The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

Ok i know this is an old thread but i dont care. If we can't answer the questions of how they date older, can we answer other ones? Like how were they built? why can't we build them. And if you really think you know so much then how come we don't know everything about them? The truth is alot is missing from our history and there has to be a reason for it. And since the conventional theories can't give a 100% strait answer either, it is not nesscessarily wrong to assume that there are other possibilities. Also methods used to date artifacts and ancient cities and whatnot have also not always been right in the past. Plus take into consideration that if 96% of the worlds population died tomorrow, the only things that would remain 1000 years from now to tell anyone we existed would be anything carved in rock, statues, pottery, simple things that would make us look primitive. Anything that would show off our technological prowess would literally have disintegrated. Yet the pyramids would still remain.

we have and they weren't

by placing one block on top of another

we could but it would be prohibitively expensive and serve no purpose. today we build things that are more practical, something apparently beyond the Egyptians advanced technology

don't judge others by your own standards


yes we weren't there and they didn't document everything like we do

thats true but did you consider that as we can give a 99.999% straight answer whereas pseudo historic ideas fill in the other 0.0001 % then whats the point in not learning the facts first ?

thats past today theyre very very accurate

except for the nuclear waste, the roads, the cities, the evidence of widespread farming, the obviously domesticated animals running around, the tons of public libraries left vacant and full of books, the rail networks, the evidence of viticulture, and not forgetting of course the modern equivalent of ancient middens
Landfill
containing every aspect of our throwaway culture

this is without going into things like all the junk we left floating around in space like satellites and crappy international space debris. oh and gene roddenberrys ashes

Also.....no to forget the traces of pollen in sediment and ice cores that show a drastically altered landscape - with industrial pollution.

I suspect an alien archaeologist coming to a dead earth, say 100,000 years from now would discover traces of our civilizations within a few days of landing. If for some reason they missed our materials left in space and the other planets- not to mention the electro-magnetic transmissions that are still out there.

If you walk around the middle east, its hard to avoid the pottery shards strewn all about (and the plastic bags too)

An interesting development

Evidence found of how pyramids were built

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

---

no anything man made would be gone, roads and rail would rot leaving only the paths they were made on most of which would eventually becovered by forest or would erode untill you couldnt tell there was a road there. Landfill would by then would have completely biodegraded and been consumed by soil or forest. I agree on the nuclear waste. Evidence of cities would remain but barely any metals would remain, concrete would crumble and the remaining structures would crumble and erode so bad they would show very little evidence or their origional engineering design. Books in libraries would disintegrate and the structures would collapse on top of them. Face it not much would survive after 1000 years that you would be even able to remotely recognise. Anything in orbit would eventually be drawn back into the atmosphere given enough time. And then given that it would take humanity a few thousand years to get back on their feet again by the time they start documenting the ruins of our civilization with a scientific approach there will be so little evidence left that we were technologically advanced that even you and me would have a hard time believing it. They would also draw the same conclusions about the pyramids as we have and possibly accidently give our era credit for building them. They would probably assume the faces carved into Mt Rushmore were depictions of gods we probably worshipped. And since we kept no record of our modern day society on stone, no account of our history would survive whatsoever.
Now if you were a survivor of a great catastrophe such as that and passed on your history, after you and all the people who survived in that time have passed on, the history will begin to get twisted and as education levels start to degrade, so will the origional understanding of the passed on history. Without any of our modern day support elements humans would probably come close to how people lived 4000-6000 years ago and if we were extremly lucky we would at worst only get set back to levels that were achieved only 500-1000 years ago.
Go ahead and try to debunk me, but if your feeling adventurous ask any metallurgist how long the shelf life of any manufactured metal would be if left unmaintained, or a mason how long concrete would last, or anyone who produces any material. Anything that is built, manufactued, produced etc. needs to be maintained and cared for in order to ensure they last. And finally history needs to be documented and continuously taught to each new generation to ensure it remains intact in its origional form and when all you are worried about is survival you have very little time to worry about history or science and education. Surviving and making a living off he land is a full time job in itself with no time for extra activites, ask any farmer. Do you also think that our curent religious models would be passed on? If they were undoubtedly that would wind down its own twisted path as well, losing all the origional meaning. So yes it is very possible for us to mistake our ancient societies as primitive and not having technology.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by metaldemon2000]

