Ancient knowledge, lost or censored ?

[pixelsmith]

you know how to build the pyramids but you dont know how to use a water level? lmao.

 

[pixelsmith]

give me detailed specifics on how the pyramids were built and the tools used and i will tell you how i built a water level.

 

[trainedobserver]

I suppose you missed the term "relatively" as in relative to their times and our times.

No, I just saw it as bearing no relevance as modern man has completely outdone anything ancient man accomplished. Creating giant stone buildings is impressive but it isn't rocket science (for example) by any stretch of the imagination.

I think the main difference is the accumulated knowledge available to us that wasn't available then. They had to work with what they knew and had readily available and whatever they did required a great deal of innovation. They certainly had to work their brains harder, which in all reality probably did make them on the average a little smarter than a member of the google generation. I see your point.

 

[Kim323]

What I'm wondering about is the garden hose part, Pixel. I've used clear tubing for better visibility. But if you can make one using a garden hose, so be it. Just curious as to how with the hose, and I'll be willing to learn.

As for the pyramids, you'll just have to put your beer and popcorn away. I've answered those questions about their construction and cutting granite, etc. Ad nauseam. And links, I'm darned if I do and darned if I don't use them. But you don't read anything anyway.

And for the religious taunting, that is your and others' method of operation, and it has no effect on me, and just shows your own ignorance. Kim

 

[pixelsmith]

Kim, it is common knowledge so I figured you would know how. You have to be smarter than a hose to understand it, so i am not sure i can help you. Sorry!

 

[Kim323]

Pixel, why not just use translucent tubing? It's more flexible by far, even with hose size tubing, and you can even add some coloring or, as my friend down the street did, used colored windshield cleaner fluid. You can check for air bubbles more easily (very important) and it's a heck of a lot easier to see.

That's the simplest method.

Perhaps you better put me on ignore, too, Pixel, because you and some members have trouble when presented with evidence, a plea to do some studying, and a request for specifics on these sweeping generalizations you and they make, in this case the history of architectural wonders and how they were built.
But when the evidence is clear on some of these wild fringe statements, the evidence should be presented, and will be, whether I'm "ignored" or not. That doesn't bother me, but since I bother you, maybe you should click the ignore button. Kim

 

[Kim323]

Oh about the time Jesus returns.

You alleged some very strong things about teachers, and that's fine, your opinion. But you expressed them so venomously that I asked you for specifics.

You also alleged some very strong things about teachers "living lies" and being under the "tyrannical" domination of this "Elite" in a list of different subjects they teach. This doesn't bother me personally. I just asked you for some specifics in the form of some specific questions, so I can understand the evidence you are using to make these very sweeping generalizations.

Thanks. Kim

 

[pixelsmith]

Well you are wrong about it being the simplest method. I did not have translucent tubing so I would have had to travel about 30 miles to purchase it when the simplest method was using a garden hose that was 2 feet away from the post holes. THAT was the simplest method.

I do not put anyone on ignore. I have NO trouble with any evidence presented. I welcome evidence of all kinds. All you have arrogantly presented are "sweeping generalizations" and your beliefs.

 

[Bob Watson]

ok lets look at this;
1;lost knowage tools
there is no evidence that they had such however if such discovery was made I would be the first to laud it. also if they had such knowage and it was lost only to be rediscovered makes them a greater civilation. and the lack of evidance dose not pove they did or did not have such knowage or tools.
2;ramp theroy
the ramp theroy is born out by recent discoverys. thus is a given the ramps were used.however to what extent is unknown. the problem with the ramps is they will get to a point where constuction of the ramps are more problems then acculy building the stucture.
3 casting therory
there is some evidence that blocks were cast on site . this method is unrelible and not proved out.
so there we have it. many unknowns and I being a humble student will simply stand back and marvel in the glory of these wonderus creations.

