10148 replies to this topic

[LRW]

Oniomancer, on 05 December 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

Key word "finish". Now ask yourself, why did they give up and give in when they'd already gotten as far as they did?



That much is true, which is why you'll never see a legitimate 1-1 attempt. It has nothing to with technical feasibility though.

They did not get far, they failed! they resorted to modern technology because their primitive tools and methods were not effective. Your mind can not even comprehend why they failed. Has it ever occurred to you that Egyptologists might be wrong? seems not.

DingoLingo, on 05 December 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

Oh please.. seriously? now if they could have the amount of men that was used to build the pyramids they would be able to complete it properly....

The idea theory that the Great Pyramid can be built with ramps, pulleys and copper chisels and saws is not proven. So no, there is no evidence that it can be done.

If someone wants to prove the theory right, they must stick to the rules and tools that they believed  the builders used.

Oh wait, they already tried to do that on a smaller scale and failed miserably.

You're clutching at straws.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 04 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

No they haven't; if you think they have could you quote it please.  That hole you showed me was as rough as a rats tail.  Nothing whatsoever like the perfect holes seen in South America and Egypt.

Well, you'd know more about rats than I would.

You're going to compare against one poor-quality black and white photo taken from a bad angle in stone that clearly hasn't been dressed or finished?

Let's take another look at the previously shown Unforbidden archaeology page, specifically photographs 4, 7,  8, and 14. Just the photos.

http://www.oocities....ing_drills.html

[DingoLingo]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

You're clutching at straws.

Sorry LRW your the one that is clutching at straws..

It seems the only valid argument you and the other AA'ers have is this..

like I said.. if someone had the money.. the logistics.. was able to do it within the law they could do it..

[Oniomancer]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

They did not get far, they failed! they resorted to modern technology because their primitive tools and methods were not effective. Your mind can not even comprehend why they failed. Has it ever occurred to you that Egyptologists might be wrong? seems not.

The fact that they completed even part of it strongly suggests that any failure has nothing to do with ineffectiveness, and it's occurred to me probably about as much as the opposite's occurred to you.

[LRW]

DingoLingo, on 05 December 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Sorry LRW your the one that is clutching at straws..

It seems the only valid argument you and the other AA'ers have is this..

like I said.. if someone had the money.. the logistics.. was able to do it within the law they could do it..

I'll have to correct you.

Its, you're*

I am debating with someone who does not even know the difference between "your" and "you're"

Such a person is trying to give a lecture on how pyramids are built and he does not even know the differences between "your" and "you're"

Funny!

By the way, no they can not do it, no matter how much resources they had, it can not be done with the methods described by the "Egyptologists".

They are entitled to replicate it though if they want to prove their theory, but you can bet your ass they would not be able to do it.

[LRW]

Oniomancer, on 05 December 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

The fact that they completed even part of it strongly suggests that any failure has nothing to do with ineffectiveness

The fact that they abandoned their primitive tools and resorted to modern technology and methods shows how ineffective they were.

You may con the sheep, but you won't con eveybody,

[DingoLingo]

ahh.. we have now hit the grammar police stage.. you do realize that generally when it comes down to correcting someones spelling kind of shows that you are loosing a argument.. but hey.. I dont mind..

and you can bet your ass that is the way it was done..

really its a circular argument.. you say they didnt do it that way.. when the facts say they did..

yours is based on speculation and hyperbole.. and ours is based on facts and history..

ok but since your pretty damn sure it wasnt done the way history says..

then tell me.. where is the hieroglyphics .. pictograms etc that shows the gods did it?

lets sit back and wait for a answer from you or the other AA'ers..

hmmm

anyone else think the crickets are noisy while we wait?

[DONTEATUS]

Better call in the AAA`s then we can get to the bottom of this ! Or bottle or two !

[LRW]

DingoLingo, on 05 December 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

yours is based on speculation

As is yours. I have not seen the "Great Pyramid" being replicated with the methods described by "Egyptologists" why should people accept their theory outright when they have not proven it?

You take issue with the AA theory, there is nothing wrong with that as you feel there is not enough evidence.

But your theory is not anymore convincing.

[DingoLingo]

ok I just have to shake my head and laugh at you ..

No.. you haven't because no one can afford to do it and that is the only reason..

its like us saying prove yours.. you cant prove yours because its just idle imagination.. and we cant prove ours because no one has the money to do it..

[LRW]

DingoLingo, on 05 December 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

..

no one can afford to do it and that is the only reason..

..

No one can afford to do it, because they would be wasting their money on a project that can not be achieved.

It would be hilarious trying to see them replicate it, there would be many coffins at the ready.

[DingoLingo]

I would find it hilarious if someone did.. I would be asking the question why? why waste that money doing something you know has been done..

[LRW]

DingoLingo, on 05 December 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

why waste that money doing something you know has been done..

They do not seem to know how it was really done. They are only putting forth an unproven theory on how it was done. It does not mean that theory is true, it becomes true when its proven with hard solid evidence and a complete replication and restoration of the "Great Pyramid" with a cherry on top.  

Without the ancient builders blueprints, strategy, knowledge, techniques and methods of construction, then the only chance the "Egyptologists" have of replicating the Great Pyramid would be through using modern technology, something they say the ancients did not have. The "Egyptologists" best chance of replicating it would be with modern technology, and even that in itself would be a massive undertaking. As for ramps, pulleys and copper chisels and saws,, they would not have a clue where to start. It would be a comedy/horror show of epic proportions no matter how much men or resources they had.

Edited by LRW, 05 December 2012 - 04:20 AM.

[psyche101]

DingoLingo, on 05 December 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

I would find it hilarious if someone did.. I would be asking the question why? why waste that money doing something you know has been done..

Imagine that.

Who would have the money to spend all that time to build something just so they can go to the AAers

There you go, Possible

This is what AAers expect? But they are not willing to shell out a cent to prove they are right. Such confidence. The reasoning behind every part of AA is just ridiculous and hypocritical I find. The Hoover dam is just a wee bit bigger than the great pyramid. Sure it did not take as long to do with modern materais and equipment replacing the thousand of bodies, but hey, something that big must mean alien as well I am sure.

I wonder if Mythbusters would consider stacking together half a dozen blocks or so at actual dimensions. They already broke the hippy power system crap.

Ahh self proclaimed Philosophers. Don't ya just love 'em.

Edited by psyche101, 05 December 2012 - 04:52 AM.

[psyche101]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

They do not seem to know how it was really done. They are only putting forth an unproven theory on how it was done.

Hrrmzz.... escuse me Mr grammar policeman, considering your view of proposed Pyramid construction methods, would you not be personally considering the proposals put forth as Hypothesis as opposed to Theory? What with you stating it is completely unproven an all.....

Would it not be more accurate to say that many experts in many fields came to those conclusions, and completely feel they, are valid, as does peer review by many other experts in the fields required, but you simply will refuse to believe them until they demonstrate the techniques and effects for you and to your specific satisfaction? What haas been proposed I personally agree qualifies as theory, but your definition above seems that you personally negate that possibility.

The experts do feel they know "how it was really done" you simply object to their conclusions. No more.