Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I'm not glad to see is someone claiming to
> have a magical insight in the minds of the
> builders, and not being able to back the
> assertions up with anything that makes any sense.
I don't think there's anything magical about my understanding of the builders. It is mostly just a different view of the same thing. If the PT were meant literally it will quickly become apparent that the traditional view of these people is wrong. That won't make all my observations correct but they'll generally be a lot closer than the picture painted by most people today. A lot of how I view these people really is far more applicable to the writers of the PT than everyone else, perhaps.
> Don't you think that, if yours was a literal
> interpretation of the PT's, and it was a correct
> one, it would make sense to everyone, immediately?
> You are really underestimating people here if you
> think they are rejecting your conlusions because
> of what they are, and not how you got there.
This is the part I've had the hardest problem understanding. I don't understand why people can't show me I'm wrong or pick up this ball and run with it. I'm not stupid and can follow most simple arguments but refutations are generally few anbd far between. They don't address the major points but rather just deny the entire assertion.
Part of the problem might be that my theory has been and is fairly rapidly evolving. Many parts have had to be cast off and new ones added. A few cast off parts have even been readapted. I tend to give up on ideasa to readily in the face of contradictory evidence and only later discover the contradictory evidence was too specific to apply in all cases.
It's ironic that when I present this case to people who don't know anything about the subject they find it completely believable even if somewhat absurd. EVERYONE else seems wholly unswayed. I could never have predicted any of this.
____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.
