It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reasons for the pyramids of Egypt/South America/Mars-solved?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
The thing is none of the notable problems that stymied modern attempts had anything to do with manpower or zoning. Whether you have 20,000 men,200,000 men,or 2,000,000 men the finite surface area of the stone will only allow a certain amount of men to assist with a block at once. And with some of these blocks weighing upwards of 65 tons all more men would do is create a larger audience to watch these men fail to move the block as we've done in every modern attempt. But even assuming these men were hearty enough to heft weights you'd need a crane for,the number of men is irrelevant to the matter of cutting and setting these stones to such precision that a piece of paper couldn't fit in-between them when placed side by side. Nor does the number of men solve the burrowed tunnels under the pyramid of perfect uniform dimension through solid bedrock at an exact angle. The tunnel is only about 4ft. by 4 ft. if memory serves so there couldn't have been some large number of people making it.

These theories about building the pyramids sound good on paper,but physics have always rained on them when tried in reality.


[edit on 18-10-2005 by Loungerist]




posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
They would not have necessarily needed a crane. This is not something I entirely believe, but it is an interesting concept.

The Pharaoh's Water Pump suggests:

the passages cut into solid bedrock are a colossal and enormous hydraulic ram pump! This hydraulic ram pump is built on a gigantic scale never duplicated in the ancient or modern world. Massive amounts of pumped water was used to supply a series of water locks, up to the Great Pyramid, transporting barges with stones to the building site. With its own pumped water and a series of water locks as a lifting medium, the Great Pyramid supplied its own waterpower to build itself!


www.newdawnmagazine.com...

Here's a better site dealing with the pump:
www.thepump.org...



[edit on 18-10-2005 by MrMysterious]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
The thing is none of the notable problems that stymied modern attempts had anything to do with manpower or zoning. Whether you have 20,000 men,200,000 men,or 2,000,000 men the finite surface area of the stone will only allow a certain amount of men to assist with a block at once. And with some of these blocks weighing upwards of 65 tons all more men would do is create a larger audience to watch these men fail to move the block as we've done in every modern attempt. But even assuming these men were hearty enough to heft weights you'd need a crane for,the number of men is irrelevant to the matter of cutting and setting these stones to such precision that a piece of paper couldn't fit in-between them when placed side by side. Nor does the number of men solve the burrowed tunnels under the pyramid of perfect uniform dimension through solid bedrock at an exact angle. The tunnel is only about 4ft. by 4 ft. if memory serves so there couldn't have been some large number of people making it.


You might be interested, then, in reading more about the engineering techniques of the ancients (oh... and the stones aren't so perfect that "a piece of paper wouldn't fit between them. Examine them closely sometime.)

For instance, the pyramid was built from the ground up and they left the spaces for the chambers and ramps as they built it from the ground up. Stones were slid along ramps; they weren't hoisted.

Nor are thousands of men needed for moving stones. They had animals, but they also had wheels and pulleys and ramps and carts and sleds and there are paintings showing these in use. And using primitive cranes was quite common as well.

They had a good knowledge of basic math and could do basic engineering calculations (like how much grain in a basket). And they leveled stones and so forth using water technology.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
The thing is none of the notable problems that stymied modern attempts had anything to do with manpower or zoning. Whether you have 20,000 men,200,000 men,or 2,000,000 men the finite surface area of the stone will only allow a certain amount of men to assist with a block at once.


Okay, math time. Any Engineer should be able to easily verify this.

Problem: You have to move a block weighing X tons from point A to point B. Your only materials are a nearly unlimited supply of manpower, and primitive like wood, mud, water, and stone (plus tools to shape them as needed).

Solutions:

1.) Reduce the (W)ork required. The amount of force neccessary to push or pull an item is significantly less than the amount required to lift it (assuming that friction can be made negligable).

The main fractors you have working against you are:
Gravity
Friction
Weight

Well, you can't change the weight of the block. So the Answer? Reduce Gravity and Friction as an opposing force using Skids and water. Place the stone on skids with a smooth rounded bottom. Ahead of the skids, place down water. As the stone moves across the ground, instead of up from it, with a reduced surface impacting what little friction is left after the water, you have cut your work required dramatically.

