Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


You mean to say that in all that time, noone has provided sufficient evidence to compel you to change your mind.