Why bring that up ?E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%201.pdf
What is it a response to ?
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Why bring that up ?E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%201.pdf
It's just sad that regardless of how many problems i've underlined with the mainstream archaeological view of the pyramids and the mainstream archaeological method in general you somehow feel no responsibility to answer any of my arguments and on top of that claim that i'm the one who should do some reading. read what? another silly hypothesis which with absolutely no evidence should be respected as a scientific theory? or some puny insult on my inability to buy some 100 year old fairy tale written by fake scientists on a field which relying on authority systematically erases any differing view on the history of civilization?E.P. Grondine wrote:Tiompan, skiessa is not the only person who needs to do some reading.
Part 2:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%202.pdf
Part 3:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%203.pdf
It will take you about 3 hours, total, and it is a fun read.
It's also a waste of time .circumspice wrote: It is senseless to try to have a discussion with you about any aspect of these subjects.
You mean cling on minor errors on one's arguments and even on the side notions (like the 72) while completely ignoring everything else he says and claim that it dismisses the whole argument? that's your argumentation in a nutshell. if you don't see the error on this then i'm honestly sorry for you.Tiompan wrote:It's also a waste of time .circumspice wrote: It is senseless to try to have a discussion with you about any aspect of these subjects.
Much better to simply point out the irrefutable errors .In this case , he was unaware of how monuments are actually dated , unaware of taphonomy and taphonomic logic .
Unaware of simple technology to achieve accurate cardinal orientations , got the figure for axial precession wrong which makes a mockery of the "magic 72 ".
The fact that he was claiming the value of the error of the northing was important in providing the value that lead to to the erroneous 72 was the sort of nonsense that could be discussed ,
so best avoided ,but there was enough that was simply wrong to save the bother .
"It's senseless to try to have a discussion..." build a tent and say the world is dry. give only some bad hypotheses which for some reason i should respect as scientific theories. it's obvious that anyone i've encountered on this topic doesn't understand the difference between the term "theory" in scientific and in every-day use. Answer me with the factual value of zero and claim that i've already made up my mind because i refuse to change my opinion. I would never stick in opinions that can be shown inferior to others, but unfortunately, as i've once again witnessed, the scientific method and the burden of proof doesn't apply on the archaeology, and the best i can get when i ask why should i believe you are poor hypotheses and the fact that i don't have any better theory to offer presented as a problem, as if to get rid of a model that is just self-evidently bad one would have to substitute it with a new model, rather than just dismissing the old bad model and acknowledging that we don't know.circumspice wrote:Never play chess with a pigeon. It will just knock the pieces over & shit on the chess board...
@skiessa: The members of this board have attempted to answer your questions & debate the subject with you.
It is senseless to try to have a discussion with you about any aspect of these subjects. Your opinion was already formed when you began the 'discussion'. You came here only to try to convert/convince the members of this board to your beliefs. Like the pigeon, you shit on any idea that doesn't match your opinion. This is not a discussion or debate, this is evangelism. And, you SUCK at evangelism because your beliefs aren't original, you merely parrot the alt/fake archaeology crowd. Not a single one you have quoted has a educational degree in the relevant subjects. And neither do you, as evidenced by your ignorance of the subjects 'discussed'.
You've said your piece & shat on the chessboard. Time to move on troll.