Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides, who's to say the correlation with Thuban
> was 3000 BC vs. 29,000 BC or any other prior
> 26,000 year precessional period?

To be fair, I am sure you understand exactly why. The Thuban correlation does not exist in a vacuum and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence which points directly to the greater Dynastic period. We get it, you don't agree with this, but part of what makes these conversations move forward, often lacking, is that to explore these ideas we must be able to agree if only for arguments sake on a set of parameters to work within. If we figure out what this means within the Dynastic period then you can extrapolate that to your own beliefs, but we have to agree to start somewhere.

> In any case, it's refreshing to see the discussion
> going in the direction that brings the initial
> construction of the pyramids many generations,
> centuries, or even millennia, farther back in time
> than the traditionalists would have us believe.
> Whether it's a couple hundred years earlier or
> more, I consider it a breakthrough to see such a
> broad acceptance of at least the
> possibility that the timeline might
> be significantly askew.

I started that thread over 2yrs ago. Regardless, this is not a fair characterization as you are imposing the beliefs of the mainstream on the rest of us which if you have been listening to what we say most of us are open to this possibility if not argue directly for it. If anything it is refreshing that you finally acknowledge this. While many of us follow a reasonable evidence based approach to history, there are far fewer "traditionalists" here than you think despite the fact we do not agree with some of the more extreme views.

This is why I said to you long ago that the RCD studies should be embraced as exhibit A as evidence the timeline is wrong and despite the fact you may disagree with it because you want them to be even older, the tack you should be taking is that this is evidence of the fact they are at least that much older. Sorry, but I really think you are missing the boat on this one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 23-Feb-17 20:18 by Thanos5150.