Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Warwick Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Warwick Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > Then you jump to the
> > > conclusion...forsaking
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > test...7 days later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What conclusion is that??? I don't yet
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > > conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you now saying that the AE's might
> have
> > > > done
> > > > > it?
> > > > >
> > > > > If not you've made your conclusion
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect...
> > > > "might"??
> > > >
> > > > My conclusion is that at this time we have
> no
> > > idea
> > > > who, why or how the structure was built.
> > >
> > > I will agree that the jury is out
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The one candidate often put forward, the
> 4th
> > > > dynasty AE technological culture, did not
> > have,
> > > > according to the extant archeological
> > physical
> > > > record of their design, tooling
> > >
> > >
> > > in your opinion
> > >
> > > and construction
> > > > capabilities,
> > >
> > > There I disagree with your conclusion,
> strongly
> > >
> > > the construction infrastructure
> > >
> > >
> > > there I completely disagree
> > >
> > > and
> > > > support systems necessary to even conceive
> of
> > > the
> > > > project.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now you are going too far
> > >
> > >
> > > > I therefore conclude that according to the
> > > known
> > > > physical archeological record, it is highly
> > > > unlikely that the Fourth Dynasty AE built
> the
> > > > Great Pyramid
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I will cede the unlikely based on your
> > > understanding
> > >
> > >
> > > and that the Fourth Dynasty AE can
> > > > be eliminated from the issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That last bit sounds suspiciously like a
> > > conclusion
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The pyramid was built by a lost
> technological
> > > > culture.
> > > > Which will remain lost until found.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What are you doing to find it?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So therefore as yet, I have no conclusion
> as
> > to
> > > > who, when and why.
> > >
> > >
> > > Just who not, when not, and why not.
> > >
> > >
> > > Have you EVER mentally free associated on the
> > > WHY?
> > >
> > > Not even an iota of thought as to what the
> > purpose
> > > might have been?
> > >
> > > Do you want to know?
> > >
> > > Cuz it seems to me is that you only wish to
> > find
> > > out what other think
> > >
> > >
> > > Warwick
> >
> >
> > Well that was a consise collection of
> ridiculous
> > statements wasn't it.
>
>
>
> that's concise to you.

Certainly is....


>
>
> > My interest is in applied techniques,
> > technologies.
>
>
> My interest is in applied beliefs

That figures.....


>
>
> > Some of which are lost in that we have no
> > understanding of how they were achieved.
> > Lost technologies... Mysteries if you will.
> Hence
> > this forum and the debate.
> > I'm not particularly interested in the
> > civilization, race, sex, colour, flavour,
> > nationality or age of the practitioners of the
> > lost technology.
>
>
>
> Now that is a Mystery to ME

So be it......


>
>
>
> >
> > I'm interested in the lost techniques.
> > You say that there are no lost techniques??
>
>
>
> Where did I ever say that???

That's why I asked the question.. the question marks are a dead givaway..


>
>
> > You say that you are fully aware of all of the
> > techniques necessary in the construction of a
> > multi million ton pyramid comprised of many and
> > varied and for me at least, unfathomable
> > techniques??
>
>
> I say that I appreciate the demands of a project
> of this nature...yes.

Are you aware of the execution of all of the demands of the project??? (question marks)



>
>
> > You say that there is no mystery??
>
>
> I have never said that about our past....NEVER!

Thats why I asked a question..


>
>
> > You say that there is no need for a search
> because
> > all has been discovered??
>
>
>
> Never said that either

Coooool.. Just love a mystery.


>
>
> >
> > Then good for you. It must be sheer bliss
> living
> > comfortably in the realm of the all knowing.
> > I however am not convinced, call me Mr.
> sceptical
> > if you like but for now and if you don't have
> any
> > objection I'll go on looking.
> > Because..
> > I'm not convinced.
>
>
>
> NIce little speech wherein you summarised your
> opinion of opinions that I do not share.


Excellent! I'm fully comfortable with that. I'll take it as a compliment.
Thank you.


>
>
> >
> > PS, I'll go on looking even if you do object.
>
>
>
> When did I object? Indeed I thought by asking my
> questions that I was Demanding that you go on
> looking

Thank you, I will.


>
>
> >
> > Oh by the way .. Reverse Engineering... The
> > purpose comes last, not first.
>
> The reason for building something comes first

We're not building something we're deconstructing something.
It was built by someone else. That means... Not us.


>
>
> Unless you are proposing a civilisation of idiot
> savants

No, no, they were very, very intelligent. They probably knew exactly what they were building and how to build it.
Unfortunately they didn't leave us any record whatsoever of who they were, how or why. So therefore we have to start with the bare bones, their finishing point is our starting point.

Reverse or retro engineering.
It'll take time and only amateurs make assumptions.
The purpose comes last.
Be patient...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10-Apr-17 20:21 by Jon Ellison.