aliens and pyramids and men

[marduk]

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

the poll on who built the pyramids reminded me of wally wallington

He has a load of answers as to how they were constructed

and he didn't get them from google

Click on this and you'll see what I mean

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/walkingmain.mpg

this concrete block weighs 21,600 lbs

thats almost ten tons

yes and i know that should read aliens pyramids and men.

It was a typo

Ok

Edited March 27, 2005 by marduk

[henpeck69]

Now this is more believable that martians moving the blocks! The ancient egyptians were quite intelligent I think.

[marduk]

well that really does show something doesn't it.

over 100 people have viewed this and just one has answered it.

Is it not connected to aliens then. Would it make a difference if I told you that wally wallington got this information from the emerald tablet of thoth and he is following plans laid down by atlanteans 10,500 years ago. a technology that then passed to egypt and mesoamerica.

well ?

[Doctor_Strangelove]

That changes everything I think about him. Stilll that way is way more likly than aliens building the pyramids.

[The Roswell Man]

Many ppl seem 2 underestimate the eygptians and other ancients for building monuments, yet we may never fully know since we werent there....

[Rye Guy]

This is a good site. I have never believed the martian/magic/spaceman theory of pyramid contruction. I believe that ancient peoples made their own contructions using massive manpower and some simple yet effective building techniques. To suggest et interference is belittling to the ancient peoples and their accomplishments. Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. I think the "razor" prevails yet again.

[marduk]

well that really does show something doesn't it.

over 100 people have viewed this and just one has answered it.

Is it not connected to aliens then. Would it make a difference if I told you that wally wallington got this information from the emerald tablet of thoth and he is following plans laid down by atlanteans 10,500 years ago. a technology that then passed to egypt and mesoamerica.

well ?

545515[/snapback]

Obviously that stuff about the emerald tablets isn't true.

i just made that up

[TraJikMaJik]

Well thats a great video.. Now let me see him use this method to stack blocks... =/ I could be wrong, but all i see was a guy using a pivot to spin a block in circles.. That is amazing how he did that, and NO I dont think aliens built the pyramids.. But just because this guy sets up a pivot where he can move blocks, doesnt mean, he has discovered the way to construct the pyramid.. As i said before, Lets see em stack with percision..

[Gabriel]

fantastic!

[marduk]

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/hoistvideo.mpg

hows this for stacking with precision

you obviosuely don't get it

or haven't looked at all the pages

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/Page3.htm

this is page three where he explains how its possible to elevate large blocks from one level to another

on page two he showed you how to align them with precision

http://theforgottentechnology.com/walkingcounter.mpg

I'm sorry but you're aliens are now unemployed

Edited March 28, 2005 by marduk

[Donner]

I love talking about this sort of stuff with my friends, and the main crux of my argument is always this:

A lack of technology doesnt necessarily also mean a lack of ingenuity.

The top thinkers among the egyptians were just as smart as the top thinkers we have today, they just had a smaller base of established knowledge from which to work.

They didnt have cranes, or engines or hydraulics... but they were smart enough to use what they DID have to accomplish some amazing feats.

[funkprink]

That site is amazing! I have always felt people are overthinking the pyramid building.

[marduk]

That site is amazing! I have always felt people are overthinking the pyramid building.

546243[/snapback]

yeah. its only a pyramid once its finished

up til then its four sloping walls

Think about that word

SLOPE

[whisper54]

That site is amazing! I have always felt people are overthinking the pyramid building.

546243[/snapback]

The average weight for an outside block in the pyramid was two and a half tons. I remember reading somewhere that if a ramp system was used in the construction of the pyramids it would be a bigger project than the pyramid itself.

