Contemporary Great Pyramid Document

[Tiompan]

http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%201.pdf

Why bring that up ?
What is it a response to ?

[E.P. Grondine]

Tiompan, skiessa is not the only person who needs to do some reading.

Part 2:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%202.pdf

Part 3:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%203.pdf

It will take you about 3 hours, total, and it is a fun read.

[Tiompan]

EP ,
Skiessa's problem is more to do with a lack of critical thinking ,and too easy acceptance of the BS .
Dunno if more reading will fix that .

I've have a pile to get through at the moment .
Another exposé of the alt crowd , I don't really need .

[Skiessa]

Tiompan, skiessa is not the only person who needs to do some reading.

Part 2:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%202.pdf

Part 3:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%203.pdf

It will take you about 3 hours, total, and it is a fun read.

It's just sad that regardless of how many problems i've underlined with the mainstream archaeological view of the pyramids and the mainstream archaeological method in general you somehow feel no responsibility to answer any of my arguments and on top of that claim that i'm the one who should do some reading. read what? another silly hypothesis which with absolutely no evidence should be respected as a scientific theory? or some puny insult on my inability to buy some 100 year old fairy tale written by fake scientists on a field which relying on authority systematically erases any differing view on the history of civilization?

i guess that no matter how much you try to debate with a baboon, it will still just steal your camera and pee on your luggage. the really sad thing is that you along with your little helpers represent very well the whole field of archaeology.

[circumspice]

Never play chess with a pigeon. It will just knock the pieces over & shit on the chess board...

@skiessa: The members of this board have attempted to answer your questions & debate the subject with you.

It is senseless to try to have a discussion with you about any aspect of these subjects. Your opinion was already formed when you began the 'discussion'. You came here only to try to convert/convince the members of this board to your beliefs. Like the pigeon, you shit on any idea that doesn't match your opinion. This is not a discussion or debate, this is evangelism. And, you SUCK at evangelism because your beliefs aren't original, you merely parrot the alt/fake archaeology crowd. Not a single one you have quoted has a educational degree in the relevant subjects. And neither do you, as evidenced by your ignorance of the subjects 'discussed'.

You've said your piece & shat on the chessboard. Time to move on troll.

[Tiompan]

It is senseless to try to have a discussion with you about any aspect of these subjects.

It's also a waste of time .

Much better to simply point out the irrefutable errors .In this case , he was unaware of how monuments are actually dated , unaware of taphonomy and taphonomic logic .
Unaware of simple technology to achieve accurate cardinal orientations , got the figure for axial precession wrong which makes a mockery of the "magic 72 ".
The fact that he was claiming the value of the error of the northing was important in providing the value that lead to to the erroneous 72 was the sort of nonsense that could be discussed ,
so best avoided ,but there was enough that was simply wrong to save the bother .

[Skiessa]

It is senseless to try to have a discussion with you about any aspect of these subjects.

It's also a waste of time .

Much better to simply point out the irrefutable errors .In this case , he was unaware of how monuments are actually dated , unaware of taphonomy and taphonomic logic .
Unaware of simple technology to achieve accurate cardinal orientations , got the figure for axial precession wrong which makes a mockery of the "magic 72 ".
The fact that he was claiming the value of the error of the northing was important in providing the value that lead to to the erroneous 72 was the sort of nonsense that could be discussed ,
so best avoided ,but there was enough that was simply wrong to save the bother .

You mean cling on minor errors on one's arguments and even on the side notions (like the 72) while completely ignoring everything else he says and claim that it dismisses the whole argument? that's your argumentation in a nutshell. if you don't see the error on this then i'm honestly sorry for you.

like we already read from the link you originally used as an argument, even though not the exact rate of precession at the moment, the rate of precession has been measured to be exactly one degree in 72 years in numerous cases in history, and is known to vary over time, making the number 72 very accurate average for the precession over large periods of time.

" he was unaware of how monuments are actually dated , unaware of taphonomy and taphonomic logic" that's what originally brought be to this forum, to understand the method better. and as the method was told, it verified what i already suspected, that it would be horrifyingly unsure and basing only on the assumption that the environment would let the organic matter to rest in peace to the time when the archaeologists arrive, and that the humans responsible for the construction of the megaliths were so primitive that they would bury their dead on to the site and scatter their food leftovers to the spot they were having their lunch. assumptions that simply defy logic, especially the latter since as we know, the more civilized we become, the more respectful we become towards our deceased, and the more we take care of our waste.

