The origin of mankind

[Michael Sternbach]

.

Not totally 100% sure of every technique they used but the evidence from a wide range of sources is pretty clear. You just need to study the science of it and not the fantasy of the uneducated about it ( like VonDanniken and Handcock ... they have been well exposed . quite some time back . Their proponents make as much sense as religious fanatics ... thats why people get so emotive about it and them.

 

 

 

 

Thats what Egyptologists and others do , thats what I am doing here.

 

You have to get an holistic picture.

Right. But the jigsaw you are trying to complete is different from mine.

 

These building techniques are common all over the world ; giant slabs in Lebanon, massive architecture in Egypt, pyramids and massive stone blocks in Sth America, the Moai in Easter Island ( and there is a great case of evidence of 'stone pounding carving technique' ) Orkney Islands .... all progressed with similar stone techniques , being massive, and later in their history, they developed metal tools, blocks became less massive and the work not as good.

 

Now, I know some will claim this as evidence of some alien or super or anti-diluviuan race going around instructing people ...

 

 

but the time scales are way out !

 

So we either have to postulate that these are levels of human accomplishment and develop alongside human societies and discoveries at different stages at different times in different parts of the world

 

or

 

aliens went around and taught first the Egyptians and then others and thousands of years later the Mayans and Aztecs (while Europeans built cathedrals ) .... and then hundreds of years later came to Australia and started showing the Aboriginals how to carve stone channels through bedrock to link one watercourse with another to start the continents first aquaculture project.

 

And not only that ... came and taught each group in stages hundreds of years apart ..... maybe they will be back soon to teach the aboriginals how to make those stone channels deeper and then undercut and remove a block and start making their own pyramids ?

It's actually quite likely that different cultures received instructions at different times from advanced beings following an unknown agenda.

 

There is certain learning and development required to be able to properly analise the evidence aside from projecting ones desires into it.

 

I highly recommend John Romer's Book 'Ancient Egypt - from the first farmers to the Great Pyramid' - its preface has a long section on interpreting empirical evidence without cultural or religious bias - an essential read for any serious student of the subject !

 

Just in case people dont realise - I am no way a materialist ... i used to love reading and believing in Von Daniken, Sitchin and all the rest ... they used to be my hero's ... until I started studying things with a more open mind. My thirst for knowledge was behind that, I wanted to learn all I could as well as what they wrote.

Since when do academic scientists and their methods provide all the answers pertinent to people involved with occultism, Tarot, astrology, alternative medicine etc? And yes, they are typically materialists, neglecting or opposing the spiritual context of their subject (with some exceptions, to be sure). You awfully sound like you got disillusioned, seeing that not everything you used to have faith in holds true, and went to the other extreme then. Similar like what has happened to Karl, in a way.

 

It also reminds me of what happened when Causabon showed that the ancient Hermetic texts were not quite as ancient as they were believed to be. They now became "forgeries" in the mind of people who could not think dialectically.

 

But I know, subjects like this, when enflamed with near religious fervor will throw that out the window ... and it can become just as useless as a religious conversation is for some .

It seems to me that you didn't lose any of your fervor regarding these topics, you just reversed your orientation. You do come across as somebody who is taking it quite personally when somebody has a different opinion about these things than you.

[Michael Sternbach]

You arent going to bring up Atlantis again ? !

 

Remember where we left off ? You were going to return with more pertinent info .... still waiting !

I haven't forgotten. As I said, I had to locate certain books first. For our discussion, I also bought an interesting book on the topic not long ago, but I didn't find the time yet to summarize the rich information it contains for presenting it here. I was too busy with other things (not least "moderating" folks who didn't realize when they were crossing the lines).

 

It is not a reasonable view at all IMO and indicates a certain lack of reason trumped by an emotive 'want to believe' .

 

I assume that is a factor in your astrological makeup

 

Okay .... I agree with you that that the Egyptians had advance technology ... they developed it ! If not, please explain where it came from ..... reasonably ... not by some fictional fantasy.

[Nungali]

Right. But the jigsaw you are trying to complete is different from mine.

