|
|
|
|
|
| | megalithic constructionPage 5 of 17 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) |
For references theres a 5 part documentary that goes through some of the newer theories about the pyramids called the pyramid code which pulls together some of the new theories as well as expanding on things that orthodox thinking just cant effectively explain (like the water tunnels) which you might find interesting if you havent already seen it
I rarely get "hard" information from documentaries. I might mistake fake pictures of giants as the real thing. I also do not own a TV. However, I did watch one episode of this on Netflix and didn't bother to watch the rest of them.
What some people don't seem to understand is that documentaries are made with a specific audience in mind, and they pander to that audience. The information in this documentary is pure speculation meant to attract people with a need for the fantastic. It is called "pseudoscience."
One should always consider new theories, but those theories should be based in reality. Providing "proof" from "documentaries" such as this is not offering proof at all. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/22/2011 7:04:44 PM | I do get your point there, but the series also included several egyptologists whose theories were the basis for the series rather than it just being picked from thin air as well as interviews with tribesmen who are indigenous to the area and who are responsible for the newer translations
Thing is though, the existing assumptions are also "just" theories ontop of theories ontop of assumptions, so theyre not actually founded in fact to begin with. But the same as when orthodoxy thought the world was flat you can have a concensus of what is "accepted" that isnt actually very acurate and certainly isnt and cant be "proven"
But that due to that orthodoxy will be quite vehemently resistive to anything that questions its validity. Thats has always been the pattern of science in practically any field
And its also not uncommon for what IS known to be altered or interpretted to fit in with an orthodox view too.
I think one of the main things that did stand out is the lack of decoration in the main pyramids which is synonomous with tombs in most cultures including the ancient egyptians. Yet theyre still claimed to have just been tombs nonetheless
The causeways ending at a point the banks of the nile hasnt been for far longer than the pyramids are claimed to have been built is also odd, but there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory that the foundations the pyramids are built on is much older than the pyramids themselves so that might be more to do with when the site was first developed rather than the pyramids if the site itself has some special significance
A basic problem with human psychology is that we have a predisposition to elevate the first account for something we hear above all subsequent ones, which rather than being viewed equally then on a subconcious level have to not only prove their own validity, but disprove the validity of previous accounts. Which means that even if a subsequent account we hear is true and the first one isnt we tend to find it harder to believe the second one which I cant recall the name for, but its the reason we have a specific order for questioning and closing arguements in the legal system
Not saying thats the case here btw, simply that its one of the negative underlying factors that we have when viewing multiple versions of things where its not completely clear which is right. As well as with science especially anyone making or having made a living out of "expertise" on a particular paradigm is predominantly going to oppose any new variation where others would have more expertise or where a new perspective might make theirs redundant
So with this kind of thing the first version tends to be far more resilient than subsequent ones irrespective of acuracy or likelyhood as seen with many areas of astrology, science and even medicine
It should also be noted that with things where most "knowledge" is actually theorises rather than proven, the people classed as "leading authorities" are infact just experts on a particular group of theories rather than being experts based on fact which is how we do tend to view them
The documentary doesnt really push alternatives very much though, it just focuses on things that orthodox egyptology skirts around or doesnt offer any form of explaination for initially then offering in some cases several other theories that just seem to explain them or explain them in a potentially more likely way as well as bringing in aspects that are fairly new discoveries like the Giza site being almost exactly the mid point both vertically and horizontally in the the landmass as well as being exactly on the magnetic equator
Things that werent even known when orthodox egyptology, some of which might just simply be coincidental, but they also might not be, Either way its there to be theorised about and totally ignoring it just because it wasnt known 100 years ago is hardly "scientific" as it could be relevant to their builders or even their purpose | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 6:30:51 AM | | Those "documentaries" are pseudoscience. They discount the myth of the Egyptians and they grasp at straws. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 7:34:15 AM |
Those "documentaries" are pseudoscience. They discount the myth of the Egyptians and they grasp at straws.
Hate to break it to you gwen but what i stated earlier and others also were trying to point out is there is no science about it.
It is all just guesses and assumptions because there is no way to accurately date anything. Even if objects inside were carbon dated that still does not offer scientific proof of age because it would be no different than if you bought an old house and moved into it. Your things would be in it but that does not mean you commissioned to have it built or built it yourself.
In case you did not know that is why many in that field were trying to find the smoking gun on how it was done so that the many artifacts found that could be dated could attempt to provide a scientific basis for their assumptions.. Yes i said assumptions and not theories.
