> If you are going to attempt to beat me over the
> head with my own words, you better make sure they
> are my words
> as my signature says..."only editors read between the lines"
> Stop being so damn dishonest In your posting
> If you attempt to understand Giza out of context,
> nonsense ensues. The evidence for that is all
> around us.
I would submit to you the real possibility that the "context" of which you speak has absolutely nothing to do with the original construction of those pyramids. I challenge you to present evidence that precludes that possibility. In my opinion of the evidence, to invoke such a contextual argument as a way to explain the creation of those pyramids is speculation, and that allows other possibilities to be considered.
> When you state authoritatively that the AE could
> NOT have built the yramids you are spreading
Stop right there.
First, where have I stated anything "authoritatively"? I have never tried to convince anyone of anything. I've only endeavored to render my opinion and I typically state that it's my opinion right on the post. I never claim any authority, tout any credential, or resort to personal insults just because others disagree with me.
You, on the other hand, seem to attempt to assert yourself rather authoritatively about such things as the ability of the 3rd millennium Egyptians to determine the cardinal points, and yet you've deflected from repeated requests to describe the details of the "any number of methods they could have used" to achieve that. You also expressed authority claiming that we should actually try to learn about those people before asking questions about their ability, and yet I was the one attempting to learn about them by asking you what method they might have used, while you, on the other hand, apparently have no interest in how they actually did it, apparently simply due to the confidence in your trust that they surely must have known how to do it.
Second, I never said "the AE could not have built" the pyramids. I said the evidence that they did build them was scant, and that allows other possibilities to warrant consideration.
Third, since I haven't done either of the above, where is the "disinformation"?
In a single sentence that's three things you got wrong about what I said.
So you might want to take greater care when admonishing others about making sure they quote people correctly.
> > >...
> > > > No data or testing is required for "faith".
> > > > Christian traditionalists had "faith" that the
> > > > earth was only 6000 years old. Not such as
> > > > prevalent notion as it was many years ago.
> > >
> > > So it's okay for the Christians to believe or to
> > > have believed that the world was only 6000 old.
> > > But it's not okay for the AE's to believe that
> > > their King ensure that the sun would come up and
> > > the river would rise?
> > I never said that, and I have no idea where you
> > got that. I never disputed the notion that the
> > Dynastics were extremely invested in their
> > funerary context and knew about the solar and
> > inundation cycles. But I don't see how that
> > requires them to know about "cardinal points" at
> > all, let alone know how to measure them so
> > precisely. Especially when Dash acknowledged there
> > is virtually no evidence of the method used by 3rd
> > millennium BC Egypt for doing so. For all we know,
> > the pyramids may already have existed in Dynastic
> > times and gave those people a front row seat to
> > view the sunrise every day.
> So you admit to not understanding them yet still
> insist that you do?
Well, so far, based on the what we've both posted in this discussion, you've presented relatively little information about that culture other than to voice your opinion that they had this or that capability without providing any evidence to back up those opinions. Your own comments in this discussion do not reflect that you have much understanding about when or by whom those pyramids were built, let alone why and how they did it. So don't be too hasty to accuse others of lacking an understanding of the main issue in this OP. You openly implied you aren't interested in how they did what we see there.
> To do great things requires circumstance
> inspiration and organisation. The people who
> built the pyramids were obviously benefit of all three.
I'm not as sure about "inspiration" as much as I am about "motivation". Inspiration is one way to motivate, but so is the basic need to survive. Maslow's need theory comes to mind as a source of great "motivation".
> I conclude that they had the wherewithal to
> understand and calculate the cardinal point
> I conclude that they were not necessarily aware
> the earth is a ball.(anticipating your response)
I think that's part of what I agreed to disagree with you on.
> Their primary focus was the sun
> Nothing revolutionary there, it's a constant
> throughout the ancient world
> I'm actually shocked that you believe our
> ancestors were incapable of finding the cardinal
Once again you misquoted me. I never said they were incapable of any such thing. I said there was no evidence that they were and therefore other possibilities warrant consideration. You invented the notion that I denied they were capable of that, and then you take umbrage against me for your own contrivance? And you want to report me to the moderators?
> The trust and faith relate to the dedication of
> the builders, not my conclusions
The "builders" of the megalithic pyramids is a separate topic from "3rd millennium BC Egyptians" as far as I'm concerned. Until there is evidence that clearly shows they are contemporaneous, I will continue to treat them as separate concerns.
> > Warwick, respectfully, with all your comments
> > avoiding facts and actual knowledge of the
> > engineering prowess of the ancients, with all the
> > "faith" and "trust" you put in your fellow man,
> > with your deflection from the challenge to explain
> > even your simple claim that they knew how to find
> > "North", you seem to be hiding what sounds like a
> > "religious" perspective behind the guise of
> > "anthropology". I took Anthropology in college,
> > I've met several anthropologists, and I've never
> > gotten the impression that anthropology isn't
> > interested in how different cultures managed to
> > achieve what's been attributed to them, whether
> > it's an arrowhead, a stone vase, or a pyramid.
> EXCUSE ME???
> Religious perspective???
> I study the art and culture of Elemental Belief systems
> I study the part that beliefs play in a given society.
> I personally have no beliefs
> I am not hiding behind anything Pal
> You have seen the cultural in front of the
> anthropology, when I cite haven't you?
> Surely if you studied Anthropology you're aware of
> the specifity of Cultural Anthropology??
> yet you choose to accuse me of letting my personal
> beliefs dictate my conclusions???
But don't you see that you are indeed the one who openly admitted that your "trust" is what gives you confidence that they were capable of doing those things. From my perspective, you seem to be infusing your own belief system into your study of belief systems by applying your personal disposition when deriving conclusions about that culture in lieu of any physical evidence. I have no problem with that as long as you acknowledge it. If you truly are objective in studying culture, then what is the basis of this "trust" that you imbue into the notion that the 3rd millennium BC had the wherewithal to do those things? Sorry, but I just don't understand your perspective.
> I think you've final p[rooven to me that you are full of it.
And so even though I haven't personally attacked you in any prior post despite your hostile replies to me, and although I'm simply trying to understand how you've come to your conclusions about that culture, you feel compelled to drag this discussion into the swamp. The posts here are the physical evidence of it. No speculation or trust need be invoked.
> I will exchange no more posts with you.
> I will answer no more of your questions
> For someone who bemoans being "attacked" all the
> time, you sure know how to be scandalously insulting
I'd like to hear a single thing I've said to you that you consider scandalously insulting. Even my comment about a religious perspective was presented as "respectfully" and "seems to". I don't consider it insulting to assert that someone seems to be exhibiting a religious disposition. And by using the word "guise" I do not mean it to be derogatory since I would assume it would not be intentional. Sorry if you take any of that as an insult. But I have only treated you with utmost respect in all my other comments up to this point despite your own harsh comments which I've summarize in an earlier post.
> Take notice that I will not tolerate you
> misquoting myself in the future. all such
> instances will be reported to the moderators.
If misquoting others was a violation of the code of conduct here, plenty of others here would have been ejected long before me.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07-Feb-17 21:00 by Origyptian.