 

It appears so.  I am interested  in what the Egyptians did . not wild unbacked up and in some cases , false data and faked photoshopped pictures . 

 

 

It's actually quite likely that different cultures received instructions at different times from advanced beings following an unknown agenda.

 

 

Its actually quite likely that they  did not .    

 

 

 

 

Since when do academic scientists and their methods provide all the answers pertinent to people involved with occultism,

 

What makes you think my involvement with occultism  has anything to do with my research into ancient Egyptian building methods? 

 

What they depicted  and represented with those methods could be considered occultism,  I also study that. But from an early age, in my magical training I learnt about the idea of 'separation of planes'   .... one method of studying  the 'occult'  and not being led away by delusion and fantasy ... probably the main 'danger' . 

 

Tarot, astrology, alternative medicine etc?

 

I am confused here ... are you suggesting because I use Tarot (non predictively  )   and am interested in astrology as a map of the psyche, I should not  study Egytptian building techniques academically  ? ? ? 

 

 

 

And yes, they are typically materialists, neglecting or opposing the spiritual context of their subject (with some exceptions, to be sure).

 

Ummmm ... I just said I am interested ... highly interested in the spiritual component of what they depicted in stone, again, I dont see what this has to do with a rational approach of how they built stuff ? 

 

 

You awfully sound like you got disillusioned, seeing that not everything you used to have faith in holds true,

 

Ummm .... I never had 'faith' in that stuff , I  was fascinated and interested in it ... the more I looked into it, the more it fell apart is all.   Adding faith to the mix  just makes it seem more religious and connected to a want and desire for the facts to match one's hopes and beliefs. 

 

 

and went to the other extreme then. Similar like what has happened to Karl, in a way.

 

No .... Karl appears to not be into astrology and I am ... big difference between us I would say. 

 

Some of my ideas about astro-psychology would probably enrage him  

 

 

 

It also reminds me of what happened when Causabon showed that the ancient Hermetic texts were not quite as ancient as they were believed to be. They now became "forgeries" in the mind of people who could not think dialectically.

 

Timewise, according their claims, they were fakes.   But, to me, that does not mean they do not hold wisdom. 

 

I could fake a copy of the bible and claim it was ancient, and get exposed as a fake ... my forgery would still hold wisdom ... separation of the planes again. 

 

The reason they threw them out and adopted new systems is a bit more complex and relied on varied factors.

 

 

It seems to me that you didn't lose any of your fervor regarding these topics, you just reversed your orientation. You do come across as somebody who is taking it quite personally when somebody has a different opinion about these things than you.

 

 

I have no trouble changing gear ... I have good clutch.  

 

I will dispel incorrect info when I see it  .....  I mean, at one stage , you seemed to be saying Handcock's stuff was valid in showing some proof that aliens were involved in Egyptian building ....

 

.... even he doesnt say that .  And when I pick up on other mistakes  and clarify previous points made in argument as wrong ..... I am being picky  ? ? ?  

[Michael Sternbach]

What makes you think my involvement with occultism  has anything to do with my research into ancient Egyptian building methods? 

 

Maybe it hasn't. To me (and many others), the occultist world view touches everything. If it is valid in the areas of astrology, numerology, medicine, agriculture, etc, chances are that there is also a lot of validity to it regarding history. In either case, it is often far from what academic science acknowledges. Have you ever heard the term 'historical metaphysics'?

 

What they depicted  and represented with those methods could be considered occultism,  I also study that. But from an early age, in my magical training I learnt about the idea of 'separation of planes'   .... one method of studying  the 'occult'  and not being led away by delusion and fantasy ... probably the main 'danger' . 

 

The problem here is that you can go astray in every direction.

 

I am confused here ... are you suggesting because I use Tarot (non predictively  )   and am interested in astrology as a map of the psyche, I should not  study Egytptian building techniques academically  ? ? ? 

 

Not at all. But you should try to connect these things with one another, imo.

 

Ummmm ... I just said I am interested ... highly interested in the spiritual component of what they depicted in stone, again, I dont see what this has to do with a rational approach of how they built stuff ? 

