• 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:

Kim - I can see that you think I have made statements that I have not backed up and yes, over a number of posts and a couple of threads quite a few subjects have come up.

Therefore, I propose to make it clean and easy to follow, that myself and your good self, alternate asking one single question that each of us wants the other to answer. That way, we won't get posts mixed up and tangents taking us away from said question.

If you are agreeable, then I either nominate my question about the granite block being first, or indeed if you think it unsporting for me to propose this and also give the first question, then I am amenable to you going first if you wish.

So, please, either answer my first question or post your own, which I shall endeavour to answer for you.

How about it?
 
Firstly, I have no evidence of belt-driven tools. It is a possible example. You seem to miss the point that what we are talking about is UNEXPLAINED. That is precisely the mystery. I suggested that we look at points one by one. Starting with the block of granite that looks like it was cut by a machine blade of some sort.

No, I cannot point you to an exact tool that made that cut. But at the same time, I doubt anyone can explain it being made by copper chisels. Again, that is the mystery that no-one seems able to answer.
You are correct in that I have been jumping from one point to another, from Rome to Egypt - that is my fault for not sticking to one thing at a time, so I suggest we accept that and address points individually.

I have never said I have all the answers, on the contrary, I think it is the lack of any of us having the answers being the case.

So again, I ask you one thing and one thing only at a time. At the point in the video I directed you to, in which there appears to be a block of granite that looks like it was cut by a machine - what is your explanation for that cut? How do you explain that perfect cut?
I am open to explanations I don't have myself, again that is the mystery. What is your explanation of how that granite was cut? Please don't answer like previously in general terms as to how you think I am mixing all these history's up and inventing tools that never existed.
I simply ask how you explain that cut granite in the context of the time, according to current egyptology?

Jeez Kim - I asked you to answer one single thing specifically and your answer was, and I quote, 'Gordon, yes, I went to that spot and watched some minutes before and after it. Remember that I had already watched it, as I had yours.'
I admit Kim, I am in the dark as to what your answer was - all you did there was confirm you watched the video and then completely skipped giving the answer that was the point of watching that bit of the video!

That's a couple of times I think you've dodged the one question

So, just in case my asking about 5 times is insufficient, I will ask one question and one question only for now: What is your explanation for the apparent perfect cut in the granite block at the time stamp I indicated?

I don't hold out much hope for you answering this one question with specifics, just general dismissals of everything I say!

What is your explanation for the apparent cut granite block?
What is your explanation for the apparent cut granite block?
What is your explanation for the apparent cut granite block?
 
Kim, I just looked at the link you provided on building the pyramids and from that link, first paragraph on the page, I directly quote verbatim:

Despite this, there are still many questions concerning the quarrying, dressing and transportation of the stone building blocks, let alone the methods by which they were placed meticulously in position.

So, this being where you sent me to look about building the pyramids - I am surprised to find explanations that are far from complete and definitive, for that is impression I have gained from your posts is that there was no longer any mystery regarding their construction (you posted words to the same effect).
 
goggsmackay said:
Jeez Kim - I asked you to answer one single thing specifically and your answer was, and I quote, 'Gordon, yes, I went to that spot and watched some minutes before and after it. Remember that I had already watched it, as I had yours.'
I admit Kim, I am in the dark as to what your answer was - all you did there was confirm you watched the video and then completely skipped giving the answer that was the point of watching that bit of the video!

That's a couple of times I think you've dodged the one question

So, just in case my asking about 5 times is insufficient, I will ask one question and one question only for now: What is your explanation for the apparent perfect cut in the granite block at the time stamp I indicated?

I don't hold out much hope for you answering this one question with specifics, just general dismissals of everything I say!

What is your explanation for the apparent cut granite block?
What is your explanation for the apparent cut granite block?
What is your explanation for the apparent cut granite block? (I have repeated the question because you have so far dodged answering it)
Click to expand...

