Evidence of an Ancient Advanced civilization that spanned the Globe

a reply to: Byrd

The stonework in Egypt is usually made up of blocks. And you can polish a stone with the same type of stone... in fact, you can polish almost any stone except diamond with plain old quartz sand. They've got a boatload of that in Egypt.

(this is where (no kidding) the term "sanding" comes from -- using sand to smooth and polish.[

so... things like this are standard procedure...

Be careful with this claim. Which cultures and which gods, specifically? There's no Egyptian deity that taught stonework and I can't think of a Mesoamerican deity that taught stonework.

Fair enough... might be from that ancient alien show...

In that case, why didn't they teach the "new improved method" when they delivered the instructions to a new culture? For instance, by the time the Inca arose, even Egypt had iron tools and iron smelting.

Right... but did they ever improve the method of moving huge blocks and placing them perfectly? Seems to be a global thing, that keeps people worshiping, or just to keep people out of certain areas...

Why didn't they show the Inca how to forge metal tools (and where to find the relatively abundant iron deposits)?

maybe they had better ideas?

Why didn't they teach them how to make finely detailed statues with these tools (think of the lovely Greek statues) out of the local marble, jade, and so forth?

maybe they weren't concerned with that kind of vanity in said culture?

The civilization had all the basic requirements and certainly could have understood and used it. Why didn't they do that?

And why didn't they show them things like sanitation and how to build aqueducts?

Did they have a problem with toiletry back then?

i know nothing about it honestly...lol

We're not getting into discussing germ warfare here are we dear? Haven't we had enough of that?

Depends on how you use it. Wood is far softer than most everything, but I assure you that trees can grow into granite and split it apart. Humans have used that method (soaking wood) to split stone for many many centuries.

So... think outside the box, here (or maybe inside the materials science box.)

Right... this is how they used it apparently... its only 5 mins, and i would love you do dispute said information about cutting granite with copper....

(joke incoming) Well, they certainly didn't make them by gnawing them with their teeth! (joke ending) -- though the apatite in teeth is as hard as some of the minerals in granite. Yes, I do believe it, particularly looking at their road construction and at the ornamentation and statue construction. They worked nephrite jade, which has the same hardness as granite.

heh.... do you have any proof of making such cuts in this kind of rock with these old methods?

or are you simply saying its all about "pressure and time" as Hans seems to be saying?

Seriously, though, humans around the world have been doing "impossible" construction things like this for a very long time, and often recording it in pictures (because they weren't very literate) and leaving evidence of their work.

and considering we have so much of this evidence... i would love to see us modern people recreate such things....

perhaps one day....

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Byrd

The stonework in Egypt is usually made up of blocks. And you can polish a stone with the same type of stone... in fact, you can polish almost any stone except diamond with plain old quartz sand. They've got a boatload of that in Egypt.

(this is where (no kidding) the term "sanding" comes from -- using sand to smooth and polish.[

so... things like this are standard procedure...

Yes. All over the world in societies that work stone. And modern technology can do a lot better than that (we can polish that surface to a mirror finish and fit it so tightly you can't tell where the slabs join.)

Fair enough... might be from that ancient alien show...

I think that's the source. It's one of those claims that got made on small evidence (there are a few legend of gods teaching things (usually metalwork) but it's a big leap to say every culture had such a legend.)

... but did they ever improve the method of moving huge blocks and placing them perfectly? Seems to be a global thing, that keeps people worshiping, or just to keep people out of certain areas...

All the time. It's a human thing to improve work if you can. So if you look at the Middle Ages and castle building, you see people moving a lot of big rocks from quarries and doing all sorts of fancy things with them. The tools and methods changed as they got better tools and stronger animals and better machines.

(in response to my question about why didn't the "teachers" teach the respective cultures things like metalworking or farming technology and sanitation)
maybe they weren't concerned with that kind of vanity in said culture?

So.... this bunch of Teachers shows up to a society and says "we're going to show you how to build pyramids and make fantastic if somewhat lumpy walls using local technology" ... and what's the benefit here? If they showed up on my doorstep and said "we're here to teach you how to construct a quad-dimensional tesseract out of concrete tubes that you have to make yourself and it's going to take 10,000 of you 20 years to do it but you'll just LOVE the results"... I'd smile politely and shut the door in their faces. Wouldn't you?

