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).
Corpuscles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anything goes here .... make it up... apparently
> it is called scientific (or metaphysical ;-)
> research!
What's truly remarkable is that we've been fed on "mustta's", "appears", "ibids", "et als", and "According to Petrie Himself" for so long we don't even recognize actual facts. It is an actual fact that egyptologists believe G1 (et al) were surrounded by high walls and that water was funneled to the cliff face from this surface. Of course they don't talk about it just as they don't talk about the "holy causeway" being a great place for a ramp (at any angle). Just because Egyptologists prefer not to talk about the evidence itself and prefer to talk about what it must mean doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist built of or chiseled in stone.
"Real" research has always been done by examining existing evidence and existing interpretation. Just because some of us concentrate on the actual evidence rather than interpretation doesn't mean we can't be right. If Egyptology was really as solid as they pretend they could launch a real attack on all alt theories or defend their own. They have nothing in their arsenal EXCEPT the contention that "cultural context" exists. You can't reverse engineer a doghouse using cultural context and in this case there is no "cultural context" at all except what has been stripped from tombs and a "book of magic" interpreted in terms from 1000 years later.
They have NOTHING AT ALL so we get "wet sand" and men sleeping on ramps".
Why don't you show what YOU have instead of just lambasting anyone who doesn't agree with Egyptology? You made a contention that no high walls surrounded G1. This is contrary to Egyptological opinion who sing about "holy precincts" so tell us why you don't agree.
Me? I don't know. It's above my pay grade to know anything. But I do know there would be nothing left of tura limestone surrounding the pyramid no matter what. There would be little left of any sort of embankment no matter what. I presume Egyptologists think there were high walls because they are wide at the base but I don't know this either. What do you think you know other than there must not have been any water and the pyramids could only have been built with ramps?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anything goes here .... make it up... apparently
> it is called scientific (or metaphysical ;-)
> research!
What's truly remarkable is that we've been fed on "mustta's", "appears", "ibids", "et als", and "According to Petrie Himself" for so long we don't even recognize actual facts. It is an actual fact that egyptologists believe G1 (et al) were surrounded by high walls and that water was funneled to the cliff face from this surface. Of course they don't talk about it just as they don't talk about the "holy causeway" being a great place for a ramp (at any angle). Just because Egyptologists prefer not to talk about the evidence itself and prefer to talk about what it must mean doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist built of or chiseled in stone.
"Real" research has always been done by examining existing evidence and existing interpretation. Just because some of us concentrate on the actual evidence rather than interpretation doesn't mean we can't be right. If Egyptology was really as solid as they pretend they could launch a real attack on all alt theories or defend their own. They have nothing in their arsenal EXCEPT the contention that "cultural context" exists. You can't reverse engineer a doghouse using cultural context and in this case there is no "cultural context" at all except what has been stripped from tombs and a "book of magic" interpreted in terms from 1000 years later.
They have NOTHING AT ALL so we get "wet sand" and men sleeping on ramps".
Why don't you show what YOU have instead of just lambasting anyone who doesn't agree with Egyptology? You made a contention that no high walls surrounded G1. This is contrary to Egyptological opinion who sing about "holy precincts" so tell us why you don't agree.
Me? I don't know. It's above my pay grade to know anything. But I do know there would be nothing left of tura limestone surrounding the pyramid no matter what. There would be little left of any sort of embankment no matter what. I presume Egyptologists think there were high walls because they are wide at the base but I don't know this either. What do you think you know other than there must not have been any water and the pyramids could only have been built with ramps?
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.