There comes a point when the gaps are so vast that theory does not fit any longer and an assumption or guess is the only valid legitimate claim.
You don't know, I don't know, the ones writing books, documentaries, and conferences also do not know. Yes even teachers in higher education have just as much chance of claiming anything fact as john doe that has watched a few shows on the history and discovery channels.
Bottom line is this. You are attempting to dismiss someone elses opinion calling is pseudoscience when the facts are the entire topic of study using the scientific method IS pseudoscience. There is no proof at all. Claiming authority on translations does not make the original any more valid even if the translations were 100% accurate.
By attempting to use those types of things as forms of proof may sound great but it is not any different at all as if myself or any other poster here wrote our opinion in stone.
You would be attempting to claim scientific fact off from a written record left behind that due to not being able to date rock could have been done at any time. It could have even been done on the rocks before they were assembled into a structure.... Anyone saying different clearly knows nothing about science or even what a fact is. Definatly not what proof is that is for sure.
Just my observations and opinions | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 11:25:06 AM |
Bottom line is this. You are attempting to dismiss someone elses opinion calling is pseudoscience when the facts are the entire topic of study using the scientific method IS pseudoscience. There is no proof at all. Claiming authority on translations does not make the original any more valid even if the translations were 100% accurate.
True, I don't know, but I also discount claims made by Madame Blavatsky.
In this forum, few have given any "evidence" beyond vague references to documentaries. Where I produced sources and dates, the person with whom I was dialoging made no comment on them. I find that most posters have done no research beyond watching some TV shows.
I have considered the alternative "theories" and find them lacking. Until stronger evidence can be given, they remain pseudoscience--just like Sitchin's claims about Sumeria being settled by aliens.
My field is mythology, but in order to understand the myth of a culture, you need to know something about the "workings" of the culture. I said that I had watched one of the documentaries; I didn't watch the others because in the first, there were erroneous statements made about aspects of Egyptian culture. Sloppy research--which carries over into other areas of the research. People would rather create and believe in fantastic scenarios. If one doesn't have a grounding in what is presented, they will believe anything--like believing photoshopped pictures of giants prove that they exist. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 11:25:59 AM | As the previous poster has already pointed out, orthodox egyptology is also "psuedoscience", infact in some ways its worse than that as its based as much on assumption as anything else, and making things fit into an already emerging set of assumptions of the timeline of human civilisation on earth with many of the things being questioned in more modern times not even being known, factored into or allowed for when the current orthodox views were formed.
As was the case when people believed the earth was flat orthodoxy will tend to cling to its claims inface of any holes in their theory that might exist, and infact when it was first theorised that the earth moved around the sun rather than the universe revolving around the earth "scientists" spend a lot of time and energy altering facts and findings to continue claiming the earth was the centre of the universe and silencing people who tried to claim otherwise
Nowadays when prominence in a particular field, income because of that prominense, book deals, paid speaking venues and even governmental positions will all depend on keeping a set of theories as the accepted view the list of reasons to cling to theories that have more holes and unanswered questions than answered ones becomes even longer and more compelling
And the negative effects of someones theory they have gained recognition, income and employment because of being completely or partially replaced by a new one becomes something people will work harder to avoid for the duration of their lifetime
And this type of thing stops science from being "scientific" in the true sense of the word
Infact orthodox egyptology even struggles to explain why the pyramids would have been built where they are so far away from water or vegetation when the norm was to locate settlements and therefore important structures near to rivers in arid enviroments or what purpose concourses that would have simply terminated at a sand pit might have served as well as the purpose of the tunnels under the pyramids if there was no water there to flow into them as the timeline claimed for the pyramid is several thousand years short of the area having any water near to where the concourse ends which is quite a major flaw in the claims really
Even offering the possibility that the concourse and the foundations the pyramids were built on might have been the site of something else previously and the site held some religious or other kind of significance might have been a way to try and merge those questions into the orthodox view. But as far as I am aware the most common response is to just class them as irrelevant details that dont need explaining because what is already being claimed is fact, and thats that
Which is more akin to a petulent six year old than any genuinely "scientific" discourse really | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 2:46:47 PM | I was trained formally to present information based on research and to quote reliable sources, providing data, names of theorists, and dates where required. I don't even pass papers from my first year college students who do not fulfill this criteria.