As an extremely rough estimate, you have reduced the forces to just Weight, half of gravity, and a negligable friction to work against.

That's still a heavy block to move though. So what next?

2.) Torque!!! Get a big wheel with some handles, and some rope. Lay the wheel horizontally, wind the rope into the wheel, and tie the other end around the block. Heck, knock yourself out and use several ropes. Safety first!

Now, each of those handles acts as a lever, or multiplier of force. Each foot you extend those handles is a multiplier as well. Assuming a 1ft. shaft, and handles out to 5 feet each, you give each man pushing a 5:1 ratio of applied force. Extend it out 10 feet, and you give each man pushing a 10:1 force. Line multiple people on each handle, at say 3 to a bar, and you can get a 10:1 + 8:1 + 6:1 ratio on each handle (a total of 24:1). Make 8 handles, and you now have force equal to almost 200:1.

This means, if you had an average pushing force, per man, of 100 lbs, then you could EASILY move a weight of 20,000 lbs.

Hey, why not add TWO wheels? Or perhaps a whole network of them? Or maybe have 20-foot levers on each wheel, or both? It's fun!

That, considered along with the slicing of gravity's force nearly in half (I say nearly, because one also has to consider the incline), and reducing friction to a nearly negligable level (nearly because there is still some), and you can move just about anything you want with nothing more than rope, wood, and men.

Next objection?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Ah, I almost forgot to mention the solution for the smoothness of the stones, etc...

Anyone whose had basic schooling in geology knows diamond has an incredible hardless. If memory serves, it's a 10 on the hardness factor scale. In fact, I believe the only way to polish a diamond is to use another diamond, because nothing else will wear it down.

So you've got a kingdom that controls half of Africa, and wealth aplenty, and you want to polish stone. With ample access to the hardest minerals on Earth with which to polish, no stone should be impossible to polish to a smooth finish.

Honestly, though, you wouldn't even need to use diamonds. Just one mineral on the same scale of hardness scale will do the trick. As the majority of the pyramid innards were limestone (a hardness likened to that of Calcite, a 3), it would be really easy to polish these. Granite would be more difficult depending on it's composites, but the hardest you'll find is about an 8. So you could polish it with Topaz (also an 8).

Obviously a stone with a point higher on the hardness scale would be more efficient because you wouldn't wear away your polishing stone, but you get the point. Polishing to a smooth finish is not only possible, but all you need is a piece of the same stone you're trying to polish.

Oh, but how could they possibly get such straight lines?

Ever stretch a piece of string as taut as it will go? Instant straight line! Hooray! Now coat it in talc. Stretch the string across the stone, lift up in the middle, and let it pop back down. You've got a guideline. Do it along 3 sides and you've got your basic shape. Cut it to roughly the right dimensions on each side, and then polish the rest out with the method I mentioned a moment ago.

Do that with two pieces, and you'll have two stones that fit together cleaner than a nun's whistle.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
You might be interested, then, in reading more about the engineering techniques of the ancients (oh... and the stones aren't so perfect that "a piece of paper wouldn't fit between them. Examine them closely sometime.)


Depends on the account. If not,then it's damn near close. I've seen pictures and according to archeologists who've studied it in person 16 ton stones were cut to a smooth precision of 1/100 of an inch deviation. They were placed 1/500 of an inch apart. However you describe it in practical terms that's uncanny.





For instance, the pyramid was built from the ground up and they left the spaces for the chambers and ramps as they built it from the ground up. Stones were slid along ramps; they weren't hoisted.


There are all manner of theories for transport up the pyramid. But the fact remains you still have to initially lift the stone first in order to execute any of them. Subscribing to the ramp theory you still have to lift and put a stone outweighing an 18-wheeler onto it first. You then have to find a way to build a practical ramp since the schematics needed would lead to a ramp bigger than the pyramid itself. The spiral ramp theory has similar problems.






