> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Give the guy a break.
> Why? When I come here I see you guys attacking
> orthodoxy on a daily basis - and declaring it
> overturned, yet you then do exactly the same thing
> the next day....puzzling
That's a false equivalency, so allow me to try to help you with that puzzle.
My compliant is about the hostility and arrogance, not the belief itself. I disagree with plenty of notions expressed in this forum, both traditional and alternative, but I don’t initiate harsh sarcasm and personal attacks.
I don't recall cladking initiating the personal insults and harsh sarcasm. Cladking’s perpsective not only hasn’t yet been proven to be fact, it also is not accepted by mainstream as fact and is not what fresh young minds are being taught to believe in school, nor is it what comprises the texts of higher learning that purport to decree the origins of mankind. Mainstream, on the other hand, not only believes its perspective is fact, it thinks its perspective has been proven to be fact to the extreme of monopolizing the academic domain with its unproven narrative and insulting others who dare to challenge them.
Everyone deserves to be heard as long as it’s kept civil in the public forum. Periodic challenge is a healthy way to validate (or invalidate) the strength of each expressed notion. I contend that we all are on our own to evaluate the merit of what's presented without resorting to hostilities.
I’ve challenged cladking many times to cite which PT utterances back up his interpretation, just as many traditionalists challenge him. And although I might be skeptical about his take on the PT here and there, I don’t get medieval on him.
> > Even the scientists that did that study haven't
> > pinpointed where that void is yet. Is it above
> > Campbell's chamber? Is it lower, at the top of the
> > GG? Is it angled parallel to GG? Is it angled to
> > the opposite incline of GG? How much east-west
> > tolerance is there in the data? Why not throw
> > stones at Nagoya while you're at it? After all,
> > they're the ones that claimed the expertise in the
> > technology in the first place, and tehy
> > still can't say for sure exactly where or
> > what that void is, and after spending how much on
> > the study so far?
> No idea what you are ranting about
That’s odd, because it speaks to the core of what I thought was your objection.
> > And why not reprimand the Egyptologists who
> > criticize the guys whose expertise lie in the
> > physics of muons, while they (Egyptologists) focus
> > on the languange and religion that have nothing
> > whatsoever to do with these scientific findings?
> You guys seem to do a good job at that - as a
> matter of fact instead of building your own
> theories up you spend most of your time attacking
> the orthodox position. Rather boringly if I might
> addd. I'm still awaiting your detailed study that
> outlines your view of the ancient world.
I think you have that backward. Some of us would love to spend most of the time working on fresh perspectives in this “mysteries” forum, but the discussions are very often hijacked by traditionalists firing their own salvos into it, and the rebuttals that ensure consume the progress of the new perspectives. New ideas often come to me only after I see faults in the logic of the traditional ideas which make me realize there might be better explanation. As I’ve said many times about traditional thought, I originally believed the pyramids were designed to be tombs built with huge construction ramps and copper saws and chisels during the 3rd millennium BC by the resident pharaohs and that Vyse did make an amazing discovery that helped clinch that perspective. But as I scrutinized the evidence, I didn’t see the backup required to substantiate those notions. Only after I see the logical flaws in the traditional (default) thinking am I inspired to seek another explanation that is better supported by the physical evidence and not contradicted by it.
Case in point, I never took issue with the notion that those toppled mudbrick pyramids were built during the traditional NK, and that's because I think the evidence seems to support that, so no need to rock the boat.
> > I can't wait to see how the traditionalists squirm
> > to shoehorn these new scientific findings into the
> > orthodox narrative in an attempt to keep it
> > self-consistent.
> ....ah a new place in G1 wouldn't really change
> anything - it's what might be in it that might. I
> think we'll have to wait until someone takes a
> look first. I predict rocks, dust and few daubs of
> ocher paint
> 'Self-consistent' - an.....dude have you looked at
> the recent state of the fringe narrative? Really?
What is “the fringe narrative”?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?