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

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Hanslune

im still to see on youtube someone make wall of 1000 tonnes stones placed with precise precision using only primitive tools.
Seen plenty of these superficial explanations that make it sound so prosaic and easy but yet to see that.

since you the expert I challenge you to even make a 1/1000th scale model of macho pichuusing blocks fashioned from cheapest rocks available.
Remember youll be cutting stone with copper saw using sand.

There's no wall made of 1000 ton stones anywhere. Why would you need to see someone on Youtube make one?

Harte

a reply to: toysforadults

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

why are you trying to change what was being discussed and debated?

I have worked on jobs where lifts of thousands of tons have been lifted by giant cranes on Offshore jobs and onshore fabrication yards .

Good luck with shifting weights like that in pre-history even in the hundreds of tons in very confined spaces

originally posted by: ALSTA

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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.

Yes perhaps they could copy it now they've seen it. But could they invent it to carry out its initial purpose? Not a chance.

So you go from not being able to, to being able to because they can copy it.


So which is it?

today's engineers cannot or can but only because they can copy it?


I quoted what you said

here let me quote your "fact" again

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

and then after changing your fact to that today's engineers could you ask

But could they invent it to carry out its initial purpose? Not a chance.

you have lost me here,

What does its purpose have to do with construction and whether today's engineer's could do the same or better?

You've lost me you really have, where's the implication either way? i only said the sphinx had water marks horizontally, THATS IT!. Which was in response to a post about the pyramids submergance and the probability of said submergance.

How can you get lost when I quoted your own words and responded to the words I quoted?

You said you weren't talking about its constructions but points about its construction


You see saying 'points about its construction' to me says you are saying its constructed.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Hanslune

responding to you will obviously be a total of waste of time however anyone reading this with an open mind will see how completely stupid that theory is with a little thought, not even a lot of thought just a little

Site Motto: Deny Ignorance.

You have been presented with evidence of tools left in situ at the quarry, carvings and cartouches showing preparation, shaping and polishing, evidence of how simple limestone (in partoicular at the Giza Plateau) is to cut, shape and move, evidence (from geologists) for how the Sphinx weathers due to the various layers it is made of and the fact the 2 of the pyramids at Giza are built on hillocks (not "perfect" pyramids so required far less blocks) and yet you dismiss it all and present your evidence - Foerster, a known fraudster.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it isn't suddenly an elephant you know..........

originally posted by: Hanslune


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?

They probably left and went into the Green Sahara when it opened up. Or lost their unification because anybody who didn't like the ruler could just pick up and go "out west".

Have you heard of the Green Sahara?

Yes and you avoided my comment on overlapping civilizations

Yes. Because the Green Sahara completely explains that problem.

Prior to it, the Nile had occupation sufficient to have created stone works. Not building a tomb in one generation, but over sufficient time, they could move large stones and build something (as evidence exists elsewhere of hunter-gatherers moving large stones in the so called "megalithic" era.)

The issue with the AE building the GP and other similar structures is the claim to do so in 40 years. I don't doubt they could have done it over a couple of hundred years.

A precursor civilization makes sense because the AE story is implausible. If the AE had told a plausible story, I would believe that one instead.

But even stone aged people could build a giant structure if you give them enough time.

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?

The Green Sahara. It's a perfectly plausible place for them to disappear to.

And after 3000 years, it dried up and most of its inhabitants either left, dispersed, or died.

In the AE, the pharaoh was powerful largely because the people had nowhere else to go. The Nile was their lifeblood. If they had somewhere else to go, he would't be so powerful. If he was a tyrant, they would simply leave.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Hanslune

primitive humans did this with a stick and a bronze chisel (obviously not). no seriously there was machining of some sort involved

No, but you could do that with a wet abrasive, using a cylinder made of copper fixed solidly on its axis and an apparatus that allows you to spin it.

Anything a "power tool" can do using an electric motor, a similar machine could do with a human powering it. Electric motors don't have a special capacity other than sheer convenience.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: toysforadults
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

Hundreds of pounders left in the granite quarries. Marks left on unfinished granite corresponding to pounders. Paintings of workers smoothng stone by rubbing with other stones. Holes in the top lips of the quarries, put there to drive wooden poles into (some of which have also been found.)

Limestone cleaves very easily on it's own in two perpendicular planes.

You, on the other hand, got nothing. Nothing at all. Nada, zilch, zero.

Harte

The pounders just don't give a satisfactory explanation for huge granite works. limestone, yes. Granite, not so much.

If your pounder isn't harder than the thing it's pounding, it's going to be pretty slow process.

Fortunately pounders aren't the only option.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Harte

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

Yes, and so did the builders - the Ancient Egyptians.

originally posted by: toysforadultsobviously 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

See? You really k now nothing at all about the subject.

Your "air shafts" for ventilation were blocked - AT BOTH ENDS! LOL

Absurdity after absurdity.

Harte

That makes a lot of sense if the pyramid is a "build over", and the original structure had air shafts.

Building a shaft and then blocking it on both ends is pretty silly. But taking a structure that was already present and deciding you don't want the shaft there would fit.

Of course, the "finicky pharoah" narrative also works, provided he allowed his engineers to execute the structurally important parts of their plans uninterrupted.

Build over also makes sense if the people of Egypt really didn't want to remember the ancient past.

When the first pharaoh Narmer came on the scene, the valley was in chaos. Continual tribal disputes, communities threatening each other over resources, roving bands of marauders ... etc. Narmer shows up and basically massacres a whole lot of people to establish one rule in the area.

