The mexican and egyptian pyramids were evolved during the same period?

[suntrack2]

In my opinion, many old type of constructions which are based at these two places,must be co-related with each other. Whenever anyone who will visit the "sphinx" and other egyptian monuments, the immediate question may come in mind, that who kept that big stones and who carved it in the ancient times, it means the technology and the designing aspects were too much developed during that time. I have heard that in Mexico also there are some great ancient monuments which are relevant to the egyptian construction culture.

There may be a contradiction in the opinion that the constructions were made of the great stones, or the stones were carved at different places and then assembled at the site.

May be during that period those things were innovative for them, hence they have developed. Is that monuments keeping acquaintance with the outer world or that particular places are very much co-related to give some signals through it to the space-entities.!!

Or the pyramids were just constructed being the society identity and Maya civilization.

or they are made by the aliens !!

http://www.philipcoppens.com/nexus07_2.html
http://www.delange.org/Teo/Teo.htm
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/pyramids/home.html
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/science/49832.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041206/mexicopyramid.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4881792.stm

[Ruinhayes]

I have been to Chichen Itza and Tulum.....I have seen the Mayan people of today (they are a small people)...by seeing these places, it really makes you wonder how in the H E double toothpicks these people did all of this...The Temple of Kukulkan....is amazing....huge stones......and we were told by our guide that it line's up with the temples in Egypt (never verified).........In my opinion (after seeing these 2 places) there is no way that the primitive peoples could have moved, carved, and placed all those stones by hand. Combine that with the brutal heat and weather, and it equals a miracle of art and work.....if they did do it by hand, they are better,stronger, and have more tenacity than any one person alive today.

http://www.crystalinks.com/chichenitza.html
http://www.locogringo.com/past_spotlights/aug2002.html

[Nowhere Man]

There is a good 1000-2000 years (roughly) between the Egyptian pyramids and the Mesoamerican ones. Also consider the different uses to which they were put -- tombs vs. temples.

No aliens necessary, just lots of people. What would you say to the claim that the biggest Indian temples were built by aliens and not humans?

Fred

[Disinfo Agent]

In my opinion (after seeing these 2 places) there is no way that the primitive peoples could have moved, carved, and placed all those stones by hand.Maybe they weren't that primitive.

[jfribrg]

Seems to me that if you want to build a large stone structure that will last a very , very long time,then a pyramid is a natural shape to choose. You can build a small one, and then make it bigger by adding a row of blocks to each level. Any other shape would probably be less stable or require more material or both. Before long, you would have enough knowledge about what building techniques work and what doesn't. If you are in Mexico, there is no need to be inspired by what the Egyptians did. You can figure it out the same way the Egyptians did: by trial and error.

[HenrikOlsen]

And you get the initial idea by looking at a pile of sand or rocks, not by having mysterious emissaries from across the globe tell you about it.:)

[Mister Earl]

There's a tribal people, in South America I believe, who ever year have a festival where they build a large tower with platfoms, then leap towards the ground, with only vines and a break-point type hinge to break their fall. If any of this tried it on a whim, we'd probably lose a leg or leave a respectable crater in the ground. Just because the people don't come from what you would consider "civilization" doesn't mean they are stupid.

When I was back in 6th grade, we had a foreign exchange student from South Africa. Next to no English, a peculiar fear of automatic doors, yet the first time the rules of chess were explained to him, he destroyed everyone, including the teachers. He was unstoppable.

[Swift]

In my opinion (after seeing these 2 places) there is no way that the primitive peoples could have moved, carved, and placed all those stones by hand. Combine that with the brutal heat and weather, and it equals a miracle of art and work.....if they did do it by hand, they are better,stronger, and have more tenacity than any one person alive today.

Nonsense. You severely underestimate the abilities of ancient civilizations. As others have pointed out, these were not primitive people, but were advanced in mathematics, astronomy, and construction, and had a civilization that lasted a very long time. But you are probably right about one thing; they had more tenacity than the average modern internet surfer. ;)

[Disinfo Agent]

There's a tribal people, in South America I believe, who ever year have a festival where they build a large tower with platfoms, then leap towards the ground, with only vines and a break-point type hinge to break their fall.I wonder if you're thinking of the Nagol ritual (http://www.vanuatutourism.com/vanuatu/cms/en/islands/pentecost_maewo.html) of Vanuatu islanders (Pacific Ocean).

[Mister Earl]

Bingo! You nailed it, Disinfo Agent. That'd be them. Saw that on TV months ago.

That's what mystifies me about CTers. REAL reality is far more stranger and more interesting than any random BS someone could invent.

[Jens]

There is a good 1000-2000 years (roughly) between the Egyptian pyramids and the Mesoamerican ones. Also consider the different uses to which they were put -- tombs vs. temples.

No aliens necessary, just lots of people. What would you say to the claim that the biggest Indian temples were built by aliens and not humans?

Fred

It's not that simple. It may be true for Mesoamerica in the strict sense, but there are structures from South America going back basically to the same era as the Egyptian pyramids. See the wikipedia article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norte_Chico#Sites_and_architecture).

I don't know how comparable they are. But in any case, the Mayans should not be seen as the first example of monumental architecture in the Americas.

[Fazor]

Maybe they weren't that primitive.

I'll re-state a quote of mine from the CT section (because it's applicable, and I'm proud of it).

The err is in thinking that people of the past were less intelligent than us, rather than less knowledgeable. There's a big difference between the two.

To expand upon that; humans, as a civilization, make markable gains in knowledge in relatively short periods of time. For instance, the technology to broadcast information over air-waves and land-lines (TV, Radio, Internet, etc.) was not something we knew how to do 200 years ago. The railroad they had 200 years ago were better than the wagon trails 100 years before that. Etc. etc.

But intelligence, or the ability to learn and reason, is something that doesn't change from decade-to-decade or from century-to-century. Our ability to reason isn't all that much different than it was when we roamed to plains of Mesopotamia. Do not think that anchient peoples were stupid, they certainly were not.

[HenrikOlsen]

I've seen the term extelligence used for the sum of external knowledge or "intelligence of the culture".

[Gillianren]

"Error" is the noun form, Fazor. (New rule, I suppose--repeat something [or put it in a sig line!], and I correct it.)

[Fazor]

"Error" is the noun form, Fazor. (New rule, I suppose--repeat something [or put it in a sig line!], and I correct it.)

But I'm lazy, and that's two more letter I'd have to type. And, as you can see from my post count, I'm always one to shy away from excessive typing...

:-P (thanks)

[Lianachan]

In my opinion, many old type of constructions which are based at these two places,must be co-related with each other. Then, I'm afraid, you are very much mistaken. These "old constructions" are separated not only by geography, but also by time, design and function. .. it means the technology and the designing aspects were too much developed during that time.How can it be "too much developed" when all the physical evidence suggests that these constructions do indeed exist, and have mostly been quite accurately dated?
There may be a contradiction in the opinion that the constructions were made of the great stones, or the stones were carved at different places and then assembled at the site. Almost no ancient sites that I've visited (and that's into the hundreds) have a quarry directly attached.
May be during that period those things were innovative for them, hence they have developed.The evolution of the pyramid is indeed well attested in Egyptian archeaology.

[KaiYeves]

Responding to title:
Uh, no.

[sarongsong]

From our previous 13-page thread, The Great Pyramids Created By Aliens? (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/8440-great-pyramids-created-aliens-13.html), another perspective:"..."Assaga" is a phonetic spelling of the name of Atlantean descendants, as articulated by medicine men for hundreds of years...Atlantis was a great island or continent located about where the West Indies are now...Traditionals knew what was going to happen, and so these intelligent beings got away. Some went to Egypt and helped build pyramids everywhere they went. Some went to England where Stonehenge is; they placed those boulders perfectly into position to help people know when to plant crops, among many other things about the seasons...some went south to the Yucatan and other places in Mexico...some to the Amazon and to Peru...".
---"Rolling Thunder Speaks" ©1999

[captain swoop]

Some went to England where Stonehenge is; they placed those boulders perfectly into position to help people know when to plant crops

Which stones? there are a number of different building and developmewnt phases at Stonehenge.

Why didn't they build a pyramid?

[sarongsong]

I believe that's the only reference to Stonehenge in the 249-page book, which contains many other tantalizing hints of things we'd all like to know more of, but isn't the focus:...I'm tired of white people writing about us, that we walked across the Bering Strait and that kind of junk...so you might prepare yourself because I'm going to hit you with a lot of truths...
Introduction
Does the UK contain enough suitable stone for a pyramid? A site capable of supporting the weight of such an endeavor?

[captain swoop]

Well, as stones are cut from rock in quarries I would think so. We have plenty of Limestone, some of our best Cathedrals are made from it. Grabite and Millstone Grit and Sandstone abound.

[sarongsong]

Pure speculation on my part; weather conditions are quite different there than the latitudes pyramids are found, perhaps fostering an unacceptable expansion/contraction rate for stone pyramids.
Have recently heard you also have, or had, a Woodhenge, too, but know nothing more about it.

[captain swoop]

We have lots of stone circles all over the landscape

[Gort]

I am currently involved with studying The Evolution of Cosciousness and I can tell you that the Mayans and the Oltec's before them were more advanced than than you can possibly imagine. Is anyone familiar with Dr. Carl Calleman?