 

[Kim323]

Well you are wrong about it being the simplest method. I did not have translucent tubing so I would have had to travel about 30 miles to purchase it when the simplest method was using a garden hose that was 2 feet away from the post holes. THAT was the simplest method.

I do not put anyone on ignore. I have NO trouble with any evidence presented. I welcome evidence of all kinds. All you have arrogantly presented are "sweeping generalizations" and your beliefs.

You know, Pixel, I must say I admire this post, really. True, I've never used a garden hose on my parents' property, where I've put in a lot of posts, and when done with students (it's a good science experiment with fourth graders), I've also used translucent tubing for visibility.

So, I frankly have never thought of using a garden hose, so if you did, well, you're better skilled than I am on that one.

And as for the ignore comment, I like that. You don't always listen, that's for sure, but to me that ignore feature two members have triumphantly announced personally to me, is a cowardly way out.

I know how I can sound, very lecturing, very pedantic. And ironically, if you can last decades as I have in public school classrooms and the students and parents really like you and think you're doing a great job, well, clearly, I was never so forceful as I have been on this forum. But I do think I've earned my stripes (so to speak) in the fiery furnace of religious argumentation (so to speak) on these forums. And I do wish you would stop with the Bible and Jesus derision. Really, I've been melted down and forged anew on that, and it doesn't bother me, but it does say something about you.

So, we're still sworn enemies, you and I, Pixel, when it comes to many topics, and I will continue to challenge anyone on wild claims. But, yes, I did like this post of yours. Kim

 

[Kim323]

Good post, Bob. Kim

 

[Qetuoadgjl]

No, I just saw it as bearing no relevance as modern man has completely outdone anything ancient man accomplished. Creating giant stone buildings is impressive but it isn't rocket science (for example) by any stretch of the imagination.

I would say the building of the Pyramids, a feat modern man has not come close to duplicating, is relatively a greater accomplishment than space travel. Relative to the time. We still have no idea how they did what they did.

I think the main difference is the accumulated knowledge available to us that wasn't available then. They had to work with what they knew and had readily available and whatever they did required a great deal of innovation. They certainly had to work their brains harder, which in all reality probably did make them on the average a little smarter than a member of the google generation. I see your point.

I would strongly suggest that there is a big chunk of knowledge that they had (astronomical, architectural, construction, other) that they had that presently we have neither reacquired nor acquired.

Or there is another argument which goes more like the knowledge is being withheld and we, certain elite parties, have that knowledge and has not shared it universally. It is hidden yet known.

So it appears that we might agree that there two different knowledge sets with differing capabilities. What that may very well reflect is their culture lacked the need for, for instance, space travel or high speed terrestrial travel or capabilities so there was no cultural desire to advance their knowledge in those areas.

 

[Qetuoadgjl]

You alleged some very strong things about teachers, and that's fine, your opinion. But you expressed them so venomously that I asked you for specifics.

True and I ignored you. Get used to it.

You also alleged some very strong things about teachers "living lies" and being under the "tyrannical" domination of this "Elite" in a list of different subjects they teach. This doesn't bother me personally. I just asked you for some specifics in the form of some specific questions, so I can understand the evidence you are using to make these very sweeping generalizations.

I have no compelling need to debate you on my personal experiences, you live in another dimension of closedmindeness that isn't one iota of interest to me. Including the trolling tactic of misquoting disingenuously for purposes of being purposefully argumentative since, I don't know, you're bored as hell?

Find another sucker.

 

[Kim323]

"misquoting disingenuously for purposes of being purposefully argumentative"
Well, you've certainly come into this forum a blazin' away! I quoted you perfectly, and asked you questions about specifics of the statements you made. They were pretty incendiary toward a group of very hard working people in a very fine profession. Are there some personal experiences that lead you to be so condemnatory, nastily so, toward teachers?

