> rather than actually responding substantively (
> which Martin has demonstrated in his reply) you
> repeat your opinion that the evidence against the
> AE's NOT having built the Pyramids is 'DAMNING'.
> you go from there to asking where the hostility
> comes from?
Calling evidence damning is not the same as personally insulting someone, and for you to draw such a false analogy only further reveals the lack of evidence supporting your own convictions. Instead of criticizing those of us who acknowledge all the uncertainties that clearly surround much of the ancient evidence, I suggest you try a little introspection to determine how much evidence you honestly believe shows anything with certainty regarding the provenance of those megalithic monuments.
Those who believe that their convictions are sufficiently "substantiated" by virtue of their own subjective interpretation of the evidence are in no position of strength to demand certainties from anyone else who disagrees with those convictions.
If you take the time to track back in this discussion to see what has been said before, you will see that I've swallowed plenty of hostility, including personal and professional insults, before I posted my comment about 'damning' evidence, and yet I still did not personally attack anyone.
And so if you read the posts in temporal sequence, at one point I inferred from your comment that you believed the 3rd millenium BC Egyptians were able to determine the cardinal points with the accuracy we see in the ruins today, and so I simply asked how you thought the 3rd millennium BC was able to determine those cardinal points. Your answer? "It's called a right angle". OK, I thought that was a wise guy answer, but I let it slide. I replied with a respectful clarification of my question and I asked if you could be more specific about their method for doing that. Then you replied to MJT that you didn't know what I think G1 may originally have been, and so I reminded you that you still hadn't revealed how you thought the builders could do a "simple extrapolation", i.e., the 'method' used to form G1's perimeter from that basic right angle. You retorted with "draw the east west line in the sand; draw an intersecting line at a right angle", which I again considered to be deflection from what obviously is a technical question that warranted more than simplistic hand waving. And so once again I respectfully asked you how they were able to determine what a "right angle" is and how they knew it would be pointing "North". Again you replied with "they built rectangular buildings; they surveyed rectangular fields; if you do not understand how one extrapolates all the points from one...then I cannot help you" which led me to infer that you don't know how it was done. I replied that I never said I didn't know how to do it, I simply asked how you think they did it. Then you posted to MJT about me where you stated "TTBOMK he believes that the only thing we know about the ancient world is that the ancient world didn't know how to achieve anything. We came down from the trees, were handed cell phones, and logged on to Facebook. Can I have fries with that?" I took that as hostile sarcasm since it is derogatory toward my comments and clearly does not at all reflect what I've posted. But I also let that slide as well, and rather persisted that if you don't know if they understood that the Earth was a sphere, then how would they know about the methods Dash proposed since such a curved profile left by the pole's shadow is based on the spherical shape of the earth. I also corrected your comment to Jon that "you guys can't seem to stick to the topic of a given thread" and pointed out that what I've posted was intimately related to main thrust of the OP (I was surprised you made that comment). Then you explain that you never said they used the method described by Dash. You said "once you have a cardinal point you can extrapolate them all" which still didn't explain the actual method they used in making that assessment. You said that "...there are any number of possible methods that they could have used", and yet still didn't explain how they knew "the path of the sun" could be used to determine the east-west line from the curved shadow profile using any of those alleged methods. You then accused me of deflection/obfuscation when clearly you deflected several times from the challenge to explain the method which you believed was available to 3rd millennium BC Egyptians. Meanwhile, when I posted that I inferred from your previous comments that you seem to not know what specific method they used, you told me that I "demonstrated that you do not care to learn about these people" which I thought was a curious thing to say since my line of persistent questioning was indeed an attempt to learn what methods those people used! And yet you retorted with "they didn't write about wiping their butts either. But I'm betting they did." How on earth is that an appropriate reply to my simple question about the method they used to determine North, to create a large and accurate foundation line, and create all that work. If you think my questions don't reflect intense interest to "learn about these people", and you think your hand waving of my questions is your way of showing your own interest in learning about those people, I prefer my own investigational methods, if you don't mind.
> The only things you attempt to share an opinion
> about are those you apparently know the least about.
All I care say to that is that you repeatedly posted your opinion that 3rd millennium BC Egypt knew how to find the cardinal points and yet you seem to know nothing about the method they used.
> You have demonstrated over and over and over again
> that your knowledge of the Old Kingdom of Egypt
> and of Dynastic Egypt in general, and of
> Anthropology is nowhere near where it should be
> before one starts spouting endless Absolutes.
What "absolutes" have I spouted? I've said that I am aware of no eyewitness accounts of the construction of any pyramid among what was arguably millions of people who would have seen that taking place during those centuries in the 3rd millennium BC, and that there seems to be no record of any tools and methods used to construct any pyramid. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07-Feb-17 15:29 by Origyptian.