You move in big jumps, Qoais. So now it's not just the Great Pyramids, not just all pyramids, but now all big stone structures that can't be explained by modern science? I think you might want to check your use of "megalithic". It's that sort of imprecision (usually based on ignorance of the actual subject) that makes it important for people with actual knowledge of legitimate history to keep speaking up.

I think you're saying more than you actually know when you say "the technique has defeated modern technology". You harp, for instance, on Lehner, but he's hardly the only one working on the subject. Learn more than one theory, to the point you can actually intelligently discuss its faults instead of a blanket "it's impossible", and you might make more of an impact than complaining on about how the whole of archaeology doesn't work. You really have made no impression on me that you know what you're talking about. Every argument I've seen from you against logical thinking boils down to "I don't like the results it gives so it must be wrong." That just seems petulant and ill-informed.

--Jaylemurph

There are no 2 1/2 ton stones at the top of any pyramid.

The stones in the Giza pyramids get smaller as you get higher up.

I suppose the aliens engineered it this way, but for what reason? Was their antigravity machine running low on dilithium crystals?

BTW, a 2 1/2 ton piece of limestone is a rectangular prism measuring less than 3 by 3 by 6 ft.

Also, you're using an outdated and disproven estimate for the number of stones in the G.P.


LOL indeed, since evidence of ramps has been uncovered at several Egyptian pyramid sites, including the Great Pyramid (almost a decade ago!):

Source

Of course, it must have taken aliens with superhuman strength to drag stones up these ramps, which were obviously only constructed after the dilithium crystals ran out on the alien's antigravity device!

Either that, or the Egyptians built the ramps for use in the famously forgotton "pyramid jumping" portion of their "Olympics in the Desert" competition.


Many claim this, but none demonstrate it.
There is simply no reason at all that this couldn't be replicated precisely, down to within a millimeter, by today's construction technology. None whatsoever.

Harte

Perhaps, but where else on the Earth could you guarantee less than a half inch settling rate in 4,000 years? There is much more to the Pyramid than its mere construction, Harte. There is a huge back story to it as well.

OK they only moved 2,000,000 stones; Mere child's play especially if all you
have to do is sit in a comfortable air conditioned room and pencil whip it. The
thicknesses of some of the stones near the top EXCEED the thicknesses of the
lower layers. Of course it's entirely possible that they are narrower and small-
er but until someone shows this then some of the stones at the top are larger
than some of the stones near the bottom. I've mentioned this repeatedly but
most people don't seem to read things that don't dovetail with anything they al-
ready know. Of course there are hundreds of other points I've mentioned that
just don't seem to get any attention. Here's a setence many won't be able to
see; Why are the layers of the pyramid wedge-shaped.

If you want to believe in aliens or ramps that's fine. While I'm not ruling either
out I'm also not accepting things without evidence.



Yet there's never an explanation of how they disposed of 40 million tons of ramp-
ing material in a 5 million ton hole. There's never an explanation of why they'd
build the quarry so close to the pyramid that they have to drag the stones half a
mile away from the pyramid until they dragged it up a ramp.

Sure, a spiral ramp can't really be ruled out. But maintaining any sort of adequate
delivery rate would require huge teams of olympic calibre athletes running up the
side pulling stones. Talk about "pyramid jumping".



In all probability these structures were built using primitive technology. This tech-
nology is lost because it hasn't been used in 4,000 years. In order to build a dup-
plicate of the pyramid it would be necessary to redevelop the techniques and know-
ledge that they spend 40,000 years to learn.

With all our intelligence today we could probably relearn it in little more than 100,000
years.

I can understand saying "We don't know exactly how the Pyramids were built" and suggesting by that we maybe couldn't build one now -- but that's a far cry indeed from positing some manner of "lost" technology with not an extant iota of anything, not even a passing reference, to back it up, and further still from positing how long it took to develop originally, and how long it would take to develop now.

In fact, it's quite a statement with no support that mankind was engaging in anything other than the most basic tasks 42 or 43 kya.

--Jaylemurph

Man's ascent was made possible by language. Language allows us to pass
down a lifetime of learning so it's not lost with each generation. But our as-
cent has not been gradual or rapid but rather it occurs in bounds and leaps.
Knowledge becomes lost when a whole culture is lost because of mistakes
or changing enviroment. Some points in the degree of knowledge are simply
condusive to leaps since they might underlie basic principles or be at the root
of a process which is easily isolated for our own purposes.

