What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Reallyfolks


Just don't try and fit all this into the ancient man with simple tools thought. I say simple compared to our current technology, doesn't mean sticks and stones.

The Romans were hardly " ancient man with simple tools "

Don't read very well do you? I understand the capstans along with their crane versions . You can't even tell me of the four I laid out were used and what you quoted I said it didn't mean sticks and stones but simple compared to us

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Nor does anyone including archaeologist. Which was my initial point. If you don't know and say it was done in this manner without really knowing and the explanations just don't fit then you invite theories of ancient aliens and God's into the mix.

Actually, the archaeological theories are fine. They are based on knowns.
You reject them, of course, but unless you have the knowledge base to do so you're rejection is no better than blind acceptance of aliens as the explanation.

Who is accepting aliens, who said that? Also I laid out 3 version of Roman cranes and the capstans sometimes used in multiples for heavier weight and despite that no one with all their knowledge on this board can even tell me which one was used for the lift. Beyond that i can't even get a selection I can even get a basic explanation of which modifications would have been used. Seen them explained for 55-65 ton stones, not 800 ton.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

The difference between us, I know what I don't know. But I know that known tools and methods don't make sense

You don't know, but you know.
Got it.

Not a single person can even pick one of the 4 lift options the Romans had, and explain needed modifications to account for weight. I do got that.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Who is accepting aliens, who said that?

No you. And I didn't say you did.

with all their knowledge on this board can even tell me which one was used for the lift.

Ah, I see, "on this board." Well, I'm neither an engineer nor an archaeologist so even if I gave you an explanation it wouldn't hold any water, would it? In a similar manner, your refusal to accept the theories of engineers and archaeologists doesn't really hold any water, does it?

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: Marduk

I'm sure blue prints on things like this would be a great help in understanding but oh well. .

blue prints like the ones found written on the top of the trilithion stones by the romans, or some other imaginary blue prints

Also, on top of one of the trilithon stones there is a drawing of the plans for the Temple of Jupiter, which was built over by the Romans when it was no longer needed

Not talking about the temple itself as that has not ever been my question. My questions were specifically around the great platform. I laid that out in my initial post. Not hard to keep up.

Also a drawings carved in stone and blue prints complete with math, whatever. I do find it neat the Romans found the drawings of something the Romans built. Would figure other Romans might need to know how to do this and the Romans wouldn't hide those carvings. Oh well. I'm learning so much.

a reply to: Phage

Yah. Stellarium, or something similar, and a survey map of Giza.

The belt stars do not appreciably shift position relative to one another in such a short time.The changes are a result of the combined movements of long period cycles, like precession and the change in axial tilt.

All architectural-astronomical alignments work this way.

a reply to: Tsurugi

The belt stars do not appreciably shift position relative to one another in such a short time.The changes are a result of the combined movements of long period cycles, like precession and the change in axial tilt.

Precession and the axial tilt do not affect the relative positions of stars. Any of them.

All architectural-astronomical alignments work this way.

And most of the theories about them are based on very broad, and often incorrect, assumptions.

a reply to: Phage

Precession and the axial tilt do not affect the relative positions of stars. Any of them.

Right. That's what I just said. Glad we agree?

And most of the theories about them are based on very broad, and often incorrect, assumptions.

That's a rather broad statement, hah. What theories are you talking about? None that I mentioned, since I didn't mention any. I said I do not presume to know what the alignments mean, just that they were fascinating.

a reply to: Phage

But we do have proper motion. Granted it will take thousands years for a few stars' positions changes to be noticable.

Bernard's star has the largest proper motion.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Who is accepting aliens, who said that?

No you. And I didn't say you did.

with all their knowledge on this board can even tell me which one was used for the lift.

Ah, I see, "on this board." Well, I'm neither an engineer nor an archaeologist so even if I gave you an explanation it wouldn't hold any water, would it? In a similar manner, your refusal to accept the theories of engineers and archaeologists doesn't really hold any water, does it?