 

 

 

 

Ummm .... I never had 'faith' in that stuff , I  was fascinated and interested in it ... the more I looked into it, the more it fell apart is all.   Adding faith to the mix  just makes it seem more religious and connected to a want and desire for the facts to match one's hopes and beliefs. 

 

All right, maybe I should have phrased it differently. But I'm under the impression that you believed the stuff and then felt betrayed when you saw that some of it wasn't valid, and threw it all away in favour of the tentative and changing conclusions of academic science.

 

No .... Karl appears to not be into astrology and I am ... big difference between us I would say. 

 

Some of my ideas about astro-psychology would probably enrage him  

 

No doubt about it. But you seem to be more similar to him than you are aware of, given your pronounced scepticism and taking offence with representants of an occultist view of history.

 

And lest I make you confused again: How come virtually all great occultists from Kircher to Steiner accepted the Atlantis theory?

 

Timewise, according their claims, they were fakes.   But, to me, that does not mean they do not hold wisdom. 

 

I could fake a copy of the bible and claim it was ancient, and get exposed as a fake ... my forgery would still hold wisdom ... separation of the planes again. 

 

That's what I mean. Likewise, von Däniken admitted that he was overly enthusiastic and therefore too careless in some if his earlier statements. But that doesn't mean that his whole work should be dismissed.

 

The reason they threw them out and adopted new systems is a bit more complex and relied on varied factors.

 

 

 

 

 

I have no trouble changing gear ... I have good clutch.  

 

I will dispel incorrect info when I see it  .....  I mean, at one stage , you seemed to be saying Handcock's stuff was valid in showing some proof that aliens were involved in Egyptian building ....

 

.... even he doesnt say that .  And when I pick up on other mistakes  and clarify previous points made in argument as wrong ..... I am being picky  ? ? ?  

 

I never said that Hancock supported the alien hypothesis regarding the pyramids, and neither do I without reservations; just that he thinks they could not have been built with what orthodox Egyptology says was available at the time and place.

[Karl]

So it must have been just chance that I was able to make several pertinent statements about somebody completely unknown to me in this and a number of other cases, just by looking at their chart. There may be acausal links and/or causal links that are not yet understood by science (there are certain theories though). And only a fool would believe they know everything about themselves worth knowing.

Its not about 'chance' I can make predictions about you without consulting anything much at all. However, you arent considering the person that you are investigating. If they have a penchant to believe in these things then they will tend to agree with your perceptions. There isnt anything mysterious about it-cold readers and other s have relied on it for many years. Whats more, if the reader is himself a believer rather than just a faker, they will discover a positive feedback loop.

 

This has been known about for years as well. Groups can convince themselves that they saw exactly the same thing. Crowds become a collective force devoid of reason and act in unison.

 

I used to 'act as if' when working with clients. I truly believed and so did the client. We can convince ourselves of anything if we stop applying reason. Many people just dont want to know reality, its too harsh maybe? its easier to believe some fantasy that gives a sense of control in a dangerous world.I know how tightly I clung to my own illusions and the comfort they seemed to bring.

 

Nungali is showing you proof. Very interesting proof it is too. He isnt filing things under 'aliens might have done it' because he has the proof that they were not needed. If Aliens were hanging about in Egypt, then they were like bosses on road gangs just watching the workers as we might shoulld we find a primitive race.Then they got back in their space craft after collecting their rubish and disappeared never to return.

 

 

 

One day reality does come crashing in Michael. My advice is not to entertain the crash but to work towards reality immediately, to fall in love with it.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Karl

[Junko]

I am not talking about a bad alien here.kind of alien I am talking about is a good alien which cooperate with humans.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Junko

[Michael Sternbach]

Its not about 'chance' I can make predictions about you without consulting anything much at all. However, you arent considering the person that you are investigating. If they have a penchant to believe in these things then they will tend to agree with your perceptions. There isnt anything mysterious about it-cold readers and other s have relied on it for many years. Whats more, if the reader is himself a believer rather than just a faker, they will discover a positive feedback loop.

 

This has been known about for years as well. Groups can convince themselves that they saw exactly the same thing. Crowds become a collective force devoid of reason and act in unison.

