> Again, saying circles drawn on distorted pictures is evidence
> of how the AE DID it doesn't wash. Feet and inches were
> "definitely" used due to number crunching ISN'T evidence. Those
> are wishful "possibles" until some real cultural evidence is
> put forth.
> I have seen many "experts" make claims and then resort to their
> claim as "proof/evidence" of the claim being real. Those
> usually don't last at a place that wants evidence instead of
> special pleading or Sesame Street(play nice and everyone gets a
> trophy) mindset.
> Thanks for proving a point. Special pleading to "win" points. I
> used to post here lots more then I do now. Got tired of no
> evidence and lots of blind-faith beliefs passed off as evidence
> and any who didn't agree with it being attacked and/or banned
> for not "playing nice".
Evidence, evidence, evidence... you demand evidence for alternative theories yet provide - or ask - none for the accepted orthodox theory. That is your HOM upbringing at play there. Double standards.
Personally - this is absolutely the truth - I like my history with its feet on the ground. No aliens, no powerplants, no super-advanced Atlantis which managed to get conveniently completely lost. Pelloponnisian War Athens and Rome under the Julio-Claudians is my comfort zone - documented, corroborated, tangible. Post 4th Dynasty Egypt (or what we call 4th Dynasty) I bow to your orthodoxy; the tombs are tombs, the civilisation is as we know it. Fascinating, stable, culturally rich over centuries.
But Giza is different. It doesn't fit. The recieved wisdom is to look at it as a necropolis because - looking back through history with its many tombs - it's easy to squeeze the physical evidence into an assumed cultural narrative. But an assumed cultural narrative is not evidence, it is a refracting lens. If someone could convince me that the Giza pyramids were built when orthodoxy say they were built, as tombs - that's all I would need, some convincing evidence, not the polluted view tainted by what certainly came later - then I would not even bother with forums like this. I am not interested in aliens, or supposed lost technologies, or even ushering in the great Age of Aquarius and universal human love and enlightenment,
Gary and Scott's new theory actually fits the limited available evidence in many ways better than the increasingly threadbare tombs theory.
Thankfully, I'm allowed to say that on here, and no fussing, tutting Moderator will remove my post for uttering this "heresy".
As a HOM stalwart, I respect fully your right to rubbish my views, but - again - at least we engage on a level playing field here. I am in no doubt you can hold your own in both arenas.
Not all HOM's veterans adapt so well. The chicken coop of orthodoxy might be great as a comfort zone, but it gradually deadens the ability to debate and meeting the real, outside world head on without the aid of Mother Hem can come as a bit of a shock. As the saying goes: one day you're cock of the walk, the next you're a feather duster.
""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair