creigs1707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AS: The "raison d'etre" for the board is not about
> satellite photos manipulated in autocad programs
> with spaghetti dropped all over it.
>
> SC: Don't use, can't use, never have used AutoCad
> or MicroStation. MS Powerpoint - okay, guilty as
> charged! But it's so much FUN!
So, you find it is funny to claim, in your case, that the great pharaoh's of 4th Dynasty Ancient Egypt - which is the result of many centuries of preceeding cultural Ancient Egyptian evolution - did not design their own necropolis ? This is shameless, arrogant and impudent.
> AS: This is about ancient Egypt. Your work has
> nothing to do with ancient Egypt, and everything
> to do with psychological projection and
> ethnocentrism.
>
> SC: Wrong. I accept - and I know I have told you
> this on more than one occasion - that the AEs of
> the 4th Dynasty constructed these monuments for
> their own cultural/religious beliefs.
Constructing is not the same as designing and thàt is what you are claiming ; that someone else designed Giza (the 'codex'). This is a very unjust degradation of Ancient Egyptian culture, especially while we all know that your claims are 100% unsubstantiated.
> AS: Personal beliefs are off topic here.
>
> SC: Tell that to the AEs - they believed the
> design came in
a codex that fell from heaven!
Boy, you are far, far adrift ..... You realize that even most kids want believe this stuff ?
> AS: Secondly, if you read carefully, you'll see
> the banner reads "Weighing the Evidence for
> Alternative History". Since you have presented
> absolutely no evidence for your baseless
> speculations, your posts have a second strike
> against them.
>
> SC: What I present as my evidence, many on this
> board will not even look at, including yourself!
We cannot look at VALID evidence when you do not offer any.
> AS: "Your belief doesn't convince us in the
> least", we can never proceed with any conversation
> whatsoever, within the general guidelines of the
> board.
>
> SC: Well, how could you possibly? To do this you
> actually have to look at what it is I am
> presenting.
Presenting is not automatically proving, in your case certainly not.
Ronald.