And the people who were left after that were happy he did. Things could finally be peaceful, and they could go about their lives with a clear understanding who was going to get what (and who wasn't.) He cleaned up the neighborhood.

The people had no reason to want to remember a time before that. Whatever ancient culture had been there before, it had obviously given way to the chaos they remembered with dread. And that meant it wasn't worth remembering.

Encasing a large monument from a dead culture in stone could be seen as a way of "burying the dead". In more ways than one.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Just for some perspective on time scales.

The Theodosian Walls were built between 412-414 AD - a far, far larger construction with much more work involved.

Hadrian's Wall was started in AD 122 and finished within 6 years - all 80 miles of it. This was done by, at most, 3 Legions - 15'000 men. In hostile territory, whilst having to also protect shipped in resources.

The Pharos at Alexandria took 20 years to build - technically, that was an even greater accomplishment (IMO) than the pyramids.

The only reason that the pyramids took so long to build was down to it being seasonal work for farmers, etc.

a reply to: Flavian

In 20 years they had to place a block every 2-3 minutes

Seasonal work are you crazy?

a reply to: toysforadults

Worked on the monuments stopped at planting and harvest season.
We know this because they they told us.

a reply to: punkinworks10

They told you wrong. do some basic math and see how obviously silly what you're saying is

They moved 2.3 million blocks of stone some of them from 500 miles away and perfectly placed them 3 dimensionally in nearly flawless fashion, seasonly?

Sheeeeeeeesh. How crazy do you have to be to believe that!

It takes me and my crew months to do commercial tile and or stone/ marble work!!! With modern machinery and tools!

Its crazy to think that!!!

a reply to: toysforadults

Again, 2 of the pyramids were built on hillocks. As Punkinworks said, they left records as to it being seasonal and also even left records of how they were paid for this work.

You can ignore that as much as you wish but it is evidenced fact. All you have is supposition - why do you refuse to see that? Or do you genuinely believe that supposition is more accurate than evidence? That the work of fraudsters is fact but the work of scholars that translate cartouches and papyrii is somehow less accurate? That the geologists that study the plateau and underlying formations that continuously rubbish the wilder geological claims are somehow in on this academic collusion? Or the complete and utter lack of any kind of trace of this earlier civilization? Not even a midden? It goes on and on, ad nauseum.

Or is it far more likely that the people making claims they can't back up are maybe, you know, wrong?

a reply to: Flavian

so how many rocks an hour did they have to place to complete the 1 main giza pyramid at 2.3 million rocks if they did it in 20 years only seasonly?

just curious if you know the answer

a reply to: Harte

I have far more knowledge than you about the quanta.

Ah I think I see the level of your ability to have an adult conversation on this topic.

You just said you could observe quantum effects using only your eyes.

Your misunderstanding of that statement shows your skill set.

That's a rather ignorant statement.

I think your entire discourse fits that observation.

Probably you can't understand why though, so I won't bother.

I agree. You don't have the capacity or knowledge to explain this to anyone.

There is nothing there to explain.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
There is nothing there to explain.

Harte

To you there isn't.

gotta ask yourselves, why is the truth being hidden and by whom? do you not find it odd that the evidence for the true construction methods used to built these megalithic sites are nowhere to be found?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I was trying to be flexible in the spirit of debate, so as to not totally dismiss others interpretation of this situation, but the fact after all is that i said "yes perhaps", -i didn't say they definately could copy it now they've seen it.

Your interpretation of the written word is quite literal with no periferal vision.

But in saying that only a mere 50 years ago if this site was available and i posted that in 50 years you'd be carrying around a device that is a phone, a camera, a voice recorder, a computer, etc, etc that was no bigger than your hand at its biggest you would be arguing that it was bs no doubt, because of tecnological understandings of the manufacturing /engineering principals available to you at the time.

So instead of focusing on discrediting me maybe pay a little more attention to reading between the lines, a skill that will serve you incredibly well in interpreting whats actually been said and in life and perhaps help you out with that tunnel vision persona that you seem to possess.


Point here is just because modern principles say one thing it doesn't mean its fact.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


They probably left and went into the Green Sahara when it opened up. Or lost their unification because anybody who didn't like the ruler could just pick up and go "out west".

How do you know that if they are invisible? lol

Not a solution just an excuse - same problem in the Sahara - not a sign of them while others cultures can be detected having been there. The elephant in the room is that no matter how much you turn and twist the lack of any evidence for another civilization kills your idea.

I will say it again civilizations leave massive, vast, archaeological footprints - and simply nothing you say will ever overcome that.

So again what evidence do you have that the implausible invisible civilization built the large pyramids? Then disappeared but then it was already invisible?

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

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Hanslune

responding to you will obviously be a total of waste of time however anyone reading this with an open mind will see how completely stupid that theory is with a little thought, not even a lot of thought just a little

Site Motto: Deny Ignorance.

You have been presented with evidence of tools left in situ at the quarry, carvings and cartouches showing preparation, shaping and polishing, evidence of how simple limestone (in partoicular at the Giza Plateau) is to cut, shape and move, evidence (from geologists) for how the Sphinx weathers due to the various layers it is made of and the fact the 2 of the pyramids at Giza are built on hillocks (not "perfect" pyramids so required far less blocks) and yet you dismiss it all and present your evidence - Foerster, a known fraudster.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it isn't suddenly an elephant you know..........

Denialism is the favourite weapon of those who don't have any evidence. Deny everything and anything and spew forth fantasy instead! Its best not to waste time on them.