Most men are seeking to improve their lot and the lot of those around them.
This was even more true when most technology was the result of simple ob-
servation. When someone discovered how to flake a stone to give it a sharp
point he realized the implications to hunting and made a spear point. Always
there were small adaptations being made and passed down. Many of these
simply became unnecessary with further advances in technology; there was
no need to make stone points when bronze might make a more durable point
or the bow made it obsolete.

But the simple fact is that it took the species many millinea to discover bronze
and then more for the wheel and more yet for coins. Optics came around
much later yet. The existence of higher technology doesn't negate the im-
portance of or the lenght of time necessary to discover and use older imple-
ments. Without some of these early inventions the species might not have
survived at all or would exist very much as our distant ancestors did. But the
fact remains that most old technology is lost. Even if we knew what methods
they used there is no certainty we'd be able to match it. How do you cut lime-
stone with a bronze saw? Across the board there are far more questions than
answers.

It's very easy to say that these were built with only very primitive tools by re-
ligious zealots while offering theories which don't seem to address the bulk of
the evidence. It's even easier to say they were built with alien antigravity mac-
hines.

Are we looking for easy or correct?

I'm not sure what all that prose accomplishes, really, other than to take a long time to utterly avoid the question I asked.

So that'd be a "No, I don't have a shred of anything to suggest your alleged forgotten technology exists." I really pity the poor people who actually do the hard work of piecing together history from facts and artifacts after years of hard study -- you know, do the actual work of history -- when you try to slag them off and offer up ideas with nothing behind them short of your hot breathe.

--Jaylemurph

What you need to do is go into the desert in July and see how big
a pyramid you can build. I'd lay good odds you won't even get the
sand off the stone. But you can sit and tell me that you know how
all the feats were accomplished and you don't need no stinkin' ev-
idence.

They carved granite and you can show pictures of it for proof. They
made enormous piles of stone in the desert. Duh. What more does
anyone need to know now that you think you have it all solved. Peo-
ple seem to think that they are the pinnacle of creation and know not
only everything there is to know but weverything that's ever been
known. Well guess what, most of what's ever been known is perma-
nently lost and will never be known again unless there is a need for
it.

Indeed, if you want to ask a question it usually requires words like
"how", "why", "when, etc. It always involves a "?" unless it's a rhe-
torical question.

I answered your statements to the best of my ability. If you have
a question I'd be happy to try to answer it or tell you my opinion.

the mysteries of the pyramid ... something about the egyptians building those pyramids is so unreal, that it must be, right?????
i don't know about all of you ... but i enjoy keeping my mind open to these mysteries ... it adds a little something to my life.

It would be nice to keep the discussion light hearted. It may never
get heavier than a feather in any case but more communication will
occur.

I'm a natural born debunker myself but I know full well that all know-
ledge is open to reinterpretion. Even the most outlandish theories
could prove true in the long run so each should be considered in the
light of evidence.

They were built before the Flood, and we lost the technology to built such things, we have pyramids all over the world. I wonder when they are going to allow the world to visit the ones in China?

I'm curious how you can say with such authority I *couldn't* do it, not having done it yourself. Let's face it, you don't have any practical evidence one way or another -- but as I've pointed out above, you keep saying things, going beyond "I don't know" and not having anything to back it up.



Indeed, since you say so many things with certainty but nothing to back it up, you sound an awful lot like the people you're condemning.

--Jaylemurph

Jaylemurph; I know my capabilities and their limitations. I know these things
in my gut like almost everything else I "know". This hardly means it's right but
it seems to work pretty well in most practical applications.

Anytime I read a categorical statement I interpret it as an opinion. In my opinion
it's just not necessary to state some things are opinion.

Whether you can dig in sand or not to reach the stone to start a pyramid is an im-
ponderable since there isn't enough evidence. Certainly digging in sand is very
difficult since it keeps collapsing on itself. Getting stone out of the ground is no
mean feat either. Then a clear spot to build is necessary.

I don't pretend to know what you personally are capable of. I'm merely trying to
point out how incredible a 6 1/2 million ton pile of rocks in the desert is. To some-
one like me who thinks with his gut it's obviously a most improbable circumstance.
This doesn't mean it can't have been built with ramps but by the same token it
doesn't mean it can't have been done with alien technology. The only thing that
impresses be more than evidence is proof.

To my gut all the evidence points squarely away from ramps. It does not point at
aliens.

I believe that solving this conundrum is the most important thing in egyptology
today. It is not impossible that it has wider implications.

Unfortunately the powers that be have simply elected to believe the theories advan-
ced in the 19th century rather than address the issue or work on its solution. They
hold data hostage and refuse to let anyone who doesn't believe in ramps close to
the site. Perhaps most or all of the crackpot theories aren't worthy of investigation
but it looks to we outsiders as though the greatest crackpot of all is running things.

