cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > If Occam's razor is taken to mean that the
> > argument with the least amount of assertions
> is
> > probably the correct one, I'd say you are
> shooting
> > for some kind of record for the wrongest
> argument
> > ever.
>
> Yet every time someone can make a specific
> argument against a major tenet of my theory I can
> refute it, show the logic that contradicts it, or
> change the theory to suit it.
>
>
> Many of the arguments are irrelevancies.
>
>
> There's no question there's a passage here leading
> to a heat sink. Obviously there are countless
> exceedingly low probability explanations for the
> anomaly but there is only one single very high
> probability explanation which is consistent with
> physics and what we actually know about ancient
> architecture.
>
>
> Obviously every part of these hypotheses look
> ludicrous to everyone who has different beliefs
> and assumptions. I believe the toughest thing for
> people to get past is the implication that there
> is no such thing as "intelligence". This is why I
> refer to humans after the tower of babel as 'homo
> omnisciencis". We see what we believe so
> everything we see is fully explicable in terms of
> our beliefs.
>
> The extinct homo sapiens didn't have any words for
> "belief" or "thought".
>
>
> They spoke in tautologies making their premises
> visible and, curiously enough, they all shared the
> same premises based not on belief but on science
> and human knowledge.
>
>
> It's hardly surprising this is all hard to
> believe.
>
> > A language is re-invented based on what
> makes
> > sense to your psychic views, the thinking of
> the
> > people then deduced from this fantasy.
>
> I merely solved the words such that they were
> coherent. I began with the premise that all
> people make perfect sense in terms of their
> beliefs. I then solved what each word had to
> mean in order that it was logical, consistent, and
> sensible. I did not change the language. Rather
> I discovered that a "henu boat" was just one of
> the "two boats tied together" operated by the
> "ferryman" in order to lift stones (called
> horuses) to construct the ka of the king. It was
> actually a very simple process. It was like
> solving a massive simultaneous equation but it was
> first broken down into small parts which were
> simple.
>
> > The actual physical evidence is handled with
> a lot
> > of assertions how some things are impossible,
> and
> > if other things were done, they mustta leave
> this
> > or that sign. Any connection between these
> > assertions and reality is never provided.
>
> Many things truly are 'impossible". Stones don't
> fall uphill and they don't get hot inside of
> something when they are in contact with other
> stones except under very special conditions. In
> this case we can see the interior stones are
> hotter. It therefore required special conditions.
>
>
> This isn't to say there can't be an even more
> mundane explanation than the presence of the
> mafdet Linx. But there is necessarily something
> inside the pyramid getting hot and I'm sure you're
> aware this is not a "natural" thing. Whatever is
> hot is also transmitting its heat to a specific
> location on the outside. This requires a means to
> conduct heat and proves beyond question that the
> pyramid is not just homogenous stone between the
> heat source and the so called anomaly.
>
> Something is hot and something is transferring
> this heat to the outside. I expected to see the
> Mafdet here if they ever did the testing. There
> are many other things I expect on all kinds of
> other testing but after their experience here I
> doubt there will be any more science other than
> the archaeological work they've been doing since
> Petrie.
>
>
> ____________
> Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.

It isn't about what is hard or not to believe, it is about you asking people to believe. Not to present an argument and the supporting evidence, and to come to the conclusion that it was likely so.

You want to restict the scope of view to the times from where minimum amount of evidence exist, and all experts wisely keep from making definitive assertions. And then go to claim this as their weakness, and that we should believe your stories instead.




Regards,
Tommi

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-Homer J. Simpson