 

I used to 'act as if' when working with clients. I truly believed and so did the client. We can convince ourselves of anything if we stop applying reason. Many people just dont want to know reality, its too harsh maybe? its easier to believe some fantasy that gives a sense of control in a dangerous world.I know how tightly I clung to my own illusions and the comfort they seemed to bring.

 

Karl,

 

Your reply makes me wonder if you actually read what I have linked to above. It's a post on the astrology forum Skyscript I wrote about the chart I didn't know who it belongs to. We call it "mystery exercise".

 

Even after the OP revealed the identity of the chart owner, I only learned a little more about him by looking him up in Wikipedia.

 

So all your objections regarding expectations etc are irrelevant.

 

Lest you or anybody else would have to click too much, I quote my analysis of this stranger (at the time I did it) (emphasis added to show accordances with the Wikipedia article following).

 

"All the planets except the Moon are over the horizon - the chart of an individual strongly oriented towards having impact on the outer or social world. The outward activity, however, is fed by the vivid subconscious activity indicated by the Moon standing somewhat apart in Pisces, in sextile to Neptune. Her placement in the 5th house speaks for artistic leanings, along with the Libra ASC and four planets in the other Venus sign, Taurus. In regard to the latter, I note Neptune's conjunction with the Sun and Venus in Cancer as the dispositor of the Taurus planets as hinting further at artistic inclinations. Then we have Pluto in Gemini (where he was last a long time ago...) supplementing the stellium. Subconscious forces rule this psyche way beyond their average influence, despite the native's overall orientation towards the outer world. They may be harder to integrate and keep under control due to this discrepancy. Moreover, Uranus in the 12th house and Pluto in 8th show that this individual is interested in the mysterious and occult, with a strong philosophical touch as Jupiter rising and Venus in 9th ruling so many planets let me assume.

 

The Taurus placements further suggest that this individual emphasizes tradition, all the more since they're receiving a shade of Cancer mediated by Venus. The native feels strongly rooted in historical background. (S)he will seek to imprint traditional values on the social environment, in light of the MC and Northern Node in Leo/10th, and the POF in 11th - all of these connected to Taurus planets by square. Mars conjunct the Sun, albeit in his detriment, will lend force to such endeavours; his conjunction with Mercury will also make the native a powerful speaker for his sake. Surely plenty of opposition is to be expected here, with Mars being in 7th.

 

Saturn in Cancer as the most elevated planet ruling the 4th house again indicates that this individual stresses structure as provided by tradition and history."

 

This is from the Wikipedia article (emphases my own):

 

"John Laird (17 May 1887 – 5 August 1946) was a philosopher, in the school of New British Realism, who later turned to metaphysical idealism.

 

John Laird was born at Durris, Kincardineshire, a parish adjacent to the birthplace of famous Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid. He was the son of Rev. D.M.W. Laird, a Church of Scotland minister, and Margaret Laird (née Steward).

 

He attended the grammar school of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh, where in 1908 he graduated with a first class M.A. degree in philosophy. He spent a brief interval at Heidelberg before entering Trinity College, Cambridge, as a Scholar. He graduated from Cambridge with a B.A.,1st class in both parts of the Moral Sciences tripos. (He received his Cambridge M.A. in 1920.) He was an Assistant Lecturer at the University of St. Andrews in 1911 and took up a Professorship of Philosophy at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nove Scotia, in 1912. In the following year he returned to the United Kingdom as Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at Queen's University, Belfast (1913–24). In 1924 he was appointed Regius Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen, a position which he held until his death. He was Mills Lecturer, University of California, 1923-4 and Gifford Lecturer, Glasgow University, 1939-40.

 

In 1913 he met Helen Ritchie. They married in 1919 and had one son, who died in childhood. After the move to Aberdeen the Lairds lived in Powis Lodge, Old Aberdeen.

 

Laird was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1929 to 1930. He was a prolific writer and public speaker."

 

A more thorough biography would likely yield even more agreement with my analysis, but just based on this, I hope that you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the accordance between my chart interpretation and this person's biographical data is quite good and hard to attribute to chance.

