cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You have offered ..Egyptologists and their Ilk
> are
> > insane
>
> I doubt that.

I don't, lol. What sort of rational person would obsess over the bunch of self-important, self-aggrandizing, pompous, ceremonious, gold-plated, back-stabbing stinky-footed inbreds that Egyptologists have made the AEs out to be? They ought to be struck from history and forgotten if that's how they were - "disremembered" is how I think ancient Americans are supposed to have put it.

Who cares if they were great architects if they were no one you'd ever care to know personally? I couldn't get near the subject if I couldn't harbor the delusion that they were a bit different that I've been told.

That heavens Zahi found the receipts for the workers or we'd still have to suffer the shame of the source of our great fascination having been achieved at the end of a whip because someone (hint: I don't think it was alts) went and made far too much of this or that mural as if the ancients had no capacity for whimsy or travesty.

I've been told repeatedly that the AEs discovered the stinky-footed version of pencillin. Is that so? Perhaps the next question should be, did they wear it out in 50 years like we did, or do they still have some science left to teach us?

cladking, I'm sorry that this buffoonery keeps distracting from some important points you've made, your detractors seem to like to mock you for suggesting geysers while forgetting that it comes from the same kind of effort to take the AEs seriously when they speak that the "bona-fide" archaeos like to claim they engage in.

In other words, I think it's a very respectable and admirable effort you're making to address questions the establishment seems to ignore, and I'm very curious what you're on to with that. Do you think it might be possible that rainbows got into the ancient discussion because they were using some sort of levered device relying on water that might have hit the ground hard when a load was removed and then threw a spray into the air when it did?

The only other thing that seems to come to mind for rainbows if someone can't produce a geyser or a pressurized pump of some kind, is saponification and soap bubbles but I can't quite see how anything like that might have contributed to any savings of labor unless they found it advantageous or economical to soap runners or rails or some moving parts of the proposed machinery?

It really seems to me like you and Steve are onto something very real and important, it's just that I still can't quite form a complete picture even though I think you may have all the pieces?

Cheers!