Obviously, the people on this thread know more than I do about substantiating claims, so I will simply bow out from the conversation because it has become circular.
Have fun! | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 4:16:00 PM |
I was trained formally to present information based on research and to quote reliable sources, providing data, names of theorists, and dates where required.
That is the exact point trying to be made. It can not be done with the pyramids and it can not be done with mythology even. You can not apply the scientific principles on subject matter that does not have a chance of ever being scientific and call it science just because you used similar methods.
Even if you do your own research then you would be siting the source as yourself. If your name is not on the official list of experts in the field then as you said yourself it is not a reliable source.
You could have 100+ reliable sources in your research but if all 100+ are wrong then you have learned nothing at all.
That whole citation ladder is built for one purpose. To keep those who first proposed ideas and theories moving up that ladder each time their work is used as a source.
You are simply doing what you are told to do which is raise up the next generation of grads who are there to boost up and utilize the work of prior generations of academics.
I don't even pass papers from my first year college students who do not fulfill this criteria.
What that says to me is you do not allow free thinkers in your classroom. Not allowed to speak their minds but instead are limited to regurgitating someone else's words just to be granted a grade in your class.
That is higher education learning to you? To put limits and restrictions on your students?
My favorite teacher was my Psychology Professor. I found it incredibly ironic for him to have said that imagination is critical considering that class was in statistical ethics in psychology research.
It was because no matter how good you are you can never account for every variable. You must have a good imagination to be able to spot when variables pop up that were not accounted for.
Instead of including them they just get brushed off to the side.
Mythology is not a science. Egyptology is not a science. Linguistics is not a science. There are many things that have no chance of being considered a science that are simply because the scientific method is utilized. At the core though.... The scientific method is being applied and utilized on assumptions, guesses, and opinions.
That is where the real issues are. Examining ONLY the observable and discarding any other assumptions or opinions and yes that means even everyone elses research because it is not needed to see the observable.
In a nut shell... I would not need to read a book or thesis or theory by person "x" and then quote passages from it simply to observe and report on anything scientific. Science is not built that way. It is intended to be seen the same by whomever observes it to come to the same conclusions. (without being steered in a specific direction) Today's science however is nothing but the latest crop of scholastic minions sent forth into the scientific abyss to locate and test theories and work that others have already done. You know, in an attempt to grant rock star status to a segment of society that is often ignored, unless something breaks at least. Then of course it is "quick hit the panic button and call in all the smart people to fix it."
Hey it is up to you but i would not be so harsh if you ever had a student come through your classes that were capable of original thoughts. Those are the ones we hear about down the road. NOT the ones that did nothing but regurgitate the words of others.
Just my thoughts and opinions | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 4:56:04 PM | Einstein as I recall managed to evade "indoctrinated orthodox" education
Gee, I bet he was really pissed off about that, he could have been a REALLY reknowned scientist if he'd been able to work his way through the scholastic levels
Instead he ended up being a nut job nobody whos theories were ridiculed for decades
(he also had crazy hair too which I'm sure didnt exactly help) | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 9:21:08 PM | I always thought they could date stone structures by the pollen that was left between the stones ... problem is you have to partially deconstruct to get at it.
the Egyptians do not want any more tinkering with their treasures
Through my life the dates of many of these things have changed ... and now they are also finally admitting we interbred with Neanderthal ... I knew that when I was 12 because I saw a throwback walking along Eglington Avenue in Toronto. But I couldn't prove it. Now DNA does.
theories will change and dates will change and hopfully they will spend some of their research money and time on Tiahuanaco. Bolivia has more than just Coke.
I am a bit tired of the theories and really just want some updated facts... Maybe some dinosaurs built the originals. ][a lot can happen in 60 million years]
Oh ... and this is not a research paper to be maked so you will have to live without the footnotes. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 10:07:57 PM | | Neanderthals are a name given to humans, as far as I can make out. | |
|
| |
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/24/2011 7:39:20 AM |
That is the exact point trying to be made. It can not be done with the pyramids and it can not be done with mythology even. You can not apply the scientific principles on subject matter that does not have a chance of ever being scientific and call it science just because you used similar methods.
And the point that I am trying to make is that one does not accept the fantastical at face value OR accept any proposed theory without researching to see what the other options are AND if the information is accurate. I am a layperson when it comes to many issues, but even I have seen enough in accuracies in the "documentaries" given as support to know that the theories are ignoring or overlooking many aspects.
