Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> charly Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Only reason I repeat it is because you don't get
> > it.
>
> You're right. I don't get why soemone [sic] keeps
> repeating the same thing over and over and think
> that by mere constant repetition will somehow [sic]
> make it true. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Most hypocritical statement ever to appear on GHMB?

> > There is plenty, presented time and again on this
> > board and others, but of course as a good fringe
> > you deny, ignore, forget this.
>
> No. If that were the case then I and many others
> on this board would not feel the need to keep
> asking for this evidence. Opinons, assumptions,
> guesses are NOT evidence. . . .

This may top it.

> > Your "evidence" is a debris filled sarcophagus
> > i.o.w. rubbish.
> > Inventing "stone boxes" that aren't sarcophagi
> > (when the typology and developpement is well
> > known) doesn't help either.
>
> No. An earth-filled anonymous stone box also
> containing framents of bull bones. The earth
> symbolising the earth/kingdom, the bull bones
> symbolising the fecundity of the earth. Placed
> therein as part of a sacred chthonic ritual. I
> didn't "invent" anything. The EVIDENCE was found
> and reported by Belzoni. Alas, however, Belzoni
> didn't quite understand the implication of what he
> had discovered. Had he known about the later
> miniature replicas of this earth-filled box then I
> am certain he would not have been so quick to
> declare what he had found was a king's
> sarcophagus. It wasn't and isn't.

Looks to me like an unqualified assertion. Let’s see you justify it. You have CCTV footage?

Let’s see you justify your “certainty” about what Belzoni would have done in counterfactual circumstances. Is this part of your EVIDENCE? Let’s see your EVIDENCE that the symbolism claimed was generally recognised when the pyramid was built.

See how SHOUTY this is? It means that I’m right and you’re wrong.

> > Your unsupported opinion.
>
> No more "unsupported" than your "funerary cult".
> Except I have a piece of evidence--an earth-filled
> box--strongly indicating a chthonic function and
> rebirth (of the earth) ritual. Where's your
> mummy?

Same place all the others are. How many mummies of Old Kingdom date have survived? Just in the interests of realism.

> > Folklore as evidence doesn't help either.
>
> Yes--when the evidence goes against you then it is
> dismissed as "folklore". No doubt had this
> Coptic-Egyptian tradition stated these pyramids
> were conceived as tombs then you would have no
> problem using such texts to bolster your own
> argument. The FACT remains, these Coptic-Egyptian
> texts tell us these pyramids were constructed as
> 'recovery vaults' or 'arks'.

Now what (you allege) charly would do in counterfactual circumstances is part of the EVIDENCE. Bit rich your complaining about folklore being called folklore.

> > Your 16 pyramid Osiris thing exists only in your
> > immagination, not a shred of evidence (well real
> > evidence) to support your claims.
>
> What is it you don't understand when the Pyramid
> Texts tell us quite explicitly that "This pyramid
> is Osiris... this construction [of the pyramid] is
> Osiris"? By extension every and all pyramids were
> regarded by the AEs as the 'body of Osiris'. This
> is why in later dynasties, as the number of
> pyramids increased, so too did the body parts Of
> Osiris--from 16 to 26 and then 42. So why wouldn't
> the first 16 pyramids not have been regarded as
> the 'body of Osiris'?

. . . and here we have your old trick of taking your crock to another board, ignoring the rebuttals received on the preceding one:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/299848-update-on-scan-pyramid-project-oct-2016/?page=40#comment-6290219

Your “extension”, Creighton, is otherwise known as the fallacy of composition.

Enough.

M.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-Jan-18 10:54 by Martin Stower.