@Lou

Quote:

No explanation how they managed to lay the diagonal ones at the top so perfectly...

Have you ever heard the phrase "practice makes perfect". Even if the stonemason was a complete novice at the job at the start of the pyramid, by the time they reach the little pointy bit at the top I can guarantee he will have had some practice, and these guys were not novices.

Quote:

The only time there was water near the pyramids in Giza was about 12000 years ago.

The Great pyramid site is about five miles from the main course of the nile and the water table in the area and the nature of the ground is such that there would be very little difficulty in building a temporary waterway as access to the site, and there is evidence that this was a common technique at the time. The Pyramids at Saqqara mentioned previously are also about five miles from the main course of the Nile, yet the boat was "safely moored at the pyramid of king Menerere." Also the construction dates for the pyramids at Giza are c2550BC. To the best of my limited ability at arithmetic that is somewhat less than 12000 years ago, so what is the relevance of where the water was 7,440 years before construction started.

Quote:

The great pyramids were better built despite being built 8000+ years prior.

Where do you get this ridiculous claim from? The Giza complex was built during the fourth dynasty, long after the step pyramid or the bent pyramid. It was lessons learned on these earlier projects that enabled later architects and builders to hone their skills so that the top stones could be laid in the proper place. There is absolutely no evidence to support this ridiculous fantasy of yours, there is only your desparation in making a futile attempt to set the Giza complex out of chronology and written record so that "it must have been aliens". Once the true chronology is re-established, a clear and logical process of improvement in human abilities becomes evident.

Quote:

Obviously those beuraucrats of 2000BC weren't as good as the ones from 10,000BC...

It doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate the same lie, there were no bureaucrats in 10,000BC, no pyramids in 10,000 BC, and no space invaders in 10,000BC. The Giza complex was built by a human workforce during the fourth dynasty.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: No explanation how they managed to lay the diagonal ones at the top so perfectly... Have you ever heard the phrase "practice makes perfect". Even if the stonemason was a complete novice at the job at the start of the pyramid, by the time they reach the little pointy bit at the top I can guarantee he will have had some practice, and these guys were not novices.

Who practiced on the 1st pyramids, the Giza pyramids?
How did "practice" get worse over time?

Quote:

Quote: The only time there was water near the pyramids in Giza was about 12000 years ago. The Great pyramid site is about five miles from the main course of the nile and the water table in the area and the nature of the ground is such that there would be very little difficulty in building a temporary waterway as access to the site, and there is evidence that this was a common technique at the time.

Oh really? Where are the beuraucratic records for that? Odd, there are no beauraucratic records for the great pyramids and unlike the others also no heiroglyphs in them. Quite a contrast from the *newer* pyramids...

Quote:

The Pyramids at Saqqara mentioned previously are also about five miles from the main course of the Nile, yet the boat was "safely moored at the pyramid of king Menerere." Also the construction dates for the pyramids at Giza are c2550BC. To the best of my limited ability at arithmetic that is somewhat less than 12000 years ago, so what is the relevance of where the water was 7,440 years before construction started.

There you go moving the goal-posts again.

Quote:

Quote: The great pyramids were better built despite being built 8000+ years prior. Where do you get this ridiculous claim from? The Giza complex was built during the fourth dynasty, long after the step pyramid or the bent pyramid. It was lessons learned on these earlier projects that enabled later architects and builders to hone their skills so that the top stones could be laid in the proper place. There is absolutely no evidence to support this ridiculous fantasy of yours, there is only your desparation in making a futile attempt to set the Giza complex out of chronology and written record so that "it must have been aliens". Once the true chronology is re-established, a clear and logical process of improvement in human abilities becomes evident.

There's actually plenty of evidence for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4k8pdJ2so4
Of course you and your 'politically correct' archeologists keep denying it.

Quote:

Quote: Obviously those beuraucrats of 2000BC weren't as good as the ones from 10,000BC... It doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate the same lie, there were no bureaucrats in 10,000BC, no pyramids in 10,000 BC, and no space invaders in 10,000BC. The Giza complex was built by a human workforce during the fourth dynasty.