Good luck with that ;)
 
Well, I see an old ally has joined the fray on your behalf, Gordon.:D

Ironic that you, rather in a juvenile fashion, repeat your question five times, as if I've been ignoring your questions about, well, what hypothesis have you NOT put forth, and I've asked you about these power tools and you finally admit you have no evidence. I've been addressing your own, admitted, twists and turns in post after post, and then you change the marker and act as if YOU have been consistent and it's all about my ignoring your points. What points and convoluted this, that, and the other thing have you NOT injected into this discussion?;)

But, since you insist, Gordon, to your question::p

What is your explanation for the apparent cut granite block? Is that your question, Gordon?

I've answered it in other posts, at least twice. And I will give you a link to boot. And if you will go to google and just begin to type in "how did egyptians cut........." and stop you will be prompted to choose from a number of options. I found a host of I think very reputable articles, and links from them (I mean you have to do a little research on your own, if you're not going to read the books on it).

The article I linked to on the pyramids, did you read it in its entirety? It's a bbc article, and very reputable. Thought you'd like the personal touch, Gordon. :D It discusses ramps, quarrying, and cutting, among others. You choose a little bit and use it to deride the rest of the article.

The answer to your question:
1. iron tools. I've already discussed the independent discovery of the smelting of iron, and even steel, in antiquity. You do the research, and at the very least it is thought the Egyptians obtained iron tools by trading.
2. the use of quartz sand along with metal tools, to cut, yes, granite, and here's a link for more details, and even how holes were made in granite.

NOVA Online | Secrets of Lost Empires | Pharaoh's Obelisk | Cutting Granite with Sand

Now, I'm not going to spoon feed you the first the workman did this, and then he did that. If you read this link and do some research you will see how your question has been answered, and not just cutting that particular block in the video, but about cutting granite in the quarrying process, etc.

And that article Mike linked to: it's by the very man you said you had a lot of trouble with, finally! Kim
 
Kim - I am sorry to do this out of sync, considering my offer of a question at a time, however I did my due diligence to check out your suggestion of a link to educate myself about Roman cranes.

Lets first agree the blocks we are talking about are around 1000 metric tons in weight. There is 1000kg in each ton, so that means the blocks are around one million kg each. Agreed? (also the blocks are a single piece and as such, must be quarried, lifted and moved as such).

Ok, now I will quote from the very article you suggested I look at. This is a copy and paste job.

The crane for lifting heavy loads was invented by the Ancient Greeks in the late 6th century BC.[1] The archaeological record shows that no later than c. 515 BC

The Romans adopted the Greek crane and developed it further. We are relatively well informed about their lifting techniques, thanks to rather lengthy accounts by the engineers Vitruvius (De Architectura 10.2, 1-10) andHeron of Alexandria (Mechanica 3.2-5)

The polyspastos, when worked by four men at both sides of the winch, could already lift 3,000 kg (3 ropes x 5 pulleys x 4 men x 50 kg = 3,000 kg). In case the winch was replaced by a treadwheel, the maximum load even doubled to 6,000 kg

At the temple of Jupiter at Baalbek, for instance, the architrave blocks weigh up to 60 tons each, and one corner cornice block even over 100 tons, all of them raised to a height of about 19 m.[3


From the beginning I have only been talking about the very largest blocks at Baalbek. This article mentions that temple but only talks about the Roman engineering lifting blocks up to 100 tons and obviously that was the pinnacle of their efforts, valiant as they were.
At no point have I tried to say who or what I think is responsible, only that no-one else currently seems to know either.


Does no-one else find it strange there is zero mention of the trilithon blocks, weighing TEN TIMES the maximum they are supposed to have lifted.

It has been my assertion from the beginning that one cannot just give any general explanation about such monumental feats. Such things need figures, diagrams and exact mathematical proof as to how they were accomplished and as I predicted, Kim you are unable to furnish me with those proofs.


So, I believe I have addressed your point about machine tool marks, I believe I have addressed your point about the Roman cranes being used to move the trilithons at Baalbek.

I await your response Kim.:)
 
Thanks for your answer on the granite block. I have read the articles fully and it is my opinion they do not explain the quality and exactness of the finish. We will have to agree to disagree.
It may have seemed childish to write that several times, but you had failed to answer the question several times. I don't want a reference to an article - I want YOU to explain what I CANNOT! That is the crux of the matter. I am saying I cannot explain some of these things, whereas you accept the current teachings of all egyptology.
There is no problem there, we are adults and we can have vastly differing views.