The size of the biggest stones used in the pyramid were 200 tons. I've seen several films on the raising of the pyramid stones in modern times. Modern ropes were used as well as pullies`and they still had a rough time just moveing one stone a few ft. on level ground. When I see a person lifting a 100 ton stone the way the guy in your little movie did then I will believe in ropes and pullies and ramps. Think about turning a corner near the top of the structure, with a 200 ton block, the type used in the ceiling of the Kings Chamber. What kind of ramp material could stand up under these kind of weights. Or for that matter what kind of roller system would not sink into the ground or break apart with a load this great. ( I stand corrected on the two hundred ton ceiling blocks, I think it's 70 tons, 200 hundred ton stones were used in the second pyramid)

These were not the largest blocks used in the ancient world by far. The temple of Jupiter in Lebanon was built in part useing blocks that weighed over 500 tons. 31 ft long by 13 ft high by 12 ft thick. 5000 cubic ft. of perfectly aligned stone. And they get bigger. The trilithon, the mystery of the three stones. The largest worked stones in the world. Each of the three stones are over 60 ft. in length with sides of 14 and 12 ft. This represents a weight of over 1000 tons!!!!! These stones were cut and fashioned at another quarry three quarters af a mile away where one will see another block cut and almost finished. This one is 69 ft long and 12 and 14 ft. on a side. weight 1,200 tons. These stones were lifted 20 ft to be laid to rest.

Of course the stones at Machu Picchu should be looked at. 50 ton stones that were raised hundrteds of ft up verticle walls at an altitude of, I think, 12 thousand ft.

The largest boom crane in the modern world can lift 200 tons. (not the inside travelling cranes used in a factory) It takes several weeks to set up the lift. So, if you think that we are 'overthinking' the pyramid I suggest that archeologists are putting these stones in the 'passover' file. As in 'we don't have the faintest idea how they did that so let's go on to something else'.

And then there is the food problem. considering the work force involved, supposedly in the tens of thousands for the pyramids, one author calculated that there wasn't enough food produced in ancient egypt to feed all those workers on a daily basis. Of course that's just one opinion up to speculation. As concerns Aliens, another matter of speculation. I do think it odd that there was a megalithic period that lasted only a short time. Temples were built in Malta, (The oldest ones in the world), Stonehinge, Egypt, lebanon, Greece, Not counting the New world, there are probably others. What I'm trying to get to here is the suggestion that there was a wandering group of masons or maybe just a few learned ones that instructed the locals that built the old world structures just as there were traveling workers that built the cathedrals dureing the mid ages.

I came across a reference to the stones used in the temples of Meso-america. There was just one sentence used out of context ( I'm still trying to re-find it) that said the big stones were placed in a blueish flame and that afterwards they could be lifted by one man. Wish I could remember where I saw it. Some where in the Popul Vuh commentary I think.

Edited March 29, 2005 by whisper54

[aquatus1]

There's a few things you said that seem reasonable on paper, but aren't quite so in real life.

The average weight for an outside block in the pyramid was two and a half tons. I remember reading somewhere that if a ramp system was used in the construction of the pyramids it would be a bigger project than the pyramid itself.

Two and a half tons sound like a lot, but isn't really. A single person, using the principles of leverage, can quite easily move a one or two ton stone by themselves (a one ton stone of granite is around 2x2x3 feet). My mother has a five ton stone in her backyard used for a waterfall that was wrestled into place by five workers, using nothing other than a sled and levers. In regards to the ramp, it would only be larger if it was made of dirt and stone, and if it was a single straight ramp. No engineer in the world, however, would make such a basic mistake as that. The ramp was quite likely made out of wood (wooden scaffolding has been found around unfinished pyramids), and it was most likely built on the pyramid itself, negating the need for more material to gain elevation.

Of course the stones at Machu Picchu should be looked at. 50 ton stones that were raised hundrteds of ft up verticle walls at an altitude of, I think, 12 thousand ft.

Macchu Picchu is impressive, no doubt about that, but mostly for the precision that went into the carving of the stones, not for the actual movement of the blocks themselves. There is only one fifty ton stone, and it was sourced from the next hill over, as were most of the others. That the city is at a high altitude does not mean that the stones were brought from sea level. Which is not to say that stones were not transported large distances, however, the Inca had a road network that rivalved that of Rome.

The largest boom crane in the modern world can lift 200 tons. (not the inside travelling cranes used in a factory) It takes several weeks to set up the lift. So, if you think that we are 'overthinking' the pyramid I suggest that archeologists are putting these stones in the 'passover' file. As in 'we don't have the faintest idea how they did that so let's go on to something else'.

