902 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

There seems little doubt that the human beings in Egypt at the time the great pyramids were built
were the individuals who actually built it. But the question remains; who were these individuals and
what were their beliefs.  Germany was a different place with different people in 1939 than are there
today or were there in 1913.  We can't possibly understand  dauchau or auschwitz without under-
standing these differences.  This isn't to say that the Egyptians can't be understood without knowing
how they built the pyramids but at the current point in time there are no facts that can be cited to de-
fine their beliefs or the reasons they would build pyramids.  It is my belief that knowing how the pyra-
mids were built might show who these people were and what they believed.  It is my belief that their
claim that the gods built the pyramids would shine a very bright light on who they were.  But this is all
impossible until we know something like how they built them. We know Nazi Germany because we re-
member adolph hitler but we don't know who built the pyramids because all the writing looks like non-
sense to us.  All the writing is open to interpretation so what these people believed is open to interpretation.

Then there is no argument as to 'who' built the GP.

Your 'belief', twice stated above, is irrelevant to what we do know of the Ancient Egyptians.

Speak for yourself. Just because you don't remotely understand the knowledgebase we've obtained from 200+ years of ongoing investigations into the AE doesn't mean no one else does. We don't have to know down to the last block laid exactly how the GP was constructed to know the AE did it. That's about as ignorant as claiming that just because you've never seen an A-Bomb constructed, in full, that it's impossible for anyone to have done it. It almost sounds like someone has to hold your hands and explain things to you in one-syllable words, in order for you to know anything.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 12 February 2013 - 09:35 PM.

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 12 February 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Then there is no argument as to 'who' built the GP.

Your 'belief', twice stated above, is irrelevant to what we do know of the Ancient Egyptians.

Speak for yourself. Just because you don't remotely understand the knowledgebase we've obtained from 200+ years of ongoing investigations into the AE doesn't mean no one else does. We don't have to know down to the last block laid exactly how the GP was constructed to know the AE did it. That's about as ignorant as claiming that just because you've never seen an A-Bomb constructed, in full, that it's impossible for anyone to have done it. It almost sounds like someone has to hold your hands and explain things to you in one-syllable words, in order for you to know anything.

You're not so far off. One syllable words are much easier to understand viscerally and this is where
all knowledge actually exists. It is a fact that virtually nothing survives from the great pyramid building
age and the little that does survive is dependent on interpretation in order to understand.  Have I ever
mentioned that I believe orthodox interpretation is wholly in error.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

You're not so far off. One syllable words are much easier to understand viscerally and this is where
all knowledge actually exists. It is a fact that virtually nothing survives from the great pyramid building
age and the little that does survive is dependent on interpretation in order to understand.  Have I ever
mentioned that I believe orthodox interpretation is wholly in error.

You've also admitted that your comprehension and knowledgebase concerning AE are practically non-existant. This does not speak well for you.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 12 February 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

You've also admitted that your comprehension and knowledgebase concerning AE are practically non-existant. This does not speak well for you.

No.  I've said I've avoided reading or trying to understand orthodox interpretations of anything at all.

Even this is no longer completely true since for about two years now I have followed their understanding
of the gods.  They are always wrong but since they are usually correct in a left handed sort of way it is
still helpful to me.  Besides they do know a few things I don't and have access to a great deal more than
what I have access to.  I should have done it a year or two earlier in hindsight.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

No.  I've said I've avoided reading or trying to understand orthodox interpretations of anything at all.

Even this is no longer completely true since for about two years now I have followed their understanding
of the gods.  They are always wrong but since they are usually correct in a left handed sort of way it is
still helpful to me.  Besides they do know a few things I don't and have access to a great deal more than
what I have access to.  I should have done it a year or two earlier in hindsight.

That's what I said "practically non-existant". So basically you're left with "Oh woe is me. I don't remotely understand pretty much any knowledge gained in the last 200+ years of Egyptology, yet everyone else is wrong."    Thanks for the confirmation.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 12 February 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

That's what I said "practically non-existant". So basically you're left with "Oh woe is me. I don't remotely understand pretty much any knowledge gained in the last 200+ years of Egyptology, yet everyone else is wrong."    Thanks for the confirmation.