[sarongsong]

Not until now; what is he about?

[Gillianren]

I am currently involved with studying The Evolution of Cosciousness and I can tell you that the Mayans and the Oltec's before them were more advanced than than you can possibly imagine. Is anyone familiar with Dr. Carl Calleman?

I thought it was Olmecs. And Aztecs. And Toltecs.

[farmerjumperdon]

From our previous 13-page thread, The Great Pyramids Created By Aliens? (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/8440-great-pyramids-created-aliens-13.html), another perspective:

And this little piggy went "Wee weee wee" all the way home to Planet Zeta.

[farmerjumperdon]

When I was back in 6th grade, we had a foreign exchange student from South Africa. Next to no English, a peculiar fear of automatic doors, yet the first time the rules of chess were explained to him, he destroyed everyone, including the teachers. He was unstoppable.

We had a guy like that in Middle School. For him it was vacumm cleaners.

[mugaliens]

A lot has been said about rollers, hundreds, if not thousands of workers pulling the stones up an inclined ramp built around, and partially supported by the pyrmid they were building, before putting the stone in place.

Someone once mentioned that no amount of workers could have pulled that hard, long enough to move the heavier stones to the top. I thought about that for a second, and since I'm a pilot, I thought for about .01 seconds and said out load, "they wouldn't have to. They could simply chock the rearward roller."

We chock our aircraft's wheels all the time to keep it from rolling due to winds, as the hydraulics bleed down when we shut off the engines.

So, it would be "pull-pull-pull..." for perhaps 20 seconds, then "Chocks!" and "Rest for the next 40 seconds." Still backbreaking work, but do-able.

Also, if you anchor the pulling ropes at the end of that face's ramps and simply tug sideways on it, that sideways tug gives you tremendous amounts of leverage. Probably take just 1/10th the people. Assuming the rope is 100 ft long, if they tugged sideways at the rope's midpoint until it's bent about 30 degrees (48.3 feet sideways, not accounting for stretch), then they would have advanced the block 12.9 feet. The ratio between the two gives the leverage achieved: 3.744. And that's the minimum leverage - when you first start out when the rope is straight, you have much more leverage. Thus, it really wouldn't matter how many people you had. I could do it myself if I had four people to move the rollers (they must have been heavy), or a person with a rope and a horse or two (or camel or two), and someone to set the chocks.

Hey - I might only get 2 feet, but if I move the block 3 inches before it's chocked, we're still making progress!

Thus, they would have needed just over 1/4 the people to use this method that they would have needed by pulling the block straight up the incline.

Furthermore, since the side of the ramp has the same angle as the face of the pyramid, they could simply walk down the face of the pyramid and let gravity do all the work! The only work they'd have to do is walking back up the ramp!

Assuming the ramp was 10 deg in inclination (an arbitrary figure), and each block weighed 10 tons, someone please join in the fun and calculate how much force would be required given the above leverage example using the side-pull method that provides for a 3.744 leverage advantage?

If that's too complication, then just tell me how much straight ahead force is required to pull a 10 ton block up a 10 deg slope assuming rollers with no friction? (I'll do the rest).

[mugaliens]

I am currently involved with studying The Evolution of Cosciousness and I can tell you that the Mayans and the Oltec's before them were more advanced than than you can possibly imagine. Is anyone familiar with Dr. Carl Calleman?

No Wiki hits. A bunch of Google hits.

Instead of my wading through those 2,170 hits, trying to decypher what about this individual it is you'd like us to consider, how about posting a link to an article, or simply stating what that something might be, along with a link for further exploration?

[Neverfly]

No Wiki hits. A bunch of Google hits.

Instead of my wading through those 2,170 hits, trying to decypher what about this individual it is you'd like us to consider, how about posting a link to an article, or simply stating what that something might be, along with a link for further exploration?

http://www.experiencefestival.com/ef-teachers/teacher/824

Do your Homework Mugaliens, We shouldn't have to do it for you.
Just hoist yourself up by your bootstraps and do some stinkin' RESEARCH!!



.



:p you had it comin':p

[Gort]

Sorry I thought you would have already known.

Dr Carl Calleman was a microbiologist who got interested in the whoopla surrounding the Mayan Calendar. He has now writen a book on his findings based on fact not speculation. He is convinced that the Mayan Calendar starts at the same time that the big bang happened and that they were using the calander to track The Evolution of Consciousness. He later partnered up with Ian Lungold and together they charted the evolution of conscious
www.calleman.com or www.mayanmajix.com

I think Dr. Caleman and Ian are right on the money.

[cjl]

Assuming the ramp was 10 deg in inclination (an arbitrary figure), and each block weighed 10 tons, someone please join in the fun and calculate how much force would be required given the above leverage example using the side-pull method that provides for a 3.744 leverage advantage?

If that's too complication, then just tell me how much straight ahead force is required to pull a 10 ton block up a 10 deg slope assuming rollers with no friction? (I'll do the rest).
Well, ignoring friction, the amount of force required to pull the 10 ton block up 10 degrees is simply 3473 pounds (10 tons * sin(10 degrees)). Factor in a 3.744 leverage and you get 927 lbs (actually closer to 928).

Of course, adding friction somewhat complicates things.

[sarongsong]

...workers pulling the stones up an inclined ramp...[with] the pulling ropes...And these ropes would have been made of what material?

[Neverfly]

And these ropes would have been made of what material?

Titanium laced with adamantium.

[Gort]

Thanks Neverfly for posting that link. I see I had the link wrong in my post.

I owe you one and its only my first day. :)




http://www.experiencefestival.com/ef-teachers/teacher/824

Do your Homework Mugaliens, We shouldn't have to do it for you.
Just hoist yourself up by your bootstraps and do some stinkin' RESEARCH!!



.



:p you had it comin':p

[cjl]

The ancient Egyptians had ropes made from water reeds and similar materials.

[Neverfly]

Sorry I thought you would have already known.

Dr Carl Calleman was a microbiologist who got interested in the whoopla surrounding the Mayan Calendar. He has now writen a book on his findings based on fact not speculation. He is convinced that the Mayan Calendar starts at the same time that the big bang happened and that they were using the calander to track The Evolution of Consciousness. He later partnered up with Ian Lungold and together they charted the evolution of conscious
www.calleman.com or www.mayanmajix.com

I think Dr. Caleman and Ian are right on the money.

um


Help me out here but...

How could they demonstrate that the Mayan Calender starts at the same time as the Big Bang?:doh:

Sounds like hogwash to me.

[KaiYeves]

What would a microbiologist know about archeology?

[sarongsong]

The ancient Egyptians had ropes made from water reeds and similar materials.Sounds a bit puny up against those multi-ton stone blocks...

[cjl]

Sounds a bit puny up against those multi-ton stone blocks...
So do many things, but a well made (and quite thick) rope can supply surprising amounts of force. Ropes made from natural fibers are quite adequate for forces into the thousands of pounds, although they would have to be rather thick for that kind of load.

[RalofTyr]

Um, guys, the Egyptian pyramids and the Meso-American pyramids actually were built in the same period....The Holocene...

[Jens]

Um, guys, the Egyptian pyramids and the Meso-American pyramids actually were built in the same period....The Holocene...

As I wrote earlier, Caral (in Peru) dates from 2600 BC (though that is only the time when the site was first inhabited, not necessarily when everything wasbuilt). The earliest Egyptian pyramid is dated to 2620 BC. So it's not inconceivable that American and Egyptian pyramids originate from roughly the same period.

[Acolyte]

There's a few problems with this thread...

There is no evidence at all that the major Egyptian pyramids were ever used or even designed as tomb. They've never found a body in one nor (with the exception of 'graffiti' most likely daubed by Vyse) any writing. That's zip, nada, none.
The evidence for Vyse doing the graffiti is that it has the same 'misspelling' as his reference book had - the correction came later.

While the blocks are of limestone, they weigh from about 5 tonnes up. The problem with the ramp idea is, with what material did they make the ramp? And where has it gone?

There's also the problem that, to build a ramp (presuming they could haul dead weights up sand ramps without it all pouring away under pressure) they'd need somewhere between 5 & 10 times the total material of the Great Pyramid itself. That's between 10 & 20 million tonnes of ramp.

The sarcophagus inside the Great Pyramid is made of granite & is too large to have been taken in after the construction. So it had to be moved over 200 miles (from where it was quarried) then cut out (it's one block) by tools Egyptologists claim the Egyptians never had (copper & bronze will not cut granite) then hauled up the sand ramp to be placed before the next layer of stones was placed.

The Osirion & other temples are made of blocks wighing in upwards of 200 tonnes - we cannot move those blocks effectively today without something like a gantry crane. These were moved, lifted & placed precisely in position & some of them were moved from positions where there was barely walking room bside where they were cut.

The Sphinx & it's 'trench' show weathering signs that expert geologists all agree is from rain - long, heavy, ongoing rain. The last time Egypt had long, heavy, ongoing rain was sometime prior to about 6,000BC - a minimum of 2500 years BEFORE the first pharaoh.
The disagreement with this idea comes strictly from Egyptologists on the basis that, if there was such a civilisation, they (Egyptologists) would know about it.

