> Origyptian wrote:
> > Regarding the previous discussion that inspired you to start
> > this one ("Evidence for the lost civilisation !") I
> > previously read that the ancient Romans focused on quarrying
> > and constructing segmented columns, that the solid granite
> > columns were appropriated from prior stonework in Egypt, and
> > that the Romans merely resculpted the surfaces of those
> > pre-existing solid granite columns.
> The very sources you cited state the opposite. You quote them
> for one thing that supports your claims, but not what they say
> that directly contradicts it? They clearly state the Romans
> quarried granite columns from Egypt, namely from Mons
> Claudianus. The Romans even left some columns behind:
> Note the man standing on the column for scale. Looks like about
> 50 tons to me.
> That isn't an Egyptian style column either-it's Roman.
> Again, Romans are the only culture found there, not even the
> AE. Roman historians claim this is where they quarried them
> from. And sure enough there they are in the temples that they
> say they appropriated them for in the first place. We even find
> leftovers still at the quarry that are clearly not Egyptian
> columns, but Roman. I think this horse is dead. I feel dumber
> just even having to say these things.
> If you truly have any doubts in your mind at this point then
> the onus is on you to educate yourself. I feel I have
> contributed enough to this conversation and am bored.
I don't understand why you need to have such a confrontational attitude just because I'm looking for physical evidence of the claim. That column lying there, if anything, strikes me as very suspicious. If a lone, smoothly finished column just randomly lying in a debris field is enough "hard evidence" for you that the Romans used that field as a quarry, then good for you. I am just not as sure as you are that quarried blocks are normally shaped and smoothed right there at the quarry rather than transporting them to a staging area that's closer to the construction site.
Do you also think that the field in Baalbek containing the "Pregnant Woman" is a quarry? If so, why?
> > Now, regarding your OP in this discussion...
> > The currently accepted pyramid sequence is primarily based on
> > which pharaoh claimed it.
> Did they claim them?
Bad choice of words. Make that "depending on which pharaoh has been attributed to each by later historians."
> > But I do not believe those pyramids
> > were built by those pharaohs in the OK because there are far
> > too many contradictions in the physical evidence to support
> > that notion and there really is no direct evidence to date
> > those structures.
> What is some of this evidence? I know, but I don't know what you know.
Look, your attempts to goad me to discuss my own investigations prematurely isn't going to work. I appreciate your curiosity about what I'm thinking, but I prefer to discuss my hypotheses when they're ready. If the simplest inquiry requesting proof that the Romans quarried solid 50 ton columns brings out the ridicule in you, I'll pass on this current discussion for now.
As far as I can tell, you are attributing technological amnesia to things like enemy takeovers and plagues. In an empire the size of Rome in 1st millennia BC all of that technology was lost until the 1800s AD?
> > Rather, I believe it's quite possible that
> > those pyramids existed in full regalia already by the
> > appearance of the 4D.
> Then who built them then?
> > Sneferu claimed his trophies (THREE of them!), and then he
> > claimed what looked to be the grandest on Giza for his first
> > son;
> Did Sneferu do this?
> > perhaps he was even inspired to use the name traditionally
> > given to that location as the namesake for his own son:
> > The 2nd grandest pyramid was claimed for Khafre, and
> > basically got sloppy thirds. But my investigations strongly
> > indicate a reverse sequence for their actual
> > construction:
...and in your OPQuote
G3 -> G2 -> G1
> > you've included an excerpt from my previous post regarding
> > of the areas on which I based that proposed sequence.
> But we are waiting for the information that backs ups these
> claims. Your "research".
Stop double talking. A "claim" is not the same as "research". Research leads to claims. I'm still researching and my current hypothesis is the sequence I've stated which so far seems to fit the data the best. I referred to it in my prior post as my "working sequence", not a sequence I'm trying to force on you or anyone else. The fact that you are now jumping to the conclusion that I'm making any claim that I must be able to back up with evidence shows how nonobjective you are and says something about your true motives here which I do not appreciate, so please steer clear. Sarcasm and intimidation does not work in the sciences.
> > I'm continuing to collect evidence, and I'm doing my best to
> > fill in the blanks where there are blanks in the evidence.
> > Meanwhile, if someone presents hard evidence that contradicts
> > my own hypotheses, I'm very willing and able to adjust my own
> > thoughts in order to reconcile the contradiction.
> Well lay some of it out here for a change. You always speak in
> the negative but never in the positive for your claims, well
> here is your chance.
I only speak in the negative when others insist on claims they can't back up with evidence. There is absolutely zero evidence the 4D had the tools and methods to build those things. Meanwhile, there is evidence that they did not have the wherewithal to build those things such as the 1000+ years to go from a hand-powered to foot-powered potters wheel or having to wait for the Hyksos to introduce the wheeled vehicle. The body of physical evidence that contradicts a dynastic origin of the Giza monuments is enormous.
All I'm researching is the alternative that if the dynastics didn't make them, then they must be older and that warrants further investigation, including reassessment of tenets that have been held for centuries but for which there may be no real evidence. Baalbek, ramps, and tombs are just a few examples of the importance to reassess.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?