Mythology is not "science" and can be interpreted in more than one way. However, when pyramids contain the rituals and spells that will allow the pharaoh to enter Tuat, it is obvious that they pyramids are tombs.
What that says to me is you do not allow free thinkers in your classroom. Not allowed to speak their minds but instead are limited to regurgitating someone else's words just to be granted a grade in your class.
That is higher education learning to you? To put limits and restrictions on your students?
When you have a teaching credential, spent three years getting a dual MA, and have taught college classes for 11 eleven years, you will be qualified to criticize my pedagogy.
Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.
Hey it is up to you but i would not be so harsh if you ever had a student come through your classes that were capable of original thoughts. Those are the ones we hear about down the road. NOT the ones that did nothing but regurgitate the words of others.
Just my thoughts and opinions
Ad hominem. Not only are you lacking in the understanding of research, but you attack me instead of merely disputing what I say.
You are not a college instructor, eh? So what you would "do" is a moot point. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/25/2011 8:32:14 PM | Gey gwen
Two things........ First of all, I am glad you didn't decide to:
"Obviously, the people on this thread know more than I do about substantiating claims, so I will simply bow out from the conversation because it has become circular."
Circular can be fun, on occasion.............
Secondly, are you saying that mythology is a science, or that mythology can be studied in a scientific manner?
Paul K | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:14:09 AM |
When you have a teaching credential, spent three years getting a dual MA, and have taught college classes for 11 eleven years, you will be qualified to criticize my pedagogy.
Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.
I think thats kind of the point really
Even nowadays many things are taught that are scientifically known to be innacurate, but theyre just easier to teach and for students to understand and 99% of them wont ever be adversely affected in their working life by never knowing the updated version
Also, education tends to run behind cutting edge by various timeframes in different fields. In order for structured courses and texts to be used across an entire education sysrtem it just CANT use "new" ideas or discoveries. Its only option is to teach, and then test on what was thought to be true, 1, 10 or even 100 years ago
Despite it actually being by any real definition "unscientific" most science relies on resisting change even in many cases after it is known to be necessary and even once what is being taught is known to be outdated or lacking in validity
Because often new knowledge and technologies come along that punch holes in orthodox beliefs, but might still require decades or even centuries to at first figure out why initial assumptions were wrong, and then to try and formulate new explainations and a new flavour of orthodoxy
That isnt by any means a critique of education, because for some very obvious reasons it CANT work any differently otherwise there would be no collective basis for structure, testing and comparing somebodie knowledge
But by the same token, just because it HAS to work that way doesnt make it either right not factual. Especially in areas where the entire base of knowledge is only formed on a mountain of assumptions, theories and incomplete information to begin with
Because as with some of the things you class as psuedoscience, theyre things that we didnt have knowledge of when the orthodox versions of egyptology was started, or where we didnt have the technology to verify or negate assumptions or theories
One example there being that it has been assumed the tunnels and rooms were carved into the pyramids using candles, lanterns and flame torches as thats the only forms of artificial light we think they had back then
But modern testing as shown theres no trace elements of any residue from any forms of burnt material in the stone and in the sarcophagus (sp?) base in the great pyramid theres no ornamental markings normally found on one used for burial, nor is there any forensic evidence of embalming chemicals or dead matter which would be easily identifiable with todays test equipment and would have been present if it had ever been used as a tomb even if robbed later on
Orthodox egyptology couldnt have tested for any of that, and now cant explain why none of those things can be found, and cant even come up with a theory that fits the accepted time line and technology to explain how the tunnels and chambers could have been masoned without light
So it seems to just ignore them and dismiss any other theories as "psuedoscience" whilst not being able to offer its own explainations | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:25:11 AM |
Neanderthals are a name given to humans, as far as I can make out.
More of a separate species of the genus "homo." As in homo neanderthalensis.
We're homo sapiens.
So no help for your creationism here. Sorry. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:33:36 AM | As near as I can tell, there are people on these threads whose approach to these subjects is to look at the science and go, "I don't understand that stuff so I want to think it's really X. You can't prove it isn't and it's a cool idea so it is now true! My ignorance is the deserving of the same regard as your knowledge! So there!"
