MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hmmm, interesting.
> It had never occurred to me that I may be looking
> at something that actually had nothing at all to
> do with AE burial customs, religion, magic,
> science, etc.
> I really must look into these “ancient energy
> plants and alien landing docks” ideas of yours…
>
Don't even try to pin those ideas on me. I have approached this subject with an open mind and I have judged all ideas equally and fairly.
I don't have any original ideas. I just have the ideas that the evidence has shown is the most logical.
>
> You write, ‘The intent of the pyramid was to house
> the body of the king.’
>
> And your contemporary textual evidence for this
> being so with all (or some?) of the pyramids
> pre-Unas is what exactly?
>
It's in the mastabas that surround the pyramids in question.
>
> You write, ‘You are glossing over this enormous
> distinction between intent and execution.
>
> Not at all, Anthony.
Yes, indeed.
> I am addressing this issue and you are, or so it
> appears to me, avoiding it.
>
Again, don't try to pin your behaviour on me.
>
> I wrote, ‘IIRC, Ritva has elsewhere pointed out
> how one mummy was found to be bundles of sticks.’
>
>
> You reply, ‘The body of a king?’
>
> I don’t know, but I think it unlikely to have been
> royalty.
Then why bring it up?
> But it is evidence all the same, but to what
> degree it is relevant to the Egyptians of the 4th
> and early 5th Dyn. remains to be seen.
>
The distance from the Earth to the Moon is also evidence...
>
> I wrote, ‘So why should anybody baulk at the idea
> of the pyramid not being an actual tomb for the
> king in whose name it was built?’
>
> You reply, predictably, ‘Because it's a false
> assertion, based on speculation, rather than fact
> or evidence. Can you think of any better reasons
> to reject it completely?’
>
> Er, do you mean other than the fact that all
> evidence is open to different interpretations and
> contains the potential (usually realised) to
> create different conclusions?
No. I mean the idea you presented doesn't jibe with the evidence or with logic. Of course it should be discarded.
> Just like everybody else, Anthony, you have no
> proof of anything about the intended purpose of
> these 4th and early 5th Dyn. pyramids, only
> hypotheses.
Another false statement.
I have presented a collection of evidence that clearly shows the function of the pyramids in the Fourth Dynasty. Your refusal to examine the evidence or follow the logic does not preclude others from doing so.
Thankfully.
> And once again I would remind you that your sense
> of logic may well be totally different to that of
> the AEs.
>
And once again I ask that you stop raising this red herring. I am using logical proofs for understanding history. We are not talking about ethnocentric assumptions about how they would have interpreted the same evidence.
> Now why don’t you stop waving your ‘logical
> conclusions’ in everybody’s face and provide us
> with hard details of the contemporary textual
> evidence that supports your opinions and to which
> so far only you appear to be privy.
Stop pretending it hasn't happened a hundred times. Your continual denial of events and discussions that happened just a few weeks ago is worrisome, to say the least. If you don't start responding to the evidence presented, I will be forced to ignore all your posts, as there appears to be no point in showing you anything new. You simply deny it ever happened and then make false accusations.
In fact, I think this is the last time I will "engage" you in discussion. I will from now on simply point out your mistakes and ignore your comments. Others can judge the value of your posts for themselves.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
