> Origyptian Wrote:
> > And it's apparently easier for those with
> > traditionalist views to attempt to rationalize
> > what they see by conjuring up an obscure
> > fabrication to explain the otherewise
> > inexplicable. Petrie did it with G1's relieving
> > chambers, Reisner did it with G7000x, Lehner
> > 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
> > effort by Late Stone Agers, while summarily
> > rejecting any other possibility that happens to
> > fit the evidence, arguably better.
> > Instead of letting the evidence evolve the
> > conclusion, they cling to an ancient and
> > conclusion and try to shoehorn all the new
> > evidence into that model in an attempt to
> > the self-consistency of the overall paradigm. As
> > result of new evidence and/or reassessment of
> > evidence, many of the traditional tenets
> > tombs, ramps, timeline, igneous stonework,
> > precision and accuracy, etc., have become a
> > and more tenuous house of cards in an
> > wind. And so it's become clear that the
> > Chambers do not relieve forces from above,
> > was not a tomb for Hetepheres, there is no
> > to explain the "security hypothesis" attributed
> > the Granite Plugs in G1, and we have no reason
> > believe those 40 blocks had a religious meaning
> > other than the mere presence of blocks which
> > be explained somehow.
> > And the traditionalist contradiction shows
> > once again in the OP of this discussion where
> > court-of-law metaphor falsely implies the
> > credibility of objective due process, hinting -
> > but not claiming - it's "scientific", and yet
> > key witness apparently has not established
> > as an "expert" witness. Can't have it both
> > The OP should have been titled "...the
> > Kangaroo Court Resumes".
> What we have here is a paradigm that's dead as
> hell but still hangin' on (and a massive failure
> to communicate). Typically as science has
> answered questions it raises two new questions and
> eliminates one old mystery. But everytime
> Egyptology answers a question two new mysteries
> are created. It's no wonder Egyptologists have to
> resort to waxing poetic about the power and
> efficacy of superstition. If we need
> "Superbumpkins" to drag stones then they must have
> been made strong by their highly complex beliefs
> that we still can't understand.
> The beauty of assuming the conclusion is you know
> where you'll end up and it makes all the research
> much easier. No need to get your hands dirty
> searching for ramps while your supporters don't
> need no stinkin' evidence.
> Who ever imagined a high tech dark ages was even
> possible? People refuse to think and allow the
> few to do their thinking for them as we march in
> lockstep to the sea. Just hope to don't wake up
> on that long fall down.
From my perspective, one major fundamental problem with mainstream is that the traditionalists see civilization as developing linearly and serially. They fail to consider the distinct possibility of cyclical and parallel development (which Nature actually seems to "prefer", along with repurposing/adaption). And it's looking like the latter fits the physical evidence at least as well, if not better.
In my opinion.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?