Skip to comments.
Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims
World Mysteries ^
| FR Post 12-2-2002
| by Will Hart
Posted on 12/02/2002 4:30:56 PM PST by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
To: vannrox
Regarding the pyramids: How about if you quarry the stones as more or less round, and roll them to the site and finish shaping them there. As you go higher, you pile dirt so that you make a dirt ramp to the top. Basically, you are building a mountain of dirt with the pyramid being built inside the mountain. When you are done, you put the dirt back where it came from.
41
posted on
12/02/2002 9:37:23 PM PST
by
staytrue
To: vannrox
Thanks for the fascinating posts. However, this gentleman has some beliefs he is not sharing with us.
42
posted on
12/02/2002 10:14:00 PM PST
by
mrustow
To: mrustow
BUMP
To: ml/nj; vannrox; VadeRetro; PatrickHenry; blam
Pyramids schmyramids.
Let's talk about Baalbek.
Some of the larger stones in Baalbek weigh in at about 750 tons.
The largest Baalbek stone never made it all the way to the structure. It's 68' x 14' x 14', and estimated at over 1200 tons.
How'd they do that?
To: vannrox
A few months ago a wide-eyed Freeper tried to claim that we couldn't cut and move even 20-ton stone blocks even *today*.
So I went web-searching for rebuttal, and ran across *hundreds* of examples of routine quarrying of blocks in the 20-1000 ton range, *including* such examples as 50-ton granite blocks cut and moved large distances in the 1800's using nothing fancier than a wooden cart and a bunch of horses.
Subsitute a large team of slaves for the horses, and clearly the Egyptians were up to the same level of task, at the very least.
45
posted on
12/03/2002 1:07:39 AM PST
by
Dan Day
To: Sabertooth
Don't know how they did that, but I'd be more impressed it they'd got the big one all the way to where it went.
To: Sabertooth
To: MHGinTN; LogicWings
A great read you might enjoy....
To: expatpat
I've seen recent film of Easter islanders finishing, moving, and erecting a monolith with primitive tools and methods.
Is the article arguing there were no geniuses before modern times?
49
posted on
12/03/2002 9:59:01 AM PST
by
js1138
To: vannrox
He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism<. Apparently, neither does the idea that we went to the moon. Investigative journalism? Rigors?
To: vannrox
Well maybe the planet saturn was orbiting around earth at the time so there was less gravity so the eygptians were able to move the stones by hand,
damn, we need Ted Holden back
To: Pavlovs Dog
According to the online etymology dictionary Replicate comes from the 19th century
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=repl possibly even earlier since the noun form replication (a clear and obvious Latin root work) comes from the 14th century. The things in Blade Runner were replicants.
52
posted on
12/03/2002 10:27:29 AM PST
by
discostu
To: betty boop
Thank you, bb, I will read through it at my next break. [I still contend the big blocks were poured in place, then later internal solid blocks were placed. and more external blocks were poured in place, then solid internal blocks were placed, then more poured in place, etc, etc. 'Etc' the escape for the non-scientist, don'tcha know!]
53
posted on
12/03/2002 10:30:54 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: vannrox
Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. That's probably because they cut the stones to size before they lifted them to their spots.
That's a bit of presumption on the part of the modern-day builders.
If, however, a stone of approximately the right size were placed up there, it could then be dressed to the proper dimensions in situ. IOW, no need for precision rock-shifting.
As for the rest, it's brute force -- and the Pharoahs were not shy about using it.
54
posted on
12/03/2002 10:35:14 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: js1138
To me, his point is not very clear. I think he's arguing that the explanations made so far are completely inadequate, and then perhaps that there were geniuses before modern times, they were so smart that we can't figure out how they did it.
55
posted on
12/03/2002 8:11:48 PM PST
by
expatpat
To: vannrox; blam; FairOpinion
saw the original edition in William Corliss' newsletter, bought it from him (I think), read it, really like it, recommend it.
56
posted on
08/09/2004 7:02:21 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
To: SunkenCiv
57
posted on
08/09/2004 8:00:25 PM PDT
by
AFreeBird
(your mileage may vary)
To: vannrox
58
posted on
08/09/2004 8:05:35 PM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
To: SunkenCiv
NOW you tell us! I went to the link, it's out of print!
Now you have to tell me what Daidovits concluded. :)
59
posted on
08/09/2004 10:21:58 PM PDT
by
FairOpinion
(FIGHT TERRORISM! VOTE BUSH/CHENEY 2004.)
To: SunkenCiv
The thread is interesting too. Thanks for the ping.
60
posted on
08/09/2004 10:22:47 PM PDT
by
FairOpinion
(FIGHT TERRORISM! VOTE BUSH/CHENEY 2004.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson