Thanos5150 wrote:

> Origyptian wrote:
>
> > How ridiculous.
> >
> > The entire reason I'm WITHHOLDING my hypothesis is its lack
> of
> > enough physical evidence at this point, unlike several others
> > here who insist on proselytizing things like tombs, stonework
> > capabilities, and the ability to divine the intentions of the
> > designers without having any real basis for doing so.
> >
> > And you wonder why I didn't embrace your little game.
> >
> > What "hard evidence" do YOU have that G1 was first on
> > Giza?
>
> Are you responding to me or Loveritas? What is "all true" is your behavior.
> I am not playing a game nor have I said G1 was built 1st. In
> fact, in the OP which I doubt anyone will read, I said I don;t
> know and that was the point of the thread. But instead of
> talking about the subject at hand it devolves into more
> stupidity about the Romans.


Thanos, if you know of evidence that you think I don't know about would it kill you to simply say, "Hi Ori, here's something that confirms the 1st millennium Romans knew how to quarry, transport, and construct 60 ton solid granite columns" and be done with it? Rather, your entire photo essay (in the previous discussion) was loaded with unnecessary sarcasm that I did not incite, and deflects to the Great Wall of China, marble statues (when the topic is granite columns), and how to determine whether a site is truly a "quarry" and also how to date the thing properly rather than through contrived extrapolation. I simply stated that without physical evidence I remain skeptical since I've come to realize that virtually every traditional tenet warrants reassessment. If that bothers you, I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about that.

Also, I didn't force any pyramid sequence on anyone, I only offered it in the previous discussion within the context of making a correlation between the pyramids that represent the most accurate Pi ratio. I didn't ask you to start a new discussion about the pyramid sequence so I'm sorry if you were looking for more information from me. If it's any consolation, depending on what others post here, I look forward to making my own contributions since I believe the currently held sequence is very wrong and there is indeed physical evidence that supports a different sequence while contradicting the currently held timeline.

We all are allowed our own opportunity to construct our own hypotheses, and we should do what's possible to respect everyone else's right to do the same, at least within some framework of logic and reason. You can call me crackpot all you want and accuse me of talking out of all kinds of orifices, but I've been right far more than I've been wrong about many different topics here at GHMB. And that's because I stick to the physical evidence where others are far more gullible in clinging onto mainstream extrapolations and pure fabrications of the early explorers. I do not have as much faith in the "authorities" as some others do here. Such authorities too often are not suffiently trained in the field into which they venture. Egyptologists, archeologists, and even geologists are simply not qualified to comment on civil engineering design, tools, and methods.

I asked you if you thought Baalbek was a quarry and would love to hear your answer about that.