1650 replies to this topic

[docyabut2]

Don`nt know how one can take the Dream Stele as fact when written  hundreds of years later , anyone knows what dreams are, all extorted:)

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I think this is the approach people who disagree with orthodoxy should take. Its about revisionism... you see revisionism, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about a historical event, not a denial of the event itself, a refinement that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a 'certain body of irrefutable evidence' or a 'convergence of evidence'.
So instead of just fighting the establishment or down right mocking it in its entirety maybe we all can work together. Some defending the tried and true current arrangement of extant evidence that fits the current status quo based on years of research. And some who notice little nuances that just don't seem to fit and may need further review. You see even a revisionist is part of the orthodox fabric without being out on the fringe of it. But in doing so and working together we will all be a part of the same side. Forget the apologist nonsense. Forget the redicule. We all have the same agenda and goal, learning about history. So Scott this part is to you specifically, instead of wasting your time and intellect on finding new ways to insult people or Egyptology in general, how about utilizing the positives that can be found in orthodox research. Example, years of sweat and blood research in the feild gathering extant evidence which has led us to make the assumptions you tend to show displeasure with. Instead become part of the peer review you have scoffed at. There is a place in historical research that is within the orthodox realm which as I've already stated belongs to revisionism. So instead again of just fighting us which has produced page after page of hilarious mud slinging from both sides I must admit... lets take and approach this again with the mind set of being on the same side. Lets examine the evidence you think might show a difference and discuss it honestly and openly so if we do find alternative suggestions for the evidence so painstakingly gathered we know we have worked together to place it properly.
No one has to be against anyone. Orthodoxy is malleable and will change as the evidence being looked at is evaluated. So lets evaluate and end this anti-orthodox war within these pages. We are all here an amateur peer review all we need to see now is evidence.

[Leonardo]

Alcibiades9, on 12 June 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

As for "an utterly sorry hemorrhage of intellectual diarrhea caused by ******* off one's brain" well I know - and you know - that you can't apply it to Scott, much as you'd love to.  I heartily disagree with his conclusions about "recovery vaults" rather than tombs, but his recent posting here (which has drawn me and other "lurkers" like Mercury2k into this thread) has exhibited a most profoundly annoying real knowledge of plain old "orthodox" Egyptian history.  He more than any other "alternative" contributor I have seen on here (with the exception of the erudite and irritatingly logical Cladking) is showing an undeniable grasp of the scant facts, which no one so far has been able to convincingly undermine.

To be honest, the wealth of information available on the internet has made "armchair experts" of a lot of us - myself included. But in this instance (and with reagrds other ancient civlisations) this "armchair expertise" means little outside the context of the culture - society, religion, etc - the information is pertinant to.

It is easy, in this internet age, to spout a plethora of facts about virtually anything - but that indicates only an effective mastery of google or some other search engine not an effective knowledge of the topic in question. To gain that effective knowledge, real study in a real academic environment is required. An environment where one will have impressed upon them the importance of the culture in question. An environment where the minutae of information is exquistely more revealing than what is available in a web-browser.

That someone may appear to be able to relay facts on a given subject is hardly impressive in this internet-age. It is the ability to apply these facts to the proper context which is far more a measure of the ability to understand the subject of that context.

[Alcibiades9]

Apcpro, on 12 June 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

That's true.  That typo invalidates any questions I may have.  Oh well, at least none of you fringe-apologists will have to actually answer any questions or state facts supported by anything more than "Anything you can claim I can claim better".

Have a nice day.

Don't be petulant.  

So I'm a fringe-apologist as well as an Egypt-apologist now?  I've only been here 5 minutes....

[Alcibiades9]

Harte, on 13 June 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

It's all about:
"Gloom, despair and agony on me.
Deep dark depression,
excessive misery..."

Because I asked for no more quotes of SC. They hurt my idiot detector.

But ya'll just keep on quotin' him like it's nothing.

As I said:
"Gloom , despair and agony on me..."

Harte

I can only advise you to stop "ignoring" people in the strange manner that you have adopted... you know, by not ignoring them at all.  I don't think it's a method that will catch on...

[thewatchman7]

Harte, on 13 June 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

That's true, Abe.  For example:

The L,

Your statement above is simply not the case, as you should well know given the  "Ring of Fire" eclipse publicized last month:




Not saying you are lying.  I'm saying you've bought someone else's lie.

Harte

this is exactly what i was thinking, i simply couldnt be bothered with the arguement and being told im wrong about simple observable things.

