432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Belz...]

You cannot legitimately reconstruct the image just because you think there should be more; it is not a drawing, the marks are incised into the rock and you cannot decide that some of them have mysteriously disappeared while others have not.

Oh, yes he can. And he can ignore you for claiming otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

Obviously these issues can be dealt with through nutritional planning, but so can the higher fat and cholesterol intake that plague those of us who choose to keep eating meat.

Hmmmm... meat...

 

[JonnyFive]

Hmmmm... meat...

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6080462f606f2f717.gif[/URL]

Homer Simpson and nutrional planning go together like fire and napalm.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Maybe my question was unclear, I'll try to rephrase it.

Do you have any actual studies designed to evaluate the health benefits of a nutrionally balanced vegan/vegetarian diet versus a nutrionally balanced diet that includes meat? I don't really care about some guy's book from the early 20th century, I'm more interested in a rigorous study of the comparable effects of the two diets.

Although I'm not professionally qualified to speak as an expert on this, I would wager that the main reason why vegetarian diets tend to be healthier is that they include a low amount of cholesterol and saturated fats, while the diets of many people that eat meat are often higher in those particular nasties. Moreover, speaking purely from personal experience, it seems that many of the people that choose to eat a vegetarian diet are doing so, at least in part, for health-related reasons, and so tend to be more health-conscious than the average person.

Obviously, that general trend will result in a healthy lifestyle, but it isn't lack of meat per se causing it so much as a generally healthy diet and lifestyle.

From what I've read, the problems confronting those choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet are different from those eating meat, but there are still potential problems. For example, I have read that one of the main problems with a non-meat diet is getting adequate protein, as well as certain amino acids found primarily in animal tissue. Obviously these issues can be dealt with through nutritional planning, but so can the higher fat and cholesterol intake that plague those of us who choose to keep eating meat.

This is all rather beside the point, though. Are you really saying that the picture shows a rifle, or are you joking?

I would like to point out that all this stuff about millet and beans does not work as to showing humans evolving with vegan/vegetarian diets. These were not developed until 10-20 thousand years ago or so. The foods that are and have been farmed by man are not natural, and required selective breeding to generate. During their development, man would have had to eat meat.

 

[JonnyFive]

I would like to point out that all this stuff about millet and beans does not work as to showing humans evolving with vegan/vegetarian diets. These were not developed until 10-20 thousand years ago or so. The foods that are and have been farmed by man are not natural, and required selective breeding to generate. During their development, man would have had to eat meat.

I agree. There is compelling anatomical evidence that we did not evolve as either specific carnivores or herbivores. The strength of humankind is in our adaptability, not our specialization. By way of example, I doubt the ice age provided much opportunity for a balanced vegan diet.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I agree. There is compelling anatomical evidence that we did not evolve as either specific carnivores or herbivores. The strength of humankind is in our adaptability, not our specialization. By way of example, I doubt the ice age provided much opportunity for a balanced vegan diet.

Neanderthals would have subsisted almost entirely on meat, just like Inuit and Eskomos did until relatively recently. -

 

[Foster Zygote]

Were you drunk when writing this rubbish?

Still dodging and weaving. Jsfisher's comments were clear and coherent. Why do you not address them directly? Do they make you that uncomfortable?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Really? Apparently, the mantle of Khefren's pyramid was/is granite, and there may be a lot of granite blocks in the lower levels there as well. Also the blocks in the five deilings of the King's Chamber are granite.
The Great Pyramid has been reported in a perfect new like condition right up to the arrival of Arabs. Even the story of the Pyramid's opening seems to attest to that.
Of course, once we strip a pyramid of its mantle, it's going to suffer. Meidum's core, however is another story.

This is a photo of the remaining outer casing of Chefren's pyramid. It is limestone, not granite. Granite was much more difficult for the Egyptians to work with their copper tools than limestone was. Because of granite's strength it was used to line interior chambers but it was impractical to cover the whole exterior of a pyramid with it.

 

[Paul]

This is a photo of the remaining outer casing of Chefren's pyramid.

Hang on, the remaining casing appears to be distressed in some way, almost as if the combined elemental assault of thousands of years had caused damage to the stone; weathered it, if you will.

This can't be correct, because Jiri says that pyramid casings are examples of near indestructible permanent beauty.