Your broken record keeps spinning.
If you deny it enough times, it doesn't make it go away...
I'm not denying a human work force assisted in its construction, I'm simply debating when that construction was and who designed it and the methods used.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: The Pyramids at Saqqara mentioned previously are also about five miles from the main course of the Nile, yet the boat was "safely moored at the pyramid of king Menerere." Also the construction dates for the pyramids at Giza are c2550BC. To the best of my limited ability at arithmetic that is somewhat less than 12000 years ago, so what is the relevance of where the water was 7,440 years before construction started. There you go moving the goal-posts again.

Last time and definitely this time your use of the phrase 'moving the goal-post' is incorrect. What is meant by this phrase is when someone keeps their goals out of reach of new evidence. Here Nimrod didn't move his goal post. Instead he illustrated why he established his goal post by providing the evidence as to why. In the last few posts, heck pages, Nimrod has not moved the goal post in reference to his statement that men were the cause of the pyramid and why.

Quote:

There's actually plenty of evidence for this.

Alas you still have not figured out the plural form of 'ancedote' is not 'evidences'.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Last time and definitely this time your use of the phrase 'moving the goal-post' is incorrect. What is meant by this phrase is when someone keeps their goals out of reach of new evidence. Here Nimrod didn't move his goal post. Instead he illustrated why he established his goal post by providing the evidence as to why. In the last few posts, heck pages, Nimrod has not moved the goal post in reference to his statement that men were the cause of the pyramid and why.

He shows me records of lesser quality but yet newer and smaller pyramids.
He's saying the biggest and the best can be built because these amazingly newer, yet smaller and crappier ones were made with heiroglyphs in them and none of those amazing holes that align with certain stars running all the way thru them.

That's like saying I can assemble a whole car because I assembled a bicycle.

Quote:

Quote: There's actually plenty of evidence for this. Alas you still have not figured out the plural form of 'ancedote' is not 'evidences'.

Co-incidentally, I have yet to see those ancedotal bureaucratic records of the Great Pyramids....

Last edited by Lou on 04-Apr-2012 at 02:50 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Who practiced on the 1st pyramids, the Giza pyramids?

Do you have any evidence for your lie about the age of the Giza complex... of course not. Lou doesn't need evidence, because Lou has his faith. And when you have faith, facts are irrelevant. The Giza pyramid complex was not the first attempt at pyramid construction. The first slope sided pyramid in Egypt was the "bent" pyramid, which marked the transition from step pyramids to sloped pyramids.

Quote:

Odd, there are no beauraucratic records for the great pyramids

Totally 100% absolutely wrong, but of course you know that, you simply wish that there was no contemporary record of its construction so that you could sell the lie that it is millions of years older than it really is.

Quote:

Quite a contrast from the *newer* pyramids...

the bent pyramid is not more recent than the Giza complex, despite your pathetic attempts to shift Giza back in time by billions of years. If the Giza pyramids had existed at the time the builders would not have needed to experiment with slope angles, or change halfway through construction.

Quote:

There's actually plenty of evidence for this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4k8pdJ2so4 Of course you and your 'politically correct' archeologists keep denying it.

Once again I will ask the question that seems to be too difficult for you. What EVIDENCE do you have for your assertions?
You keep linking to long and boring diatribes about how the pyramids are quadrillions of years old and were transported here by reptilian alien shapeshifters, but you still have not produced any evidence.

Quote:

I'm simply debating when that construction was and who designed it and the methods used.

No Lou, what you are doing is ignoring actual evidence while trying to falsify the construction dates out of the reach of written record so that you can claim that the newer pyramid complex is quintillions of years old, and was put there by aliens sometime before the universe came in to existence.

You keep claiming that there is some form of scientific omerta or code of silence to keep information hidden. You clearly have no concept of how a scientists mind works. The most important thing in the world to a scientist is his ego. Every scientist wants to be more famous than DaVinci, Newton, Faraday and Einstein all rolled into one. This means that if a scientist can find a new fact and prove it he will publish in order to get the recognition he so richly craves. What he will not do, given the choice, is publish something that turns out to be a silly and careless mistake, as this will leave them looking foolish.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Who practiced on the 1st pyramids, the Giza pyramids? Do you have any evidence for your lie about the age of the Giza complex... of course not. Lou doesn't need evidence, because Lou has his faith. And when you have faith, facts are irrelevant. The Giza pyramid complex was not the first attempt at pyramid construction. The first slope sided pyramid in Egypt was the "bent" pyramid, which marked the transition from step pyramids to sloped pyramids.

