Were we visited before?

[craterchains (Norval]

Watch em fall now,,,,

ADDED
We were also taught that electrons flowed from + to – at one time in schools.
We were also taught that the sound barrier would never be broken.
,,,, and the list is endless.

 

[SkinWalker]

SkinWalker, I am sure you are aware the alignment of the pyramids is to true north, not magnetic north.

Sure... but I was demonstrating that there are questions that he should ask that invoke his critical thinking skills. I always cringe when I hear people say (or write), "I heard that...."

The age of the pyramids is still contested, according to
which branch of science you follow.

This is true, but the quibble that archaeologists have among themselves is usually on the order of a few hundred (sometimes within a hundred) years. Certainly not within the magnitude of difference that Graham Hancock and his cohorts suggest (10,000+ years).

 

[SkinWalker]

The origins of the Pyramids(ect.) are still very debatable.

Has anyone else been puzzled by the fact that there seems to be pyramid structures in so many of our Ancient cultures?

To those who've studied one or both cultures, it isn't so mystifying. But to the lay-person, it can become "puzzling," particularly when someone like Graham Hancock makes wild inferences, many of them patently false.

I'm not blowing you off, I just don't have time for a more detailed explanation, but I'll get back to this topic in a day or so with an explanation that may shed some light on the similarities between ancient Egyptian and Mesoamerican pyramids (I'm at work and need to reference some of my notes at home).

 

[SkinWalker]

When one seriously studies ancient documents, paintings, and so on there is a great mound of evidence that is not easily explained away. If just half of these so called de-bunkers did their job on the evidence and not on the person we would be far more advanced in our understanding of the facts.

And that, folks, is a proper demonstration of pseudoarcheologic rhetoric. In fact, that retort is almost cut & paste of a Graham Hancock website.

List the "evidence" and lets discuss it. I won't pretend to be able to explain everything, but lack of an explanation is certainly not evidence of "paleo SETI" (itself, a pseudoscientific term).

 

[SkinWalker]

How else could we have evolved beyond apes?

Conversely, how could natural selection and evolution not exceed the intelligence of lesser primates?

It would seem that we should still be in apelike form instead of the intelligent beings that we are.

It seems painfully obvious that we are in ape-like form. The genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes is about 1.6%.

Where did the Neanderthals go? Why did they die out?

Many species have reached evolutionary "dead ends" for many reasons: Australopithecus robustus, A. boisei, etc. But it may be that the didn't die out but evolved. There is evidence to support both sides of that argument, though most anthropologists tend to agree that Neanderthal man is evolved from Homo erectus and the population discontinued rather than evolve into archaic H. sapiens.

We didn't descend from them, but we branched off before them, and we should still be apes, but we're not.

Why "should we still be apes?"

Did they interbreed with a higher being?

Wouldn't you expect some out of place, alien protein within our DNA? Instead, we have protiens that are remarkably consistent with the rest of the animals on the planet, particularly with primates. I'm amazed at the reaches people will go when answers aren't readily available. There have been countless discoveries of early hominids at various stages of evolution that clearly shows a transition from primate to modern human. There's no evidence of a sudden introduction of "new DNA" but rather gradual evolution.

Although I'm not religious, I believe there could be some legendary truths in Genesis (i.e. "sons of gods, daughters of men," etc.). I believe the order of the Torah is incorrect.

Sounds like you have a "religious belief" to me. It may not be an established or practiced religion, but your beliefs (on this point of the "emergence of man") seem to meet the same desire for explanation that many of the world's religions do.

The Nazca Lines: Why were they carved so big into the rock that they could only be seen from miles up? I don't think apes did this. There had to be some intelligent life that carved these images into the rock plain.

First, the lines were't carved into rock. The topsoil and rocks were removed to expose the lighter soil underneath. Producing these lines was easily within the abilities of the Nazca peoples. But you are right.. there was an intelligent life that created them. Second, the Nazca were primitive, but every bit as intelligent as you and I. Many theories abound among anthropologists and archaeologists about the purpose of these lines: running tracks for atheletes, ceremonial pilgrimage sites (there is evidence that the lines were traveled, perhaps by walking), homage to the dead, a calendar system, etc.

The pyramids: You know, I don't believe the story that the pyramids were created by the hard labor of slaves.

There is evidence to support your belief... in fact, many current anthropologists, archaeologists and researchers of Egyptology believe that the workers were not slaves at all, but paid.

