> The only reason for my conversation with Steve was
> to show that it is extremely easy to fill in the
> evidence gaps with imagination. As Egyptologists
> do. Or, it is equally easy to ignore the gaps and
> construct plausibility based on status quo.
> What is plausible to you, (basically what is
> within your reality threshold), is not realistic
> to others with different plausible boundaries.
> This is difficult to describe; the tools and
> methods Steve uses may fit within his and yours
> realistic threshold, but the tools and methods Von
> Daniken uses may not. This seems to be at the core
> of hostilities here, when insults are thrown and
> someone is called stupid crazy. Because one
> possibility is not within the boundaries of
Everyone not only seems to have his own beliefs but everyone is holier than thou. It's really rather remarkable how unshakable most of our beliefs are. Of course, for the main part, people don't even recognize them as beliefs but think of them as observable fact. Of course we are each wondering what others are using for eyes since everything is so obvious. We figure they must be lying or mad to not agree.
> Now I could fill in many gaps with my imagination,
> but mine would not include ropes and wood. CK has
> been all but crucified for his tools and methods
> as they do not fit within the reality of most
The irony here is that I'm virtually a freaking Egyptologist! My primary differences with them are semantical and what evidence we choose to see. They won't even read anything I write or engage in conversation but, again, this seems to be par for the course; when we can't straighten the other guy out with a few words we get angry and insulting. God knows, despite all the opportunity to straighten me out they've had somewhat limited success.
Notice how they took Houdin into the fold. Of course he agrees with their assumptions and only argues that their external ramps never existed. It took years for them to get their heads around internal ramps. ;)
> If we are going to fill the gaps with
> creative possibilities, then I say we should pull
> all stops and go full board. Bring in Von Daniken
> and ETs, why should we be limited to 'simple'
> evidence replacements.
I don't know why everyone wants to just discount the more "out there" thinkers. The craziest ideas turn out to be correct and long held beliefs prove to be all wrong. Nobody is always wrong except for Congress.
> Personally I do not consider ropes and wood,
> primitive (simple) machines to be plausible
> because they are incongruent with the
> sophistication of the buildings. It's like saying
> a finely cut diamond was made with simple flint
> stone tools. "Simple" is the new primitive.
> "Simple" is politically correct. 4th dyn Egyptians
> were not superstitious bumpkins, they were
> "simple". However, the great pyramids are not.
Certainly I agree that there are no simple explanations for exactly how they did things. There is a very simple explanation for the means they used though: IT WAS SCIENCE. But where the rubber meets the road in lifting stones and in every aspect of building there was science and there was 40,000 years of scientific knowledge as well as centuries of specific knowledge about stone and how to manipulate and use it for human purposes. You could take the homo sapien out of the cave but you couldn't take the cave out of homo sapiens.
We need to revisit all of our assumptions and all of the facts. We need to look at this with fresh eyes and logic as well as modern scientific theory. We need data. All logic, all theory, and all science begins with data and we are trying to skip ahead to answers.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Jan-17 15:14 by cladking.