I promise I will try to specifically answer any single question. I am reminded that earlier you derided my mentioning of possible animal power - in relation to a belt-drive etc.
You are correct in that I have no answers, my only answer really are what I see as absence of answers from conventional wisdom.

I may point out though that the very same article you directed me to about cranes, mentions using animal power, so maybe my suggestion (and it was only that) has more merit than even I gave it credit?

My theme has been that while there are many answers up to a point, for me they often fail to explain the biggest of the achievements, the finest of the work. You and I and anyone else can debate for eternity how far each of us thinks these things could be done with the simple tools ascribed to the period.
Again, all I have ever said is that I think the tools were more advanced than is said currently. I have never invoked electricity or large-scale mechanics.
 
Well, I answered the granite question.

I hate to disappoint you, but I've found that the 1,000 ton figure is widely thought to be exaggerated, not that they may not have approached some 700 to 800 tons, and yes, cranes could have done it, and in fact did.

So, I don't think there's all this mystery and unknown you keep stressing.

And, I know you hate this, but there's an elephant in the room you simply will not address, and it pertains to everything you've written, all the twists and turns I've addressed, and then you appear to be hurt and say I ignore you when you've brought up every strange pseudoarcheological twist there is, but I, and yes, it WAS I, who finally brings you to earth, and then suddenly you're all for simplicity and just ONE QUESTION, Kim.;)

That elephant, and it's a mammoth: JUST WHAT EXACTLY is your point? I mean, I have led you to finally acknowledging that we have a very simple matter here all along, Gordon. You can talk granite cutting and Roman cranes all you want, and I have answered your questions on those. But, where to NOW?

Where will it end? What new structure will now be put forth as they couldn't do it?

And back to that elephant: WHO did it? Answer: the Egyptians and the Romans. HOW did they do it? Cutting, ramps, quarrying, transport, lifting, cranes, pulleys, levers, and on and on. There is no mystery, no lost knowledge, no power tools, no 35 foot diameter circular saws (powered by what?), and on and on.

And if you bring up anything more about this worldwide vanished civilization, you can go ask yourself in the mirror, Gordon. :p Because that's just desperation again, your solution to the elephant in the room, because I think that ultimately you DO believe that the Egyptians and Romans and who's next (?) DID NOT build these wonderful and awesome structures, hence your belabored insistence on they couldn't do it.

Just when I think you've descended safely to terra firma, up comes the vanished worldwide civilization, proved by.........................:eek: Kim
 
The BBC link is quite good, covering various aspects of the pyramid building - the problem as I see it though is that even today, any of these articles fully refuse to state many of the methods of building. They usually give a few possibilities, then mention the problems associated with these possibilities and then move on - without actually making a decision. It is sitting on the fence because no currently offered theory explains everything without major snags.
 
Hold on Kim - 'the elephant in the room' as you put it. You seem to be saying that there is actually zero point to everything I've said.
Please remember that at no point have I mentioned aliens, or that such and such DID NOT build such and such.
This is my point and it has always been just this: There are current explanations of how these things were done and what was used to do them. All I have ever been saying is that I find many of these explanations fall short when you get down to brass tacks. For instance, even if you quibble about the weight of Baalbek stones by 400 tons, 600 tons is still way, way bigger than recorded data shows what the Romans were lifting.
What is difficult to understand about that?

I am saying that these things were done, of course they were; they are there!

But when I look at conventional explanations they never fully explain everything. Do I have all the answers? Of course not, otherwise I'd be writing a sure-fire bestseller!

In many ways, I would say that I give the ancient builders MORE CREDIT THAN YOU DO! - reason being is that I think they had better tools, more knowledge than we give them credit.

It is a red-herring to bring up the worldwide civilisation. I wrongly brought it up when I should have been talking specifics over these issues but I do think there is strong evidence that there may have been a worldwide culture in antiquity, all but lost today. It is 2am here now so for now I shall bow out. Please ask me tomorrow if you wish me to explain exactly why I think there may have been such a worldwide civilisation, but tonight...bed!
 
