Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So how did the designer communicate his complex
> > design ideas (in his head) to the craft persons
> > that were executing the finished blocks?
>
> Nobody "designed" it. It wasn't "designed" at
> all.
>
> They simply added blocks according to a set of a
> few simple rules and this is what they ended up
> with. At any given point even the mason himself
> didn't know what was next. He'd look at the stone
> shapes and select the one most easily cut into a
> shape that fit and followed these rules. The
> region nearly needed to be able to support the
> load above and to have a low natural frequency to
> match earthquakes.
Did you look at the drawings. can you see a pattern?
>
> > Again.. complex inter fitting shapes need a
> > design as they cannot occur randomly.
>
> Each merely needs most of its weight on something
> that easily supports it. This region was intended
> to change its shape without significant movement.
> This would limit the damage above by a strong
> lateral shock wave.
Again look at and analyse the drawings.
>
> > No two
> > blocks are identical but many are very similar.
> > Also the similarity is carried over three
> distinct
> > groups of blocks. Therefore they need a
> designer.
> > A design/concept is a mental process ..(in the
> > mind), how did the designer communicate his
> wishes
> > (in his mind) to those carrying out the work?
>
> ...Through simple rules.
What simple rules?
>
> > I'm not sure that the G1 is the result of
> natural
> > processes. It carries all the hallmarks of very
> > intelligent design.
>
> :)
>
> It required a sort of "intelligence" to master the
> ancient language just as it requires a sort of
> intelligence to master modern language. Ancient
> people would have had a hard time distinguishing
> "intelligence" from "consciousness". Certainly
> they were aware that many people couldn't
> understand much language and couldn't remember all
> the "names" of things. Ones understanding of
> nature was the equivalent of the ability to
> manipulate language.
Is that a fact.
>
> > I'm sorry but the linear and consistent and
> exact
> > nature of the pyramid AP block work in no way
> > resembles any natural process including bee
> hives
> > or random background noise.
>
> They are neither regular nor random. They merely
> follow simple rules. These rules should be the
> inventor's (of the rules) understanding of the
> nature of the earth itself and its stone
> configurations.
How can they be neither regular nor random.?
>
> > What were the "simple rules"?
> > You suggested that available block size and
> shape
> > maybe a factor. Available blocks that repeat
> > themselves in threes, three times over??? If
> that
> > had been received by Seti it would cause
> > considerable excitement.
>
> I haven't put a lot of thought into this yet but,
> obviously one is that three or more stones tend to
> not join up in lines.
Not sure what you mean. All the complex stone faces inter fit perfectly.
>
> > Problem is how does a designer get the mental
> > picture in his head (concept) transferred to
> the
> > craftsmen in such a way as to allow them to
> > execute the project, a very complex inter
> fitting
> > project.
>
> Again, you're picturing these exact stone
> placements as being the intention of the designer
> but this is not the case.
Then who's intention was it? What would you like to call the designer? How about Eric?
He merely wanted a
> region that acted as one that was a low frequency
> and could be tuned.
I'm not sure how you know what the purpose was.
However.. So for that purpose he created a design that would fulfil his intended design function.
He designed it.
>
> > The only simple rule is to follow the designers
> > drawing. A necessarily complex mathematical,
> three
> > dimensional drawing. Not simple. Not piecemeal.
> > Not cobbled together. No simple rules.
> > Designed and executed with astonishing
> precision!
>
> You might be right but I doubt you are.
>
> Ask yourself what possible use such complexity
> could achieve and how the designed would have
> known how to design it.
Good Lord! That had never occurred to me. I'll get right onto it just as soon as I've finished all the drawings and I know for sure exactly what I'm looking at.
I am left believing this
> is a practical impossibility. They built like I
> build; knowing the function and but never knowing
> the step beyond the next.
Good luck with that. Stay away from complex design.
I don't sit down and
> draft up the simple rules I follow because I live
> these rules. Just like drafting a post I never
> know how I'm going to get there, just where I want
> to end up. I work toward that goal.
Not quite the same with precisely inter fitting multi angled and multi dimensioned blocks. Predictive thinking as opposed to reactive thinking. Concept..Plan..Execute..
>
> > I get the impression that you don't fully
> > understand what's going on here.
>
> > How does one accurately describe this to
> another
> > person, without making an accurate
> > blueprint/drawing in such a way that they can
> > produce an exact copy of your mental/imagined
> > picture.
>
> You can't, it's practically impossible. ie- For
> all practical purposes it can not be done in any
> language.
It can in visual language, A blueprint. A drawing. That's why we have drawings. Drawings are good. Speak a thousand words an' all.
>
>
> > Even if the designer were also the block
> carver,
> > carving the first block intuitively, freehand,
> how
> > does he then carve the second inter fitting
> block
> > without the aid of a 'visual thought transfer
> > device'. (A Drawing).
> > I guess telepathy would help.
>
> You just measure it. You measure what you want to
> put in.
Gross oversimplification. What do you use as a datum? how do you know what "you want to put in".
