<HTML>Garrett Fagan wrote:
>
>
> > Doesn't phase me as I don't have to live by the rules others
> > set (nor do you).
>
> There are protocols of method by which historical
> investigation is done. See "Three Principles" here in the
> articles.
>
Again for my purposes, being speculative and talking about it with friends to ME is just as valid as the scientific method you may rely on. IOW, we don't tell you you can't speculate or we don't tell you how you ought to go about science. For our purposes, it is just as valid. Fine, call us fools or idiots; we don't care.
> > Are the pyramid texts hard evidence?
>
> Yes, but their interpretation is highly contentious and they
> date to millennia after the pyramids. You don't see any
> problem with that?
No. Well, from my research the religion of ancient Egypt (and other mesopotamian cultures) seemed quite resilient. IOW, one doesn't see that much substantive content change.
> >
>
> > So, hard science of astronomy (Van Flandern) requires
> > interpretation? What doesn't?
>
> The astronomical data might be self-evident (I'm not an
> astronomer, so I don't know) but the link to AE sure as heck
> isn't.
A link like this by nature CAN'T be self-evident otherwise it would have been brought up before. For an analogy, there was a [
www.megafoundation.org] run by top 100 smartest people (IQ) in the world. John Sununu was of the caliber but declined to be member.
They listed what they believe to be the most important intellectual traits. My personal favorite was in there: fuzzy/adaptive thinking - i.e. tying together SEEMINGLY unrelated topics which is where the great breakthroughs come.
>
> > I'm sure Tompkins/Steccini is just impressing on a structure
> > numbers that ANY structure could be forced to encode.
>
> Pretty much. In the 1950s mathematician Martin Gardner
> "discovered" the property of 55-ness in the Washington
> monument in DC. It was totally meaningless, of course, but
> he used it as a solid example of how simple and well
> proportioned monuments can be manipulated mathematically once
> you have enough proportions and variables, the patience, and
> the arithmatical skill. Doesn't say anything, necessarily,
> about the intentions of the builders.
Wow. How's about taking Tompkins book and finding any other geometrical structure in the world upon which the same "coincidences" can apply.
BTW, Freemasonry is strongly based on certain platonic numbers. Thus, the 55 WAS the intent of the original builders. Ever notice the upside-down 5-pointed star?
>
> > How is reading the Pyramid texts as well as all the more
> > notable literature of Egypt not a real staple of archeology?
>
> Archaeology deals with the physical remains of the past, not
> the written evidence (which is up to philologists and
> epigraphers to work on).
>
> >
> > I beg to differ. In the long run, only one of us will be
> > proven correct.
>
> That's your prerogative, but you haven't answered my
> objection: your list of "evidence" is no evidence, just
> speculation dressed up as "evidence."
I've listed what I find circumstantial evidence (upon which you could convict someone in a court of law). If you don't accept that, that's just fine. I'm not here in life to convince you, nor are you me.
>
> Where are the houses, the burials, the hatpins of the LC'ers?
Again, a small group of nomadic peoples (lost civilization or aliens - take your pick) would NOT leave behind anything of substance since there isn't a major presence/length of time at the sites.
JL
>
> Garrett</HTML>