Nor are thousands of men needed for moving stones. They had animals, but they also had wheels and pulleys and ramps and carts and sleds and there are paintings showing these in use. And using primitive cranes was quite common as well.


And these are very effective to certain weights. However,wheels and ramps are of little use when you cannot unearth the object you wish to transport with/on them. Then there's the little matter of the ground supporting your apparatus once 40 tons hits it. There are weight restrictions of highways due in part because a vehicle over 40 tons has a good chance of literally sinking into the concrete. Some of the pyramid blocks are 70 tons and were moved across sand,not pavement. It's simple math from there. Not to mention that according to archeologists wheeled vehicles did not exist in Egypt until well after the Great Pyramid was built. Possibly no pulleys either. And to my knowledge there is no evidence of any kinds of cranes and they are only speculation to explain the lifts. I don't know when those glyphs were dated but if they're the ones I'm thinking of they are not depicting the construction of the pyramid. They are depicting some other presumably much later project.




They had a good knowledge of basic math and could do basic engineering calculations (like how much grain in a basket). And they leveled stones and so forth using water technology.


Basic is very good in theory. Until you're faced with the prospect of having to set a 20 ton block into exact position once it's on the structure itself. And do so without leaving so much as a chip on it's surface. And there's still the problem of the ramps being worn down or crushed by the weight as well unless,again,the ramps rival the pyramids for construction. And if they do,then where are they? Maybe this is where "water technology" comes in as I'm not sure what you mean. I only know that to date no technology has worked.

And that's really where the proof lies. In modern attempts we were forced to abandon the theories and resort to machines. We used machines as soon as we started in order to lift the blocks just to keep the project going. But again,even if we assume these people were somehow robust enough to heft 40 ton blocks out of a quarry once cut,and even if we skip over the means of transport,we're still left with thousands of blocks cut to laser-like precision. And you still have a 350 ft tunnel of virtually perfect dimension burrowed through pure bedrock at a precise angle in a straight line with deviation too slight to be percieved by the human eye. Even if one hypothetically came up with a way to move these stones that actually worked in real life there are still many question marks. It seems to me that if something has proven to fail then the theory would be revised and adjusted accordingly. But here that doesn't seem to be the case.



[edit on 18-10-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Libra,

You're not going to use a taut string and then slice and sand a near mathematically perfect surface by hand. At least not with a human hand. The variances in pressure applied by one's arm alone would eventually lead to a lop-sided pyramid.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Loungerist is right.

Also...Has anyone heard of Joe Parr?

He did work on prymid shapes and found that whe nplaced on a centrifuge, they gain an impenetraable force feild (where gravity dissapears), and they fly off the centrifuge towards Orion (where the Galaxies gamma rays are emitted towards, since Orion is behind us if you draw a line from the center to Orion). That could be a possible link to why Orion was so important.

Also, anyone remember all the wierd stuff that happened with the Russian and Ukrainian pyramids? The the ions being emitted miles high, and people feeling weird inside of them and even passing out.

And what about the Crystal skulls found in Mexico? Weren't they found near the mexican pyramids?




posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
The glaring discrepancy I see with this theory is that we've tried to replicate the building of the Giza Pyramid and failed woefully. Not only did the suggestion that it could be performed with the simple tools proposed fall apart immediately,but even resorting to our tools thousands of years more advanced still couldn't cut it. So the idea would not appear to be an underestimation so much as an acknowledgement of proven fact.


Maybe a few people have looked on the problem and failed.. but there surly is a way to do this like this dude that is moving around gigant stones with really simple tools


www.theforgottentechnology.com...
www.theforgottentechnology.com...
www.theforgottentechnology.com...
theforgottentechnology.com...
www.theforgottentechnology.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I've seen those. But I seriously don't see from those videos why he thinks he could build the Great Pyramid as he believes. And maybe I'm looking at it wrong,but I'm also kinda lost as to what's so "forgotten" about leverage.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
You're not going to use a taut string and then slice and sand a near mathematically perfect surface by hand. At least not with a human hand. The variances in pressure applied by one's arm alone would eventually lead to a lop-sided pyramid.