Try it with two blocks of cheese and a sharp knife.
>
> > If you are saying that something existed that
> > somehow replaced what we know today as a
> blueprint
> > or a visual communication, telepathy, sixth
> sense,
> > incredibly complex verbal instructions, then
> > that's another matter.
>
> No, thinking of it as complex communication would
> be misleading. Think of it as 100% effective
> communication in the sense that every listener
> hears the same thing and can repeat it to another
> without change.
Sounds like a drawing to me . It can be passed around among a group of individuals each receiving the same input. Individual interpretation and memory is another matter. Always refer back to the drawing, drawings don't forget things.
But it was no more adept at
> describing such complex shapes than our language.
> If they could be described then the listener would
> understand but they couldn't be described.
>
> > However there has to be a means to transfer the
> > concept to the production team. AKA a
> blueprint.
>
> This is not even a requirement for me. I can take
> many routes to the same destination.
You can only take available routes, and if there's only one route you have to take it.
Try taking many routes on a high tightrope. Without a safety net.
Blueprints
> are fine but they convey limited information.
> Showing these stones in a blueprint wouldn't show
> their function nor the easiest means to achieve
> it.
No one is talking about function, but I agree with you that assigning function at this stage is problematic.
What makes you assign the function of earthquake proofing?
Blueprints provide all the information necessary to execute the production of the product. Do you drive a car?
If you turn the key and then move your arms and legs around it'll miraculously carry you to your destination.
Showing the stones in a blueprint will allow us to better understand the stones. Hard evidence doesn't get harder than a stone.
Primary source.. Shaped Stone Insitu Blocks..
The real question at this time is what was the nature of the concept communication device. AKA drawing/blueprint.
You say it was an ancient language, can't disagree with that, however the necessary minimum information contained within the communication, drawing or otherwise is anything but simple.
Very, very complex. Not intuitive. Not whimsical. Not serendipity.
Try the cheese experiment.
First block's easy, you can be as free thinking and artistic as you like. World's your oyster.
Now make a neighbouring block, following your simple rules, that abuts precisely with the first block on all planar and non planar faces providing a virtually seamless joint within the AP.
When you've cracked that exercise we can move onto fifty ton blocks of limestone.
My education and interest is in art and engineering. (Making Stuff). Some even say I'm an expert in making stuff.
My expertise and interest is in making stuff.
Fundamentally how does an idea get from an imagination to physical reality.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09-Mar-17 22:45 by Jon Ellison.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So how did the designer communicate his complex
> > design ideas (in his head) to the craft persons
> > that were executing the finished blocks?
>
> Nobody "designed" it. It wasn't "designed" at
> all.
>
> They simply added blocks according to a set of a
> few simple rules and this is what they ended up
> with. At any given point even the mason himself
> didn't know what was next. He'd look at the stone
> shapes and select the one most easily cut into a
> shape that fit and followed these rules. The
> region nearly needed to be able to support the
> load above and to have a low natural frequency to
> match earthquakes.
Did you look at the drawings. can you see a pattern?
>
> > Again.. complex inter fitting shapes need a
> > design as they cannot occur randomly.
>
> Each merely needs most of its weight on something
> that easily supports it. This region was intended
> to change its shape without significant movement.
> This would limit the damage above by a strong
> lateral shock wave.
Again look at and analyse the drawings.
>
> > No two
> > blocks are identical but many are very similar.
> > Also the similarity is carried over three
> distinct
> > groups of blocks. Therefore they need a
> designer.
> > A design/concept is a mental process ..(in the
> > mind), how did the designer communicate his
> wishes
> > (in his mind) to those carrying out the work?
>
> ...Through simple rules.
What simple rules?
>
> > I'm not sure that the G1 is the result of
> natural
> > processes. It carries all the hallmarks of very
> > intelligent design.
>
> :)
>
> It required a sort of "intelligence" to master the
> ancient language just as it requires a sort of
> intelligence to master modern language. Ancient
> people would have had a hard time distinguishing
> "intelligence" from "consciousness". Certainly
> they were aware that many people couldn't
> understand much language and couldn't remember all
> the "names" of things. Ones understanding of
> nature was the equivalent of the ability to
> manipulate language.
Is that a fact.
>
> > I'm sorry but the linear and consistent and
> exact
> > nature of the pyramid AP block work in no way
> > resembles any natural process including bee
> hives
> > or random background noise.
>
> They are neither regular nor random. They merely
> follow simple rules. These rules should be the
> inventor's (of the rules) understanding of the
> nature of the earth itself and its stone
> configurations.
How can they be neither regular nor random.?
>
> > What were the "simple rules"?
> > You suggested that available block size and
> shape
> > maybe a factor. Available blocks that repeat
> > themselves in threes, three times over??? If
> that
> > had been received by Seti it would cause
> > considerable excitement.
>
> I haven't put a lot of thought into this yet but,
> obviously one is that three or more stones tend to
> not join up in lines.
