It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Pyramid construction explained and the carnage that follows.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:56 AM
I also agree, let the guy post. That's a stupid reason to ban him. Does the first amendment not apply here at a place that seems to be standing up for it????

To quote Tom Morrelo:
"that's the thing about the first amendment, you're either for it or against it. There is no middle ground."

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:15 AM
I don't see why not letting him post. After all, he makes such a butt of himself that no one listens or takes him seriously anyway. By the way, Mr. Marchemides, if you think you can sue for someone for publishing your idea after you've plastered it all over the internet, think again.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by kyanther
I also agree, let the guy post. That's a stupid reason to ban him.

We've simply blocked him from posting until he indicates that he understands that
* foul language isn't acceptable
* insulting others even in fun isn't acceptable
* kindergarten debate tactics aren't admired or acceptable.

We're a global community -- not a group of middle school year old white males from New England. There's a big range of ages and opinions and backgrounds here, and having a good discussion means restricting certain things.

Does the first amendment not apply here at a place that seems to be standing up for it????

This is a privately owned board. As with all BBSs, the owner sets up the rules by which they want the board run. Different boards have different terms of agreement -- trust me, the "freedom of speech on the Internet" is an illusion.

The owners, in order to have a good dialogue and a good site that's useful to the global community set out those standards.

So... the "freedom of speech" is actually YOUR "freedom of choice." If you don't like the terms, then there are other excellent places to go and you can find one that has terms you're comfortable with.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:30 AM
Fine. I wont support a dictatorship. Cancel my account, I'm done with this place if people are going to be assholes.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:32 AM
from: Marchimedes
sent: 10-8-2006 at 10:19 AM
Thank you. I just tore skeptic up in a PM with truth. The theory is at So am I, large. My name is teacher there. If I'm gone here tell em that's where they can go. I haven't gotten warmed up. or had the chance to defend myself. It's okay for them though ain't it? Be cool, but then you are anyway

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Double_DKool
I don't see why not letting him post. After all, he makes such a butt of himself that no one listens or takes him seriously anyway. By the way, Mr. Marchemides, if you think you can sue for someone for publishing your idea after you've plastered it all over the internet, think again.

I agree and unless he gets some type of patent coverage (and I can't see the purpose) anyone can use his fountain of knowledge.

This guy is just amusing the heck right out of me! I wonder what world crisis he'll tackle next?

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Byrd
* insulting others even in fun isn't acceptable

We're a global community -- not a group of middle school year old white males from New England.

I am sorry, but is that not an insult to the middle schoolers from new england? I realize it was in fun, but does it not contradict exactly what you stated in the same post?

I agree, the original poster was abrasive, but there was a humorous side to his posts.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:54 PM
Without the etiquette rules and reasonable stance on posting guidelines in general, then we would have to scroll through countless paragraphs of insulting and pointless diatribe (ie..this thread) just to find any relevant material. This would not be the board it is today if it weren't for the moderators judgment and enacting of these guidelines. I supprt them 100%!

Especially in regards to "Mark". And we all can see that this thread has disentegrated...

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:10 PM
for the past ten years i have been mostly eating taramusalaka

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:39 PM
Well, when I got to this thread today, I saw that Marchimedes was logged on to ATS. Wonder if he's still banned?

So much for taking his ball and leaving, anyway.

I just wanted to add a few things here. I believe that the most commonly held belief regarding moving large stones to the construction site from the quarries involved just using wooden beams set into the ground as surfaces over which the stones could be slid, rather than to try to slide them across loose sand. These tracks were lubricated with mud and water, allowing for reduced friction.

Notwithstanding the crowing claims made here by Marchimedes, log rollers have been shown to disintegrate in very short order under the pressures that would have been present had they been used to move the stones that make up the pyramids, whereas the above method would require only slightly more effort, with the tracks lasting hundreds of times longer.

Also, remains of the large ramps that were used to raise the blocks have actually been found, so Marchimedes' dismissal of this method perhaps shows that he's not really looked into exactly what we know for sure about how the pyramids were constructed.

I think that at the very least, taking a look at the facts that are known is the most important first step in formulating any theory of pyramid construction. That the fact of these ramps is missing from Marchimedes' theory can indicate one of only two things, as I see it. One would be that Marchimedes hasn't bothered to take that all-important first step of making an effort to learn what it is that is already known about the subject. The other would be that Marchimedes formulated his theory of pyramid construction at some time prior to the (fairly recent) discovery of the remains of these ancient ramps. The first possibility would be unfortunate, while the second would be perfectly understandable.

Lastly, I wish to state my support for Marchimedes' theory in general, with the above caveats. It differs from the theories proposed by Egyptologists in only a few details. It seems to me that Marchimedes did not spend much time reading posts on this subject here at ATS before chiming in with his idea. I say this because of the way he seemed to be characterizing the pyramid construction theories of posters here. Far from everyone here believing the pyramids were majically constructed, built with ET's help, built by Atlanteans, or whatnot; many here have sane and rational views on the subject which Marchimedes (IMO) simply and I think unfairly glossed over.

If you read this Mark, here's a link (that I've posted at ATS a couple of times) to an article in Civil Engineering magazine regarding the ASCE's take on the feasibility of pyramid construction:

Program Management B.C.