Okay, I'm going to need some credible links showing that these stones were too mathematically perfect to have possibly been worked by human hands. Because at this point, I believe you are either exagerating or are rehashing something you read off of someone's blog.

You've seen gravestones, right? Grave markers? There's a historical cemetary by our house that dates back almost 200 years. Whoever the richest buggers were got themselves a fine granite tombstone, and those things are still, to this day, smooth, glossy, and a perfect surface, with dates from the early 1800's (before the industrial revolution). Are you implying that these stones also had to come from aliens too? Or is it juuuuust possible that maybe a skilled artisan might know, with enough years, just how much pressure to apply, and how to get 90 degree angles, arches, etc, to be visually perfect?

How about all those beautiful stone statues across the world? How could any human being possibly have shaped stone so perfectly?

Are the old church stained-glass windows made by aliens as well? Your arguments would imply so. After all, no one today can reproduce them the same way, with the same quality, because the dyes for them are allegedly "lost to the secrets of time", and the particular methods used to shape the glass and metal frames are lost as well. Instead we must use inferior modern methods where the dyes fade away over time. Whereas the ancient stained-glass windows are pretty much as bright today as they were back then.

Give humans a little credit. Just because, in your opinion, we are not capable of extraordinary craftsmanship, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Even given absolute proof that no one in today's world could possibly shape such stones by hand would be inconclusive about the Pyramids, because in today's world, no one's survival depends on stonework, and very few people have a craftwork occupation that's been in the family for generations. In the days of ancient Egypt, you couldn't just go down to the local Home Depot and pick up a truckload of prefab/precut tile or stone. If you couldn't make it yourself, you either did without, or found an artisan, of which there were plenty. The more money you had, the greater the skill of the artisan you could hire.

The greatest artisans were usually the result of generations of father-to-son skills, tools, and secrets passed through the ages. A Pharoah, the people's living image of god, could quite easily command competition of the greatest artisans in the known civilized world. And to those greatest artisans, your words denigrating their ability to create something as simple and easy as a smooth surface would be a slap in the face and spittle at their feet. Ye Gods, man! Did you think that previous to hydraulic saws and lasers we were simply monkeys running around whacking things with sticks?

I can't take much more of this. Unless you
a.) Have credible proof that these blocks couldn't possibly be fashioned by human hands...
b.) Have enough of an engineering background to be able to understand both why and how it is entirely possible to move almost any weight using low-tech tools and materials.
c.) With said knowledge can still demonstrate mathematically how it is physically impossible for such to have been moved.

I've been demonstrating so far on how it's entirely possible, and so far, the only response I'm seeing is the equivolent of "nuh-uh!" Give me some hard evidence on your viewpoint. Otherwise, trust people who have a bit more math in their background and a slightly better grasp of BCE technological ability. A statement such as "No, it's just not possible because it's too mathematically perfect" carries absolutely no water with me.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
And what about the Crystal skulls found in Mexico? Weren't they found near the mexican pyramids?


If memory serves me correctly, no one really knows where they came from, but it thought to be from Mexico. The most famous crystal skull is the Mitchell-Hedges one, which he said he got from a temple in British Honduras but this is bunk as he actually got it from an auction at Sotherbys.

The crystal skull at the Museum of Mankind was obtained from Tiffany's in New York although where Tiffany's got it from is unclear.

There are other crystal skulls around, found in various countries in Central America, such as Guatemala, Mexico & Honduras. The age and the origin of the skulls is unclear, though.

Here are some good links on the skulls
www.unmuseum.org...
www.world-mysteries.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
Also...Has anyone heard of Joe Parr?

He did work on prymid shapes and found that whe nplaced on a centrifuge, they gain an impenetraable force feild (where gravity dissapears), and they fly off the centrifuge towards Orion (where the Galaxies gamma rays are emitted towards, since Orion is behind us if you draw a line from the center to Orion). That could be a possible link to why Orion was so important.


