> This is an explanation offered by Origyptian to
> explain, in conjunction with tens of thousands of
> years of erosion, where all the tools of the LC
> went off to which I have said before the exact
> same thing applies to historical times. Jon posts
> pictures of cars and boats which begin to rust
> away in decades so what does this say of tools
> after millennia? Again, the same argument applies.
> These are the only arguments ever offered for this
> LC existing outside of historical times which is
> really no argument at all not just as stand alone
> arguments but even more so when the whole of
> historical context is considered.
Well not exactly, there is also the argument of nature's catastrophic events obliterating any evidence of ancient civilizations. There are also the myths from around the world that tell of old civilizations. And then there is time. In all the billions of years earth has existed, it seems incomprehensible that a mere 500,000 yrs of that could not have seen the birth and death of countless civilizations. With 5 major extinctions, continents shifting, comets and meteors wrecking havoc, how could we realistically expect to find steel tools from a culture long gone.
> Another thing to think about is that all of this
> "advanced technology" used for construction is
> exclusively found on granite, not limestone, which
> if you take the OK in particular granite was but a
> fraction of the overall stonework-essentially
> "rare" by comparison. The tool marks seen on
> limestone, including core blocks of G1, are often
> good ol' fashioned chisels and adzes which means
> despite whatever magnificent technology was
> employed at the granite cutting facility, poor
> saps doing the grunt work of the limestone were
> using the same tools that had been used for many
> centuries and thousands of years since which the
> example I show includes the present day.
But there are the exceptions, and it's the exceptions that throw monkey wrenches into conventional explanations.
> Granite was "rare" and was exclusively reserved
> for the most important and personal of uses like
> for the pharaoh's burial complex or someone's
> sarcophagus if they could afford it.
That may not be true. The use of granite may have been reserved for applications that required a stronger stone.
> Alls I'm saying is that prior to Saqqara, and even
> the formation of the Dynastic state, there was
> already a hell of a lot of amazing stuff going on
> in the ancient world all around Egypt long before
> them. This doesn't mean "nothing".
I understand what you're saying, at least I think I do. I just don't agree and my viewpoint is quite a bit different than yours.
> I remember. Aerogel. Exotic artificial materials
> are a tough sell because they require
> manufacturing, research and the infrastructure and
> technology to support the lot of it which is a
> rabbit hole with no bottom. I would take alien
> intervention any day, something I actually do
> consider a possibility, before I could accept a
> home grown human technologically advanced
> civilization(s) nigh on par with our own tens of
> thousands if not millions of years ago that have
> somehow inexplicably vanished. As anything exotic
> is concerned, not that I do, but I would be more
> inclined to accept plant based and/or mineral
> chemical compounds that reacted with the stone to
> make it easier to cut.
If mollusks can do it, it's possible.
> I have considered it and after careful
> consideration I personally reject it for several
> reasons. I am not some mainstream/traditionalist
> (whatever) automaton- I have studied the blanket
> of these related subjects at great length and have
> even been lucky enough to travel to many of these
> places myself. I started this journey, after
> reading the Bible from cover to cover and studying
> some of the more interesting material including
> apocryphal, to having read all of Sitchin's books
> not to mention Graham, Childress, and the like. I
> have a library full of alternative authors. Seeing
> those places, the museums, made me realize there
> was something not right about what they were
> saying which led me to equally delve further into
> "mainstream" research and I found what they were
> saying wasn't quite right either.
It's been my experience that most people are not quite convinced by mainstream's evolution or the bible's creation and have little questions that pop up from time to time. But not many are cursed with an obsession to know what's happened in 4.5 bill yrs on this planet.
> There is no doubt to me there is something
> significant missing in both the evolutionary and
> cultural histories of our species (not to mention
> the origins of life on Earth in general) and from
> what I have learned and seen in my 25+yrs of
> research tells me part of the answer is somewhere
> in the middle and another part unique to myself
> (humbly and to merely my own satisfaction) which
> expands on the already existing eclectic
> alternatives offered by Flinders Petrie and Walter
> B Emery. None of which, regardless, leads me to a
> conclusion that supports cycles upon cycles of
> advanced civilization stretching back tens of
> thousands if not millions of years let alone any
> capable of building the megalithic monuments of
> Egypt. This is not to say there are no such things
> as (relatively) advanced "lost civilizations",
> Gobekli Tepe for example did not just spring up
> overnight fully formed, I just find no evidence,
> if only to the contrary, to support anything
> remotely related to the pyramids of Egypt being
> built prior to "10,000BC" let alone before the
> Naqada/Dynastic Era.
I used to have this argument with my ex who was content with the illusion that we (modern man) have explored every inch of the planet. Not saying you present the same argument, you don't, but you present the same conclusion. As many people like to say..... "if there was a lost civilization we would have found it by now". As soon as the bottoms of every ocean have been explored, every mountain in the himalayas examined, every rain forest raked and every sand dune sifted then we can say "there is no evidence". Meanwhile we have not reached the pinnacle of evolution no matter what the industrialized nations wish to think. The future is science fiction, a story that may have happened many times before in the last 4.5 bill yrs.
> If there is something discovered compelling enough
> for me that says this LC is tens of thousands of
> years old I will be the first to recalculate,
> revise, and if need be toss it all out. The fact I
> am not willing to despite the fact as of yet such
> does not exist, especially while standing on a
> pretty well earned by my effort solid foundation
> that says otherwise, is nothing I should apologize
> for or made to feel as if I am somehow "slighting
> the alternative movement" because I do not beleive
There is a difference between 'believing' in lost cities and 'questioning' the possibility. As I see it, it's not a matter of 'belief', it's a matter of unanswered questions and the reality of questions being answered incorrectly.