<HTML>
Jim-
> 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.
Who's calling you idiots?
***
I think it's fair to say that some of academia has a disdain for such people and/or HAS called some of the people discussed above, idiots.
Speculate all you want. We call can. All I'm saying is
it doesn't make it so. If Hancock and his ilk just said "we're speculating
wildly among friends and it's all pretty meaningless," there'd be nothing to
discuss. But they're not, are they? They're claiming to rewrite history (West's
new book, apparently, will be subtitled "The Quest to Rewrite History"). To do
that, adhering to protocols of method would help, in my opinion. Or do you think
any historical speculation at all is valid?
***
I think all historical speculation is valid until irrefutable (OJ-type) evidence suggest otherwise. But, I'm sure you can see that a lot of times the "negative halo-affect" takes hold. Additionally, academia's tendency to want to hear about a persons credentials before their assertions/evidence is completely baseless in every walk of life/experience I've had in life.
> A link like this by nature CAN'T be self-evident otherwise it
> would have been brought up before.
My point exactly: you don't have evidence here, you have speculations.
***
My point is speculation can become evidence one day if it's true. What I've tried to do is place $ on an opinion or assertion. It's funny how people immediately back down (since they're not sure enough to put some hard-earned cash behind it).
>
> 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.
Yes, within the protocols of science. This is not a blank cheque to claim
validity for whatever you think sounds interesting
***
Correct. But it IS a very rare person who can encompass the concepts of adaptive/fuzzy thinking.
>
> >
> > > I'm sure Tompkins/Steccini is just impressing on a
> Wow. How's about taking Tompkins book and finding any other
> geometrical structure in the world upon which the same
> "coincidences" can apply.
I bet you could do it, with enough time and patience, for the World Trace Centre
or Wrigley Field.
***
I'll give you any amount of money if you can apply the same type of Tompkins logic to any ancient structure and have it pass some semblance of group opinion. Why has this been done mostly with the Giza pyramid? Why? Think about it? If it WAS so cut-and-dry a simple structure as many make it out to be, are the people like Tompkins just wingnuts with too much time on their hands?
>
> 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?
Really? Have you read Gardner's analysis?
***
No. But if one looks at GW Masonic Temple, for example, the freemasons (and their predecessors) were famous for endoding certain numbers into their buildings.
> > >
> > 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.
"Small group of nomadic peoples"? Wasn't the LC supposed to be a tremendously
sophisticated, global culture with advanced astronomic and geophysic knowledge,
navigation skills, and so on? Not quite a small group of Bedouin.
***
A resounding no. See my post to Katherine about how a small group (aliens in my example) can have a dramatic affect on another planet's culture but leave not a stitch of evidence. Is it fair to say that the knowledge we see encoded in the Giza pyramid doesn't have the hallmark of a fairly large civilization (such as Egypt) or we might expect to assume much more of the same type of structure's symbolism?
I could argue that BECAUSE we don't see a large LC presence at any Egyptian sites that that would tend to favor the nomadic-peoples theory.
JL
Garrett</HTML>
