Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote: [to Audrey];
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > THE CLAIM: It is Egyptologys. and it is that all
> > the graffiti in question are Khufu's
>
> Since Egyptology presents that as a claim of fact, . . .
Are you claiming this as a fact, or voicing an opinion?
Do you have a serious inkling of the difference?
Do you have developed views in epistemology at all? Seeing as how you persist in appealing to it at a level of naïveté which would embarrass a sophomore in his second week of studying it.
> . . . it must be able to stand on its own merit by
> being armed with validating evidence that precludes
> other possibilities. . . .
I see not. Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology are under no obligation to “preclude” the theories of cranks, any more than physics and chemistry are.
Can you preclude the magical pixy theory? I’ve not seen you doing so. Why aren’t you discussing it?
As for ancient aliens, you dismiss them out of hand. How do you justify this? It runs entirely counter to the scheme you’ve outlined.
> . . . But so far in these discussions, no such
> evidence has been presented and so the claim has
> not earned that threshold of credibility. . . .
What do we call this? Ah, yes, “a lie”. Seeing as how the only “other possibility” mooted with any seriousness in these discussions has been the “Vyse forgery” claim, invented by Sitchin and modified by Alford and Creighton—and this has been criticised in detail and at length, with evidence and argument adduced.
Contrary to his pretensions, Doctor Femano’s claim is entirely dogmatic. He merely redefines the evidence as not evidence, by way of evasions outstanding in their sleazy dishonesty.
> As a result, Egyptology's claim cannot stand on
> its own merit and, therefore, is simply an opinion
> that does not rule out other possibilities.
A status it shares with most (and arguably all) of science and common sense.
But thank you for sharing your primitive notions of things which are evidently beyond you.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote: [to Audrey];
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > THE CLAIM: It is Egyptologys. and it is that all
> > the graffiti in question are Khufu's
>
> Since Egyptology presents that as a claim of fact, . . .
Are you claiming this as a fact, or voicing an opinion?
Do you have a serious inkling of the difference?
Do you have developed views in epistemology at all? Seeing as how you persist in appealing to it at a level of naïveté which would embarrass a sophomore in his second week of studying it.
> . . . it must be able to stand on its own merit by
> being armed with validating evidence that precludes
> other possibilities. . . .
I see not. Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology are under no obligation to “preclude” the theories of cranks, any more than physics and chemistry are.
Can you preclude the magical pixy theory? I’ve not seen you doing so. Why aren’t you discussing it?
As for ancient aliens, you dismiss them out of hand. How do you justify this? It runs entirely counter to the scheme you’ve outlined.
> . . . But so far in these discussions, no such
> evidence has been presented and so the claim has
> not earned that threshold of credibility. . . .
What do we call this? Ah, yes, “a lie”. Seeing as how the only “other possibility” mooted with any seriousness in these discussions has been the “Vyse forgery” claim, invented by Sitchin and modified by Alford and Creighton—and this has been criticised in detail and at length, with evidence and argument adduced.
Contrary to his pretensions, Doctor Femano’s claim is entirely dogmatic. He merely redefines the evidence as not evidence, by way of evasions outstanding in their sleazy dishonesty.
> As a result, Egyptology's claim cannot stand on
> its own merit and, therefore, is simply an opinion
> that does not rule out other possibilities.
A status it shares with most (and arguably all) of science and common sense.
But thank you for sharing your primitive notions of things which are evidently beyond you.
M.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.