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).
Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Time and again we are told, at every turn, the
> OLC
> > is responsible for all igneous rock and/or
> large
> > blocks and statues in Egypt no matter when
> they
> > are attributed in AE chronology for the
> simple
> > reason there is no evidence at any point in
> their
> > history of having the tools or ability
> necessary
> > to do so.
>
> I don't recall anyone saying what you think you
> heard. The statues and stones are taken on a case
> by case basis. The alts aren't lumping ALL statues
> and stone together as you are. You're arguing with
> yourself.
Please could you advise from either, from your imaginary collective called "alts" or from your own undertanding:
Is there any igneous* rock (obelisks, statues, sarcophogus, boxes, large chamber lining or roof blocks THAT WERE in your opinion, cut and placed by the AE?
(Includes granite, diorite, dolerite, basalt and any other variation approaching or near MOH 7).
If your answer is none then re read Thanos statement and your reply.
If, not none, then please provide some examples.
>
> > Meaning, there is no fundamental difference
> > between this found in the OK:
> >
> > > They either had the tools to do it or they did
> > not.
>
> Depends on the statue. The two may look the same
> to you, but may not to someone else.
Thanos comment was not about the "looks" it was about the type of stone, and assertions as to what tools required to shape it.
>
> > Thanos posts pictographic evidence of modern
> > mammals depicted in the igneous rock statuary
> of
> > the OLC including domesticated animals,
> > only found in the anthropological record
> congruous
> > with the various stages of modern human and
> > mammalian development. The depiction of these
> > animals, which only existed after certain
> times,
> > some only since the modern human domestication
> of
> > animals, ergo dates the creation of the
> statuary.
>
> And all your animal statues look the same to you,
> but not to me. But discussing that with you is a
> waste of time since you can't see the details.
>
> > Thanos also posts pictures, from the OK among
> > others, of statues depicting modern human
> beings.
>
> And?
>
> > "Photographic evidence" now translates to the
> at
> > times "loved", but now derogatory, "photo
> bombs".
>
> Ori was the one to compliment you and I don't
> agree with him. I find your photo bombs of lumping
> ALL statues & animals & paintings together a
> generalization that the alts would not apply. You
> seem to be saying - the AE did all of it therefore
> a LC did none of it. Which couldn't be further
> from what the alts say.
>
The point of the animal statues was to focus on the time period of domestication of animals.
In your opinion what was the earliest possible date for such domestication?
> > None of the Origyptianites can understand why
> > Thanos would post such things. Amazingly Thanos
> > even conjures why he would do such a thing:
>
> Why does Thanos talk of himself in the 3rd person?
> Can Thanos not connect with himself?
He was trying to re state his point because some are way to thick to get it. Even after others have attempted several times to clarify and elaborate on the meaning.
Why do you think you are the authorised spokeswoman for a fictitious imaginary entity called "alts"?
>
> > And asks the question:
> >
> Don't recall anyone saying your pics weren't
> human. You're arguing with yourself.
> Would be easier to ask the person directly - do
> you think these statues are not human? You asked
> the question, answered it yourself, and then
> proceeded to get angry. If your question IS
> answered, you still get angry. If you don't like
> the answer, you get angry. Gee, Thanos gets angry
> no matter how the discussion goes. And you are so
> irresponsible, so lacking in integrity that you
> will always blame someone else for your anger.
>
You will find that he was responding to a particular poster, however was broadening it to include any that also happen to hold such unsupported unevidenced views!
...[snip]
> Your attempts to make the alts look stupid will
> forever fail because the justice you desperately
> seek is self-serving and so is a false justice.
These so called "Alts" are very capable of making thmselves "look stupid"
Plenty of time to respond as I am now ,off to golf (back later) , but do tell what igneous stone you believe was cut by AE with examples . Please
Cheers x
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Time and again we are told, at every turn, the
> OLC
> > is responsible for all igneous rock and/or
> large
> > blocks and statues in Egypt no matter when
> they
> > are attributed in AE chronology for the
> simple
> > reason there is no evidence at any point in
> their
> > history of having the tools or ability
> necessary
> > to do so.