"Big chunks of knowledge that they had (astronomical, architectural, construction)" Who is "they"? The peoples of antiquity? Which cultures/civilizations specifically? What knowledge specifically? What astronomical knowledge, architectural knowledge? Is this the same old stuff, the fringe stuff, or do you have something new?

"the knowledge is being withheld" By whom? What knowledge?

"certain elite parties have that knowledge and has (sic) not shared it" Oh, ok, they are "elite parties." Who, specifically, are these "elite parties"?

"hidden yet known" Be more specific. These are intriguing statements indeed!

I have no trouble with your replies. The invective speaks for itself. The unwillingness to provide specifics to your way out there indeed statements regarding history speaks for itself. You are not offending me, but I will continue to ask for specifics when you make such statements about lost knowledge, "elite parties," and on and on. This is very fringe stuff and should be at least questioned. Your responses speak for themselves.

You have been consistently quoted very accurately, that's what quotation marks denote. I ask you again for specifics. Kim

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, I have answered your questions in my posts, and have answered specifically Gordon's questions.

To address some of your statements, just off the top of my head, no especial order:
1. Why should any culture, the Egyptians in this case, necessarily want to broadcast their reasons, etc., for anything they did, much less building the pyramids? And to the future, a few thousand years, to boot? That's your mindset, and you're putting a heck of a burden on those hard and intelligent people!
2. How does that "failure" on their part to tell YOU, Kieran, the whys and hows of what they clearly accomplished, negate the fact they built those wondrous creations, and not just Giza, which seems to be some sort of obsession among this "alternative history" "field"? They built tens and tens of pyramids.
3. You say you don't "rule out" the Egyptians as building what is clearly THEIR OWN gorgeous structures? Then, Kieran,
4. back to that old question that won't be answered by you or seemingly anyone else: WHO did build them? But there we go again with this stuff.
5. I, again, have answered the question Gordon asked me about how the Egyptians cut granite, and of course limestone is softer, which does not diminish in any way the Egyptians' accomplishments with those heavy limestone blocks!
6. Sweating in the hot sun, you say, and who's discounting the awesome tasks the Egyptians set for themselves? Not me, but THEY built them, and there was no lost knowledge, no 35 foot diameter circular saws (powered by what?), no, well, what tools DO YOU "hypothesize" the Egyptians used, Kieran?


7. Your whole post is nothing new, Kieran. I know you're trying, but you're just doing that old, well, the pyramids are so wonderful (and at this point pick as Gordon does Baalbek, or this person will pick that structure, and where does it end?), and there's NO WAY they could have built them, and so it WASN'T the Egyptians or the Romans (or choose another culture/civilization that couldn't, no way, no how, do it!), and it must have been, as you clearly say above, the real possibility according to you, SOMEONE ELSE who built them! Full circle, but rational it is not, Kieran.
8. WHO, Kieran?
9. You again and again in your post more than allude to being able to read the Egyptians' minds: Why wouldn't they advertise their accomplishments, how could they not?, why shouldn't they have? We here in the future want to know every single step they took, and we're angry that they don't include us. First of all, the ancient Egyptians DID record their history to a great extent, and their very accomplishments tell us very clearly that THEY, well, accomplished them. That's a great fallacy right there, Kieran, to attribute to them what we want. And we're angry at them for not thinking of us!
Number 10, and I could go on and on, but ten sounds like a good number, and no, it's not true as you say, that "realistically" it would "take forever" for the Egyptians to complete the pyramids. They are complete, and if you would research more you would see that the limestone casing stones they used to finish the pyramids would have dazzled your eyes they would have been so gorgeous. They are complete. And I bet, reading their minds myself (!), that they were duly impressed and proud of their work over many decades, and thought of their grandfathers who had also worked on them! But you, Kieran, sorry to say, were not part of their thoughts, and they owe you nothing!Kim

