clearly represented on various misinterpreted pieces .

The pyramid age Pharaohs were reported to open the gate to the field of Mufcut .

Look for them there .

actually, the plate was analysed in 1993 and found to have no gold on it at all,

Gold was neither observed nor detected anywhere on the plate. The composition and structure of the iron rules out any form of natural iron. Similarly iron smelted in the solid state is precluded as some form of molten slag would be essential, which could only be eradicated by melting the iron. A more mundane but tenable explanation of the observed features is that the iron ore was smelted to cast iron in a blast furnace, using charcoal as the fuel, resulting in a chemically much purer iron than smelted with coal or coke. This iron was then decarburized by the finery process to form solid wrought iron. The inclusions are likely to have originated either as deliberate additions during the fining, as specified in some European accounts, or inadvertently during the subsequent forging. The blast furnace process does not seem to have reached the Middle East until the post-medieval period, and this strongly suggests that the plate of iron from the Great Pyramid is of no great antiquity.

www.catchpenny.org...
they concluded it dated from the middle ages at the time of the Arab conquest of Egypt, so this plate doesn't support either of your claims