1650 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

kmt_sesh, on 28 June 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Haven't we had this exact same debate before? A thousand times before? Going back years? Is it worth rehashing?

Sorry kmt_sesh. Have a low tolerance for members of the "I don't know what I'm talking about, but you're all wrong" crowd.

cormac

[Time Spy]

Alcibiades9, on 25 June 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

You should never be surprised at what people on here who spout the purely orthodox line regard as certainties .

Given the authority with which they proclaim what was the norm and what wasn't several thousand years ago, they clearly either have a time machine or actually lived through those ancient eras themselves.  Which would make them roughly the same age asNancy Reagan.

That's an outstanding point, Alcibiades.  Everyone seems to have it figure out in their own little corrner of historical reality.  Whereas the 'truth' in acutality is an everywidening assumption.  Seems that anyone wtih access to practical video playback in universal fundamental sciences is mocked in consideration to what actually transpired in such given eras in time.  It makes for better debate to go with the easy expalainable and widely accepted orthodox opinion, while of course not forgetting to poke fun at the inquiring mind.

Notice how noone has explained how the bottom side of these mutlitton boulders were crafted in precision.  I forget who's question that was, but it was never adressed.

[questionmark]

Time Spy, on 28 June 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

That's an outstanding point, Alcibiades.  Everyone seems to have it figure out in their own little corrner of historical reality.  Whereas the 'truth' in acutality is an everywidening assumption.  Seems that anyone wtih access to practical video playback in universal fundamental sciences is mocked in consideration to what actually transpired in such given eras in time.  It makes for better debate to go with the easy expalainable and widely accepted orthodox opinion, while of course not forgetting to poke fun at the inquiring mind.

Notice how noone has explained how the bottom side of these mutlitton boulders were crafted in precision.  I forget who's question that was, but it was never adressed.

Where you are inaccurately assuming that because there is a detail question nobody answers all the rest is wrong too, now what boulders are you talking about?

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 28 June 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Haven't we had this exact same debate before? A thousand times before? Going back years? Is it worth rehashing?

I believe you're missing the point.

I keep finding more corroborating evidence among the tiny bit that survives and you've
yet to really address the first points.  I've actually managed to debunk ramps yet I've never
seen a refutation of it.  The mere repetition of orthodoxy conclusions isn't an argument at
all.  The claim that they must have used ramps in the face of overwhelming evidence that
ramps were not used is not even worth consideration.  The vaccuous and wholly unsuppor-
ted claims of websites like touregypt that ramps have been found on G1 means no more than
any other unsupported and unsubstantiated claim.  One can speculate about how ramps must
have been configured or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for an eternity but
the fact is ramps are debunked.  Before spending the few dollars they have available commis-
sioning studies to prove ramps are possible they should first rebunk ramps and this will require
evidence.

The same tired claim that ramps are the only possible means to lift stones using ancient tech-
nology can not legitimately be used to support the argument that they must have used ramps.
This is assuming the conclusion and it has no meaning in the real world.  Rather than complain
about the facts why not just abandon the ludicrous and romanticv  notion of men toiling to drag
stones up ramps.  It didn't happen and has been debunked.  It is facts and logic that almost al-
ways leads to truth.  It is not and never has been appeals to orthodoxy or assumptions.  Facts
say they used no ramps so why cling to them?  Logic says ramps are the most difficult possible
means.  The evidence does not support ramps.

I ask why even as more and more evidence stacks up against ramps why people still embrace
them.  If you want to get frustrated with someone it's not the messenger you should be frustrated
with.  It is those who refuse to gather the data that will show how they built the pyramids.

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 28 June 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Ramp remains however, regardless of where they are located, are know to exist from prior to Unas so your claim of ramps not existing because they've been debunked is bullscheise.

I'm not the person suggesting the ancients were so stupid they couldn't build and operate ramps.

I'm sure a caveman could do it.

But I'm also not the one claiming that there was only one way to build a pyramid if you're an ancient Egyptian.

Can you really not see this point?