" to achieve accurate cardinal orientations" as the link itself told, there is no experimental evidence that such method would be accurate enough to achieve even nearly that level of precision.

Never play chess with a pigeon. It will just knock the pieces over & shit on the chess board...

@skiessa: The members of this board have attempted to answer your questions & debate the subject with you.

It is senseless to try to have a discussion with you about any aspect of these subjects. Your opinion was already formed when you began the 'discussion'. You came here only to try to convert/convince the members of this board to your beliefs. Like the pigeon, you shit on any idea that doesn't match your opinion. This is not a discussion or debate, this is evangelism. And, you SUCK at evangelism because your beliefs aren't original, you merely parrot the alt/fake archaeology crowd. Not a single one you have quoted has a educational degree in the relevant subjects. And neither do you, as evidenced by your ignorance of the subjects 'discussed'.

You've said your piece & shat on the chessboard. Time to move on troll.

"It's senseless to try to have a discussion..." build a tent and say the world is dry. give only some bad hypotheses which for some reason i should respect as scientific theories. it's obvious that anyone i've encountered on this topic doesn't understand the difference between the term "theory" in scientific and in every-day use. Answer me with the factual value of zero and claim that i've already made up my mind because i refuse to change my opinion. I would never stick in opinions that can be shown inferior to others, but unfortunately, as i've once again witnessed, the scientific method and the burden of proof doesn't apply on the archaeology, and the best i can get when i ask why should i believe you are poor hypotheses and the fact that i don't have any better theory to offer presented as a problem, as if to get rid of a model that is just self-evidently bad one would have to substitute it with a new model, rather than just dismissing the old bad model and acknowledging that we don't know.

the timeline of the civilization we are taught was set as default without evidence by the christians at the break of 19th and 20th century, whom their growing industrial world under one loving god has to be the apex of the humanity, and ever since has been confirmed by the methods deliberately inaccurate and which effectively track only barbaric human activity, and systematically ignoring the fact that all the coastal areas (where civilization flourish) of the pre-ice age world are now 100 meters under the sea.

-maintain the archaeological consensus by disqualifying every student who questions the mainstream archaeological view.

I'm done with this topic. It's impossible to have a discussion with people who are unable to evaluate the weight of their own arguments and who think that by systematically ignoring the arguments they cannot answer would make them to go away. anyways i have high hopes for that now at the age of internet when we are no longer dependent on the one government controlled source of information the old dogmas will eventually cease to exist when people realize that the scientific base of all the information they've been given can be verified by themselves.

[Tiompan]

“the rate of precession has been measured to be exactly one degree in 72 years in numerous cases in history “ .
No it hasn't , you will never provide supporting evidence for that nonsense .
The reason you see 72 degrees is to simplify and avoid decimal points . The actual value is much closer to 71.6 . The rate of precession does change over time but nothing like enough to allow a period as recent as the building of the Giza pyramids or any prehistoric monument to approach anything like 72 . The 72 magic number is nonsense today and was never applicable to any prehistoric monument .

“side notions (like the 72) “
You were the one who brought it up ,not me . why do so if it was such a minor point ?

" so what really shook me is that when i counted of how many times the 3 60th of a degree would fit in a full circle, i got 7200. ... “
So a “side notion “ shook you up , will it's refutation shake you up ?
But it was much worse , you actually believed the value of the error encoded , albeit erroneously ,a value for precession . That is is as daft an belief as any of the extreme nutty fringe ones , ever .
“there is no experimental evidence that such method would be accurate enough to achieve even nearly that level of precision. “
As was pointed out there are at least two methods that can achieve the level of precision using basic knowledge and simple technology of the time .
It might be worth checking the level of precision of the later Giza monuments , they deviation from cardinality is worse .

Your question was “does the archaeologists take the environmental factors into account when dating the ancient sites, and how much of evidence they estimate to be lost to these factors? “
The question itself provided enough clues as to your problems .
You don't have a clue about dating monuments and the use of RC dating .If you were really interested you could read the literature , but I doubt you are really that interested or capable of applying yourself .
It was also answered but that went over your head .

" What looks certain to me though is that there was a pre-flood high civilization(s) which for some mysterious reason felt necessary to build such massive monuments which are almost systematically aligned with the equinoxes and devote the earth precession. "

What is the evidence for your belief ? could provide examples of the "pre-flood high civilization(s)" monuments that are " almost systematically aligned with the equinoxes " ? What does "devote the earth precession." " mean ?
If you meant something to do with axial precession then could you provide examples ?