Critical thinking, folks. Try it. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:47:17 AM | Its all so fascinating. Thanks for your steady voice of reason star , I love you  | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:08:42 AM | But by the same token Star, you also have people who take something based in a theory that they read in a 10 year old book when they did their degree 15 years ago as being fact and treat scrutiny of it as thought its blasphemy even when other theories are already in the public domain from people in the same field and with equally valid credentials that just arent part of the orthodox mountain of theories
Science is hardly vacant of the orthodoxy defending their existing stance long after it should have been shelved and even trying to block or hamper new research that would be likely to discredit accepted doctrines to protect and maintain their own specialisations and income
As varied as scientists are theyre also still just people, and suffer from the exact same weaknesses, traits and flaws as everyone else including greed, arrogance and a fascination with leaving a legacy or maintaining their status | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:28:31 AM | Sorry Gwen ... but the great pyramid of Cheops is 'NOT" obviously a tomb. Honest researchers have left it open as to what is obvious about it. It obviously has a better finish on the outside but the inside is far from obvious.
| |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:55:03 AM |
As near as I can tell, there are people on these threads whose approach to these subjects is to look at the science and go, "I don't understand that stuff so I want to think it's really X. You can't prove it isn't and it's a cool idea so it is now true! My ignorance is the deserving of the same regard as your knowledge! So there!"
Critical thinking, folks. Try it.
YES!!!!
Sorry Gwen ... but the great pyramid of Cheops is 'NOT" obviously a tomb. Honest researchers have left it open as to what is obvious about it. It obviously has a better finish on the outside but the inside is far from obvious.
Then give a better reason for its construction than "harmonic convergence." How do you define an "honest" researcher? I don't know what you mean by "have left it open as to what it is obvious about it." How does the "better finish" on the outside qualify it as something other than a tomb? This is drawing a faulty conclusion or you are not explaining your stance very well. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 7:15:35 AM | Isnt a better question why it WOULD be assumed to be a tomb when it lacks things commonly seen in tombs like glyphs, genetic material and a corpse?
Thats like saying four people can sit comfortably in a house so it MUST be an SUV because four people can also sit in one of those
There shouldnt be anything wrong with people just admitting when they dont know the purpose of something when it clearly lacks indicators to its actual purpose.
Far better than just making up a purpose that isnt bourne out even by existing doctrines then climging to that assumption as though it had been proven
Its really a faulty conclusion from the outset, but one that is just accepted rather than "proven" in any way
As for the harmonic convergence theory, thats based on the fact its been observed doing exactly that.
Where its never been "observed" being a tomb of any description ever, just assumed to be one which isnt quite the same thing really
Harmonic convergence or more acurately, harmonic diagnosis and treatment is what the local tribes have been told generation after generation what their purpose and some of the surrounding buildings purposes were
They have also been correcting bad translation of many sets of glyphs too as they still use them as a form of writing today and the structure of them isnt the "orthodox" assumption as that treats them as having a similar construct to modern languages | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 12:20:17 PM |
Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.
Actually Gwen, this is the key to learning. A most value lesson for me was learning what to keep what to trash.
----------------------------------------
With regards to the pyramids in Egypt, they are impressive considering the time of construction. But the Nile delta provided the fertile ground to afford a civilization idle time to build these structures. Next someone had to sell the idea, and provide the method of construction. There had to be models built, an most likely a small scale construction. The pyramids project would require a great deal of human and agricultural resources. Now these are my thoughts, and I have no proof other than comparing to today's methods and common sense.
-------------------------------------------
The internet link below provides a great deal of information regarding the possible methods of construction. It also provides a wealth of info regarding existing physical structure.
http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/pyramid-building.html
-----------------------------
National geographic does a good job of laying out facts regards the pyramids. They give very plausible explanations of why and when for all eight pyramids, including a timeline. Place your mouse over the pyramids on this main page 1st, then click on them.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html#who
-------------------------
Here is a Google aerial map location of the first pyramid at Saqqara (Djoser). If you look to right of marker (between 2 and 3 o'clock). It appears to be a square hole until you zoom in.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.8665,31.2063&spn=0.01,0.01&t=k&q=29.8665,31.2063
---------------------
And last the location of the famous three at Giza including the largest (Khufu)
http://maps.google.com/maps?num=50&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=g2T&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=29.979323,31.133752
---------------------------------
For those who want to follow harmonic convergence theory and Egyptology then do so. In fact the footnotes at the bottom of a good research paper would include the sources of disregarded information. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 1:03:23 PM |
But by the same token Star, you also have people who take something based in a theory that they read in a 10 year old book when they did their degree 15 years ago as being fact and treat scrutiny of it as thought its blasphemy even when other theories are already in the public domain from people in the same field and with equally valid credentials that just arent part of the orthodox mountain of theories
Actually, the two aren't really synonymous at all.
