• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Ancient knowledge, lost or censored ?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Hi, Nameless. I watched your second video above, and it was interesting indeed, very.

I see from your other links on this thread and another that you seem to be offering evidence that supports what is clearly accepted: that peoples of antiquity themselves, using their own tools, knowledge, perseverance, and precision work, with the tools they had, built the architectural feats we see.

I do take issue (no surprise!) at the conclusions reached, and more than merely implied, that Edward Leedskalnin employed anti-gravity, levitation, the secrets of the Egyptians, etc., to build what he did, which is truly impressive.

Photographs of Leedskalnin working show him to be clearly using tools and devices that work according to our accepted physical laws (read that to emphasize that there were no secret energies, etc., that he used, of course not!).

Did he, evidently alone, build this creation using tools and devices not dependent on all this stuff spouted by Christopher Dunn? OF COURSE! And Leedskalnin is to be admired no end for doing this. Could I build that? No way!

Could other humans? Of course!

So, an interesting video I learned a lot from. But its conclusions, buttressed by the ubiquitous Dunn (and if I misidentified him I will admit it, but it sure looked like him from the videos posted by Gordon and Kieran).

And I have said in other threads that as a designer, a machinist, I would not hesitate to take Mr. Dunn's advice, or even hire him for a very difficult job, no indeed! I have said I could not do what he does. He is truly an intelligent and skilled man.

But is he qualified to make the, in my opinion, outrageous claims of why the pyramid of Giza was constructed, or to appear in programs that coyly allude to all this alternative fringe stuff. Absolutely not, he isn't. And why is he so ubiquitous?

Cannot credentialed experts, scientists, and historians be found to make these claims and appear in programs? No, they cannot!

I enjoyed the video, Nameless, and your links.

Kim
 
I will say it again, I am not saying the pyramids were built by anyone 'else'. All I am saying (can only speak for myself!) is that the tools and skills attributed to the ancient egyptians do not seem adequate for many of the jobs.
I think they were built by the people who lived there. I don't think aliens were involved. I don't think current science has the correct explanation as to how some of it was achieved and is also wrong about the toolset available to the builders.

Scholars propose two theories: a straight ramp or a spiral ramp. Both present their own problems. The first theory proposes a single large ramp sloping up against one face of the pyramid. This proposal has the advantage that all four comers and the three sides of the pyramid remain clear during the construction allowing builders to monitor and check the rise of the sides and the diagonals. Careful surveying during construction was essential; otherwise, a twist might occur and the diagonal lines would not meet in a point at the top. There are problems with this proposal. One is that to obtain a functionally low enough slope - one that rises one meter every six meters, the ramp would have to be extremely long extending over and beyond the quarry.
The other theory posits a ramp spiraling around the pyramid in some way. The most popular form of this idea has a ramp starting at each comer thereby creating four ramps spiraling upwards and resting on the unfinished outer casing blocks for support.
These blocks would be smoothed as the ramps were dismantled after the apex of the pyramid had been reached. This theory leaves most of the pyramid's face clear, for measuring purposes, during construction and the necessary double-checking of lines and comers.
The first problem with this theory is that the unfinished faces of the pyramid could not support the ramps which these theorists believe were made of mud-brick or debris.
Also a spiraling ramp increases the distance over which the blocks had to be hauled and creates unnecessary strain for the team pulling each multi-ton block. It also increases the difficulty of pulling the blocks with extended ropes around the sharp comers of the pyramid's diagonals. 18 Other theories are proposed by Lehner and Stadelmann. I believe that the ramp rises from the quarry about thirty meters above the pyramid's base at its Southwest comer, and the discovery of the ramp South of the Great Pyramid proved that the last theory is the correct one.


I have quoted the above to show that there is no accepted theory as to how it was done. There are a few theories, each of which has problems of it's own which to date have not been solved. It is by no means a 'done deal'.
The problem with the straight ramps is that you need more material than is in the whole pyramid! it needs to be so, so long and sturdy to take all the materials up at a shallow enough angle. Also, think about it, if you make a ramp, to what height do you make the end of it? If it is a certain height to service laying of the first couple of layers of blocks, then you need to increase the height of the ramp. But how many times, remember you need it to get you to the very top too! How long does such a ramp need to be to be at a shallow enough angle to let you pull blocks from the quarry all the way up to the capstone?

Also, this figure of '20 years' for construction is beyond stupid. Quarrying these 1-2 ton blocks, shaping them and then getting them to they pyramid at a rate of ONE EVERY 2.5 MINUTES! No chance on earth! Also, no-one has accounted for they quarrying of all the stone needed for the ramps. Each of these 'solutions' has problems that no-one seems to address.
So yes, there are possible solutions for a lot of it, but nowhere near proper worked-out explanations that are actually physically feasible.