Well, what the heck are you doing UP at two in the morning, Gordon? I didn't mean to rattle your chain so much.;)

As for crediting people of antiquity, I think I have been defending them staunchly. And stating clearly that the methods THEY HAD, the wondrous extent of their knowledge, the tools they used, in the construction of these wonders, these superb architectural feats, are enough in and of themselves. I just don't see the worth speculating about "better tools, more knowledge" when it leaves reasonable wondering and enters the realms, and bizarre realms they are, where pseudoscience and pseudohistory denigrate the intelligence of these peoples of ancient times.

And people who entertain this pseudohistory/science, though they may cloak it in terms of mystery, of learning, of scholarly endeavor, are in reality in my opinion indeed allowing that elephant into the room. Because they cannot answer the overriding questions: What is "lost knowledge" exactly? Pi, some building technique? And what is a lost tool? Some circular saw, made of what and powered by what, as is postulated by Dunn? And it's thirty five feet in diameter! Because you see how quickly this speculation becomes absurdity, and then the next step is a given: appeal to some vanished, smarter, worldwide civilization that possessed, well, what, a circular saw thirty five feet in diameter?

And then the next step, and the next, and the crackpot stuff becomes unbearable. At some point intelligent and rational people who admire the peoples of antiquity have to accept that they are us, every bit of it, in terms of ingenuity and intelligence and motivation. And some decisions have to be made regarding the preponderance of real evidence, and the elimination of this crackpot stuff, because prima facie it's TOO complex in its, yes, absurdity and even stupidity, certainly ignorance. And I'm not applying those to you, Gordon.

And I think one of the biggest fallacies in debate is the we agree to disagree. Some things are too absurd to be even contemplated in a way this phrase implies. It implies and assumes some level playing field, some equivalency. And this stuff on this and the other two threads is not a matter of opinion, not a vote, but of evidence. Some things can be stated as: I'm right, and you're wrong.

And yes, Gordon, I'm right and you're wrong. ;) Kim
 
I dont find the idea of a large circular saw that far fetched


A waterwheel and flywheel assembly could provide the power.

Water wheel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flywheel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It wouldnt be as fast as a modern saw, but may well explain

In 1883, Egyptologist Sir William Flinders Petrie remarked on the efficiency with which the ancient Egyptians cut hard igneous rock and concluded that on some artifacts circular saws must have been used. “A slice of diorite bearing equidistant and regular grooves of circular arcs, parallel to one another; these grooves have been nearly polished out by crossed grinding, but still are visible. The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw
Click to expand...

The energy output would depend on the mass of the flywheel, you may even need a team of horses or similar to get it started, but once up and spinning the water wheel could keep it going.
Its then a matter of nudging the stone being cut or faced forward a bit at a time.

If the stones do indeed have equidistant and regular grooves of circular arcs, parallel to one another, then its the logical answer.

That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre."
"We therefore need have no hesitation in allowing that the graving out of lines in hard stones by jewel points, was a well known art. And when we find on the surfaces of the saw-cuts in diorite, grooves as deep as 1/100 inch, it appears far more likely that such were produced by fixed jewel points in the saw, than by any fortuitous rubbing about of a loose powder. And when, further, it is seen that these deep grooves are almost always regular and uniform in depth, and equidistant, their production by the successive cuts of the jewel teeth of a saw appears to be beyond question..."
Click to expand...
Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Petrie - Spirit & Stone
 
Yes, a circular saw, made of what, cutting edge made of what, powered by, well, what indeed? And thirty five feet in diameter!:rolleyes:

Notice who authors the article you linked to regarding such a saw on another thread and in what magazine it appears. The link to it is in your post on one of the other three threads on this exact topic begun recently (the "fantastic video that could change" history (!) thread).

Absurd.

And showing an acute and abysmal lack of appreciation for the peoples of antiquity, and as my post above asks, where does it all end?