You might want to break out the old dictionary and look up some terms.

"Interpretation" is not data.

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

There is no evidence any ramp was ever used to lift any stone on any great pyramid.  You've had
plenty of chance to cite evidence and none has been forthcoming.  Even if it were true that ramps
are most likely the point is irrelevant until such time as they have been established by evidence and
this is very far from being.  They will never be established because they were not  used and they are
still debunked.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the ramps are not there, because they were taken down and dumped into the quarry. No one leaves scaffolding hanging on the outside of their building after it is built. So your arguement is illogical. If you are waiting for conclusive proof, such will not be coming, unless someone invents faster then light movement. Then we could effectively look into the past and see what they did, but since that is not going to happen, we can only guess, and the best guess is ramps. The Egyptians had ramps, and needed to elevate stone... the end.

Quote

Science isn't about committees.  We've delayed doing the obvious for decades, how much longer
must we delay?

I beg to differ. Science requires oversight and confirmation, and funding, resources and personnel. All of which require organization, which means beuracracy/committees.

[calaf]

cormac mac airt, on 16 December 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

A vase of lotus blossoms on a stand mis-interpreted as an alien. A palimpsest which has been mis-interpreted as vehicles which didn't exist in Ancient Egypt and an AE stela that's been misrepresented to say something it doesn't. All that's missing is a quack like Von Daniken or Sitchin.

cormac

You left out Giorgio Tsoukalos.

[cormac mac airt]

calaf, on 12 February 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

You left out Giorgio Tsoukalos.

Centauri wannabe's don't count.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

You might want to break out the old dictionary and look up some terms.

"Interpretation" is not data.

Interpretations from professionals in the field trump the unqualified opinion of some dude in Indiana whose knowledgebase is sorely lacking and who has a penchant for proclaiming some version of "Nuh uh" to pretty much everything that IS known. Solely because he doesn't understand it. BTW, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

cormac

[TheSearcher]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

You might want to break out the old dictionary and look up some terms.

"Interpretation" is not data.

Quite rich, coming from you, who treats his own interpretation of the PT as the ultimate truth. Now is this a double standard or what?

cormac mac airt, on 13 February 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Centauri wannabe's don't count.

cormac

Centauri wannabe..... .... I hadn't realized how much he actually does look like one. Great one, cormac.

[Quaentum]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

You're not so far off. One syllable words are much easier to understand viscerally and this is where
all knowledge actually exists. It is a fact that virtually nothing survives from the great pyramid building
age and the little that does survive is dependent on interpretation in order to understand.  Have I ever
mentioned that I believe orthodox interpretation is wholly in error.

Please explain how the existence of ramps, and chisel marks on the stones are dependent on interpretation

[third_eye]

Quaentum, on 13 February 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Please explain how the existence of ramps, and chisel marks on the stones are dependent on interpretation

Ahr ... g'wan guv'nor
You're just egging 'im on aren't you, poking 'im with a stick ehr?
Stoking the fire as it were, ehr ... g'wan ... poke 'im agin

~I forgot how much fun it was around 'ere
What we need now is a bottle of Cognac and a couple of cigars, or pipes if you so please
a foot massage would be heavenly

[Harte]

third_eye, on 13 February 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Ahr ... g'wan guv'nor
You're just egging 'im on aren't you, poking 'im with a stick ehr?
Stoking the fire as it were, ehr ... g'wan ... poke 'im agin

~I forgot how much fun it was around 'ere
What we need now is a bottle of Cognac and a couple of cigars, or pipes if you so please
a foot massage would be heavenly

Sorry.  All we gots is soda water.

You can thank Cladking for that.

Harte

[DieChecker]

Harte, on 13 February 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Sorry.  All we gots is soda water.

You can thank Cladking for that.

Harte

Osiris's effervescent efflux. Tasty!!