Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Claiming
>
> "Surely you remember the spiral ramps by
> definition would exit the pyramid if parallel to
> the sides..."
>
> WHAT does this even mean?.Spiral ramps couldn't
> char a course parallel to the sides! The would
> have to be an angle so they climbed. The sharper
> the divergence the steeper the slope.
> I am certain you've never had engineering
> training, or you should know this.
>
> Read this, look at the pictures.
>
> > Surely you remember the incline elevators full
> of
> > screaming peasants being used as counter
> weights
> > to pull the stones up?
> > Then there was the geysers shooting water up
> into
> > the air to force blocks up
> > Lest we forget the giant kites flying the rocks
> > up
>
> CK "This is something you invented."
>
> Are you joking? Unless the data base is damaged
> every single one of these claims YOU made can be
> researched in your own posts.
> I'm 73 years old and have wasted enough of my life
> in discussion with you.
>
> As for the incense, I've seen incense burned
> thousands of times and it was never a body.
> The Occam's razor, most likely the old boy was
> getting a bit ripe and the incense was to cover up
> the corruption.
>
> If you really don't remember any of those claims,
> you should get help,
> Jammer

He's makes stuff up - his whole point is to just keep talking and talking - yep he said all those things but now he pretends he didn't, par for the course, chuckle the only good thing to do, is just ignore him.

*internal consistency. Even if your theory is
> internally consistent you did not make it so by
> reproducible experiments. Your internal
> consistency is a product of your interpretation
> and so you must be able to deflect the charge that
> you inadvertently due to observer bias made it
> consistent at will as opposed to it falling into
> place consistently on its own. For example, if
> your over-riding theory is that the PT are a
> gateway to how the pyramids were made then is your
> interpretation of CO2 from the word ascension
> let's say a result of independent observations in
> the texts all of which point to it or it the
> result of a self-fulling prophecy where you
> exclude other possibilities which could also fit
> per se' but falsify your theory. That's why you
> need to prove that your process works so that
> others can walk down the same path you proposed to
> have paved. - [grahamhancock.com]

Manu outstanding post.....but the capacity for self-deception is strong in this one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2026 02:47AM by Hermione.