In defiance of all laws of physics? I find this very hard to believe. Could you give us a link, please?

And I would also like to know how he determined where "Orion" was when he ran this experiment and which way the pyramid went. Depending on the time of year, Orion could have been in the night sky while he was doing this during the day, meaning that the pyramid would have zapped down through the ground into the center of the Earth... and hot magma would have emerged. I think we'd have heard about this.


Also, anyone remember all the wierd stuff that happened with the Russian and Ukrainian pyramids? The the ions being emitted miles high, and people feeling weird inside of them and even passing out.

The only report similar to this (indeed, the only reports of Russian pyramids) that I find are in Pravda. Pravda is a tabloid and is about as truthful as The Onion.


And what about the Crystal skulls found in Mexico? Weren't they found near the mexican pyramids?

They're fakes. There's a number of threads around here that explain how we know they're fakes and who made them and who planted the story.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
I've seen pictures and according to archeologists who've studied it in person 16 ton stones were cut to a smooth precision of 1/100 of an inch deviation. They were placed 1/500 of an inch apart. However you describe it in practical terms that's uncanny.

Which sites and which archaeologists? I'm curious.


There are all manner of theories for transport up the pyramid. But the fact remains you still have to initially lift the stone first in order to execute any of them. Subscribing to the ramp theory you still have to lift and put a stone outweighing an 18-wheeler onto it first. You then have to find a way to build a practical ramp since the schematics needed would lead to a ramp bigger than the pyramid itself. The spiral ramp theory has similar problems.

I'm curious why you think they have to be lifted anywhere. You can see these same primitive techniques (no modern tools) used elsewhere in the world today. Several statues on Easter Island were erected within the past 20 years, carved out of stone and smoothed by hand using stone tools and moved by very simple means of men and ropes.




And these are very effective to certain weights. However,wheels and ramps are of little use when you cannot unearth the object you wish to transport with/on them.

Actually, the limestone and all was quarried out of cliff faces. No "unearthing."

And granite can be polished with ordinary sand.


Then there's the little matter of the ground supporting your apparatus once 40 tons hits it. There are weight restrictions of highways due in part because a vehicle over 40 tons has a good chance of literally sinking into the concrete. Some of the pyramid blocks are 70 tons and were moved across sand,not pavement.

Well, the stone was resting flat or on a series of rollers... not on 18 tires. Remember weight distribution from physics and how a large surface area distributes the load until it's much less. 40 tons wasn't being supported on a pencil-point sized area.


Not to mention that according to archeologists wheeled vehicles did not exist in Egypt until well after the Great Pyramid was built.

Very true. But log rollers did.


Possibly no pulleys either.

Agreed. That was speculation on my part.


And to my knowledge there is no evidence of any kinds of cranes and they are only speculation to explain the lifts.

Use of tripods of wood to help lift things is very ancient.


I don't know when those glyphs were dated but if they're the ones I'm thinking of they are not depicting the construction of the pyramid. They are depicting some other presumably much later project.

I can't find the ones I'm thinking of on the Internet, either...
I have seen paintings (tomb, probably) of stone being boat transported. And I know there's ostrika mentioning the arrival of construction stones to the Giza area.




Until you're faced with the prospect of having to set a 20 ton block into exact position once it's on the structure itself. And do so without leaving so much as a chip on it's surface.

I don't see that it's impossible if you're sliding them into place.


And there's still the problem of the ramps being worn down or crushed by the weight as well unless,again,the ramps rival the pyramids for construction. And if they do,then where are they? Maybe this is where "water technology" comes in as I'm not sure what you mean. I only know that to date no technology has worked.

As far as I know, they used sand. Plenty of it, easily available.


And that's really where the proof lies. In modern attempts we were forced to abandon the theories and resort to machines. We used machines as soon as we started in order to lift the blocks just to keep the project going.

I'm curious... which ones are you referring to? The National Geographic one that I saw used only ancient technology.