[Karl]

You are inferring things from your estimations that werent in your estimations. You did not discover he was a philosopher and writer, only that you thought he was a 'strong speaker'.

 

Virtually everyone you ask will stress 'stucture and history', its hard to imagine anyone who is going to completely abandon their beliefs and experience.

 

In a similar way most people emphasise the traditional, as they see it.

 

The world is full of occultists in one form or another. That he had a star chart might well point to that interest ?

 

Even then, even if I gave you full agreement, you still have to prove repeatability. Its no good getting it right once out of every half dozen, you must repeat with total accuracy and your astrological descriptions are not specific.

 

Its also, if I may say so, completely useless. I can look up the guy on the internet and find out far more information.

 

When I was learning hypnosis and linguistic techniques a group of us ended up in a restaurant where we attempted to get the waiter to give us extra food. We tried for a good half hour before one of the group realised it might be easier to simply ask him if we could have more chips/cofee. Amazingly ;-) plainly asking and being polite had the desired effect and we got our extras.

 

You have said that "something happened to me", that I stopped believing and this is true, but I didnt simply cross the road to another kind of belief in the way an atheist sometimes does. Im also cognisant of your own personal beliefs in relation to how I previously thought. I think its somewhat of a pointless kind of execise to engage in a process of argument just to beat down the opposing point of view for the sake of a phyrric victory. Instead lets get to the truth objectively.If you say astrology works 100% and can prove it beyond any doubt I might have, then great, but if you say its my doubt which is preventing me seeing it, then Im goiing to call you out. I can point to a cat if someone doesnt believe I have seen such a thing as a small animal with whiskers and a penchant for purring, you must do likewise. I cannot infer a cat by pointing to a tape recorder of a purring sound, or some whiskers stuck on a brush. My credibility would be a big fat zero.

[Marblehead]

I am not talking about a bad alien here.kind of alien I am talking about is a good alien which cooperate with humans.

Where did you find one of those?  That just doesn't seem natural.

[Brian]

Do you really want to be buried in a landslide of very well accepted academic data about this ?

 

Or are you going to still maintain it could have been aliens without offering any proof yourself ?

 

If you walk past me holding a glass of wine and go into another room and I hear a smash and go in and you are standing there, and the glass is broken on the floor, I will assume you probably dropped it or something similar .... even though I never saw it happen .... as opposed to imagining a UFO went by the window and shot it out of your hand with a laser beam .

 

But thats me ....

Wait...

 

A UFO shot a wine glass out of Michael's hand?!? Why is this not getting media coverage??? I smell a cover-up.

[Stosh]

Space.com

 

This week, famed physicist Stephen Hawking helped launch a major new effort to search for signs of intelligent alien life in the cosmos, even though he thinks it's likely that such creatures would try to destroy humanity. 

Since at least 2010, Hawking has spoken publicly about his fears that an advanced alien civilization would have no problem wiping out the human race the way a human might wipe out a colony of ants. At the media event announcing the new project, he noted that human beings have a terrible history of mistreating, and even massacring, other human cultures that are less technologically advanced — why would an alien civilization be any different? 

- See more at: http://www.space.com/29999-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-danger.html#sthash.68OGuUKf.dpuf

[Junko]

Land of confusion I call.Today everything went messy on our planet.So we all have to sit and meditate.

[Michael Sternbach]

Wait...

 

A UFO shot a wine glass out of Michael's hand?!? Why is this not getting media coverage??? I smell a cover-up.

 

Right on, Brian.

[Michael Sternbach]

Space.com

 

This week, famed physicist Stephen Hawking helped launch a major new effort to search for signs of intelligent alien life in the cosmos, even though he thinks it's likely that such creatures would try to destroy humanity. 

Since at least 2010, Hawking has spoken publicly about his fears that an advanced alien civilization would have no problem wiping out the human race the way a human might wipe out a colony of ants. At the media event announcing the new project, he noted that human beings have a terrible history of mistreating, and even massacring, other human cultures that are less technologically advanced — why would an alien civilization be any different? 