Now if they showed up and said "I know you're awfully tired of doing dishes and floors. So we're here to show you how to make self-cleaning dishes and rugs out of lawn clippings and it'll only take you a week", I'd be out there whacking up grass in a heartbeat because it solves two of my housework problems. The tesseract... didn't do a blessed thing for me.

We're not getting into discussing germ warfare here are we dear? Haven't we had enough of that?

Ah...nope! Gave up on that when the kids graduated from school!!!

Right... this is how they used it apparently... its only 5 mins, and i would love you do dispute said information about cutting granite with copper....

Didn't watch the whole thing but I see a bunch of guys who haven't worked with stone up there trying to do something in ways that would make the ancients laugh. The ancient Egyptians didn't bother trying to use copper (actually a low grade bronze (copper with arsenic impurities)) on granite the way that the guy in the first few seconds is trying to do it. He'd make a bigger dent if he had practice and was using a granite pounder. The guy hanging around the Luxor quarry when we were there made a bigger impact on that granite with his granite pounder in just 4 minutes than Mr. Copper Chisel made in the video.

And chisels don't actually show up until the New Kingdom.

heh.... do you have any proof of making such cuts in this kind of rock with these old methods?

or are you simply saying its all about "pressure and time" as Hans seems to be saying?

How about the 'I was there and saw it with my own eyes' evidence of the ancient Egptians?

Line drawings of AE images of the trades, including bead drilling and so forth

The guy on the top right of this temple block is using chisel and pounder

Another temple wall block showing men working on a statue with the same tools

Many of these methods are SILL used today (note that he's polishing and smoothing a stone...with another stone.)

From a tomb, a bunch of stonemasons constructing a house. Notice the tools they're using (chisel and pounder)

Now...when I compare this to Youtube Chisel Guy... I find the ancient carvings just a tad more convincing than Chisel Guy.

and considering we have so much of this evidence... i would love to see us modern people recreate such things....

perhaps one day....

Reenactors get into this kind of stuff, actually.

Oh... have you seen the medieval French village (and there's an English one, too) where they're recreating Life As It Was Back Then? (I suspect there's a few cheats to make it healthier... like no pooping in the streets)

Materials might have changed but technique is same..

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Harte

Do you have any idea why mainstream archaeology has claimed that they have found pools of liquid state mercury?
Pools so large that statues were recovered from it.

Sounds like the claim is bogus. No Archaeologist said that.

Also, what is so surprising about having "liquid state" mercury? The stuff oozes right out of its ore (cinnabar.)

Harte

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: Degradation33

That image you used is from a known video they failed at it.

Nope. That was a short demonstration of sawing granite (made specifically for a television documentary about Ancient Egypt,) and it was entirely successful.

To demonstrate how to cut granite in a strait line all you need is a copper saw and sand.

originally posted by: vNex92Many tried that but failed. One person tried it but failed.

For someone that knows about a "known video," you don't seem to have been on youtube much. This method is demonstrated in dozens of videos there.

Welcome to reality - Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology

Written by the guy in your known video.

Harte

We don't have the ancient "technology" or "blue prints", but we do have the finished product. So we know these people who built the ancient structures were super brilliant, super creative, ingenious, crafty, artistic, hard working, and masterful beyond any of our capabilities today.

My belief is there was a race of humans who were the ancestors to Africans and all Ingenious people and they were amazing at stone work. I believe they were just naturally more advanced than other races on Earth. I also think they knew how to use their brain in ways that seem like science fiction / paranormal to us, mainly ESP and being able to calculate based on perceiving the future. They might even have had natural electro magnetic abilities which could be why things are aligned perfectly. I believe they could simply see this. Their brains would be like today's most powerful super computers, but even better and different.

I don't want to say if they moved stones with their minds or not, the point is, we have no idea how they did it...and when we come up with guesses, it still falls short... therefore our minds can't conceive it so that means the ancient builders mind's we're way more advanced...and we have their finished product to prove that.

I think this race being so mentally advanced, they probably did interact with God's, Deities, and Demi-Gods which would be beings from a parallel world, extra terrestrials, or just legendary humans who became myth.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Harte

Do you have any idea why mainstream archaeology has claimed that they have found pools of liquid state mercury?
Pools so large that statues were recovered from it.

Sounds like the claim is bogus. No Archaeologist said that.

Also, what is so surprising about having "liquid state" mercury? The stuff oozes right out of its ore (cinnabar.)

