Pre-Egypt Technology

[Ursa major]

I think the main consideration for buildings like St Paul's was that they don't collapse on those inside. Probably.

Where height was an issue, it would have been of the type: "My cathedral's taller than yours."


By the way, as the outer casing is missing from the Great Pyramid, we can't really say how accurate its position was. (The flashing light on the top doesn't count. )

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

Probably not - it doesnt have to be. We've sacrificed the art of craftsmanship for that of haste.

The builders of the Great Pyramid were supposedly in a tearing hurry. They were placing one block every 30 seconds?

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I think the main consideration for buildings like St Paul's was that they don't collapse on those inside. Probably.

Where height was an issue, it would have been of the type: "My cathedral's taller than yours."


By the way, as the outer casing is missing from the Great Pyramid, we can't really say how accurate its position was. (The flashing light on the top doesn't count. )

They've been all over the thing with every sort of scientific instrument ...

[Ursa major]

There's no original outside surface and no original apex (pyramidion), so I'm not sure how they can make that statement with anything like a clear conscience.


I'm looking at a full-page picture in my Atlas of Ancient Egypt (did I ever mention that I love maps and atlases), on page 159, which shows one of the rising edges. There is no edge. You can see the boundary between the two "triangular" "surfaces", because one's in shadow and the other is not. The "line" weaves about all over the place, although you can see the general direction in which it's heading.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

There's no original outside surface and no original apex (pyramidion), so I'm not sure how they can make that statement with anything like a clear conscience.

No I didn't know you like maps. I like rocks and stones, you know, minerals -- they are so hard and ancient and pure.

Back to business: it should be possible to intersect the plane of the top square from corner to corner and where the two lines intersect, that's the center?

[Ursa major]

True, but it would be in the air quite a way above where the stone stops. (Or, possibly, it would be where the flashing light is, but that's a modern addition.)

[RJM Corbet]

Well you've seen from close up and I only know from pictures and what I've read. I'm not too keen on alien theories, though one should keep an open mind -- who really knows -- but I'm pretty convinced by now that the Great Pyramid and Sphinx had to already be there when the Egyptians arrived, as were the Mayan pyramids when the Maya and Inca moved in, etc.

The evidence for this 'pre-civilization' is mounting steadily and seems to date the origin of all these megalithic monuments that are turning up all over the world -- the Japanese sunken pyramids, the Bosnian pyramids -- at around 12 000 years ...

[Ursa major]

Changing the date changes nothing. The builders would still have to be people and they still wouldn't have had access to modern technology. (And if they had have had that technology, why use it to build something made solely of stone?)

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Changing the date changes nothing. The builders would still have to be people and they still wouldn't have had access to modern technology. (And if they had have had that technology, why use it to build something made solely of stone?)

There I'm in agreement: people, not aliens. But pre-dating Egypt, etc. Whatever technology they had 12 000 years ago, and whatever else they did with it, the ice-age came to a very suddenly end for some reason, flooding their own civilization. There are only these great stone edifices left.

[paranoid marvin]

Basically , one way or another there was a race of people who had developed ways of erecting monumental buildings.Those skills have been lost over the years, or were at least transferred to a different end.And if they lived in Egypt (or whatever they called it) they were still Egyptians ; personally Idon't believe they transformed pre-existing buildings into tombs , I think they were erected for that reason.

As for aliens; I'm sorry , I just don't buy that. I accept the possibility of beings on other worlds , and I accept the possibility of them visiting Earth at oe time in our past. What I do not accept is that they allowed the use of their tools to ancient civilisations , but made sure that they took them all back when they had finished,making sure none were eleft behind ; why on earth would they do that? What would the care if people millenia later found out it had been alien beings and not humans who had built the Pyramids? If they were so bothered about being discovered , why bother helping the Egyptians (or whoever) build them in the first place?

[Nik]

IIRC, a careful investigation of the 'Japanese pyramids' found they were natural, like the 'sunken pavements'...

There's a 'gotcha', though: During the ice ages, the sea level was significantly lower. You had settlements, yes, but also erosion of exposed strata, to form such head-scratchers as natural 'limestone pavements'...

Uh, if you want to know what a genuine sunken city looks like, consider Alexandria, whose old temple and palace area apparently succumbed to liquefaction during a quake. It is now under the bay, and marine archaeologists are picking through the jumbled remains...

[J Riff]

well, Marvin said it there, 'let us use their tools'.... in fact, Aliens are absolutely for real, the idea they taught people anything is what's wrong.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Nik

IIRC, a careful investigation of the 'Japanese pyramids' found they were natural, like the 'sunken pavements'...

Oh please! A careful investigation by who?
Name, address, qualification?

Graham Hancock took a geologist down there with him for about 20 minutes, who in effect said that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they could still, just possibly, be natural formations -- which is not exactly a 'careful investigation' or a 'scientific finding' ...

[Ursa major]

Isn't there a phrase, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"?

It is up to Mr Hancock to prove that the structure was a man-made pavement. It is not up to those who disagree with him to prove that the structure is natural.

(So even that half-hearted statement by that geologist is enough to make me doubt the claim, if only because I haven't seen Mr Hancock's irrefutable evidence that this was a man-made pavement.)


If it's any consolation, I take a lot of what mainstream archaeologists say in TV programmes about their finds with a big pinch of salt. Their enthusiasm and desire to engage the general public sometimes seems to get the better of them.

[I, Brian]

The standard dating of the Giza pyramids puts their construction somewhere in the 4th millenium BC. What I find very interesting is the fact that this was a time of monumental climate change - the Sahara had been savannah until then. I've often wondered if the building of the pyramids was a response to this massive climate change.

[RJM Corbet]

But how do you date stone?
It can't be carbon dated.
You can carbon date the paint on a wall, or the bones around it, but not the stone itself.