But again,even if we assume these people were somehow robust enough to heft 40 ton blocks out of a quarry once cut,and even if we skip over the means of transport,we're still left with thousands of blocks cut to laser-like precision.

Not hard at all, with water and sand as a grinding material.



And you still have a 350 ft tunnel of virtually perfect dimension burrowed through pure bedrock at a precise angle in a straight line with deviation too slight to be percieved by the human eye.


I'm not sure why this is such an unusual feat. Mining and mining tunnels were common in ancient Egypt:
www.tms.org...

(mention of Wadi Maghareh mines):
www.absoluteastronomy.com...

In fact, they were quarrying stone there as early as the Paleolithic, some 40,000 years ago


Even if one hypothetically came up with a way to move these stones that actually worked in real life there are still many question marks. It seems to me that if something has proven to fail then the theory would be revised and adjusted accordingly. But here that doesn't seem to be the case.


Ideas are revised as good data is found -- such as the graffiti and ostrika and other writings excavated among the ruins of the workmen's cities that lie around the pyramids where they record incoming workmen and shipments, including limestone and granite. This adds weight to the idea that they did all the work themselves and weren't stupid brutes who could barely string a sentence together.

None of this data suggests any miraculous or supernatural or extraterrestrial origin for the stones or anything else... just a lot of hard-working people very dedicated to a task.


Oh yes... on the 'smoothing of the surface' discussion -- they apparently used water-filled trenches to level the surface:
www.si.edu...

(for those of you who may find this confusing, they set the stone in a trough of water and poured water until it just wet the top surface and used that as a 'level' to grind it smooth. You can stick a measuring stick on top of the surface then and make a mark and check to see that the water stands at the same depth over the top of the stone anywhere you touch it.)


[edit on 19-10-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

Okay, I'm going to need some credible links showing that these stones were too mathematically perfect to have possibly been worked by human hands. Because at this point, I believe you are either exagerating or are rehashing something you read off of someone's blog.



"Credible" is a very subjective modifier so I don't know what would be credible to you. I could give you links showing the dimensions of precision on the pyramids if that's what you're asking for.

www.infinitetechnologies.co.za...





You've seen gravestones, right? Grave markers? There's a historical cemetary by our house that dates back almost 200 years. Whoever the richest buggers were got themselves a fine granite tombstone, and those things are still, to this day, smooth, glossy, and a perfect surface, with dates from the early 1800's (before the industrial revolution). Are you implying that these stones also had to come from aliens too?



No. And frankly I don't know why you even made such a connection.




How about all those beautiful stone statues across the world? How could any human being possibly have shaped stone so perfectly?



That's abit vague,but there is a huge difference between looking perfect to the naked eye and having mechanical precision.




Give humans a little credit. Just because, in your opinion, we are not capable of extraordinary craftsmanship, doesn't mean it isn't possible.


I said no such thing. We are fully capable of extraordinary craftsmanship. We are not capable of virtually variance-free craftsmanship by hand. Two different things.






The greatest artisans were usually the result of generations of father-to-son skills, tools, and secrets passed through the ages. A Pharoah, the people's living image of god, could quite easily command competition of the greatest artisans in the known civilized world. And to those greatest artisans, your words denigrating their ability to create something as simple and easy as a smooth surface would be a slap in the face and spittle at their feet. Ye Gods, man! Did you think that previous to hydraulic saws and lasers we were simply monkeys running around whacking things with sticks?


I'll put it this way. If the pharaoh asked you to sand a perfectly straight 15 foot line or circle by freehand or you'll be killed,you better ask for some papyrus so you can make your will out.





I can't take much more of this. Unless you
a.) Have credible proof that these blocks couldn't possibly be fashioned by human hands...

b.) Have enough of an engineering background to be able to understand both why and how it is entirely possible to move almost any weight using low-tech tools and materials.

c.) With said knowledge can still demonstrate mathematically how it is physically impossible for such to have been moved.