I believe they were made by an intelligent race with the use of precise technology and possibly anti-gravity.

I believe the same thing. Only I think you and I disagree on the antigravity methods. I tend to think that people-power and clever mechanics was the method of anti-gravity. Heroditus recorded the building of pyramids in his writings: "The work went on in three-monthly shifts, 100,000 men in a shift. It took ten years of this oppressive slave labour to build the track along which the blocks were hauled..." Though current evidence supports that at least some of the pyramids were constructed by paid workers.

A short quote from W.M. Flinders Petrie: "The Great Pyramid contained about 2,300,000 stones, averaging 50 x 50 x 28 inches, or 2½ tons each. If 8 men brought 10 stones, 100,000 would bring 125,000 stones each season or the total number in less than 20 years."

The other thing I think is that perhaps at the time they were made Titans ruled the Earth. That wouldn't make it so hard to build the pyramids if a race of Titans built them.

Except that during the period that the Pyramids were built, there is no artifactual or epigraphical evidence to even suggest such a thing.

As far as their alignment, there's something to that. I just haven't gotten into it, but I think it has something to do with the skies, kind of like an bservatory.

Exactly. Imagine people as intelligent as contemporary humans. Now imagine that there is no mass media entertainment (television, movies, internet). Now imagine that there is very little light pollution. Its easy to imagine then that the night sky was a wonderous thing indeed and that many people were very intimate with its patterns. Kate Spence (2000) effectively modeled how the pyramids were aligned and even accounted for some minor deviations that researchers previously had difficulty explaining.

Humanity: Where did our intelligence come from? Did it just evolve along with the apes, or did an intelligent race interbreed with the apes. I believe the latter. ... Otherwise, why are there still great apes today?

Evolution is a branching and splitting process that involves populations. A good example is the orangutan. There are two primary species, the Sumatran and the Borneo. Already the two can be identified based on physical characteristics, but they can interbreed and create fertile young so they are technically part of the same species. In perhaps a few thousand (though more likely a few million years), assuming the two populations remain separate, there will be enough genetic distance due to genetic drift, mutation and selection, that the two will not be able to interbreed. Perhaps one population will no longer be able to survive due to a change in environment, but the other will flourish.

This is similar to human evolution. The ape doesn't merely cease to exist because the human took charge. But perhaps populations of apes were outcompeted by humans or predated by humans. The gorilla, for instance.

 

[SkinWalker]

I would also ask you to follow your own advice.

If I've cited some reference that is incorrect, or stated some fact that isn't true, please let me know. But I will only cite that with which I've been able to see the evidence. If I "hear" of something, I look it up. In a credible source.

Just because one theory is accepted as fact, doesn't make it so.

"Accepted" theories are so because they are supported by testable hypotheses. These have far more credibility than untested or untestable hypotheses. That isn't to say that a theory can't some day be revised due to new information/data. But this is a far cry from the pseudoscience dribble that comes from the likes of Hancock.

IMO, The origins of the Pyramids(ect.) are still very debatable.

How so? There is a preponderance of artifactual and epigraphical evidence. Do you know of some new evidence?

Has anyone else been puzzled by the fact that there seems to be pyramid structures in so many of our Ancient cultures?

As stated before, the pyramid is a common sense structure due to stability. But in examining pyramids of different cultures, such as the Egyptian and the Mesoamerican, we can note the many differences beyond pyramid shape.

Mesoamerican pyramids were constructed for ceremonial purpose rather than funerary. You might also note that Mesoamerican pyramids were designed to be climbed after construction, which probably lent reason to the lower angle than their Egyptian counterparts. The pyramid is merely a logical method of creating a large structure that needs to rely upon gravity for stability.

 

[ScRaMbLe]

If pyramids were build by aliens why wouldnt they use mortar or cement to hold the stones together? Surely any space faring race would be familiar with the concepts of holding shit together. No one wants tall buildings falling down all round the place now do they? If they build them as monuments to last through the ages why wouldn't they use the extra precaution of cementing them with mortar? unless of course it was merely humans who built them and they hadn't invented mortar yet.

Now is when someone steps in and tells me they did use mortar to build the pyramids, in which case you should all disregard this entire post, coz I really didn't bother looking into it... :m:

 

[VRob]

This is true, but the quibble that archaeologists have among themselves is usually on the order of a few hundred (sometimes within a hundred) years. Certainly not within the magnitude of difference that Graham Hancock and his cohorts suggest (10,000+ years).