We have the ability today, to use brute force to accomplish a job in a faster, cheaper, and safer way, that the ancients did. This does not, however, mean that the ancients were not able to do the same thing using technique instead of brute force. We could, if we wanted to, construct a replica of the Great Pyramid in the exact same manner as the ancients did, however it would be so expensive, unsafe, and lengthy, that even at its completion, it would serve more as a reminder of folishness than anything else. It is similar to a man digging a trench from the east coast to the west coast using a shovel simply to prove that it could be done. Sure, it would be an impressive feat, but the great majority would simply look at the man with mild pity and wonder why he was wasting his time when the job could be done in a much faster, cheaper, and safer way.

What I'm trying to get to here is the suggestion that there was a wandering group of masons or maybe just a few learned ones that built the

old world structures just as there were traveling workers that built the cathedrals dureing the mid ages.

It might be possible, however they wopuld have had to remain exclusively in Egypt, as the architectural style of their pyramids is different than that of other pyramids in the world. Actually, when all is said and done, pretty much the only similarities between the world's pyramids is that the are all four-sided. Beyond that, they are all fairly unique to the civilization that built them.

[whisper54]

There's a few things you said that seem reasonable on paper, but aren't quite so in real life.

The average weight for an outside block in the pyramid was two and a half tons. I remember reading somewhere that if a ramp system was used in the construction of the pyramids it would be a bigger project than the pyramid itself.

Two and a half tons sound like a lot, but isn't really. A single person, using the principles of leverage, can quite easily move a one or two ton stone by themselves (a one ton stone of granite is around 2x2x3 feet). My mother has a five ton stone in her backyard used for a waterfall that was wrestled into place by five workers, using nothing other than a sled and levers. In regards to the ramp, it would only be larger if it was made of dirt and stone, and if it was a single straight ramp. No engineer in the world, however, would make such a basic mistake as that. The ramp was quite likely made out of wood (wooden scaffolding has been found around unfinished pyramids), and it was most likely built on the pyramid itself, negating the need for more material to gain elevation.

Of course the stones at Machu Picchu should be looked at. 50 ton stones that were raised hundrteds of ft up verticle walls at an altitude of, I think, 12 thousand ft.

Macchu Picchu is impressive, no doubt about that, but mostly for the precision that went into the carving of the stones, not for the actual movement of the blocks themselves. There is only one fifty ton stone, and it was sourced from the next hill over, as were most of the others. That the city is at a high altitude does not mean that the stones were brought from sea level. Which is not to say that stones were not transported large distances, however, the Inca had a road network that rivalved that of Rome.

The largest boom crane in the modern world can lift 200 tons. (not the inside travelling cranes used in a factory) It takes several weeks to set up the lift. So, if you think that we are 'overthinking' the pyramid I suggest that archeologists are putting these stones in the 'passover' file. As in 'we don't have the faintest idea how they did that so let's go on to something else'.

We have the ability today, to use brute force to accomplish a job in a faster, cheaper, and safer way, that the ancients did. This does not, however, mean that the ancients were not able to do the same thing using technique instead of brute force. We could, if we wanted to, construct a replica of the Great Pyramid in the exact same manner as the ancients did, however it would be so expensive, unsafe, and lengthy, that even at its completion, it would serve more as a reminder of folishness than anything else. It is similar to a man digging a trench from the east coast to the west coast using a shovel simply to prove that it could be done. Sure, it would be an impressive feat, but the great majority would simply look at the man with mild pity and wonder why he was wasting his time when the job could be done in a much faster, cheaper, and safer way.

What I'm trying to get to here is the suggestion that there was a wandering group of masons or maybe just a few learned ones that built the

old world structures just as there were traveling workers that built the cathedrals dureing the mid ages.

It might be possible, however they wopuld have had to remain exclusively in Egypt, as the architectural style of their pyramids is different than that of other pyramids in the world. Actually, when all is said and done, pretty much the only similarities between the world's pyramids is that the are all four-sided. Beyond that, they are all fairly unique to the civilization that built them.