I've been demonstrating so far on how it's entirely possible, and so far, the only response I'm seeing is the equivolent of "nuh-uh!"


a)This matter is obvious enough that one can create their own proof. Ask any engineer,techician,painter,sculptor or anyone with a basic understanding of human organics.

b)I have enough of an engineering background to understand you're proposed methods. And also enough to realize they won't work past a certain weight.

c)You haven't been demonstrating how it's entirely possible. You're only demonstrating how easy it is to create a myth. The techniques you've suggested have already been tried and failed. Amongst other problems,the skids literally sank into the ground. It may sound good to say the Egyptians slapped 40+ tons of concentrated weight on skids and dragged them across the desert by tossing a rope over their shoulders. But don't expect for it happen in reality.




Give me some hard evidence on your viewpoint. Otherwise, trust people who have a bit more math in their background and a slightly better grasp of BCE technological ability. A statement such as "No, it's just not possible because it's too mathematically perfect" carries absolutely no water with me.



Here's my hard evidence:Every engineer and technician that I know of who has seen the pyramid's specs have all said the same thing. Our efforts to replicate it have all said the same thing. I would suggest you pass your taut string idea onto a technician and look at the reaction he gives you.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Which sites and which archaeologists? I'm curious.


One given above.





I'm curious why you think they have to be lifted anywhere. You can see these same primitive techniques (no modern tools) used elsewhere in the world today. Several statues on Easter Island were erected within the past 20 years, carved out of stone and smoothed by hand using stone tools and moved by very simple means of men and ropes.


And all involve lifting if the stones were moved anywhere. You have to lift the stone in order to put a skid under it.



Actually, the limestone and all was quarried out of cliff faces. No "unearthing."


I'm referring to the fact that stones of a certain weight sink into the ground.



And granite can be polished with ordinary sand.


It's not the polishing,it's the precision of the polishing.






Then there's the little matter of the ground supporting your apparatus once 40 tons hits it. There are weight restrictions of highways due in part because a vehicle over 40 tons has a good chance of literally sinking into the concrete. Some of the pyramid blocks are 70 tons and were moved across sand,not pavement.


Well, the stone was resting flat or on a series of rollers... not on 18 tires. Remember weight distribution from physics and how a large surface area distributes the load until it's much less. 40 tons wasn't being supported on a pencil-point sized area.



It doesn't have to be at this weight. If a much lighter motor vehicle can sink into pavement a heavier pyramid stone will sink into sand much faster and easier.





Not to mention that according to archeologists wheeled vehicles did not exist in Egypt until well after the Great Pyramid was built.


Very true. But log rollers did.


Log rollers that would be destroyed by the weight at a rapid clip and need constant replacement. Given that this was done in a desert and most of the scant amount of trees were used for food I doubt this was employed at any great length. But even if they somehow procured enough trees they'd still have to lift and place the stones onto them first.




I'm curious... which ones are you referring to? The National Geographic one that I saw used only ancient technology.


One was attempted on-site by the Nissan company.





But again,even if we assume these people were somehow robust enough to heft 40 ton blocks out of a quarry once cut,and even if we skip over the means of transport,we're still left with thousands of blocks cut to laser-like precision.


Not hard at all, with water and sand as a grinding material.


It's very easy to say. Actually trying to do it is where people get in trouble.






And you still have a 350 ft tunnel of virtually perfect dimension burrowed through pure bedrock at a precise angle in a straight line with deviation too slight to be percieved by the human eye.


I'm not sure why this is such an unusual feat. Mining and mining tunnels were common in ancient Egypt:

In fact, they were quarrying stone there as early as the Paleolithic, some 40,000 years ago


Again,it is the precision of the shafts. Not the fact that the shafts were there themselves. Any sharp tool that's dense enough can chisel out rock. But it will be jagged and uneven. It is another thing entirely to create a smooth,near perfectly straight tunnel chamber of uniform dimension through solid rock. The pyramid builders somehow did this for 350 feet at an angle.

