902 replies to this topic

[dreamland]

kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

Consider the source. That's all that matters. Any half-baked nitwit wearing a tinfoil hat and sequestering himself in his parents' basement, can slap together a website or an internet video. This is indeed the information age, but do you honestly think a lot of the information you come across on the Net is worth half a moment's consideration? I apologize for being blunt but rarely do the people who submit Wiki articles or slap up YouTube videos even know what in the hell they're talking about.

Wikipedia, YouTube, and the internet in general are not proper or reliable research materials.

And some of them can be downright dishonest. There is one Wiki article I've encountered about something Giza-related that presents some accurate information but in the same article seriously misquotes a paper written by Mark Lehner. It's a given that if a web page seems to present a few real facts but also tosses in highly dubious, questionable, or downright incorrect information, the entire web page is of no value.

Consider the source. Take serously TheSearcher's admonition to study the subject at hand—written by people who've committed their lives to understanding ancient history on a professional level. These are the people who know what they're talking about, and they can be trusted. As much as it drives the fringe nuts, fringe and alternative writers have not changed any precept of orthodox, professional research because the conclusions of fringe writers have basically no research value.

That is not going to change—for the simple reason that science demands higher standards.

Well...I am well open-minded person...i know what to believe and what not to.If wiki articles and some youtube movies about pyramids are not true,they would have been debunked already.You cannot say that everything is a one big lie.There are people out there that study pyramids in egypt for a long time,and if they want to share their knowledge..they can share it with the rest of the public by writing aritcle or post youtube video.You said there is one article you encounter that has some accurate info,but you fail to even share it with us or post a link to the website.I would love to hear your theory of how egyptians build pyramids..thank you

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

Consider the source. Take serously TheSearcher's admonition to study the subject at hand—written by people who've committed their lives to understanding ancient history on a professional level. These are the people who know what they're talking about, and they can be trusted. As much as it drives the fringe nuts, fringe and alternative writers have not changed any precept of orthodox, professional research because the conclusions of fringe writers have basically no research value.

That is not going to change—for the simple reason that science demands higher standards.

professional research because the conclusions of fringe writers have basically no research value?

being a analyst for so long, i see flaws in your statement, clearly your assuming to trust them.
thats a terrible flaw.

anyhow from a analyst point of view, i  cant trust the majority orthodox view.
its would be terribly flawed to  trust them without doing research and checking things out for myself.

anyhow in regards to people who really dont research and just come up with some crazy theory without evidence from the ancient egyptians, agreed they cant be trusted as well.

basically i stick with a analyst approach its far more reliable than trustly in someone else work or opinion,.

Edited by samspade, 02 March 2013 - 05:11 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

dreamland, on 02 March 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

Well...I am well open-minded person...i know what to believe and what not to.If wiki articles and some youtube movies about pyramids are not true,they would have been debunked already.You cannot say that everything is a one big lie.There are people out there that study pyramids in egypt for a long time,and if they want to share their knowledge..they can share it with the rest of the public by writing aritcle or post youtube video.You said there is one article you encounter that has some accurate info,but you fail to even share it with us or post a link to the website.I would love to hear your theory of how egyptians build pyramids..thank you

I've been on this board for years discussing the orthodox conclusions on how the pyramids were built. It is not germane to the current discussion, which is off-track enough as it is, but stick around. There are bound to be more discussions on pyramid building. I don't take part as often or in as much detail as I used to because it's all been said a great many times, but my interest level is there enough for me to continue to participate. You can always use the forum's search function to look into old discussions. There are many of them, and I and the other usual posters were involved with most of them.

You can't really expect a professional researcher to slap together a YouTube video about pyramids. These people are too busy for such a lark. YouTube is not a legitimate source for research or education in the first place, so don't expect real historians to take part any time soon. I have nothing against YouTube as a source for entertainment and have done my share of YouTubing in the past, but never for research purposes.

I'm not saying everything is one big lie. I'll be frank and say it's a compilation of many lies—and if not lies, then just exceedingly poor conclusions not based on extant evidence and devoid of proper research. Please understand I am not pointing any fingers at you, but only at the internet in general. I've grown frustrated with the crap spewed all over the place. There are numerous websites that I could and have recommended which contain reliable information, but I've been ignored in the past when I have done this. From what I can see, for every one website that has educational merit (usually put up by universities or other professional institutes), there have to be at least 50 others that are far from desirable. And I'm probably being conservative. In fact, I'm sure I am.

The ironic thing is, for every 50 websites that are far from desirable, there have to be many times more the number in reliable, professionally researched articles, papers, and books. The amount of research on the Great Pyramid alone is monumental (pun intended). Think of all that's been researched and written over the past two centuries by properly educated and trained historians. Much of it can even be found for free. I used to go through the effort to post links to viable sites where some of this research can be downloaded as PDFs, but I tended to be ignored on that front, too. People who side with the fringe seem to want to remain within the fringe camp, so there's little I or others can do but continue to argue for properly researched conclusions.