Yes and you have your nimrodic rants. Because you believe everything you read 30 years ago and that is what you have faith in...

Quote:

Quote: Odd, there are no beauraucratic records for the great pyramids Totally 100% absolutely wrong, but of course you know that, you simply wish that there was no contemporary record of its construction so that you could sell the lie that it is millions of years older than it really is.

And yet you again fail to provide 1 record. You even love to put words in my mouth. You know full well I placed it at 10k-12k BC. I'm glad you glossed over my posting that scientists determined that a big chunk of Antartica fell into the ocean around that time causing sea-levels to rise 18m...like Sitchin said... But ofcourse this is new science and you certainly wouldn't know anything about that...

Quote:

Quote: Quite a contrast from the *newer* pyramids... the bent pyramid is not more recent than the Giza complex, despite your pathetic attempts to shift Giza back in time by billions of years. If the Giza pyramids had existed at the time the builders would not have needed to experiment with slope angles, or change halfway through construction.

Oh yes, I forgot I was supposed to assume your blind faith in carbon-dating of the outside of the pyramid, that frequently got "restored" is always correct...

Quote:

Quote: There's actually plenty of evidence for this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4k8pdJ2so4 Of course you and your 'politically correct' archeologists keep denying it. Once again I will ask the question that seems to be too difficult for you. What EVIDENCE do you have for your assertions? You keep linking to long and boring diatribes about how the pyramids are quadrillions of years old and were transported here by reptilian alien shapeshifters, but you still have not produced any evidence.

Yes, you are doing a great job executing your Debunking 101 rules. What # was it again that told you to completely disregard the evidence? My memory seems to be failing me...

Quote:

Quote: I'm simply debating when that construction was and who designed it and the methods used. No Lou, what you are doing is ignoring actual evidence while trying to falsify the construction dates out of the reach of written record so that you can claim that the newer pyramid complex is quintillions of years old, and was put there by aliens sometime before the universe came in to existence.

This is too funny. "You did it!" "No you did it!"
What evidence? You keep talking about different pyramids than I am. You have shown a pile of poo's worth of evidence while failing to watch a simple video with actual evidence from actual people who have actually been in the pyramids with pictures to prove it.

Quote:

You keep claiming that there is some form of scientific omerta or code of silence to keep information hidden. You clearly have no concept of how a scientists mind works. The most important thing in the world to a scientist is his ego. Every scientist wants to be more famous than DaVinci, Newton, Faraday and Einstein all rolled into one. This means that if a scientist can find a new fact and prove it he will publish in order to get the recognition he so richly craves. What he will not do, given the choice, is publish something that turns out to be a silly and careless mistake, as this will leave them looking foolish.

Highlighted to show your hypocracy.
So I have shown you ACTUALLY published scientists that tell you exactly what gravity is, etc... Only to have you call them foolish as if you are some authority. Yet here you now defend "scientists". If you want to see a fool, look no further than your mirror.

@Lou

Quote:

Co-incidentally, I have yet to see those ancedotal bureaucratic records of the Great Pyramids....

argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy

@Lou

LHC online enough power to confirm or deny Higgs existence is available this year.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Co-incidentally, I have yet to see those ancedotal bureaucratic records of the Great Pyramids.... argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy

aka, the truth about all theories

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy aka, the truth about all theories

That's why I've been clear to note a Scientific Theory and not use the typical theory, which really means postulate. The causual users, especially seen by promotoers of pseudoscience, don't understand the significant difference between a Scientific Theory and the use of 'theory' in meaning 'my guess is xxxx'.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Apr-2012 at 07:05 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: aka, the truth about all theories That's why I've been clear to note a Scientific Theory and not use the typical theory, which really means postulate. The causual users, especially seen by promotoers of pseudoscience, don't understand the significant difference between a Scientific Theory and the use of 'theory' in meaning 'my guess is xxxx'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
And why all archeological theories are not scientific...you can't reproduce the past!

@Lou

Quote:

Because you believe everything you read 30 years ago and that is what you have faith in...

