Ron Whaley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Anthony writes,
>
>
> "You might wish to study a little more on the
> subject before you come charging into the room
> proclaiming you know more than everyone (or even
> anyone) involved."
>
>
> Sorry Anthony but that's exactly how you came
> across in your first email to me.
First, I've been posting here for four years.
Second, I've never emailed you, to my knowledge. If you have evidence to the contrary, please return the email to me so I can correct my statement.
>
>
> Anthony, may I too say that your lack of awareness
> of my knowledge base does not invalidate my
> knowledge base.
You have presented data that is irrelevant to ancient Egypt. You have been challenged regarding its relevance to ancient Egypt. You have failed to provide the evidence.
That would be a your problem, not mine. And it certainly would not be indicative of any ignorance on my part.
> Sure, anyone can write up a few articles on one's
> own website. The difference is, my work is soon
> going to be published worldwide by a large
> publishing company and its not really all about
> pyramid feet and angles - I was just testing the
> intelligence of the people on this forum.
Are you suggesting that the quality of the work is diminished by virtue of the medium?
Shouldn't it be judged based on its content?
And as to your point about "testing the intelligence of the people on this forum", I hope you realize that the work you have presented here has now been proven irrelevant to ancient history. The logic is inescapable and irrefutable. Your data is a series of meaningless ethnocentric coincidences.
Only you can change that. So far, you've done nothing but become indignant when your postings were faced with rational critical examination. That's hardly the sign of a respectable researcher.
>
> It doesn't matter if the AE knew about feet or
> degrees or whatever, it is a fact that the
> mathematical geometry of the Great Pyramid is
> actually hiding something very important that you
> and others have not discovered as yet,
Oh, here we go again. The great mystery that simply doesn't exist. The only mystery I can find about Khufu's pyramid is why people begin with the assumption that in two thousands years of study we have learned nothing about the people who built it.
Why not investigate that mystery, Ron? Why do people assume there's a vacuum of knowledge about this structure? It's probably been studied more than any other building on the planet...and the people who built it were obsessive compulsive about leaving written records about nearly everything they did.
>and will
> continue to be blind to it, and mainly because you
> have let your limited mindset get in the way.
You have no idea what my "mindset" is. Katherine has asked you to stop personalizing the argument. If you can't win the debate without resorting to insults, then it is pretty obvious to everyone that you have lost said debate.
You
> have to think 'laterally' to see it. What I was
> going to bring attention to before you came
> charging in and interupted my flow, was something
> very new and quite a major discovery that cannot
> really be refuted. However, I have decided to say
> no more about it.
>
If it cannot be refuted, then it is not a useful historical theory. Are you familiar with the concept of falsifiability?
Without it, you've got a fairly meaningless, evidence-contradicting speculation. No serious researcher is going to waste his time on that kind of pseudoscience.
And we now know that "Ron Whaley" is not your real name.
Nice. Have you previously been banned from this board and you're having to sneak in to make your point?
Or are you trying to help Neal publicize a new book... and you're actually Neal?
This reminds me of Joseph Davidovits posting to boards as both himself and somebody else, and then engaging in back-patting discussions on his own brilliance in developing the defunct geopolymer theory.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
