Oh, I was trying to be helpful about your request for "direct-evidence-based". An official retraction is often one of the clearest evidences. But you seem to mean evidence like the rocks are there (and then everyone should come to the same interpretation of them?). The pot with copper in it really was there and really has been proven to be a functional battery, so they could've had some control of electricity for instance. But until we have objective agreement on how to view evidence the discussion is, um, restrained. I was trying to find out what the evidence was for the razor claim or for the appeal to ignorance of how it was built, but nobody wanted to summarize it, including myself, so a summary didn't happen.
Okay, after a long intro and a reference to Grimault and the theory of alignment of monuments (another apophenia as I showed the last time you brought it up, and I'm not sure you didn't just use the same video again that I previously skimmed), in the 6th minute I find an engineer saying the same argument from ignorance that is commonly called the "gee-whiz" argument. Some of the tolerances are stated to be .02 inches. (Incidentally, razor blades are .005-.01 inches thick). The pyramids comprise 8 listed feats of engineering. There is nothing there about impossibility, only about undesirability. Our own sky-scraping buildings have similar feats of engineering so as to make them marvels; the Egyptians just wanted something with a different awe factor than steel and glass. So I still don't see what's so shocking to you. Do you want me to search now without bias for detailed analyses of how large stones were placed to meet tolerances of sometimes .02 inches, which I'm confident exist? Seeing as you have a history of not wanting to seek out contrary evidence to your own confirmation biases?
Oh, I was trying to be helpful about your request for "direct-evidence-based". An official retraction is often one of the clearest evidences. But you seem to mean evidence like the rocks are there (and then everyone should come to the same interpretation of them?). The pot with copper in it really was there and really has been proven to be a functional battery, so they could've had some control of electricity for instance. But until we have objective agreement on how to view evidence the discussion is, um, restrained. I was trying to find out what the evidence was for the razor claim or for the appeal to ignorance of how it was built, but nobody wanted to summarize it, including myself, so a summary didn't happen.
ITS 👏 IN 👏 THE 👏 FUCKING 👏 DOCUMENTARY 👏
Where in the two hours sir?
Right at the start
Okay, after a long intro and a reference to Grimault and the theory of alignment of monuments (another apophenia as I showed the last time you brought it up, and I'm not sure you didn't just use the same video again that I previously skimmed), in the 6th minute I find an engineer saying the same argument from ignorance that is commonly called the "gee-whiz" argument. Some of the tolerances are stated to be .02 inches. (Incidentally, razor blades are .005-.01 inches thick). The pyramids comprise 8 listed feats of engineering. There is nothing there about impossibility, only about undesirability. Our own sky-scraping buildings have similar feats of engineering so as to make them marvels; the Egyptians just wanted something with a different awe factor than steel and glass. So I still don't see what's so shocking to you. Do you want me to search now without bias for detailed analyses of how large stones were placed to meet tolerances of sometimes .02 inches, which I'm confident exist? Seeing as you have a history of not wanting to seek out contrary evidence to your own confirmation biases?