The Giants of ancient egypt are fact

[Harsh86_Patel]

No worries about that. Dutch research about two years ago show the Mayan calendar actually ends in 2220 so they won't need a replacement calendar for another 208 years

Oh how sad i was hoping that if 'Armageddon' is to happen it should happen during my life time so i could see it myself.I was getting all geared up preparing my nuclear bunker on top of mount Everest.I had also prebooked two strippers of every known natural hair color,to preserve life as we know it ofcourse.

[cormac mac airt]

OK, well he must have been blind or something, dunno and I don't care. I'm not interested in debating what Herodotus said, considering he places them in the Iron age, I'd say glasses are the least of the issues within his descriptions, I'm interested in kmt reciting the information correctly next time of what Herodotus wrote.

And here I thought you were the poster child for "Herodotus is always right". Glad to see you finally admit he's not.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

And here I thought you were the poster child for "Herodotus is always right". Glad to see you finally admit he's not.

cormac

Well, you can only flog a dead horse so much...

Now I just like to make sure he's quoted right at least.

What I find most interesting is most of his info, I said most, not all, is given to him by priests, so it doesn't surprise me what Solon might have been told, that was not true information, that was passed on as true, which gives me more room to move flogging my other horse.

[kmt_sesh]

You just don't get it, do you? It's almost impossible to disagree with you in any real sense on any issue because you take it ALL personally. You turn ALL criticism or disagreement into a personal attack on you, and you always over-react accordingly... on an emotional rather than intellectual level. You have installed yourself here like some fussy old boiler hen, clucking and fussing, and ruling the roost in orthodox Egyptology, getting your way, being deferred to. That's what Post 93 was about - it wasn't a direct assault on your admirable and undeniable enthusiasm for mainstream Egyptology as such. But typically, when challenged, you squawk and lay an egg and play the victim.

Unfortunately your instinctive passive agressive approach doesn't work on me. You know - the part where you throw in a snide personal insult in a post, then tell the other poster to "move on" and deal with the issues rather than trading personal insults. I actually don't think you know you are doing it, you've been getting away with it for so long on here.

Then when people like Cladking or Scott Creighton come along, meeting you point for point on a real, researched, sources based level, you simply cannot handle it and you either eventually run away or you start accusing people of stalking you and being "creepy". Then after saying something as personal as that, you whine and say people are getting personal with you. You can dish it out but you can't take it. But if you are going to publish your opinion on an open forum, you have to be prepared to have it challenged - just as I knew I would be after Post 93. I knew exactly who on this board would reply to me, what they would say, and how they would say it. And they did. And as much as I'm gratified that Scott C has posted to agree with me, it doesn't matter if he agrees or not. I've been reading these boards long enough to know what I think.

The fact that a few choice truths is enough for some of you to start squealing "troll!" just goes to show how set in your ways you all are, how smug and secure here. I actually find your own black and white, enemy or friend, approach to people on this board - labelling people as "fringe" (bad) or not fringe (good) - as rather underhand and quite offensive. But I don't think you are a troll. That's just the way you see people on here. That's fine. But you reap what you sow.

People like me who come to this forum not because we are "fringe" or otherwise, but because we simply have an open, enquiring mind aren't going to be told what to think by anyone, on either side. I'm not going to be browbeaten into saying or not saying something simply because there's a resident gang of 8 or so hardcore members on here whose responses are as predictable as they are condenscending. And I don't need a subject rated or measured by how much YOU or anyone else are going to be pulling your hair out about it. Read up on your Galileo - the world does not revolve around you. Now, to be fair, it wasn't you who made the hair-pulling point but Cormac.... but you were delighted to have been - yet again - referred to in that way and promptly came in to dispense your "wisdom".