And an important point that should be made. I never said it was unusal. I'm under no such impression that any of these technologies or methodologies are unusual. They are only unusal in the context of the methods we're told were used to create them. This tunnel is not unusual in relation to some of the things we've found from ancient times. But it's highly unusual if we're to take it as being made with primitive hand tools.





Ideas are revised as good data is found


Then why are we still propogating ideas shown not to work? Data can't get any better than that.




None of this data suggests any miraculous or supernatural or extraterrestrial origin for the stones or anything else... just a lot of hard-working people very dedicated to a task.


Suggestion is subject to interpretation. If one has pre-decided beforehand not to reach certain conclusions even if that's where the evidence leads,then the data will be skewed accordingly. Thusly,the same data suggests different things to different people. About the only thing the data on the pyramids objectively suggests is that we don't how it was built. Which is why we've not been able to replicate it. Now as to whether or not there was direct extraterrestrial involvement,I don't know. But I'd believe that before I believed people hauled the equivalent of 30 automobiles stacked on top of each other around using thread rope and a wooden platform. In the sand.

I may not know how the pyramids were built,but I know how they weren't.




[edit on 19-10-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

In defiance of all laws of physics? I find this very hard to believe. Could you give us a link, please?


I read it in a book. I was just asking if anyone else heard of it or knew anything of it. appearently not. I'm not condoning, I was just curious (I'm not an engineer).


Originally posted by Byrd

And I would also like to know how he determined where "Orion" was when he ran this experiment and which way the pyramid went. Depending on the time of year, Orion could have been in the night sky while he was doing this during the day, meaning that the pyramid would have zapped down through the ground into the center of the Earth... and hot magma would have emerged. I think we'd have heard about this.


I got it from a book called, "The Complete Pyramid Sourcebook" by John DeSalvo. I have no idea on his credentials. In fact everything I posted was from that book.


Originally posted by Byrd

The only report similar to this (indeed, the only reports of Russian pyramids) that I find are in Pravda. Pravda is a tabloid and is about as truthful as The Onion.


They're explained in the book as well. But I'll try to find some links in the mean time.


Originally posted by Byrd

They're fakes. There's a number of threads around here that explain how we know they're fakes and who made them and who planted the story.


Thank you. I'll check them out.


EDIT:

Here are some links Byrd:

The book and an about on the auther, Dr. John DeSalvo:
www.authorhouse.com...

Dr. K of the russian/ukrainian things:
www.inerton.kiev.ua...
www.gizapyramid.com...
www.gizapyramid.com...

Joe Parr:
www.gizapyramid.com...
www.handpen.com... (scroll down to "Hyper-Space Physics of Joe Parr")

www.keelynet.com... (I'm not sure what this is but it seems to be the same thing Parr did)


Again, I don't know anyof these guys' credentials, and I'm not an engineer. So, whatever you guys can make of all the math stuff....dumb it down for me


Until next time....




[edit on 19/10/2005 by FallenOne]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne

I got it from a book called, "The Complete Pyramid Sourcebook" by John DeSalvo. I have no idea on his credentials. In fact everything I posted was from that book.


This sounds suspiciously like some of the books going around in the sixties that were channelled (and I suspect with liberal doses of marijuana and '___' being involved.) We all got into that stuff and we believed it implicitly.

However, I see that it's not a 1960's date and that the author is a For Real Scientist. Were these stories he was just reporting on (as in, "I talked with someone who claimed this") or was he actually speaking authoritatively about this. The reason I ask, is that he's sort of an oddball guy from what I'm reading, and I don't know quite what to make of him.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

However, I see that it's not a 1960's date and that the author is a For Real Scientist. Were these stories he was just reporting on (as in, "I talked with someone who claimed this") or was he actually speaking authoritatively about this. The reason I ask, is that he's sort of an oddball guy from what I'm reading, and I don't know quite what to make of him.


That's kinda why I threw it out here. I'm interested in hearing what ATSers say about these 'scientists.' Since I really have no idea on what goes on scientific community. But, who's to say that these ATSers do themselves? hehe


Well, either way, I'm very curious.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Ignore post.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Loungerist]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join