[Alcibiades9]

Leonardo, on 13 June 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

It is easy, in this internet age, to spout a plethora of facts about virtually anything - but that indicates only an effective mastery of google or some other search engine not an effective knowledge of the topic in question.

Of course - no one can argue that point.  Ask any teacher who these days has to try to identify real product from cut and paste Wikipedia material in essays and projects!  But come on, beyond that initial regurgitation of "facts" it's easy for most of us to tell whether someone actually knows what they are talking about or not... it's not the spouting or piecing together of facts, but their interpretation and extrapolation.  Otherwise, in this age of Google, we'd find ourselves in a world where everyone sounds like an encyclopedia-brained genius.  And I can assure you, where I come from, that is certainly most not the case... indeed, with Facebook and Twitter on the rise, stupidity seems to be the only growth industry sometimes.

[Leonardo]

Alcibiades9, on 13 June 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Of course - no one can argue that point.  Ask any teacher who these days has to try to identify real product from cut and paste Wikipedia material in essays and projects!  But come on, beyond that initial regurgitation of "facts" it's easy for most of us to tell whether someone actually knows what they are talking about or not... it's not the spouting or piecing together of facts, but their interpretation and extrapolation.  Otherwise, in this age of Google, we'd find ourselves in a world where everyone sounds like an encyclopedia-brained genius.  And I can assure you, where I come from, that is certainly most not the case... indeed, with Facebook and Twitter on the rise, stupidity seems to be the only growth industry sometimes.

The knowledge a person may have at their fingertips is unrelated to their ability to use that knowledge. That does not provide escape from the fact that all this knowledge is now available at the entry of a few key-strokes into a search engine.

And a person's ability to use this knowledge to project a coherent argument is also unrelated to understanding the context of that knowledge.

It is a mistake to laud someone simply for relating a few items of fact. Laud them instead when they encapsulate those facts into a context that makes sense, and fits with related facts.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I have a new pyramid theory ... they,re built by time-travelling humans  from the future. They know the pyramids last forever, so built them and inscribed their stories and their time travel tecniques upob the outer casings.

[Alcibiades9]

kmt_sesh, on 12 June 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

You folks have an awfully strange idea about peer-review. Or maybe you've had personally awful experiences with peer-review. But the truth remains, without peer-review we all would be in terrible shape.

I'm not saying peer-review is perfect, but from my own experience (in historical research) it is absolutely critical.

kmt_sesh, on 12 June 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Earlier Alcibiades9 was talking about the benefit of going to Egypt. I have never been able to, as much as I wish I could. However, a balance must be struck in the simple fact that going to Egypt doesn't really mean anything. How many tens of thousands of tourists go to Egypt every year? Does touching the Great Pyramid or gazing at the Sphinx or walking the halls of Karnak somehow imbue you with knowledge? Of course not. What matters is not so much where you've been but what and how you've studied. In fact, it matters a hell of a lot more. Very few of us here are actually experts in historical research. This includes me. This includes Scott.

Squeezing yourself into Khufu's sarcophagus is not training. It's a tourist's lark. I've taken plenty of training and have to value that more.

But I admit, given the chance, I'd squeeze myself into Khufu's sarcophagus, too.

To be fair, you are absolutely right on both points.

Firstly though, I didn't say that peer review was unnecessary at all - you are correct in that is critical, but for a variety of reasons that have perhaps more to do with climbing the greasy pole than with any purist, collective search for the truth or maintenance of standards.  All fields are different, I know, but it's extremely difficult not to be deeply cynical about the process sometimes when you are clearly aware of the rivalry, politics (and from my experience) the financial gameplay involved... especially when you are green behind the gills and what you thought would be a "noble" process ends up as something rather grubby, and little more as a rushed attempt to publicly "timestamp" your work.  Anyway, I admit fully that I am in no position to make a judgement on Egyptology and I am pleased to hear that your experience has been somewhat more positive.

Secondly, yes, actually visiting Giza does not automatically endow anyone with any special expertise on the subject, and I didn't intend to crow about it in quite the way it came across.  You are spot on about the tourists... I am constantly amazed at people who have been to extraordinary places but who come away from the experience with nothing more than tales of how expensive a can of Coca Cola was there, or how they met another couple who lived in the next street in their home town etc.  Staggering.  Whether it's visiting Giza or queueing up with another 150 people to climb Everest that day, they seem to absorb nothing of any value.