Kim, you fail to recognize how wrong your postulating is. The ancient Egyptians were a flamboyant culture, to not reveal anything, goes against everything this culture we know it to be were about. If they did not care why were they so extravagant with everything else they did? What evidence proves it for you categorically, the Egyptians build the pyramid at Giza? Is it only a belief, or do you know something that you would care to share with us now? Because its a accepted fact (both sides) the Egyptians did not accept responsibility for this building. Whatever why you want to cut it that is strange. The burden of prove is on you Kim the Egyptians are no longer here to tell us. Finding stones and chisels and small ramps buried in the desert sands isn't prove of anything, only that some work in the past was going on there at one time or another. The Egyptians were communicating non verbally through the use of heiroglyphs. I'm not putting a burden on those hard and intelligent people. I see it as laziness on there behave because any culture that has the use of a written language could so easily have recorded what went on at Giza? But, for me there has to be a reason or many possibly for why they did not claim ownership.

The Pyramids stand yes Kim, but owners like i said usually accept responsibility do they not.

If i knew who build them why would i be even debating this with you now. I don't know. But least i don't lay blame at the Egyptians feet. I don't have a belief, i am merely basing my reasoning on the facts unlike you.

How did the Egyptians cut granite using copper chisels. You said you have a explanation as to how that was done can you tell me? I do not know what they used Kim, i wasn't there to ask them. But chemistry tells us copper can not cut granite so lets stick to what the facts are please.

Here is something that is hotly debated still today the "Inventory Stele" supposedly written by priests during the 26th dynasty . It was discovered in 1850 to the east of the Great pyramid.. Egyptologists are divided is this genuine or not, but there is ample evidence that proves it is a genuine work.

In this stele.

Khufu speaks of discoveries made when he cleared away the sands from the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid. Unlikely he build the pyramid if he made discoveries?

He identified the Pyramid as the house of Isis.

According to one text in the stele the pharaoh inspected the Sphinx (taken from a website)

found that the monument and a nearby sycamore tree had been struck by lightning. The lightening strike had knocked off part of the headdress of the Sphinx, which Khufu restored. Egyptologist Selim Hassan, who dug the Sphinx out from the surrounding sands in the 1930's, observed there was indeed evidence that portions of the Sphinx were damaged by lightning, and the location of the ancient repairs was clearly visible. He also discovered that sycamore trees once grew to the south of the monument. The Stele finishes with the story of how Khufu built small pyramids for himself, his wife, daughters and other family members, next to the Great Pyramid.​

4th dynasty inscriptions found at Giza also confirm that Khufu was building mastaba fields for his senior officials to the west of the Great Pyramid in the fifth year of his reign. Given the time frame and huge resources necessary for the construction of the Great Pyramid, it would appear highly unlikely that he would have diverted significant manpower and materials from the building of his own 'tomb' to build these masteba and smaller pyramids. The inscriptions make a great deal more sense if the Great Pyramid was already in existence.​

 

[trainedobserver]

I do not put anyone on ignore.

This triggered my ignore list bot.

 

[Kieran]

In 1853 A. Mariette found the so-called Inventory Stela, or, the so-called Stela of the daughter of Cheops (Khufu). It was found on the east side of the pyramid of GIC, located on the east side of the great pyramid and dated to the 26th Dynasty. The stela indicates that the Sphinx was repaired in this period. To this period may be attributed the major layer of restoration masonry on the upper part of the Sphinx's body on the south side. This layer, composed of smaller slabs than those of the Old Kingdom, was laid over the earlier (phase I) layer of Thutmosis, the surface of which was cut away in phase II, however, for fitting the new stones. It is important to note here that the restorers did not remove the Old Kingdom stones from the Sphinx. The Saite restoration also focused on the Sphinx's tail and on the (nemes) headdress. The Egyptians of this period may also have painted the Sphinx. There is no evidence, however, of any excavations around the base of the Sphinx in this period. Even Herodotus is silent on the Sphinx, suggesting that it was at least partially obscured with sand.

