<HTML>Garrett wrote:
>
> Hello Jim -
>
> I sincerely hope I've never called anyone here an idiot.
***
No, I don't think you have. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you have.
>
> > I think all historical speculation is valid until irrefutable
> > (OJ-type) evidence suggest otherwise.
>
> OK, Jim, let's go to it:
>
> I speculate that hob-goblins and unicorns from Lithuania,
> wearing yellow underpants and saying the word "ping"
> repeatedly, built the pyramids using the psychic power of
> their massively developed right frontal lobes.
>
> There's my speculation. By your standards, this is true
> until irrefutably disproven. Now don't start with
> "hob-goblins and unicorns don't exist." How can you
> <i>prove</i>, irrefutably, that they don't? Because there is
> no evidence for them? But they lived in small nomadic bands,
> leaving not a stitch of evidence ...
***
Your speculation is valid until irrefutable evidence suggests otherwise.
>
> Do you <i>really</i> think this is how we should be writing
> history? If so, I wish you well ...
***
What's wrong with writing ALL these speculations side-by-side (along with other theories)? Let each person decide.
>
> >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.
>
> Well I do put some small store in expertise. I usually don't
> go to a mechanic when I have stomach pains or a lawyer when
> my engine blows a gasket. If I want to know about German
> history, I don't consult an geophysicist, and when I want to
> know about Egypt, I don't go to a journalist or an amateur
> tour-guide. Of course, experts aren't infallible, but years
> of study and credentials in a subject surely stand for
> <i>something</i>?
***
As I'm sure you know that is a ridiculous analogy. If my engine blows a head gasket I'd rather talk to someone else who's had the experience OR someone who has no bias (i.e. not a mechanic who may tell you he knows how to fix it but really doesn't). IOW, talking to 5 other people who either had it happen OR know about the fix even if they are NOT mechanics is worth way more than 1 mechanic's opinion.
You'll note that when you are getting a roof put on your house, for example, people rarely get 1 estimate/opinion.
>
> > 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?
>
> I was not good at mathematics in school and still have
> trouble balancing my checkbook (how come there always seems
> to <i>less</i> than you calculate there is in there?), so I
> respectfully decline this offer. But I'd bet some of my
> dwindling money that, given enough time and patience, a
> skilled mathematician could compile just such a collection of
> "meaningful" numbers about an ancient monument of your
> choice. A similar "discovery" of numbers was used in the
> 17th century to prove that Stonehenge was a Roman temple. And
> remember pyramid numerology has been on the go since Piazzi
> Smith in the 1850s -- that's dozens of patient brains working
> out "significant" numbers over a period of 150 years.
***
This is "guilt by assocation" a common technique. So, let's pretend one day someone does discover the real math of Giza (assume for sake of argument there is something like this pertaining to Giza), what will academia say? Exactly what you've said above. Since the previous N people were off base, this new person MUST be off base.
>
> > ... if one looks at GW Masonic Temple, for example, the
> > freemasons (and their predecessors) were famous for endoding
> > certain numbers into their buildings.
>
> Were the Egyptians freemasons?
***
Well, according to them they are. If you look at a masonic temple, there's usually some portrayal of Egypt somewhere. Regarding Chris Dunn's speculation/theory, ma-son-ic has son=sound as one of the syllables. It could be coincidence but maybe it's not.
>
> > 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?
>
> Having dramatic effects without leaving a stitch of evidence
> seems awfully like special pleading to me.
***
I do it all the time. I have NEVER left a single tool outside my house after 7 years and $150K of my home renovation project. Period. Neither has anyone who's ever worked on my house.
For instance, the
> Spanish had a dramatic effect on the Americas (to all intents
> and purposes, another planet from what they knew) but they
> left a few things lying about, such as their language.
***
They had reason to NOT want to hide their presence.
The
> notion of massively-affective-but-unattested intercessions in
> history is truly the stuff of fantasy.
***
I with a few other people could affect this same scenario we see right now. Go into the jungles of Africa/SA rain forest, and do wondrous buildings but don't leave a stitch of any evidence around. All that will be left is word-of-mouth/oral history of these magical people.
>
> Put simply, if the massive intercession took place but left
> absolutely no evidence, how do you know the massive
> intercession took place?
***
I hope I didn't say "massive". Some intercession probably took place and there's enough evidence (the Giza Pyramid itself) around to at least point in that possible direction.
>
> > 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.
>
> And with the same argument, you could defend my "Lithuanian
> hob-goblins and unicorns" theory, outlined above.
***
Precisely. Fair is fair. You'll notice that the LC isnt' "named". IOW, you've attributed Lithuanain to them. The LC "people" are unknown from all respects except the information/building they've left behind. Might not that have been their whole purpose?
JL
JL
>
> Best,
>
> Garrett</HTML>
