Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > It might come as a surprise to many here but
> for
> > the most part I don't care How
> >
> > My interest is that of an independent cultural
> > anthropologist.
>
> How it is that cultural anthropologists are not
> obligated to understand "how". For example, if
> it's not clear how they did it, then how is it
> clear they did it?


where did I say I wasn't obligated to understand how?

I have expended far more time and effort on this than any other aspect of the 3 plus muillenia of their civilisation due to the fact that Giza is the source of most of the disinformation concerning that 3000 years.



>
>
>
> > 1. I learn more about us by learning about them
>
> > 2. I learn more about us by observing what kind
> of
> > person is apparently predisposed to not
> believing
> > that Man can be and has been greater than the
> sum
> > of his parts.
> >
> > I observe that you have little faith your
> fellow
> > man and an apparent distrust of academics.
>
> Well, unfortunately for some, there's not much
> room for "faith" in science.
>



Science or scientists?


> No data or testing is required for "faith".
> Christian traditionalists had "faith" that the
> earth was only 6000 years old. Not such as
> prevalent notion as it was many years ago.

So it's okay for the Christians to believe or to have believed that the world was only 6000 old. But it's not okay for the AE's to believe that their King ensure that the sun would come up and the river would rise?


>
> For a long time, the humanities had "faith" that
> the Roman Empire was responsible for the megaliths
> at Baalbek. Newer standards of proof are revealing
> that to be a rather tenuous attribution.


That is still with the jury imho.


>
> I'm not sure what "faith in your fellow man" you
> could be referring to in this discussion. We are
> talking about the origin of pyramids. They are in
> the physical world and require reconciliation, not
> faith. They must be accounted for and not just
> believed in. They must fit into the physics of
> time, energy, mass, forces, and dimension, not
> just fit into a self-consistent narrative.


(Warwick drags out the blackboard)

at Giza we see something that we cannot explain to everyone's satisfaction.

It is my opinion that much of what makes it difficult to accept that the AE's did this is rooted in an individuals general distrust of his fellow man, his leaders, and the academic elite


>
> If you don't care about "how" then why are you
> volleying with those who do? Are you suggesting
> that the "how" is not an important aspect of the
> development of such technology?


I said for the most part.

For the most part I am not interested in the workings of the Infernal combustion engine. But if I'm gonna drive one...


>
> I sincerely don't understand your perspective here
> regarding the OP and many other aspects of your
> debate with ancient engineering enigmas in these
> discussions if you really don't care how any of it
> was done.



you guys spew out absolutes at an exponential rate


Warwick