> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Apollo355 Wrote:
> > -----
> > > Hello, first time poster here and an
> > > antiquity/archeology fanatic.
> > >
> > > There is a consensus about the theory that
> > > 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
> > 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?
> > > 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
> > > the earth 12,000 years ago?
> > >
> > > 2) There is a popular suggestions that these
> > > monuments, such as the Egyptian pyramids,
> > not
> > > tombs but energy generators. What kind of
> > energy
> > > are they referring to? Electric?
> > > Sound?
> > I don't consider those two questions to
> > "holes" in any "theory" about the pyramids
> > predynastic. In fact, I don't see any "theory"
> > about a predynastic provenance at all. Rather,
> > see several hypotheses about alternate
> > scenarios, and in my opinion those hypotheses do
> > 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
> > of holes in that traditional notion which I
> > you're not ignoring.
> > I don't know who you mean by "consensus", but
> > my part, I've simply argued that the
> > timeline is way off and that much of the
> > we see there today is actually far older.
> > you want to invoke a "lost" civilization is up
> > 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
> > single, linearly developing civilization. What
> > arguably the most prominent evidence among all
> > evidence discovered from ancient Egypt is
> > the pyramids and other cyclopean construction
> > which have been attributed to the more recent
> > Dynastic "layer" but which scream of a
> > that predates 3rd millennium adaption Egyptian
> > culture, in my opinion.
> > I don't think the technology used to build
> > early pyramids was "advanced technology that
> > don't understand". I simply question
> > the OK had the technology to build those
> > In fact, what I don't understand is how the
> > technology known to be available to the OK
> > have achieved that kind of work in the first
> > place, and on such a massive scale.
> > Regarding evidence of the culture that built
> > 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
> > 10k years ago is largely speculation based on
> > tenuous presumptions about population density,
> > migration patterns, natural catastrophes,
> > available technology, weather patterns,
> > about whether the dead was buried vs. cremated
> > given a nautical burial, etc.
> > 200,000 years from now, if an archaeologist
> > happens to stumble upon the well preserved
> > of a human from a primitive nomadic tribe in
> > Tundra which dates to the 3rd millennium AD
> > today), will that investigator presume that such
> > primitive lifestyle is representative of the
> > of technology of 3rd millennium AD man? Or
> > it be that this Tundra Man happened to be one
> > the few that survived the catastrophe of 2150
> > a catastrophe that vaporized the big cities in
> > more habitable geographic areas where the vast
> > majority of people lived and which left
> > zero evidence behind? When we look at the
> > artifacts of man from 200,000 years ago, how
> > 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
> > is the question about the traditional claim
> > called a "theory" by some) that's been asserted
> > regarding those pyramids: the tomb
> > hypothesis. Rather than dwelling on
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > am on focusing on what it's not, by
> > out the basis of traditional thought. We've
> > so engrained in obsolete tenets that it's hard
> > see the facts through the centuries of
> > context-by-association, facts contrived from
> > flimsy presumptions, and faith in the veracity
> > ancient historians whose motives were pure but
> > 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
> > millennium BC?, and,
> > 2. Where is the evidence that those megalithic
> > pyramids were designed to be
> > Those questions have been asked many times over
> > the years and no one has yet produced
> > evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that those
> > things were designed and built to be tombs in
> > 3rd millennium BC. And in fact, there is a
> > volume of evidence that contradicts those 2
> > notions. And that invites us to probe other
> > possibilities that better accommodate the
> > 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.
Change my mind? My mind assesses the evidence. What "sufficient evidence" are you implying has been presented "in all that time"?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?