If you get the basics wrong, probably because of only reading and uncritically accepting fringe stuff , and can't learn , and believe stuff like the magic 72 and it's encoded error , then it is obviously a waste of time attempting to “discuss “ anything .

[E.P. Grondine]

"What looks certain to me though is that there was a pre-flood high civilization(s) which for some mysterious reason felt necessary to build such massive monuments which are almost systematically aligned with the equinoxes and denote the earth precession. "

Let's see.

A guy who can not understand the dates for the pyramids debating
a guy who can not understand the extinction of the mammoth by comet impact.



While neither one of you could possibly understand ancient Egyptian sky magic,
as neither one of you has any understanding of the effects of impacts on ancient Egyptians:
bob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce102103.html

I nearly forgot about that little essay, since I did it 15 years ago.

[Tiompan]

A comment from a "guy " who doesn't understand what is required in a debate e.g. , providing evidence ,quotes etc , and has difficulty understanding and using the language in which the supposed "debate" was conducted .

Let's see . " A guy who can not understand the dates for the pyramids " .
The dates are simple enough to "understand ", do you mean, understand the process of dating the pyramids ?

"understand the extinction of the mammoth by comet impact." ? Do you mean understand the explanation given by the comet impact proponents for the extinction of mammoths ?
In both cases it would have been easier to provide quotes/evidence to clarify what you were trying to say .

[E.P. Grondine]

tuiompan,

[Tiompan]

Lol .

You won't get it , but never mind the rest of us will .

Thanks for all the laughs .

[circumspice]

We've had some really contentious 'discussions' about the perceived precision & perfection of the construction of the Great Pyramid. Many discussions related to how "perfectly fitted" to each other the stone blocks are, etc... Well, I've never gotten closer to the Giza Plateau than the Cairo Airport, so I can't attest as an actual in person eyewitness. I have, however, viewed the photographs & videos of the Great Pyramid shown to me by acquaintances who have seen the pyramids on the Giza Plateau in person. I've also seen professional photos & videos in books & documentary films.

What is really striking to me is the perception of precision & perfection... I honestly don't see it. What I see is a big, honkin' pile of roughly cut sandstone blocks piled up, almost haphazardly, in a pyramidal pile of enormous, gigantic, mind boggling size. When I look at the photos I see large gaps between the stones. What precision? I do understand that all the ungainly blocks were once covered by a well fitted, highly polished white limestone facing. I do understand that most of the white limestone facing was knocked off by an earthquake in historic times, then carted off to be reused in later historic construction projects...

But... WTF? What precision? What perfection? I don't see it. Are we raving about it because of its mind bending size scale? Its great antiquity? What?

The photo I have attached is an aerial view of the summit where a mast was erected in the 19th century. I look at those blocks & I see such a lack of uniformity & precision... It's at the summit, where the blocks were proportionately reduced in size. They should have been easier to handle than the lower courses of blocks... Look at them... They're not uniform in size or shape. They have large gaps & spaces between the blocks. Where's the blinding perfection?

My point, if there is one, is that ancient Egyptians built some monuments that are nearly unbelievable in a gigantic scale that seems to have served no practical purpose other than to proclaim their wealth & power. Why must we make this accomplishment mystical?

I have seen both the Taipei 101 & the Burj Dubai in person. They were/are mind boggling in scale. But I didn't automatically think that they have mystical origins.

[circumspice]

Here's an old article about an alternative theory
of how the Great Pyramid was possibly built. Nothing new here, the guy who proposed the theory is Houdin, someone most of us have heard about. It involves an internal ascending ramp, which we've discussed before. What I hadn't seen was the short video showing how he proposed it was used. Still nothing new there... At the end of the video is his theory as to how the pyramidian was raised into place as the builders approached completing the summit. It's interesting that he was careful to never show technology that the ancient Egyptians did not possess. No pulleys, no block & tackle systems. I don't believe that this video has ever been linked in any of our discussions.

http://www.openculture.com/2011/08/how_ ... built.html

[Minimalist]

A couple of years ago, Bob Brier did a special report on Nat Geo I think that dealt with the internal ramp. As I recall he first explained why all the other ramp concepts would not work and then about trying to show that Houdin had something. His piece de resistance was supposed to be a niche in the corner of the pyramid which would cinch Houdin's idea. He got permission to climb up to it with a camera crew and when he got there he found nothing to support Houdin at all. No ascending or descending tunnels, no nice smooth floor where the crews could turn the stones, no nothing.

He also never addressed the idea that an internal ramp in the Egyptian desert would be a 500 foot long stone oven for the crews. I wouldn't want to work in it!