BS: Archeological notions

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:08 AM

freda, well said, and Thank Yew!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: rich-joy
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:19 PM

re Mack's statement :
"The Egyptians did relatively little open sea sailing" - and others like it - perhaps it's time to throw the cat amongst the pigeons and refer 'catters to this site :

http://www.awarenessquest.com

on Australian Archaeological Anomolies, covering Rex Gilroy's (and others) lifelong research into numerous discoveries that don't fit with the college/university textbooks!!!


Cheers! R-J

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:11 AM

Others may set up the straw men of Von Daniken and other shysters to "prove" that fire powered hydraulic pumps did not exist until modern times, rather than look at the schematics and evidence of every feature* of the pump existing in the great pyramid.

*again- all except the butterfly valve.

That such a rudimentary technology existed back then was not my main point. I was pointing out that the easiest explanation for many archeological discoveries has been to declare many findings "a religious site". This is like an "intelligent design" explanation and is an excuse for lack of scholorship. It is preferable to say "we don't know".

I do not know how the 20-50 ton stones were carried atop a mountain or interlocked in the buildings of Machu Pichu.
I am not willing to assume they were built for religious purposes.
Transmuting the fear of death with religious teachings of life ever after can be a powerful motivation to do remarkable things in life but without proof or mechanical explanations it remains a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 04:57 AM

If ETs with no concept of religion came and found amongst our ruined civilisation say a European cathedral - I wonder what practical purpose they may place upon it?

Presuming of course that they hadn't already built it on one of their earlier visits..........

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:42 AM

"rather than look at the schematics and evidence of every feature* of the pump existing in the great pyramid"

I have looked at the "evidence" and I side with the vast majority of reputable scholars who say such 'evidence' is a load of bullflop and wishful thinking, propped up by bad archaeology... speaking of straw men...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: MMario
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:48 AM

shambles -if ET's wiuth no concept of religion etc.etc. they would probably conclude it was used as a marketplace and teaching center - which most cathedrals were - sometimes even WHILE services were being held.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:38 PM

Ok, lets look at the standard things that people build really big structures for. Not in thousands of years ago, but now, so we have no doubts about what's happening.

1. Killing each other (fortification, aircraft carriers)

2. Selling stuff to each other ( malls etc)

3. Worshipping something/someone( catherdrals, sports stadium)

4. Transporting stuff (roads, bridges, dams etc)

Now, lets assume that the pyramids were built by people, and their motivations haven't changed too much. Which explanation fits best?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: MMario
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:45 PM

1? They would throw criminals up really high and when they would land on the point of the pyramid it would break their back - killing them!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:53 PM

Are you calling the ancient Egyptians "Tossers" MMario??

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 02:13 PM

shambles -if ET's wiuth no concept of religion etc.etc. they would probably conclude it was used as a marketplace and teaching center - which most cathedrals were - sometimes even WHILE services were being held.

Once a building is in place - it can and will be used for many purposes. However a more logical approach would probably conclude that the scale and care taken in the detail and twiddly-bits of a cathedral would make it very different to what was usually required for a teaching centre and marketplace.

Perhaps our approach to grand buildings has changed along with the time-scales required in their construction. The biggest projects now only take a few years. Stonehenge for example was in construction for many hundreds of years. Perhaps it was less the end result - but the process and what was involved in it?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM

Construction of large structures were often embarked on to keep the punters busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:22 PM

busy, you say?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:49 AM

If I wouldn't have believed it I wouldn't have seen it.

Wolfgang