The problem with modern day science and archeology is that the profression is more about money and less about passion. Most archeological expeditions are funded by governments, organizations, educational institutions and private investors all of which have already come to their own conclusions and are basically paying someone else to go and "prove" their hypothesis. If the archeologist doesnt produce the results his iand can be very biased. They either believe in god or they dont, believe in aliens or not. They will defend their claims even if they later find out they were wrong because they do not wish to be discredited or have their investors believing they were duped. Imagine your entire lifes work and everything you believed in being completely destroyed, you would defend it too, its human nature. They can't just go back and ask to have a rewrite on all the history books and religious establishments practices, that would create too many expenses and upset alot of people. Nobody likes a liar.
Now here is the part where you are going to ask for proof because ive written alot now. The following quote is something i wrote on another thread on my definition of proof. It is not directed at you but i am using it to explain myself.

"Proof consists of the cold hard facts that can in no way be debunked in any way.
Evidence provides potential facts that can POSSIBLY lead to proof but do not necessarily provide proof. All evidence provides is a direction in which one can try to determine the facts. Without evidence one has absolutely no case against any of his claims whatsoever.
When no evidence is preset the case then just becomes a story and in most cases a lie and in your case a fantasy.
What is fact is that there are ancient artifacts that speak of alien encounter, there are anomolies on the moon and mars, and there are many photographed accounts of UFOs. This DOES NOT provide "proof" that aliens in any way exist but it does provide "evidence" that it MAY be possible."

Now i dont by any means have any "proof" to support any claims on Alien astronaut theory or misrepresentation of historical facts. There certainly is alot of evidence to support these theroies however. And while i wouldnt say that the conventional explanations are proof positive either there is alot of evidence to support that as well. So it is not for you or me to say that is a 100% PROVEN FACT, but neither of us are wrong yet. The only people who know for sure are the people who have been there, who do the actual research and there are arguments from both sides so until the day it is proven as fact and all other theories are 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, nobody is wrong.
On another note, noone can prove that God is real,or that alot of the bible stories actually happened, there is alot of evidence but then again it has been proven that some of the accounts are false or twisted from their origional version yet, people believe it as proof.
Anyways i look forward to your series of replies.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by metaldemon2000]

[edit on 23-11-2007 by metaldemon2000]

Howdy

Things that last

Disturbance of the soil - hundreds of thousands of years

Glass - indestructible - except by eroson, Early glass is still quite viable today as when it was made that was 5,000 years ago

Roman concrete is still viable as demonstrated by existing building and bridges - many of these 2,000 years old

Some types of plastic do not biodegrade

Pottery - virtually indestructible, shard from these will be around for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.


So we have pottery going back 31,000 years

In dry or very cold areas survival of even soft organic material is possible. We recovered wooden javelins from 400,000 years ago, not to mention Otzi!

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Historical revisionists cant even get right what happened 60 years ago. Its even difficult to re-cap the events that happened 300 years ago. I dont see why it should be easy to say what happened 3000 years ago (not to mention 10 000 as proposed by us fringe kooks) as in "these are established facts".

Yes but you are trying to convince others that you do know what was going on back then.

The rest of the world just looks at the existing evidence and makes determination based on said facts - when more evidence is found - the theories will be changed to accomodate the new material.

Provide new evidence and the theory will change, or more correctly the consensus of what constitutes the reality of theory.

I am not "trying" anything. I am questioning the practice of putting things into school-books and children-teaching-books as "established facts" when in reality they are theories surrounded by controversy.



If that were what is actually happening that would be wonderful. Instead 95% of the population determines what is true by what they are taught at school as selected by a small circle of scholars.



Yes.

I am not "trying" anything. I am questioning the practice of putting things into school-books and children-teaching-books as "established facts" when in reality they are theories surrounded by controversy.

Hanslune: So what would you teach on each and every subject? The scientific method is also taught so the students (at least I did) knew that the information was based on available evidence. There had been an enormous movement of what is considered established facts from 1850 to now – it would seem the system works.

