It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Harte: Nothing you say above is in any way valid at all, or even relevant to the conversation, unless you first make the assumption that the sphinx's head was originally carved to be something else.
Harte: For someone that stamps his foot and cries "That's OPINION, not FACT" re the dating of the sphinx, you sure are quick to jump both feet first on a complete assumption, with not a single whit of evidence (and no possible hope for any in the future.)
Harte: Smaller head than planned means less weight to support. I think that if you spend a few minutes puzzling this out, Scott, you'll see what it means.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
SC; By qualifying your statement with the word "around" I presume you are giving an error margin of +/- 100 years?
Byrd: Well, yes. It's much better than saying "June 1st, 2433 BC." You'd have to have a dedication stela to prove that.
SC: Then I’d still like to see hard evidence that proves categorically that the Sphinx was crafted around 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years.
Of course, if you had qualified your statement by saying “it is believed that the Sphinx was built around 2,500 BCE” I would have had no objection.
SC; By qualifying your statement with the word "around" I presume you are giving an error margin of +/- 100 years?
Byrd: Well, yes. It's much better than saying "June 1st, 2433 BC." You'd have to have a dedication stela to prove that.
SC: Then I’d still like to see hard evidence that proves categorically that the Sphinx was crafted around 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years.
Byrd: Unless I'm very much mistaken, you HAVE seen the evidence (inscriptions, workers tombs, officials tombs, etc) and pronounced it "unconvincing."
Byrd: If I'm not mistaken, the only evidence you would accept is a confession by the pharaohs themselves saying it was their tomb and intended as such.
Byrd: Statements by other sources (including long oral tradition and so forth) which are acceptable by you in other matters are not considered valid for you in this instance.
Byrd: (c.f. your statements about Atlantis, for example.)
SC: Of course, if you had qualified your statement by saying “it is believed that the Sphinx was built around 2,500 BCE” I would have had no objection.
Byrd: I have no problem with that wording, but I'm afraid that when I'm responding I will probably not use that wording.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Harte: Nothing you say above is in any way valid at all, or even relevant to the conversation, unless you first make the assumption that the sphinx's head was originally carved to be something else.
SC: And equally the orthodox position is making a massive assumption i.e. that a structure that has the body of a lion did not once also have the head of a lion. Why is not a reasonable hypothesis (not assumption) that this could have been so? Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head. That is an arrogant and blinkered view; a view that threatens to smother a possible (and in my opinion) more likely truth.
Harte: All so that you can continue to live in fantasyland?
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte
Harte: All so that you can continue to live in fantasyland?
SC: The only people living in fantasyland here are those who make absolute statements - without presenting any hard proof - that the Sphinx dates to c.2,500BCE +/- 100 years. They have arrived at this 'fantasy' through constantly repeating to themselves and propagating this date to others so often that they have come to believe that it must be true, that it is now estasblished fact - a self-fulfilling delusion.
And equally the orthodox position is making a massive assumption i.e. that a structure that has the body of a lion did not once also have the head of a lion. Why is not a reasonable hypothesis (not assumption) that this could have been so? Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head. That is an arrogant and blinkered view; a view that threatens to smother a possible (and in my opinion) more likely truth.
Harte: All so that you can continue to live in fantasyland?
SC: The only people living in fantasyland here are those who make absolute statements - without presenting any hard proof - that the Sphinx dates to c.2,500BCE +/- 100 years. They have arrived at this 'fantasy' through constantly repeating to themselves and propagating this date to others so often that they have come to believe that it must be true, that it is now estasblished fact - a self-fulfilling delusion.
Harte: And, obviously, the people you castigate for making absolute statements (in your opinion) while unable to back them up with facts, well, that's WAAAAY worse than if someone were to say something like:
SCAnd equally the orthodox position is making a massive assumption i.e. that a structure that has the body of a lion did not once also have the head of a lion. Why is not a reasonable hypothesis (not assumption) that this could have been so? Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head. That is an arrogant and blinkered view; a view that threatens to smother a possible (and in my opinion) more likely truth.
|Harte: and be so unable to demonstrate the truth of their claim that they must immediately change the subject and ignore all requests for examples of this sort of "blinkered view?"
Harte: Somehow, I remain unsurprised and somewhat less than whelmed.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
[And when I make a comment responding to YOUR post regarding the head of the Sphinx, I clearly inform the reader that my view on that particular topic is hypothetical, that is a possibility that the body of a lion may once have had the head of a lion that might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh. What part of this do you not understand?
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.
Harte: I asked for citations showing "orthodoxy" doing this.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Now, just incase it has escaped your attention, the issue being discussed here is not about whether the Sphinx may or may not have had the head of a lion - the issue here is about adherents of mainstream Egyptology stating as fact that the Sphinx was built in 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years when this has never been established as a fact. I have every right to point that out.
Originally posted by Scott CreightonNow stick to the topic.
Harte: Which topic, Scott?
Harte: After so doing, what you then will have is a description of exactly what you've done in the same thread.
Harte: Why are the "rules" different for you than they are for Byrd?
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte
Harte: After so doing, what you then will have is a description of exactly what you've done in the same thread.
SC: Utter nonsense! Are you suggesting here that the consensus opinion of mainstream Egyptologists is that the Sphinx was originally carved as something else other than the head of a pharaoh? Is that really what you are suggesting here?
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.