" If the subject is that annoying to you why did you get involved in the conversation?"

Because it annoyed me. That's a perfectly legitimate reason. What, do you only want to discuss with people who agree with you, or converse on subjects that are presented to you in a pleasing manner?

"You came in out of nowhere claiming I wasn't worth listening to. "

You're not, because you're not really saying anything. You're just throwing links willy nilly to guys whom you agree with.

Listen, you're claiming arcane knowledge that you're incapable of clearly expressing on your own, which suggests that you don't really have an informed opinion of your own.

You talk about anti-gravity and some spooky "advanced civilization" that somehow had technology far beyon ours to cut and move big rocks, while simultaneously being so backwards that the only way they could build a structure of that size was by piling the rocks up in a pyramid.

This is just a rancid stew of left-over Von Däniken and Hubbard.

Now, while there is some curiosity as to the exact working methods of the builders involved, there is no reasonable doubt as to the general techniques and ways by which it was accomplished. Nor is there any doubt that in this and other Ancient cultures there were other techniques and technologies avaiable long before modern times that could have accomplished the same thing. Given the availability of the funds and the workforce.

The reason proponents of "Advanced Civilization" myths say that Egyptians couldn't possibly have done this, is to create the illusion that no ordinary explanation exists, making it easier to sell the extraordinary claims.

Like Sherlock Holmes says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

So the straightforward explanation, based on all available facts and fully embraced by historians, anthropologists and other scholars, is presented through lies and distortions as impossible, so that some pseudo-scientific hack can present his wildly improbable conjecture as something that "must be true".

But it isn't impossible. Those pyramids were built by Egyptian workmen,l no matter how primitive their tools may seem. Let us not forget that while impressive, a pyramid is also a fairly primitive construction.

"Because it annoyed me. That's a perfectly legitimate reason. What, do you only want to discuss with people who agree with you, or converse on subjects that are presented to you in a pleasing manner?"

Why would you want to spend your time discussing something you think is a waste of time with a person that isn't worth listening to? And I was mocked for sounding superior?

"You're not, because you're not really saying anything. You're just throwing links willy nilly to guys whom you agree with."

I never claimed to be worth listening to.  So why do you feel the need to make that statement?  I simply posted a video and said if anyone was interested I had more info related to it. I never even said it was my info..

"Listen, you're claiming arcane knowledge that you're incapable of clearly expressing on your own, which suggests that you don't really have an informed opinion of your own."

It could suggest that. I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I do have an informed opinion of my own. Unfortunately it is not on the subjects in which you want to talk about.  The details you are interested in are things I am juts getting into researching.  That video was a big introduction to me.  But all the conclusions they came to support conclusions I had come to through other research.

Also, it isn't so much that I can;t explain what I have learned.. it's more about knowing where to start... especially with people who aren't familiar with any of it. As I said I would need to write a massive book. I am trying to get people up to speed and pique people's interest.

"You talk about anti-gravity and some spooky "advanced civilization" that somehow had technology far beyond ours to cut and move big rocks, while simultaneously being so backwards that the only way they could build a structure of that size was by piling the rocks up in a pyramid."

If you familiarize yourself with Christopher Dunn's work/theories there may be a big reason they used what seems lie archaic construction.  It seems this way to us because we do not use stone and we also are limited in the technology they were so advanced in.

"Now, while there is some curiosity as to the exact working methods of the builders involved, there is no reasonable doubt as to the general techniques and ways by which it was accomplished."

Dunn's work isn't so much focused on the main structure.. but the purpose of the structure and details found within. When you understand his view I don;t see how you can deny his claims.  Then when you consider this huge structure had some kind of function we can't understand and add that to the discoveries shown in that documentary it is pretty mind blowing to me... and they both ad credence to each other.

"The reason proponents of "Advanced Civilization" myths say that Egyptians couldn't possibly have done this, is to create the illusion that no ordinary explanation exists, making it easier to sell the extraordinary claims."

I am not adamant that conventional construction methods weren't used.. it's just from other info I have seen I doubt only conventional methods were used.

"So the straightforward explanation, based on all available facts and fully embraced by historians, anthropologists and other scholars,"

To me, the conventional methods aren't impossible but unlikely.

"But it isn't impossible. Those pyramids were built by Egyptian workmen,l no matter how primitive their tools may seem. Let us not forget that while impressive, a pyramid is also a fairly primitive construction."

The way that structure was built doesn't seem to be primitive though. And it's purpose doesn't seem primitive at all - possibly advanced.  This is the disconnect. 

"And it's purpose doesn't seem primitive at all - possibly advanced.  This is the disconnect. "

It's a tomb.

" there may be a big reason they used what seems lie archaic construction. It seems this way to us because we do not use stone and we also are limited in the technology they were so advanced in."

Who doesn't use stone? Are you serious? Take a look around sometime. Stone is used in construction all the time. They don't build the frames and outer walls of skyscrapers from it, because steel, glass and concrete does a better job, but no-one stopped using stone.

And what exactly is the "technology they were so advanced in"?

Unless you're talking about the disappearance of classic craftsmanship traditions with the advent of new technology, you're way off. You have not demonstrated any credible evidence for "advanced technology" at all.

You say you posted here to get people's opinion of your "discovery" and you've got it: it's bunk. Feel free to wade through it for a few years until it dawns on you, but I guarantee you'll feel like a fool for not keeping an open mind to the criticism of these claims.

"It's a tomb."

From what I have heard this is a myth.  I believe it was Dunn who said few pyramids have been found with remains in them. And the ones in them may have been added later. The missed remains is blamed on grave robbers.. but that may not be the case at all.

"Who doesn't use stone? Are you serious?"

Not like they did.  Not to that level,  It is more decorative.  I think their entire lost civilization may have been based on stone work like we used wood in Europe. Imagine if we had no other materials to work with and continued to use these materials and found new unique properties you wouldn't find otherwise.

"Take a look around sometime. Stone is used in construction all the time. They don't build the frames and outer walls of skyscrapers from it, because steel, glass and concrete does a better job, but no-one stopped using stone."

It doesn't necessarily d a better job..t  other materials are easier to work with and cheaper... this may be why they in fact used them.. because their technology removed the problem of weight moving them

"And what exactly is the "technology they were so advanced in"?"

I think it was sound and resonance.  This is why I think they used stone specifically and why it was so important in the pyramids function. as I said before.. I also think the pyramids incorporated electrogravitics. Stone appears to be a great material to separate these charges which is very difficult to do.

"Unless you're talking about the disappearance of classic craftsmanship traditions with the advent of new technology, you're way off. You have not demonstrated any credible evidence for "advanced technology" at all."

I could.. but it is much much much easier if you read Dunn's site and listen to his interview.  Otherwise I am just repeating work he has already Dunn(hah).

"You say you posted here to get people's opinion of your "discovery" and you've got it: it's bunk. Feel free to wade through it for a few years until it dawns on you, but I guarantee you'll feel like a fool for not keeping an open mind to the criticism of these claims."

Fair enough.  Opinion noted.  Have you studied science much, in school or on your own? 

I just think it's funny how I was mocked for being arrogant and you are guaranteeing I will feel like a fool.

" one of the reasons they write off the possibility that the pyramids or the statues on easter island could have been made by "primitive man" because of the "impossibility of moving those large stones over those great distances. "

As I recall there was a documentary a few years back showing exactly how they did it. That was when I learned that the Easter Island statues also had hats (only some of them had fallen off). As I recall it seemed strenuous and dangerous, not impossible.