In my example, the people I refer to seem to think that opinion and conjecture is somehow equal to or greater than observation and evidence.
In science, it's about evidence. Yes, the endeavour of science can get quite contentious and even acrimonious. But the bottom line to anything is, either you have the evidence or you don't. And it is the evidence - whether it can be examined and confirmed by independent sources - that usually is the final deciding factor.
Science is hardly vacant of the orthodoxy defending their existing stance long after it should have been shelved and even trying to block or hamper new research that would be likely to discredit accepted doctrines to protect and maintain their own specialisations and income
When you use the tems like "orthodoxy" and "doctrine," you are equating science with religion. But science isn't religion. Religion relies on belief in the ephemeral and supernatural. Science doesn't accept ephemeral. A fine example right now is M theory. Although it may work mathematically to explain a lot of mysteries, without evidence that can be examined independently, then it's not considered "true" in the same way that Relativity or evolution. | |
|
| megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:04:35 PM |
Actually Gwen, this is the key to learning. A most value lesson for me was learning what to keep what to trash.
You get it! I doubt that the people trashing academia on this thread truly ever wrote a research paper. I know that they are unfamiliar with the methods of debate because they use ad hominem, red herrings, and insist that certain theories MUST be correct because they saw documentaries on TV and it made sense them to them.
Accepting outlandish ideas as fact because a person cannot reconcile things that aren't apparent to them is a logical fallacy. One example is the Dogon people who seem to have astronomical knowledge that they simply couldn't have. Now, the original research is scrutinized as being faulty and incorrect.
As for giving anecdotal advice about the villagers claim about the pyramids, the edifices were built thousands of years ago! For this information to be passed down for such a wide span of time without becoming mythologized is fairly unbelievable. While historical allegory is often found in myth and can be interpreted as showing cultural shifts, other myths are baseless. Many Native American tribes claim that their ancestors came from the middle of the earth through a hole in the ground--where's the hole? Who did the studies on these villagers? Did the researchers have their agenda prior to the studies? Does Herodotus mention such a story? How about other ancient historians?
As I said, I watched the first episode in the series mentioned and didn't watch the rest because of the provable inaccuracies in the that episode. IF the pyramid or outbuildings were scenes of
Harmonic convergence or more acurately, harmonic diagnosis and treatment the treatments were highly ineffective. Skeletons of Egyptians show that the people suffered from severe and debilitating, diseases, their teeth were bad (very often worn down to the gum), and they suffered from parasites. Why couldn't or wouldn't such a medically advanced society do something to alleviate these problems?
There is another thread in this forum discussing the giant skeletons. Several people expressed a belief that they photos gave evidence to the existence of these giants. One post mentioned that the giants were found by a National Geographic team--the pictures were Photoshopped for a contest and there was no National Geographic excavation--yet people will fall for this type of "information."
Also, in "conversing" with members in this forum, it was obvious that some had vaguely formed ideas about other issues based on TV documentaries; if the perception of some historical aspects are not correct, how can I buy into the claims about other areas?
As new theories and "evidence" come into play, rational, logical people with a background in how to evaluate such issues do so: if the new information supersedes the old or the new theory is more logical and supported by evidence, we change our minds or we keep seeking more information to support the new theories.
Remember Piltdown man? Oh, and how about Nibiru which has supposed to have made an entrance several times but hasn't graced us with its presence yet?
Thats like saying four people can sit comfortably in a house so it MUST be an SUV because four people can also sit in one of those
No, it isn't. Houses have certain defining parameters that are quite different from the defined parameters of an SUV.
I suppose that if smells like a snake, looks like a snake, moves like a snake, and bites like a snake . . . it isn't a a snake?
While the pyramids have mysteries, no theory has been proposed that explains those mysteries.
In science, it's about evidence. Yes, the endeavour of science can get quite contentious and even acrimonious. But the bottom line to anything is, either you have the evidence or you don't. And it is the evidence - whether it can be examined and confirmed by independent sources - that usually is the final deciding factor.
Bingo! Sitchin claims that Sumeria was settled by aliens; reputable scholars scoff at him. While it is an interesting concept (I liked Stargate ), there is NO evidence that this happened. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
5
of
17 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
|
|
Home
login 
