Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No Individual piece of evidence at hand can prove
> it. You can weigh each piece for its merits and
> faults. This weighing is an art and it's not easy.
> But when several pieces come together for a
> coherent model, each piece's merit also gains in
> weight. When you have several independent pieces
> of evidence which say Khufu built the Great
> Pyramid, then that model has some credibility.

Can you offer a few examples of those "independent pieces of evidence"? I'm curious how you address the devil in the details when actually applying the approach you generically mentioned.

Your use of "this weighing is an art" seems to preclude any claims of provenance and purpose from being subject to analysis by the quantitative sciences. So we have very different standards of proof here and need to agree to disagree. For such a literal claim to have merit (e.g., construction date or star alignment), you need to address the real, tangible contradictions, such as the 26 degree tilt of the DP not matching the 30 degree latitude of Giza. If you believe it was built 25 millennia ago, then let's see the math of your star alignment because the stars positions seem problematic to some of us, especiailly considering the presumptions we are forced to make regarding historic star positions. On the other hand, if you believe it was constructed in the 3rd millennium BC, then how do you reconcile the complete lack of evidence of any tools and methods or any eyewitness account of any monumental construction during those alleged 200 years of assembling many millions of multi-ton blocks of stone during the 3rd millennium BC?



> The absence of evidence that he didn't build it is
> not sufficient....in other words, you have no
> evidence that the Great Pyramid was built in
> pre-historic times. Until you find that evidence,
> the model is not ruled out.

You seem to be ignoring the harsh contradictions imposed with your model. And again, I have not claimed it was built in pre-historic times. I only suggested that as an alternate possibility that I believe warrants consideration since it also accommodates the physical evidence. Meanwhile, the hypothesis of an older provenance avoids the contradictions confronting the notion of a more recent 3rd millennium BC provenance. But I don't see an older provenance necessarily supporting the notion of a star alignment, at least not more than other possibilities that have been proposed.

In other words, my main concern here is the claim that it was built to align with a certain set of stars. Since that seems to be your claim, what's your evidence it was built with that design feature in mind? What "weighing" have you done that requires such an "art" allowing the builders to align a star with a 26 degree passage located at the 30th degree latitude? As Audrey pointed out, what is the moment in which all stars line up with all passages and shafts, as you suggested?

And what is your evidence of the date of provenance? Some of us here have been asking that question for years, and no one seems to be able to present those "independent pieces of evidence" in any compelling way, at least in attempting to justify the notion of a 3rd millennim BC provenance. .

Meanwhile, as I said earlier, you haven't addressed the real contradictions that have been presented to you in this discussion. How does your applicaton of the "art" of "weighing" the "independent pieces of evidence" reconcile these real contradictions to the notion of star alignment (and age)?



> I understand that there are gaps, but gaps don't
> disprove the model. What disproves the model is
> finding proof-positive that the Great Pyramid
> could not have been built by Khufu and/or that is
> was built during another epoch.

Gaps still need to be reconciled if they impose any contradictions to the model (the "70 kings in 70 days" contrivance of the First Intermediate Period would be such a "gap" that needs to be reconciled). I don't think anyone here is trying to disprove any model as much as we are challenging the model you seem to think has been established by the art of weighing what you characterize as "independent pieces of evidence". What are these independent pieces of evidenced?



> Remember, this is a model. Newton's model of the
> world wasn't successfully challenged for 300 years
> until Einstein said...look at that star...it's
> behind the sun. We should not be seeing this.

Yes, it's a model; it is not a proven fact. It's a model presented as an unproven hypothesis and not as a validated theory that can be logically be claimed as fact. In my view, it's a model that attempts to allow a round peg (star) to hack up a square hole (passage/shaft).

[Edit: in light of your previous post to Thanos, I hope you do accept my current comment here as respectful disagreement!]




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21-Feb-17 16:15 by Origyptian.