The problem with the disagreement is that all the Egyptologists know of Egyptian history comes from 3 texts. The Book of the Dead, the Pyramid Texts & another one I can't recall the title of now - all reprints on walls of Mastabas - the places where they actually DID bury their dead pharaohs. The Egyptologists swear by the accuracy of the pharonic section of those texts but claim everything before (I think it was ) Menes (circa 3100BC) is religious mythology. That 'religious mythology' talks, like the Sumer texts, of a previous civilisation that was way beyond the ideas we have of even the Egyptian heights. And the dates go way back.

If you go to Giza, check the stone in front of the East side of the Great Pyramid. (Between Cairo & the Pyramid)
You will find 2 demarcation lines of erosion in the rock, one in close to the edge of the pyramid - this represents the erosion since the limestone facing was removed about 1000 years ago. The 2nd is further out & is quite a bit deeper, measurably about 7 times or more. That is the erosion line that used to be at the edge of the limestone facing. If the lesser one is 1000 years, how old is the deeper one?

Caral is a metropolis that was central to maybe 60 towns & villages between the valley & the sea. No evidence of war as a cause - it appears to be fully a trade-initiated civilisation. Dates to the time the Pyramids are supposed to have been built.

Teotihuacan was used by Toltecs & Aztecs but the Aztecs didn't apparently live there. Nobody seems quite sure just who built it but the 3 major pyramids follow the same layout as Giza - large pyramid, slightly smaller on, small 3rd one slightly offset to the line of the 1st 2.

Both Egypt & Mexican pyramids & monuments are VERY carefully aligned to the cardinal points. As an example, Greenwich 0 Longitude in England is not as accurate as the alignment of the Giza pyramid.

Tiahuanaco has stone carved jetties & wharves so it's evident it was a lake-using population. Problem is, the lake moved away, a LOOOOONG time ago - about 12,000 years back. There weren't supposed to be any city builders back then.

The boats on the lake were of identical design to the Nile boats used by the Egyptians & made of reeds.

There's more, much more. If you approach just the physical evidence with an open mind, it is quite easily seen that, at least, we do not know the full story of our history.

Given the false idea most people have of the sea-level rise after the end of the Ice Age, they find it difficult to understand where the builders went or why we don't have more evidence.

But the answers are there if you're willing to look. Or at least the beginnings of answers are.

[Disinfo Agent]

There's a few problems with this thread...

There is no evidence at all that the major Egyptian pyramids were ever used or even designed as tomb. Completely false. (http://thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=17)

And then I stopped reading your post.

[sarongsong]

How about making your point(s) rather than a giant page to sort through? It's like saying, "See Google".

[Kaptain K]

Acolyte,

You have made some radically ATM assertions. Do you have any citations to back them up?

[mugaliens]

Well, ignoring friction, the amount of force required to pull the 10 ton block up 10 degrees is simply 3473 pounds (10 tons * sin(10 degrees)). Factor in a 3.744 leverage and you get 927 lbs (actually closer to 928).

Of course, adding friction somewhat complicates things.

Thanks, cjl.

Let's assume 10% friction, which brings the force required to move the pyramid given the conditions I mentioned in my previous post up to around 1,030 lbs.

Assuming a downward slope of 45 degrees for the side of the pyramid, you'd need a weight of 1,457 lbs, or just 12 people with a mean weight of 130 lbs.

Just 12 people, with some strong ropes, some smarts, and some rollers, could, without straining, move a 10 ton, 20,000 lb block, up an incline built around the pyrmid during construction.

Do-able? Absolutely!

[mugaliens]

http://www.experiencefestival.com/ef-teachers/teacher/824

Do your Homework Mugaliens, We shouldn't have to do it for you.
Just hoist yourself up by your bootstraps and do some stinkin' RESEARCH!!

:p you had it comin':p

Thanks Neverfly.

Too much!

:lol:

[mugaliens]

There's a few problems with this thread...

Well, let me get my debunking hat on...

...there.

Back to your claims:

There is no evidence at all that the major Egyptian pyramids were ever used or even designed as tomb.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramids): "The first historically documented Egyptian pyramid is attributed to the architect Imhotep, who planned what Egyptologists believe to be a tomb for the pharaoh Djozer. Imhotep may have been the first to conceive the notion of stacking mastabas on top of each other — creating an edifice comprised of a number of "steps" that decreased in size towards its apex. The result was the Step Pyramid of Djozer — which was designed to serve as a gigantic stairway by which the soul of the deceased pharaoh could ascend to the heavens. Such was the importance of Imhotep's achievement that he was deified by later Egyptians." Source: The Pyramids: "Resurrection Machines". (Houghton Mifflin College) Retrieved April 13, 2005

Thus, it seems like the archeologists disagree with you.

While the blocks are of limestone, they weigh from about 5 tonnes up.[/quote]

Not a problem. See my previous post. Just 12 people weighing 130 lbs walking down the face of the pyramid are enough to move a 10-ton block.

The problem with the ramp idea is, with what material did they make the ramp? And where has it gone?

Probably the same material used to make most of the pyramid - locally mined marble.

Where does the scaffolding used to build a building go when they're done with the building? Marble is valuable material! I'm quite certain most of it was used in the construction of quite a few buildings!

There's also the problem that, to build a ramp (presuming they could haul dead weights up sand ramps without it all pouring away under pressure) they'd need somewhere between 5 & 10 times the total material of the Great Pyramid itself. That's between 10 & 20 million tonnes of ramp.

That's true only if the ramp extends straight out from the face of the pyramid. The ramp I described winds it's way around the pyramid like a helix, and uses the pyramid itself for support. Such a ramp would weigh less than the pyramid itself, assuming a mostly solid pyramid.

The sarcophagus inside the Great Pyramid...

What a minute... Did you say, "sarcophagus?" As in "Etymology: Latin sarcophagus (lapis) limestone used for coffins, from Greek (lithos) sarkophagos, literally, flesh-eating stone, from sark- sarc- + phagein to eat?"

I thought you said, "there was no body?" There doesn't have to be a body! Everyone knows the pyramids were robbed several times throughout history.

If there were no bodies initially, then it's not a sarcophagus. Since it is a sarcophagus, there was initially a body in there.

...is made of granite & is too large to have been taken in after the construction. So it had to be moved over 200 miles (from where it was quarried) then cut out (it's one block) by tools Egyptologists claim the Egyptians never had (copper & bronze will not cut granite) then hauled up the sand ramp to be placed before the next layer of stones was placed.

Why carve it? Simply take sand made of granite, or chunks of granite, and literally sand away the excess granite. Ever heard the expression, "the pyramids weren't built in a day?" There's a reason for that, namely because it took decades.

They had time.

The Osirion & other temples are made of blocks wighing in upwards of 200 tonnes - we cannot move those blocks effectively today without something like a gantry crane.

The PTC III (http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/Issue/Article/False/38541/Issue)(follow the link to the left, so you can see it with your own eyes) can lift 1,580 tons.

But you're right - that's a gantry crane. Provided you have an inclined ramp and rollers, however, one does not require a gantry crane! And marble is easily hewn, so quarrying, moving, and shaping even 200 ton blocks would simply have taken more people.

These were moved, lifted & placed precisely in position & some of them were moved from positions where there was barely walking room bside where they were cut.

I think you're knowledge of quarrying is a bit thin. To quarry a quarry a 200 ton block, you first dig a sloping ramp to the base of what's to be the first rock. Next, you dig to either side of it (barely walking room is fine). Then you use a drill to drill a line of small holes at both the top of the back as well as at the base of the front. Next you insert conical wedges into the holes and simultaneously hammer them, creating a crack along both the back and bottom. Then you line up your wooden rollers in front of the block. Finally, you insert long rods into the holes, and using either block and tackles or the simple rope leverage system whereby said ropes are attach to the rods next to the block, you tip the block over onto it's face, on the rollers, and employ the previous method I mentioned to remove it from the quarry.

Repeat for the next 30 years using 10,000 workers, and walla - one Great Egyptian Pyramid.

By the way, bronze is itself an alloy, and when alloyed with a few other key metals, is hard enough to face (cut away at a surface, smoothing it) the marble out of which the pyramids were built.

The Sphinx & it's 'trench' show weathering signs that expert geologists all agree is from rain - long, heavy, ongoing rain. The last time Egypt had long, heavy, ongoing rain was sometime prior to about 6,000BC - a minimum of 2500 years BEFORE the first pharaoh.
The disagreement with this idea comes strictly from Egyptologists on the basis that, if there was such a civilisation, they (Egyptologists) would know about it.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza): "Commonly believed to have been built by ancient Egyptians in the 3rd millennium BC, it is the earliest known monumental sculpture.[/quote]

That's about a thousand years before the first pyramid was built. Not three thousand years before it was built.

And contrary to popular misconception, it does rain in Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Climate), even today. I would imagine 5,000 years of rainfall, no matter how slight, would erode granite. After all, the Yosemite National Park is mostly granite, and having hiked in the highlands (the part above where the glacier carved out the main part of the valley) there are very clearly water-worn channels all over the place. Running through them are creeks and rivers such as the one feeding Upper Yosemite Falls.