- See more at: http://www.space.com/29999-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-danger.html#sthash.68OGuUKf.dpuf

 

I think alien civilizations are aware of our planet and have been here long ago - perhaps pursuing different agendas, some in line with humanity's wellbeing, others less so. There are ancient descriptions of wars of the 'Gods' in the sky, for instance in certain vedantas. Ray weapons of great destructive power were being used. Flying vehicles of different sizes are described in  technical detail. One text even elaborates on what the pilots should be wearing; overall, it reads much rather like a manual than like a religious text.

 

There are Sumerian texts that seem to describe similar scenarios. Such descriptions can also be found in other cultures.

 

Can we be certain that this is all purely mythological?

[Karl]

I think alien civilizations are aware of our planet and have been here long ago - perhaps pursuing different agendas, some in line with humanity's wellbeing, others less so. There are ancient descriptions of wars of the 'Gods' in the sky, for instance in certain vedantas. Ray weapons of great destructive power were being used. Flying vehicles of different sizes are described in  technical detail. One text even elaborates on what the pilots should be wearing; overall, it reads much rather like a manual than like a religious text.

 

There are Sumerian texts that seem to describe similar scenarios. Such descriptions can also be found in other cultures.

 

Can we be certain that this is all purely mythological?

 

We can be certain because there is no proof or facts to support the assertion.

 

[thelerner]

I guess we all have a mental balancing act between skeptic and uber open mindedness. 

 

I probably have a default skeptic setting, but fight against it because.. that's where the fun is.  You might miss things if a skeptical mindset keeps you from noticing the strange side of reality.

 

Being a Burner means when you see strange lights land in a field, you want to walk up to it, beer in hand and shout out 'How was your flight?'

Edited March 28, 2016 by thelerner

[Brian]

 

We can be certain because there is no proof or facts to support the assertion.

Can you identify the logical fallacy in that argument, Karl?

[Karl]

Can you identify the logical fallacy in that argument, Karl?

 

There isn't one. Its up to the one who asserts that there is something to provide the proof. We might be at the point where something is possible, then probable, then likely, but we are no where near that point. A story is not proof.

 

Give us the facts.

 

 

[Stosh]

I think alien civilizations are aware of our planet and have been here long ago - perhaps pursuing different agendas, some in line with humanity's wellbeing, others less so. There are ancient descriptions of wars of the 'Gods' in the sky, for instance in certain vedantas. Ray weapons of great destructive power were being used. Flying vehicles of different sizes are described in  technical detail. One text even elaborates on what the pilots should be wearing; overall, it reads much rather like a manual than like a religious text.

 

There are Sumerian texts that seem to describe similar scenarios. Such descriptions can also be found in other cultures.

 

Can we be certain that this is all purely mythological?

I say I am certain , my default is also is to not entertain the alien things.

BUT My certainty is just sentiment , thats all certainty ever is ,, (until Mr Langan finishes his CTMU mission) though I will still contend that its fact as best I can discern.

 Because , I expect some positive proof of a theory before I am willing to give it a fair shake, something that pushes my opinion in that direction , and is not just based on how cool , mysterious , and heartening it might be. 

Ill leave the formal versions logics arguments to others . like Einstein did. 

[Karl]

I say I am certain , my default is also is to not entertain the alien things.

BUT My certainty is just sentiment , thats all certainty ever is ,, (until Mr Langan finishes his CTMU mission) though I will still contend that its fact as best I can discern.

 Because , I expect some positive proof of a theory before I am willing to give it a fair shake, something that pushes my opinion in that direction , and is not just based on how cool , mysterious , and heartening it might be. 

Ill leave the formal versions logics arguments to others . like Einstein did. 

 

Just think of it like a court room. The accused stands in the dock and announces he can prove he was not at the scene of the murder. The prosecutor says that he must have bribed people, used a look a like, photoshopped his pictures. The man says no he didn't and the lawyer says 'is it possible'. Prove that you didn't. The man says he couldn't have done it because he has no arms. The lawyer says he did it with his feet, the man says no, the lawyer says 'is it possible' ? Prove you didn't.