Or maybe I just need a tums.

its all about problem solving.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

i bet someone like wally could manage it. Hell he could probably do it by himself! and in record time too!

playing with heavy blocks is just the start....but i dont think that it would be impossible for a team of people to build a reasonably sized structure, faced by the similar problems that the egyptians faced.

I think it would be a good idea for dedicated folk to give it a try, see what they could accomplish. Im not as pessemistic about their prospects.

The problem of reconstructing a pyramid is that the Egyptians used literally thousands of workers to build them. If you scale it down, I don't think the results can be viable for determining if the original pyramids were actually built that way. For it to be a true reconstruction for determining the method of building the pyramids, then you need to be at full scale. However it is problematic in that you need thousands of workers to do it.

the thing about problem solving is once youve found one solution its easy to stick with it.
a smaller team might be able to achieve comparable results with a better solution.

Check the link i provided, this Wally fellow plays with 19+ Ton blocks by himself. I think it is likely that the egyptians were capable of discovering at least some of the principles he employs.
I think people often overestimate the number of folk required for a single task in the process of building a pyramid.....sure thousands of people on the whole project....but.....

also remember many of the workers were specialised in particular tasks. The coordination of manpower must have been impressive.

we know they were built by human hands, and we have a fair idea how they did it, I bet with a core of skilled teams and a few extra helping hands it would be quite achievable at full scale.
as you imply though, cost is the only limiting factor.
It would be better to (as wally does) demonstrate the 'problem solving' bits at full scale, no need to actually build one full scale.....although that would be nice it would probably involve a few costly mistakes, aborted attempts, and imperfect examples (just as we find in Egypt)

You are right, not all of the workers would be doing the actual building. And I agree, the coordination would have been astounding.

He raised a 9 1/2 ton weight 3' in one day. Now this is a specially shaped weight
specially made to be raised in this particular manner. If the same technique could
have been used with the Great Pyramid they would have needed to raise 6 1/2 mil-
lion tons about 225'. This works out to over 400,000,000 man hours. This is within
the realm of reason but it's wholly impossible to do using this technique so we're
right back at square one.

Again, I agree with Cladking's logic. Anybody that's lived on a farm some years back, can do what Wally does. It's not just moving a block or a barn or standing A stone in a hole. IT'S THE ADVANCED ENGINEERING that comes into question BEFORE the construction can even begin. WHERE did THAT come from? Oh right - I remember, someone had a dream - and woke up so totally informed he not only knew the properties of every type of rock in the neighborhood, he knew the properties of the rock hundreds of miles away.



Agreed.

not really, remember his 'goal' for the day was to raise it 3 feet....we dont know that he spent a full working day on that.
also he is working alone.....and there is only one unit at work.
if he were to be building the pyramid himself your calculations would work.

Im not saying his raising method is exactly how the blocks were raised, but it demonstrates the problem solving abilities that could get around the problem.

I agree, wally is not unique by any standards....thats the point.

advanced engineering? what specifically? remember the egyptians had lots of experience in the field to develop techniques.....they'd had lots of experience working with the stone available, and knew well the properties of the materials they used.

what are you suggesting? that they didnt?

The ancient Egyptians knew quite a bit about science. They could extract ore from rock, they could create glass, they knew about metallurgy, they knew quite a bit about medicine, etc. I don't think its beyond their ability to build the pyramids, they were hardly cave men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuXiseUkvmA

This link was provided in a previous post and I think this is where Egyptology should BEGIN re-structuring their so called "knowledge". With the INTERPRETATION of the hieroglyphics. According to this presentation, the meanings of the language are not what was previously believed. If THAT is true, then what else is false? I'm not saying ALL the work of Egyptologists is a load, but I say it does need re-evaluating. I ask, why aren't the locals questioned more thoroughly and THEIR input considered? Steven Mehler claims he talked with a fellow who was of native Egyptian heritage and what he says, flies in the face of what Egyptologists say. Egypt was originally a Matriarchy and the word for "tomb" doesn't mean "tomb" it means "mother's house" or something like that. Watch the youtube and learn for yourself. When you realize that there are many others out there questioning the orthodox theory and challenging it, then it's time for deeper investigating, done by teams from all countries and results compared for evaluation and confirmation of findings. It shouldn't be all this cloak and dagger stuff, and walls 20 feet high hiding what IS there. As far as I'm concerned, the Giza complex should be declared a WORLD heritage site, MEANING that the world should be invited in to study it and proclaim what is found. Perhaps it is THE world heritage site, and all of mankind had origins there or even further back than the builders of the pyramids, to dare I say it - Atlantis.

