> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > Hallelujah!!
> > Precisely.. Because you know it's a castle!
> No.... If I knew nothing about them I would study
> them all to develop context. If am an
> archaeologist 5,000yrs in the future I can study
> all of these "mysterious structures" to work out
> similarities of architecture and catalog artifacts
> that can infer possible if not actual functions,
> or at the very least, what their functions were
> not. I do not need to "know" they are "castles" to
> figure out what were rooms which depending on
> their size imply possible function, what were
> hearths, ramparts, moats, ect of which associated
> artifacts are part and parcel of this process.
> While this may not tell us "exactly" what they
> were it is silly to suggest we could not garner at
> least "some idea". I can also look at succeeding
> layers of occupation, or other neighboring
> cultures or even around the world, and compare
> this context to what followed which may, and often
> does, give further clues as to what these were.
> This should be common sense at this point.
> > A knowledge based upon historical record.
> This knowledge was derived at by accumulating
> context, not just of the time but human history.
> > In this
> > case the easily accessible internet and google.
> Lol. Believe it or not, we, some of us at least,
> knew what these were long before the internet and
> Google and even if we did not know what they were
> we can infer if not prove much about them from
> what remains and the legacy they left in the
> cultures that followed. Surely you can understand
> this on some level.
> > No historical record equals no knowledge of
> > historical record.
> Not true. Again, context creates the historical
> record particularly the farther you go back in
> time. As has been said many times, this is how
> history works. Its not perfect, but this notion
> that anything prior to AD times is "unknowable" is
> just plain ignorant on several levels. Just
> because some things cannot be readily explained
> doesn't mean therefore none if it can.
> > No knowledge of historical record equals no
> > of reference.
> Again, not true. The "historical record" is
> relative to the completeness of the context which
> unfortunately, here, is often more predicated on
> one's ignorance of the subject than reality.
> > No frame of reference equals no absolute
> > identification.
> Who's "no frame of reference"? Yours? Speak for
> Again, no. Its all relative and the frame of
> reference is gathered through discovery. Again,
> this should be common sense by now.
> > Answer me this. Why would anyone in the absence
> > verifiable historic records assume that the
> > pyramid of Giza had any religious or spiritual
> > significance?
> Case in point.
> Who said there were no "verifiable historic
> records"? What is it do you think the AE wrote all
> over their cemetery walls? The cemetery itself
> isn't a "verifiable historic record"? What is the
> PT? The Book of the Dead? The Coffin Texts?
> 3,000yrs of AE writing, architecture, and culture
> does not count as a "verifiable historic record"?
> You are woefully uninformed.
> And did it not occur to you that despite this
> absence of "verifiable historic records" this is
> exactly the significance it had to the AE
> themselves? Why did they think of it this
> way? Apparently you do not understand somehow that
> antiquarians didn't just stumble upon the pyramids
> one day and make all this stuff up. The PT, for
> example, was actually written inside of
> pyramids you know:
> According to the AE, the pyramids, at least in the
> time of Unas and after, were resurrection machines
> and served as the engine for the pharaohs cycle of
> death and rebirth which in general was the
> foundation of their belief system for thousands of
> years. We impose this as "religion", and in the
> true sense of the word it was, but to them this
> was the reality of the physical world and the
> afterlife beyond just "faith", and was an integral
> component of the natural laws of the universe.
> Before some of your fingers start blindly clacking
> away to naysay without reading the rest of what is
> said, regardless of whether the great pyramids
> were built as "tombs" or not, there is no
> doubt the AE were convinced the purpose of these
> pyramids were connected to the afterlife and to
> facilitate resurrection. No antiquarians required.
> A better question to ask- if the great pyramids
> (or their core structures) were in fact there
> prior to the OK-what was it about them that made
> them come to this belief? They would have went
> inside and seen something that had a profound
> effect on them that radically changed their
> outlook on the natural world prompting them to
> believe that this thing was a "machine" that could
> facilitate resurrection and their passage through
> the afterlife. Wonder what it was.
> Or, to consider they built them within the
> Dynastic period-what the hell made them think
> building these things would work? For the
> pharoah-a living god who obviously the people knew
> was just a man. Yet despite the fact they kept
> getting robbed within decades after completion
> they just kept doing the same dumb thing over and
> over again for hundreds of years? Doesn't make
> much sense, does it?
> > Could it be that the ONLY frame of reference
> > available to them at the time was religious and
> > spiritual?
> > The very same culture that identified fossils
> > millions of year old extinct species as victims
> > the great flood.
> > The only frame of reference they had was
> > and the bible, so why not?
> Lol. Uhh....no. See above. And do you think the
> Bible was also Herodotus's, or any of the other
> Greek writers, "frame of reference"? Or how about
> the AE they got this information from? This may be
> your frame of reference, or antiquarian's
> frame of reference, but it wasn't the ancient's
> frame of reference who for thousands of years,
> right or wrong, also thought they served a
> funerary function. Again, antiquarians not need
> With that all being said, comparing pyramids to
> "castles" or a "castle" to a "power plant" is a
> pointless logic path. While ancient pyrmaids are
> found all over the world, which has implications
> of its own, the pyramids of Egypt are unique unto
> themselves and require their own explanation.
> Further still, G1 is unique among all of them in
> some fundamental ways which only further sets it
> apart. This is the context which they