> Again, what evidence can you offer of the
> culture itself the AE adopted them from
> beyond just the monuments themselves?
Are you suggesting that those monuments do not represent an enormous amount of evidence of the capabilities of the culture that built them? First of all, I never said the Dynastics adopted those monuments, I said they adapted those monuments. Second, what other evidence do you expect?
> You deny the
> AE ability to craft hard stone, what I am getting
> at is according to you something like this would
> have to be evidence of one of the many cultures
> you envision occupied AE prior to the Dynastic
How many times will traditionalists try to use that stone as evidence of provenance of such stonework in the 3rd millennium BC? I've already mentioned many times that in my opinion, anyone with at least one functioning eye can see the vastly different craftsmanship that went into those chicken scratched graffiti glyphs on the base compared to the magnificent skill that went into the figures themselves. It's this circular reptition of the same point that makes me avoid addressing your points all over again, year after year. At this point it's better if we simply agree to disagree than waste more bandwidth covering the same debate, discussion after discussion.
> You believe this statue is tens of thousands of
> years old and from the LC and the writing was
> scrawled on there by AE squatters, right? I just
> want to be clear.
Not "is", but rather "could just as well be". Otherwise, yes, "clear".
> And according to you this early Dynastic stone
> vase, for example:
> Is tens of thousands if not millions of years old
> belonging to the LC, but these copper OK replicas,
> this metallurgy, was made by the AE because as you
> and others have made clear any non-stone objects
> would be gone by the Dynastic period because they
> are so old:
Not just any "stone", mainly those which for which no tools or methods have been identified for 3rd millennium Egypt. And those tens of thousands of stone vessels discovered in the basement of Step Pyramid add an interesting ingredient to further amplify that mystery. But that's a sidebar which I'm not focusing on. I'm focusing on the pyramids.
> I just want to be clear because the only cultural
> artifacts you offer are the great pyramids and
> associated megalithic temples, but if the AE could
> not construct with stone, having inherited it all
> from the LC, then by your definition all of the
> statues, i.e. people depicted, are in fact
> evidence of this culture representing the very
> faces of the LC tens of thousands if not millions
> of years ago.
Where is the evidence that such achievements were possible in 3rd millennium BC Egypt? Any artifacts of such tools? Any inscriptions describing or depicting such tools? Do the tombs of any architects, designers, builders, gang superivisors, etc. bring any of them to the afterlife? I'm certainly not the only one who's noticed that there indeed is a body of tools and documentation remaining behind from that era, but virtually nothing at all that speaks to their ability to achieve much of that stonework. Ther are far too many enigmas to ignore the disconnect.
> And what of Saqqara? By your definition the AE
> could not have made this as well which if so there
> is much culture to be had there. A few examples:
> Why was the cobra so important to the LC?
> Or, these bundled reed faux columns:
> Or the curious layout of the faux temples of a
> style, palace facade, that just so happened to
> have been emulated by the Mesopotamians nearly two
> thousand years before:
> Inside the stepped pyramid we find even more
> evidence of LC culture including apparently writing:
> This is culture. These things mean something,
> which according to you, by definition they must
> all belong to the LC in which you have taken it
> one step further to include that the AE were so
> primitive they could not even understand the
> pyramids were man-made until the Greeks told them.
> If they could not understand something was
> artificial then surely they could not make
> artificial things themselves let alone repair
> existing ones. To them, according to you, it was
> all just nature.
I don't understand your logic there. Why wouldn't they be able to add a block of stone where one is damaged or decayed in order to attempt to preserve the original condition? Especialily if they adapted those monuments into an expression of their own funerary context.
> So much LC culture around all set in glorious
> stone yet when asked to provide evidence of the LC
> culture all you can ever offer are the great
> pyramids, any large block, and their megalithic
> temples. Why is that? But if the LC were not
> responsible for these things then what does this
> say of the ability of the AE? Where are the tools
> used and detailed schematics to build this:
> And carve and write this:
> Why did they not tell us how they did these things
> on their tomb walls and bury themselves with all
> the tools? Which if they are not there then this
> means they were made tens of thousands if not
> millions of years ago by an LC? My question to you
> doctor, is where does the LC end and the AE begin?
I tell you what, give me a few thousand investigators for a few centuries, just like orthodoxy has had. Then we'll see whether it's possible to arrive at a more realistic narrative than what orthodoxy has been able to concoct with a similarly immense effort.
> Are we looking at the faces of the LC themselves,
> artifacts made tens of thousands if not millions
> of years ago by possibly a non-human species or
> different species of human:
> Sure look human to me.
> To continue:
> "2. The Megalith culture with its engineering
> and technology that preceeded the Dynastics far
> enough back in time to allow for technological
> So despite the fact you cannot offer any direct
> evidence of this culture's existence beyond a
> complete lack of evidence, you cite this otherwise
> non-existent culture as evidence in and of itself?
> This makes sense.
That's your characterization, not mine. In my opinion, the amount of evidence in stonework that's left behind by that more ancient culture is far more abundant than the evidence left behind by the Dynastics. This is why it's that much more of an enigma that we don't see any evidence of the tools and methods in the body of evidence left behind by the dynastics. The thing that they are arguably the most known for -- the highest volume contribution they've allegedly left behind as their legacy: the stonework itself -- ironically is virtually non-evidenced in the tools and methods that have been attributed to that era. That you don't consider that stonework to be that telling is your own opinion. I'm not arguing with your opinion, so why do you continue to argue with me about mine to the point of rekindling the same points over and over again?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Apr-17 20:10 by Origyptian.