If all this was explainable there would be one accepted theory from start to finish, but the above quote from the page you quoted, even admits there are different theories - to me that means there is no definitive solution. Many of these things sound great until you actually sit down and work out all the angles, all the amounts, all the fixes etc. It is in no way explained by the quote above.
 
Ah, Gordon, the Romans really fine tuned cranes, they were the masters of the crane! Don't get me started.

And there you go again, with this our modern technology, here cranes, could not construct the structures in the Baalbek complex, and it is indeed an amazing feat of engineering and architecture.

But I ask you again, and again, and yet again, Gordon: WHO then built these impressive structures, if not the Romans?

Cranes, heck, the ancient Greeks built structures, immense ones, with cranes, multiple cranes that work together, and don't "get in the way of its neighbor."

The Romans took cranes steps further, because the Romans were out to show their muscle. And they used multiple cranes, and believe me, the structures at Baalbek could have been built, and WERE:p by the Romans using cranes and other means. Again, why this antipathy toward ancient technology?

And yet again, who, then, built those temples and buildings at Baalbek?

I have researched the specific trilithon of the temple of Jupiter at Baalbek. Gordon, I am assuming, hopefully, and it's a bit unclear, that you do attribute the construction of the Baalbek complex to the Romans. So, the structures do exist, and the Romans built them, and yes, they did use cranes and similar equipment (cranes comprise different subtypes of machines operating on that principle). And yes, they did use cranes to lift the trilithon.

So, they built them! And evidence of cranes at that time? Cranes predated the Romans, so how can you ask for evidence? I did some more research and they clearly did exist in antiquity, and the research confirmed what I already knew of cranes in the ancient world. A quick search will net you articles and information, and yes, even the diagrams you requested.

I fear you are dangling high in the air from a crane on this one, too, Gordon.:D

Kim
 
Yes Kim, you are totally correct in that Dunn goes way to far in his theory of the purpose of the great pyramid. He does in my opinion stick his neck out from where his expertise really lies. It could be that he was encouraged to find some ultimate reason which would help sell a book to the esoteric-book buying crowd.

But when he talks about machine tool marks, perfect radii and finishes on very hard stone and says there is no chance that humans bashing with crap copper tools could achieve that level of perfection - it is for these things only that I take Dunn at his word. But these few things from Dunn I do accept are more than enough to destroy the currently accepted view of how these things were done.
 
Oh, for Pete's sake, Gordon, there's no lost mathematics, no rotating belt-driven precision tools. How could the RPMs be achieved by men or animals?

Slow and mechanical force (accompanied by yelling on the construction site, heightened adrenalin, for Jupiter's sake, Marcus, watch that rope, ok, here we go, guys) as exhibited by cranes (see my post on the other thread about what you say about cranes), and levers, yes, not only achievable, but that's it, precisely, the methods and other mechanical devices, used to build massive and heavy structures.:D

There is no lost knowledge of precision belt-driven tools or of mathematics, such as the people of antiquity not knowing the relationship of the characteristics of the circle (see my post on the Pi you allege was not known and was necessary to build these structures). Kim
 
Let's say they had advanced mathamatics. And the knowage was lost. And we find evidence of such. Where would that leve me? In awe and respect for our forebearers. And if such knowage was known and lost..it speaks of sadness that is the story of man...
 
They recorded lots of other things so...maybe the egyptians didn't even build them.
 
pixelsmith said:
They recorded lots of other things so...maybe the egyptians didn't even build them.
Click to expand...

I think they were built on a dare by ancient humans. "I bet you can't build a monument that will stand until the planet cracks open with this stick, that pile of rocks, and those twelve guys over there." Somebody said, "Sez who?" and the rest is history.
 
Kim... the fact that we do NOT know exactly how the pyramids, pumapunko and other places were built PROVES we have lost knowledge. duh.
 
Pixel, may I quote you? "They recorded lots of other things so.....maybe the egyptians didn't even build them."

Of course, you, Pixel, a bright light in the firmament of knowledge on things ancient, as exemplified by your posts on this thread:D, are joking. Right? Kim:rolleyes:
 
no. i am not joking. it is my current understanding that egyptians did build them but i keep an open mind to other scenarios.
 
pixelsmith said:
Kim... the fact that we do NOT know exactly how the pyramids, pumapunko and other places were built PROVES we have lost knowledge. duh.
Click to expand...

