BS: Archeological notions

Subject: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 07:51 PM

Before I forget...

After all of us seeing some of the effects of Katrina, I believe that all the ancient Indian mounds found along the gulf states are not temple ruins but rather man made mounds to establish high ground safety during storm surges.

I believe that the mother of invention is necessity. As a result I veiw most of the tomb and temple explanations for the Great Pyramid as pure bunk. The Great Pyramid has every single feature of an enormous water pump that worked well for desert irrigation. Unlike the Roman awuaducts it was fed by the underground canals which are still there today. For those who are curious, a very average man named Kunkle saw these features 80 years ago.

Once again it was a practical need and not just the idolization of the Gods that built many great structures. In a sense the political need to keep power in the family gave rise to the building of great tombs and not religion in and of itself.

In my opinion there has been a sort of "religious intelligent design" explanation for far too many archeological questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,NAPOLEON
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:55 PM

Yeah, go for it man!
I could have ruled the world only for a 'bloody bunch of roses'
by the way have you met the 'wee' men in white coats. They have a nice jacket in your size!

the emporer of the world

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:28 PM

Not tonight, Josephine.

Funny you should mention, Don. It's interesting that buildings have always represented power.

Pyramids, then churches, then government buildings. They were the biggies. Now, it's financial institutions.

Neat idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:49 PM

Somehow I see "They're moving father's grave to build a sewer" tied to the idea of the pyramids being both a burial chamber and gigantic pump house ! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:58 PM

oh, good GRIEF! I just watched a program where a director of the A.R.E claimed that the Atlanteans built the pyramids 10,000 years ago! Carbon dating of the mortar? Oh that was just 'repairs'! Inscriptions by the workmen? Just graffiti...Makes no difference that we have no evidence OF Atlantis.....

keeriminy!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:06 AM

The story of the history of musical instruments is the story of the quest for low notes. (Have you ever seen a theorbo?)

The ancient Egyptians realized that the longer a string was, the lower was the note it produced. They built the pyramids to serve as the anchoring points for long, long strings, the other ends of which would be fastened to an obelisk. Millions had been spent on the scheme when someone, probably a teen-age girl, discovered that you could get low notes more simply by making the strings thicker.

To cover the government's embarrassment over the expenditures, the pyramids were deemed works of art, and they have remained such to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,Napoleon
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:31 AM

Yeah! but we sure gave the Russians a good roasting!
Blutcher made a few quid out of it anyway!
          Boney

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:54 AM

It seems sometimes that all of these "alternate explanations" must spring from the hope that in ancient times there may have been people and/or cultures with superior intelligence.

Perhaps it is partly because there is so little evidence of any intelligence around today?

Unfortunately, the continuing ability of today's "leaders" to harness the ignorance of large cultural groups for grandiose and mostly senseless purposes suggests that perhaps we have always been little more intelligent than now.

This makes it much more credible to believe that the grand monuments from the past were constructed by ignorant sots, most likely for some grand - probably religious(?) - purpose that turned out to be a great mistake. The builders of these things are not around to explain them to us because ultimately the stupid die out or are destroyed and replaced by a new social order that's equally, but claiming to be differently, stupid. We can't learn much from history, because the "new stupid" always, it seems, obliterate the history of the "old stupid" lest people realize that there's no real difference.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:30 AM

There does seem to be a view that because we may not know or be able to understand or agree exactly why ancient people built the things they did - that they must have be very different people with different needs and motivations.

There is mileage I think in approaching these buildings (and writings) with the view that the people responsible were little or no different to ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:01 AM

Well-said, Shambles.

I know most of you pooh-pooh some of the metaphysical beliefs which I hold dear, but nevertheless, it includes the belief the pyramids were NOT built as tombs, per se, and were used for ritualistic purposes by ancient mystery schools, and, even modern times mystery school adherents. I knew a wonderful, very erudite elderly woman who went through a ritualistic initiation in the 1930's and to this day, as far as I know, members of certain organisations are allowed to hold private initiations in them with the *blessings* of the Egyptian government.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:31 AM

Sorry, but I think that my ancestors were smart enough to build Stonehenge, the pyramids, the Great Wall, and all the rest of it -- including those figures in the Peruvian desert or wherever they are -- all by themselves. No help from extraterrestials, Ancient Ones, the Earl of Oxford, Jahweh, Isis, Harvey, Osiris, George Bush, Ishtar, Atlanteans or Charlie's Aunt, all by themselves!

As for the mounds in the Lower Mississippi being for storm surge protection -- how do you then explain similar mounds at Cahokia or the mounds up the Ohio? St. Louis and Cincinnati (not to mention Wisconsin) are rarely bothered with hurricans or storm surges.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:32 AM

I claim no metaphysical or off world explaination for the great pyramid. That it was in fact a great public works water utility project seems to offend the uninformed and uninterested (but those people's actual purpose seems to be to offend anyway, so I will gladly ignore their "contribution".

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:34 AM

if interested,
google pyramid pump

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:43 AM

John, I love your theory of historical patterns generated by the niteraction of Old Stupid and New Stupid! I smell a PhD thesis!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:53 AM

So how do you explain the Cerne Giant?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:16 AM

So how do you explain the Cerne Giant?
to a nine year old girl...

Done that.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:45 AM

Years ago there was an article in the papers about a boy scout troop that took a stone the same size as the ones in stonehenge, dragged it 20 miles or so, and upended it; using nothing but ropes, rollers, and their own muscles. If boy scouts can do it, so can Druids.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:59 AM

Frankly, I don't give a mummy's curse what the Great Pyramid was built as or to do. It's one heckuva engineering feat any way you look at it.

