> As an intellectual challenge, I've never doubted
> the plausibility of the pyramids being assembled
> from man power.
I agree the Egyptian culture of 2750 BC had sufficient manpower to lift these stones but I believe they lacked a means to focus all this manpower to the task unless they stood on top and pulled them up the side. They must have used a very primitive means such as the direct application of a force to lift them. I seriously doubt they would have used any technique at all to build the pyramid if it required human labor.
> I'm completely in agreement that
> a work force could be assembled to move stones,
> assemble them to a high degree of accuracy, and a
> system could be conceived as to how to move them
> into place at all heights of the construction of
> the pyramids.
Any such technique should leave ample evidence it was used yet orthodox means are not at all in evidence.
> But I'm seemingly far more distracted by some of
> the presumptions of how the stones were carved.
They obviously used a motive force. Just as they apparently used a motive force to lift the stone.
> This is where I part ways on that school of
> thought. The sarcophagi at the Serapeum, most of
> Christopher Dunn's observations in this regard,
> etc etc, all become an impasse for me when
> considering a lower level of technology could have
> been used.
> is the subtle instinct I'm referring to, and its
> clear absence in those who over look it.
A cursory glance at the enormity and perfection of the pyramid should alert everyone that our presumptions are wrong.
> So accepting the presumption that Egyptian
> culture could have assembled all these sites, but
> they couldn't have fabricated many of the
> carvings, it points me in one of two directions.
> Alien assisted Egyptians or artifacts from a far
> older culture that were inherited by the
> Egyptians. And I far prefer the latter.
There appear to be many possibilities.
> But if we are limited to the only kind of
> proof being circumstantial evidence of the context
> of findings around the site, you can see how a
> culture that takes over a previous more advanced
> culture's left overs can be a huge source of
There is no "culture". There is a single book that survives and it's only a book of incomprehensible incantations. "Culture" is made up almost entirely of the assumption that later people were exactly the same. The little actual culture that is in evidence does not agree with the assumptions.
> Its really no wonder the
> only things left were huge stone construction.
> Anything else must have succumbed to the scorch
> power of a comet or the aggressive oxidization of
> flooding. The only stuff left would be burrowed
> deep in the earth and we won't find that stuff
> until we have huge advancements in technology, or
> power ball odds of luck.
No, I believe you're wrong. How can an advanced technological civilization have existed without leaving ample evidence of its passing? Such a culture would simply produce far too many artefacts for it all to have been destroyed. There was probably an advanced civilization that dates back 40,000 years but it was not technological. Its "technology" was the pyramid. The pyramid is a manifestation of theire technology and quite possibly it was their technology itself.
> With respect to the pyramids, I'm getting the
> impression there are some that are old, and there
> may be some that are copy cat constructions, so
> there would be many pit falls to evaluate them all
> together with the same assumptions.
Egyptology confuses this issue intentionally it would appear. The great pyramids were first and they were all huge masonry structures which got larger with each. They never built another great pyramid after G2 and all the rest were small and usually just sorry imitations of pyramids that didn't last.