> I said it was a "pure fabrication"; you referred
> to my comment as implying it was a hoax.
" ... And I think Reisner's is the bigger transgression since he clearly was all-in on driving the hoax right at the start ..."
Yes, you also stated it was pure fabrication. The above quote does not appear to only imply 'hoax'. Perhaps we are using terms which serve to highlight an 'agenda' of sorts, like 'pure fabrication' and 'hoax'. If it was said that Reisner put forth an idea, and did so in the spirit of best guess given what he had in front of him but it turned out to be in error, I would agree with you post haste. The introduction of terms implying he was acting outside of his proper path of reasonable and sound deduction creates a suggestion of mal intent, which I do not see having happened.
> might very well agree it was indeed a "hoax"
> except that I think Reisner truly believed his own
> fabrication, so perhaps "hoax" is going a bit too
> far by today's standard.
Alright then, thank you.
> > .Sounds like you need to call it hoax
> > because doing so somehow supports your notion
> > pyramids weren't tombs / funerary structures?
> What does Reisner and Heterpheres have to do with
> whether the pryamids were designed to be tombs?
Which is what I'd said earlier. I did not feel your inclusion was relevant to the topic. If I missed why it became of import in this thread, sorry, but could you explain why is was brought up if now you see it as irrelevant?
> You seem to be the one who is searching for a
> connection that's not there. I'm only using
> Reisner as an example of how far off road things
> can go when they deviate from being
Scratch my last question then. I have on more than one occasion agreed with this view (to Sam in this thread.) Egyptology - and by implication, archaeology - is largely conjecture based, thus open to possible error. However, much more of it is positive than negative. I am well aware of the shortfalls of this field of study, but I don't categorize the full treaty on a few sentences, if you know what I mean.
Whether Reisner had or hadn't
> committed that fabrication doesn't change the fact
> that anyone who claims the pyramids were designed
> to be tombs must substantiate that claim with
> direct evidence and not just contrived contextual
But much of what Peter presented (and he didn't get to all of it, btw, he said so) did substantiate they were - in part - tombs. (In case you missed it, I am not a tomb-only supporter.)
> Why are you deflecting again to aliens...and
> nuclear poop?!
Because it's funny? Egads, I have a sense of humour. :)
> My point was about whether the OK pyramids were
> designed to be tombs.
> And yes, not an iota of hard evidence supports
> that notion.
How about the hard evidence that other structures were used as tombs, and were so from archaic times to the Late Period?
> > You are deluding yourself to think you are
> > 'holding the line'. What you're doing is
> > onto your belief without considering evidence
> > which contradicts said belief.
> "Evidence"? In the immortal words of Inigo
> Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not
> think it means what you think it means."
Egads, Philip has a great sense of humour too. :) (However, I think he has another line that is much more immortal.)
Yes, evidence. Physical, consistently employed evidence presented in the video.
> And you are not reading the words I am typing. For
> the 101st time, I never said "there is nothing
> funerary about ancient Egypt - especially the Old
> Kingdom." The Old Kingdom was extremely
> funerary. But I have no reason to believe they
> built the Giza pyramids.
Ah, well this changes things, doesn't it? Such a perspective brings to my (our) attention a more intrusive matter than the tomb question --> Who built the pyramids?
> And so I am contending
> that there is no hard evidence to support the
> traditional claim that G1 and the other cyclopean
> pyramids were originally designed to be tombs or
> have any other funerary function. Rather, it seems
> far more likely to me, based in the physical
> evidence, that the Giza pyramids were ancient even
> during the OK, that the OK adapted the pyramids,
> they invented the funerary context, and then
> assigned the pyramids a funerary role within that
Such a claim requires a detailed grouping of evidence to support it. Is this something in the works, or can you share some of it here for all of us?
> And if you continue to convince yourself that this
> is what I've been saying when my posts are very
> clearly NOT saying that, then I'll take that as
> your self-consistent ploy to avoid having to
> confront head-on the reality of what the physical
> evidence actually is saying to us.
Which I now understand to be you are of the thinking the Giza pyramids (maybe more?) were merely usurped by the ancient Egyptians, thereafter imbued with their then-current cosmology? If that's what you're really trying to lead us toward, then I find it very difficult to accept. There is a great deal of evidence (cringes for saying so) placing the construction of these monuments in the OK, and built by the OK AEs.
> anything has no point here, it's your repeated
> effort to continue this discussion without
> bellying up with hard evidence or acknowledging
> the physical evidence before us.
It's in the video.
> Have you looked
> at the link I posted earlier regarding the
> "granite plugs"? I've presented a detailed
> argument against the security hypothesis using
> sound logic applied to the physical evidence. I
> urge you to take a look at it.
No worries, I already did. Sound logic and physical evidence are applied to pyramids-as-tombs as well. And I kindly disagree with your conclusion in the paper.
> > ps. If you think you 'win' something by an
> > opponent walking away, well Philip, today I'll
> > you be the better man.
> I'm not surprised that you would attempt to
> re-characterize my simply focus on physical
> evidence as being some kind of twisted
> competition. It's the hallmark of traditional
I made the statement to cover a base in advance; that since I noted I was possibly wasting my time, a standard response might be to throw tomatoes at someone leaving the room ... meanwhile, I was just walking away. No fanfare. Just a calm turn and slow pace as I return to the mediocrity of life.