HISTORY OF THE CONSERVATION OF THE SPHINX

The Stele clearly states the Great pyramid and Sphinx were in existence long before Khufu.

Just to add above is Zawi Hawass writing about this discovery. If it was forgery or fake why does he go and write about in his own words? And why is the Stela kept at the Cairo Museum still today, if it has been proven to be fake? It obvious to me evidence is being ignored here.

 

[Kim323]

Hi, Kieran. Yes, I'm very aware of this Inventory Stela. It is the consensus, and I did some refresher on it just now, to have been done in the seventh century BC, in the reign of a much, much later ruler than when the pyramids were built, or that it is an ancient forgery perhaps. But it does not date from the reign of the pharaoh who was reigning when these structures were built. I read some very reputable website articles, and on the internet you have to be very careful to know which are reputable. I know that's a bad word, reputable, because to some it means that profane word mainstream (!) but this stela is frequently mentioned as something "fringeologists" love to bring forth, and nothing meant toward you personally, Kieran.

The pyramids and the Sphinx were built many, many centuries previous to the creation of this stela, in the reign of Khufu/Cheops. To assume from this stela, which lists things Cheops is said to have found already existing, that the pyramids were already existing before his reign, is quite a stretch indeed, and mainstream scientists and historians do not accept this at all. And to say, as you allege, that the pyramids and the Sphinx existed for, well, how long (?) before they were actually built, is simply not credible.

And you say the Egyptians "were communicating non verbally using hieroglyphs." I don't understand this phrase at all. That they had a written language that was not good at communicating? But in the quoted passages above, there is a lot of information and detail.

The most telling thing you say is that the Egyptians themselves, because of their "flamboyance" and "extravagance" were somehow obligated to tell future generations, including us, that they had built the pyramids. Or, rather, how could they not have advertised and proclaimed it proudly because of their flamboyance. As I said in my post above, that's doing a lot of mindreading and assumptions about the Egyptians. Or, you are engaging in some sort of non sequitur circular reasoning that, if I have it right, says that precisely BECAUSE the Egyptians DID NOT SAY they had built them, BUT SHOULD HAVE SAID they built them, THEREFORE they DID NOT BUILD THEM, and that the pyramids were preexistent a heck of a long time before they were actually built! My head's hurting, Kieran! But as I said in my post above, what evidence is there that the Egyptians do not say they built those structures, or that they flat denied that they built them? No such evidence exists.

But you say "both sides accept" that the Egyptians did not build these things. What are the sides? To me, there are no sides. There is the accepted and correct view of who built them and how they built them, bona fide scholars, historians, and scientists. What is the other side? Well, clearly, to me, you mean those I call the fringe element, who are not credentialed historians, scientists, and scholars. They appear on strange channels of TV propounding and purveying this fringe stuff.

So, if the Egyptians in Cheops's time did not built the pyramids, which is what you say, then I ask that often asked question: WHO did?

As for cutting limestone and granite, it is thought very possible that the Egyptians had iron tools, at least through trading. Also, that using quartz sand along with their tools enabled them to not only cut the granite but to make stunning holes in it.

And the Egyptians DID quarry this limestone and granite. Of course they did, and they did it wonderfully. And transported it to the building site, and used the blocks to build the pyramids. All this is indisputable.

Sometimes simplicity has to be accepted just because of statistics alone. That's because you're assuming too much: lost knowledge, the pyramids were already there, the Egyptians didn't build them because..........., and very, very quickly you have dug yourself into a deep hole of your own digging, Kieran. It's a house of cards that these "alternative history" people construct, and it falls down easily. Kim

 

[Kieran]

Kim, we are going around in circles here when it was written is not disputed. Here for some.
Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the people back then would have known more about this period than us do you not think so? The stela in my mind is probably a true account of what happened. The evidence clearly shows that, unfortunately you can't not see that.

So it best i jump from this debate and let u continue with others debating this.

 

[Bob Watson]

here is a vid on other possabilitys