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).
Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > > Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > I can't imagine anyone arguing against two facts;
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. that the Roman were doers, who looked at
> > > > > obstacles as a source of inspiration
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. that they of all ancient people's WERE without
> > > > > peer at reverse engineering and adaption
> > > > >
> > > > > I offer no elaboration of these points at this
> > > > > time due to the fact that anyone arguing fir or
> > > > > against a Roman 'Baalbek' must already know my 2
> > > > > points...or they have no place in this discussion
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > warwick
> > > >
> > > > So, if anyone doesn't 'know your 2 points', or
> > > > dares to think that the Dynastic beat the Romans
> > > > in adaption prowess, or challenges the notion that
> > > > the Romans were "without peer at reverse
> > > > engineering", then you are decreeing that
> > > > we can't participate in this discussion?!
> > >
> > > What I am telling you is exactly what so many...
> >
> > "so many"? Like maybe three of you?
> >
> > > ...have been trying so hard to tell you for quite a while
> > > is simple;
> > >
> > > you cannot state that any group is/was not
> > > capable of a given achievement if you are
> > > not well acquainted with the facts concerning that
> > > group's capabilities and achievements.
> > >
> > > I am not here to conduct history lessons.
> > >
> > > I like to assume that anyone arguing against
> > > anything knows precisely what it is they are
> > > arguing against.
> >
> > Warwick, respectfully, you've shown zero knowledge
> > of any significant engineering principle that's
> > been discussed here in the context of the ancient
> > stonework. You're the last person to dictate what
> > background people should have before they can
> > participate in these discussions. Give us a break.
> > Please!
>
> I have posted at length concerning the properties
> of stone, the working of stone, the logistics of
> handling stone, and the observable pattern of
> development in AE architecture and statuary.
>
> I have also communicated my having studied
> Mechanical Engineering in College
>
> I have also communicated that I have considerable
> field experience with Limestone in particular.
>
> You have alluded to the unknown. performed by the
> unknown, at an unknown time, with powered
> technology that you have absolutely no evidence of.
>
> As to the Romans, I have in the past posted at
> length about Roman Military engineering.
>
> I have done brick work, harvested slate, and
> experiemented with stone sculpture.
>
> I am very used to working with what most call
> Primitive tools.
>
> So...do you agree or not with my 'simple facts'
> facts ( allowing for your qualifier re proof of
> provenance for the AE statuary) or not?
>
> Warwick
Warwick, I respect your experience, but it's not obvious how slate, brickwork, and sculpting equips you to understand -- any better than the rest of us -- the daunting nature of that massive construction and the technology required to overcome the natural forces that insert a massive amount of inertia against that effort every step of the way, especially concerning the Baalbek megaliths. It's certainly not clear how your "work with" relatively small scale stone projects translates to the task of planning, quarrying, shaping, transporting, lifting, and precision fitting many millions of multi-ton blocks of limestone and granite essentially without stop over a 200 year period in 3rd mill. BC Egypt in what was arguably the most massive construction project ever carried out in the history of mankind.
I don't understand how your experience doesn't make you feel any compulsion to see direct evidence that such an immense effort was even possible at that time, let alone actually happened. It takes a lot more than being inspired by obstacles, reverse engineering, and adapting the work of others, to be able to achieve that kind of work. And let's not forget to include the huge and complex infrastructure (both roadways and waterways along with transport vehicles) that needed to be planned, designed and constructed.
Have you shared your opinion about how it could be possible for Romans to create, shape, manipulate, transport, and lift those Baalbek megaliths, or to quarry dozens of 80 ton blocks of granite in Aswan, shape them to size with precision planes and squareness, transport them back and forth to the river, load them onto a ship (not to mention build a fleet of ships that can handle such loads), ship the cargo 600 miles to Giza, lift them and precision fit them into place, etc.? How about that pair of 750 ton solid granite Colossi of Memnon?
How did 3rd mill BC Egypt do the math to create those bizarre blocks in the AP?
What does your work with stone tell you was the purpose of the RCs, Antechamber, and the Granite Plugs?
What does your experience tell you is the likelihood that those pyramids were originally designed to be tombs vs...what?
Which brings me back to your point: how can you claim that your work with bricks, slate and sculpting qualifies you to participate in these discussions any more than other professionals here with equal or greater experience in industrial level engineering, heavy equipment, and construction project planning and implementation that not only requires large scale structural engineering but also complex logistics that depend heavily on what likely was a very advanced JIT supply line scheme.
How is believing whether Romans "looked at obstacles as a source of inspiration" relevant to assessing whether they had the necessary means to properly address the natural forces and complex logistic issues in order to make and move those 1600 ton blocks at Baalbek?
How did you derive the notion that the Romans were "without peer at reverse engineering and adaption", and how is that relevant to whether any of us are qualified to participate in a discussion about whether a civilization had the means to do this or that kind of large scale stone work?
To answer your question, no, I don't agree with your "simple facts". Respectfully, I think your 2 criteria are your own speculation and are irrelevant to making an assessment of whether a civilization is able to achieve such work. I think you are cutting short the true brilliance required to accomplish that work.