I'm not refusing anything. We have 4 basic options for the lift piece alone. Pick one, explain the modifications needed. In our current day this was posed to Baldwin industrial services. A crane company. Didn't have an existing solution but two possibilities proposed

The first would use a 1,000-ton capacity crane fitted with crawler tracks. The disadvantage of this method would be the need for massive ground preparation works - to provide a solid, level roadway for the crane to move.

The alternative to a crane would be a series of modular hydraulic trailers, combined to create a massive load carrying platform. These trailers raise and lower their loads using hydraulic cylinders built into their suspension. The initial lift at the quarry would be achieved by the use of a cut-out section beneath the stone, which the trailer would drive into. The final positioning in the wall, at a height of 20 feet, would be achieved by using an earth ramp.

This is simply the act of getting it there with proposals based on our current highly advanced technology. Romans you had capstan,Trispastos,Pentaspastos, Polyspastos. Understanding each had limitations. Understanding the same problem was proposed to engineers to for solutions based on what we have.

So I do not know,I readily admit that. But also looking at it, neither does archaeology. If you are on the side archaeology has it right, then show one who can account for the issues, I haven't seen it.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I know.
My original question was in regard to this statement:

Roll the clock back to approx 10.5k BC, and the positions of the pyramids on the ground matches the positions of the belt stars in the sky while the nearby Nile matches the Milky Way.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I asked for a source regarding proper motion (as you put it) showing a difference between now and then. None provided.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Not a single person can even pick one of the 4 lift options the Romans had, and explain needed modifications to account for weight. I do got that.

What you don't got is that they weren't lifted, which you've claimed now in the past several threads even after being told the quarry was uphill.

Nobody "lifted" stone of that size. They were pulled into place.

You want to pretend they were suspended in air, for some reason.

Harte

a reply to: Phage

I know that you know

I was just merely pointing it out for others members.

I remember seeing what orion would have looked like hundreds of thousands years ago but can't remember where. But it wasn't much of a difference from today.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I know.
My original question was in regard to this statement:

Roll the clock back to approx 10.5k BC, and the positions of the pyramids on the ground matches the positions of the belt stars in the sky while the nearby Nile matches the Milky Way.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I asked for a source regarding proper motion (as you put it) showing a difference between now and then. None provided.

None provided, because I was not talking about the individual stars changing positions relative to each other.

a reply to: Tsurugi

Then you need to explain what you meant because it sure sounds like the relative positions of the stars themselves and their positions relative to the Milky Way have changed from the way they appeared 10,500 years ago.

Roll the clock back to approx 10.5k BC, and the positions of the pyramids on the ground matches the positions of the belt stars in the sky while the nearby Nile matches the Milky Way.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Phage

I know that you know

I was just merely pointing it out for others members.

I remember seeing what orion would have looked like hundreds of thousands years ago but can't remember where. But it wasn't much of a difference from today.

Orion doesn't look different in terms of shape, but it does change orientation relative to the horizon over time--i.e., it "stands up" and "lies down", etc.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tsurugi

Then you need to explain what you meant because it sure sounds like the relative positions of the stars themselves and their positions relative to the Milky Way have changed from the way they appeared 10,500 years ago.

What I meant was that the orientation of the night sky was very different. The entire sky was shifted, turned. Not individual stars.

a reply to: Tsurugi

but it does change orientation relative to the horizon over time--i.e., it "stands up" and "lies down", etc.

Sort of. Depending on if it's rising or setting.
Precession only changes the "season" in which it rises.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tsurugi

but it does change orientation relative to the horizon over time--i.e., it "stands up" and "lies down", etc.

Sort of. Depending on if it's rising or setting.

Well, yeah. Observing changes caused by long-period cycles requires eliminating changes caused by the annual cycle...usually by making observations once a year, on the same day every year.

a reply to: Tsurugi

Observing changes caused by long-period cycles requires eliminating changes caused by the annual cycle...usually by making observations once a year, on the same day every year.

Precession only changes the "season" in which it rises, not how it "lays."