pre pyramid plateau

a reply to: username74


oh and !
"The article is not, nor does it try to be, what you are claiming. What it does, though, is verify the legitimacy of some of the proposed methods for pyramid construction. That is, it shows such methods are possible which is what I already said - the paper refutes the claim that "it couldn't have been built by Egyptians." "
Harte
the paper refutes no such claim
what classifications?
the only thing that proves something is possible is a scaled field test
with no sure methods there can be no test
thats what research and development is
as i said before it was presented as such
if it is not fit for purpose , openly admit so.
if you feel it " verify(ies) the legitimacy of some of the proposed methods for pyramid construction. "
then describe the system and process of such verification.
and even after such can it be verified that this was the initial primary and only major building event on this structure in this area?
it would be most unique, that the primary site and structure of said structure was original and the apex of engineering for a civilisation that seems to have 'peaked early' and degraded from its beginnings into obscurity.
this would be intellectually palatable on a social level,
we have a dose of malaise, ourselves in the modern west, but it shouldnt be reflected in the primary industries!
farmers dont kick it in and go back to hunting after a bad year!
they dont get worse at their trade
as much as our society may degrade our tech surges on
its not about incentive as the modern paradigm will tell you, its about survival, if another guy does it better for less he will take your spot, but not because his work is shoddy.
because its better or at least more efficient
or faster with a similar total input as regards perceived result.
so how is it this particular instance is so counterintuitive?
well, we have the nile.
its pretty unique
i reckon the coral castle was built with car parts, about 20 direct current auto batteries and some turn of the century quarrying machines from eastern europe and a #load of savvy.
tripods erected with chains on comealongs around the base of the legs
and it was done at night because it hot in the day
and by one guy
dont see that kind of savoir faire in the report.
i dont see any kind of savoir faire in that report, only basic math and speculation.
what also stands out is the importance and abundance of water in this culture, as inferred by architecture involving water and the idea that they are a desert people.
paradoxical perspective, no?

You will argue that the article doesn't demonstrate that human beings could have built the Great Pyramid?

Is that what you're down to?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

i think at this point you should probably show your working out.
you appear to have your tenses and grammar confused!.
do you mean to say humans couldnt have built it or do you mean to say humans must have built it
enough childish obfusification
are we still not addressing the previous questions?
would you like to answer the enquiries or are you out of your depth?
where the # did i bring in non human agents?
or was that you?
and as i previously stated the article questions nothing, least of all its own integrity!
is there a reason why this keeps coming back at you?, think carefully now, could it be because everytime i post a reply and question the paper you just throw crap back?
can you see the pattern yet?
re read

I was perfectly clear when I noted that the document under discussion is usually presented to refute the idea that "Humans couldn't have built" the Great Pyramid.

Clearly, it shows that they could have.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

but in this case it was presented by marduk to support how it was built.
why is there a human issue?
why wouldnt i think humans built it?
am i missing something?
is there another contender?
perhaps you can direct me to the suggestion (because as a member you can read everything i ever wrote here ) that i, at some point said, or even implied that anything other than human effort was involved!
i await your supporting evidence.

a reply to: username74

maybe we should insert the rational process of philosophical reasoning that has surfaced herewww.abovetopsecret.com...
its a solid basis for my arguments here
its a reclassification of data (the input is neccesairily negotiable in these contexts) and most importantly we can bifuricate into lanes of reasoning which can be followed to logical conclusion.
lines of inquiry can be eliminated or sustained
or instituted (and god knows theres been plenty of that!)
each line of argument can be subject to a variety of cross referencing tools such as adverse inferences from silence, evidence of absence, negative proof, philosophic burden of proof

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

but in this case it was presented by marduk to support how it was built.
why is there a human issue?
why wouldnt i think humans built it?
am i missing something?
is there another contender?
perhaps you can direct me to the suggestion (because as a member you can read everything i ever wrote here ) that i, at some point said, or even implied that anything other than human effort was involved!
i await your supporting evidence.

I didn't see Marduk saying that, but you should take it up with him.
I was the one that linked the article after I saw it mentioned here. I was the one that said it refutes the idea the the Egyptians "couldn't have built it."