You asked, and I gave my opinion as respectfully as I could.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 18-Apr-17 21:34 by Origyptian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > > Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > I can't imagine anyone arguing against two facts;
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. that the Roman were doers, who looked at
> > > > > obstacles as a source of inspiration
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. that they of all ancient people's WERE without
> > > > > peer at reverse engineering and adaption
> > > > >
> > > > > I offer no elaboration of these points at this
> > > > > time due to the fact that anyone arguing fir or
> > > > > against a Roman 'Baalbek' must already know my 2
> > > > > points...or they have no place in this discussion
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > warwick
> > > >
> > > > So, if anyone doesn't 'know your 2 points', or
> > > > dares to think that the Dynastic beat the Romans
> > > > in adaption prowess, or challenges the notion that
> > > > the Romans were "without peer at reverse
> > > > engineering", then you are decreeing that
> > > > we can't participate in this discussion?!
> > >
> > > What I am telling you is exactly what so many...
> >
> > "so many"? Like maybe three of you?
> >
> > > ...have been trying so hard to tell you for quite a while
> > > is simple;
> > >
> > > you cannot state that any group is/was not
> > > capable of a given achievement if you are
> > > not well acquainted with the facts concerning that
> > > group's capabilities and achievements.
> > >
> > > I am not here to conduct history lessons.
> > >
> > > I like to assume that anyone arguing against
> > > anything knows precisely what it is they are
> > > arguing against.
> >
> > Warwick, respectfully, you've shown zero knowledge
> > of any significant engineering principle that's
> > been discussed here in the context of the ancient
> > stonework. You're the last person to dictate what
> > background people should have before they can
> > participate in these discussions. Give us a break.
> > Please!
>
> I have posted at length concerning the properties
> of stone, the working of stone, the logistics of
> handling stone, and the observable pattern of
> development in AE architecture and statuary.
>
> I have also communicated my having studied
> Mechanical Engineering in College
>
> I have also communicated that I have considerable
> field experience with Limestone in particular.
>
> You have alluded to the unknown. performed by the
> unknown, at an unknown time, with powered
> technology that you have absolutely no evidence of.
>
> As to the Romans, I have in the past posted at
> length about Roman Military engineering.
>
> I have done brick work, harvested slate, and
> experiemented with stone sculpture.
>
> I am very used to working with what most call
> Primitive tools.
>
> So...do you agree or not with my 'simple facts'
> facts ( allowing for your qualifier re proof of
> provenance for the AE statuary) or not?
>
> Warwick
Warwick, I respect your experience, but it's not obvious how slate, brickwork, and sculpting equips you to understand -- any better than the rest of us -- the daunting nature of that massive construction and the technology required to overcome the natural forces that insert a massive amount of inertia against that effort every step of the way, especially concerning the Baalbek megaliths. It's certainly not clear how your "work with" relatively small scale stone projects translates to the task of planning, quarrying, shaping, transporting, lifting, and precision fitting many millions of multi-ton blocks of limestone and granite essentially without stop over a 200 year period in 3rd mill. BC Egypt in what was arguably the most massive construction project ever carried out in the history of mankind.
I don't understand how your experience doesn't make you feel any compulsion to see direct evidence that such an immense effort was even possible at that time, let alone actually happened. It takes a lot more than being inspired by obstacles, reverse engineering, and adapting the work of others, to be able to achieve that kind of work. And let's not forget to include the huge and complex infrastructure (both roadways and waterways along with transport vehicles) that needed to be planned, designed and constructed.
Have you shared your opinion about how it could be possible for Romans to create, shape, manipulate, transport, and lift those Baalbek megaliths, or to quarry dozens of 80 ton blocks of granite in Aswan, shape them to size with precision planes and squareness, transport them back and forth to the river, load them onto a ship (not to mention build a fleet of ships that can handle such loads), ship the cargo 600 miles to Giza, lift them and precision fit them into place, etc.? How about that pair of 750 ton solid granite Colossi of Memnon?
How did 3rd mill BC Egypt do the math to create those bizarre blocks in the AP?
What does your work with stone tell you was the purpose of the RCs, Antechamber, and the Granite Plugs?
What does your experience tell you is the likelihood that those pyramids were originally designed to be tombs vs...what?
Which brings me back to your point: how can you claim that your work with bricks, slate and sculpting qualifies you to participate in these discussions any more than other professionals here with equal or greater experience in industrial level engineering, heavy equipment, and construction project planning and implementation that not only requires large scale structural engineering but also complex logistics that depend heavily on what likely was a very advanced JIT supply line scheme.
How is believing whether Romans "looked at obstacles as a source of inspiration" relevant to assessing whether they had the necessary means to properly address the natural forces and complex logistic issues in order to make and move those 1600 ton blocks at Baalbek?
How did you derive the notion that the Romans were "without peer at reverse engineering and adaption", and how is that relevant to whether any of us are qualified to participate in a discussion about whether a civilization had the means to do this or that kind of large scale stone work?
To answer your question, no, I don't agree with your "simple facts". Respectfully, I think your 2 criteria are your own speculation and are irrelevant to making an assessment of whether a civilization is able to achieve such work. I think you are cutting short the true brilliance required to accomplish that work.
You asked, and I gave my opinion as respectfully as I could.
______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 18-Apr-17 21:34 by Origyptian.