>
> I don't recall anyone saying what you think you
> heard. The statues and stones are taken on a case
> by case basis. The alts aren't lumping ALL statues
> and stone together as you are. You're arguing with
> yourself.
Please could you advise from either, from your imaginary collective called "alts" or from your own undertanding:
Is there any igneous* rock (obelisks, statues, sarcophogus, boxes, large chamber lining or roof blocks THAT WERE in your opinion, cut and placed by the AE?
(Includes granite, diorite, dolerite, basalt and any other variation approaching or near MOH 7).
If your answer is none then re read Thanos statement and your reply.
If, not none, then please provide some examples.
>
> > Meaning, there is no fundamental difference
> > between this found in the OK:
> >
> > > They either had the tools to do it or they did
> > not.
>
> Depends on the statue. The two may look the same
> to you, but may not to someone else.
Thanos comment was not about the "looks" it was about the type of stone, and assertions as to what tools required to shape it.
>
> > Thanos posts pictographic evidence of modern
> > mammals depicted in the igneous rock statuary
> of
> > the OLC including domesticated animals,
> > only found in the anthropological record
> congruous
> > with the various stages of modern human and
> > mammalian development. The depiction of these
> > animals, which only existed after certain
> times,
> > some only since the modern human domestication
> of
> > animals, ergo dates the creation of the
> statuary.
>
> And all your animal statues look the same to you,
> but not to me. But discussing that with you is a
> waste of time since you can't see the details.
>
> > Thanos also posts pictures, from the OK among
> > others, of statues depicting modern human
> beings.
>
> And?
>
> > "Photographic evidence" now translates to the
> at
> > times "loved", but now derogatory, "photo
> bombs".
>
> Ori was the one to compliment you and I don't
> agree with him. I find your photo bombs of lumping
> ALL statues & animals & paintings together a
> generalization that the alts would not apply. You
> seem to be saying - the AE did all of it therefore
> a LC did none of it. Which couldn't be further
> from what the alts say.
>
The point of the animal statues was to focus on the time period of domestication of animals.
In your opinion what was the earliest possible date for such domestication?
> > None of the Origyptianites can understand why
> > Thanos would post such things. Amazingly Thanos
> > even conjures why he would do such a thing:
>
> Why does Thanos talk of himself in the 3rd person?
> Can Thanos not connect with himself?
He was trying to re state his point because some are way to thick to get it. Even after others have attempted several times to clarify and elaborate on the meaning.
Why do you think you are the authorised spokeswoman for a fictitious imaginary entity called "alts"?
>
> > And asks the question:
> >
>Quote
You believe they were another species of
> > human, or perhaps non-human-can you explain
> what
> > it is about their anatomy that leads you to
> this
> > conclusion? For example, what is it about these
> > two that suggest to you they are "non-human" or
> a
> > different species of human:
> >
>
> Don't recall anyone saying your pics weren't
> human. You're arguing with yourself.
> Would be easier to ask the person directly - do
> you think these statues are not human? You asked
> the question, answered it yourself, and then
> proceeded to get angry. If your question IS
> answered, you still get angry. If you don't like
> the answer, you get angry. Gee, Thanos gets angry
> no matter how the discussion goes. And you are so
> irresponsible, so lacking in integrity that you
> will always blame someone else for your anger.
>
You will find that he was responding to a particular poster, however was broadening it to include any that also happen to hold such unsupported unevidenced views!
...[snip]
> Your attempts to make the alts look stupid will
> forever fail because the justice you desperately
> seek is self-serving and so is a false justice.
These so called "Alts" are very capable of making thmselves "look stupid"
Plenty of time to respond as I am now ,off to golf (back later) , but do tell what igneous stone you believe was cut by AE with examples . Please
Cheers x