Harte

Are you familiar with the well known archaeologist Sergio Gomez, the director of the Tlalocan project? ..well if you say he is a fake liar ok then..

I did not say it is surprising to find liquid mercury, but this was a big discovery, news about it all over the world.
And Zero evidence, this was about hmm.. 5-8years ago.

Still no evidence of this remarkable discovery, zero photos of the statues being lifted from these pools of liquid mercury.

...And so like i said. they are all liars and thieves, just want money/funding.. Like you said.. Bogus.

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Harte

Do you have any idea why mainstream archaeology has claimed that they have found pools of liquid state mercury?
Pools so large that statues were recovered from it.

Sounds like the claim is bogus. No Archaeologist said that.

Also, what is so surprising about having "liquid state" mercury? The stuff oozes right out of its ore (cinnabar.)

Harte

Are you familiar with the well known archaeologist Sergio Gomez, the director of the Tlalocan project? ..well if you say he is a fake liar ok then..

I did not say it is surprising to find liquid mercury, but this was a big discovery, news about it all over the world.
And Zero evidence, this was about hmm.. 5-8years ago.

Still no evidence of this remarkable discovery, zero photos of the statues being lifted from these pools of liquid mercury.

...And so like i said. they are all liars and thieves, just want money/funding.. Like you said.. Bogus.

No, I know about the mercury.
But I also know there weren't pools of it that people were pulling statues out of.

BTW, your appeal to authority doesn't impress. So if you care to hold on to your assertion, then provide a linked quote from your archaeologist saying what you said he did.

Harte

We have discovered that certain kinds of catastrophe that Earth was exposed to did a lot more than kill dinosaurs. Some were so violent that they resurfaced the entire planet to depths of miles. In something like that there is absolutely nothing but dust left.

There would be no way to tell who or what or how many other civilizations have been on this planet.

These recent findings shows that the latest of these catastrophes was not severe enough to erase everything. Logic says it is as real as the physical evidence they are finding.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

+1 for the debunk effort but I'm not convinced whatsoever.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Harte

Do you have any idea why mainstream archaeology has claimed that they have found pools of liquid state mercury?
Pools so large that statues were recovered from it.

Sounds like the claim is bogus. No Archaeologist said that.

Also, what is so surprising about having "liquid state" mercury? The stuff oozes right out of its ore (cinnabar.)

Harte

Are you familiar with the well known archaeologist Sergio Gomez, the director of the Tlalocan project? ..well if you say he is a fake liar ok then..

I did not say it is surprising to find liquid mercury, but this was a big discovery, news about it all over the world.
And Zero evidence, this was about hmm.. 5-8years ago.

Still no evidence of this remarkable discovery, zero photos of the statues being lifted from these pools of liquid mercury.

...And so like i said. they are all liars and thieves, just want money/funding.. Like you said.. Bogus.

No, I know about the mercury.
But I also know there weren't pools of it that people were pulling statues out of.

BTW, your appeal to authority doesn't impress. So if you care to hold on to your assertion, then provide a linked quote from your archaeologist saying what you said he did.

Harte

The choice of words for the discovery of the alleged liquid mercury in every major archaeology news site was- A large quantity. A lake. A river

I remember watching the interviews about the subject, here is some clip that says these same things, you can find text versions from different legitimate archaeology sites in a minute or two on the ol googl.


After all these years, still not a single picture, no mention of safety precautions= they lied.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Nihil0
a reply to: Harte

Sorry for the late reply! I'll try to quote here, I hope I won't make a mess.

Plato never claimed to have heard this story from anyone.
One of Plato's fictional characters made that claim.

As I wrote here, this story got to Plato through Solon who originally told this story to other people, not directly to him. Of course, as you wrote, Plato made a fictional character tell the story for narrative purposes.

Plato said nothing about this belief.

Logically, if the story was true, and if really an Ancient Egyptian priest believed in it, it means that this was a real belief at that time.

Yet there are exactly ZERO examples of the Atlantis account in any oral tradition.

Not always referred to as Atlantis, but there are dozens of accounts of lost lands in several mythologies. For instance, the legend of Viracocha, who was sometimes represented crying because he lost his motherland.

The tome you suggest survives only in fragments, which I've read. You can read it too. Do so, then tell me what you're talking about.
You know, Manetho was born a hundred years after Plato died, so even if there was anything there (and if there is, I haven't seen it) then what would it indicate? That Manetho had read Plato?

