<HTML>Garrett Fagan wrote:
>
> In other words, Jim, "no evidence."
Doesn't phase me as I don't have to live by the rules others set (nor do you).
>
> Nothing you list constitutes hard historical evidence of the
> sort left behind by hundreds of documented human cultures
> from cave-dwellers to Constantinople.
Are the pyramid texts hard evidence?
What you offer instead
> are speculations:
>
> >The very, very <i>possible</i> fact that the Ancient
> Egyptians ...
>
> > This includes the <i>symbolism</i> of eyes to represent the
> moons as ...
> >
> > <i>Circumstantial</i> pieces such as Mars is know as the
> "god of war" ...
> >
> > Couple this with the <i>possibility</i> that Thomas Van
> Flandern's double exploded planet hypothesis <i>COULD</i> one
> day be proven as true ...
> >
> > All the science technology involved in the <i>encoded</i>
> information contained in the large Giza pyramid ...
> >
> > Lastly, take a look at yourself in the mirror. Very large
> amount of <i>circumstantial proof</i> that humanity's past is
> not what we think it is/was.
>
> Note how all this "evidence" requires interpretation by
> someone to even be considered "evidence" at all.
So, hard science of astronomy (Van Flandern) requires interpretation? What doesn't?
I'm sure Tompkins/Steccini is just impressing on a structure numbers that ANY structure could be forced to encode.
It's not
> quite the same as the staples of real archaeology:
How is reading the Pyramid texts as well as all the more notable literature of Egypt not a real staple of archeology?
houses,
> burials, pottery, artifacts of all sorts, etc. Such items
> require interpretation to become bistorically meaningful, but
> their existence is self-evident. This is not true of a
> single item you list above.
I beg to differ. In the long run, only one of us will be proven correct.
JL
>
> Best,
>
> Garrett</HTML>