I think you'll find a look through the Graham Hancock forum to be quite enlightening. No, don't worry, Graham Hancock is not usually there himself - he won't lure you into his gingerbread house and try to force you to believe that the Great Pyramid was built by giant time travelling smurfs. You will find, however, that ALL sides of a debate - from purest orthodoxy to the wildest fringe and us guys in the middle - are represented well, and often taken forward at the highest standards not just by guys like Cladking or Scott but by scientists, archeologists, geologists and others who are experts in their fields. No matter how much you think you know about a given subject, someone tends to come along whose dedication to it - and mastery of it - is humbling. But that's what a forum should be. Not only a place to speak, but a place to listen and a place in which to learn. Sparks fly, yes. There are disgreements, certainly. But the debates move forward, and no one has to stop and worry about who will be tearing their hair out.

So open the henhouse door a crack. Let some light in.

Let it go, Alcibiades9. I had typed out a longer response but came back to eliminate it (hence the Edit). I don't care to deal with the personal, emotional rants of other posters. If you have a beef with me, then feel free to PM me. Otherwise, stop trolling this discussion. Either join in with the subject matter or step aside. I rather doubt most of the other posters give a damn about your personal problems with me.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kmt_sesh

[cladking]

That doesn't speak well for his accuracy, as it's approximately 756 feet on a side and 481 feet tall. So he's off by 44 foot on a side and 319 feet in height. What a glaring mistake.

I suspect this might be misunderstanding and mistranslation. The sides are about

800' on two of their dimensions. And they certainly meet at the top.

The way meaning is expressed has changed and then started evolving.

The literal meaning of things said by Petrie or any modern day scientist is far more

absurd than what you believe Herodotus meant.

[kmt_sesh]

Call me Miss Picky but he actually says that about building the Great Causeway, not the pyramid...

124. Down to the time when Rhampsinitos was king, they told me there was in Egypt nothing but orderly rule, and Egypt prospered greatly; but after him Cheops became king over them and brought them¹⁰⁷ to every kind of evil: for he shut up all the temples, and having first kept them from sacrificing there, he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually. Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs¹⁰⁸ and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this, they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground chambers on the hill upon which the pyramids stand, which he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years; and the pyramid is square, each side measuring eight hundred feet, and the height of it is the same. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect

http://ebooks.adelai...e.html#chapter2

.

You're not being picky, you're showing attention to detail—a detail I had missed.

Thanks for the correction, Puzzler. I should have read the passage more carefully.

[kmt_sesh]

You might try dipping your sausage into the "Mysteries" section under the main Message Board from time to time. And why not join in the fray while your there? As long as you don't throw the "troll" word around too much you'll be fine.

Note to Editor: not that I'm trying to lure any of these fine people away from this forum, I'm not... .

I've thought about joining that forum but figured I'd be banned after the first couple of posts. I thought orthodox views were not welcome there. Perhaps I am wrong to think so.

[Oniomancer]

I've thought about joining that forum but figured I'd be banned after the first couple of posts. I thought orthodox views were not welcome there. Perhaps I am wrong to think so.

Oh no, That's where I saw chris dunn getting his butt kicked up and down by the guy from unforbidden geology.

[Alcibiades9]

Otherwise, stop trolling this discussion. Either join in with the subject matter or step aside.

There you go again...

"Trolling"?

Let me just repeat:

"You know - the part where you throw in a snide personal insult in a post, then tell the other poster to "move on" and deal with the issues rather than trading personal insults. I actually don't think you know you are doing it, you've been getting away with it for so long on here."

I don't mind you getting the last word in, which seems to be far more important to you than taking a discussion forward. I'm just grateful I don't have to actually see your little finger wagging at me as I read. You can be as snippy as you like, but you are going to have to learn that I will not be dismissed by you or anyone else on here. That's not your place. You seem to have forgotten that somewhere along the way.

If I want to be bossed about and nagged I'll let you know. But you'll have to get in line. Behind my ex wife.

