s*** your teacher told you

[southsider2k5]

So how does procession affect that?

[Balta1701]

Of course there is no way to prove it, because it is under miles of ice. Funny how that works.

Yes there is...because that ice recorded the atmosphere. If the ice was 15,000 years old or less...it would still have active radiocarbon in it. We can actually go and literally date the ice from the period you're talking about. We have Antarctic and Greenland ice going back 800,000 years right now. Furthermore, if a substantial additional fraction of ice had melted and then somehow refroze before now, we'd see a much higher recent sea level from about that era.

[Balta1701]

So how does procession affect that?

The precessional timescale is a small shift on the order of 20ky. It woudln't surprise me if the mantle can keep up with that magnitude of shift. Everything that is currently near the equator stays close to the equator. Might shift, but would be so small that you can't measure it.

[StrangeSox]

This is the book if you ever are bored.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fingerprints-Gods-Gr...k/dp/0517887290

 

Hancock's books aren't exactly well-sourced pieces of scholarly writing.

[iamshack]

Hancock's books aren't exactly well-sourced pieces of scholarly writing.

These theories don't exactly allow something to be "well-sourced," that is the whole point.

 

He is theorizing how some of the most inexplicable (even by your "well-sourced scholars") archaeological remains might have been created/left here.

[StrangeSox]

Theorizing is equivalent with unsupported assertions in his case. We can come up with all sorts of fantastical stories for things we don't understand, but they don't have any actual explanatory power without supporting evidence.

[iamshack]

Theorizing is equivalent with unsupported assertions in his case. We can come up with all sorts of fantastical stories for things we don't understand, but they don't have any actual explanatory power without supporting evidence.

And that's fair enough...the proof is really in the eyes of the beholder...and the actual physical presence of the remains and artifacts left behind.

 

Ultimately, a lot of history and archaeology is simply theorizing based on interpretations of the evidence available. Plenty of times, throughout history, the truth has lied in some of the least-expected places.

[southsider2k5]

Theorizing is equivalent with unsupported assertions in his case. We can come up with all sorts of fantastical stories for things we don't understand, but they don't have any actual explanatory power without supporting evidence.

 

Come on. The only reason it is taught that the pyramid was built by Kufu was because of one tiny statue found in the sand.

[gatnom]

Call me crazy, but I think that normal human beings are responsible for the pyramids and whatever else is being discussed. People tend to forget that humans who lived just a few thousand years ago are virtually identical to those who live today. The only differences are the physical sizes and the fact that they don't have the past research and experience of the people who lived in between then and now. People didn't just get magically smarter a few hundred years ago. And, had we not essentially gone backwards after the fall of the Roman Empire, ancient people probably wouldn't have seemed as magical as they do now.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Come on. The only reason it is taught that the pyramid was built by Kufu was because of one tiny statue found in the sand.

I honestly don't know that much about this topic, but this a pretty common problem with these fantastical explanations: the 'official' story isn't completely supported or has some issues, therefore my alternative must be correct. The problem is that these other explanations have significantly less support than the mainstream understandings. And, again, it's prejudicial against the Egyptians that they couldn't have possibly built such fine structures because we don't understand how they would have.

 

The exact dating of the pyramid may be incorrect, but that doesn't mean it wasn't built by Egyptians or that some vast pre-Egyptian society influenced cultures on nearly every continent centuries earlier but left no trace of their own existence anywhere. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[southsider2k5]

I honestly don't know that much about this topic, but this a pretty common problem with these fantastical explanations: the 'official' story isn't completely supported or has some issues, therefore my alternative must be correct. The problem is that these other explanations have significantly less support than the mainstream understandings. And, again, it's prejudicial against the Egyptians that they couldn't have possibly built such fine structures because we don't understand how they would have.