If you go to Giza, check the stone in front of the East side of the Great Pyramid. (Between Cairo & the Pyramid)
You will find 2 demarcation lines of erosion in the rock, one in close to the edge of the pyramid - this represents the erosion since the limestone facing was removed about 1000 years ago. The 2nd is further out & is quite a bit deeper, measurably about 7 times or more. That is the erosion line that used to be at the edge of the limestone facing. If the lesser one is 1000 years, how old is the deeper one?

The desert now inhabited by Las Vegas were grasslands just 300 years ago.

Local climates change, often dramatically, and in very short order. You cannot claim that because it's 7 times as deep that it occured 7,000 years ago.

Caral is a metropolis that was central to maybe 60 towns & villages between the valley & the sea. No evidence of war as a cause - it appears to be fully a trade-initiated civilisation. Dates to the time the Pyramids are supposed to have been built.

And your point is...?

Teotihuacan was used by Toltecs & Aztecs but the Aztecs didn't apparently live there. Nobody seems quite sure just who built it but the 3 major pyramids follow the same layout as Giza - large pyramid, slightly smaller on, small 3rd one slightly offset to the line of the 1st 2.

Most pyramids do look much the same, hence the term "pyramid." If were a block structure it wouldn't be called a "pyramid."

Both Egypt & Mexican pyramids & monuments are VERY carefully aligned to the cardinal points. As an example, Greenwich 0 Longitude in England is not as accurate as the alignment of the Giza pyramid.

Why would you find it amazing that sea-faring (ie, possessing navigational abilities) nations with a few of the stars (particularly Polaris, the North Star) are somehow "magically" able to align two sides of a square-based structure to true north? Especially when genetic testing has proven that many South Americans are genetically descended from peoples found on most islands throughout the South Pacific? They somehow managed to migrate to those islands... Why wouldn't they manage to migrate to South America? Thor Heyerdahl's expeditions showed that it was entirely possible to build a sailboat of reeds perfectly capable of such voyages.

Tiahuanaco has stone carved jetties & wharves so it's evident it was a lake-using population. Problem is, the lake moved away, a LOOOOONG time ago - about 12,000 years back. There weren't supposed to be any city builders back then.

Says who?

The boats on the lake were of identical design to the Nile boats used by the Egyptians & made of reeds.

See previous about Thor Heyerdahl. Better yet, look him up on Wikipedia.

There's more, much more. If you approach just the physical evidence with an open mind, it is quite easily seen that, at least, we do not know the full story of our history.

Given the false idea most people have of the sea-level rise after the end of the Ice Age, they find it difficult to understand where the builders went or why we don't have more evidence.

Most old civilizations and populations lived near the sea. In fact, most still do, even today. If there were any appreciable rise in sea levels, the remnant buildings of ancient civilizations has long since eroded into sand by the pounding erosion of the waves of a relentless sea.

Back to square one:

1. The Sphinx was built in 3000 bce, not 6,000 bce.

2. Climate, and thus erosion patterns, can change quite dramatically in less than a century.

3. People a lot smarter than I have figured out numerous ways a bronze-age society could have built the pyramids.

4. Some of your claims (such as the one about how we can't lift 200 tons with a crane, when I gave you a link to one that can life more than 1,500 tons) are wildly off target.

5. I agree with another's comments doubting the claims about how the Mayan calendar dates back to the Big Bang.

Having said all of that, I'll say this: It's entirely possible that sometime in the distant past, some segment of human society developed the equivalent of an iron-age society, complete with higher math, technology, machines, even perhaps steam power, electrical generation, etc., but perhaps due to war, famine, disease, or some combination, that was lost, the materials either eroding, rusting, or transformed by the conquerers into swords, perhaps.

However, to date, we haven't found any evidence of this. Therefore, I find it unlikely that this is the case.

[Gort]

Dr. Calleman used a code that was left on a stelae and it gave him the basis for deciphering the long count calander. You would have to listen to one of Ian Lungold's videos 2 hrs worth your time. Just go to the mayan Majix site I posted above. Dr. Calleman is a man who uses science and fact to prove his theories. It took him years of intense research.


um


Help me out here but...

How could they demonstrate that the Mayan Calender starts at the same time as the Big Bang?:doh:

Sounds like hogwash to me.

[Neverfly]

Before I begin... Gort- understand that I am neither attacking nor insulting you. However, I need to address this post instructively.


Dr. Calleman used a code that was left on a stelae and it gave him the basis for deciphering the long count calander. You would have to listen to one of Ian Lungold's videos 2 hrs worth your time. Just go to the mayan Majix site I posted above. Dr. Calleman is a man who uses science and fact to prove his theories. It took him years of intense research.

You are clearly demonstrating several misconceptions about how one uses science, how science works, what a theory is and how it works and what proof is and how things are proven.

Secondly, granting that the good Dr. worked out the Mayan Calender correctly( Which operates on the small scale measure of time) How the Heck does he Know when the Big Bang was - on the Small Measurement Scale of Time?!?!?!

[captain swoop]

So do many things, but a well made (and quite thick) rope can supply surprising amounts of force. Ropes made from natural fibers are quite adequate for forces into the thousands of pounds, although they would have to be rather thick for that kind of load.

Next time you are at a Seaport watch a Tug bringing a ship in, Down at Teesport near me Bulk Carriers full of Iron Ore and Coal for the Blast Furnace at Redcar get towed in with a single rope, they are over 200,000 tonnes dwt

[Gort]

Sorry people, I was invited to join this board. I can see that I do not belong here as this is not a discussion board but a place for people to post and get ridiculed. I obviously don't share the same level of intelligence.

[Kaptain K]

So far, you haven't discussed anything! All you have done is post some links and suggest we watch a two hour video. If that is your definition of discussion, then yes, you have come to the wrong place!

[sarongsong]

...watch a Tug bringing a [Bulk Carrier] ship in...with a single rope, they are over 200,000 tonnes dwtYes, but I doubt that rope is made of "natural fibers (http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/trades/rope.htm)". :)

Also:
THE HISTORY OF ROPEMAKING (http://www.rope-maker.com/ropehistory.html)

[Acolyte]

There is no evidence at all that the major Egyptian pyramids were ever used or even designed as tomb.
From Wikipedia: "The first historically documented Egyptian pyramid is attributed to the architect Imhotep, who planned what Egyptologists believe to be a tomb for the pharaoh Djozer. Imhotep may have been the first to conceive the notion of stacking mastabas on top of each other — creating an edifice comprised of a number of "steps" that decreased in size towards its apex. The result was the Step Pyramid of Djozer — which was designed to serve as a gigantic stairway by which the soul of the deceased pharaoh could ascend to the heavens. Such was the importance of Imhotep's achievement that he was deified by later Egyptians." Source: The Pyramids: "Resurrection Machines". (Houghton Mifflin College) Retrieved April 13, 2005
Thus, it seems like the archeologists disagree with you. No, actually it’s the Egyptologists who disagree. It’s easy to sit & not think about the puzzles we’re faced with when looking at Egypt. The dating has been done on the basis of some very shaky assumptions & some things seem very strange indeed.
For example, by orthodox ‘dating’ there was Djozer’s step pyramid, then came Giza, following the usual way humans do thing – start crude & get better. But after the 4th Dynasty pyramids, almost all those that followed are of such poor workmanship they haven’t lasted the journey through time, & yet there is no evidence of any events that may have caused an interruption in the transmission of knowledge & techniques.
Another point is I specifically said ‘major’ pyramids.
And while Wiki is a nice source, you should be wary of the information contained there. It often has not gone through any rigorous examination for accuracy & quite often is used to present a specific view.

The problem with the ramp idea is, with what material did they make the ramp? And where has it gone? There's also the problem that, to build a ramp (presuming they could haul dead weights up sand ramps without it all pouring away under pressure) they'd need somewhere between 5 & 10 times the total material of the Great Pyramid itself. That's between 10 & 20 million tonnes of ramp.
Probably the same material used to make most of the pyramid - locally mined marble.

Where does the scaffolding used to build a building go when they're done with the building? Marble is valuable material! I'm quite certain most of it was used in the construction of quite a few buildings!
That's true only if the ramp extends straight out from the face of the pyramid. The ramp I described winds it's way around the pyramid like a helix, and uses the pyramid itself for support. Such a ramp would weigh less than the pyramid itself, assuming a mostly solid pyramid. Nice try but you’ve just doubled the job they had to do.
You might note also that building a ramp around the pyramid is rather unworkable due to the ramp covering up corners & sight lines needed to ensure the accuracy. It would be extremely difficult to maintain the required angles & measurements without the corners & footing to measure against.

The sarcophagus inside the Great Pyramid...
What a minute... Did you say, "sarcophagus?" As in "Etymology: Latin sarcophagus (lapis) limestone used for coffins, from Greek (lithos) sarkophagos, literally, flesh-eating stone, from sark- sarc- + phagein to eat?"

I thought you said, "there was no body?" There doesn't have to be a body! Everyone knows the pyramids were robbed several times throughout history.