As for your point about the Graham Hancock forum, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised (and certainly not banned). I'd say easily 60% of the most active contributors on there are firmly in the orthodox camp - and by that I mean while there are clearly many, many "alternative" contributors starting numerous threads about various weird and wonderful things (as on here) the vast majority who discuss anything in any great depth are very grounded, conservative, empirical thinkers that even you couldn't label as "fringe".

Edited September 26, 2012 by Alcibiades9

[The Puzzler]

You're not being picky, you're showing attention to detail—a detail I had missed.

Thanks for the correction, Puzzler. I should have read the passage more carefully.

Cool.

[Harte]

I know Marduk occasionally posts on Hancock's forum, and he lurks there often as well. For those of you who know what I'm talking about.

That may no longer be true, however. It's been some time since I visited the site. I don't care for the format is all.

Harte

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

There you go again...

"Trolling"?

Let me just repeat:

"You know - the part where you throw in a snide personal insult in a post, then tell the other poster to "move on" and deal with the issues rather than trading personal insults. I actually don't think you know you are doing it, you've been getting away with it for so long on here."

I don't mind you getting the last word in, which seems to be far more important to you than taking a discussion forward. I'm just grateful I don't have to actually see your little finger wagging at me as I read. You can be as snippy as you like, but you are going to have to learn that I will not be dismissed by you or anyone else on here. That's not your place. You seem to have forgotten that somewhere along the way.

If I want to be bossed about and nagged I'll let you know. But you'll have to get in line. Behind my ex wife.

As for your point about the Graham Hancock forum, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised (and certainly not banned). I'd say easily 60% of the most active contributors on there are firmly in the orthodox camp - and by that I mean while there are clearly many, many "alternative" contributors starting numerous threads about various weird and wonderful things (as on here) the vast majority who discuss anything in any great depth are very grounded, conservative, empirical thinkers that even you couldn't label as "fringe".

Think I'll give that one a miss....

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Think I'll give that one a miss....

Graham Hancock is a bit way out for me....

oops sorry meant to Edit but pressed the wrong button..

Edited September 26, 2012 by shaddow134

[kmt_sesh]

...

As for your point about the Graham Hancock forum, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised (and certainly not banned). I'd say easily 60% of the most active contributors on there are firmly in the orthodox camp - and by that I mean while there are clearly many, many "alternative" contributors starting numerous threads about various weird and wonderful things (as on here) the vast majority who discuss anything in any great depth are very grounded, conservative, empirical thinkers that even you couldn't label as "fringe".

I'll bypass the first part of the post because I think we've both wasted enough time on irrelevant negative posting. The last part is interesting, and useful to know. A recent poster at UM said he was banned very quickly because he wasn't towing the Graham Hancock line, so maybe it wasn't so much what he was posting as the attitude he may have been espousing. I've only perused topic headings and only rarely reviewed some of the discussions because I thought I wouldn't be welcome there, anyway.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

There are a couple of problems with your speculation Earl.Of.Trumps. First as a member of the genus Homo, Heidelbergensis is considered human, although obviously not a modern human (HSS). Second, there's this from a recent article:

http://www.scienceda...20606075323.htm

So apparently they weren't the giants they're being presented as.

cormac

Hi Cormac.

your #1: Yes, I was basically refering to any such giants resembling over-sized homo sapien sapien.

the poster pointed out to me that nobody tried to hide the discovery of the homo heidelbergensis, but I do not consider that species the "type" of giant they would want to hide (speculating, of course), but because the skeletons of other mythical giants are not in evidence, is it possible they are hidden, except for the potential oversight of the red-haired giants of Nevada?

your #2: "So apparently they weren't the giants they're being presented as."

this actually plays into my hands. If they cannot be classified as "giants" there would be no need to hide them, no?

And I hope you understand I surely speculate. I try to see things from the OP's PoV and there may be some things to consider.

For example, I find it totally baffling - as did the Ancient Alien people, that these skulls of the Red-haired giants of Nevada could just be lying there in a museum and go, otherwise, unknown.