Now that word may shiver the timbers of SOME people, but again, to determine once and for all, the origins of mankind, whether or not aliens ever visited the earth, etc. etc., I think it's imperative to thoroughly study Egypt in the light of new technology as well as to study the scholarly side as well. The dry, boring "history" especially dates of certain events and happenings.
I am referring to not only Egypt but Arabia and Mesopotamia as well. Supposedly the world was very small at one time, so the story of Atlantis as Plato puts it, MUST have happened fairly close to the given areas. A ton of information would have to be gathered and sifted thru and correlated especially to time lines. There would be so much involved, it would take a number of teams, working together, but separately searching their own area of expertise, to put the picture together.

We have those who swear they understand ancient Greek. Let them form a team and tell us EXACTLY what the WORDS mean that Plato wrote. Not was it Neso or Nezo or Meso or Mezo, but which one for sure and what meaning of that word did Plato intend. Was it an island or was it a Nesos - meaning peninsula, etc. etc. A team of geologists and so forth would need to study the lay of the land in ancient times and determine if a mountain rose or an island sank at a certain time line, check for ancient rivers, lakes etc., which are now gone: "Experts" on hieroglyphics would form a team and determine EXACTLY what was said in those pictures. Of course we have to take into account all the idiosycracies of the beliefs of the times, the rulers attitudes, etc. such as one Pharoah wiping out the previous rulers accounts etc. BUT the main criteria for this mega search would be to wipe out any PRECONCEIVED notions that have been taught before, and start with a clean slate. After all is said and done, if the only answer left is that the pyramid blocks were moved via levitation then they WERE moved by levitation, so let's move on from THERE and figure out how it was done. Let's not let old tired mind-sets get in the way of progressive thinking and research.

Does anyone watch the TV show New Tricks? A bunch of retired police detectives solving cold cases. Excellent show of team playing and throwing out all old preconceived notions and using logic and common sense as well as education, to solve the cases. Such should be the case of investigating the pyramids.

When the teams are done with Egypt, they can move on to S. America. The path would probably lead them there anyway.

All I'm saying is that you can't condemn archaeologists for believing in non-technological methods to build pyramids because there's no proof of it when you expect people to believe /you/ with no proof without being hypocritical.

--Jaylemurph

riiiiiiiight. you SHOUT quite a lot DONT you.
perhaps you should email all the universities in the world, see what they think.

honestly?....theres too much in that post that i cant be bothered to address at this time, sorry. but overall i think you've got a mistaken impression of lots of things. perhaps we could just stick to the issue at hand.

I agree.

If I knew a great deal more about egyptology I might also agree with
your conclusions, but I don't. I have examined the lion's share of the
physical and cultural artefacts and come up with a wholly different con-
clusion.

Many people have helped me where I've made errors and it's very much
appreciated but I do not understand why there isn't more effort in either
explaining why this is wrong, refuting it with evidence, or seeking support-
ing evidence.

This isn't to say any of this is your job, merely that when something fits
the evidence so well it would seem it should be investigated no matter
how absurd it seems. It's almost certainly not possible to prove or dis-
prove this virtually.

The fact that people aren't slapping their heads and saying "of course"
may bode ill for the theory, though. Still the fact remains, that this fits
the evidence far better than ramps and clears up most of the mysteries.

I expect you know more about Egyptology than I do -- to be able to talk about the Pyramids with you, I've had to go and learn a lot. What I have gathered is that there are lots of theories, but little data to back any of them up. In any event, we may just be arguing the same idea from different sides.

If you'll forgive me for extrapolating a bit, it strikes me that you -- like me -- can get caught up in arguing your case with gusto rather than elan, except that you seem to stay considerably more grounded than I do. It's a fault I share with many other historians to be absolutely sure of ourselves by virtue of our own consensus. Posters like you and WAAS and others provide an very useful counter-voice that should always be listened to, to keep everyone honest.

--Jaylemurph

ok, heres one:
my reason would be this, its kind of funny how Many civilizations decided to build the Same structures, and None of them decided to show How they did it. so whyd they all decide to build pyramids? coincidence? meh, possibly. i think its kind of strange though, seeing as some wouldnt have even met.
or maybe something went around showing them how. showing them what the Strongest structure was?
just picture some race going around, telling us how to do it. enlightening us. maybe, like we can go around and teach some gorillas how to use sign language.
who knows. its just a theory.

Well, if you wanted to build a behemoth structure back then, then a pyramid would be simpler than something with walls and floors IMO. I am by no means an engineer, and I could be way off though.

