The Pyramids Of Egypt: Relics Of An Advanced Prehistoric Civilization?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

In reply to resonance being a new one to you -

www.pyramid-cafe.in...>power
www.gizapyramid.com...>leone1
Cheers

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Harte

Ah. I see. The "different way of looking" at the same thing.

Yeah, kind of like the stories that witness's of an unfortunate situation tell the police.

Right. So relate eyewitness testimony to the quantum realm for me, will you?

originally posted by: highvein

So, does this different way not involve electrons, the easiest BY FAR elementary particle to isolate from an atom (they do it on their own all the time) ??

Why wouldn't it involve electrons?

Because there is no evidence for the manipulation and/or measurement of electricity (you know, electrons,) which by necessity must occur before the quantum can be discovered.

originally posted by: highvein

Do you believe that quantum theory can arise without any experimentation at all? Just right out of some genius' mind?

Who said there were no experiments? Maybe not devised in the same style, but experiments none the less.

You suggest that ancients had precision instruments to examine phenomena at the quantum scale, but couldn't build a clock.

originally posted by: highvein

Or, do you think they skipped electrons altogether - just for the challenge of it - and went straight to protons an neutrons somehow?

Or they could have thought about it in relation to the cycles of the cosmos, which is built by the quantum realm for the function of what?

"Cycles of the cosmos..." Okay. Nevermind.

Harte

I sudied Falun Dafa awhile back, and I'm a fan of it's teachings, but I wonder, where did he obtained this information?

From the deepest data vaults on the Planet....maybe the knowledge was gifted.

a reply to: ALSTA

Fact modern engineers with modern technology could not and cannot reproduce this structure.

Yes given the time and resources, today's engineers could build a pyramid into the atmosphere.


But there is no purpose to do so other than show the ignorant folk that just cannot grasp what humans are capable of given enough time and man power.

a reply to: LitriumGem

There has been some research done on the pyramids that show they may have possibly been underwater in the remote past.

NO


research has shown that banks of Nile were much closer to Giza Plateau back in the day.

a reply to: ALSTA

But I'll say this........At least i can read, where did i say the sphinx was constucted. I said points about the pyramids construction.

which is implying it was.

This is why you were replied to with a posters telling you they were carved into the limestone because you said nothing can create the effect other than water.

So if its carved then those marks that you say can only be from water could be from the carving of the structure.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous





I


I don't like simple narratives, because I don't think true history is very often simple. The AE certainly built a lot, but I don't have to credit them with everything to credit them with some things.

So your admitting you'd falsify the narrative to make in complex even when it is simple. okay.

Obviously not. I mean it in the way the guy in a police detective movie might say "I don't like coincidences".

I think when it comes to histor, Occam's razor points the other way. The simple story is usually false. Everything doesn't come together to "further the plot" in real life. A lot of stuff just plain happens.

Here is what I consider a 'simple' as you label it, narrative. We have overwhelming, massive evidence for a civilization along the Nile River, while at the same time not a single piece of evidence for a 'lost civilization, so the simple solution is that the AE built everything. Now the complex narrative is that the AE were there leaving traces everywhere, tens of millions of pieces of evidence but this other civilization left nothing behind.....hmmmm.

Except it's not an "either or". That's how complicated history works.

There can be both an AE AND another older civ. Or 2 older civs, or 3, or 8 or 10.

False dichotomies simplify the narrative, which is another reason to be wary of simple narratives: they are often the result of false dichotomies.

The Meidum, Bent, Red, and Great Pyramids all show signs of a type of architecture that never existed prior or after in Egyptian history. And they all show it on the interior, rather than exterior portions.

The Greeks, Romans, Minoans, Sumerian, Han and others all did the same thing [create new things) and guess what they didn't need a secret hidden civilization to do it for them.....

But they didn't forget how afterwards.

So why are you saying this other lost civilization did it - which doesn't surprise you - but that you would be surprised that the AE did it? Huh? Something wrong with the AE?

I would be surprised if they did it and then forgot how. Yes.

You need a complex set of archaeological remains to create a viable complex set of civilizations - look at Mesopotamia, the Andes and Central America for just such a display of multiple civilization coming and going, building stuff and disappearing. AND all those sequence of civilizations left clear traces - but not in the Nile.....where the narrative is simple and not complex like for those places.