BUT... it is surely speculation. Baffling.

and that is why I like coming in here :--)

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

You just don't get it, do you? It's almost impossible to disagree with you in any real sense on any issue because you take it ALL personally. You turn ALL criticism or disagreement into a personal attack on you, and you always over-react accordingly... on an emotional rather than intellectual level. You have installed yourself here like some fussy old boiler hen, clucking and fussing, and ruling the roost in orthodox Egyptology, getting your way, being deferred to.

SNIP

Yes, i know it's none of my business, but I can't resist barging in.

kmt_sesh is a great poster here and your attack on him is totally unwarrented.

please take your battle axe somewhere else.

respectfully, Earl of Trump

[Alcibiades9]

Yes, i know it's none of my business, but I can't resist barging in.

kmt_sesh is a great poster here and your attack on him is totally unwarrented.

please take your battle axe somewhere else.

respectfully, Earl of Trump

Please come barging in as much as you like, and make anything your business if you want to. That's what a forum is all about. Or at least should be... many of the lurkers who would love to join in but don't for fear of immediately being picked on by the usual suspects would no doubt agree with me on that point.

Sorry if I've got your dander up. I note what you have said and I appreciate the courteous way you said it. This place would be quite different if more people like yourself had a more prominant role. As for my "attack", well it's actually less on the person and more on the complacent environment which seems to have brought out the worst in some. And when the "battle" is the battle of ideas, I don't see any point in being timid.

So I won't be taking anything anywhere, thank you.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Oh no, That's where I saw chris dunn getting his butt kicked up and down by the guy from unforbidden geology.

Oniomancer, are you saying Chris Dunn posts here..? u'r kidding! he's awesome

[Welsh Shaun]

I havent posted regularly for a few years, but log in daily and read topics which interest me.

Ancient history and Alternative History I love................ but there are so many supposedly experts who think they know the exact facts.

How? these posters cannot be 100% sure what they have read and studied is fact or fiction, and everybody knows who they are and how infuriating their conceited personal views are.

I have my thoughts sure they are not facts as I cannot prove beyond doubt past histories but hypothersise what possibilities there are.

My thoughts may be viewed as fanciful to some and not fact, but they cannot be denied as unrealizable

I just wish some posters would open up a bit more to the possibilities that we just dont know the exact truth.

And stop knocking back the other 97% of posters.

God Im glad I got that of my chest after all these years.

[Oniomancer]

Oniomancer, are you saying Chris Dunn posts here..? u'r kidding! he's awesome

Not here that I know of, on Hancock's forum.

[kmt_sesh]

I havent posted regularly for a few years, but log in daily and read topics which interest me.

Ancient history and Alternative History I love................ but there are so many supposedly experts who think they know the exact facts.

How? these posters cannot be 100% sure what they have read and studied is fact or fiction, and everybody knows who they are and how infuriating their conceited personal views are.

I have my thoughts sure they are not facts as I cannot prove beyond doubt past histories but hypothersise what possibilities there are.

My thoughts may be viewed as fanciful to some and not fact, but they cannot be denied as unrealizable

I just wish some posters would open up a bit more to the possibilities that we just dont know the exact truth.

And stop knocking back the other 97% of posters.

God Im glad I got that of my chest after all these years.

I don't know why all of us "skeptics" are so vilified for presenting the orthodox view. It is, after all, rather vital to have both sides represented at UM.

While it's true that no one can be 100% sure of everything, it's a bit of a stretch to assume it's all right to plug any ol' thing into the blanks. Some things are hypothetical, some things are theoretical, and some things are facts. For example, how the Great Pyramid was built remains largely theoretical because no modern person was there to see the construction process and the Egyptians left no models or plans of how it was built (at least nothing of the sort has been found, to date). In the pages of this discussion egyptian lad has claimed the Egyptians did not mummify and the ancient bodies we see were preserved by natural means only, but of course egyptian lad is seriously in error—the weight of evidence confirms, beyond a doubt, that the Egyptians artificially mummified human bodies (as well as many millions of animals). This is a fact.

