Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > where did I say I wasn't obligated to understand
> how?
>
> You said you
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
> 87882,1088989#msg-1088989]didn't care[/url] how
> they did it. You certainly don't seem to know how
> they did it since I've asked you many times and
> you keep skirting the question. So it seems what
> you're saying is, even though you are obligated to
> understand it you don't care to know,
> nevertheless.
>




what I said is "..for the most part I don't care how"


Not 'I didn't care'

If you are going to attempt to beat me over the head with my own words, you better make sure they are my words

as my signature says..."only editors read between the lines"

Stop being so damn dishonest In your posting



>
>
> > 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.
>
> Giza is a source of disinformation? What
> disinformation?
>

If you attempt to understand Giza out of context, nonsense ensues. The evidence for that is all around us.

When you state authoritatively that the AE could NOT have built the yramids you are spreading disinformation


>
>
> >...
> > > 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?
>
> I never said that, and I have no idea where you
> got that. I never disputed the notion that the
> Dynastics were extremely invested in their
> funerary context and knew about the solar and
> inundation cycles. But I don't see how that
> requires them to know about "cardinal points" at
> all, let alone know how to measure them so
> precisely. Especially when Dash acknowledged there
> is virtually no evidence of the method used by 3rd
> millennium BC Egypt for doing so. For all we know,
> the pyramids may already have existed in Dynastic
> times and gave those people a front row seat to
> view the sunrise every day.
>


So you admit to not understanding them yet still insist that you do?

>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Fair enough. I agree to disagree.



That wasn't hard, was it?



>
>
>
> > > 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
>
> Your blackboard sarcasm aside, you speak of
> "faith" and "distrust" but I have no idea how that
> relates to this discussion about the construction
> of real monuments in the physical world that must
> be accounted for with plausible engineering
> methods. What "distrust" and "faith" are you
> relying on here that seems to take priority over
> rolling up your sleeves to determine once and for
> all whether they really did have the capability to
> do that work?
>



To do great things requires circumstance inspiration and organisation. The people who built the pyramids were obviously benefit of all three.



> From my perspective, much of what makes it
> difficult to accept that the 3rd millennium BE did
> this is rooted in the lack of evidence that they
> had the wherewithal to do it despite the huge
> volume of evidence regarding other aspects of that
> culture. Therefore, other possibilities for the
> origin of those monuments warrant consideration
> too.
>
>
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > For the most part I am not interested in the
> > workings of the Infernal combustion engine.
> But
> > if I'm gonna drive one...
>
> Well, respectrully, we know with fairly good
> certainty who built that "Infernal" combustion
> engine, as well as when it was built, how it was
> built, and why it was built. Meanwhile, we are not
> so lucky regarding those ancient monuments. And so
> I only asked you a simple question about whether
> the 3rd millennium BC Egypt really did have the
> wherewithal to know what "cardinal points" are and
> whether they had the knowledge to measure them.
> You can "trust" and have "faith" that they knew
> how to do it, but unless there truly is a real
> physical method that can be identified and
> attributed to the capability, then faith/trust
> that they did that isn't built on any physical
> capability that can be attributed to that culture.


I conclude that they had the wherewithal to understand and calculate the cardinal point
I conclude that they were not necessarily aware the earth is a ball.(anticipating your response)

Their primary focus was the sun

Nothing revolutionary there, it's a constant throughout the ancient world

I'm actually shocked that you believe our ancestors were incapable of finding the cardinal points.



>
>
> If all you have is trust and faith, then that
> allows others to apply their own different system
> of trust and faith while never actually validating
> whether the culture actually did have that ability
> beyond simply having faith and trust that they
> did. That may be sufficient criteria for
> acceptance by some people, but not by everyone.



The trust and faith relate to the dedication of the builders, not my conclusions


Your word twisting is getting more than a little tedious



>
>
>
> > > 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, respectfully, with all your comments
> avoiding facts and actual knowledge of the
> engineering prowess of the ancients, with all the
> "faith" and "trust" you put in your fellow man,
> with your deflection from the challenge to explain
> even your simple claim that they knew how to find
> "North", you seem to be hiding what sounds like a
> "religious" perspective behind the guise of
> "anthropology". I took Anthropology in college,
> I've met several anthropologists, and I've never
> gotten the impression that anthropology isn't
> interested in how different cultures managed to
> achieve what's been attributed to them, whether
> it's an arrowhead, a stone vase, or a pyramid.

EXCUSE ME???

Religious perspective???

I study the art and culture of Elemental Belief systems

I study the part that beliefs play in a given society.

I personally have no beliefs

I am not hiding behind anything Pal

You have seen the cultural in front of the anthropology, when I cite haven't you?

Surely if you studied Anthropology you're aware of the specifity of Cultural Anthropology??


yet you choose to accuse me of letting my personal beliefs dictate my conclusions???

I think you've final p[rooven to me that you are full of it.

I will exchange no more posts with you.

I will answer no more of your questions

For someone who bemoans being "attacked" all the time, you sure know how to be scandalously insulting

Take notice that I will not tolerate you misquoting myself in the future. all such instances will be reported to the moderators.


Warwick