Not sure what you mean. All the complex stone faces inter fit perfectly.
>
> > Problem is how does a designer get the mental
> > picture in his head (concept) transferred to
> the
> > craftsmen in such a way as to allow them to
> > execute the project, a very complex inter
> fitting
> > project.
>
> Again, you're picturing these exact stone
> placements as being the intention of the designer
> but this is not the case.
Then who's intention was it? What would you like to call the designer? How about Eric?
He merely wanted a
> region that acted as one that was a low frequency
> and could be tuned.
I'm not sure how you know what the purpose was.
However.. So for that purpose he created a design that would fulfil his intended design function.
He designed it.
>
> > The only simple rule is to follow the designers
> > drawing. A necessarily complex mathematical,
> three
> > dimensional drawing. Not simple. Not piecemeal.
> > Not cobbled together. No simple rules.
> > Designed and executed with astonishing
> precision!
>
> You might be right but I doubt you are.
>
> Ask yourself what possible use such complexity
> could achieve and how the designed would have
> known how to design it.
Good Lord! That had never occurred to me. I'll get right onto it just as soon as I've finished all the drawings and I know for sure exactly what I'm looking at.
I am left believing this
> is a practical impossibility. They built like I
> build; knowing the function and but never knowing
> the step beyond the next.
Good luck with that. Stay away from complex design.
I don't sit down and
> draft up the simple rules I follow because I live
> these rules. Just like drafting a post I never
> know how I'm going to get there, just where I want
> to end up. I work toward that goal.
Not quite the same with precisely inter fitting multi angled and multi dimensioned blocks. Predictive thinking as opposed to reactive thinking. Concept..Plan..Execute..
>
> > I get the impression that you don't fully
> > understand what's going on here.
>
> > How does one accurately describe this to
> another
> > person, without making an accurate
> > blueprint/drawing in such a way that they can
> > produce an exact copy of your mental/imagined
> > picture.
>
> You can't, it's practically impossible. ie- For
> all practical purposes it can not be done in any
> language.
It can in visual language, A blueprint. A drawing. That's why we have drawings. Drawings are good. Speak a thousand words an' all.
>
>
> > Even if the designer were also the block
> carver,
> > carving the first block intuitively, freehand,
> how
> > does he then carve the second inter fitting
> block
> > without the aid of a 'visual thought transfer
> > device'. (A Drawing).
> > I guess telepathy would help.
>
> You just measure it. You measure what you want to
> put in.
Gross oversimplification. What do you use as a datum? how do you know what "you want to put in".
Try it with two blocks of cheese and a sharp knife.
>
> > If you are saying that something existed that
> > somehow replaced what we know today as a
> blueprint
> > or a visual communication, telepathy, sixth
> sense,
> > incredibly complex verbal instructions, then
> > that's another matter.
>
> No, thinking of it as complex communication would
> be misleading. Think of it as 100% effective
> communication in the sense that every listener
> hears the same thing and can repeat it to another
> without change.
Sounds like a drawing to me . It can be passed around among a group of individuals each receiving the same input. Individual interpretation and memory is another matter. Always refer back to the drawing, drawings don't forget things.
But it was no more adept at
> describing such complex shapes than our language.
> If they could be described then the listener would
> understand but they couldn't be described.
>
> > However there has to be a means to transfer the
> > concept to the production team. AKA a
> blueprint.
>
> This is not even a requirement for me. I can take
> many routes to the same destination.
You can only take available routes, and if there's only one route you have to take it.
Try taking many routes on a high tightrope. Without a safety net.
Blueprints
> are fine but they convey limited information.
> Showing these stones in a blueprint wouldn't show
> their function nor the easiest means to achieve
> it.
No one is talking about function, but I agree with you that assigning function at this stage is problematic.
What makes you assign the function of earthquake proofing?
Blueprints provide all the information necessary to execute the production of the product. Do you drive a car?
If you turn the key and then move your arms and legs around it'll miraculously carry you to your destination.
Showing the stones in a blueprint will allow us to better understand the stones. Hard evidence doesn't get harder than a stone.
Primary source.. Shaped Stone Insitu Blocks..
The real question at this time is what was the nature of the concept communication device. AKA drawing/blueprint.
You say it was an ancient language, can't disagree with that, however the necessary minimum information contained within the communication, drawing or otherwise is anything but simple.
Very, very complex. Not intuitive. Not whimsical. Not serendipity.
Try the cheese experiment.
First block's easy, you can be as free thinking and artistic as you like. World's your oyster.
Now make a neighbouring block, following your simple rules, that abuts precisely with the first block on all planar and non planar faces providing a virtually seamless joint within the AP.
When you've cracked that exercise we can move onto fifty ton blocks of limestone.
My education and interest is in art and engineering. (Making Stuff). Some even say I'm an expert in making stuff.
My expertise and interest is in making stuff.
Fundamentally how does an idea get from an imagination to physical reality.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09-Mar-17 22:45 by Jon Ellison.