No, but it would indicate that ancient historians, who had an interest in reporting things as factual as possible, recorded the fact that ancient cultures believed in the coming of catastrophes that could wipe mankind away. And not just local floods. Anyways, I'm sorry but I was incredibly mistaken. The fragment in question was written by Josephus, not by Manetho:

"they studiously turned their attention to the knowledge of the heavenly bodies and their configurations. And lest their science should at any time be lost among men, and what they had previously acquired should perish, (inasmuch as Adam had acquainted them that a universal aphanism, or destruction of all things, would take place alternately (meaning recurring one after another) by the force of fire and the overwhelming powers of water), they erected two columns, the one of brick and the other of stone, and engraved upon each of them their discoveries." Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, ch. 2.

What can I find in those Mesopotamian myths? Cyclical worlds? Show me.

The poem of Gilgamesh itself revolves around the story of Gilgamesh who goes on a journey to find Utnapishtim, the survivor of an old world. It was only after finding him that he could "learn how to read the texts from before the deluge", logically implying that Gilgamesh lived in a new era/cycle of the world. After all, this belief is also shown in the etymology of the word Gilgamesh - the returning messiah - as he brought stories from the world before the deluge.

Plato wasn't quoting an actual Egyptian priest you know. Nor did what Plato said indicate any cyclical nature to the world - just ancient disasters, and there were plenty of disasters in Plato's time so it's not like he couldn't have made all of them up.

This is true, Plato did not indicate any cyclical nature to the world. He only said that there has been recurring deluges.

Please realize that the Baalbek quarry is actually uphill from the Temple, and none of those giant stones had to be lifted even one inch. To me, the astounding part of that Temple is the beams and cornices the Romans DID have to lift into place.

Please realize that the three stones that form the Trilithon actually rest on top of several other blocks. That means that after allegedly dragging them downhill, someone still had to lift the 800 tons blocks in the air, carefully putting it in line with the blocks underneath (you most certainly cannot move an 800 block back and forth to align it precisely once placed on top of other blocks without making a disaster), and then lowering the block on top of the others. All of this with the utmost precision. Anyways, the question about how made the Trilithon remains open and there is no answer. The Romans carefully documented all of their works, yet there is no mention of them building the Trilithon.

On the contrary, we have evidence from their documents that the heaviest object they were able to lift was an Egyptian obelisk weighing around 300 tons, far from the 800 of the three blocks.

a reply to: Harte

Sorry for the late reply. So, I tried to quote your points and answer you extensively, but apparently, I did something wrong and I posted a blank comment. And I already wrote for about 20 minutes


So now I don't have the focus to rewriting all again, therefore I'll quote you through "" and answer the best I can.


“Plato never claimed to have heard this story from anyone.
One of Plato's fictional characters made that claim.”

Yes, but we know for a fact that Plato made his characters speak about what HE knew and wanted to tell.



“Plato said nothing about this belief.”

If Solon really believed a catastrophe wiped mankind away and then it restarted with the few survivors, that means that this myth was actually believed by the contemporaries of Solon. All of this, by the way, was just the introduction of a greater account about a great war that occurred in those days, the account of which was preserved by the ancient Egyptians. That’s how Solon came to know the story.



“Yet there are exactly ZERO examples of the Atlantis account in any oral tradition.”

There are several accounts of lost mythical land, just not with the same name. For instance, ancient pre-Columbian cultures often portrayed Viracocha crying because he lost his motherland among other beliefs.



“The tome you suggest survives only in fragments, which I've read. You can read it too. Do so, then tell me what you're talking about.
You know, Manetho was born a hundred years after Plato died, so even if there was anything there (and if there is, I haven't seen it) then what would it indicate? That Manetho had read Plato?”

No, I’d suggest that even ancient historians left accounts about this belief. In this case, I was mistaken, and it was not Manetho that left the particular account to which I was referring, but Josephus.

“They studiously turned their attention to the knowledge of the heavenly bodies and their configurations.
And lest their science should at any time be lost among men, and what they had previously acquired should perish, (inasmuch as Adam had acquainted them that a universal aphanism, or destruction of all things, would take place alternately by the force of fire and the overwhelming powers of water), they erected two columns, the one of brick and the other of stone, and engraved upon each of them their discoveries; so that, in case the brick pillar should be dissolved by the waters, the stone one might survive to teach men the things engraved upon it, and at the same time inform them that a brick one had formerly been also erected by them.
It remains even to the present day in the land of Siriad.” Antiquities of the Jews Book i. ch. 2.



