> No it's easier to just support those refusing to
> use science and technology isn't it? It's easier
> to pretend ramps aren't debunked. It's easier to
> maintain the status quo and this is the characteristic
> that has brought us all our dark ages.
And it's apparently easier for those with traditionalist views to attempt to rationalize what they see by conjuring up an obscure construct to explain the otherwise inexplicable. Petrie did it with G1's relieving chambers, Reisner did it with G7000x, Lehner did it with G1's antechamber. We see it in this discussion with: '...maybe each of those 40 blocks covering the pit had a special religious meaning...' (or 41 blocks, depending on the pit) in an attempt to rationalize such an immense effort allegedly accomplished by Late Stone Agers, while summarily rejecting any other possibility that happens to fit the evidence, perhaps even better.
Instead of letting the evidence evolve the conclusion, they try to shoehorn all the evidence into an older, unproven model, largely ignoring many of the contradictions. As a result of new evidence and/or reassessment of old evidence, many of the traditional tenets regarding tombs, ramps, timeline, igneous stonework, precision and accuracy, etc., have become increasingly tenuous, or at least increasingly challenged under scrutiny. Just as it's becoming clear that the Relieving Chambers do not relieve forces from above, G7000x was not a tomb for Hetepheres, the Granite Plugs in G1 were not a security mechanism.
In fact, the contradiction shows itself in the OP of this discussion, where the court-of-law metaphor falsely implies legal standing and the credibility of objective due process, hinting - but not claiming - it's "scientific", and yet the key witness apparently hasn't even established himself as an "expert" witness. Can't have it both ways. The OP should have been titled "...the Kangaroo Court Resumes".
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 28-Sep-16 04:25 by Origyptian.