> Hi Ori
> Origyptian wrote:
> >......, we should learn to agree to disagree...civilly.
> > I give the early explorers a LOT of credit for their life's
> > hard work, but their standards of proof were extremely low and
> > have been shown time and time again to not reflect what really
> > happened back then despite it having been mainstream's
> > "accepted view" for centuries. What we see going on at Baalbek
> > is a game changer.
> Well, respectfully and civilly, the underlined above represents your mere speculative opinion
> which is completely unsupported by any fact, evidence or standard of proof!
I think you may be a bit misinformed.
The above is TOTALLY supported by facts, evidence, and standard of proof.
You act as though all of the conclusions drawn by early explorers have indisputably panned out to be true and that any challenge against them is pure speculation. Rather, it seems that many "accepted views" are simply the result of explorers who, not having been creative enough to imagine any other alternative than what they've conjured up in their own mind, proceeded to purvey their sole hypothesis as "this is how it was".Quote
- Ask Lehner and Edwards (1985), or any modern Egyptologist, what they think of Reisner's totally fabricated claim (1925) that Hetep-heres I was entombed at Saqqarah. Or Reisner's other completely fabricated claim that G7000x was her new tomb.
- Ask anyone for any definitive proof that any pyramid was designed to be a tomb for the pharaoh or built with the help of enormous construction ramps, or built in the 4th Dynasty. Apparently, they are not able to come up with a single bulletproof piece of evidence and yet they have insisted for centuries that the claims are indisputable tenets.
- Also consider the so-called "quarry" at Baalbek where recent excavations are revealing a very different paradigm than was originally thought to be true.
- And then there's Engelbach's "Khufu Stele", a tall, thin rock that presumably managed to stand vertically for 4500 years with only a shallow footing, exposed to the elements and all passersby over the millennia, but which could just as well be a more recent grave stone for the local family dog bearing the namesake of the local legend, in the midst of the old hound's "hunting ground". Engelbach, himself, never actually claimed the stone to be what "mainstream" traditionally has attributed it to be -- a contemporaneous marker for the original Khufu's domain ca. 2550 BC. And by what 21st century "best practice" standards would Engelbach be permitted to fill the glyph engravings with white chalk just so that the glyphs show up in his in situ P.R. photos?
- And let's not get into another debate about Denys Stock's catastrophically contradicted interpretation of how the dynastics drilled granite holes. His own monograph is stuffed with evidence against his hypothesis of "how they did it".
The claims made about Hetep-heres, the Khufu Stele, attributing provenance to a building simply on the basis of an engraving found in the nearby rubble that could have been put there by anyone over the millennia, and hand-waving the illogical depictions we see in ancient paintings as merely being "symbolic" or "stylistic" all show how low the standards of proof have been in the past.
You certainly may claim that the above is just my speculation, but that would ignore the "facts, evidence, and standard of proof" that apply here.
> One might on that basis, form the view that tis you who has a
> very low , or muddled ,standard of proof!
> Or have limited knowledge about the subject.
Well, your "basis" is incorrect, and so any "view" that you have formed from it is likely based on a false premise.
Post Edited (28-Jun-15 03:00)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?