“What can I find in those Mesopotamian myths? Cyclical worlds? Show me.
Floods? Yes. But, of course, we do know that floods actually do happen, and we're talking here about river valley civilizations, aren't we.”

The Gilgamesh myth actually revolves around him trying to reach the only known survivor of the ancient world, meaning a previous cycle in which there was a different paradigm of life. Gilgamesh was then praised as “the returning messiah” because he was able to retrieve accounts from and could read documents “from before the deluge”.


I’m not talking about “cyclical worlds”. I’m talking about the fact that there are recurring catastrophes able to wipe mankind away to the point that the few survivors basically have to start over again. You know that famous quote by Einstein, which I’ll misquote here “World War Four will be fought with sticks”? Kind of like this, but instead of resetting humanity through a nuclear war like Einstein said, with a natural catastrophe.

I think about it as of today. If a worldwide catastrophe such as the one that happened during the Younger Dryas would strike us, we would survive as mankind. But will there be the means to rebuild the world of today? Most certainly not. We’d know about the internet, about rockets etcetera, but if only a few centers of the world and few people survive, most likely nobody would be able to rebuild it again the way we know it.

This is basically the account of “Solon”, who tells us that only a few people dwelling on the mountains survived the catastrophe, and they would only be able to orally transmit history as they knew it, which eventually became mythology.



“Plato wasn't quoting an actual Egyptian priest you know. Nor did what Plato said indicate any cyclical nature to the world - just ancient disasters, and there were plenty of disasters in Plato's time so it's not like he couldn't have made all of them up.”

Plato was quoting the story that got to him, but that was originally told to other people by Solon, an actual Egyptian priest. As I said above, I didn’t mean “cyclical nature of the world”. Just different civilizations living in different paradigms, and new paradigms that could’ve been triggered by a massive catastrophe.



“Please realize that the Baalbek quarry is actually uphill from the Temple, and none of those giant stones had to be lifted even one inch. To me, the astounding part of that Temple is the beams and cornices the Romans DID have to lift into place.”

Please realize that the three blocks of the Trilithon sit ON TOP of several other blocks. This means that after they allegedly dragged the blocks, they still had to lift them several feet up into the air, and then carefully align them on top of the blocks underneath, then lower the blocks with utmost precision. All of this with a wooden machine. It’s logical that if they failed to perfectly place the blocks on top of the others, it wouldn’t be feasible to move them back and forth to adjust them into place without making a disaster.

We also don’t have any document by the Romans recording the building of the Trilithon, yet they meticulously recorded every other work as they were accustomed to. Thanks to these records, we have also evidence that the heaviest stone ever moved by the Romans was an Egyptian obelisk weighing 300 tons, far from the 800 of the Trilithon stones.

Building a Temple there wouldn’t even make sense for the Romans at the time, and in the previous comment, I also wrote a long motivation why which now I’m too lazy to write again. It just wasn’t an important route for them and that specific spot doesn’t make sense for such an enormous task to begin. I find it logical that they made renovations and adjustments because they realized the importance of the site by seeing the pre-existing collapsed structure (which blocks have completely different wear than the Roman ones by the way, and there’s so much to write about this, too).

Someone teach me how to quote please

a reply to: Akragon

That's called the Ancient Alien theory, isn't it?

originally posted by: Nihil0
a reply to: Harte
“Plato never claimed to have heard this story from anyone.
One of Plato's fictional characters made that claim.”
Yes, but we know for a fact that Plato made his characters speak about what HE knew and wanted to tell.

That's true. He made his characters discuss the ideal republic, and in the next two dialogues he made them transfer it to this world and then destroy it - as a means of showing what can happened to the ideal when it has to exist in reality.
I.e. the ideal of a republic and the reality of one (Athens.)

originally posted by: Nihil0
“Plato said nothing about this belief.”
If Solon really believed a catastrophe wiped mankind away and then it restarted with the few survivors, that means that this myth was actually believed by the contemporaries of Solon. All of this, by the way, was just the introduction of a greater account about a great war that occurred in those days, the account of which was preserved by the ancient Egyptians. That’s how Solon came to know the story.

