creigs1707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald: The reason is very obvious. Your
> continuous postings on this board provoke less
> friendly replies,
>
> SC: Absurdum. I provoke no such thing. That you
> cannot keep your replies friendly is not a problem
> of mine.
The continuously provoking is that 1) you keep on ignoring the fact that you have no evidence for your 'lost civilization' and 2) additionally, that you also keep on ignoring the fact that it is impossible to archivate/store and to pass on astronomical data during a time-frame of over 8000 years. This ignoring results not only in pure forcing of your 'idea's', but also in intentional misleading.
> Ronald: ...because many people here many times
> explained to you that your theories don't have the
> slightest ground and certainly doensn't have
> anything to do with Ancient Egypt, nor with any
> aspect of true and honest ancient history.
>
> SC: And as I have oft explained - I fully accept
> what Orthodox Egyptology has to say concerning the
> AEs but with one small caveat - the design for
> Giza could not have come from an AE source -
> unless, of course, we are willing to re-write
> history and are prepared to credit the AEs with
> the advanced mathematical/astronomical information
> that is inherent in the Giza design.
Your biggest problem is that there is no 'advanced mathematical/astronomical information
in the Giza design'. It is obsessional idea.
> Ronald: I am not the person that keeps on forcing
> misleading theories.
>
> SC: So, my theory is misleading, is it? Prove it.
I repeat ; '1) you have no evidence for your 'lost civilization' and 2) additionally, it is impossible to archivate/store and to pass on astronomical data during a time-frame of over 8000 years.
Your turn ; prove the advanced civilization - on which the GOCT is based - that passed on the precessional data to the 4th Dynasty Ancient Egyptians.
> And if you can't prove it, then withdraw your
> statement.
The flipside of this, of course, is
> that to consider that the AEs should not be
> credited with such knowledge is contradictory and
> misleading on your part.
Ridiculous. It is not a shame at all that the 4th Dynasty Ancient Egyptians DID NOT have the knowledge of the Orion Belt arrangement at the end of the Upper Paleolithic. There is nothing
'contradictory and misleading' in my part by me realizing and accepting that these ancient people could logically not have such knowledge.
>
> Ronald: The indecency is not mine.
>
> SC: You made a false accusation about my work,
> Ronald and you did so when you haven't even read
> my book. Whether you agree or not with the
> content of my book, what you said was indecent.
> As I have said to you twice now - an honorable
> person would have retracted it.
>
> Ronald: he indecency is not mine. Actually, my
> opinion is that you have had enough opportunity
> (too often actually) to spread your idea's.
>
> SC: Next, you'll be saying, "I have no right" to
> say anything,
You have no right to mislead people and - worse - to rob the Ancient Egyptians (and consequently their contemporary descendants) from THEIR design that Giza was, still is and always will be.
Ronald.