> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Alright already, some of us completely, neatly,
> > sincerely, and not just merely do believe that the
> > underlying megalithic foundation at the Baalbek
> > sanctuary truly does predate the Roman Empire.
> But why do "some of you" think this? What
> evidence can you present to support this claim?
> What-because you think the Romans were not
No, where did you get that idea?
From my perspective, the belief that the foundation at Baalbek was created much earlier than the Romans derives from the fact that:
- 1. No one has shown the Romans were capable of doing that kind of work, so why attribute it to them in the first place?
2. No one has identified any historic culture with the capability to do that kind of work.
> This may be good enough on a forum but
> not in the real world.
And what do you think is good enough in the real world, Thanos?
I'll tell you what seems to have been good enough for traditional Egyptologists for the past few centuries: they see some inscriptions, bones, and clothing, and come up with a story that they "think" fits the data (even though they are sorely lacking in the physical sciences), then claim that their thinking "could" be, "must" be, is "likely" or even "probably" correct (without stating whether that "probability" is based on more than a hunch), and then they take the giant leap in logic that just because no one else has suggested anything else to make them believe otherwise, they simply assume what they have proposed must surely be fact so that they can stack other "thinking" on top of that as more "facts". That's certainly not good enough for me.
> I am curious-in your field
> of scientific endeavor is it good enough that you
> just "completely, neatly, sincerely, and not just
> merely do believe" something to be true or do you
> actually have to prove it with actual evidence?
Of course, it must be proven to be true! That's why I don't believe the Romans built the sanctuary - it was never proven that they did! Same reason I don't believe the Gizamids were built in the 3rd millennium BC. What's your question?
> Why do you think history is any different?
Historic reporting has only a loose connection with reality. Is the Bible a "historic" account of real events? If not, why not? It's like claiming the stock market is tightly coupled with the economy - total nonsense. Steve Jobs dies, an oil sheik coughs, North Korea calls Trump "President Poopy Pants" and the stock market tanks. It has nothing to do with the economy. Ever hear of "fake news"? How much fake news do you think mades it into ancient documents? How much more do you suppose we have misinterpreted?
I view ancient historic reports in a similar light. What do the narratives of Herodotus or Pliny the Elder tell you about real historical facts? Do you think they really knew all that stuff to be fact, or might they just be pontificating from word of mouth and a position of elderly authority? What credit are you trying to imbue into historical reports from humans who bleed when they're cut, or humans who will be cut by the authorities unless they report this or that "history" according to the king's decree? Do you not believe that "history" is often simply the narrative of power and is often intended to be manipulative?
> > What's the point?
> Is not the point stated in the title of the thread?
Yes. And the title of the thread does not say "Attack anyone who disagree with Thanos".
> > Is it to try to convince people to believe it.
> Believe what-that the archeology says there is an
> older megalithic component to Baalbek that
> predates the Romans? And that textual references
> seem to support this conclusion?
Is it important to you that people believe that?
And is it important to you to be able to convince people to believe that?
> > Is it to ask for more evidence to support it.
> God forbid.
> > Or is it to criticize those who choose
> > to add sidebar threads that are cognate to the
> > discussion?
> How are the dimensions of the cedar forest or
> veracity of the tale germaine to the fact the
> ancient Babylonians believed the cedar forest of
> Lebanon to be the home of the gods containing the
> dwellings of the Annunaki at least by 1800BC?
Irrelevant deflection from my question.
> What does the legitimacy of Solomon have to do with the
> fact megalithic structures are reported presumably
> at Baalbek C. 500BC?
More deflection from my question.
> What does any of this have to
> do with the archeology that shows there to be an
> older megalithic component that predates the
What does any of that have to do with you going medieval on those who post that?
> This thread is nothing but a "sidebar",
> through no fault of my own,
I disagree. You simply asked a question that no one cared to answer. T'bird called you a yes-man (sycophant) and you went ballistic instead of just ignoring him, called him a dead idiot, etc. What?
Meanwhile, if no one has anything to offer that directly addresses the OP, are they not free to post any other point that's inspired by the ongoing discussion? What's the big deal?
> ..which most remain
> oblivious to what was actually said or the point
> of the OP.
How do you know they're oblivious? Are you inside their minds and know everything they're aware of. I totally understood your OP, I agreed with it the notion that the Romans didn't do that work, I know of no additional evidence. At this point I have sufficient evidence to believe the sanctuary is far far far older than the Roman Empire. I'm far more interested in what's under the surface of that amazing structure.
> And as far as who is "criticizing" who,
> from the get go there has been nothing but
> unwarranted negativity towards me just for even
> mentioning these things for reasons completely
> unrelated to the point of mentioning them in the
> first place. Yeesh.
And yet you can't just leave it alone. You seem to not be able to accept that sometimes people don't understand your posts or just don't have anything to say that directly addresses your post. Instead, you can't resist the urge to repeatedly escalate into name calling, yell at people because they don't bow down to give you the attention you want after you start a discussion, and so you summarily trash your own topic by attacking the posters. Well done.
You might try a little introspection about why you get such negativity instead of jumping to the assumption that people are simply dead, idiots, oblivious, negative...
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-18 22:52 by Origyptian.