[cladking]

questionmark, on 28 June 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Well, looks like somebody thinks we have a short memory and going away for a few months makes us forget the past

Ramps are debunked now.  I didn't have overwhelming evidence that ramps weren't used a few
months ago.  Every day more pieces fit together and I no longer even need to talk about how they
lifted the stones in order to show the rich tapestry that was apparently our ancient forebearers.

Rather than being superstitious it turns out they are merely misunderstood.  We are superstitious.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 28 June 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

I'm not the person suggesting the ancients were so stupid they couldn't build and operate ramps.

I'm sure a caveman could do it.

But I'm also not the one claiming that there was only one way to build a pyramid if you're an ancient Egyptian.

Can you really not see this point?

Aren't you supposed to be debating this stuff in a purpose-built thread of your initiation? This discussion is not about your theme.

[cladking]

The subject is ramps.  You won't hear me talk about anything but the subject at hand.

It was suggested that they had endless supplies of wood that was arranged into ramps.

If everyone gets back to the subject of the thread then I might have a thought or two on
it as well.  There's lots of stuff suggested by the PT that could go back even  before 10,
500 BC.  It probably won't become relevant but it could.

[Time Spy]

cladking, on 28 June 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

The subject is ramps.  You won't hear me talk about anything but the subject at hand.

It was suggested that they had endless supplies of wood that was arranged into ramps.

If everyone gets back to the subject of the thread then I might have a thought or two on
it as well.  There's lots of stuff suggested by the PT that could go back even  before 10,
500 BC.  It probably won't become relevant but it could.

Gated locks, much like the canals of yesteryear.  Consider the Wabash-Erie Canal.  Each lock would raise the entire load onto a platform of water upon a higher elevation.  This series among many steps led the load upon the way upstream.  Such is so at the Giza Plateau.  The ancients brought  in the massive boulders from many adjacent river roads, not just the quarrry next door, and raised each upon the level of construction.  The evidence of the canal way is VERY evident. even to the satellite image.

There was a counterstone drop upon a series of roller crank windings that dropped to help hoist these boulders once the pyramid was raised in construction above the Kings chambers.  Someone please find the video describing this procedure.  It was quite inovative, and done to explain while using video game technology.  I'm sure it was the discovery channel.  I seen it once,  but am unable to locate it.   If possible would someone please provide a link?

Edited by Time Spy, 28 June 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[Swede]

lliqerty, on 28 June 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

You can work a soft rock with a hard one. No question. But stone tools cannot be useful as metal ones. Hence, the time required to do the same amount of work is multiplied.

If you want to use a stone tool, you need to create it. With what? What type of stone?

So, lets say they used granite. Is there granite in the area? How did they shape their granite tools? With basalt?

Just a brief overview:

The term "lithic technology" incorporates the utilization of numerous materials and methodologies. In many cases, multiple materials and techniques may be involved in the various stages of producing a specific "product".

The knapping of high-silicate materials such as cherts, chalcedonies, and flints into sharp (and re-touchable) edges (tools) is a technology that dates back some 2.5 million years. This process is not uncommonly multi-phasic and can include the utilization of hard hammer, soft hammer (i.e. antler, etc.) percussion along with indirect percussion and pressure techniques.

The splitting of sedimentary materials such as limestone can be performed with both lithic and organic materials or a combination thereof.

Materials sourcing, depending upon circumstance and priority, can entail rather extensive trade/travel networks, even within the time period under consideration. Temporally synchronous examples in North America confirm the procurement and transport of desirable lithic materials over many hundreds of miles.

As to techniques applicable for undercutting large monoliths, you may find the following to be of interest. Note material types/techniques. You may also find specific Figures 6, 16, and 17 to be informative.

http://www.eeescienc...tedOverview.pdf

As previously presented, the workmanship associated with Rapa Nui is yet one more example of the finishing of the surfaces of concern (i.e. in all three dimensions).

.

