There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By stevevw
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 1268 Replies
Its like your declaring to be the gatekeeper and unless the experts are known to you and pass your test they don't count. This is exactly my point of imposing an epistemics onto those who present alternative evidence.
There you go again imposing your personal authority over everyone else. So what happens when people disagree and say they do have authority. What then. Are you an expert and have 50 years experience in the very field that is required to know what they are talking about.
Yes and his idea of the pyramids being able to generate energy has been verified. Have you even wrote anything on the Egyptian works. I doubt it.
But its still your personal opinion thats coming onto the page without one bit of evidence. I find it ironic when at least these experts have written something and done the onvestigation.
You do realise this is a subjective opinion. People do disagree and see it as significant. You have from the start been antagonistic against anyone who suggest alternative and advanced knowledge.
The idea of advanced or alternative knowledge is a natural human interest. But of course if you have already relegated it to nothing due to your beliefs then its going to mean little to you. But don't project your beliefs onto others who hold a different one.
Tell that to a stone mason or engineer to sees the works. You have not got the awareness of these industries so you don't know. But then you dismiss everything you don't know so I guess your beliefs and feelings trump everyone elses experiences.
If we found a sowing needle in that period of time it would be a big deal. It depends on how you look at it. Its that the level of tech and knowledge stands out. How it stands out is a matter of knowledge itself.
If you don't understand the value from the perspective of the expert in that field then your imposing your unqualified belief over them. Petrie and other experts recognised the advanced knowledge immediately. I trust their opinion over yours.
Yes you keep saying this like its gospel. This is exactly the point I was making above about the words just fall out of your mouth and onto the page as though they are truth over everything else without one bit of evidence. You seem to think your words are like peer review without providing the peer review.
So this time provide the evidence. Show how its different to what I think. I provided several indpenedent articles that say otherwise. They clearly state that the pyramid can concentrate energy into the chambers and was specifically designed that way.
But you believe your words are gospel just by saying them. As though they hold truth over all else without any evidence. Thats the same as unverified religious beliefs lol.
This tells me you don't know him. That you have never read his material. Because if you did you would realise that he uses a scientific approach. He will abandon an idea if the science is not supported just as good scientists do. His language is exactly that. Even when others suggest unsupported ideas like aliens or gods he rejects it.
Which shows you made up you mind on Dunn without even knowling himand his work.
Thats one of the biggest ironies I have heard for some time.
Whose thresholds, you the gatekeeper. How do we know the gatekeeper is not the grifter.
Really, you have not seen any discussion or images on this thread about saw cuts. If not then how can you even make any claims about anything if you have not even looked at big chunks of evidence.
Out of place works, anything out of place as to its tech and knowledge. Where it should not have been there for that time. You could say the pyramids themselves are out of place for their time. They were the highest buildings in the world until the Eiffel tower was made in the 19th century.
But stuff like modern looking saw, planing and router cuts in hard stone. Precision vases in a time when the potters wheel was not even around. Evidence for chemical, and material tech in block moulding or changing the material nature of stones. Or the use of electromagnetism, acoustics ect in energy production or hydro tech ect.
The problem is because you have never done this it begins to look like you just sayiong this without any substance. You have to understand from my perspective that I have two people or sometimes many people disagreeing with you. One is published and has the work and the other has never produced anything.
Talk about grifters and conspiracy makers. They have specifically addressed this and stated in no uncertain terms that its not about anything whacko. You seem to be creating your own conspiracies without actually knowing what others are saying. Lumping them all into the stereotypes you are creating.
You seem to think I cannot sort out fact from fiction. Another projection and to be honest quite a put down. But thats what is to be expected from skeptics who relegate everyone to this category. Which only shows that bias is at play and we cannot trust your opinion.
Yes I have watched this already. Which completely refutes you claim that these researchers are blindly claiming everything without getting alternative views. He does not refute the claims completely but offers alternative explanations.
If they were so fixated and deluded then why would they invite such alternative explanations and show everyone.
You seem to think that those who propose such alkternative and advanced knowledge must be completely unaware of the whackery out there. You have to remember that just suggesting alternative or advanced knowledge can be conflated but because it can be conflated doesn't make it all conflated.
What your doing is conflating any suggestion as automatically whacko. You cannot seem to seperate them out. Or accept that at the same time there is whacko idea there is genuine alternative and advanced tknowledge.
If you are to be fair and balanced then you should also hear from the actual experts in the specific fields as well and then make up your mind. Here is Chris King
Login to view embedded media
No I havn't. Thats the point. I am willing to accept the skeptics. Heck here I am with half a dozen people challenging me and the suggestion of advanced tech and knowledge. What if it was the other way around. How long would you last lol.
I am fully aware of the skeptics objections and I think so is all who propose alternative ideas. The difference is the skeptics are dismissing everything before its properly investigated which shows their position and belief was already set.
Upvote
0