 

[JonnyFive]

Still dodging and weaving. Jsfisher's comments were clear and coherent. Why do you not address them directly?

Yeah, good luck with that. I enumerated a series of concerns I had with this whole thing pages and pages back, and Jiri just kind of ignored it.

 

[Jiri]

Yeah, good luck with that. I enumerated a series of concerns I had with this whole thing pages and pages back, and Jiri just kind of ignored it.

I can only spare so much time for writing. At this moment it is almost nil. Be back later tonight.

 

[Macoy]

I can only spare so much time for writing. At this moment it is almost nil. Be back later tonight.

don;t panic, george! at least no one thinks you're a djj sockpuppet.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I've got a couple good quotes to bring up:

An important constraint on middle-range theories is independence. They should be justified on independent grounds, by appeal to evidence other than the evidence to which they give meaning in credibility

This is the antitheses of Jiri's work. The proof that the ancient people had the knowledge he posits is the presence of the special numeric meanings in the piece. But the special numeric meanings are only there if they knew about them, otherwise it is chance. You have to prove that it could not be chance, or that they knew about these numbers, as represented in another source.

Another quote:

The relative weight of a claim is not based on a sociological entrenchment. It is not about how many people endorse the claim, or how long the claim has been believed. Rather, it is an epistemic entrenchment. It is about how many other ideas and observations in our network are linked to this one. How many things does this theory explain? How many things contribute to explaining this theory...

Basically in presenting a new theory, it has to not only replace another idea, but make up for the fact that existing ideas exist in a web of evidence and other theories. To propose that ancient people hid math in these carvings, you have to explain how they had this, explain the fact that record keeping is only associated with complex societies, explain away the evidence for precision tools that you claim necessary but do not exist, and countless other things. You end up introducing ideas with no evidence, and making an entirely new web out of one single piece. This new web is unsupportable and ends up with holes. For instance, how come they apparently measured in millimeters.

(both quotes from Peter Kosso Prof. of Phil. at Northern Arizona University. In Archaeological Fantasies ed. Garrett G. Fagan. )

 

[Jiri]

OK, one more time for the hard of understanding.
Here is a picture, it is a picture that you posted, with only the magnification and the colours changed:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2869462f3a92567d4.jpg[/qimg]
The purple line is b, the black is the engraved line and the blue is the space between them, can you see it now? I have neither moved the line nor have I thickened it, if this is an indication of the accuracy and integrity you are capable of, you will get nowhere.
Only if you are dishonest enough to call an accurate representation of your own work deceptive.
Why would I want to make my line thicker than yours?

You are innocent, all you did was change the gif extension into jpg. When you increased the image's size, your graphics program changed the lines 'just a bit'. In several places, where your rendition shows daylight, my old gif shows contact between the respective lines. Plus, the total area of your line has grew in proportion to the total area of the engraved line.
The other gif, the one with the 5-pointed Pyrostar shows the same contested area on line 'b' under magnification thusly:

At twice lifesize, after reconstruction of the idea of Pyrostar from the Square, the four lines 'a','b''c''d' exist right where we want them in relation to the engraved lines.

Note, how let's say the line 'd', so maligned by you, approaches the multiple intersection at the top marked by a red arrow. It hits seveeral engraved points in an exact manner, more self-confirmation for the line.
.

Again, your own work recoloured:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2869462f3a9284243.jpg[/qimg]
Which of the two separate engraved lines are you proposing to use, and in what way is your current line an accurate representation of either?

.
Another look at my work then:

.
Obviously, line 'd' is the best line here. It follows the edges of the engraved line in several placesm better than any other line could. In view of the fact that it is computer regeneration, the result is most satisfactory (Picture perfect).
What you say is another line, is a part of line 'd', especially on the life-size scale. A paleontologist would opine that the artist had used two strokes to engrave it.
Of course, as we magnify the image and learn more of it, we start paying attention to more detail, but for now, the analysis works well. One effect of this reconstruction is clear, it serves as additional evidence that we got the so called Square right.
.

How do you propose a man chipping rock with primitive tools in poor light can be accurate to a degree greater than he himself can see?

.
This engraving had been made in a lab. It was not chiselled by primitive tools. It is not random.