But, Pixel, it's not that simple, and the things alleged in this thread and two others on this very same topic begun recently far, far exceed that illuminating exercise in profound reasoning and logic quoted above. Your legacy of profundity remains intact.:rolleyes:

Actually, we DO KNOW how these structures were built, and by whom, and pretty much exactly when, and that's been precisely my points on this and two other threads begun recently. And nothing has been lost.

Furthermore, I have addressed all the ancillary stuff that accompanies this topic and gets it so confused, convoluted, and confounding (to others, that is; the history is clear to me and to nearly all respected historians, scientists, and archaeologists who, unlike the television personalities in this "alternative fringe history field" are wide open to peer review by their fellow scholars and/or faculty members. Make that all, not nearly all.

And, hey, I'm still waiting for the specifics to my questions I asked you earlier in this thread. I fear my anticipation will be unrequited.:p Kim
 
Ah, Pixel, you have returned us to my questions to you. What are "the other scenarios" you "keep an open mind to"? Please be specific, then, as to these other peoples/cultures/civilizations/aliens/vanished civilizations that predated what is clearly the window of recorded human history who built the Egyptian pyramids. If not the Egyptians, then describe specifically "the other scenarios." :D

Your post after this intriguing hypothesis is more of the refuge you and others take when asked for specific information and specific evidence of what we are talking about.:p It has no effect, because I have always stated when my beliefs had no empirical evidence, and have provided evidence, historical evidence, of things that do have evidence for them.

I wish you could stick to the topic, and give me specifics as to your "other scenarios" about the construction of the pyramids.;) Kim
 
i have no other scenarios in mind but i am open minded enough to hear any. you seem to know "specifics" so please tell how the pyramids were built. start with the foundation. how did they level 13 acres to within 1/2 inch?
 
Now, now, Pixel, I've asked you for specifics to some very clear questions over the history of this thread, and have now asked you for specifics about your "other scenarios" as to who built the pyramids. You said clearly that you had these other scenarios, but in the post above you say you "have no other scenarios." HMMMM!!!! What's going on in that head of yours, Pixel?

If you read my posts on this thread and two others begun recently on the same topic, you will see my answers to your questions. Also, there have been links provided by others.

As to the question in the above post, how did they level the ground, is that what you're asking? Come now, Pixel, leveling ground over distances, why, farmers have accomplished that in antiquity. Leveling ground?

The pyramids were constructed over approximately 80 to 90 years, and employed tens of thousands of workers, many of them skilled, and cumulatively over the span of their construction, the numbers are staggering. For Pete's sake, go to google and enter in a query, and take the bother to do some reading, and avoid the crackpot sites like certain television shows, the very stuff I am trying mightily to set straight, but if you won't do any research of your own, well, I can't help you, Pixel.:D

Try, Pixel, to research, read, and think. I'm very disappointed that you will not accept my help. It pains me greatly. Kim:)
 
Some of what i've read seems to date the large pieces of Baalbek as pre-roman. I do think it was humans that built them, it's just that the technology that was supposed to exist at the time you think they were made just is not up to the job.
I find there is quite a lot of evidence for their being an advanced pre-history civilisation and it may have well have been a world-wide civilisation.

How was it done? Well, that's the point Kim, no-one really knows. You trot out this roman-crane theory as if it is the accepted explanation. Ok, please point me to any 'expert' and his published calculations that show the roman cranes are capable of this feat. I would wager you, nor anyone else can!
It sounds to me like this is one of these pseudo explanations that sound on the surface like an actual explanation, until you look at the calculations and practicality.
It should be quite simple - each crane will be a certain size and will be rated to a certain weight. If it is possible to lift 1200 tonnes with as few cranes as possible, so that there is room for them all, and it is also possible to move this whole contraption, then and only then will I accept that explanation! These things are never as simple when you have to actually do the calculations.
 
Kim - I challenge you to find anyone on earth able to recreate massive granite edifices with mirror-like smoothness with only copper chisels and rocks. No chance in hell!

Also, surely your explanation for what can only be the cuts made by some flat-bladed tool is not again copper tools bashed with rocks?

Tell us exactly what you think was in the tool inventory of the workmen in 2000AD and I will show you cuts and finishes of extremely hard stone that those tools will not achieve!
On whose expert opinion are you basing the opinion that all the fine work was done with those tools?

The thing is Kim, there will be no way for you to disprove my theory on this and I accept that is in a way unfair but at the same time, for you to dismiss all I've said, you need to show what was done and why, otherwise you are just guessing or parroting someone else who is guessing.
 
Back
Top