Wrong. I do not believe anything. I look at the evidence available and on the basis of that evidence I determine whether something is acceptably accurate or ridiculously impossible. As more evidence becomes available I either reinforce my decision, or change my viewpoint to adapt to new learning This is an alien concept to you so I have typed it in bold font so that you may notice it. Also, what is your fascination with books that I may or may not have read while my eldest son was at school? Let me drop a subtle hint for you, I was sitting in a pub when Armstrong landed on the moon, although I was at home when he stepped out of the lander. Despite these facts I did not stop learning new things when I left school, in fact that was the day that I started to learn.

Quote:

And yet you again fail to provide 1 record.

Even If I placed the papyrus in your hand you would either wipe your asre with it and deny it had ever existed, or claim it to be a fake. If I showed you the inscriptions carved in stone you would say that Sitchin had translated it to mean " a Klingon battlecruiser hovered over the whaling ship to protect George and Gracie while they swam off into the sunset".

Quote:

You know full well I placed it at 10k-12k BC

I know you did, but for all of the evidence you have for this claim, it is no more ridiculous to claim the silly and stupid numbers that I substituted. They are equally invalid. the recorded construction date for the Giza complex is circa 2650BC. This makes the great pyramid over 9000 years newer than your fantasy requires it to be.

Quote:

like Sitchin said... But ofcourse this is new science and you certainly wouldn't know anything about that...

Nothing that that faker ever said or wrote has any remote connection with science other than science fiction. His so called "translations" have been exposed as inept to the point of dishonesty by people who can actually do what Sitchin claimed to be able to do.

Quote:

Oh yes, I forgot I was supposed to assume your blind faith in carbon-dating of the outside of the pyramid,

Once again this assumption of a belief that does not exist. also the stupidity of believing that anybody who knew anything about the science behind dating would use C14 dating on fragments of limestone that have been laid out in the sun for over four thousand years is staggering. you might just as well use dendrochronology to estimate tha age of an iron bar. The evidence for calculating the age is drawn from a variety of separate sources It is then assessed and compared before a decision on the date is reached. C14 decay dating is one of the methods used on organic material found by archaeologists, and its evidence is one of the strands, but not the sum total of the evidence as you seem to think

.Quote:

You have shown a pile of poo's worth of evidence while failing to watch a simple video with actual evidence from actual people who have actually been in the pyramids with pictures to prove it.

That "pile of poo" is vastly more evidence than you have supplied, and no I did not ignore your video. I watched it, was bored to tears by it, and heard a lot of assertions, saw a lot of pictures, but there was still no evidence

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory And why all archeological theories are not scientific...you can't reproduce the past!

Actually we can reproduce elements of the past. We can propose the hypothesis and make observations and experiments. For example, you propose the hypothesis of ET. Others propse the hypothesis of humans. We certainly observed the humans by digging them up. We haven't dug up any ETs from the same area. The same goes with tools. We observed tools through digging them up. We haven't dug up any alien tools.

And we can do experiments - take the tools from that time. Or more properly recreate them because the ages can degrade the material qualtiy. Then use those tools to cut rocks and match the cuts up and see if they're close. In this experiment we observed that tools built with the same characteristics as the dug up observed tools do indeed work to cut rocks.

And if you ever happen to find an alien tool we can test that too. Ya gots more work to do there as no one has ever found one that moves a pebble let alone a multiton rock.

Thus, counter to your claim there are scientific aspects of this question as many the postulates and evidence clearly does fall the structure of a scientific theory.

Just think how valuable it would be to find these tools and figure out they can't be used to cut stone. Or how valuable it would be to find 1 man can't move 13 tons by himself with sticks, stones, and rope. -- These would all be evidence showing why it couldn't possibly have been men. The fact is they have been proven to work. Thereby we cannot reject man as a highly probable cause.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Apr-2012 at 09:52 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory And why all archeological theories are not scientific...you can't reproduce the past! Actually we can reproduce elements of the past. We can propose the hypothesis and make observations and experiments. For example, you propose the hypothesis of ET. Others propse the hypothesis of humans. We certainly observed the humans by digging them up. We haven't dug up any ETs from the same area. The same goes with tools. We observed tools through digging them up. We haven't dug up any alien tools. And we can do experiments - take the tools from that time. Or more properly recreate them because the ages can degrade the material qualtiy. Then use those tools to cut rocks and match the cuts up and see if they're close. In this experiment we observed that tools built with the same characteristics as the dug up observed tools do indeed work to cut rocks. And if you ever happen to find an alien tool we can test that too. Ya gots more work to do there as no one has ever found one that moves a pebble let alone a multiton rock. Thus, counter to your claim there are scientific aspects of this question as many the postulates and evidence clearly does fall the structure of a scientific theory. Just think how valuable it would be to find these tools and figure out they can't be used to cut stone. Or how valuable it would be to find 1 man can't move 13 tons by himself with sticks, stones, and rope. -- These would all be evidence showing why it couldn't possibly have been men. The fact is they have been proven to work. Thereby we cannot reject man as a highly probable cause.