I don't think we know and understand sign language that well yet.

I'm not shouting, I'm emphasizing certain words so my meaning is clearly understood.

Ok - for starters, the story goes that Imhotep had a dream and in the dream he was given all knowledge of the properties of all the different rocks in the area, how to work the stone so it wouldn't break, which type of stone was to be put in which position (ie: granite in the King's Chamber), knowledge of stone far away, the information that this stone had to be transported to the site, how to transport it, which chemicals he had to use to dress the stone, the exact site where the pyramid was to be built (ie: on solid bedrock and where that was) how many he would need to build it, how to lay it out-align it to however many cardinal points, and stars etc., how to build what they call the "relieveing" chambers on top of the King's Chamber so it didn't collapse, how to curve each face so minutely that it's hardly noticeable and on and on.

It has been shown that the pyramids DE-volved and that the older ones were better built than the newer ones. Why is that?

It's been written that when the Arabs tried to break into the pyramid, 2000 years later, with supposedly more advanced tools and technology, they couldn't even break the outer casing hence the blasted hole in the side.

And when YOU don't like what a person says, you try to put them down.

I say it's been tried before, to duplicate the pyramid - siting Lehner as an example in modern times - and it can't be done, and you say I'm saying more than I know. The whole world within reach of television and newspapers also knows.

When I say to prove it again, I'm told it's too expensive. That's an answer? It just goes round and round. I didn't say the WHOLE of archaeology doesn't work. I'm saying that from what's being studied and published by people who AREN'T "lettered" scientists, as well as people who ARE lettered, that certan conclusions that were arrived at a hundred years ago, should be re-visited. The time line for human existance has changed so drastically even in the last 50 years, with new discoveries coming out all the time it's hard to keep up with what is true and correct.

wow...excellent reply to my post about a theory on the pyramids

Im aware of the story, i just think its an incredibly weak argument to champion.

perhaps if you provide your sources we can see where you are pulling this claptrap from.

Weak? The engineering and technological knowledge to construct the great pyramid came to someone in a dream, and you suck it up? That's weak.

Exactly what claptrap would you like sources for?

Horsefeathers.

I won't hesitate to call a bad idea a bad idea, but I make a concerted effort /not/ to belittle people; if you can't separate the two, that says more about you than me.

--Jaylemurph

...my only gripe isn't why build pyramids, but why show someone less primitive I assume, for what purpose? But I do find it interesting ancient graffiti aside that we find next to nothing inside the Great pyramids that says it was an actual tomb. Honestly I have no idea what it was for, if one could figure out what it was really for, IMO, then you be more likely to show who built it.

the whynsos to close for comfort...why tell fort to come then?

I agree.

We all need to take it down a notch or two. We probably aren't going to agree
but it can get hard to even communicate if we're going to offer and take offense.

Qoais has a valid point (it seems to me). All efforts to duplicate even parts of
the pyramid building process have failed or proven much more difficult than ex-
pected. While modern tools and techniques would build a similar structure at a
very great expense duplicating the pyramid would prove problematical even with
modern materials like steel and diamond tipped saws. You can make a ramp on-
ly so slick before everything slides back down.

you could have a "stop" system, like pegs in holes. As you pull the block up a ramp you go behind the block and place the "pegs", so you inch your way up the ramp.

Im assuming that by the enboldened statement you mean that i believe the story? just where did i even imply this?

Id like evidence to prove the theory that you are championing that the earliest pyramids were the most accomplished and that everything from there went downhill.

Id also like you to expand on this for clarity's sake. Am i understanding you right? Which pyramid/s specifically do you say are the earliest? When were they built? by who?

Yea, I saw 'Aliens vs Predator' too.

what aside from the bloody great sarcophagus? ya know the one, the one that had to be put in before the lid was put on????
yeah that one.....

what do you think it was put in there for?

Stating the bleeding obvious gets tiresome after a while doncha think. What do they teach in schools these days?

same, pretty crappy eh?
so you apparently think they ripped that movie idea off from those theories people years ago?
i do too i guess. its just hard to watch something original these days

Actually, I quite enjoyed it.

good lord, you must have low standards.
oh well

AVP was fiction, top to bottom. But it was fun to watch, I wasn't looking for any answers from the movie, I just like action movies and sci-fi.

just dont rent requiem or w/e. the first one was...meh. but AVP2 sucked, sooooo much

Agreed, Requiem was pants. Watching rednecks being butchered just doesn't hold ones attention.

So, uhh, you're saying "the evidence I don't like aside" really, then?

--Jaylemurph