[Swede]

Time Spy, on 28 June 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

That's an outstanding point, Alcibiades.  Everyone seems to have it figure out in their own little corrner of historical reality.  Whereas the 'truth' in acutality is an everywidening assumption.  Seems that anyone wtih access to practical video playback in universal fundamental sciences is mocked in consideration to what actually transpired in such given eras in time.  It makes for better debate to go with the easy expalainable and widely accepted orthodox opinion, while of course not forgetting to poke fun at the inquiring mind.

Notice how noone has explained how the bottom side of these mutlitton boulders were crafted in precision.  I forget who's question that was, but it was never adressed.

Though rather muddled in its presentation, this "claim" would appear to be in need of substantiation.

.

[samspade]

Talks of Ramps reminds me Houdin theory of a internal ramp using rollers  here is link
National Geographic,  Unlocking the Great Pyramid
http://video.nationa...-great-pyramid/

Also for those who may of missed earlier links to
Steven Myers who describes in his videos his theory of a process used to build the Great Pyramid using water locks,
barges and canals.

or at his website
http://www.thepump.o...id=69&Itemid=18


But getting back to orginal thread talking about dates of the sphinx,
here is Bauval in Zep Ttepi Egyptian Creation Myths

[Harte]

kmt_sesh, on 28 June 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

I did spend awhile trying to find the Wiki page to which the image belongs but had no success. It's not on the standard Wiki page for Göbekli Tepe, but there are so many variations and permutations of Wiki at this point that it's hard to keep track. I just hate to see information presented in such a sloppy manner—but as we all know, Wiki pages are not created by professional scholars.

Wiki: Stele of the Vultures

Now, stop quoting Cladking and Timespy.

Harte

[cladking]

samspade, on 29 June 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

But getting back to orginal thread talking about dates of the sphinx,
here is Bauval in Zep Ttepi Egyptian Creation Myths

I disagree with Bauval on most points but there's no reason he can't be generally correct.

It seems quite obvious that the Sphinx faces east to face the rising sun of the equinoxes.  The
pyramids are laid out according to the seasons as well.  The Egyptians were oriented toward
the south because that's where the sun was.  That they developed the calendar proves they
were familiar with the stars and some of this is mentioned in the PT.

There were older structures under G1 and probably G2.  There's no reason to believe there
wasn't an older structure at the site of the Sphinx.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

cladking, on 28 June 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

I believe you're missing the point.

I keep finding more corroborating evidence among the tiny bit that survives and you've
yet to really address the first points.  I've actually managed to debunk ramps yet I've never
seen a refutation of it.  The mere repetition of orthodoxy conclusions isn't an argument at
all.  The claim that they must have used ramps in the face of overwhelming evidence that
ramps were not used is not even worth consideration.  The vaccuous and wholly unsuppor-
ted claims of websites like touregypt that ramps have been found on G1 means no more than
any other unsupported and unsubstantiated claim.  One can speculate about how ramps must
have been configured or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for an eternity but
the fact is ramps are debunked.  Before spending the few dollars they have available commis-
sioning studies to prove ramps are possible they should first rebunk ramps and this will require
evidence.

The same tired claim that ramps are the only possible means to lift stones using ancient tech-
nology can not legitimately be used to support the argument that they must have used ramps.
This is assuming the conclusion and it has no meaning in the real world.  Rather than complain
about the facts why not just abandon the ludicrous and romanticv  notion of men toiling to drag
stones up ramps.  It didn't happen and has been debunked.  It is facts and logic that almost al-
ways leads to truth.  It is not and never has been appeals to orthodoxy or assumptions.  Facts
say they used no ramps so why cling to them?  Logic says ramps are the most difficult possible
means.  The evidence does not support ramps.

I ask why even as more and more evidence stacks up against ramps why people still embrace
them.  If you want to get frustrated with someone it's not the messenger you should be frustrated
with.  It is those who refuse to gather the data that will show how they built the pyramids.

If they had been debunked I couldn't say there is evidence of ramps. Which there is. Its been posted many times for you. You have ignored the evidence not debunked the evidence. You haven't even shown us any evidence to the contrary... only musings and the occasional they are debunked. Well they are not. Good day