SC: Who said the dsigners and builders had "advanced
>understanding of geology"? Can you provide a citation please?
>AS: One would think that is the case with pole-wobble
>SC: "One would think"? So you have no actual evidence for your
>statement that the designers and builders had "advanced
>geological knowledge". And who said they were "pole-wobble
>predictors"? Have you read our book? Do you actually know
>what we have said in our book? Geology is not necessary to see
>how the skies have shifted (past tense). Now - evidence please
>for your comments that the designers and builders of Giza had
>"advanced understanding of geology". Thanks.
So the pyramids are not "seed vaults" to survive the 1300 years or whatever of global catastrophic climate change and rapid, pole wobbling gyrations..... they are viewing platforms for a benign star mapping project before and after non-geological pole-wobbings? Surely the Lost Ones had some geological clue to what was going to happen to the Earth when their imagined pole wobbling occurred (you know, all the geophysical and paleoclimatological stuff).........right? After all, they're suppose to be building seed vault redoubts to culturally survive such......... but they missed that the Giza Plateau appears quite prone to climate change induced destructive flooding by the Mediterranean Sea. Why was that..... they had no geological clue of what today someone is imagining they were doing at Giza 6000 years ago?
AS: Again....... " randomly replicate"...... where is
>that coming from? The cardinal point lined 9 pyramids do not
>need to be positioned so haphazardly random on the floor if
>they are lined up along strike lines of stratigraphy, nor do
>they need a pre-pre-plan to do so....... again there seems to
>be a desire to introduce more of this notion of "non
>pre-pre-plan = overwhelming randomness" than there actually
>needs to be. Why?
>SC: Because, Archae, you are not understanding a simple concept
>- you are using the stratigraphy of the plateau merely for the
>diagonal placement of the Gizamids. That's fine - it's ideal
>for that and neither I or Gary have any issues with such. What
>WE are talking about, however, is that the structures at Giza
>could have been ANY size/proportion along the stratigraphy of
Archae Solenhofen (email@example.com)