 

This is the reason why the burden of proof must be on the person who says 'is it possible and prove that it isn't'.

 

In a court the prosecutor must prove beyond all reasonable doubt, it is not for the accused to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. The lack of evidence finds the accused man innocent and this is the same with any situation where there is no evidence. Where no evidence is forthcoming it is unnecessary to be agnostic. It's as if the person offering the unsupported assertion said something unintelligible and so you walk on.

[Stosh]

I'm not being agnostic , what one considers 'proof' is always a somewhat subjective standard, What exactly it is, that one considers proof, is variable. Thats what the CTMU is hoping to address. The guy with the highest IQ in the world appears to be in agreement with this ,,, Oh OK ! agnosticism ,, for lack of a better term

 

For instance the rope roller, and wrought iron tools  , which really dominate the feasibility aspect of the earlier described methodology , really isnt an open and shut case.

They haven't actually found a roller associated with the pyramid itself , and haven't found a steel chisel either. Im not blaming anyone , I'm just saying they haven't got solid proof of methodology. Leaving things more judgement based. 

Neither does the copper residue in what appears saw marks confirm the methodology of wedges  , neither does the heating and quenching and pounding methodology of the giant unfinished obelisk appear to confirm the same methodology. 

 

True, this all is really unfairly placing the burden of all the proving, on the side of the the anti-alien crowd. So what ? ,,any gain to be got is going to come from the revelations in that quarter anyway. 

 

Personally I figure , that when we are acting primitive, we smash the ants for no reason , when we are acting wiser , we just leave them alone ,, the advanced civilization , might likely be  expected to do the same , and therefore , kindly , just leave us ant-humans alone to build our mounds. 

 

 

( which coincidentally fits fine with Steves thing, because if we do interact with them , it will be to smash us like bugs) 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Stosh

[Brian]

 

There isn't one. Its up to the one who asserts that there is something to provide the proof. We might be at the point where something is possible, then probable, then likely, but we are no where near that point. A story is not proof. Give us the facts.

Prior to Van Leeuwenhoek, your logic would have provided surety that nothing lived smaller than visible by the naked eye.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Brian

[Junko]

This is just a human way of thinking. The art is we should not think like humans.

[Karl]

I'm not being agnostic , what one considers 'proof' is always a somewhat subjective standard, What exactly it is, that one considers proof, is variable. Thats what the CTMU is hoping to address. The guy with the highest IQ in the world appears to be in agreement with this ,,, Oh OK ! agnosticism ,, for lack of a better term  

 

For instance the rope roller, and wrought iron tools  , which really dominate the feasibility aspect of the earlier described methodology , really isnt an open and shut case.

They haven't actually found a roller associated with the pyramid itself , and haven't found a steel chisel either. Im not blaming anyone , I'm just saying they haven't got solid proof of methodology. Leaving things more judgement based. 

Neither does the copper residue in what appears saw marks confirm the methodology of wedges  , neither does the heating and quenching and pounding methodology of the giant unfinished obelisk appear to confirm the same methodology. 

 

True, this all is really unfairly placing the burden of all the proving, on the side of the the anti-alien crowd. So what ? ,,any gain to be got is going to come from the revelations in that quarter anyway. 

 

Personally I figure , that when we are acting primitive, we smash the ants for no reason , when we are acting wiser , we just leave them alone ,, the advanced civilization , might likely be  expected to do the same , and therefore , kindly , just leave us ant-humans alone to build our mounds. 

 

'Is it possible' related to materials science, availability of materials, skill of the workmen etc as opposed to "was it possible that aliens did it?" Where no evidence of Aliens, spacecraft, life on other planets, or any kind of sense in an alien helping to construct a large mausoleum in stone after developing interstellar travel is not yet in the realm of the possible. That Egyptians had developed a technology to cut and build lumps of rock is not only possible, but in the absence of any other explanation, a fact. We can certainly argue over what tools were used, but that's beyond my knowledge-as Nungali has offered quite a lot of evidence I'm minded to accept his explanation as probable.

[Brian]

Probably don't believe in unicorns, either?