cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Aren't you guilty of doing the same thing that
> you
> > accuse the Egyptologist of doing? Presenting
> one
> > solution as being exclusively correct, to the
> > exclusion of alternative interpretations?
>
> No. I am not.
>
> Egyptology says that they could only have used
> ramps and interpret all the evidence in these
> terms. There best "evidence" that they actually
> used ramps is the fact that there are no ramps in
> evidence because they were removed after
> construction.
>
> I am saying ramps to build great pyramids are
> highly illogical because they are highly
> inefficient. I am saying that there is so much
> evidence stacked up against the usage of ramps to
> have built these that they are debunked; there is
> a preponderance of evidence that shows ramps are
> highly unlikely to have been used.
>
> But it hardly stops with debunking ramps. I can
> also show strong evidence in the gravimetric scan
> that these are five step pyramids and logically
> the steps must represent a necessary aspect of
> construction.
>
> Of course any reasonable person would agree with
> me that "clearly" it appears they pulled stones
> straight up the sides of five step pyramids. Of
> course the contention is not yet proven but then
> Egyptology is not gathering and releasing data
> either. They've done nothing in terms of science
> to determine how these were built since 1987 when
> Dr Bui performed his testing. More data will
> continue to do what all data has done for over a
> century; disprove ramps were used to lift stones.
>
>
> More data will probably support my contentions
> because my contentions are more in keeping with
> the existing evidence and logic. My contentions
> produce accurate predictions where Egyptological
> contentions produce mysteries. This probably
> won't stop now.
>
> Of course I can be wrong. Only Egyptology is
> always right. Only the status quo is recognized
> truth.
> The irony is that if I had started years ago with
> this post I'd have probably been taken seriously.
> But years ago I didn't know as much as I do now
> and I didn't know it because I didn't understand
> the ancient authors. So now people resist these
> obvious truths because they can't accept the idea
> that they can be so wrong about ancient people and
> themselves.


So, yes, you are doing the same thing you accuse Egyptologists of doing.