What you have is simulations. The past is not actually reproduced.
ET's have the power to get here which means *shock* *horror* they have the power to leave! Do you know what it takes to actually create a fossil?

@Lou

Quote:

What you have is simulations. The past is not actually reproduced.

Neither human remains, nor tools found with them, nor the writings found are simulations. They are real and can be observed like any other scientific evidence.

Quote:

ET's have the power to get here which means *shock* *horror* they have the power to leave! Do you know what it takes to actually create a fossil?

Unfortunately you don't have sufficient evidence to say this. In fact your hypothesis is in such a state of lack of evidence that you don't even have a sufficient amount to make a simulation.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: What you have is simulations. The past is not actually reproduced. Neither human remains, nor tools found with them, nor the writings found are simulations. They are real and can be observed like any other scientific evidence.

No but the theories around them are just - theories. Now, please answer my question about fossils.

Quote:

Quote: ET's have the power to get here which means *shock* *horror* they have the power to leave! Do you know what it takes to actually create a fossil? Unfortunately you don't have sufficient evidence to say this. In fact your hypothesis is in such a state of lack of evidence that you don't even have a sufficient amount to make a simulation.

Actually, you are wrong. I guess you like to overlook the fact that there was a big global flood 14000 years ago... I linked it a few posts above. So you see, the written record of the Sumerians as translated by Sitchin gets more weight.
Meanwhile, I still see no beauraucratic records about the building of the Great Pyramids...

Last edited by Lou on 06-Apr-2012 at 05:12 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

No but the theories around them are just - theories. Now, please answer my question about fossils.

In so far as I understand the current Scientific Theory of fossilization, yes. As unfossilized tools were found it'll be interesting to see where you try to bring this idea.

Quote:

Actually, you are wrong. I guess you like to overlook the fact that there was a big global flood 14000 years ago

Here we have a flood that happened about 14K years ago and we have Stichin that guessed a flood happened about the same time. I'd write a long list of why this proves ET is a joke but Nimrod did a good job.

We have human bodies. Do you have any alien bodies? We have human tools do you have any alien tooss? We have some human records. Do you have any alien records? And as you seem to be going down the fossilized path I'll even accept fossilized alien evidence.

Quote:

Meanwhile, I still see no beauraucratic records about the building of the Great Pyramids

Prove it was ET and not Fairies.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Apr-2012 at 02:12 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Apr-2012 at 02:12 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

ET's have the power to get here

And your evidence for this amazing revelation is... Still non existent apart from an empty assertion. I could easily make the same stupid and baseless assertions about angels, banshees, chimerae, dragons,elves, fairies, gnomes, hobgoblins, and so on going all of the way through the alphabet, or any other fictitious characters. Now produce the evidence that is needed to convert your fantasy into reality.

Quote:

Do you know what it takes to actually create a fossil?

At a guess I would say that one of the most important things (but not the only thing) is time. By time I mean Geological time measured in units of millions of years not electronic time where millionths of a second is an eternity. As yet, even you have not had the temerity to fudge the records of the construction of the Giza complex back that far, although that doesn't mean that you won't try to later.

Quote:

So you see, the written record of the Sumerians as translated by Sitchin gets more weight.

Having read most of the CRAP that you have linked to on the various "Aliens did it" sites, and sat through millenia of videos (well they are so boring, it feels like millenia) I have to say that I fail to see how any statement made by Sitchin could possibly have less weight. I would go so far as to state that this is one form of anti-gravity that I will willingly accept (Sitchin says so = less weight). This is the idiot that ignored a section of text describing making mud and straw bricks for a construction project in order to redefine a ziggurat as a spaceship. Or do you believe that flying saucers are made of wattle and daub

Quote:

Meanwhile, I still see no beauraucratic records about the building of the Great Pyramids...