To conclude this post, when I was writing my previous post I couldn't remember which article it was that included the misquote concerning Mark Lehner. I subsequently remembered, and it's an article about the Great Sphinx: click here. A little less than midway down the page is this line (under the "Restoration" heading):

Quote

Mark Lehner, an Egyptologist, originally asserted that there had been a far earlier renovation during the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2184 BC),^[30] although he has subsequently recanted this "heretical" viewpoint.^[31]

Anyone familiar with Lehner's body of research—and he is the world's leading expert on the Giza monuments—will immediately see this as suspect. The Wiki article cites a different web article authored by Colin Reader, who has his own ideas about the age of the Sphinx, and the author of the Wiki article does not seem even to have cited Reader correctly. Reader's article correctly references Lehner's well-known paper "The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu Project." I've read the paper. If you're interested, you can download it as a PDF (around 11 MB). Lehner does not make such a comment as in the above quote in this or any other paper he's authored.

Whether by design or by accident, such an obvious misrepresentation is a good example of why one should not trust Wiki on the face of it. Wiki is handy and useful, but the careful student will always substantiate a Wiki article with a perusal of the professional literature.

Enough said. My apologies for droning on.

[kmt_sesh]

samspade, on 02 March 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

science demands higher standards ?.
being a analyst for so long, i see flaws in your statement, clearly your assuming to trust them.
thats a terrible flaw.

anyhow from a analyst point of view, i  cant trust the majority orthodox view.
its would be terribly flawed to  trust them without doing research and checking things out for myself.

anyhow in regards to people who really dont research and just come up with some crazy theory without evidence from the ancient egyptians, agreed they cant be trusted as well.

basically i stick with a analyst approach its far more reliable than trustly in someone else work or opinion,.

You keep calling yourself an "analyst," which is getting a bit old. More often that than not, when I or another poster requests that you elaborate, you back away. You yourself are not an expert on the ancient Egyptian civilization, so how do you think you can rewrite so many decades of professional research?

You know what I've said before about a person who claims to be the only one to know "the truth," and that maxim still stands.

Can you offer details to contradict me?

Sorry for being brash. I really must be in a mood tonight.

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

You keep calling yourself an "analyst," which is getting a bit old. More often that than not, when I or another poster requests that you elaborate, you back away. You yourself are not an expert on the ancient Egyptian civilization, so how do you think you can rewrite so many decades of professional research?

You know what I've said before about a person who claims to be the only one to know "the truth," and that maxim still stands.

Can you offer details to contradict me?

Sorry for being brash. I really must be in a mood tonight.

tough if you can take the truth that your statements are flawed, and i mention that before before it was the truth.

and what is old about me having a analyst background its the truth  and it applys, i never backed away from my professional background.

andy your statement to offer details to contract me, your statement from a analyst position is flawed, basically the true is, its a stupid position to take if you feel that someone cant discover a new truth.

just being honest and truthfull dude.

Edited by samspade, 02 March 2013 - 05:29 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

samspade, on 02 March 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

tough if you can take the truth that your statements are flawed, and i mention that before before it was the truth.

and what is old about me having a analyst background its the truth  and it applys, i never backed away from my professional background.

andy your statement to offer details to contract me, your statement from a analyst position is flawed, basically the true is, its a stupid position to take if you feel that someone cant discover a new truth.

just being honest and truthfull dude.

I have no problem with that.

But I still stand by my position, and nothing's changed. You continue to avoid defending yourself other than by losing your cool with me.

I've been meaning to suggest this but why don't you start a thread explaining your beliefs? You keep hinting at all this stuff you know but you never present much information. You keep telling me how I'm wrong or cladking how he's wrong or this or that poster how he or she is wrong, but...how so? In what way? What is your case?

This particular discussion is not the place for it, so that's why I'm encouraging you to start a thread of your own. Flesh out this professional background of yours, if you're confident about it. Of course I cannot require you to do so—I just think it might be worth your time and it might bring in some real discussion. Describe your beliefs about the benben stone, and previous hints at how Jesus is involved—stuff you've mentioned before.

Please cease from hinting at a professional background and telling me or others how we're wrong and leaving it at that. It doesn't contribute. As a Moderator that's something on which I can take action, but believe me when I say I would rather just post than have to do that.

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

I have no problem with that.