 

The exact dating of the pyramid may be incorrect, but that doesn't mean it wasn't built by Egyptians or that some vast pre-Egyptian society influenced cultures on nearly every continent centuries earlier but left no trace of their own existence anywhere. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

It doesn't make it right, but the evidence being used to hold up just as many of the most popular theories is just as flimsy as the much of the stuff that gets summarily dismissed.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think that's a supportable claim.

[iamshack]

I don't think that's a supportable claim.

There is no evidence to support the existence of much of these remains/formations. The mainstream theories have been proven to be completely inadequate.

 

The fact that these things exist, and the degree of architecture/craftsmanship/precision, when taken in the context of everything else we know about these cultures, simply is inexplicable. To say that they were built by those cultures simply because those cultures existed, is as flimsy a claim as to say that they must have been built by more advanced organisms or with the help of more advanced organisms from another planet.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think that's a supportable claim.

 

Egyptology has always fascinated me just for the simple reason that we really have no idea as to exactly how and what happened there. We have the end results. That's it. I have read dozens of books on it over the years, and listened to lots of experts talk about it... Everyone from Zahi Hawass to your garden variety nutjobs. The one thing that remains true no matter who it is, is that it is all speculation based on their interpretation of very minimal amounts of actual evidence once you get past the surface level of all of it. Even the things that the assumptions are based on have been challenged to a large extent.

 

I believe it is entire valid.

[StrangeSox]

There is no evidence to support the existence of much of these remains/formations. The mainstream theories have been proven to be completely inadequate.

 

The fact that these things exist, and the degree of architecture/craftsmanship/precision, when taken in the context of everything else we know about these cultures, simply is inexplicable. To say that they were built by those cultures simply because those cultures existed, is as flimsy a claim as to say that they must have been built by more advanced organisms or with the help of more advanced organisms from another planet.

 

There's nothing that indicates that the Egyptians couldn't have or didn't build the pyramids.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's nothing that indicates that the Egyptians couldn't have or didn't build the pyramids.

 

What about the fact that no one has come up with a workable theory for how they actually built them? Every time i've ever read a book or watched a program, they offer theories, none of which are accepted as very workable in reality.

[StrangeSox]

What about the fact that no one has come up with a workable theory for how they actually built them? Every time i've ever read a book or watched a program, they offer theories, none of which are accepted as very workable in reality.

That modern people can't figure out how ancient people would have done something doesn't mean that they couldn't or didn't do it, and it certainly doesn't lend any actual support to claims that they must have been built by aliens or advanced civilizations of which there is no evidence at all. Those are simply "just so" stories.

 

Modern archaeological explanations do not have all of the answers. Hell, modern (insert scientific field) explanations do not have all of the answers. But they do all follow the best path to the truth that we have: the scientific method. Crank science and crank history don't, and it's plainly clear which claims lack any methodological rigor. It's no different than cryptozoology or any other pseudoscience.

[iamshack]

That modern people can't figure out how ancient people would have done something doesn't mean that they couldn't or didn't do it, and it certainly doesn't lend any actual support to claims that they must have been built by aliens or advanced civilizations of which there is no evidence at all. Those are simply "just so" stories.

 

Modern archaeological explanations do not have all of the answers. Hell, modern (insert scientific field) explanations do not have all of the answers. But they do all follow the best path to the truth that we have: the scientific method. Crank science and crank history don't, and it's plainly clear which claims lack any methodological rigor. It's no different than cryptozoology or any other pseudoscience.

It's not just a manner of knowing how...it's a matter of it being physically impossible and completely illogical to do some of the things that they did. What is it, the Great Pyramid of Giza that supposedly was built in 20 years? It's been calculated that they would have had to place a new stone every THREE SECONDS for it to have been built in that time frame. Impossible.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone else of these "crank" theories. All we're pointing out is that the mainstream science is full of just as much crank as the non-mainstream theories.

[StrangeSox]

It's not just a manner of knowing how...it's a matter of it being physically impossible and completely illogical to do some of the things that they did. What is it, the Great Pyramid of Giza that supposedly was built in 20 years? It's been calculated that they would have had to place a new stone every THREE SECONDS for it to have been built in that time frame. Impossible.

