2.  Originally Posted by Alric If you can make a straight even block two inches long then you can do it 1000 miles long. All it takes is you doing it two inches at a time. The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources. In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help."

3.  This is actually a great idea with the lamp in the box - how did you come to it - never heard it before, I believe?! Is it yours? The use of light is ingenious - won't deviate, you can be sure of that. And I could imagine a huge variety of methods, small other ingenious devices by which - lacking other equipment - a great deal of sophistication in masonry, and also precision could have been achieved. Things we can't even easily think up today, because there is no need for them - and nobody imaginative is seriously and furiously trying to invent something to please a deadly despot.

4.  You could just put a ball on top of the stone, if it isn't level it will start rolling. You could also pour water on it, and the water will flow downwards it is uneven.

5.  My point - many, many physical phenomena follow observable rules, which can be used as measures, with often surprisingly simple contraptions - and how you go about it large scale - pressure put upon a genius. Or several.

6.  Originally Posted by shadowofwind The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources. In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help." However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night. Now that doesn't seem like that much of a problem if you have a good schedule. But, there seems to be loads of room for human error using this method. Constant rechecking and adjusting the angle because it eclipses the light does not seem like a viable working method to me. If they cut the stones it seems likely to me that they cut the stones after they arrived on their assigned spot. It just seems like a good method. And i can see how they did this at night using light. As a layman ofcourse this makes sense. Then we still have the issue of how they got the stones there in the first place. I used to like the idea that the stones have been liquidified for transport solidified at the spot. They could have maybe somehow floated them from all over egypt to the river nile and then placed a construct to transport them to the pyramid in their liquid form.. (the biggest hole in my theory is probably my ignorance in geography and pretty much everything else ^^) I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza, atleast. I believe it was Nikola Tesla who proposed (or maybe even just explained) how the form of pyramids and material they used (Granite? Shadow, you work with Granite. I heared it has oscillating properties or something) causes weather changes in the surrounding area by changing the Ions in the atmosphere to change the Weather to more favorable conditions. (No drought in that part of Egypt). I believe it was this realization that spurred Tesla to make a weather control device and work with oscillating towers.

7.  Originally Posted by Dthoughts However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night. The light is used to assist with the placement of stones, not with the cutting of them. So although the placement would have to be refined at night, almost all of the work and placement would be done during the day. Originally Posted by Dthoughts I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza I think that if we dig down through this structure of beliefs, we find that these kinds of arguments about stone placement are not driving it. You have the belief mostly for other reasons, and fit the arguments around the belief. Otherwise you'd understand ideas like the lamp suggestion better before deciding why they can't work. Likewise for Original Poster. Sorry for leaving this statement hanging without better justification. I must work, more on this later.

8.  I still feel like my position is being made for me in order to be argued against. Why the fuck is the supernatural a required element in any of this? The only claim I made made was that these monuments are older than archeologists are currently claiming. It is currently claimed it took 14-20 years to build the pyramid of Khufu. The reason this is claimed is because of the lineage of Pharaohs and the theory that pyramids are built as funeral monuments so they have a deadline to bury the pharaoh. This claim doesn't add up. That doesn't mean I think anything supernatural is necessarily afoot. Cataclysm, after all, is not a supernatural idea, nor is the idea of reusing structures left behind. That being said, mysticism was a heavy part of Egyptian society. They combined math, science, music and architecture with their religion and believed they could make structure as music frozen in time according to certain Egyptologists. It's been shown that building a pyramid with the same properties as Khufu that also faces direct north has healing properties. This isn't supernatural, this is science we haven't understood yet.