This pseudohistorical, pseudoarchaeological crackpot stuff of so called "alternative history" illustrates a very basic lack of knowledge of even the most rudimentary aspects of history: 1. its chronology (how glaring that is: I think some, if asked to chronologically place the emperor Hadrian, Henry VIII, the Assyrians, and Cleopatra, couldn't do it, most couldn't do it; and you know, that is ok, because I can't do a lot of what other people I admire can do, but when people here on this forum make these crackpot "hypotheses" about history and know essentially nothing about it;), it reaches an even lower level of lack of knowledge) 2. cultural history 3. technological history 4. political history 5. sociological movements within cultures 6. religious history 7. the interaction of all of these within a culture/civilization and among contemporaneous (and even past) cultures/civilizations.

The bottom line is that the fringe purveyors of alternative "history" believe in some flavor of advanced and vanished civilization existing thousands and thousands (and thousands!) of years before what is scientifically and historically proved is the very accurate window of what we call recorded HUMAN history. And then, when they are asked to provide evidence, of course they cannot, but merely insist, "well, the peoples of antiquity just COULDN'T build those beautiful and heavy and precise structures, BUT

"this VANISHED civilization (whether in chocolate, strawberry, vanilla, peach, lime, or take your pick from the menu of any ice cream store) COULD HAVE built (read DID BUILD!) these heavy and beautiful and precise architectural feats, BECAUSE

"THEY had 35 foot diameter circular saws powered by, well, I'm not sure what powered them, but............................."

And that's if they can bring themselves to leave behind the alien stuff.

I am talking here of the popularized "alternative history" shows, articles, books, internet conspiracy sites, etc. I would never even presume to think that anyone on this forum is not historically knowledgeable or not scientifically competent.;)

I would never hint that anyone on this forum denies clear evidence, or is any way a subscriber to what is called "pyramidiocy." Kim:D
 
KIM!!!! We need your all knowing brain to tell us SPECIFICALLY how the pyramids were built. Are you going to man up and give us answers or puss out?
 
It is plain to see Kim is not the brightest bulb and he is clearly rattled, dazed and confused. Maybe we need to let him rest a little, take his meds and think things thru a little more.
 
Well, Pixel, if you read our exchanges on this topic, you will see that you have succumbed to the utmost frustration at your inability to read my posts (you don't read them, we know that) and to see that I have answered your questions on this thread and the two others begun recently on this same topic.

What really gets you to frothing and foaming are my questions asking for specifics to the things you allege and "postulate" and "hypothesize" about regarding the "alternative history" "field."

I don't want to bring up any bad memories, and I have no interest in debating the following topics, as I've seen your methods and ideas on them elsewhere, but they mirror your fringe beliefs. They are:

1. vaccinations, which have saved countless lives, especially of children
2. global warming, which is an indisputable fact

This is meant only to express what I believe are some parallels as to what you are willing to believe, and then to get very frustrated when confronted with evidence. I have no interest in or will I discuss numbers 1 and 2 above. Kim:p
 
Pixel, there you go again, foaming and frothing over your inability to see that I have clearly covered this topic, and to recognize the clear evidence that this alternative history crackpot stuff is just that, crackpot.

You get very frustrated when asked for specifics concerning your beliefs and statements on the topic in this thread and two others recently begun on it.

I have said elsewhere I've noticed that two other topics seem to call forth your frustration in a very similar fashion.

I, however, have no interest in or will I discuss these two topics, and I bring them up only to point out your, in my opinion, willingness to forgo clear evidence in this topic on this thread:

1. vaccinations, those wondrous things that have saved countless lives, including the lives of many, many, many children. And giving them lives free of some horrific diseases that if they somehow survived would have awful consequences for their lives
2. global warming, which is an indisputable fact

Kim:p
 
I'm sorry, but I cannot resist inserting some silliness. Here is Dr. Bruce Goldberg, the Dentist/Hypnotherapist/Time Traveler spouting his wacky nonsense about the pyramids and so forth. Good grief. If this guy says it, it must be complete and utter malarkey. This is obviously someone playing the rubes for all they are worth.


The Bruce Goldberg quack drinking game. Take a shot every time Goldberg says, "If you will."
 
Back
Top