If there were no bodies initially, then it's not a sarcophagus. Since it is a sarcophagus, there was initially a body in there. Hey I didn’t name it sarcophagus – that’s what the Egyptologists call it & so it’s what people know it as.
We have a record of entry into the pyramid by Caliph al Mamoun & there seems not to have been a lid or a body in the granite box. Mamoun is the guy who cut the entry way & found the granite plugs. Although there is some implication in the account that they tripped a system that caused the blocks to ‘thud’ into place. There’s also a suggestion that Mamoun’s diggers cut the tunnel out rather than in. It does seem a remcarkable feat to drive a tunnel straight to the spot where the ascending tunnel is.

...is made of granite & is too large to have been taken in after the construction. So it had to be moved over 200 miles (from where it was quarried) then cut out (it's one block) by tools Egyptologists claim the Egyptians never had (copper & bronze will not cut granite) then hauled up the sand ramp to be placed before the next layer of stones was placed.
Why carve it? Simply take sand made of granite, or chunks of granite, and literally sand away the excess granite. Ever heard the expression, "the pyramids weren't built in a day?" There's a reason for that, namely because it took decades.

They had time. I don’t know why it was carved, but it was. It wasn’t ground down – you only have to stand beside it & look at it to know that – the angles are too precise for it to have been rubbed down. Being red granite, it is harder than the tools which Egyptologists claim the Egyptians possessed. Even diamond points in a bronze saw would, under pressure, simply cut into the bronze before making an impression on the granite. And there is no evidence they used such a tool anyway.

The Osirion & other temples are made of blocks weighing in upwards of 200 tonnes - we cannot move those blocks effectively today without something like a gantry crane.
The PTC III (follow the link to the left, so you can see it with your own eyes) can lift 1,580 tons.

But you're right - that's a gantry crane. Provided you have an inclined ramp and rollers, however, one does not require a gantry crane! And marble is easily hewn, so quarrying, moving, and shaping even 200 ton blocks would simply have taken more people. Granite is not so easily hewn & a number of sites in Egypt have blocks which not only are precisely ‘machined’ & fitted but that have travelled long distances to be where we find them.
I didn’t say ‘lift’ I said ‘move effectively’ – some of these huge weights were moved many kilometres to get where they now rest. Proving that with all our modern technology we can lift a large weight & move it the diameter of the circular platform of a crane needing 20 large containers of modern machinery & parts shows nothing about what the Egyptians achieved nor does it address what I said.

These were moved, lifted & placed precisely in position & some of them were moved from positions where there was barely walking room beside where they were cut.
I think you're knowledge of quarrying is a bit thin. To quarry a quarry a 200 ton block, you first dig a sloping ramp to the base of what's to be the first rock. Next, you dig to either side of it (barely walking room is fine). Then you use a drill to drill a line of small holes at both the top of the back as well as at the base of the front. Next you insert conical wedges into the holes and simultaneously hammer them, creating a crack along both the back and bottom. Then you line up your wooden rollers in front of the block. Finally, you insert long rods into the holes, and using either block and tackles or the simple rope leverage system whereby said ropes are attach to the rods next to the block, you tip the block over onto it's face, on the rollers, and employ the previous method I mentioned to remove it from the quarry.

Repeat for the next 30 years using 10,000 workers, and walla - one Great Egyptian Pyramid.

By the way, bronze is itself an alloy, and when alloyed with a few other key metals, is hard enough to face (cut away at a surface, smoothing it) the marble out of which the pyramids were built. *grins* One wonders what the roller would be made of to survive a 200 tonne weight of rock. Would it roll or squelch?
There is no evidence the Egyptians knew of those other alloys nor is marble or limestone the hardest rock they used. Some of the granite artefacts show high precision interior curves
I think maybe my knowledge of quarrying is just fine thank you. The problem with what you suggest is a way to make the blocks is twofold – there’s no evidence of the drill holes, & given they supposedly only had copper & bronze with which to work, how did they drill the holes you mention?
I think perhaps you should do some research into artefacts we have in museums with strange markings. Engineers look at parallel grooves on the inside curve of granite cups & bowls & estimate the speed of cutting needed. (see http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/photo/plate14.html for examples) & Flinders Petrie found some surprising http://www.touregypt.net/petrie/c19.html

The Sphinx & it's 'trench' show weathering signs that expert geologists all agree is from rain - long, heavy, ongoing rain. The last time Egypt had long, heavy, ongoing rain was sometime prior to about 6,000BC - a minimum of 2500 years BEFORE the first pharaoh.
The disagreement with this idea comes strictly from Egyptologists on the basis that, if there was such a civilisation, they (Egyptologists) would know about it.
From Wikipedia: "Commonly believed to have been built by ancient Egyptians in the 3rd millennium BC, it is the earliest known monumental sculpture.

That's about a thousand years before the first pyramid was built. Not three thousand years before it was built.

And contrary to popular misconception, it does rain in Egypt, even today. I would imagine 5,000 years of rainfall, no matter how slight, would erode granite. After all, the Yosemite National Park is mostly granite, and having hiked in the highlands (the part above where the glacier carved out the main part of the valley) there are very clearly water-worn channels all over the place. Running through them are creeks and rivers such as the one feeding Upper Yosemite Falls. [/quote]Of course it rains in Egypt. But the geologists were pretty set on the fact that it was ongoing heavy rains, rains over a long period. They have the evidence of the strata hardness & the shape of the weathering.
Unlike the Egyptologists, they use science to prove their case. And ‘commonly believed’ is not exactly any kind of evidence compared with the expert opinions of a large number of experienced Geologists. They specifically refute the idea of wind or sand erosion & the top-down erosion pattern removes the possibility of Nile floods doing the damage.
My guess would be Science beats wiki as a source of truth.

If you go to Giza, check the stone in front of the East side of the Great Pyramid. (Between Cairo & the Pyramid)
You will find 2 demarcation lines of erosion in the rock, one in close to the edge of the pyramid - this represents the erosion since the limestone facing was removed about 1000 years ago. The 2nd is further out & is quite a bit deeper, measurably about 7 times or more. That is the erosion line that used to be at the edge of the limestone facing. If the lesser one is 1000 years, how old is the deeper one?
The desert now inhabited by Las Vegas were grasslands just 300 years ago.

Local climates change, often dramatically, and in very short order. You cannot claim that because it's 7 times as deep that it occured 7,000 years ago. Unfortunately, we do actually have ways to check on local climate changes & so we know just what the weather conditions have been in Egypt for many thousands of years. You have to remember, Egypt is probably the most extensively studied place on Earth.
So, it turns out, we can know what influences have been brought to bear to cause the erosion.

Caral is a metropolis that was central to maybe 60 towns & villages between the valley & the sea. No evidence of war as a cause - it appears to be fully a trade-initiated civilisation. Dates to the time the Pyramids are supposed to have been built.
And your point is...? Um… see the OP & thread title?

Teotihuacan was used by Toltecs & Aztecs but the Aztecs didn't apparently live there. Nobody seems quite sure just who built it but the 3 major pyramids follow the same layout as Giza - large pyramid, slightly smaller on, small 3rd one slightly offset to the line of the 1st 2.
Most pyramids do look much the same, hence the term "pyramid." If were a block structure it wouldn't be called a "pyramid." You seem to have missed the entire point here. It isn’t that they are pyramids, it’s that they are laid out in exactly the same alignment as those in Egypt.

[Acolyte]

Both Egypt & Mexican pyramids & monuments are VERY carefully aligned to the cardinal points. As an example, Greenwich 0 Longitude in England is not as accurate as the alignment of the Giza pyramid.
Why would you find it amazing that sea-faring (ie, possessing navigational abilities) nations with a few of the stars (particularly Polaris, the North Star) are somehow "magically" able to align two sides of a square-based structure to true north? Especially when genetic testing has proven that many South Americans are genetically descended from peoples found on most islands throughout the South Pacific? They somehow managed to migrate to those islands... Why wouldn't they manage to migrate to South America? Thor Heyerdahl's expeditions showed that it was entirely possible to build a sailboat of reeds perfectly capable of such voyages. I don’t find it ‘amazing’ etc. What I find amazing is the precision with which millions of tons of stone are aligned to the cardinal points to an accuracy that even the Greenwich Meridian building doesn’t aspire. Even if you don’t find the ‘how’ to be amazing, perhaps the ‘why’ might be a little boggling?

Oh, & I think Heyerdahl was attempting to (& did) show that the Pacific Islanders were descended from the South Americans, not the other way around.

Tiahuanaco has stone carved jetties & wharves so it's evident it was a lake-using population. Problem is, the lake moved away, a LOOOOONG time ago - about 12,000 years back. There weren't supposed to be any city builders back then.
Says who? Says who what? You mean about the lake moving – normal everyday archaeology – dig, find old marine forms etc. You mean who says no builders? That would be orthodox historians. 12,000 years ago we were supposedly hunting & gathering.

The boats on the lake were of identical design to the Nile boats used by the Egyptians & made of reeds.
See previous about Thor Heyerdahl. Better yet, look him up on Wikipedia. Not sure what Heyerdahl has to do with anything here. He set out to show a South American source for cultures in the Pacific. Then he showed with Ra & Ra 2 that the ancient design of reed boats could make the journey. That would seem to indicate a connection between Egypt & South America as the OP states.
So I might ask you… your point would be…?

