Posted: 14 September 2011 at 2:07am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"Knut, did you watch the documentary? These are engineers and builders who don't understand how this could be done. " I don't need to watch this specific documentary to know the arguments, this is nothing new, after all. We may not know exactly how things were built, as some things may be achieved in different ways, but what we do know, is that when you don't care about the time it takes, the money or how many die building it, there were tools available at the time capable of doing it. Stones can be moved with water transport, with wagon structures or rolling logs. Wheels, cranes and pulleys were invented that could pull many tons of weight. Many slaves were available to lend their strength to this. As a for instance, when Thor Heyerdahl proposed his theories of settlement of some pacific areas by way of the Americas and the possibility of Egyptians travelling to Central America, he was told that it was impossible because the people in question lacked the technology to do that. Through his expeditions he proved otherwise. Now, large parts of his theories have later been debunked using genetic anthropology etc. I.e: new hard facts. That's how science works. But what Heyerdahl demonstrated was that they had the technology needed and the idea that they didn't was just an unscientific prejudice passed off as fact. That's the good part of actual science: even the people who are wrong can provide insight and clarity. But what they also found with the RA experiment was that the knowledge of how to do things right is mostly passed down through workmen, and that the smallest thing can matter. For instance, RA 1 sunk because the reed-boat builders hadn't built a boat that large before and didn't realize that a simple rope line depicted in paintings of reed ships was actually used to maintain the integrity of the structure. The only difference in the succesful RA 2 was those ropes. It is not difficult to find engineers and builders that don't know how the pyramids were built. But if you find someone with an actual interest in ancien techniques, I'm sure they could show you with charts and models at least one plausible way it might be done. At the very least, to take such a documentary seriously, I'd expect an examination of tools known to exist at the time, extrapolating from other ages and uses and determining "If we use pre-industrial revolution technology, how would we have done this?" Even if we don't know exactly what was available 3-5000 years ago in Egypt, we know what was available when cathedrals were built. So by checking if those tools could build a pyramid, we can establish a frame of reference. After that, going backwards in time by checking the tools available to other civilizations building large structures, it's possible to get even closer. Some guys shrugging and going : "we have no idea" , have no credibility. If they said: "we have done experiments and have determined the minimum necessary level of technology, and here is the difference between what is necessary and what we can prove that they had", then I might find them interesting. The truth is, we have a pretty good idea how the pyramids were built, because variations and improvements of those technologies and techniques are still in use. Enormous structures with an increasing level of solidity and refinement have been built continuously since. And the wonder of a pyramid is actually dwarved by the awesome architectural undertaking of, for instance, the 17th century English artificial Canal and waterworks system. How did they do that? ;-) "listen to what he says about this insect shell materials properties and try to keep an open mind. I will explain to you why his story may have some truth in it." I listened for 30 seconds and it was some guy talking about using insect shells to create some form of stasis chamber. You know, finding bug shells in a dark, dusty tomb is not really a mystery. Finding an exposed tomb empty after 3000 years of grave-robbing is not a mystery. I would be really interested in watching a film about the technology used to build the pyramids. Watching a movie with people who don't know and don't even care to find out is about as interesting as watching a bunch of guys saying they can't draw and that this means no-one can draw and somehow all painters and illustrators ever must have used photocameras and advanced editing software. Rembrandt owned a mac for sure. How else could he have done it? Right? I kid, but that's really how silly this seems.
|