Yet there is NO ancient myth similar to Plato's allegory, and Solon's contemporaries wrote things too. Funny they (and all the earlier literate Greeks) never said anything about this. I mean, there was most definitely a long oral tradition there - that cannot be denied.
Yet nothing at all that's even the least bit like Plato's allegory.
And somehow you don't let this keep you from positing an entire cadre of Solon's contemporaries believing this mythical myth.

originally posted by: Nihil0
“Yet there are exactly ZERO examples of the Atlantis account in any oral tradition.”
There are several accounts of lost mythical land, just not with the same name. For instance, ancient pre-Columbian cultures often portrayed Viracocha crying because he lost his motherland among other beliefs.

Perhaps you should look into what era Viracocha appeared in. You think he showed up still crying about Atlantis 10,000 years after it sank?

Harte

originally posted by: Nihil0
a reply to: Harte
“The tome you suggest survives only in fragments, which I've read. You can read it too. Do so, then tell me what you're talking about.
You know, Manetho was born a hundred years after Plato died, so even if there was anything there (and if there is, I haven't seen it) then what would it indicate? That Manetho had read Plato?”

No, I’d suggest that even ancient historians left accounts about this belief. In this case, I was mistaken, and it was not Manetho that left the particular account to which I was referring, but Josephus.

“They studiously turned their attention to the knowledge of the heavenly bodies and their configurations.
And lest their science should at any time be lost among men, and what they had previously acquired should perish, (inasmuch as Adam had acquainted them that a universal aphanism, or destruction of all things, would take place alternately by the force of fire and the overwhelming powers of water), they erected two columns, the one of brick and the other of stone, and engraved upon each of them their discoveries; so that, in case the brick pillar should be dissolved by the waters, the stone one might survive to teach men the things engraved upon it, and at the same time inform them that a brick one had formerly been also erected by them.
It remains even to the present day in the land of Siriad.” Antiquities of the Jews Book i. ch. 2.

I don't find the acknowledgement of occasional total disasters to be particularly relevant to belief in a cyclical existence, especially among people that believe the Earth was covered with water in a big flood (but the animals were saved, thank the Lord!)

originally posted by: Nihil0
“What can I find in those Mesopotamian myths? Cyclical worlds? Show me.
Floods? Yes. But, of course, we do know that floods actually do happen, and we're talking here about river valley civilizations, aren't we.”

The Gilgamesh myth actually revolves around him trying to reach the only known survivor of the ancient world, meaning a previous cycle in which there was a different paradigm of life. Gilgamesh was then praised as “the returning messiah” because he was able to retrieve accounts from and could read documents “from before the deluge”.

Gilgamesh contains a slightly different version of a much older myth. That myth was about a disaster, not the end of the world. Same disaster I just mocked above.

So, you're still talking here about a flood. A flood in the mythos of a river valley civilization. Is that supposed to mean something?

originally posted by: Nihil0
I’m not talking about “cyclical worlds”. I’m talking about the fact that there are recurring catastrophes able to wipe mankind away to the point that the few survivors basically have to start over again. You know that famous quote by Einstein, which I’ll misquote here “World War Four will be fought with sticks”? Kind of like this, but instead of resetting humanity through a nuclear war like Einstein said, with a natural catastrophe.

See, you can't paint this with such a broad brush as you did earlier. Compare this to the Hindu beliefs, and the Mayan as well. Those aren't disaster stories; they are end of the world stories.

So, yeah. People tell myths based on disasters. I mean, disasters happen. But there aren't any Atlantis myths. That doesn't seem odd to you?

originally posted by: Nihil0
This is basically the account of “Solon”, who tells us that only a few people dwelling on the mountains survived the catastrophe, and they would only be able to orally transmit history as they knew it, which eventually became mythology.

No, this is ENTIRELY the work of Plato - who never met Solon.

originally posted by: Nihil0
“Plato wasn't quoting an actual Egyptian priest you know. Nor did what Plato said indicate any cyclical nature to the world - just ancient disasters, and there were plenty of disasters in Plato's time so it's not like he couldn't have made all of them up.”

Plato was quoting the story that got to him, but that was originally told to other people by Solon, an actual Egyptian priest. As I said above, I didn’t mean “cyclical nature of the world”. Just different civilizations living in different paradigms, and new paradigms that could’ve been triggered by a massive catastrophe.