There's more, much more. If you approach just the physical evidence with an open mind, it is quite easily seen that, at least, we do not know the full story of our history.
Given the false idea most people have of the sea-level rise after the end of the Ice Age, they find it difficult to understand where the builders went or why we don't have more evidence.
Most old civilizations and populations lived near the sea. In fact, most still do, even today. If there were any appreciable rise in sea levels, the remnant buildings of ancient civilizations has long since eroded into sand by the pounding erosion of the waves of a relentless sea. That may be the case if the sea gradually crept up to the buildings. If however, there was a catastrophic rise, buildings of stone might very well survive the initial inundation & form then on be protected by the water covering.

There are ruins off Japan, http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html off India & Ceylon, in the Black Sea, in the Mediterranean, off Cuba and reports of structures in Titicaca.


1. The Sphinx was built in 3000 bce, not 6,000 bce.
2. Climate, and thus erosion patterns, can change quite dramatically in less than a century.
3. People a lot smarter than I have figured out numerous ways a bronze-age society could have built the pyramids.
4. Some of your claims (such as the one about how we can't lift 200 tons with a crane, when I gave you a link to one that can life more than 1,500 tons) are wildly off target.
5. I agree with another's comments doubting the claims about how the Mayan calendar dates back to the Big Bang.

Having said all of that, I'll say this: It's entirely possible that sometime in the distant past, some segment of human society developed the equivalent of an iron-age society, complete with higher math, technology, machines, even perhaps steam power, electrical generation, etc., but perhaps due to war, famine, disease, or some combination, that was lost, the materials either eroding, rusting, or transformed by the conquerers into swords, perhaps.

However, to date, we haven't found any evidence of this. Therefore, I find it unlikely that this is the case. 1. The dating of the Sphinx being 3000BC is just assertion & not based on the science involved in real dating. The erosion specifically stands against such a recent date. If you look into just how it came to be dated then you find it’s attributed that date because that’s when the Great Pyramid was built – many Egyptian relics have been attributed because of a nearby relic or statue.
There have been numerous restoration efforts on the Sphinx & it has been buried in sand a number of times. At least one of the restorations was within a couple of centuries of the purported build date. And that’s according to the Egyptologists.
From http://www.teamatlantis.com/yucatan_test/restoration.html
Since the emergence of modern academic Egyptology nearly 200 years ago, many have questioned the orthodox claim that the Sphinx and 75% of the pyramids were built during the 4th Dynasty (2575 BC - 2465 BC). This debate was recently rekindled when John Anthony West and Dr. Robert Schoch of Boston University published their research on the erosive patterns found on the Sphinx and its enclosure (the cavity in which the Sphinx sits). Their geological analysis unveiled strong evidence that the Sphinx was not built during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, but in fact, much earlier. The undulating patterns, they say, are indicative of precipitation-based erosion. This contradicts the orthodox view which holds that the erosion on the Sphinx is due to wind-weathering. West and Schoch maintain that the last time Egypt hosted such rainfall was near the end of the last ice age. If the theory stands, it may place the Sphinx's original construction date as much or more than 12,500 years ago.
West's and Schoch's theory is supported by a number of other interesting facts. Orthodox Egyptologists believe there was a minimum of 3 restorations done to the Sphinx; all post-4th Dynasty. These restorations, they say, account for the exterior blocks that wrap the rump and encase the paws. According to these Egyptologists, there have been no attempts to restore the Sphinx's back, neck, or head. They also believe that three-hundred years lapsed between the Sphinx's original construction (circa 2500 BC) and the first attempt at restoration (circa 2200 BC). This 300 year period comprises roughly three feet of erosion which is apparent across on the Sphinx's back and body. However, this dogma is problematic. At an estimated erosion rate of one foot per one-hundred years, the Sphinx would have eroded away nearly five-hundred years ago. There is an obvious incongruity present.
2. The Climate of the area is well documented & it is unlikely in the extreme that there was an extended period of precipitation since 3000BC that isn’t documented. On the other hand we know very well that the Sahara used to be a fertile plain prior to roughly 6,000BC.

3. And they all have problems. They’ve even tried to duplicate at small scale methods to do such building & each has failed to achieve what they tried to do. While theories are many there are currently no proven methods by which the Egyptians could have built the major pyramids. And keep in mind, ALL the major pyramids were built in a period, even by conventional dating, of about 100 years. Something like 95% of all the stone moved by the Egyptian civilization was done in the 4th dynasty, even by Egyptology accounts.
People a lot smarter than I have spent a long time trying to find answers & usually find more questions than answers.
One who might have been able to tell us died without so doing & left only more mysteries behind to show he knew something we don’t. Try google for ‘coral castle’ or ‘ed leedskalnin’
4. 20 containers of high tech modern crane to lift large weights and still only capable of moving them a very short distance on a circular track do not, in any way make what I said ‘wildly off target’ – you’re reaching here.

Using a lack of evidence to come to the conclusion that it is unlikely people in the past knew & did more than orthodox Egyptology gives them credit for is not exactly rigorous science. Faced with a number of mysteries you opt for an orthodox explanation without looking at the questions being asked by those who’ve spent years trying to find answers.

[Disinfo Agent]

Acolyte, if you really want to refute mainstream Egyptology, why aren't you posting over at The Hall of Ma'at?
Or better yet, why aren't you doing some research to get it published?

[mugaliens]

Yes, but I doubt that rope is made of "natural fibers (http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/trades/rope.htm)". :)

Also:
THE HISTORY OF ROPEMAKING (http://www.rope-maker.com/ropehistory.html)

The ones that tugs used on the Titanic (46,000+ tons) most certainly were...

[mugaliens]

As for rope... I know a few things about rope.

The first summer out of high school I worked for a marine and sporting goods store (think of an REI that also sells boats of all kinds, waterskiis, and related accessories). I was "the rope guy," both for my marine experience as well as for the fact that no one else who worked there had half a clue about the do's, don'ts, and gotchas of the 38 varieties of rope we sold. By mid-summer, I was conducting weekly seminars on ropes, splicing, and knots to 20-30 person crowds of retired lawyers, doctors, military turned day-sailors.

I couldn't believe how much they were willing to pay for this stuff, nor how little of a cut I got from the owner of the place.

I'm a licensed ship's captain (by the US Navy, no less) for sailing vessels up to 30'. I didn't go for a larger LOA or displacement simply because I had no intention of renting a larger vessel. But my license allows me to rent sailboats in well over a hundred countries, no questions asked (thank you Navy!).

I've also toured the USS Guam (an LPH, retired in 1998). The tour was conducted by her ship's Captain. It was a private tour, consisting of her Captain, myself, and my girlfriend at the time, who was the daughter of a retired Marine Colonel. We spent well over three hours (possibly four) going over the tech specs of just about every compartment from the hawse to the bilge to the engine room to ship's quarters to (Big Don's probably saying, "Hey! This guy knows a bit of Navyspeak!" by now) to the mini 7-Eleven store the had slightly forward of amidships (now BD is sweating), and to port (now BD is swearing) to intel to the bridge to... We toured the entire ship. I don't think there is a compartment we missed, unless merely entering that compartment rendered it classified.

With the 3D mind that I have, I'm quite certain that we did indeed tour the whole ship, including being served lunch in the Captain's cabin. It wasn't big, but the lunch was huge! Don't ask me details, for there aren't any. Just a spread of cuts of beef, some vegetables, rolls, and fish that are available in every city throughout the world. It was merely very well selected and compiled, and incredibly delicious.

Back to ropes...

The HSS Titanic (40,000+ tons) was both towed and moored with natural fiber ropes.

The USS Guam was, at the very least, moored to it's bollards (BD is really sweating, now) with natural fiber rope (I checked during my "tour"). The Captain of the USS Guam even gave me the "chance" to secure an additional mooring line after we disembarked. A deckhand tossed me a monkyball to the stern breast line point, after which I pulled the heaving line, then the mooring line (that was incredibly heavy) and I affixed a second mooring line to that point on the pier. It was only afterwards that the captain told me he usually has three hands pull in the mooring line.

Thanks.

The strange thing is that it wasn't nylon, which is what I expected due to it's elasticity. Typically, mooring lines are chosen for their stretch, to help distribute loads during various events, mostly (for an ) like high winds. However, since we pulled the Guam in tight to the pier on all moorings, I can only assume that the extra stretch wasn't needed (Norfolk's tides are minimal, and the natural fibers they used are well suited to handle what they do experience without excess strain).

And Polypropylene has minimal stretch and floats on water, which is why it's used for water ski rope.

Yeah. I know one or two things about rope.

[sarongsong]

The ones that tugs used on the Titanic (46,000+ tons) most certainly were...The Egyptians didn't have hemp (http://www.cannabisculture.com/magazine/cc09/smokesignals/titanic/index.htmlhttp://www.cannabisculture.com/magazine/cc09/smokesignals/titanic/index.htmlhttp://www.cannabisculture.com/magazine/cc09/smokesignals/titanic/index.html).

[captain swoop]

Acolyte, how do you think the Pyramids were built? you must have some ideas, you seem very certainthat the mainstream is wrong, why don't you enlighten us?