 

[Jiri]

I've got a couple good quotes to bring up:

Quote:
An important constraint on middle-range theories is independence. They should be justified on independent grounds, by appeal to evidence other than the evidence to which they give meaning in credibility
**********************************************

Does Prof. Kosso wish to say that mathematical evidence is not complete per se? Probably not. If he'd like to see independent confirmation, I can offer the geometry of the Nazca monkey glyph. Another independent example of coding similar geometry into glyphs is the so called Abydos Helicopter.

This is the antitheses of Jiri's work. The proof that the ancient people had the knowledge he posits is the presence of the special numeric meanings in the piece. But the special numeric meanings are only there if they knew about them, otherwise it is chance. You have to prove that it could not be chance, or that they knew about these numbers, as represented in another source.

.
You cannot get rid of the image's meaning, because that meaning actually adds up to thought. What I have learned from it someone else could learn as well. Thought like that, or a highly complex, and fully coordinated system does not materialize out of a vacuum. Ever!
.

Another quote:

The relative weight of a claim is not based on a sociological entrenchment. It is not about how many people endorse the claim, or how long the claim has been believed. Rather, it is an epistemic entrenchment. It is about how many other ideas and observations in our network are linked to this one. How many things does this theory explain? How many things contribute to explaining this theory...
******************************************

Basically in presenting a new theory, it has to not only replace another idea, but make up for the fact that existing ideas exist in a web of evidence and other theories. To propose that ancient people hid math in these carvings, you have to explain how they had this, explain the fact that record keeping is only associated with complex societies, explain away the evidence for precision tools that you claim necessary but do not exist, and countless other things. You end up introducing ideas with no evidence, and making an entirely new web out of one single piece. This new web is unsupportable and ends up with holes. For instance, how come they apparently measured in millimeters.

(both quotes from Peter Kosso Prof. of Phil. at Northern Arizona University. In Archaeological Fantasies ed. Garrett G. Fagan. )

The above requirements are for a paradigm shift. All I did is find some extremely important evidence going against the accepted theory. The paradigm shift could possibly come later as the result of testing this evidence. I am happy with what I did, but I can see a lot of people wanting this evidence to go away by pointing at dearth of similar evidence. The alleged absence of other evidence certainly does not make absent the evidence I had found. Infact, however, it does go away in the sense that it will be denied due attention. When next someone else happens to come up with similar evidence, everyone will pretend that it is wholly unsupported, although that evidence and my evidence support each other.
Science has two ways to go. One way is to observe facts and collect all important data. Pay attention to anomalies. There is plenty of evidence out there for advanced ancient technology in action in various places of this planet. The other way is a fear-reaction - try to suppress inconvenient facts, and that's what you are doing.

 

[Jiri]

This is a photo of the remaining outer casing of Chefren's pyramid. It is limestone, not granite. Granite was much more difficult for the Egyptians to work with their copper tools than limestone was. Because of granite's strength it was used to line interior chambers but it was impractical to cover the whole exterior of a pyramid with it.

Here what Nova's web-page says:

Limestone was used for all but the lowest course of outer casing on Khafre and the lower 16 courses of Menkaure. These lower casings were made of granite.


There is good evidence that Khafre's bottom course of granite casing was being stripped as early as ancient Egypt's 19th Dynasty, and as early as the 12th century A.D., limestone was quarried from the Giza Pyramids for the construction of buildings in Cairo.

The lower courses of Khafre pyramid are allegedly constructed of giant granite blocks weighing up to a hundred metric tons. Wow, that would mean thousands of such granite blocks!
Perhaps, these granite courses making up a grandiose platform had been there thousands of years before Old Kingdom.

 

[Jiri]

Neanderthals would have subsisted almost entirely on meat, just like Inuit and Eskomos did until relatively recently. -

Yet, the Cromagnons of southern France had lived on average to over sixty, had perfect teeth, and left behind evidence of relying on diet containing surprisingly little meat. Don't ask me for links, you'll have to find them yourself if interested.

 

[Jiri]

Silbury Hill

The Pantheon is nearly two millenia old and hasn't fallen down yet.

Many of the European Cathedrals are about 1000 years old and are still standing, and they are hollow.
Jim

If left alone a thousand years, the same cathedrals would look like so many ruins of untended medieval castles.

 

[Jiri]

Maybe my question was unclear, I'll try to rephrase it.