A hypothesis is somewhat looser, at least when used properly in scientific terms. (There seems to be a lot of confusion among laypeople about the correct usage of terms like theory and hypothesis.) A hypothesis is a posited explanation for something, but it has to be testable via the scientific method; that is, it is supported more through observation than through evidence available for a working theory. There's more leeway. So a fringe writer might suggest alien intervention is a hypothesis, or Atlanteans, or levitation as a means to build ancient monuments like the Great Pyramid—but strictly speaking these are not scientific hypotheses because they are not grounded in testable, workable facts.

So what of egyptian lad's contention that there were giants in ancient Egypt? It is not a fact and it is not theoretical, so under the model it might be called a hypothesis. But let's review some known facts:

• The tallest ancient Egyptian on record, of whom I'm aware, is an unidentified mummy known as Unknown Man E: in life he was around 5'9", which was impressively tall for the time but not of giant status.
  
• No "giant" human remains have ever been excavated from Egypt or elsewhere in the Middle East. The sum total of excavated bodies reveals that the average man was about 5'3" and the average woman about 4'10".
  
• Clever internet photos with "giant" skeletons Photoshopped into them do not constitute evidence.
  
• Physical descriptions of kings are uncommon, but where they exist, such texts emphasize notable things like physical beauty, muscularity, confidence, and martial prowess. None of these texts describe any king as literally a giant.
  
• The average entrances to tombs and houses show dimensions appropriate to an adult of average size in the Bronze Age; only the principal entrances to state structures like temples might contain enormous portals, but the doorways farther in do not. The enormous portals are not explained by a need to admit giants.
  
• In almost every decorated tomb, the tomb owner is shown larger than all other figures on the walls; on temple walls, kings are usually shown larger than accompanying human figures. This is explained through hierarchical scaling (a well understood culturo-artistic practice), not through giants.
  
• Enormous statues of kings are explained through the desire to make the king bigger than life, and hence something greater than common people. Noblemen did this, too. We have a lot of royal mummies, after all, and none of them are as large as the colossal statues that had been carved for them.
  
• There is no far-reaching, all-consuming, ongoing, nefarious conspiracy to hide "the truth" from us. Anyone who understands the real workings of academia and how it has been conducted for two centuries now, knows such a notion to be foolish and plainly unrealistic.
  

There are other examples I might cite, but this is adequate for the moment. The point is, there are perfectly logical and understandable explanations for all of the things egyptian lad has been misrepresenting. "Giants" in ancient Egypt are not a fact and are not theoretical and they are not even a working hypothesis.

I am sorry if you view this post as "conceited," Welsh Shaun. It's a simple review of some basic orthodox principles, so I cannot see how someone should choose to see it in a negative light merely because it represents the orthodox position.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Skepticism,I have it for breakfast everymorning,makes the world so normal ..

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I havent posted regularly for a few years, but log in daily and read topics which interest me.

Ancient history and Alternative History I love................ but there are so many supposedly experts who think they know the exact facts.

How? these posters cannot be 100% sure what they have read and studied is fact or fiction, and everybody knows who they are and how infuriating their conceited personal views are.

I have my thoughts sure they are not facts as I cannot prove beyond doubt past histories but hypothersise what possibilities there are.

My thoughts may be viewed as fanciful to some and not fact, but they cannot be denied as unrealizable

I just wish some posters would open up a bit more to the possibilities that we just dont know the exact truth.

And stop knocking back the other 97% of posters.

God Im glad I got that of my chest after all these years.

woopsie, clicked the wrong post

Edited September 27, 2012 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Not here that I know of, on Hancock's forum.

Thanks for that, man. I will consider going to Hancock's site.

I think Chris Dunn's work in Egypt was very very interesting.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

kmt_sesh, well done and well spoken.

I'm starting to get the scary feeling that there just weren't any giants in Egypt LOL