Maybe you should read the thing.
Solon was a Greek statesman (known for his reforms) that died a hundred years before Plato was born. He also was a highly respected poet. He certainly wasn't any kind of priest, much less an Egyptian one. Solon was actually run out of Athens by the people.
Given that last fact, Solon is an interesting source for Plato to claim in an allegory about the fall of the ideal republic aimed squarely at Athens, the murderers of his mentor (who is also one of his characters.)

Harte

originally posted by: Nihil0
“Please realize that the Baalbek quarry is actually uphill from the Temple, and none of those giant stones had to be lifted even one inch. To me, the astounding part of that Temple is the beams and cornices the Romans DID have to lift into place.”

Please realize that the three blocks of the Trilithon sit ON TOP of several other blocks. This means that after they allegedly dragged the blocks, they still had to lift them several feet up into the air, and then carefully align them on top of the blocks underneath, then lower the blocks with utmost precision.

You may think this because all the pics of these stones are from the front.
But, no. See, the quarry is not behind the camera taking those pictures, it's on the other side of the temple.
The big stones are in a retaining wall. Behind them is the higher elevation.

originally posted by: Nihil0
All of this with a wooden machine. It’s logical that if they failed to perfectly place the blocks on top of the others, it wouldn’t be feasible to move them back and forth to adjust them into place without making a disaster.

So, they could drag them hundreds of feet, but couldn't move them after that? How so? Do you think they couldn't move their capstans?

originally posted by: Nihil0
We also don’t have any document by the Romans recording the building of the Trilithon, yet they meticulously recorded every other work as they were accustomed to. Thanks to these records, we have also evidence that the heaviest stone ever moved by the Romans was an Egyptian obelisk weighing 300 tons, far from the 800 of the Trilithon stones.

The did not meticulously record every other work. They did document a lot of the work that took place IN ROME.
Also, you neglect the monoliths in the Jerusalem Temple that were placed the same way and weigh double what that obelisk weighed.

originally posted by: Nihil0
Building a Temple there wouldn’t even make sense for the Romans at the time, and in the previous comment, I also wrote a long motivation why which now I’m too lazy to write again. It just wasn’t an important route for them and that specific spot doesn’t make sense for such an enormous task to begin. I find it logical that they made renovations and adjustments because they realized the importance of the site by seeing the pre-existing collapsed structure (which blocks have completely different wear than the Roman ones by the way, and there’s so much to write about this, too).

So now the Jupiter Temple isn't Roman because you think there is no reason for them to build a temple there?
Maybe you need to step back. There's another one a few hundred miles away - also Roman - with comparable stones.

originally posted by: Nihil0
Someone teach me how to quote please

Click the quote button on any of my above posts to see the structure.
Keep in mind there is a character limit, which is why my response is broken into parts.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Ok so the cat got your tongue on the whole Sergio Gomez discovery.

But you said you know about the liquid mercury finds, there have been several claims over the years in mainstream archaeology so i will make it easy for you.

Show me ANY picture from ANY archaeological site that has liquid mercury.

You cant. Because they lied. There is no evidence. And by the way, red dust is not enough when liquid mercury has been reported.

So, they could drag them hundreds of feet, but couldn't move them after that? How so? Do you think they couldn't move their capstans?

I don’t know how they did it, but then claims of dragging require some more thought …
What is the initial inertial force required to move 1200 tonnes ? Get it out of the quarry? Lift it? Tip it without breaking after all that work ?
That initial ‘shove’ or ‘pull’ to even get 1200 tonnes to move?
What figure in Newton’s do you think?
Being a mathematician , perhaps you could show just how much force is required to move it even one inch ?

Dragging 1200 tonnes ? Did they make a special road?
1200 tonnes would pile up a lot of material in front of the stone as it was dragged too , unless it was on something .
Dragging is just as much of a ‘guess’ as ‘rollers’ or ‘sled’ in my opinion .
Especially as the recent excavations at the Baalbek quarry have revealed even bigger monoliths under the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, that they were fully prepared to move .
Just how much force is required in an initial burst to move these weights?
And why did the ‘Romans’ bother with megalithic blocks of that gigantic size and weight when in the Baalbek temple itself there are WAY smaller blocks to complete the temple?
Megalithic wasn’t exactly the Roman ‘style’ was it , when we look at all their other architecture…



a reply to: Harte

I’m guessing about 2000 people to move a Trilithon stone . But the friction underneath would affect that figure …