546443[/snapback]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, more speculation that passes as truth, We could not reproduce the Pyramids useing modern technology any more than we could do it with ancient methods. I've read that in several different books. The two and a half ton blocks were probably the smallest ones used for the outside. You 'Passed over' the 1000 ton stones, technique please??? You can ignore everything that doesn't fit or has no explanation. You can't ignore the limitations of our technology. We don't have a crane that will lift that much and that's the only way some of those blocks could be moved inside the pyramid with limited space in the inches.

When I suggested wandering masons I was not refering to the pyramids. Rather the megalithic structures such as Stonehinge and the temples of Malta and Cyprus.

Edited March 29, 2005 by whisper54

[marduk]

So its aliens then huh

Did you actually check out wally wallington or are you going on what you read in a Von Daniken book

The largest block in the great pyramid weighs a hefty 70 tonnes

The largest block anywhere at all at Giza weighs 200 tons and is located at The Mortuary Temple of Menkaure

Which isn't a pyramid

and it wasn't built by aliens either

Shoddy fact finding like this is why people are kept in the dark

You just assume we couldn't have done it

What you really mean is YOU don't understand how we could do it

Luckily the AE were smarter than you are eh or we'd have nothing there at all

hehehe

"more speculation that passes as truth"

ahahahahaha. only one person who's done that so far

and its YOU

Edited March 29, 2005 by marduk

[aquatus1]

What is it about the pyramid that you find so utterly impossible to replicate? The size of the blocks? Whisper, modern day engineers regularly lift object in excess of 200 tons through the use of technique combined with modern technology. Oil platform sections are maneuvered using hydralics and placed within tolerances measured in the tens of thousands of inches. Ships in dry dock are regularly supported using nothing more than strategically placed wooden blocks. The precision? We measure our skyscrapers with lasers that tell us we have deviated an eight of an inch over a hundred foot rise, and must therefore correct it. This is hardly speculation. This is standard engineering technique, first taught in college level engineering courses, then refined in the field. Our abilities are above and beyond anything the ancient Egyptians could have dreamed of, and there is absolutely nothing that they did that we cannot do better, faster, and cheaper. The reason their engineering is amazing is because they did it without the advantages that we have, not that they did something that we can't explain.

So what doesn't fit? What doesn't have an explanation? We have picture painted on the walls of temples depicting dozens of slave pulling statues over fifty feet high, weighing in excess of 1000 tons (None of the stones in the pyramid are anywhere near this weight). What is so mysterious about that? Similar feats have been done all around the world. From a few dozen people pulling and placing the lintels of Stonehenge, to about 30 or forty moving the massive moias on Easter Island, to close to a hundred pulling a sled with a thousand ton statue on it, it is simple a matter of applied force.

Edited March 29, 2005 by aquatus1

[whisper54]

So its aliens then huh

Did you actually check out wally wallington or are you going on what you read in a Von Daniken book

The largest block in the great pyramid weighs a hefty 70 tonnes

The largest block anywhere at all at Giza weighs 200 tons and is located at The Mortuary Temple of Menkaure

Which isn't a pyramid

and it wasn't built by aliens either

Shoddy fact finding like this is why people are kept in the dark

You just assume we couldn't have done it

What you really mean is YOU don't understand how we could do it

Luckily the AE were smarter than you are eh or we'd have nothing there at all

hehehe 

"more speculation that passes as truth"

ahahahahaha. only one person who's done that so far

and its YOU

546471[/snapback]

So the famous Mrduck has deigned to look at my post. Are there anymore words you'd like to put in my post for me. I've come across your kind before and they're cheap by the dozen. I'v read some of your posts and all I see is a bunch of critisism and bull**** from a person that doesn't present anything constructive except other peoples web sites. Do you own any books more challenging than 'd******* and Jane" or do you just critisize. Heard the one about critics, they're like *******s ,everyones got one and I guess on this site you're the worst critic they have. Have you got a brain big enough to formulate a theory or just the usual crap that spills out of all the negative bull**** you're shovelling. As for fact finding I usually have my reference books beside me when I post. As for assumeing you'll have to take that up with the authors. When I speculate I tell people that. personally you come across as an ignorant teen ager with an attitude problem. Why don't you do everyone a favor on this site and either keep your mouth shut when you have nothing to say or better yet just get lost and leave this place to the ones seeking a little truth.