If that were what is actually happening that would be wonderful. Instead 95% of the population determines what is true by what they are taught at school as selected by a small circle of scholars.

Hanslune: So please explain how you’d like the history of Egypt written? By whom?

I recall my little sister looking into a school-book. There was a picture there of stones being transported by cartwheels to build the pyramids by a bunch of slaves. Back then I knew alternative theories but I decided not to mention any as not to confuse the young mind of the child. After she was gone I took a look at the book page. Not anywhere did it mention that this was a theory. This was presented as "the way things were". A little kid has no sense of discernment as we do. It just stares at the picture with big, interested eyes and sucks it in as "reality".

You said that what the rest of the world believes is determined by facts. I countered this by saying that what 95% percent of the people believe is determined by school.

Materials for small children tend to be simplified, it is later that comparative work begins. Again what would you write for the history of Egypt and who would you have write it?

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Id have the same people write it with the addition: "This is a theory".

Actually it would say. This is what scholars knowledgeable in the evidence theorized happened.

Well for some people who do no further study and so arent aware of the facts after school thats probably true

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

---

most public schools dont teach the students to have an open mind, in fact if i recall i remember alot of teachers and alot of textbooks that all agree that what is known is the bottom line and whenever i questioned a belief in school the teacher either couldnt answer or discouraged me from doing so again.

I found this really cool study paper once online damn i forget the source but anyhow it discusses how when humans as a group or society come to a concensus on something they will viciously stomp out any resistance and will even resort to underhanded tactics to protect their idea if challanged. The only way this can countered is if a much larger or powerful group proves their conclusions or beliefs wrong and then everyone turns cheek and the cycle continues. Darn shoulda saved the link it made alot of sense.

The bottom line is there is no way modern day orthodox institutions are going to change their views due to the fact that they wont be the ones who get to call the shots should they be proven wrong. The only reason religions get away with this is that they don't need to rely on factual information to survive and can change their story if they really had to.
If orthodox methods were proven wrong they would not be able to say sorry, or change the story, or repair anything, they would just be wrong and all the people who are considered the authorities on the subject would no longer be the authorities. And since the world runs on money and power ( oh cmon you know it does) this is not going to happen by a mere few who choose to speak out and ruin it for the lot it is benefitting.
Are you starting to see a pattern here? If not you are missing the point, it is not a big conspiracy involving the combined efforts of aliens and governments as you claim we all think KW, it is human nature, something you cannot debunk and something it doesnt take an educated man of any sort to understand. All you need is common sense and an open mind.

Howdy M_2000

Explain what a "open mind" is?

I'd disagree that western schools don't try to get people to think critically. If a person is trained to think critically they will tend to reject fringe materials that are not evidence based. If so you would tend to call them "not open minded".

Having an open mind doesn't mean believing in fringe materials. Having an open mind is asking questions and rationally evaluating the evidence. In this the western world actually does a good job - as evidenced by these forums and the people on them. I've spent a number of years setting up institution for Arab countries. In there view they want students who "have open minds", in theory, in reality they do no, they don't want liberally trained students who will; question the government, the political system, the religion or the culture. Having seen education systems set up to limit and stop being open-minded I can assure you the western system is so deisgned. Plus, in all cases the materials for self education are also available.

The problem seems to be many people are so "open minded" that they are actually close-minded. Rejecting what is known, fringe writers do a good job of painting a picture using selected or made up evidence, and to make sure THEY are not questioned they poison the minds of their readers agains the hated 'establishment'.

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

---

SC:

www.grahamhancock.com...

www.grahamhancock.com...

www.grahamhancock.com...

and we're all still waiting


in fact we're all still waiting to see if you have any evidence that you haven't either misunderstood, misconstrued or deliberately falsified

claiming you refuse to answer on the grounds that you feel insulted is a cop out when the insult was justified and proven.

the edfu codex does not in any way mention pyramids, Giza or any lost ancient knowledge and is apparent to anyone whos looked at the temple of Edfu itself who has a basic understanding of egyptian cosmology that it is a reference to the temple design and nothing else




even Robert Bauval doesn't give your claims any credence at all and coming from a pseudohistorian who's ideas you have based your own pseudo history on thats really saying somehting


[edit on 3-12-2007 by kerkinana walsky]