posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:59 PM
In my never ending quest to stop repeating myself and stay out of circular arguments I'll just post my opinion
In the history of science apparent similarity seems to be a hotly contested subject on which to base theories. In some cases, as with pyramids of
different cultures it has been rejected as an oddity and nothing more. However, in the field of evolution it has been used as fact to support a
rather unproven theory (please don't drag this into an evolution discussion). It seems the factuality of apparent similarity is in the eye of the
beholder. It is in my opinion that apparent similarity should be regarded, at the very least, as a viable basis for theorizing until the theory or
similarity itself is disproven.
As for the question of why many different civilizations built pyramids I believe it could be as Gazrok suggested, the most simplified design for a
structre of that size and mass. It is not a far leap of the imagination to see that the universal language of mathematics would lead to the pyramid
when faced with the query of "How should we build somthing so big?" I believe the question is not so much "Why a pyramid?" as it is "How?" The
further you delve into the mystery of ancient megaliths the louder the question of "How?" screams in your mind. That's not to say that the answer
lies in the paranormal, but maybe just the unaccepted. Personally I am amazed when I read of the metal clamps used to keep stones in place, or the
perfection of the angles and levels, the consistancy of the measurements. The complexity of these structures alone is a source of endless
Having said that I'd like to point out that the construction of said megaliths remains a mystery and is relegated to the land of theories. How could
a culture, seemingly so unevolved scientificaly, build somthing of such size and mass? Even today, building a structer of that magnitude using only
the tools we believe available at the time is near impropable. Perhaps the key lies in a form of chronocentric bigotry (ok, i admit it, as far as I
know I made up that word, it's like racism but with time substituted for race. "ethnocentric"), we believe ourselves so far advanced, and so far
removed from "savage" ancient history that only we are capable of such feats.
Perhaps we are not as far advanced as we would like to believe, given the law of exponential rate of technological evolution (which I propose
requires the ability to share knowledge to support it as law, for example the internet, or in ancient times trade and the interacting of different
cultures) it is quite possible to theorize that these cultures could have developed these skills, tools and methods on their own. All that would
really be needed is toolmaking, metalurgy, language, mathematics and time, with the possible addition of astronomy given that the stellar alignments
of megaliths is a fact. I'm going to go out on a limb and introduce the variable of extraterrestrial life (personally I believe in it but it is, as
of yet, unproven). Imagine if you will, that life of some form exists, or at the least originated from one of the older star systems we know of.
Given the theorized age of some of the planets in our solar system (billions of years older than the Earth), and the aforementioned law of
technological growth, it's easy to believe that any culture from said planet would be advanced far beyond our ability to comprehend and could
possibly see us much as we see stone age man. I digress, I simply wished to suggest that we are no where near the pinnacle of technological
achievement we believe ouselves to be.
It is my personal opinion that these ancient megaliths are not the answer, yet a clue to a bigger mystery. I also feel, that barring extraterrestrial
intervention as a viable conclussion, and given archealogical anomolies like the Piri Reis map, that the existence of advanced (advanced as in
egyptian, not spaceships and death rays) human civilization goes back farther than we have yet to accept. More over, these ancient cultures had
abundant connection with eachother, or at the very least had contact with a "middle man" such as merchants. Knowledge is power, and I believe that
to be true through all of history, technology would and still is a valuable source of income. The still surprising reach of dark age trade routes and
the extent to which objects of certain cultures can make their way to other peoples is a perfect example of what happens when the known world is
However, this theory is by no means conclusive, it fails to tackle the issue of what happened to it all. What reason was there that the
communication was broken, that knowledge was forgotten and eventually denied as heretical and unorthodox by the pharisees and saggisees (sp?) of the
scientific community? Nor does it take on the question of where do we, as a species, come from. Perhaps I just believe as many do, that the
mysteries of our existence are endless, and the knowledge we have is just the perverbial tip of the iceberg. I know you asked for "intelligent"
opinions and didn't mean for people to take that to say "wordy" and "poorly organized" but I can't help myself.