ufos and aliens

Originally posted by karoly aczel
As I have said there is no clear cut explanation yet of exactly how the pyramids were built. And since my research has hit a dead end I will concede the point for now .
I will ask you this though: do you believe the pyramids were built solely for the purpose of burying pharoahs? Or do you think thay had other uses?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]I've also come across evidence to suggest that the Egyptologists are lying.
Whats this evidence you ask?
What's this evidence? I suppose you'll claim clairvoyance now 🙂

For someone so hell-bent
Excuse me? do you mean by that somebody who makes a rational decision based on the available evidence? Multiple sources in peer reviewed pu s of thinking are not amenable to alteration by you in the light of contrary evidence.[/b]

Originally posted by karoly aczel
no,no .I concede the point for now.
My pet theory is more along the lines of what the pyramids were actually used for.

Like I said I've done a bit of research into how the pyramids were made and unfortunatly i dont have any of the material here. As I am not prediposed to flitting around on the internet , I will have to apologize for speculating th ...[text shortened]... my word for it that there is evidence to suggest that the egyptologists are lying. Sorry dude.

I am content here to merely steer the humble readers attention on to mystery of the pyramids, (which according to Lord shark are not very mysterious at all). Time will tell whether I (and others) were on to something or whether we just went along with silly theories and wild speculations as to the nature and purpose of the pyramids.
Now why should I indulge in such outlandish proposals? I am certainly not after a following, and as for my credibilty , Lord Shark seems to have reduced my points to the realms of science fiction.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by karoly aczel
[b]no,no .I concede the point for now.
My pet theory is more along the lines of what the pyramids were actually used for.
Let's face it, you have more than one pet. A menagerie I'd say.

Like I said I've done a bit of research into how the pyramids were made and unfortunatly i dont have any of the mat ...[text shortened]... bit odd that you would consider I'd be daft enough to do that, but I accept your apology.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
haven't read von Daniken.
how about 'Nothing in this book is true it is just how things are' by Bob Frissel. Is that on the internet?

I looked into it. Seems like a mish mash of new age bunkum and science fiction to me. As I said, the likes of von Daniken....

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I looked into it. Seems like a mish mash of new age bunkum and science fiction to me. As I said, the likes of von Daniken....

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Could you tell me if there is anything that is worth pusuing in that book or is it just all new age bunkum and science fiction?IYHO

Originally posted by karoly aczel
apparently the ramps would have been bigger in volume than the pyramids themselves. Since there is no real evidence to suggest they did use ramps , the ramp theory remains just that. A theory.
I'm not dismissing the ramp theory but I've yet to see a plausible ramp theory that would work in real life, with real people,etc.

I guess people dont count for anything when it comes to evidence.
Yes, people,themselves.
I guess its hard to trust someone else before you have trusted your self first. And to trust yourself you must first have an idea of who you really are.
I will say this though, you two have made me think long and hard about how to proceed with some of this stuff. For that I thank you.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I guess people dont count for anything when it comes to evidence.
Yes, people,themselves.
I guess its hard to trust someone else before you have trusted your self first. And to trust yourself you must first have an idea of who you really are.
I will say this though, you two have made me think long and hard about how to proceed with some of this stuff. For that I thank you.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think in life we don't have the time to sift absolutely everything in depth, but from the titles of his books, the short biographies of Frissell and the reviews I've read, my judgement is that there is unlikely to be much worth reading in that book.

Can you see, dear Lord , why I dont want to offer up evidence?
I can see the move you just pulled. You have offered no evidence. Rather you have named a book. You could name books all day and I couldn't possibly read them all. Then you could turn around and say I'm unwilling to consider evidence. I think that's rather disingenuous of you, but I doubt it will fool anyone.

Its not like you have refuted any evidence this book has provided. You simply have not read it. You claim to want evidence from me to back up my claims but when I present you with something you say " we dont have time to sift through everything in depth" . Did you sift throught it at all?
Just to clarify, I want evidence. That is, references to peer reviewed papers from reputable journals. I don't want titles of books, the most cursory examination of which is sufficient to conclude that they are new-age bunkum.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]Can you see, dear Lord , why I dont want to offer up evidence?
I can see the move you just pulled. You have offered no evidence. Rather you have named a book. You could name books all day and I couldn't possibly read them all. Then you could turn around and say I'm unwilling to consider evidence. I think that's rather disingenuous of you, but I do most cursory examination of which is sufficient to conclude that they are new-age bunkum.[/b]