Have you heard of the Green Sahara?

www.livescience.com...

That would most likely be when the transition occurred. A period between 10,500 years ago and about 7,000 years ago when the Sahara started getting rain. Prior to that there is evidence of population concentration in the Nile valley leading to wars, but evidence for genuine agriculture not so much. (Some cultivation, but not planting in rows.)

After the end of that is when Egypt got it's lovely isolation, that enabled it to flourish.

But although planting in rows hasn't been found, there has been evidence found of animal herding in the Green Sahara regions, including pottery that once held milk. From a minimum of 7000 years ago if the climate models are to be believed.

www.livescience.com...

Do people really believe that they carved the pyramids out of limestone and granite with bronze chisels in 20 years?

As someone who does masonry work and works in construction I find it to be a completely ridiculous assumption

originally posted by: toysforadults
Do people really believe that they carved the pyramids out of limestone and granite with bronze chisels in 20 years?

As someone who does masonry work and works in construction I find it to be a completely ridiculous assumption

Granite was carved with pounding stones and smoothed by rubbing with other flat stones and abrasives.
Most of the limestone was broken out of the quarry in roughly the shape needed.

There's plenty of evidence of both methods.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

I don't like simple narratives, because I don't think true history is very often simple.

The word 'like' should never be a factor in what should be a scientific based conclusion. I don't 'like' that no sign of Barsoom was found on Mars but that doesn't cause me to imagine it exists there.

The AE certainly built a lot, but I don't have to credit them with everything to credit them with some things.

I don't think that your personal likes or dislikes determines which was built by who....just sayin.

Obviously not. I mean it in the way the guy in a police detective movie might say "I don't like coincidences".

The detective would also say, on one hand we have the AE who had motive and opportunity and are well known to the community OR we have Mr x for whom no evidence exists that he even is alive and he has no motive or opportunity......geee who would i pick to be the guilty party?

I think when it comes to histor, Occam's razor points the other way. The simple story is usually false. Everything doesn't come together to "further the plot" in real life. A lot of stuff just plain happens.

Yes stuff happens and guess what people do crazy thing which oddly leaves plentiful evidence. 10's of millions of pieces of evidence for the AE 0 for the lost civilization.

Except it's not an "either or". That's how complicated history works.

There can be both an AE AND another older civ. Or 2 older civs, or 3, or 8 or 10.

However only one civilization of those above as left any evidence of existence - Many thousands of tons of evidence while all the others - unlike every other civilization in the world - have left exactly...none.

False dichotomies simplify the narrative, which is another reason to be wary of simple narratives: they are often the result of false dichotomies.

You should use evidence for making such determinations not semantics.

But they didn't forget how afterwards.

So? The other civilization you believe in not only didn't leave any existence of it being here it also stopped making pyramids (I presume that is what you are speaking about?)

There was this thing called the Intermediate period - do you understand what happened during that-right?

Have you heard of the Green Sahara?

Yes and you avoided my comment on overlapping civilizations

You need a complex set of archaeological remains to create a viable complex set of civilizations - look at Mesopotamia, the Andes and Central America for just such a display of multiple civilization coming and going, building stuff and disappearing. AND all those sequence of civilizations left clear traces - but not in the Nile.....where the narrative is simple and not complex like for those places.

So what evidence do you have that the implausible invisible civilization built the large pyramids? Then disappeared but then it was already invisible .....but I think you get my drift.

You do understand why the orthodox/academic world is justly reluctant to give credence to an invisible lost civilization aren't you?

a reply to: Hanslune

Let me ask you a question, what does your question have to do with the OP?

Well if you want an explanation about how an Advanced Prehistoric Civilization may approach knowledge in a different way modern civilization do, there ya go.

So please answer the question.

You may want to ask that interesting question in a different forum and a different thread.

