[rooster]

"The anomaly is the creation of a cartouche being reused by following generations. The initial carving was made during the reign of Seti I, and the stone was later reused during the period of Ramesses II with one carving being on top of the other. This palimpsest effect coupled with erosion creates the carving in situ."

That's pretty obvious when you notice that those aren't anywhere else in all of Egyptian record keeping. Which is pretty remarkable. If giant flying machines existed they would be noted frequently.

[rooster]

It's not a horizontal piece either - just look at the bee on the left.

[jroa]

"The anomaly is the creation of a cartouche being reused by following generations. The initial carving was made during the reign of Seti I, and the stone was later reused during the period of Ramesses II with one carving being on top of the other. This palimpsest effect coupled with erosion creates the carving in situ."

That's pretty obvious when you notice that those aren't anywhere else in all of Egyptian record keeping. Which is pretty remarkable. If giant flying machines existed they would be noted frequently.

I would bet that you think that Christopher Columbus proved the shape of the Earth and Napoleon was very short.  You seem to believe anything that is in a book.  Have you ever tried to think for yourself? 

[Ghost of V]

It's not a horizontal piece either - just look at the bee on the left.

So you're telling me that it's supposed to look like this?



Why was it carved horizontally then? Also, it looks like a mess of nonsense vertically. I think you need to provide a source for this claim, rooster.

[rooster]

I mean it is a horizontal piece. It was not a vertical. Doh

Napoleon was very short.

But he wasn't short...

[Ghost of V]

I mean it is a horizontal piece. It was not a vertical. Doh

I'm confused.

[rooster]

Yeah well, you confuse easily.

[jroa]

rooster seems to believe everything the history books say. 

[rooster]

rooster seems to believe everything the history books say. 

Well first hand evidence is hardly the same thing as a history book, but they do generally consolidate first hand accounts.

[Ghost of V]

rooster seems to believe everything the history books say. 

Well first hand evidence is hardly the same thing as a history book, but they do generally consolidate first hand accounts.

But history books are not first hand accounts by any means. Simply look up the Civil War in a history book and you can see where I'm coming from.

[jroa]

rooster seems to believe everything the history books say. 

Well first hand evidence is hardly the same thing as a history book, but they do generally consolidate first hand accounts.

I have first hand evidence that Scooby Doo is real.  Does that mean it is proof?  Maybe, I am just misinterpreting things to make them fit my view? 

[rooster]

But history books are not first hand accounts by any means.

I did not say they were, poor child.

I have first hand evidence that Scooby Doo is real.  Does that mean it is proof?  Maybe, I am just misinterpreting things to make them fit my view? 

You have first hand observational evidence that a cartoon show called Scooby Doo is real. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Ghost of V]

Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.

[The Ellimist]

Ah, I remember debunking Ancient Alien claims before. Though it's probably going to be considerably harder now that this crackpot believes in Flat Earth and global outlandish conspiracies. At least most AA cultists accept round Earth.

One does not simply "debunk" ancient aliens.

That's what the AA cultists said.

[rooster]

Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.

Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?

[Ghost of V]

Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.

Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?

What's that 'phone game' where information slowly gets warped as people continue to pass the same information via whispering?

That's why.

[rooster]

Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.

Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?

What's that 'phone game' where information slowly gets warped as people continue to pass the same information via whispering?

That's why.

How could that possibly be the case when I can also look at the first source or "message" and apply their reasoning?

[Ghost of V]

Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.

Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?

What's that 'phone game' where information slowly gets warped as people continue to pass the same information via whispering?

That's why.

How could that possibly be the case when I can also look at the first source or "message" and apply their reasoning?

How does that apply to the Egyptian carvings exactly? Can you time travel and ask an Egyptian person what the meaning of the work is or...?

[rooster]

No, but the Rosetta Stone helped people decipher hieroglyphs so that we can just read the meanings of the work.

Like I can tell you that the bee means the "King of the North". I also still remember how to write my name in hieroglyphs but that's neither here nor there.

[Ghost of V]

What does the helicopter and the spaceship mean?