[Acolyte]

Disinfo Agent: There's a little matter of Time - living a life & ensuring food enters 2 mouths at regular intervals doesn't leave a lot of time for unpaid research.

captain swoop: Firstly, finding holes in the mainstream ideas of Egypt (& other early civilisations) isn't particularly hard to do. vis-a-vis the Sphinx rain issue. Although I do find it surprising that people who otherwise accept the principles of science remain steadfastly accepting of the Egyptology view against the expert word of a whole swag of Geologists.

It's also interesting how Tiahuanaco somehow doesn't (in those same eyes) invalidate the whole 'Man started becoming civilised about 5000BC in the Fertile Crescent' idea, even though the most conservative estimates place it somewhere over 10,000 years old.

It takes a determined view that orthodoxy is right to avoid the conclusion that the submerged ruins off Japan and other places are somehow 'natural' phenomena.

So coming to a conclusion that mainstream isn't telling us all isn't difficult. Finding the truth is surprisingly difficult. Schock & West were basically kicked out of Egypt on a pretext as soon as it was realised what they were proving. Rudolf Gantenbrink also had his permit rather suddenly revoked when he found the doors in the Pyramid shaft.

the more one investigates what has been going on with Egypt, the stranger it gets.

However, I've mentioned Ed Leedskalnin a couple of times; strangely it seems to have been missed. He spent his life moving rocks around to make a stone garden. He was attacked on the streets of Miami & moved the entire thing out of town. He died leaving behind some wire mesh, some chains with a breaking strength of maybe 1 tonne, a couple of lightweight pulleys & a donkey engine. Professional engineers have no explanation for how he used that collection to move multi-ton rocks around.

I think maybe he knew something we don't & that maybe the pre-Egyptian builders did.

To keep this on topic, I think also there are links that bring together the sites from ancient times. A lot of people don't know there are pyramids in China as well.

I don't think the same culture necessarily built them all, but I think it's possible the cultures that did build them had a common ancestral society.

[Jens]

There are ruins off Japan, http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html off India & Ceylon, in the Black Sea, in the Mediterranean, off Cuba and reports of structures in Titicaca.


I think it is likely that the Yonaguni formation is actually a natural formation. I think that Robert Schoch (the one who claims the Sphinx was weathered by pouring rains) concluded that it is probably natural. I've seen lots of pictures (I have a book about it at home, by Kimura) and although they do seem striking, I also am a bit skeptical.

[Acolyte]

In the same way perhaps as the Sphinx is a natural formation?

It's surprising how many people know that part but don't recall Schock followed that statement with "We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times."

And there is now much more to view than just the Monument.

I also have looked at the Yonaguni photos & it is hard to think of a process that can carve, shape & inscribe rock in such fashion.

If you find one rock that shows straight edges & smooth surface, you can think of it as similar to the sandstone strata seen to be eroded out in other areas. Seeing multiple structures with a wide variety of such angles, some of which are on opposite sides of rocks (making it unlikely in the extreme that wave action could be responsible) plus channels with steps, with an overhead bridge, tunnels that seem to be shaped artificially & with symbols carved into the rock makes it hard to find a natural cause.

Getting back to the topic, another point with Egypt & South America is that there is no evidence of the large society needed to support such major construction works nor the essential development of the science & technology needed to perform the work. Such societies had to have the ability to free up thousands of highly trained people, over an extended period, with no expectation they will be contributing to the needs of society.

As an example, the Army will tell you it takes 10 people in the background to support one guy with a gun.

The knowledge they used appears to have come from nowhere. The underwater buildings give us a possible source from where the knowledge may have come. Interestingly, the progenitor civilisation would solve another issue with our ancient cities - they appear almost full-fledged from very few antecedents.

[cjl]

Actually, for Egypt, there were a number of people who were free a large portion of the year to work on the pyramids. These people were the farmers. While the Nile was flooding in its annual cycle, the farmers were free to work on other projects. Like pyramids.

[geonuc]

Most old civilizations and populations lived near the sea. In fact, most still do, even today. If there were any appreciable rise in sea levels, the remnant buildings of ancient civilizations has long since eroded into sand by the pounding erosion of the waves of a relentless sea.
I always thought that was true, as well. I don't now.

The Sumerians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Mittani, Elamites, Egyptians - most of these people had little to do with the sea. The Egyptians in particular avoided the Mediterranean like it was the plague.

The cities they built were not on the sea - Thebes, Memphis, Ur, Babylon, Hattusas, Susa, etc.

Moreover, the ancient civilizations in China and India were nowhere near the sea.

Other civilizations, sure. But the ones I mentioned above cover quite a large portion of ancient humanity.

[Jens]

It's surprising how many people know that part but don't recall Schock followed that statement with "We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times."


To be honest, I am not committed one way or the other on this. I'm very willing to entertain the possibility that it is human-made. My recollection is that geologists have said that the steps and things could have been made through geologic processes. But if it does turn out that it's artificial, I'll be happy to learn about it.

[Jens]

The Sumerians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Mittani, Elamites, Egyptians - most of these people had little to do with the sea. The Egyptians in particular avoided the Mediterranean like it was the plague.


I doubt the thing about the sea as well. I think a better way to put would be, "near bodies of water." Because many civilizations were set up along rivers or lakes. Think of the Aztecs or the Shang civilization in China, or the Indus Valley civilization in India/Pakistan.

[Acolyte]

Here's a 'what if...' for you.

What if West, Schock, Bauval, Dunn, Hancock & others are correct & there was a progenitor civilisation, accustomed to working in stone, that spread across the Earth (& so had the knowledge needed to produce the maps from which those like Piri Reis got his data) that got destroyed by the sea.

And there is evidence that there were 2 & possibly 3 episodes of catastrophic rise in the sea levels. One when the mass of ice (estimated at at least a 1/3 of what was there) let go from Antarctica & again when the Agassiz Lake in Canada let go as the ice dam gave way all at once. There was possibly another (or it may have been part of the Agassiz event) when the ice mass floated at Hudson Bay.

Recently there has also been the realisation that the land masses are not unaffected by the presence of ice. When ice releases from land, or when it melts, the land under it will rise & there can be a seesaw effect where nearby land, forced up by the weight of ice elsewhere, will sink as the pressure is released from nearby.

For example, I think it's the west island in Antartica is currently lower than sea level because of ice but would rise back above sea level if or when the ice goes.

So, if the catastrophic end of the previous civilisation was caused in such a way, there would seem to be two possibilities -

one is the survivors ensured they moved as far as possible from the sea before planting new roots &, using the knowledge from the past, kick-started new civilisations.
In one fell swoop we'd have answers to a lot of the mysteries from the past - how the cities appeared with hardly any evidence of development, where we got wheat, rice & corn from, (you do know they are not like their relatives?) why the flood myth is so prevalent (along with stories of how each 'tribe' had someone come from the sea to bring them knowledge & civilisation) & out-of-time knowledge like number systems & astronomical information.

Another is only the sites far from the seas escaped total overwhelm & so they became the focus of the new growth.

It would also explain why the early civilisations we know of all built pyramids
& monolithic structures, how come they had the fascination with the stars to the point of laying things out for observation, & even why we have societies that appear with a swag of new ideas & processes then don't change or change for the worse over hundreds of years.

If the knowledge was inherited, there wouldn't be the creative background needed to ensure it kept on being renewed. They'd use what they're taught & over time lose the detail & skills as those who knew, or were taught directly by those who knew die off.

So in Mexico, China & Egypt, the child-societies would inherit knowledge & maybe try to emulate or reproduce the older 'Golden Age' but as time passed, they would lapse & stagnate until they reproduce the foundations of knowledge needed to understand the higher level they vaguely understood long ago.

Just a 'what if...'

[Kaptain K]

You keep throwing out ATM ideas here with no documentation.

[geonuc]

...Recently there has also been the realisation that the land masses are not unaffected by the presence of ice. ...
Not very recently. Geologists have known of isostasy for quite some time.

[Acolyte]

You keep throwing out ATM ideas here with no documentation.I am not so sure this is accurate - the ideas that we have been taught in school history classes are being shown to be the ATM ideas. I've been to Egypt, Greece, Italy & a number of other places. I asked in Egypt if they'd ever found or heard of a mummy being found in one of the major pyramids.

The writing question brought only Vyse evidence. Petrie found the level of technology involved in the artefacts he found to be anachronistic. Rudolf Gantenbrink made world headlines with Upaut. The underwater discoveries around the world have been receiving publicity for the last decade & a half.

One should instead be asking those who hold the orthodox views just what evidence they can provide to counteract the questions being asked.

I think I give plenty of checkable detail...
eg.
Some references already quoted -
West, Schock, Bauval, Dunn, Hancock, Yonaguni, Tiahuanaco, Ed Leedskalnin, Coral Castle, ‘…aligned to the cardinal points to an accuracy that even the Greenwich Meridian building…’ http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html http://www.teamatlantis.com/yucatan_...storation.html (http://www.teamatlantis.com/yucatan_test/restoration.html) ‘We have a record of entry into the pyramid by Caliph al Mamoun & there seems not to have been a lid or a body in the granite box’

And for the most recent post...

