Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

Bren wrote:

And where can I find info on the good pyramid and the mediocre pyramid?

Here's the mediocre pyramid:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … ahshur.JPG

I COWER IN FEAR AND AWE.

Bren wrote:

That's way better-looking than any pyramid I could build. And I do have access to highly advanced technology. Sadly, all my slaves have escaped.

The secret is beer.

No temple friezes and certainly no billboards proclaimed it the king of beers, but it was the beer of pharaohs, and of their workers whose labors on pyramids and stately tombs were rewarded with a generous flow of the brews that made ancient Memphis or Thebes famous.

http://www.blavatsky.net/russian/pebeer.htm

Give them beer, and they don't try to escape.

Bren wrote:

That's way better-looking than any pyramid I could build. And I do have access to highly advanced technology. Sadly, all my slaves have escaped.

You could try using postdocs.

Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner on the sphinx's "water damage"

Also, this might prove interesting.
The pyramids and temples of Gizeh (1883)

and
Geo Polymers

Bren wrote:

Zahi Hawass is legendary for his hostility toward any research which in any way threatens the conventional model of Egyptian antiquities and where they came from. He seems to think that any suggestion that the great pyramid and sphinx might pre-date Egyptian civilization in some way takes something away from his culture.

So he rules over his little fiefdom with an iron hand and suppresses the truth with all his might. He is biased, and everything coming out of his mouth should be seen in that light.

Aside from your ad hominem dismissal, you are making the claim that the great pyramid is much older than what a good deal of archeological and geological evidence supports because one piece of evidence isn't explained to your satisfaction by someone you like?

If somebody has a long track record of obstructing legitimate research for political reasons, and I therefore give no credence to anything coming out of his mouth, I guess that is, technically, an ad hominem attack on my part. It doesn't change the fact that Hawass has no credibility.

I can't believe that any rational person would accept "ancient astronauts" as a feasible explanation for anything. I especially can't believe that any rational person would start their ponderings with "ancient astronauts." The logical thought process should flow from "most likely" to "least likely," not the other way around.

Bren wrote:

If the technology was there, howcome the newer pyramids lack the great pyramid's impossible-to-replicate level of precision? And if the great pyramid was built by Egyptians, I again ask, where did the water-erosion damage come from?

We are talking about a place situated not far from the longest river in the world, one with a very large floodplain, before the Aswan Dam. Evidence also suggests that the climate was at least slightly different than it is today.


Pyramids in and of themselves are not a terribly difficult technological wonder.
There are pyramids and ziggurats all over the ancient world.
Pyramids are the easiest way to build tall stone buildings because each layer weighs less.  (Try building a tall structure out of non-mortared bricks and you'll discover this yourself.)

It's not like they were constructing very tall rectangular structures.

Expecting a scientific analysis or any skeptical analysis to calculate for the voodoo/ X-factor would be pretty silly.

It wouldn't make sense for a highly developed culture, with ability to travel light years, would create fairly primitive structures by such primitive means. Why wouldn't they leave behind something just a little more usefull, like a printing mechanism, or some type of engine or motor.

No, what we have are structures that dovetail COMPLETELY with the mathematics, astronomy and technology of the day. No substantial mystery there at all.

What's all this "ancient astronaut" business? Ancient astronauts are not necessary for a theory of an ancient, highly advanced civilization to be sound. Ancient astronauts with the ability to traverse light-years are even less necessary. As for the absense of relic engines, I suspect we wouldn't recognize them if we found them. I further suspect that we're talking about a highly advanced civilization that may not have ever had an industrial revolution. Regardless, your Macintosh, and your car and house, will degenerate into puddles of heavy metals and piles of petrified wood in less time than you might think.

iSeamas wrote:

Bren wrote:

As for the absense of relic engines, I suspect we wouldn't recognize them if we found them.

Why?

Magic.

iSeamas wrote:

But-

MAGIC.

Anonymous Delivers! wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

Bren wrote:

As for the absense of relic engines, I suspect we wouldn't recognize them if we found them.

Why?

Magic.

iSeamas wrote:

But-

MAGIC.

LOL.

I do wonder if there is are people who buy into the ancient astronauts, but also believe the moon landing was a hoax.

iSeamas wrote:

Bren wrote:

If the technology was there, howcome the newer pyramids lack the great pyramid's impossible-to-replicate level of precision? And if the great pyramid was built by Egyptians, I again ask, where did the water-erosion damage come from?

We are talking about a place situated not far from the longest river in the world, one with a very large floodplain, before the Aswan Dam. Evidence also suggests that the climate was at least slightly different than it is today.


Pyramids in and of themselves are not a terribly difficult technological wonder.
There are pyramids and ziggurats all over the ancient world.
Pyramids are the easiest way to build tall stone buildings because each layer weighs less.  (Try building a tall structure out of non-mortared bricks and you'll discover this yourself.)

It's not like they were constructing very tall rectangular structures.

Expecting a scientific analysis or any skeptical analysis to calculate for the voodoo/ X-factor would be pretty silly.

It wouldn't make sense for a highly developed culture, with ability to travel light years, would create fairly primitive structures by such primitive means. Why wouldn't they leave behind something just a little more usefull, like a printing mechanism, or some type of engine or motor.

No, what we have are structures that dovetail COMPLETELY with the mathematics, astronomy and technology of the day. No substantial mystery there at all.

What makes the Egyptian pyramids interesting is the high degree of precision in the stone work - and precision that required careful placing of stones at several levels of construction. There are vertical and diagonal shafts extending for great distances that are very nearly perfectly straight. THAT is impressive.