Apollo355 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello, first time poster here and an
> antiquity/archeology fanatic.
>
> There is a consensus about the theory that the
> megalithic sites around the world, including the
> Egyptian pyramids, were built by ancient
> civilizations using advanced technology we don't
> understand, and were exterminated by a cataclysmic
> event. And that these structures, such as that at
> the Giza Plateau, were energy generators.
>
> Two questions that come to mind immediately:
> 1) If indeed such ancient civilizations existed,
> why haven't any of their traces found? Surely
> there would have been bones and remains found
> somewhere from such a population - and if we found
> dinosaur bones that existed 65 million years
> surely we can find remains of humans who roamed
> the earth 12,000 years ago?
>
> 2) There is a popular suggestions that these
> monuments, such as the Egyptian pyramids, were not
> tombs but energy generators. What kind of energy
> are they referring to? Electric? Radioactive?
> Sound?

I don't consider those two questions to indicate "holes" in any "theory" about the pyramids being predynastic. In fact, I don't see any "theory" about a predynastic provenance at all. Rather, I see several hypotheses about alternate scenarios, and in my opinion those hypotheses do a better job accommodating the evidence while avoiding the contradictions that confront the traditional notion of an OK provenance of those megalithic pyramids. Ironically, there are plenty of holes in that traditional notion which I hope you're not ignoring.

I don't know who you mean by "consensus", but for my part, I've simply argued that the traditional timeline is way off and that much of the evidence we see there today is actually far older. Whether you want to invoke a "lost" civilization is up to you. It could simply be that the civilization responsible for that construction has been "displaced" by a faulty timeline and a mistaken identity that resulted from merging multiple, possibly parallel, layers of civilization into a single, linearly developing civilization. What is arguably the most prominent evidence among all evidence discovered from ancient Egypt is simply the pyramids and other cyclopean construction which have been attributed to the more recent Dynastic "layer" but which scream of a provenance that predates 3rd millennium adaption Egyptian culture, in my opinion.

I don't think the technology used to build those early pyramids was "advanced technology that we don't understand". I simply question whether the OK had the technology to build those things. In fact, what I don't understand is how the technology known to be available to the OK could have achieved that kind of work in the first place, and on such a massive scale.

Regarding evidence of the culture that built those things, as has been mentioned in other posts in this discussion, there are several possible reasons for the lack of bones, clothing, food, etc. from that culture. And quoting how many people lived during this or that millennium over 10k years ago is largely speculation based on tenuous presumptions about population density, migration patterns, natural catastrophes, available technology, weather patterns, inferences about whether the dead was buried vs. cremated or given a nautical burial, etc.

200,000 years from now, if an archaeologist happens to stumble upon the well preserved bones of a human from a primitive nomadic tribe in the Tundra which dates to the 3rd millennium AD (e.g., today), will that investigator presume that such a primitive lifestyle is representative of the level of technology of 3rd millennium AD man? Or might it be that this Tundra Man happened to be one of the few that survived the catastrophe of 2150 AD, a catastrophe that vaporized the big cities in more habitable geographic areas where the vast majority of people lived and which left virtually zero evidence behind? When we look at the artifacts of man from 200,000 years ago, how sure are we that it's not Chuck Nolan living a primitive life in isolation within an otherwise vastly advanced civilization around the globe?

Your second question misses the larger issue which is the question about the traditional claim (even called a "theory" by some) that's been asserted regarding those pyramids: the tomb hypothesis. Rather than dwelling on alternate hypotheses, traditionalists would do well to revisit the basis of their own tomb hypothesis. Regarding "energy generator", while I respect Dunn's out of the box approach, he stops too short and doesn't explain the main outcome of his inventions. Cadman does a far better job at leading the reader to infer more pragmatic applications such as a water distribution system and hydromechanical energy, e.g., to fill local canals and run textile mills, machine shops, lifts, etc. I'm not focusing as much on the purpose of the initial pyramid construction as I am on focusing on what it's not, by sorting out the basis of traditional thought. We've become so engrained in obsolete tenets that it's hard to see the facts through the centuries of context-by-association, facts contrived from flimsy presumptions, and faith in the veracity of ancient historians whose motives were pure but who applied a far different standard of proof than many of us do today.

So, I would redirect your own questions back at you:

1. Where is the evidence that those megalithic pyramids were constructed in the 3rd millennium BC?, and,

2. Where is the evidence that those megalithic pyramids were designed to be tombs?

Those questions have been asked many times over the years and no one has yet produced compelling evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that those things were designed and built to be tombs in the 3rd millennium BC. And in fact, there is a growing volume of evidence that contradicts those 2 notions. And that invites us to probe other possibilities that better accommodate the physical evidence while avoiding the contradictions that currently confront the traditional narrative.