In reference to the debated issue of 'the age of the Pyramids/Sphinx at Giza',,,, I don't believe the difference is with a few hundred years. Graham Hancock isn't the only one suggesting a much older time frame. There are others, even geologist who state that the weathering on the Sphinx is clearly caused by water. Specifically, water falling from above(rain water), not flooding. There is a distinct difference, and one the Egyptologist have yet to explain.

Skinwalker, there is a very large ego factor that the Egyptologist have regarding their current views of Giza. They're very reluctant to accept new theories based on new evidence in part because they've developed so many additional theories around the age theories. For them to accept the new evidence, or to even consider it, they would have to rethink much of the area's history. Thus far, they respond to this new evidence with smirks and giggles. Very unprofessional if you ask me, but then again, not surprising. The arrogance of man knows few boundries.

Another question that's always puzzled me. Why doesn't the Great Pyramid(or the other 2), have any hyrogliphics writings inside? The Egyptians documented nearly everything, yet no writings inside their greatest achievement, and no documentation of when/how it was built. This just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[SkinWalker]

Yes, but Robert Schoch is more or less alone in his hypothesis of the real date of the Sphinx. His contention is that the weathering of the limestone used in its construction is proof of the age, however, there are many other geologic features that suggest that the limestone indeed would have weathered as it did from the 4th Dynasty.

Schoch's "theory" is right in line with Hancock's and Bauval's, however, and, not surprisingly, they embrace him very readily. The important thing to consider here is that there is only one geologist who contends a new age of the Sphinx (that I'm aware of). And he's not a ver experienced one at that.

Schoch believes that it has to be prior to 5000 BCE due to the lack of erosional water in the vicinity of the Sphinx after that point, though he doesn't consider seasonal and subsurface moisture related to the nearby river; and he points out that in 10500 BCE, the Sphinx would be facing the constellation Leo (never mind that Leo wasn't a constellation that the Egyptians recognized).

One thing is for sure: no other monument in the world is dated based upon erosional forces. And I can think of no geologist (my minor is in geology, so I know a few) that uses star alignments to corroborate anything. Dating methods likely employed with the Sphinx include radiocarbon, dendrochronology, stratigraphy (a relative dating method), etc. I'll have to look through some notes and see if there were any specific methods, but there were more than one used and they basically supported and corroborated each other.

So yes. The Sphinx was very likely constructed in the Fourth Dynasty.

Hawass, Z., and M.Lehner (1994). "Remnant of a Lost Civilisation?" Archaeology September/October: 44-47

 

[VRob]

Skinwalker,

I don't put much credence into the Leo aspect of the Sphinx connection either. But, I think one of the questions we have here is whether or not the Egyptians of that time even built it.

Could you elaborte on the other geological features of the Sphinx that point towards its construction during the 4th dynasty? The only real evidence I know of, besides chemical dating methods, is the Pharoah who is supposedly carved on the face of the Sphinx. Using his time as ruler of Egypt to date the Sphinx.

Can you comment on my other questions regarding the documenting of the Great Pyramid's construction, and the lack of hyrogliphics within its walls. This to me, is very damaging to the standard theories. Where is the documentation for its construction?

 

[SkinWalker]

Now is when someone steps in and tells me they did use mortar to build the pyramids, in which case you should all disregard this entire post, coz I really didn't bother looking into it...

Actually, they did use mortar , particularly in the larger seams. It was typically irregular limestone pieces and globs of gypsum (the actual mortar matrix). Within the mortar have been found fired reddish clay particles, bits of stone tools, evidence of tool use by flecks of green copper (from chisels) and even pot sherds. The interesting thing is that it can contain small bits of charcoal, in sample sizes (some of which can be used for dating) but this charcoal indicates that a heating process was used with the gypsum.

 

[SkinWalker]

Now is when someone steps in and tells me they did use mortar to build the pyramids, in which case you should all disregard this entire post, coz I really didn't bother looking into it...

Actually, they did use mortar , particularly in the larger seams. It was typically irregular limestone pieces and globs of gypsum (the actual mortar matrix). Within the mortar have been found fired reddish clay particles, bits of stone tools, evidence of tool use by flecks of green copper (from chisels) and even pot sherds. The interesting thing is that it can contain small bits of charcoal, in sample sizes (some of which can be used for dating) but this charcoal indicates that a heating process was used with the gypsum.