Some references for a not-so-gradual sea level rise…
Lake Agassiz - http://www.cloudnet.com/~edrbsass/agassiz.htm (http://www.cloudnet.com/%7Eedrbsass/agassiz.htm)
Effects of draining - http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-04zzzy.html
From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz
Lake Missoula - http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/
Sudden change in sea level - http://www.mbari.org/news/homepage/2004/reefs-webster.html
More sudden changes - http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-113807.html

[geonuc]

And for the most recent post...

I wasn't disputing your notion of sea-level rise, only that isostasy is something 'recently realized'.

[Acolyte]

I wasn't disputing your notion of sea-level rise, only that isostasy is something 'recently realized'.That's OK, I wasn't replying to your comment. :)

But you'd be surprised how recently I was talking to a Geology student from Melbourne Uni who thought I had to be talking crap when I talked about land rising or sinking because of weight.

[captain swoop]

If ythis civilization spanned the globe isn't it a bit of a stretch to think that they were completely wiped out by sea level change? didn't they think it would be a good idea to move uphill? Surely they cxan't have all lived in areas that got drowned by the end of the Ice Age.

I don't doubt that there were people displace3d by the melting of the ice. In fact, I just watched a 'Time Team Special' on channel 4 (UK) looking at finds from what is now the middle of the North Sea but I don't buy all these huge underwater drowned cities that you are trumpeting.

[Disinfo Agent]

As I wrote earlier, Caral (in Peru) dates from 2600 BC (though that is only the time when the site was first inhabited, not necessarily when everything wasbuilt). The earliest Egyptian pyramid is dated to 2620 BC. So it's not inconceivable that American and Egyptian pyramids originate from roughly the same period.The title of this thread is "The mexican and egyptian pyramids were evolved during the same period?" Caral is not in Mexico.

[Acolyte]

If ythis civilization spanned the globe isn't it a bit of a stretch to think that they were completely wiped out by sea level change? didn't they think it would be a good idea to move uphill? Surely they cxan't have all lived in areas that got drowned by the end of the Ice Age.

I don't doubt that there were people displace3d by the melting of the ice. In fact, I just watched a 'Time Team Special' on channel 4 (UK) looking at finds from what is now the middle of the North Sea but I don't buy all these huge underwater drowned cities that you are trumpeting.Well, there's nobody asking you to find your wallet. :)

A couple of points about moving uphill. First it depends on how much warning one gets & second how fast the disaster happens. There's evidence & some current research into just how Antarctic ice may release rather more rapidly than previously thought.

There's a general belief, based on nothing much at all, that between approx 18,000NC & 8,000BC, the ice gradually lifted sea levels & so, based on this conception from nowhere at all, you could be correct to wonder why they wouldn't just move.

But there's also considerable & mounting evidence (read earlier links) that the creeping sea is not how things necessarily went. There's the possibility of enormous tsunamis sweeping across the oceans as well as 20 metre 'overnight' sea level changes.

Graham Hancock may not be seen by most as a rigorous scientist who ensures he gets his work peer reviewed before publishing, but he knows his craft as an investigative journalist & in Underworld he explores quite a few of the underwater sites. Worth a read if you have an interest.

If the current sea level rose 20 metres (66 feet) within a couple of days after either Agassiz or Missoula released, or if a huge tsunami raced North after 1/3 or more of Antarctic ice hit the water or when the ice at Hudson's bay suddenly floated, (all current ideas of actual events that changed sea levels & altered world climate) there wouldn't be much chance to 'relocate' in time.

If it happened to us, we'd lose a huge percentage of our civilisation - we'd stress what was left to breaking point trying to recover & save what we could - look at how hard it's been for the richest country on Earth to rebuild 1 city.

Looking at the dates involved, Hancock & some others estimate the disaster happened not just once, but 3 times. It is any wonder the child civilisations began safely distant from the sea?

Add to the list for South America, Paulina Zelitsky's discovery in 2200 feet of a number of structures including a pyramid, a perfect square with a cross on it & a variety of other geometric shapes. Not Mexican but not far from Yucatan.

Also, keep in mind that any putative civilisation would not necessarily be like ours, ie. billions of people. It's quite possible they didn't have a consumer-driven society, that they didn't have people spread across every available square foot. If their major population centres were close to the sea or lowland deltas etc. it is quite possible any tsunami would scour them from the Earth.

And we saw in Indonesia how even a small tsunami can cause horrendous damage. Imagine what one 500 metres high could be like. Even just the almost overnight rise of 20 metres would devastate a coastal population.

More would die from lack of resources, & things like spoiled water sources & more from disease & starvation as they tried to find new lives. In our 'civilised' world, most would die simply from not having the foggiest idea of how to provide the daily needs for themselves.

And we can be pretty sure there were survivors - there are literally hundreds of tribal histories from across the world that begin with a 'god' or sage coming from the sea, bringing knowledge, & in some cases seeds, to begin a new world.

But getting 'peer review' for this kind of research is difficult when the 'peers' don't consider the subject to be a reasonable one. Yet there are structures like those off-shore in India India - Gulf of Cambay (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1808-drowned-indian-city-could-be-worlds-oldest.html) which deserve much more attention than they are getting.

[sarongsong]

The Third Millennium BC (3100-2100 BC):
...The Mayans/Olmecs put their 0.0.0.0.0 date at Gregorian time 3114 BC. Stonehenge I (the original astronomical one) was built near 3100 BC, as was Newgrange..."Quite apart from Stonehenge, many other megalithic sites seem to have been constructed, starting around 3000 BC, by cultures spread across the globe, having no communication with each other, but watching a common sky...Why were the ancients suddenly so interested in the sky?...The precession of meteoroid streams...gives us a clue."...
eunet.fi/tilmari (http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm#stone)Quite a page!

[captain swoop]

When you start looking for evidence to support mythology and treat it as fact and history you are getting into Sitchen and Velikovsky land.

[sarongsong]

Perhaps so, but I was googling "2500 b.c. astronomical event (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=2500+b.c.+astronomical+event&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)", since that date seemed 'about' when various dates are cited for pyramid constructions, to find what was in the skies back then. Mythology was not on my mind.

[Kaptain K]

The title of this thread is "The mexican and egyptian pyramids were evolved during the same period?" Caral is not in Mexico.

Neither is the OP! From where he is, much of the western hemisphere is indistinguishable from any other part of it!

[captain swoop]

It's funny how we never find any relics from these ancient advanced civilisations.

[Disinfo Agent]

It's the Fermi retroparadox.

[Acolyte]

When you start looking for evidence to support mythology and treat it as fact and history you are getting into Sitchen and Velikovsky land.:) Unless of course, the evidence is there & the myth turns out to be more fact than legend.

But perhaps there is an opinion that Geology isn't a real science & so the findings about the sphinx can't be trusted? It only takes one white crow.

Or maybe it isn't truly understood just how difficult it is to build something with 4 sides that miss out on being exactly the same length by only a couple of inches in over 700 feet of length? Particularly when building in multi-tonne blocks of stone?

It's easy to quip at the evidence, but the evidence stays there. The subject of Egypt alone is worth serious study for the anomalies from the orthodox 'history' being given; add in the rest of the world & it's hard to avoid the conclusion there are thigns we have yet to learn about the past.

We don't have the 'how' nailed down yet we are told the 'why' as if it is fact.

[Jens]

The title of this thread is "The mexican and egyptian pyramids were evolved during the same period?" Caral is not in Mexico.

In my first post (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/73292-mexican-egyptian-pyramids-were-evolved-during-same-period.html#post1229083) in this thread, I mentioned that. I wrote specifically that the statement would not be true for Mesoamerica specifically, but might be true if you looked at American pyramids more generally. Like Kaptain K said, I doubt the OP was thinking so specifically. He probably wasn't aware of the existence of Caral anyway.

[sarongsong]

...mythology......the myth...Is there some specific myth/mythology associated with pyramids being referred to here, or are these both referring to mythology in general?

[HenrikOlsen]

That's OK, I wasn't replying to your comment. :)

But you'd be surprised how recently I was talking to a Geology student from Melbourne Uni who thought I had to be talking crap when I talked about land rising or sinking because of weight.
Funny, I learned about it 30 years ago in school, but then I live in a country that's still noticeably seesawing after the latest ice age.

Don't take the ignorance of one student to indicate the start of the science.

[captain swoop]

Scotland is still on the up and the SE of England on the way down after the last Ice Age.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Or maybe it isn't truly understood just how difficult it is to build something with 4 sides that miss out on being exactly the same length by only a couple of inches in over 700 feet of length? Particularly when building in multi-tonne blocks of stone?...Evidence please?

For starters:

What was your datum reference frame from which these measurements were made?

How much allowance was made for deterioration of the materials?

How was the lack of flatness of the stone sides factored in?

How were deviations from flatness of the datum features calculated and factored into the xyz reference frame?

Were later additions to the structure ignored?

Were missing sections added by estimation?

Were geometric errors related to lack of straightness of the sides accounted for?

What was the soak temperature when the materials were being measured?

What was the actual measuring equipment?

Were the equipment's accuracy and precision variables factored into the results?

Again, evidence, please, which addresses each and every of the questions asked above, all of which are pertinent regarding the veracity of your claim.