Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>There is no way the pyramid was designed
> to incorporate the periodic table.<<

> Why?

Because there's no evidence of it. And the material that you've so far provided doesn't alter that conclusion.


>
> >>Last month it was to encode planetary
> orbits,<<

> An advanced civilization would surely want to
> encode knowledge of different sciences at once.

This is a circular argument. Instead of examining the evidence and using it to come to conclusions, your method is to make an entirely unwarranted assumption based on meaningless coincidence, and then work from that.

> >>The month before it was secret word
> numerology code...<<

> Same here, how does one exclude the other?

The point that Jammer was making was that all you're doing is posting a series of baseless ideas (I've been reproached for calling them "theories"). Whether one baseless idea is related to the next is really beside the point.

> >>What you have proved to me (and I suspect
> many others here) is many spurious arguments can
> be made to link the pyramids to anything desired
> provided the linker gets to
> 1) Choose the data being measured
> And
> 2) Massage it until it fits (by massage, I mean
> picture 300# Ilga the masseuse pounding on the
> data).<<
>
> I didn’t massage or pound anything’s, I just took
> the course planning (thickness and overall height
> configuration), the internal structure heights and
> dimensions, along with the external
> dimensions(base and height) and proved chemistry
> was encoded.

No, you didn't. You found a series of coincidences: that's all.

> If you think I have overlooked
> something on purpose that does not adhere to my
> theory I would be interested in hearing about it.

See above.

> >>Each time someone here asks you to submit
> even slight documentation showing what you propose
> originated in ancient Egypt and impacted their
> decision processes, you leap to an entirely new
> theory. It is very frustrating to try and discuss
> the myriad of hypothesis you eschew because one
> wonders if even YOU take yourself
> seriously.<<

> You are not obliged to reply or take part in every
> thread I or anybody else opens.

Whilst this is true, it is important to bear in mind, as I keep saying (to very little effect, apparently), that Maat is a board intended for the discussion of evidence for alternative history and science. This does not give anyone the right to post thread after thread concerning a series of unevidenced ideas so devoid of meaning and sense that they don't even warrant further discussion.

> I am presenting documentation in
> rock, which is the best kind because it is
> universal and cannot be twisted around.

It's no use looking at coincidences between rocks used in ancient architectural constructions, and chemical and atomic tables of the present day, and leaping to the conclusion that, because of these coincidences, the two must be connected.

> >>Fess up man, you're REALLY just having a
> good practical joke on us with all this
> hogwash.<<

> If you don’t understand anything I post then what
> is the use in replying?

You've distorted what Jammer was saying. His point was that all you're actually doing is posting thread after thread describing a series of baseless and unevidenced ideas. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a question of Jammer, or any other reader, failing to understand your posts; it's rather a question of you - even after all the years you've been posting here - still failing to understand the nature, and function, of evidence and reasoned discussion.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me