I think this is the perfect place for it.

a reply to: Harte

yeah right, where are the tools? where is the equipment and evidence of the equipment, plans?

there's no evidence of this actually I've been looking into this for decades and if you're silly enough to believe that the giza complex was made with stones and chisel's and made for the purpose of serving as a burial chamber you have your eyes closed

it's totally ridiculous

a reply to: Harte



you really think this was designed as a burial chamber?? really?

obviously there was water and steam involved, I'm not saying it was a reactor but it sure as hell wasn't a burial chamber, clearly the "air shafts" were for ventilation and I'm willing to bet that in the course of the last few thousand years things were taken out of there and hidden by the church, Rome Egypt and all of it

originally posted by: toysforadults
I agree with Brien Forester on this issue.

www.youtube.com...

The "Wondrous Flight Over The Nazca And Palpa Lines Of Peru" seems on topic.
The geoglyphs of the Paracas culture predate the Nasca lines by a 1000 years and are just now being catalogued by drone.
When the Nazca culture invaded and conquered they did not assimilate all of the Paracas intellectual history.
The Palpa lines and geoglyphs probably inspired the Nasca lines but perhaps the Nasca lines were cheap copies devoid of the original intellectual roots?

How do we know the same thing did not happen after the Battle on the plain of Marathon when the Greeks assimilated the Persian culture?

Then there is the widespread modern myth that the library at Alexandria was "burned" and much information cataclysmically destroyed. The truth is that during the dark ages the intellectual history was hidden from the common people.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Harte

yeah right, where are the tools? where is the equipment and evidence of the equipment, plans?

Why would there be lots of tools at a site that has been in use, vandalized and mined for stone for 4,500 years?

One could reverse this question and ask for the same for whomever you think built it with whatever they used.

Now tools for other sites have been found and similar techniques were used by all ancient civilizations to work stone.

there's no evidence of this actually I've been looking into this for decades and if you're silly enough to believe that the giza complex was made with stones and chisel's and made for the purpose of serving as a burial chamber you have your eyes closed

Nope I've been studying it also and from my knowledge of the site that conclusion matches the consilience of evidence.

Oh and by the way how much freshly quarried limestone have you worked with copper tools at modern construction sites?

it's totally ridiculous

Yawn, yet that is where the evidence points. Now instead of poo pooing the existing evidence why don't you lay out for us all the actual evidence you have to support you idea that x was used to built y for z reasons. Video's by the way aren't evidence....

a reply to: Hanslune

Oh and by the way how much freshly quarried limestone have you worked with copper tools at modern construction sites?

no one who has ever worked with hand tools and stone would ever even consider a project of this magnitude because it's absolutely ridiculous

not a single person on the planet would even consider this you would get laughed out of a room by any construction crew on the planet

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Harte

you really think this was designed as a burial chamber?? really?

obviously there was water and steam involved, I'm not saying it was a reactor but it sure as hell wasn't a burial chamber, clearly the "air shafts" were for ventilation and I'm willing to bet that in the course of the last few thousand years things were taken out of there and hidden by the church, Rome Egypt and all of it

Okay so where is Khufu buried then and all the other pharaoh's of the pyramid age?

What does this hieroglyph stand for?

a reply to: Cauliflower

Then there is the widespread modern myth that the library at Alexandria was "burned" and much information cataclysmically destroyed. The truth is that during the dark ages the intellectual history was hidden from the common people.

I totally agree. It's obvious as day that the truth is being hidden and the question is by who and why?

It's kinda weird because you know it's still out there but where is it and who has it is the real question here.

Pretending these megalithic sites were built with sticks stones and bronze tools it's almost completely stupid

a reply to: Cauliflower

Then there is the widespread modern myth that the library at Alexandria was "burned" and much information cataclysmically destroyed. The truth is that during the dark ages the intellectual history was hidden from the common people.

I totally agree. It's obvious as day that the truth is being hidden and the question is by who and why?

It's kinda weird because you know it's still out there but where is it and who has it is the real question here.

Pretending these megalithic sites were built with sticks stones and bronze tools it's almost completely stupid

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Hanslune

no one who has ever worked with hand tools and stone would ever even consider a project of this magnitude because it's absolutely ridiculous

...in your opinion but then how were all the other sites in the world built then?

not a single person on the planet would even consider this you would get laughed out of a room by any construction crew on the planet

I would - not in ancient Egypt and every other palace in the ancient world

By the way here is my question again:

Oh and by the way how much freshly quarried limestone have you worked with copper tools at modern construction sites?

lol