[marduk]

Speculate your way out of this one then whisper

Construction of the Great Pyramid according to Herodotus

The following description of the construction of the pyramids comes from a Greek historian Herodotus (484?-425 BC):

Till the death of Rhampsinitus, the priests said, Egypt was excellently governed, and flourished greatly; but after him Cheops succeeded to the throne, and plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one and all, in his service. Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others received the blocks after they had been conveyed in boats across the river, and drew them to the range of hills called the Libyan. A hundred thousand men laboured constantly, and were relieved every three months by a fresh lot. It took ten years' oppression of the people to make the causeway for the conveyance of the stones, a work not much inferior, in my judgment, to the pyramid itself. This causeway is five furlongs in length, ten fathoms wide, and in height, at the highest part, eight fathoms. It is built of polished stone, and is covered with carvings of animals. To make it took ten years, as I said - or rather to make the causeway, the works on the mound where the pyramid stands, and the underground chambers, which Cheops intended as vaults for his own use: these last were built on a sort of island, surrounded by water introduced from the Nile by a canal. The pyramid itself was twenty years in building. It is a square, eight hundred feet each way, and the height the same, built entirely of polished stone, fitted together with the utmost care. The stones of which it is composed are none of them less than thirty feet in length.

The pyramid was built in steps, battlement-wise, as it is called, or, according to others, altar-wise. After laying the stones for the base, they raised the remaining stones to their places by means of machines formed of short wooden planks. The first machine raised them from the ground to the top of the first step. On this there was another machine, which received the stone upon its arrival, and conveyed it to the second step, whence a third machine advanced it still higher. Either they had as many machines as there were steps in the pyramid, or possibly they had but a single machine, which, being easily moved, was transferred from tier to tier as the stone rose - both accounts are given, and therefore I mention both. The upper portion of the pyramid was finished first, then the middle, and finally the part which was lowest and nearest the ground. There is an inscription in Egyptian characters on the pyramid which records the quantity of radishes, onions, and garlic consumed by the labourers who constructed it; and I perfectly well remember that the interpreter who read the writing to me said that the money expended in this way was 1600 talents of silver*. If this then is a true record, what a vast sum must have been spent on the iron tools used in the work, and on the feeding and clothing of the labourers, considering the length of time the work lasted, which has already been stated, and the additional time - no small space, I imagine - which must have been occupied by the quarrying of the stones, their conveyance, and the formation of the underground apartments.

Don't see him saying anything about extra terrestrials do you

and yes I'm still waiting you to present your evidence of this fabled 1000 ton pyramid block

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Have you actually read those reference books you claim to own.

Are there any there that haven't been written by Hancock, Sitchin, or daniken

Since when was I famous

Cool thanks for the compliment

P.s. you said "I've come across your kind before"

I sincerely doubt that or you'd know better

No seriously though can you tell me who the authors of these books are.

I'm sure we'd all be delighted to know

Prove me wrong then

i'm waiting

Edited March 29, 2005 by marduk

[et's daddy]

so

you cite that it took atleast 200,000 men 10 years to move these blocks

and your source is a 59 or so year old Greek guy ?

wtg with him as a witness

[whisper54]

Speculate your way out of this one then whisper

Construction of the Great Pyramid according to Herodotus

The following description of the construction of the pyramids comes from a Greek historian Herodotus (484?-425 BC): 

Till the death of Rhampsinitus, the priests said, Egypt was excellently governed, and flourished greatly; but after him Cheops succeeded to the throne, and plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one and all, in his service. Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others received the blocks after they had been conveyed in boats across the river, and drew them to the range of hills called the Libyan. A hundred thousand men laboured constantly, and were relieved every three months by a fresh lot. It took ten years' oppression of the people to make the causeway for the conveyance of the stones, a work not much inferior, in my judgment, to the pyramid itself. This causeway is five furlongs in length, ten fathoms wide, and in height, at the highest part, eight fathoms. It is built of polished stone, and is covered with carvings of animals. To make it took ten years, as I said - or rather to make the causeway, the works on the mound where the pyramid stands, and the underground chambers, which Cheops intended as vaults for his own use: these last were built on a sort of island, surrounded by water introduced from the Nile by a canal. The pyramid itself was twenty years in building. It is a square, eight hundred feet each way, and the height the same, built entirely of polished stone, fitted together with the utmost care. The stones of which it is composed are none of them less than thirty feet in length.