The article, like every other scholarly article on the subject, presents a method that could have been used. Without a time machine, or at least discovery of detailed construction diagrams/papers (and the AEs appear not to have used such things,) we will never know for sure exactly how it was done.

However, that doesn't mean that we can't use logic and reason to discard most of the more, shall we say, fanciful propositions for pyramid construction.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

well i thought it was marduk and then it got deleted but if you say it was you then it was you.
and surely the term egyptian is lexical semantics at this juncture
most of the pyramid is not built of big bits, so the constuction doesnt require a spaceship with 5 asses
it was more the timescale that appalled me.

a reply to: Harte

"However, that doesn't mean that we can't use logic and reason to discard most of the more, shall we say, fanciful propositions for pyramid construction.

Harte"

ok. well fanciful is what i was alluding to in respect to the claims of construction.
that document is a fancy in itself.
perhaps we should (yes, WE) take a step back and look at the why.
why would such a massive construction or series of constructions be attempted?!
and lets be clear, here we are, so without any obfusification....
this branch of localised civilisation pulled out more granite from the earth, proportionally, in the accepted timescale, than we ever harvested.
why?
the mainstream answer seems to be 'ego'.
the dynamic of this does not fit the given timescale, the given tech level or the given cultural structure.
to boot, there is no method.
its pure paradigm!
and dont throw it back at me, as though its based on fact, because it is not.
its based on supposition and associative logic.
you are going to have to produce something with deductive logic.
you can date the piece of charcoal in the tomb but that does not date the stone bench you find it next to. thats a date for the last organic input not construction.
there appears a massive number of inconsistancies backed by association
trash in = trash out
the pure scale of granite mined to cover pyramids and build those temples is insane.
even with our tech.
and i have been looking at the numbers and mass.
with copper and rock implements.
preposterous
thats without the transportation and fine work.
i do not see numbers being used to quantify this effort.
there are acres of smashed granite around those constructions.
where is the record of tectonic activity that must surely have broken their skins to lay them open to the harvesting of the loose scree.
most of which still there
this is not an attempt to discredit egyptology, i am quite sure the civilisation that existed is close to what is documented but the achievements at hand is beyond the described tech and spiritual motivation.
and its worth noting that even petrie just accepted the proposed cultural developments in face of the physical evidence.
africa was the dark continent and to accept that the non white races could have achieved such monumental achievements so long ago was literally blasphemy. also intense competition between sponsered explorers.
it was their zeitgiest.
darwinism and linear evolution, the ideas of the time.
we do not need to make the same mistakes.
and yet this philology is from those foundations.
entrenched and self reinforcing.
the only possible motivation must be agricultural
its the only cause for terraforming that has left an appreciable mark such as deforestation in northern europe
you will notice that on the plateaux the three are built on the boundaries of the two main limestone formations
perhaps this is pertinent.
the aquifers and the relation of the old lake moeris levels are unlikely to be a secondary issue vis a vis the assumed religious concerns.
which would knock the time scale for construction back but the egyptian culture doesnt have to be relocated.
it just has a predecessor.
it would be odd that they appear, tech able, with no precedant then degrade, which is what i am being asked to accept.
and to be fair if you want to move heavy stuff water is your friend.
your (considered) thoughts?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

"However, that doesn't mean that we can't use logic and reason to discard most of the more, shall we say, fanciful propositions for pyramid construction.

Harte"

ok. well fanciful is what i was alluding to in respect to the claims of construction.
that document is a fancy in itself.
perhaps we should (yes, WE) take a step back and look at the why.
why would such a massive construction or series of constructions be attempted?!

We have multiple reasons to believe pyramids were constructed as tombs for pharaohs and represented what egyptologists have called a "resurrection machine."
We have NO reason to believe anything else.
By "reason" in both of the above, I mean evidential indications.

originally posted by: username74and lets be clear, here we are, so without any obfusification....
this branch of localised civilisation pulled out more granite from the earth, proportionally, in the accepted timescale, than we ever harvested.

Not sure what you mean by that, but it is entirely false to say that the AE's quarried more granite per capita per decade than "we" have, if you pick the right "we."

originally posted by: username74
the mainstream answer seems to be 'ego'.
the dynamic of this does not fit the given timescale, the given tech level or the given cultural structure.
to boot, there is no method.
its pure paradigm!
and dont throw it back at me, as though its based on fact, because it is not.
its based on supposition and associative logic.
you are going to have to produce something with deductive logic.

