thanks for the suggestions Oba & Leslie...regarding the deleted post. Unfortunately, I DID hit "BACK' and it was already deleted.....and I usually do 'copy' before I submit long posts, too, but this happened before I was ready to submit...my laptop is finicky sometimes and does things I didn't tell it to do.

"There's an underwater Pyramid that looks much like the great pyramid, in radar images of what is buried under the sand."

Do you have any links or citations for where I can find this data? Also....just trying to understand your perspective (which I don't currently agree with but am willing to try and understand)....do you suggest that RADAR is good science? I'm not sure I understand your criteria for when science is ok and when it is bad and unconsciously conspiratorial. From my perspective it seems like you are very fickle about which science is usable for justification and which is not. Do you not consider that radar was developed from the type of rigorous analysis that you are criticizing when I mention it?

Also, if scientists are only unconsciously complicit in perpetuating an ignorant mode of analysis, as you claim, then how can they be considered "CRIMINALLY" responsible, as you suggested in your last response? I'm actually surprised to hear you use words like "criminally". A criminal is merely someone who violates an established cultural standard? Do you suggest that scientists be prosecuted? What is their 'crime' and whose cultural standard is this based on?

"Oh yeah, the linear evolution, the debunkers, "thoroughly refuted" (one finger in nose, one thumb up ass) why do you even "go there" ?.... this is the work of crap artists employed by the Intelligensia. Fuque that Shiite."

That's not a very convincing refutation of what seems to me a very convincing story with very convincing evidence that I have seen with my very own eyes. What's wrong with the story of the apparent evolution from mastabas to the step pyramid to the true pyramid? That might be a better place to start? The phases of construction at the step pyramid show a clear indication of the evolution, as do the successions from the step pyramid to the 'true' pyramid....archaeology, geology, and ancient Egyptian accounts of their own history all seem to corroborate this story. Also, you didn't address the existence of the Pyramid Texts as very clearly indicating pyramids as afterlife palaces for the kings and some of their families.

"People posing as scientists, waving their diPHDlomas "

I'm trying to find some consistency in your use of the word 'scientists'....sometimes you call them criminals and other times you call the same people poser-scientists. Who are the real scientists if these are only posing? What is science? Which ones are the criminals?

"you couldn't find much in the way of wisdom, even with a search party. SMart !!, .....but Not especially Wise."

(if you do say so yourself),...I find wisdom is very hard to quantify. Personally, I find much wisdom in people like Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Stephen Jay Gould, Susan Blackmore, Daniel Dennett, V.S. Ramachandran, etc.-- I don't always agree with them on everything, but there are certainly things that they say that seem to me to contain great wisdom. But, if YOU are the one that gets to define wisdom, then I guess I have no power to make that assessment.

It is your blanket rejection of a whole way of understanding that has shown (seemingly beyond a doubt) to produce some amount of useful fruit that puzzles me more than anything. I understand perfectly well the questioning of science---and it is much needed---but I don't understand its COMPLETE rejection, especially from someone who uses things like radar as evidence for their own beliefs.

"if you knew my work, i state again & again, there's absolutely NO Need for more than a very few Powerfully-Connected to be in on a HUGE Conspiracy..... 99% of the Rest of the people are told Lies, on a "need to Know" basis, and they are conditioned with everything from social mores, to the whole mess that is a Modern education, to be Controllable"

This just doesn't match my experience. Academics, in general, tend to be the people that I know who MOST question other academics and the norms and standards of academia. There is not one overarching stance of academia---it is constantly in question of itself and finding dissenting opinions is like extremely common.

"it becomes CLOSED-IN upon it's own dogmatic references-Inferences and Clumbsily calls any departure from those stale conclusions.... to be Bunkery (read Untruth)"

Absolutely not! I am not saying that this NEVER happens. It most certainly does. But, that is NOT how science or academia inherently functions and understandings as well as entire paradigms DO change. Academia is not inherently as conservative as you suggest. As Hoopes has commented several times in these threads: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is on the theorists to supply the evidence. There is a difference between being skeptical when evidence is inconclusive or lacking and remaining in denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. In the latter case, academia will ALMOST always concede in my observation...it just might take some time.

"You Accuse Me of doing what the so-called "experts" routinely Do."

Could you remind me of what this is?

"SystemThink is rationalism-by-machine ..... which ends up in the scrapyard due to lack of anything closely resembling Universal Relevance."

Could you name something that YOU consider to possess 'Universal Relevance', so I have some understanding of what you consider relevant that science and academia is incapable of allowing for.

"My Frames of Reference are VAST!, and totally Eclectic, and intricately Considered-revised-reexamined ..... so I'm suggesting you do That for yourself, rather than Imagining i've Not."

Did I say something that suggested that you haven't thought about these things? It is clear to me that you have. Just because I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean that I think you haven't thought about it at all. It sounds like you are the one directly suggesting that I haven't thought about these subjects, which I would like to think my comments have shown otherwise, but perhaps that is too self-serving. Actually, what you suggest is exactly what I am trying to do with you here...consider...revise...and reexamine. You seem very unwilling to do so, though. Or have you already done enough of that to be entirely sure of yourself? Are you looking to proselytize or to dialog? You criticize scientists for being inaccessible, but frankly you do not make much of an attempt yourself to be any more understandable or accessible.

Leslie, why do you keep bringing up 9/11..what are you Roger's brother? perhaps Lover? Anyway. I agree with you about the quality of the stone around the sphinx and the erosion on the sphinx. What I can not understand is why Both Kevin and Hoopes jumped all over the subject of visual evidence as if it was a slap in the face of real science, as if observation was not scientific. By doing so you invalidate science all together. Without observation what foundation would evidence have? answer..none. What is obvious is that both of you do not like the evidence and find that it disturbs your present belief in recorded history. I have a friend who is like this, everything that is real or truthful in his mind is recorded in a book which is self defeating in my own eyes. Its the whole nothing new under the sun perspective. I see it as stagnation. A pool of water with no direction, no flow, just sitting there festering in what is already known. So I will ask the question that will bring light to this discussion. Hoopes... In your opinion what is the value of imagination?

Yes I was referencing Robert Schoch but all your evidence against him was, well how can I say it...unsubstantiated...opinionated...kinda like a Fox news broadcast..biased. All I saw was two men defending there preserved perspective on ancient Egypt under the premise that the history is factual and concrete because it was discovered using the scientific method and yet neither can supply evidence besides personal intuitions about why Robert Schochs theory is false. Let me guess...Egypt has always been a dessert because it just feels like it was. So my reference is the research of Robert Schoch, what is your reference that disproves his theory?