The pyramid was built in steps, battlement-wise, as it is called, or, according to others, altar-wise. After laying the stones for the base, they raised the remaining stones to their places by means of machines formed of short wooden planks. The first machine raised them from the ground to the top of the first step. On this there was another machine, which received the stone upon its arrival, and conveyed it to the second step, whence a third machine advanced it still higher. Either they had as many machines as there were steps in the pyramid, or possibly they had but a single machine, which, being easily moved, was transferred from tier to tier as the stone rose - both accounts are given, and therefore I mention both. The upper portion of the pyramid was finished first, then the middle, and finally the part which was lowest and nearest the ground. There is an inscription in Egyptian characters on the pyramid which records the quantity of radishes, onions, and garlic consumed by the labourers who constructed it; and I perfectly well remember that the interpreter who read the writing to me said that the money expended in this way was 1600 talents of silver*. If this then is a true record, what a vast sum must have been spent on the iron tools used in the work, and on the feeding and clothing of the labourers, considering the length of time the work lasted, which has already been stated, and the additional time - no small space, I imagine - which must have been occupied by the quarrying of the stones, their conveyance, and the formation of the underground apartments.

Don't see him saying anything about extra terrestrials do you

and yes I'm still waiting you to present your evidence of this fabled 1000 ton pyramid block

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Have you actually read those reference books you claim to own.

Are there any there that haven't been written by Hancock, Sitchin, or daniken

Since when was I famous

Cool thanks for the compliment

P.s. you said "I've come across your kind before"

I sincerely doubt that or you'd know better

No seriously though can you tell me who the authors of these books are.

I'm sure we'd all be delighted to know

Prove me wrong then

i'm waiting

546495[/snapback]

no where in my post did I say that a thousand ton stone was used in the building of the pyramids. In the second pyramid there are stones on an outside course that weigh in the neighborhood of 200 tons. Those are the largest I've come across in the pyramids. I was refering to the temple of Jupiter in Lebanon and I thought I made myself clear on that. If youre going to tear into me at least get your posts straight. As for famous ??? How about 'd******* of the month' You seem to have a problem with certain authors, Probably over your head I would think. It's usually human nature to put down things we can't understand, it makes us feel more secure. But that's alright there's a place for the ignorant in every line of critics. As for giveing you a list of authors you probably never heard of that write books you'll never read, that's fine. And as usual you're just posting other peoples thoughts in the form of Herodotus,Yes I've read it many times.He mentions teh high price of iron used in it's construction, I believe the pyramids were built before the iron age and no iron was found inside them except a piece of cast iron that is considered an oddity. bronze and copper was used at this time. Also Herodatus saw the pyramids 2000 years after they were built and only his testamony attributes the three structures to their supposed makers. The Kings associated with the different pyramids are just speculations on the part of Herodatos and not associated with any convinceing proofs. No bodies were found in any pyramid and not one picture or glyph or prayer was found in the Cheops Pyramid. No other proven burial place in Egypt was ever found unadorned.

do you have any idea what the term 'speculate' means, I guess not. In the world of archeology you take an amount of true, given facts and with the best guess possible you postulate a theory of what 'might' have happened useing that model. Right now there are about thirty viable theories on the construction of the pyramids. Truth only comes when the best possible speculation is agreed on by the majority of intrested parties. Thats why every possible bit of information should be presented before makeing a decision. Even a lot of 'what if' theories should be examined. Unfortunatly this is not the case.

Telling me that certain authors are bunk is bull****. until I read the books and make up my own mind they have the same credibility as any other book on the subject. So how many of Hancocks books have you read? I've read three and found them well written and informative. The works were researched to my satisfaction and after 15 years of working with archeology books I think I can tell if a book has merit or not. Below I've listed some of the books I've gone through in the last year or so, not all by far, just the ones that have influenced my opinions.