But I will say, for me, that visiting Giza was a revelation that I am glad I personally experienced, because it was not one of mind-blowing proportions, it was about finally getting a real feeling for the place.  The extraordinary vastness of the scale was unexpectedly countered by a weird sense of mundanity, a reassuring lack of anything which spoke of "aliens" or any nonsense along those lines.  No spookiness, no special "energies" channelling down through any structure, no magic, no power, no otherworldliness at all.  Just an overriding impression of peculiar ancientness and a shocking testament to the capacities of human labour and ingenuity.  It was quite a feeling, and it stays with me, and I never quite got it from books and TV or film before that point.  That feeling still informs me, which is why I put value on having been there, and why I remain stubbornly interested in these particular structures.

[Alcibiades9]

Abramelin, on 13 June 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

Yeah, and I don't need some gay helmet, heh.

Is my helmet gay?  Can an inanimate object be gay?

I thought it was rather fetching, so I'm going to keep it.  Providing it doesn't go running off with John Travolta you'll just have to get used to it....

[questionmark]

In any case, now that we have shown that we "poodles" are perfectly capable of lifting our leg and pee against somebody's leg we might as well get back to the theme.

My problem with 10 500 BC is that there is no trace of any type of population near Giza, there are no trash pits, there is no litter and there is no construction that we can securely date at that time. But there are certainly trash pits and construction and other evidence of human activity that can be dated around 2500 BC by more than one dating method and by historical record.

Now, there could be the remote possibility that the Sphinx was built by some kind of super humans who did not litter, produced no trash and did not have to use a toilet... but that seems to be very unlikely.

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 13 June 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

KMT: I'm going to take a different track going forward to save time for both of us. I'll merely ignore those portions of your post that are either not pertinent to the discussion or are based on or composed of polemics, evasions, ridicules, and ad hominems.

SC: Like I told you before – don’t put out what you can't take back.

KMT: This will usually include those instances where you claim I or another orthodox poster needs to "prove" orthodox research to be correct, which is an area you still don't seem to understand (or don't want to deal with).

SC: Sorry but you don’t shake me off that easily. Did you see that little evasive shimmy there, folks – the Egypt-apologists now do not need to prove their theory.  Have you ever heard anything so utterly ridiculous? They expect us to accept their tomb claim on what exactly – Scotch Mist?  Sorry KMT but that is NOT how science works. That is NOT how to win minds.

You claim here post #249:

Quote

KMT: ”… The main pyramid—the biggest one in the complex—was for the actual burial and the interment of the king's body…

And then you say here post #275:

Quote

KMT: ”… The pyramid as tomb is not an opinion…”

SC: The above implies that the pyramid as tomb is fact.

Okay – so present to this Board the evidence that conclusively proves the early, giant pyramids were conceived and constructed as tombs for AE kings of the period. Then and only then will we take this discussion further, including but not limited to, your complete amateurish ramblings of Gardiner's Aa1 glyph.

Put up or shut up.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 13 June 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[the L]

Harte, on 13 June 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

That's true, Abe.  For example:

The L,

Your statement above is simply not the case, as you should well know given the  "Ring of Fire" eclipse publicized last month:




Not saying you are lying.  I'm saying you've bought someone else's lie.

Harte

Or you.
I always thought that you are well informed. Obviously you are not.

thewatchman7, on 13 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

this is exactly what i was thinking, i simply couldnt be bothered with the arguement and being told im wrong about simple observable things.

I dont bother too  to argue when Im not sure. Yes its very obervable thing so I wonder where that puts you and Harte.



________________________________________

Here is to you both. Learn. Its called TOTAL sun eclipse.

[Alcibiades9]

Scott Creighton, on 13 June 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

the evidence that conclusively proves the early, giant pyramids were conceived and constructed as tombs for AE kings of the period.

SC

Scott, have you factored in the outer casing stones?  These were reported by Heredotus and then later by Roman and Arab writers to be adorned with hieroglyphics... but shaken off round about 900AD (?) in a massive earthquake and carted off by the Arabs to build what we now call Cairo.

I, like you, am aware that the Great Pyramid has no writing on it or in it other than that "discovered" by Howard-Vyse (in a place they would never normally have been seen), but I've always wondered... could there possibly be huge, polished granite stones forming the foundation of some 1100 year old Cairo mosque upon which is written "THIS IS THE TOMB OF KHUFU"?  Have you thought about that?

Edited by Alcibiades9, 13 June 2012 - 09:20 PM.