| May 6, 2024, 8:35 am 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 24, 2001 02:03PM |
<HTML>lone wrote:
>
> > However, you have to remember that the OC is a key part of,
> > the so-called, "Lost Civilisation Hypothesis (LCH)" - and
> > particularly the, supposedly, "encoded" 10500BC.
>
> Yes, I realized that while typing my answer and decided that
> it did not matter because I am not advocating any date
> whatsoever
I'm only following a train of thoughts.
Fair enough.
> As for that date, I'm getting more and more convinces of a
> few things. Mainly that archeoastronomy can make the same
> mistakes as mainstream sciences: being too confident in
> itself. It is one thing to observe the apparent correlations
> of stars and precession in accordance with one or another
> theory, but it is en entirely different matter to base a
> theory upon predictions of archeoastronomy.
Do a search of this MB for a post of mine entitled something like "Words of Wisdom from 1896".
> In GH's defense I would say that he seems to me that he is
> more probably using archeoastronomy in support of a more
> global theory that is based on ancient legends, as opposed to
> have come up with his theory from an archeoastronomical prediction.
The 10500BC is Edgar Cayce/fiddled archeoastronomy imho.
> If he had then his theory would be susceptible to
> complete invalidation upon disproving the archeoastronimical prediction.
A lot of it is suspect at best !
> In this instance, you only remove one evidence
> from his case, and even if remove all evidences, his theory
> stands because it comes from the purpose of explaining myths
> like Atlantis, not archeoastronomy.
You can't "build" a theory on myths/legends - I've previously referred to the "Giant's Causeway" and "Devil's Dyke" in the UK.
> All it says is that there was a lost civilisation. You cannot disprove the theory.
I think I'd turn that round; GH cannot prove the theory. There has to be "evidence" - without it there is nothing. The contention of those of us in the "peanut gallery" is that he has no evidence.
> And that is fine because it's not a scientific theory, he himself
> says that he is not a scientist. If you explain all his
> clues, his fingerprints, he will simply keep looking for new ones.
He seems to do a good job of ignoring things that disprove his "fingerprints" !
> To some people, and I would count myself among them, that's the beauty of it.
There's nothing wrong with looking.
> These observations are harder to make about RB, althought I
> have great respect for him and his work, I find the evidence
> is hardly supporting the case he is making.
His 10500BC from Giza/Orion is suspect as is much of his 10500BC from Giza.
> That doesn't mean I don't feel a slighly different case would be better served
> by the same evidences.
You've got little, if anything, to indicate that the OK AEs had a quantitative understanding of precession. Any archaeoastronomy is therefore extremely suspect.
> I liked this thread, I feel we managed to communicate.
OK:-) We can be reasonable in the "peanut gallery" !
> All the best to you,
The same !
John</HTML>
>
> > However, you have to remember that the OC is a key part of,
> > the so-called, "Lost Civilisation Hypothesis (LCH)" - and
> > particularly the, supposedly, "encoded" 10500BC.
>
> Yes, I realized that while typing my answer and decided that
> it did not matter because I am not advocating any date
> whatsoever
I'm only following a train of thoughts.Fair enough.
> As for that date, I'm getting more and more convinces of a
> few things. Mainly that archeoastronomy can make the same
> mistakes as mainstream sciences: being too confident in
> itself. It is one thing to observe the apparent correlations
> of stars and precession in accordance with one or another
> theory, but it is en entirely different matter to base a
> theory upon predictions of archeoastronomy.
Do a search of this MB for a post of mine entitled something like "Words of Wisdom from 1896".
> In GH's defense I would say that he seems to me that he is
> more probably using archeoastronomy in support of a more
> global theory that is based on ancient legends, as opposed to
> have come up with his theory from an archeoastronomical prediction.
The 10500BC is Edgar Cayce/fiddled archeoastronomy imho.
> If he had then his theory would be susceptible to
> complete invalidation upon disproving the archeoastronimical prediction.
A lot of it is suspect at best !
> In this instance, you only remove one evidence
> from his case, and even if remove all evidences, his theory
> stands because it comes from the purpose of explaining myths
> like Atlantis, not archeoastronomy.
You can't "build" a theory on myths/legends - I've previously referred to the "Giant's Causeway" and "Devil's Dyke" in the UK.
> All it says is that there was a lost civilisation. You cannot disprove the theory.
I think I'd turn that round; GH cannot prove the theory. There has to be "evidence" - without it there is nothing. The contention of those of us in the "peanut gallery" is that he has no evidence.
> And that is fine because it's not a scientific theory, he himself
> says that he is not a scientist. If you explain all his
> clues, his fingerprints, he will simply keep looking for new ones.
He seems to do a good job of ignoring things that disprove his "fingerprints" !
> To some people, and I would count myself among them, that's the beauty of it.
There's nothing wrong with looking.
> These observations are harder to make about RB, althought I
> have great respect for him and his work, I find the evidence
> is hardly supporting the case he is making.
His 10500BC from Giza/Orion is suspect as is much of his 10500BC from Giza.
> That doesn't mean I don't feel a slighly different case would be better served
> by the same evidences.
You've got little, if anything, to indicate that the OK AEs had a quantitative understanding of precession. Any archaeoastronomy is therefore extremely suspect.
> I liked this thread, I feel we managed to communicate.
OK:-) We can be reasonable in the "peanut gallery" !
> All the best to you,
The same !
John</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.