> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Besides, who's to say the correlation with Thuban
> > was 3000 BC vs. 29,000 BC or any other prior
> > 26,000 year precessional period?
> To be fair, I am sure you understand exactly why.
> The Thuban correlation does not exist in a vacuum
> and is supported by a preponderance of the
> evidence which points directly to the greater
> Dynastic period. We get it, you don't agree with
> this, but part of what makes these conversations
> move forward, often lacking, is that to explore
> these ideas we must be able to agree if only for
> arguments sake on a set of parameters to work
> within. If we figure out what this means within
> the Dynastic period then you can extrapolate that
> to your own beliefs, but we have to agree to start
I'm well aware of that, Thanos, and I do often participate in that spirit within these discussions. I might not agree with Steve Clayton on the date G1 was constructed, but I contribute to his effort in developing his funicular transport model nevertheless. I might not agree with the geometric system pursued by DUNE, drew, et al., but I'll contribute to the model if something occurs to me nevertheless. LIkewise, I might not subscribe to the star alignment model, but I still contributed my own calculation which fell in line with Proctor's model nevertheless. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I disregard all evidence that address it. There are many possibilities and, contrary to some people's allegations, I am not nearly as willing to write off other possibilities as eagerly as others are in these discussions.
> > In any case, it's refreshing to see the discussion
> > going in the direction that brings the initial
> > construction of the pyramids many generations,
> > centuries, or even millennia, farther back in time
> > than the traditionalists would have us believe.
> > Whether it's a couple hundred years earlier or
> > more, I consider it a breakthrough to see such a
> > broad acceptance of at least the
> > possibility that the timeline might
> > be significantly askew.
> I started that thread over 2yrs ago. Regardless,
> this is not a fair characterization as you are
> imposing the beliefs of the mainstream on the rest
> of us which if you have been listening to what we
> say most of us are open to this possibility if not
> argue directly for it.
How did I impose mainstream beliefs on "the rest of" you with that comment? There certainly are timeline mainstreamers participating in this discussion, and so I simply said it was refreshing to see the direction the discussion was going.
> If anything it is refreshing that you finally acknowledge this.
> While many of us follow a reasonable evidence
> based approach to history, there are far fewer
> "traditionalists" here than you think despite the
> fact we do not agree with some of the more extreme
My use of "traditionalist" is situational depending on the topic at hand. For example, if you think G1 was built in 12,000BC with the help of huge construction ramps, then while you might be a pyramid progressive, you're still a ramp traditionalist.
> This is why I said to you long ago that the RCD
> studies should be embraced as exhibit A as
> evidence the timeline is wrong and despite the
> fact you may disagree with it because you want
> them to be even older, the tack you should be
> taking is that this is evidence of the fact they
> are at least that much older. Sorry, but I
> really think you are missing the boat on this one.
I don't "want" RCD studies to show older dates, I want them to show accurate dates. So far, I'm not convinced they are accurate, and I base that on what I detect as methodological flaws in those studies. And the nature of the flaws are such that the resulting data implies that the construction is actually far older. It's not what I "want", it's what the studies show.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 23-Feb-17 21:31 by Origyptian.