cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick L Nixon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > an answer would go a long way towards
> explaining
> > why he constantly says that we know nothing
> about
> > the people who built the pyramids
>
> Scholars outside of the field of egyptology almost
> to a person say that there is almosty no surviving
> evidence or words to that effect. I've listed a
> few of these scholars previously and don't intend
> to redevelop the list.
why would you expect those not familiar with the subject matter to know anything pertinent about it?
>
> But I don't need someone to tell me there's no
> information when I can scan a few book or go on
> line and find nothing.
scan a few books and go on line....How enterprising
It's not out there it
> doesn't exist. People can't present facts to show
> I'm wrong and that's not neccessarily because I'm
> right but because there are no facts. There is
> most scanty information. Even the PT are
> technically from more than 100 years after the
> great pyramids were all complete. The Palermo
> Stone is apparently merely a copy of something
> from a very old time and it's not like it's a
> xerox!!! It could have been edited incorrectly
> transcribed wrong. It might be a middle kingdom
> work of fiction for all we actually know. Why do
> you think Hawass wants to tunnel into the pyramid
> on the basis of an obvious work of fiction from
> hundreds of years later? Because there's almost
> nothing. Everybody is working from almost
> nothing. Egyptology as it applies to the old
> kingdom is the assembly of very little fact into
> what they consider the best fit. I think they
> went wrong because they projected knowns back in
> time. What was true or what a word meant in 2100
> BC wasn't necessarily true (or had the same
> meaning) in 2500 BC. Just because the PT
> transformed into a book of spells over hundreds of
> years doesn't mean that the original intent of the
> original authors was magic. If it doesn't walk
> like a duck nor quack like a duck then it might be
> something else.
>
> I don't understand how you can keep making such
> comments. My guess is you won't present one
> single fact here and I'll hear the same
> unsubstantiated claim again and again.
>
> How many dozens of times have I challenged you to
> come up with a single pertinent fact from your
> library?
Pertinent fact concerning what?
It just needs to be something that's not
> incidental and not based on opinion or
> speculation. It needs to be something that's
> independent of the PT.
>
> Why have you never responded to this?
I have responded 100's of times...With literally 1000's of sources. Is it my fault that you are too lazy to read them for yourself?
Have you
> ever tried. Just sit down and start reading until
> you find something.
What do yo mean by something??
I mean to say....what is it that you feel I am not providing you with?
Ask a direct question and I'll do my best to answer it.
But please keep in mind your own complaint...ie opinion (interpretation)
if you do not wish to take the time to study the subject matter...why ask me to summarise it for you? Isn't that your complaint? ie that you do not wish to read my opinion or the opinion of those far more expert than myself?
>
> I'm not claiming the whole body of work is
> unsubstantiated foderoll. I'm claimning that if
> the underlying assumptions are incorrect that much
> of it will have to be rewritten and all of it at
> least tweeked.
If you'd kindly provide a list of the assumptions that you are referring to I'll do my best to satisfy your needs
I'll enjoy reading it much more
> after it's gone through this process.
>
> ____________
> Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.
Warwick