Your entire existence is based on inductive reasoning. There is hardly a deduction to be made in life, much less in any venue of ancient history.

originally posted by: username74you can date the piece of charcoal in the tomb but that does not date the stone bench you find it next to. thats a date for the last organic input not construction.

The piece of charcoal is evidence for a construction date when it is drilled out of the mortar between the stones.

originally posted by: username74there appears a massive number of inconsistancies backed by association
trash in = trash out
the pure scale of granite mined to cover pyramids and build those temples is insane.
even with our tech.
and i have been looking at the numbers and mass.
with copper and rock implements.
preposterous

We can only go by what we know. Anyone can claim some great "mystery." Serious people are left with examining the evidence we actually have in hand.
It is certainly evident the AEs built all the pyramids. Since we do know what kind of tools they had, we have to accept that they used those tools to do so.
Nobody is saying it was easy.
They left plenty of evidence for how they quarried limestone (splitting) and granite (pounding.)
You simply cannot postulate any other means without addressing the evidence that has been found in limestone and granite quarries.

originally posted by: username74
it would be odd that they appear, tech able, with no precedant then degrade, which is what i am being asked to accept.
and to be fair if you want to move heavy stuff water is your friend.
your (considered) thoughts?

My thoughts are you assign too much significance to the fact that pyramid building tapered off. If you look at what went on in the culture itself, you can see why they might have laid off taking on such huge constructions just for a single tomb.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

And everyone seems to forget that the Egyptians had been building pyramids for around 100 years before they started on Giza - and that Khuf's dad built three (possibly four) of them, using more total stone than was used for the Great Pyramid - and all during his reign. And all that didn't include the palaces, temples, and tombs for nobles that were done during that time.

The first Egyptian pyramids appear 100 years before Gza. By the time we get around to looking at Giza, we are looking at a public works project by people who'd used the last 100 years to develop and refine tools and process of "how to do pyramids" (and correct design mistakes (the Bent Pyramid)) and how to manage labor on huge construction projects that took a decade or more to build.

Quarries were already open and producing stone that was being transported all over the Nile.

Honestly, Khufu didn't just wake up one morning and say "build me a pointy thing over there. Make it big."

originally posted by: Harte
My thoughts are you assign too much significance to the fact that pyramid building tapered off. If you look at what went on in the culture itself, you can see why they might have laid off taking on such huge constructions just for a single tomb.
Harte

Including the gradual destabilization of the government and the distribution of power into the hands of the courtiers (semir.)

a reply to: Byrd

sorry, drunk post. had to happen sooner or later
shame people dont reply with such aclarity when i am sober.
kind of looks like yall were just waiting for a chance to jump me!

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

sorry, drunk post. had to happen sooner or later

shame people dont reply with such aclarity when i am sober.
kind of looks like yall were just waiting for a chance to jump me!

Nah. Harte's shorter posts are much easier to respond to -- I can pull out an answer for the main point and address it with more detail without running into the word limit count for posts here on ATS. So that way I can get it all in one go, rather than putting up 3-4 messages that each run into the message word count limit.

a reply to: Byrd

i will try to correct my drunken post.
and yeah i know. its a lot of information in any of these subjects.
well happy new year to all and i will start a correction now.
xxx
worthy adversaries you are.
respect.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

i will try to correct my drunken post.
and yeah i know. its a lot of information in any of these subjects.
well happy new year to all and i will start a correction now.
xxx
worthy adversaries you are.
respect.

And a happy and prosperous new year to you, too!

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

kind of looks like yall were just waiting for a chance to jump me!

No. It's just like I told you before. Not many posts going up in this section these days, but it's practically the only section I check at this site.
If there's a new post and it's worth replying to, I usually do.

Harte

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

sorry, drunk post. had to happen sooner or later

shame people dont reply with such aclarity when i am sober.
kind of looks like yall were just waiting for a chance to jump me!

Alacrity.

a reply to: Harte
well its appreciated

a reply to: Phage

and that makes four of us .
so i will elucidate
mostly sober this time.
to follow.....