| May 27, 2024, 1:21 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| August 01, 2001 02:47AM |
<HTML>RAW wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> You'll do better consulting their books.
I have done. I am still none the wiser.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I don't buy the idea that 10.5kBCE
> was being astronomically pointed out by the AE's. (As an
> aside, neither do I agree with the diffusionist Atlantian
> version of it, nor do I buy the Cayce connection. All three
> are seperate issues, and I have different reason for not
> supporting each of them).
Oh, I also reject those three issues.
>
> My own theory deals with a different epoch, which I humbly
> decline to announce on the internet. I'm just glad to see
> others finding the epoch on their own; it was only a matter
> of time, and I suspect other people will eventually be led to
> what ever else lies 'hidden' in the monuments and texts of
> the AE's.
>
> Avry
This is where I differ. I don't believe that anything is encoded deliberately in the monuments (the Great Pyramid aside, possibly).
I do accept the possiblity of a Schoch-like age for the Sphinx - indeed, that is my preferred option, but I haven't come across anything which would convince me that the Sphnix encodes its building date.
If we do run with Bauval/Hancock's premise, then as we've shown, they should be using 8500 BC, not 10500 BC.
Best Regards,
Dave</HTML>
>
> Dave,
>
> You'll do better consulting their books.
I have done. I am still none the wiser.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I don't buy the idea that 10.5kBCE
> was being astronomically pointed out by the AE's. (As an
> aside, neither do I agree with the diffusionist Atlantian
> version of it, nor do I buy the Cayce connection. All three
> are seperate issues, and I have different reason for not
> supporting each of them).
Oh, I also reject those three issues.
>
> My own theory deals with a different epoch, which I humbly
> decline to announce on the internet. I'm just glad to see
> others finding the epoch on their own; it was only a matter
> of time, and I suspect other people will eventually be led to
> what ever else lies 'hidden' in the monuments and texts of
> the AE's.
>
> Avry
This is where I differ. I don't believe that anything is encoded deliberately in the monuments (the Great Pyramid aside, possibly).
I do accept the possiblity of a Schoch-like age for the Sphinx - indeed, that is my preferred option, but I haven't come across anything which would convince me that the Sphnix encodes its building date.
If we do run with Bauval/Hancock's premise, then as we've shown, they should be using 8500 BC, not 10500 BC.
Best Regards,
Dave</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.