Inner Space :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For discussions on all matters relating to personal development, religion, philosophy, psychology and so on.
Garbage, Mark.
Colavito quotes Bauval as using the word "match" and "uncanny precision".
You are hand-waving. Semantics.
That is not in the same book, never mind on the same page as "pseudo intellectual dishonesty."
There you go again, from zero to 100 announcing that I've "shown my true colours" for proferring my opinion.
I offer no apology for the fact that it differs from yours.
However, where I do differ from you is the fact that I was discussing - with someone else - a common interest but why I disagreed with a point they raised, and I did so politely and without crude comments such as "you've shown your true colours".
For my benefit, and for the benefit of anyone else following this discussion, please elaborate on your meaning and your intent announcing to any reader of this thread that I have "shown my true colours" (whatever that might mean!)
For the record, I interpret it as a personal slur, which is in flagrant breach of the forum's Code of Conduct, but I am prepared to let what I perceive to be an insult slide, giving you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to clarify your meaning and intent.
Perhaps before you do, might I suggest that you carefully re-read the exchange I had with Malc where I consider I engaged him respectfully, despite disagreeing with some of his opinions.
Also ETA: You must have missed my comment where I stated to Malc in that exchange:
Matt
ETA: You did not address the other points which Krupp uses to debunk the theory, which I mentioned in my exchange with Malc. Perhaps you'd like to explain how they support the idea of a plan in which diufferent monuments "lock" when presented with this:
Please elaborate.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 22-May-19 19:09 by eyeofhorus33.
Colavito quotes Bauval as using the word "match" and "uncanny precision".
You are hand-waving. Semantics.
That is not in the same book, never mind on the same page as "pseudo intellectual dishonesty."
There you go again, from zero to 100 announcing that I've "shown my true colours" for proferring my opinion.
I offer no apology for the fact that it differs from yours.
However, where I do differ from you is the fact that I was discussing - with someone else - a common interest but why I disagreed with a point they raised, and I did so politely and without crude comments such as "you've shown your true colours".
For my benefit, and for the benefit of anyone else following this discussion, please elaborate on your meaning and your intent announcing to any reader of this thread that I have "shown my true colours" (whatever that might mean!)
For the record, I interpret it as a personal slur, which is in flagrant breach of the forum's Code of Conduct, but I am prepared to let what I perceive to be an insult slide, giving you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to clarify your meaning and intent.
Perhaps before you do, might I suggest that you carefully re-read the exchange I had with Malc where I consider I engaged him respectfully, despite disagreeing with some of his opinions.
Also ETA: You must have missed my comment where I stated to Malc in that exchange:
Quote
Obviously, writing about such a complex subject in one paragraph is hardly doing justice to the subject matter and I do not wish you to think that I am dismissing the subject in choosing to explain my understanding of it with such brevity.
Matt
ETA: You did not address the other points which Krupp uses to debunk the theory, which I mentioned in my exchange with Malc. Perhaps you'd like to explain how they support the idea of a plan in which diufferent monuments "lock" when presented with this:
Quote
He went further, claiming that if the constellation of Leo was supposed to also "lock" into this ground plan at Giza, then the Sphinx should have been on the opposite side of the Nile than the pyramids and that the vernal equinox circa 10,500 BCE (which is the date they claim "locks" these man-made structures) the vernal equinox was in Virgo and not Leo as claimed. He also pointed out that the constellations of the zodiac as we know them were not known in Egypt until the Late Kingdom era, such as the iconic Graeco-Roman Dendera zodiac
Please elaborate.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 22-May-19 19:09 by eyeofhorus33.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.