'The pyramids of Egypt' 1949

'The Osireion at Abydos'----Quaritch, 1903

'Sacred Science, The King of Pharonic Theocracy'----- Schawller de Lubicz 1988

'History of Baalbec' --------Alouf, 1922

'Urial's Machine'----Knight and Lomas, this ones brand new but i couldn't find a date.

lost civilisations of the stone age -----Rudgley, 1998

Al-Kemi-------Schaller de Lubicz, 1987

Egyptian Religion-----Budge

The Gigamesh Epic and most of the Sumerian folk tales

The Temple In Man, sacred Architecture and the perfect man------Schwaller de lubicz , 1949

I read a lot of books at the book stores and the library so I don't have a lot of references there, I do take notes, I just don't keep track of authors. I also read the Archeology periodicls and collections at the state University here in town. I'm not a very good Egyptologist though, still gathering info. I spend more time reading the cuniform translations from Sumeria and other ancient records that have come down to us. Herodatus tale above is considered folklore by some. his numbers of men and time are considered incorrect by some authors. His discriptions of tyranny and slave labour have been disproved according to the current mainstream opinions. They were paid a wage and worked in labour gangs where the moral was high and competitive. This came from the minister of antiquities in Egypt. There was a TV show around a few months ago that had Aiwass Hassan, the minister, was talking about this.

These are a few of the books I use, I have around 1500 books in my personal collection. I have a number of books that came to me as 'one of a kind'

not really that so much as they are a small number of no longer printed books. Ones that came out in university presses thirty years ago. Ive been collecting books on the occult and other subjects for almost 40 years now. How about you Mrduck do you read books or just cruise the internet critisizing all us deluded scholors that waste their time reading the'wrong kind of books'

So what kind of problem do you have with Hancock? have you read all of his books

Do you have a problem with his sources? Or his scientific methods? Seems like a question of literary prejudious. Why do you scream ALIENS? Hancock never said anything about that or Atlanteans. His main primiss deals with a civilisation that existed before the deluge. something that is suggested by a number of intresting facts and a few tantalizing objects that defie explanation. He's not the only one that feels that way. Remember Troy and Schleiman(spelling ) He was laughed at when he 'speculated' the existence of this legendary city based intirely on one book, until he was proved right. Considering he was an 'arm chair archeologist' he did alright.

I have a problem with Sitchin's main theory but his Sumerian research is impeccable and goes to greater lengths to prove a point than any other author I've read on the subject. So what kind of books do you read, if any?

You know why I come across like this with you and only you. well, I've read some of the mean spirited things you've said to other people here and you don't deserve any better. you should be ashamed of yourself

Edited March 29, 2005 by whisper54

[Saru]

Can we have less of the personal attacks please Whisper, you can discuss this subject without the vulgarities.

[whisper54]

Can we have less of the personal attacks please Whisper, you can discuss this subject without the vulgarities.

546627[/snapback]

I'd be more than happy to address this issue as you want to, unfortuntly I was attacked by marduc as soon as I posted. I have little temperance for that kind of person. All I've seen from this guy are cuts and barbs with little constructive advice. Put a leash on your dog and I'll stop defending myself. Just as a matter of curiosity how many others have a problem with this guy??

Edited March 29, 2005 by whisper54

[Bio-Mage]

Regardless of what you all post here the subject is still open to debate in science. If the explanation was as easy as some of you like to think here, the construction of the pyramids would not clasify as an architectural mystery. Take it from people who ARE experts on the field. Myself knows very little about this kind of thing yet a bit of critical thinking helps distinguish between genuine possibilities and utter bullsh***.

The guy featured on the video files has certainly a point of view on this matter and an interesting idea as to how it could be done but fails to take into account the refinement of tools and better construction techniques today that make even scalffolding more resilient and appropriate for such use. I don't believe the pyramids are build by aliens or anything, but their construction was trully a wonder, especially for that time period and people here should respect and understand that if nothing else.