But I still stand by my position, and nothing's changed. You continue to avoid defending yourself other than by losing your cool with me.

im not losing my cool. i just stating the facts which are true and you seem to be in denial in your flaw statements here and in the past..

kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

Please cease from hinting at a professional background and telling me or others how we're wrong and leaving it at that. It doesn't contribute. As a Moderator that's something on which I can take action, but believe me when I say I would rather just post than have to do that.

frankly i just tell the truth, if you cant accept it your problem.

your problem is your write statements which are flawed.

perhaps if you would be more carefull on your logic  in statements
and think of  cases where there may be exemptions to case, you would not fall
in the trap in making flawed statements.

but you fail to see the error of your ways and its is unbecoming,
perhaps mods should not be able to post in threads were they are moderating.

just a honest opinion.

frankly in the past to, you maked comments i found unbecoming of a Mod,
perhaps you believe you thought you were being funny.,

Edited by samspade, 02 March 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

samspade, on 02 March 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

im not losing my cool. i just stating the facts which are true and you seem to be in denial in your flaw statements here and in the past..



frankly i just tell the truth, if you cant accept it your problem.

your problem is your write statements which are flawed.
perhaps if you would be more carefull on your logic and think of  cases where there may be exemptions to case, you would not fall
in the trap in making flawed statements.

frankly in the past to, you maked comments i found unbecoming of a Mod, perhaps you believe you thought you were being funny,

but you fail to see the error of your ways is unbecoming, perhaps mods should not be able to post in threads were they are moderating.

just a honest opinion.

We'll leave it at that for now, sam. This is getting us nowhere, and you're still avoiding fleshing out your position. Trying to turn it back on me doesn't help you.

Have a good night.

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

We'll leave it at that for now, sam. This is getting us nowhere, and you're still avoiding fleshing out your position. Trying to turn it back on me doesn't help you.

Have a good night.

this is unbelievable, your statement is flawed, i pointed it out.
then you wont defend your statement or realize the error of your ways.
and try to blame it on me.
its unbecoming,  if there are any other mods, take note of his statement and in the mood to argue it as he mention.

he does not even grasp his flawed statement.

seriously take time to think what you are posting instead of trying to blame me for your flawed statements.

Edited by samspade, 02 March 2013 - 06:35 AM.

[DieChecker]

samspade, on 02 March 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

being a analyst for so long, i see flaws in your statement, clearly your assuming to trust them.
thats a terrible flaw.

If we don't trust the experts, who the hell are we to trust? The physical evidence was found by experts, so is everything suspect?

Evaluating whatever comes along is fine, but fringe can't be openly assumed to be as correct at orthodoxy just because we want to be "fair".

[samspade]

DieChecker, on 02 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

If we don't trust the experts, who the hell are we to trust? The physical evidence was found by experts, so is everything suspect?

Evaluating whatever comes along is fine, but fringe can't be openly assumed to be as correct at orthodoxy just because we want to be "fair".

im trained in a certain way, and its a professional manner of approach.

all these egyptologist experts dont agree on everything, and
sometimes their views may change over time

there  may be something overlooked or missed, or undiscovered etc, etc,

some may be better in certain area's than others.
some may find new evidence and not present it to the experts, possible.

kmt failed to back his flawed statement, instead he tryed to turn it on me.
its unbecoming of a mod.

he wanted to argue ,
.
he even had the nerve to mention  a discussion long ago where i pointed out another flawed statement of his , .

any professional analyst would agree with my opinion of his statement here being flaw
, and even his older statement that he nerve to try to raise, whether divert, or be il-responible for not addressing the real issue.

thus, personally i would hope the other mods note his il-founded behaviour and have him banned.

Edited by samspade, 02 March 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[third_eye]

kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

~drone snip

Anyone familiar with Lehner's body of research—and he is the world's leading expert on the Giza monuments—will immediately see this as suspect. The Wiki article cites a different web article authored by Colin Reader, who has his own ideas about the age of the Sphinx, and the author of the Wiki article does not seem even to have cited Reader correctly. Reader's article correctly references Lehner's well-known paper "The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu Project." I've read the paper. If you're interested, you can download it as a PDF (around 11 MB). Lehner does not make such a comment as in the above quote in this or any other paper he's authored.

~drone snip

thanks for the PDF boss ... you haven't been droning as much, you felling okay boss .. ?

[Abramelin]

samspade, on 02 March 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

professional research because the conclusions of fringe writers have basically no research value?

being a analyst for so long, i see flaws in your statement, clearly your assuming to trust them.
thats a terrible flaw.

anyhow from a analyst point of view, i  cant trust the majority orthodox view.
its would be terribly flawed to  trust them without doing research and checking things out for myself.

anyhow in regards to people who really dont research and just come up with some crazy theory without evidence from the ancient egyptians, agreed they cant be trusted as well.

basically i stick with a analyst approach its far more reliable than trustly in someone else work or opinion,.

If you are really an analyst. then you should read the books written by a Graham Hancock, an example of a 'fringe' writer.

You will see fringe writers go from "This could be true" to "This is true" very easily. Most often it seems that the "could be" part of the sentence is becoming too tiring for them after many repeats and change it into "is", and voilà: point proven,

This is not what happens (or should not happen) using a scientific approach, as you should know.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[third_eye]

He's just slicing the beef thin Abe, he don't care if the research draws wrong or bad conclusions,

to him that doesn't means the research is of no research value entirely ....

[monk 56]

Hi KMT-SESH,

I'm contraversial enough and have no wish to debate this subject, only add humour, i was wondering if there were any ancient Egyptian Quote you would like to add from the list below, i know you have a favourite one ha ha!

http://www.historyof...pt_proverbs.htm