At any rate, another poster here willing to stipulate that the Egyptians built the Egyptian pyramids found in Egypt is always welcome by me!


posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:47 PM
Are there any credible estimatees of the average time it took to move and place each of the 2.3 million blocks in that pyramid? If the time involved was, on average 10 hours per block that would be 23 million man-hours, or 958,333 24-hour man-days, or 2,625.57 years working 24/7, assuming the blocks were placed sequentially one at a time. It was probably not done sequentially one block at a time, so the over all time was likley less.

The point is that doing it in the manner suggested by Marchimedes is unlikely given the amount of time that would have been required to complete the structure. These basic calculations do not take into acccount the quarrrying and shaping of the blocks and moving them from the quarrry to the construction site.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:03 PM

Been thinking. I need a herald. Someone to announce me when it works out schedule wise. You know, a little "Rise now fo the first man ever to be forced to change stationary by a post, holder of the "most first day views cup" and bringer of it. Think about it, I'll abuse your foes in exchange. ask for Bill

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:21 PM
i like this guy. he is somewhat enigmatic, but arent you all. if he is still banned i say give him a better chance. allow him to evolve here at ats. i was not offended by him and i found him interesting. just my 1 cent

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:27 PM
Why ban the guy, then let everybody try to discredit every post he made? Why not just lock it? In that sense, it seems all you are doing is banning a guy for bragging about how smart he is. Then to prove you are smarter, you ban him. That's not smarter. That just means you have more power.

I love this forum, although I don't post much. I'm mostly just a lurker. But that guys posts were the most entertaining I have seen in a long time, on here. He at least had a halfway reasonable theory. Something that is not hard to find on here, but it at least he got me thinking about the Pyramids.

Regardless if anybody can refute him or not, it's not to fair to allow people to post arguments and not let him refute those arguments, or answer them.

If courtesy is mandatory, then it should apply to everybody, not just non-moderators, non-regulars, or personas the mods like.

All of this is just my opinion. If I have offended anyone, it is by pure accident. I in no-way want to get my posts absolutely censored because of my speech.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:31 PM
I don't know how hard it would be to get a large stone up onto one of its corners, but that might make it a little easier to move by kind of "rocking" or "walking" it back and forth. You wouldn't have to invent the wheel, either. Too make things a little easier, all you'd have to do is make a kind of "arch" piece that would fit in place along one edge.

So it would go like this:
Tip the block up onto one corner.
Attach the rounded arch to an edge.
"Rock" the block along the arch and up onto the next corner.
Re-attach the arch.
Repeat as necessary.

To get it up a level, you could rock the block back and forth using short ramps on either side of it, until it was as high as the next level.

That's how I'd do it, anyway. But I'm no super genius like Imhotep, either.

Copyright © 2006 - Enkidu - All Rights Reserved (heh heh)

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:09 PM

Registered: 10-8-2006

hmm, what is today?
ohh, that's right, 10-8-2006...
what a surprise, another new (less than a day old this time) member starting a new topic and talking trash

why am i not surprised
i am proud of the mods for finally supporting my idea to a degree on this problem, even if they only did so because of the actions of the new guy

for anyone who hasnt seen this before:
i propose all new members undergo a 1 week waiting period before they can create new topics
they can still post replies and read everything that anyone else can

this proposal would give us a week's worth of posts to go back to if the person starts a thread that seems like a hoax or a scam, or simply a person who didn't bother to read the rules.
a week's worth of posts and the new member's language and character will be easy to see.
this would make it easier on the new member as well as they would be warned about their language numerous times in their forum posts so when they inevietable make a new thread they just might use propper language

this proposal would not restrict anything
if someone new has something dire to say then they can post it in a current thread or pm a mod to unrestrict them if it's that important
what it would do is discourage people from joining just to be loud-mouthed know-it-alls or hoaxers

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:25 PM
I agree with the mods that he/she/it should prove to them via u2u that he/she/it can post in a responsible manner adhering to the T&C. If I came in as a brand new member spouting off talking smack about members in a similar fashion but did not have any conspiracy-related material to offer, I'd be out the door real quick.

That being said I hope there is no waiting period and as soon as he/she/it apologizes/proves he is capable of follwing the T&C, he/she/it should be allowed to resume posting. I think everyone is curious as to where this is going.

And in the end if there is more anti-T&C stuff from he/she/it there's always bannings from posting, warnings, and full-out site bans.

EDIT: grammar, as always

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Fiverz]

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:27 PM
I have seen old hollwood movies dipicting the building of pyramids the same way that mark has decribed. If they had the ability to make swords and jewlery could'nt they have very easily have made large metal levers and rollers out of steel or any type of metals.
then no scratch marks on the road stones. and the rollers and levers would have been recycled. Did they have the ability to work metals? or was it just jewlery and gold? In the old hollywood movies they had thousands of people all moving hundreds of stones like ants at a picnic. What about a level made of gold with a crevice at top for a drop of water to rest when at center you are level.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Majic
Extrapyramidal Symptoms
Bla bla

If you look at how this Marc guy and Majic are online in posts, I could swear it is one in the same.

Reason I state this is because I follow and read some of what majic states, and reading this thread with Marc, I believe they are the same people.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:54 PM
Regardless of the tone of Marchimedes post, I was dismayed to read that, even after research, he could not find the water level he described as his solution to the levelling problem. I used to use them on building sites before the advent of laser levels, and they are still readily available in building supply stores.

As to claiming to be the first to these 'revelations,' I'm sure if he took some time to talk to any experienced builder, he would find that these are not even tricks of the trade, they are techniques that were used until recent technology stopped the need for it.

I appreciate your theory, but please don't use aggression as proof, you have only managed to discredit yourself.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in