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).

Warwick wrote:

> <<<<<> How have I insulted you??

>

> The comment was uncalled for and simply a distraction to the

> content posted.

>

> > If you are referring to my comment about reading..you are the

> > one that stated that the Library was not a good source of

> > Information

> >

> > what was I to conclude?

>

> Your giving examples of coming to a conclusion against the

> character with one statement..

> However, your against coming to conclusion given solid theorem

> data extracted from the ancients??>>>>

>

> for Pete's sake!!!

the comment "what was i to conclude" informs us...that a "conclusion" has been reached. I'm pointing out that you have displayed a conflict of methodolgy in that enables you to make "conclusions" regarding the "individual" presenting.... however, is not applied for the actual data being presented.

For Pete's sake is right!

>

> I offered sources of info to Titus

>

> You THREW OUT the Library as a source of info

No, I simply did not convey my thoughts on the matter clearly enough for you to gauge what i was intending....

>

> "i see conflict in methodology. sorry."

>

> what methodology?? WE are discussing sources of review for

> Titus

>see above. systems analysts ..."Analyze" everything.

>

> "of course not.... but, where did i state an "expert" opinion?"

>

> "I am a system analyst."

What is your point? A system Analyst qualifies as an expert opinion on the topic of AE?

> I trust that you are convinced that your observations are

> correct..

I believe the math is correct, yes. And, given that the math was extracted via ancient rhinds, objects,art and structures all linked... then it appears to convey intention..

hence, why I am detrmined to obtain feedback.

> now can you place your observations with a cultural context or

> not??

Is not binding the EMP/RMP with the GP sufficient enough? This relates to the mathematical engineering processes...not the "meaning" behind the GP. the knew math... building a structure of that magnitude wouldrequire math... we find correlating data in the units of both structure and rhind.

>

> "You have answered the question... you've pointed out my flaws

> in character."

>

> I have done nothing of the sort

>

> I have absolutely no ideas pertaining to your character

okay.

> I assumed that you were honest in your calculations,,,but now

> you have told me I am misguided for doing so

not so... the twisted interpretations have to stop. Isimply stated that it would be irresponsible to take anyones word versus doing the work yourself to test it.

>

> If I were to check the maths of every person who puts forward

> maths here and at the Hof M...I would never have any time to

> discuss the Old Kingdom Egyptians

Fortunately for you, the AE had a simpler system of math and only requires visual understanding versus pages of mathematical calculations... :)

ofcourse they both have to be joined to prove the theorems.

this line of discussion appears unproductive and is caught in a cyclic spin.

please either review the data and offer what ever you feel ...

Or, simply go the other direction. I cannot waste anymore time here.

Thanks for "trying"....

> <<<<<> How have I insulted you??

>

> The comment was uncalled for and simply a distraction to the

> content posted.

>

> > If you are referring to my comment about reading..you are the

> > one that stated that the Library was not a good source of

> > Information

> >

> > what was I to conclude?

>

> Your giving examples of coming to a conclusion against the

> character with one statement..

> However, your against coming to conclusion given solid theorem

> data extracted from the ancients??>>>>

>

> for Pete's sake!!!

the comment "what was i to conclude" informs us...that a "conclusion" has been reached. I'm pointing out that you have displayed a conflict of methodolgy in that enables you to make "conclusions" regarding the "individual" presenting.... however, is not applied for the actual data being presented.

For Pete's sake is right!

>

> I offered sources of info to Titus

>

> You THREW OUT the Library as a source of info

No, I simply did not convey my thoughts on the matter clearly enough for you to gauge what i was intending....

>

> "i see conflict in methodology. sorry."

>

> what methodology?? WE are discussing sources of review for

> Titus

>see above. systems analysts ..."Analyze" everything.

>

> "of course not.... but, where did i state an "expert" opinion?"

>

> "I am a system analyst."

What is your point? A system Analyst qualifies as an expert opinion on the topic of AE?

> I trust that you are convinced that your observations are

> correct..

I believe the math is correct, yes. And, given that the math was extracted via ancient rhinds, objects,art and structures all linked... then it appears to convey intention..

hence, why I am detrmined to obtain feedback.

> now can you place your observations with a cultural context or

> not??

Is not binding the EMP/RMP with the GP sufficient enough? This relates to the mathematical engineering processes...not the "meaning" behind the GP. the knew math... building a structure of that magnitude wouldrequire math... we find correlating data in the units of both structure and rhind.

>

> "You have answered the question... you've pointed out my flaws

> in character."

>

> I have done nothing of the sort

>

> I have absolutely no ideas pertaining to your character

okay.

> I assumed that you were honest in your calculations,,,but now

> you have told me I am misguided for doing so

not so... the twisted interpretations have to stop. Isimply stated that it would be irresponsible to take anyones word versus doing the work yourself to test it.

>

> If I were to check the maths of every person who puts forward

> maths here and at the Hof M...I would never have any time to

> discuss the Old Kingdom Egyptians

Fortunately for you, the AE had a simpler system of math and only requires visual understanding versus pages of mathematical calculations... :)

ofcourse they both have to be joined to prove the theorems.

this line of discussion appears unproductive and is caught in a cyclic spin.

please either review the data and offer what ever you feel ...

Or, simply go the other direction. I cannot waste anymore time here.

Thanks for "trying"....

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.