creigs1707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald: Well, many ancient monuments
> deteriorated/were demolished during the millenia.
> That's only normal. We have the science of
> archaeology to excavate them, to study them, to
> reveal that they once existed.
>
> SC: Isn't it strange that when I am asked to
> provide evidence for the remains of a 'Lost
> Civilisation', the fact that I can't because such
> is probably under 400 feet of sea-water is
> immediately seized upon by my detractors as
> 'convenient'! Now, when I ask you to provide
> evidence of Khafre's 5 QUeens Pyramids, you simply
> say they were 'demolished'.
No, I did not say that they were demolished, I emphasized the fact of the incompleteness of the archaeological (not alternate history !) record. I quote myself ; 'many ancient monuments deteriorated/were demolished during the millenia. That's only normal'. I never said Khafre's 5 QUeens Pyramids in particular were demolished. The archaeological evidence at this very moment demonstrates one Khafre Queen's pyramid. Basing myself on an earlier comment from you - 'The GOCT predicts very simply why there can be no Queens Pyramids for Khafre's 5 wives' - this is enough to invalidate your GOCT. Until eventually more Khafre Queen's pyramids are discovered, there is only one Khafre Queen's pyramid.
I think if I am to be
> slated for such 'convenient argument' then you
> should consider yourself roundly slated also with
> this complete nonsense. You can't have it both
> ways. Indeed, this argument is even worse than any
> I have offered for my 'lost evidence' for at least
> YOU will have the chance to excavate the site
> since it is not under 400 feet of water!
Under 400 feet of water ? You know it's under 400 feet of water ? Another phantasy ! The find of the remains of another (second) Khafre Queen's pyramid, is more plausible (taking into account the Khufu and Menkaoere Queen's pyramids) than the find of a lost civilization from ... 10.500 BC ...
But what
> has been found? NOTHING! Not even one stone, let
> alone another pyramid.
This is pure denying. Twice you were given a link to Hawass' comment. A typical feature of alternate 'historians'.
>
> So, to recap, We are still looking for at least 3
> 'satellites' in a line of comparable size with the
> exisitng 2 sets of 'Queens Pyramids' to be located
> at Khafre's tomb to invalidate the GOCT.
>
> This hasn't happened and, furthermore, it will
> NEVER happen because Khafre would never have been
> allowed to depart from the ancient, 'sacred plan'.
What? 'Khafre would never have been allowed to depart from the ancient, 'sacred plan'' Uhmm, I'm sorry, don't you think this sounds silly ? As if an Egyptian pharaoh would follow someone other's orders ... I'm convinced AE pharaoh's were very self-interested ; their tombs must have cost fortunes and drained the state's resources.
> If it ever does transpire that the remains of a
> line of 3 pyramids are discovered beside Khafre's
> tomb (that are comparable with the other 2 sets of
> Qheens Pyramids) then I shall withdraw the GOCT.
> I can't say fairer than that now.
Not only the single Khafre Queen's pyramid invalidates the GOCT, also the 'precession' starting-date 10.500 BC. Your theory is much weaker than you think, in fact there is no reason to have a theory at all.
Ronald.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2007 08:00AM by Hermione.