 

I'd like to see those calculations, the data they're based on and the sources for that data. Crank science often has a whole lot of 'evidence' like this that turns out to be BS.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone else of these "crank" theories. All we're pointing out is that the mainstream science is full of just as much crank as the non-mainstream theories.

 

That's simply untrue. One group follows rigorous standards. The other group writes pop-pseudohistory books for mass consumption, not critical peer evaluation.

[iamshack]

I'd like to see those calculations, the data they're based on and the sources for that data. Crank science often has a whole lot of 'evidence' like this that turns out to be BS.

 

 

 

That's simply untrue. One group follows rigorous standards. The other group writes pop-pseudohistory books for mass consumption, not critical peer evaluation.

Rigorous standards? Have you studied history/archaeology AT ALL?

[StrangeSox]

NOVA also looked at this years ago. The timelines and manpower required are impressive but certainly within reason: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/who-b...e-pyramids.html

[Jenksismyhero]

That modern people can't figure out how ancient people would have done something doesn't mean that they couldn't or didn't do it, and it certainly doesn't lend any actual support to claims that they must have been built by aliens or advanced civilizations of which there is no evidence at all. Those are simply "just so" stories.

 

Modern archaeological explanations do not have all of the answers. Hell, modern (insert scientific field) explanations do not have all of the answers. But they do all follow the best path to the truth that we have: the scientific method. Crank science and crank history don't, and it's plainly clear which claims lack any methodological rigor. It's no different than cryptozoology or any other pseudoscience.

 

But in what other field would you accept the premise that A caused B with the only evidence being that B exists and A happened to be around in the same area. From what i've read/seen, they literally have no idea how the pyramids were built. There's no tools, no heiroglyphs, no secondary writing sources, nothing. They have Egyptians living there and the pyramids existing there and then a whole bunch of theories (widely ranging theories at that).

 

I'm not saying that's proof that they didn't do it. But I don't see why there's that automatic assumption that they did.

[StrangeSox]

Rigorous standards? Have you studied history/archaeology AT ALL?

 

Formally? No. But I do know and understand that scientific process and, to an extent, the academic publishing process. It is far more rigorous than the process a pop-psuedohistory book goes through.

[StrangeSox]

But in what other field would you accept the premise that A caused B with the only evidence being that B exists and A happened to be around in the same area. From what i've read/seen, they literally have no idea how the pyramids were built. There's no tools, no heiroglyphs, no secondary writing sources, nothing. They have Egyptians living there and the pyramids existing there and then a whole bunch of theories (widely ranging theories at that).

 

I'm not saying that's proof that they didn't do it. But I don't see why there's that automatic assumption that they did.

 

KISS/Occam's Razor, for one. Egyptian work camps and quarries in the same area from the exact same time have been excavated. The exact construction process isn't known, but there's zero evidence pointing to aliens/advanced-but-lost civilizations outside of arguments from ignorance.

 

LOOK NO FURTHER

Some of the theories of who built the Pyramids suggest that the builders may not have been from Egypt. How do you respond to that?

 

One thing that strikes me when I read about these ideas—that it couldn't have been the Egyptians of the Fourth Dynasty who built the Pyramids and the Sphinx, it had to have been an older civilization—I think about those claims and then I look at the marvelous statue of Khafre with the Horus falcon at the back of his head [in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo]. I look at the sublime ship of Khufu that was found buried south of the Pyramid. We know that these objects date from the time of Khafre and Khufu. And I think, my God, this was a great civilization. This was as great as it comes in terms of art and sculpture and building ships from any place on the planet, in the whole repertoire of ancient cultures. Why is there such a need to look for yet another culture, to say, "No, it wasn't these people, it was some civilization that's lost, even older."

Edited October 14, 2011 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

I didn't see the thread taking this turn.