Do you have any actual studies designed to evaluate the health benefits of a nutrionally balanced vegan/vegetarian diet versus a nutrionally balanced diet that includes meat? I don't really care about some guy's book from the early 20th century, I'm more interested in a rigorous study of the comparable effects of the two diets.

Although I'm not professionally qualified to speak as an expert on this, I would wager that the main reason why vegetarian diets tend to be healthier is that they include a low amount of cholesterol and saturated fats, while the diets of many people that eat meat are often higher in those particular nasties. Moreover, speaking purely from personal experience, it seems that many of the people that choose to eat a vegetarian diet are doing so, at least in part, for health-related reasons, and so tend to be more health-conscious than the average person.

Health conscious? Or did their doctor order them to change diets or die?
The main problem in eating meat is the long time required for its complete digestion in humans. Whereas animals, whose main staple is meat have strong stomach acids (10 to 15 times stronger than people), which helps get rid of the meat before it starts rotting, and short digestive tracts (three to five times shorter), also contributing to quick processing - humans have none of the above. Naturally, most problems will stem from these human inadequacies as meat-eaters. The meat rots in the intestines, preventing them from performing their natural functiions, such as synthesis of vitamin B12.

Obviously, that general trend will result in a healthy lifestyle, but it isn't lack of meat per se causing it so much as a generally healthy diet and lifestyle.

From what I've read, the problems confronting those choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet are different from those eating meat, but there are still potential problems. For example, I have read that one of the main problems with a non-meat diet is getting adequate protein, as well as certain amino acids found primarily in animal tissue.

Getting enough protein from other food than meat is amazingly easy, and easier than avoiding getting too much protein.. Four ounces of meat or nuts contain about two ounces of protein, which is the upper limit on kidney capacity in processing protein per one day.
What's the usual steak size in Texas?

This is all rather beside the point, though. Are you really saying that the picture shows a rifle, or are you joking?

The picture seems to be showing a rifle, it's no joke. I would love the chance to study the original since in my experience with the style, there might be more such weapons drawn nearby, which Lwoff missed like he missed the one we see, but he didn't see, despite drawing the simplified picture himself..
The image also seems geometrical right away, the gunman's elbow is a nice right-angle on the outside, and it seems to be a part of a rectangle.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I've got a couple good quotes to bring up:

Quote:
An important constraint on middle-range theories is independence. They should be justified on independent grounds, by appeal to evidence other than the evidence to which they give meaning in credibility
**********************************************

Does Prof. Kosso wish to say that mathematical evidence is not complete per se? Probably not. If he'd like to see independent confirmation, I can offer the geometry of the Nazca monkey glyph. Another independent example of coding similar geometry into glyphs is the so called Abydos Helicopter.

The monkey gliff is not supportive, you need to develop an actual context to compare them in. There is absolutely no such archaeological context.
The point here is that either the math is just coincidence, which fits within the web of archaeological theory and the context of the pieces. Or its documentation of ideas, which is only supported by the math, and nothing else, circular support with no weight.

.
You cannot get rid of the image's meaning, because that meaning actually adds up to thought. What I have learned from it someone else could learn as well. Thought like that, or a highly complex, and fully coordinated system does not materialize out of a vacuum. Ever!
.


The above requirements are for a paradigm shift. All I did is find some extremely important evidence going against the accepted theory. The paradigm shift could possibly come later as the result of testing this evidence. I am happy with what I did, but I can see a lot of people wanting this evidence to go away by pointing at dearth of similar evidence. The alleged absence of other evidence certainly does not make absent the evidence I had found. Infact, however, it does go away in the sense that it will be denied due attention. When next someone else happens to come up with similar evidence, everyone will pretend that it is wholly unsupported, although that evidence and my evidence support each other.
Science has two ways to go. One way is to observe facts and collect all important data. Pay attention to anomalies. There is plenty of evidence out there for advanced ancient technology in action in various places of this planet. The other way is a fear-reaction - try to suppress inconvenient facts, and that's what you are doing.

This is not discussion of a paradigm shift per se, it is discussion of the support of your piece. While you see it as a grand anomalie which requires the reevaluation of all archaeological evidence and historical theory, the simpler and just as probable issue of it being accidental and an over analysis on your part fits much better and is completely supportable.