10.  I'm not even trying to argue, dude. I just want a friendly discussion. I'm not changing my stance, I'm whisking through evidence and theories made by other people so that this thread can be a brainstorm of ideas about these monuments, not the antagonistic bickering match you seem intent on having. Compelling ideas were presented to me through various documentaries and other sources such as "Revelation of the Pyramids" because I have a thirst for knowledge, but I remained skeptical and continued inquiring on my own. What I discovered only enhanced the mysterious properties of the Pyramids and other ancient sites, such as learning the healing properties, ley lines, underwater monuments, etc. I decided to compile all of this information on one thread, not because I believe it, but because it's fucking fascinating. The claim made by Revelations of the Pyramids is that these sites are much older than believed and more or less inherited by later civilizations, just as the nation of Egypt has inherited them from the Egyptian Empire. I do not necessarily believe in this claim but based on the evidence I've seen, I found it viable. I'm not changing goal posts or anything, since then all I've done is shrug off the strawmen positions being attacked and reassert the evidence in their regard to speak to how amazing these sites are, perhaps because I feel like they're being underrated and marginalized to a degree. The intricacy of what the ancients understood does not have to mean that they had laser cutting tools or something, that's simply one of the theories proposed I decided to bring attention to. We don't have to bicker about it, in particular. And me bringing up their harmonization with the EM field was not an attempt to argue a mysterious elder civilization, it's me bringing up another unique and amazing quality about these monuments.

12.  I don't actually have attachment to elder civilizations, in fact if you'll note the time of the OP since then I've drifted quite a bit from the original argument. A lot of time has passed, this thread was sort of rezzed and I decided to add the piece of data about how no more people disappear in the Bermuda Triangle than the rest of the ocean, which is critical of theory surrounding the grid system. But the author of that link rubbed me the wrong way. I don't feel like he was giving the data fair respect. He debunked two little aspects of one particular site and then went on to marginalize the entirety of alternate theory on these ancient sites. I draw offense to that kind of well poisoning. You're free to criticize all the evidence in the OP but I don't like it when people ridicule theorists who draw different conclusions. I think it hurts the scientific process. The only claim I still hold onto that actually disagrees with Egyptologists at this point is the timespan they claim Khufu was built in and with it, the original purpose of the pyramids. I also feel like they're mostly considered glorified tombstones when they are much, much more than that. But you've admitted to that, you only draw issue on something I didn't even disagree with you on. And then you claimed I was changing goal posts when I was just trying to find my footing, mostly just from attempting to defend my criticism of StephL's link. If it's hypocritical, then it's hypocritical and I'm capable of much greater hypocrisy than that without noticing it, either. I realized now that if I had just stopped trying to defend my criticism I could have prevented the entirety of what occurred afterward. But frankly, I still don't like that article, I still think it skims over major questions and then acts as if it addressed them and the mystery is solved.

13.  To digress, here's a fascinating little article I just found: Swedish Divers Discover A “Stone Age Atlantis”: 11,000 Year Old Ancient Settlement Under The Baltic Sea | Spirit Science and Metaphysics

14.  Originally Posted by Original Poster I don't actually have attachment to elder civilizations.... .... I still don't like that article, I still think it skims over major questions and then acts as if it addressed them and the mystery is solved. OK. Attachment wasn't the right word for what I was trying to get at, so I take that back. I agree that skeptics in general do what you just said they do. But I think that applies at least as much to proponents of alternative histories. So it appears we're both trying to defend the same principle. My last post came off as more aggressive than what I'd intended. I apologize for that. I'm in Hong Kong for my job. It's a remarkable city. Have to go catch a flight now.

15.  Originally Posted by Original Poster I realized now that if I had just stopped trying to defend my criticism I could have prevented the entirety of what occurred afterward. I was nodding, when I read this - sometimes your defending seems to run away with you. So it does with most of us some of the time.

16.  Found another 10 minutes....Here's what I meant by attachment, which was the wrong word: We feel a need for, and in some sense we feel the presence of, a reality that we can't find in our immediate physical circumstances. This need colors what we perceive as interesting and plausible. Understand or answer that need in a different way, and what seemed stimulating or fascinating before shows its weakness and moral ugliness a lot more easily. I find just about everything on History or Discovery Channel, or the bookstore and Internet equivalent, to be an affront to honest reason. Exploring the reasons for our different perceptions about that, to the extent that they differ, is more interesting to me than the details of the arguments, which are important but not as primary. It's not just a matter of differing starting assumptions. We're attempting to solve or spiritual 'problem' in slightly different ways, and these clashes of perspective are a symptom. As I see it.

Page 2 of 2 First 1 2

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•