OCaptain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Change my mind? My mind assesses the evidence. What "sufficient evidence" are you implying has been presented "in all that time"?