Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But as recently discovered, as it turns out
> the town was not for the pyrmaid workers after
> all, but rather for the port facilities. Ooops. So
> much for these "modern standards of scrutiny" you
> are so keen on. The only difference between
> Reisner and Lehner is that Lehner made the latter
> discoveries leaving him able to cover his own ass
> instead of getting it chewed on by someone else
> 60yrs later.
On the contrary, it totally confirms my point. The very difference you describe - that Lehner incorporated new evidence to modify an older tenet - shows the importance of revisiting and revising old tenets. What we now know about the engineering required to construct G1, the true nature of the Granite Plugs and al Mamoun's excavation of G1, very real enigmas of the Vyse narrative, the decreasing likelihood of the sustainability of the traditional timeline, etc. also must be included in those obsolete tenets in order to modernize them with the new standards of scrutiny.
> Regardless, by no means did Reisner attempt to
> engage in any deception as you have irresponsibly
> portrayed it to be so chalk it up to a bad
> hypothesis if you will but there is no conspiracy
> here and if you look you will see history
> repeating itself even now.
I respect your opinion and disagree with it. I am simply not as willing as you to give Reisner that much slack. He was a brilliant man, I believe he knew better than to jump to that conclusion, he did it anyway since he may have thought it was ok for investigators of that time to stretch logic and reason like that, but he blinked out of "sheer" self-confidence and did not fully think it through as he would have been required to do under today's standards. As a result of the conviction of his speculation, the discipline accepted his speculation as "historical fact". I'm quite sure he realized the field embraced his speculation, and we see no attempt from him to set the record straight about it being mere speculation.
We must agree to disagree.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jun-16 04:28 by Origyptian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> But as recently discovered, as it turns out
> the town was not for the pyrmaid workers after
> all, but rather for the port facilities. Ooops. So
> much for these "modern standards of scrutiny" you
> are so keen on. The only difference between
> Reisner and Lehner is that Lehner made the latter
> discoveries leaving him able to cover his own ass
> instead of getting it chewed on by someone else
> 60yrs later.
On the contrary, it totally confirms my point. The very difference you describe - that Lehner incorporated new evidence to modify an older tenet - shows the importance of revisiting and revising old tenets. What we now know about the engineering required to construct G1, the true nature of the Granite Plugs and al Mamoun's excavation of G1, very real enigmas of the Vyse narrative, the decreasing likelihood of the sustainability of the traditional timeline, etc. also must be included in those obsolete tenets in order to modernize them with the new standards of scrutiny.
> Regardless, by no means did Reisner attempt to
> engage in any deception as you have irresponsibly
> portrayed it to be so chalk it up to a bad
> hypothesis if you will but there is no conspiracy
> here and if you look you will see history
> repeating itself even now.
I respect your opinion and disagree with it. I am simply not as willing as you to give Reisner that much slack. He was a brilliant man, I believe he knew better than to jump to that conclusion, he did it anyway since he may have thought it was ok for investigators of that time to stretch logic and reason like that, but he blinked out of "sheer" self-confidence and did not fully think it through as he would have been required to do under today's standards. As a result of the conviction of his speculation, the discipline accepted his speculation as "historical fact". I'm quite sure he realized the field embraced his speculation, and we see no attempt from him to set the record straight about it being mere speculation.
We must agree to disagree.
______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jun-16 04:28 by Origyptian.