@VRob: I'll have to get back to you later tonight on those questions. They're intriguing, but the lack of epigraphical evidence inside the pyramid is an ethnographic problem rather than a extraterrestrial one.

 

[VRob]

@VRob: I'll have to get back to you later tonight on those questions. They're intriguing, but the lack of epigraphical evidence inside the pyramid is an ethnographic problem rather than a extraterrestrial one.

Skinwalker,

I have not mentioned an extraterrestial incident.

In fact, I wasn't even thinking about one. If I was to take a guess, I'd say the Giza structures could be remnants from a pre-Egyptian civilization. We know that the current sea level is well over 200 ft. above what it was around 10,000 BC. Today, 90% of our population resides on or very near a coast. Could it be that a pre-Egyptian/pre-Sumarian society could have existed?

Look at the newly found ruins just off the shores of Cuba, or Japan.

 

[ScRaMbLe]

Actually, they did use mortar

Guddammit! This always happens when I shoot my mouth off when stoned. You'd think I'd learn...

 

[SkinWalker]

Skinwalker,

I have not mentioned an extraterrestial incident.

No, you didn't. Sorry... I didn't mean to imply that. The original poster/thread starter began with a question about Graham Hancock, who does imply the "extraterrestrial" influance. That's what I've been trying to keep my posts relavant to.

Look at the newly found ruins just off the shores of Cuba, or Japan.

Which ones? I know there is a very questionable find in deep water of "megaliths," but to date, nothing has been shown that suggests it's any less natural than the "bimini road" formation (which is demonstrably natural, btw). There have been some other recent finds, but the details elude me at the moment.

I'll have to get back to this more later.... just slipping on between classes.

 

[2inquisitive]

SkinWalker, I'm not trying to be a smartass, but you did say to correct any errors you
may have posted. I suppose you overlooked it, because I know you know better!
============================================================
by SkinWalker:
"
There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that the pyramids were manmade and no more than 2500 - 3000 years old."
================================================================
I'm sure you know the generally accepted date for the construction of the Great Pyramid was around 2560 B.C. That means 4564 years old, of course.
In another post, you mentioned Heroditus as recording the construction as:
"Heroditus recorded the building of pyramids in his writings: "The work went on in three-monthly shifts, 100,000 men in a shift. It took ten years of this oppressive slave labour to build the track along which the blocks were hauled..." Though current evidence supports that at least some of the pyramids were constructed by paid workers."
The references I saw listed said 20 years instead of 10 years, but that is not the issue. Heroditus was a Fifth century Greek historian. He reported that his information
on the construction came from his Egyptian GUIDES, for Christ sake! Why do you quote such as this when you supposedly rely on the "scientific method?"

 

[SkinWalker]

SkinWalker, I'm not trying to be a smartass, but you did say to correct any errors you
may have posted. I suppose you overlooked it, because I know you know better!
============================================================
by SkinWalker:
"
There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that the pyramids were manmade and no more than 2500 - 3000 years old."
================================================================

I'm sure you know the generally accepted date for the construction of the Great Pyramid was around 2560 B.C. That means 4564 years old, of course.

Hehe... you got me. I was thinking 2500 - 3000 BCE, but somehow the neurons between my brain and fingers created "years old." I'm sure it's caffeine related

In another post, you mentioned Heroditus ... He reported that his information
on the construction came from his Egyptian GUIDES, for Christ sake! Why do you quote such as this when you supposedly rely on the "scientific method?"

I have to agree with you about Heroditus, he was more of a "tourist" than a "historian." Still, his writings were based on actual travels as best as we can tell, and the account, while likely the result of some Egyptian guide's embelishment and "stringing along" to keep his business, can give us a clear indication that the labor itself occured. I'm sure if there were any fantastic means at work (other than 100,000 laborers), Heroditus would have been the first write it up.

I wouldn't use works of early literaries for exclusive evidence, but they can offer some of the color or feel of a period that stict adherence to interpreting artifacts cannot.

 

[2inquisitive]

But Heroditus "toured" Egypt in the 5th century B.C., not the 25th century B.C. Two
thousand years later is not exactly the same period.

 

[SkinWalker]

I have only the words of Col. Jessup to offer.

I suppose I should read Heroditus more carefully..... I always had the impression that he was there during one of the construction periods....

Now... where did I leave my crow sandwich?

 

[2inquisitive]

No problem. I figure you were somehow confusing the Fifth Dynasty with the Fifth
Century B.C.