Of course you don't but if you were to look for bureaucratic records you may actually find something, not that you would accept whatever you find. Here is a simple and basic site that you can start from, but since it does not include stories about flying saucers you will choose to ignore its existence.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: ET's have the power to get here And your evidence for this amazing revelation is... Still non existent apart from an empty assertion. I could easily make the same stupid and baseless assertions about angels, banshees, chimerae, dragons,elves, fairies, gnomes, hobgoblins, and so on going all of the way through the alphabet, or any other fictitious characters. Now produce the evidence that is needed to convert your fantasy into reality.

You could make those stupid assertions. Only with my assertions, they are backed by records of sumerians, pictures and videos of ufos, abductee accounts and corroborating scientifically proven FLOOD evidence. All of which, due to your religious beliefs and hubris, you reject.

Quote:

Quote: Do you know what it takes to actually create a fossil? At a guess I would say that one of the most important things (but not the only thing) is time. By time I mean Geological time measured in units of millions of years not electronic time where millionths of a second is an eternity. As yet, even you have not had the temerity to fudge the records of the construction of the Giza complex back that far, although that doesn't mean that you won't try to later.

Time huh? Your simplistic view is amusing. If that was the only requirement, we'd have fossils of everything that ever existed. Infact, fossils are quite a rarity.
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/how_are_fossils_formed.html
So when asked why there are no fossils of ET's, the answer is "why should there be any?"

Quote:

Quote: So you see, the written record of the Sumerians as translated by Sitchin gets more weight. Having read most of the CRAP that you have linked to on the various "Aliens did it" sites, and sat through millenia of videos (well they are so boring, it feels like millenia) I have to say that I fail to see how any statement made by Sitchin could possibly have less weight. I would go so far as to state that this is one form of anti-gravity that I will willingly accept (Sitchin says so = less weight). This is the idiot that ignored a section of text describing making mud and straw bricks for a construction project in order to redefine a ziggurat as a spaceship. Or do you believe that flying saucers are made of wattle and daub

I think you will believe what you want to believe. Sitchin was one of twelve people on the planet who could translate Sumerian text. The critique of his translations hold no more weight than his actual translations. For instance, "clay jars" may be called laboratory tubes today.

Quote:

Quote: Meanwhile, I still see no beauraucratic records about the building of the Great Pyramids... Of course you don't but if you were to look for bureaucratic records you may actually find something, not that you would accept whatever you find. Here is a simple and basic site that you can start from, but since it does not include stories about flying saucers you will choose to ignore its existence.

That is all theory. You claimed to have records. /yawn
Here's a better theory. The Great Pyramids we built prior to the flood of 12K BC. Thousands of years later after staring at them for a really long time, the Egyptians start practicing and build lesser quality ones, put their kings in them and heiroglyphs all over the place.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: No but the theories around them are just - theories. Now, please answer my question about fossils. In so far as I understand the current Scientific Theory of fossilization, yes. As unfossilized tools were found it'll be interesting to see where you try to bring this idea. Quote: Actually, you are wrong. I guess you like to overlook the fact that there was a big global flood 14000 years ago Here we have a flood that happened about 14K years ago and we have Stichin that guessed a flood happened about the same time. I'd write a long list of why this proves ET is a joke but Nimrod did a good job. We have human bodies. Do you have any alien bodies? We have human tools do you have any alien tooss? We have some human records. Do you have any alien records? And as you seem to be going down the fossilized path I'll even accept fossilized alien evidence. Quote: Meanwhile, I still see no beauraucratic records about the building of the Great Pyramids Prove it was ET and not Fairies.

Prove it was fairies.

So let me get this straight, you expect ETs to come here, die, leave their dead in the mud because clearly they are uncivilized ETs and also leave their tools lying around when they leave because obsiously they would never need a tool again ever...

Now I know why you'd sooner believe in fairies...

You don't find fossils of ETs for the same reason you don't find fossils of every human ever born. If the conditions for fossilization are not met, things degrade... The rocket science quota here is amazing!

Last edited by Lou on 06-Apr-2012 at 04:15 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 06-Apr-2012 at 04:13 PM.