As for the Cerne Giant -- just a show off!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:02 PM

on Easter Island, they wondered for years how those big statues were put in place...till someone asked the remnants of the locals...who showed them. Ropes and rollers and muscles and, yes, digging holes and building mounds and slowly upending them!

Some folks are so enamored by the IDEA of metaphysical and mystical and 'different' physical notions that they will discount the obvious bulk of evidence in favor of arcane 'maybes'. (sorry kat, me love, but metaphysical theories you like are no stronger in reality than those you DON'T like)

(ummm ...Donuel, I DID Google "pyramid pump" Donuel, and the 3rd hit was http://skepdic.com/refuge/pharoahspump.html, a page devoted to showing that the pump/water system idea does not work...sorry!)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:55 PM

metaphysical theories you like are no stronger in reality than those you DON'T like... Ah, Billddarlin'...not theories if one has the practical application of such metaphysical laws available to them. But, of course they are not for the masses and DO depend on one's own abilities, too. **grin** I KNOW that opens up a whole can of worms and attack, but my lips are sealed.:-)

In Peace Profound etc....

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:10 PM

that tiny little 'if' hidden in there is kinda important...*wry grin*

ah, well, I never WAS one of "the masses", and I STILL don't have any special abilities. 'Taint fair!

" ...my lips are sealed"...

yep, but when the claim is even made that such things are possible, that IS a partial un-sealing of the lips, and, as always...."the burden of proof is on the assertor"

(a philosopher can't just sit back and nod, now can he? ☺, he's gotta play that hole card!)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:40 PM

All I can say is get out yer old Mechanics Illustrated and send in your application for membership OR visit amorc.org.**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:24 PM

The Pyramids at Giza were NOT 'water pumps'.... plain and simple...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:25 PM

oops....


Nor do pyramids keep razors sharp, or milk fresh or any of that other oggy-boogy nonsense

Myth BUSTED!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM

Just wait a couple thousand years until the Future starts going through our dumps and tips....!!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:43 PM

I really feel sorry for them Sorch....

heh

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:03 PM

amorc, huh, kat? well, it's like A.R.E., or OAHSPE or URANTIA or Baha'i or Zoraster or Rastafrarian or Scientology or any one of these!, you pays yer money, you takes your choice.

Since I don't have much money OR time, to explore all the convoluted claims, I just sit here and kibitz! Keeps me off the street.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:19 PM

(ummm....yes, I know that some don't consider THEIR personal choice to be an actual religion, but to warp a metaphor to my own purpose, "the Devil is in the details!")

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:25 PM

I should also have mentioned that there are a number of original Egyptian illustrations that show obelisks (easily as heavy as the pyramid blocks) being moved on sledges towed by noblemen. Note: SLEDGES! No rollers, although at least one shows some one pouring what must be oil under the runners.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:41 AM

Pouring libations (of water or grease) would have in addition to 'the ritual & religious acts' the additional scientific/engineering benefit of reducing friction!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:51 AM

I looked at Bill's "sorry" site
It said the fire driven water pump was refuted because the Ancient Egyptians had no wood.

If you really accept that premise,
that puts Bill D in the Clinton Hammond catagory of grate thinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:18 AM

Perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Pied Piper
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:19 AM

Oh dear
Oh dear
Oh dear

No wonder the worlds in such a mess when seemingly intelligent people are gullible (or self-deceiving) enough believe this easily disprovable bollox.

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:41 AM

Ancient Egypt had no forests, and did not yet use coal for heating. All boards of any size had to be imported, usually from Lebanon,

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:55 AM

Donuel nees to hear that again....

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

They pyramids were not water pumps.... any archeologist not a drooling moron can tall you that...

Or if you'd rather pibble around in the shalow, Von Däniken end of the pool, go right ahead.... You can play another popular game of bunk called 10500BCE after this game has run its course....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM

Donuel... all I said was that the site is devoted to refuting the water pump theory. *I*, as a grate (sic) thinker, made NO (as in none) claims either way. The implication is, of course, that I cannot accept the water pump theory when there are so many unanswered problems with it. As was pointed out by mack, Egypt did not have a large, regular supply of wood...and all the site does is ASK what they might have burned if, as claimed, the pump was operated by fire.

It is not a good argument to go from my pointing out that the pump theory has problems and easy-to-find refutations, to implying that MY thinking is suspect.

The standard rule is...if you MAKE a claim, you are responsible for proving and/or defending it. In this case, you made a claim, asserting your belief in someone else's study. I made NO claim about the ultimate truth of the claim....only that it was far from universally accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:15 PM

"it was far from universally accepted"


And the award for "Understatment of the Week" goes to....

,-)

Subject: RE: BS: Archaeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:37 PM

Many thousands of years ago, the Sahara was a thriving fertile area - they keep on digging up bits of trees, etc out there. Many animals including elephants lived there. Of course, long before that it was part of the seabed...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:30 PM

Foolstroupe, you are almost correct. There was once a huge lake there, long gone by the time we're talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM

If the Great Pyramid was a water pump, it had to pump water from somewhere. Where?

As has been known for centuries (literally), the ancient Egyptians used an extensive system of shallow lagoons and ponds for capturing the annual flood of the Nile. This water was then distributed via a system of canals to fields, and canal building continued until today.

Farmers also used swapes, or shadufs (the spelling may be wrong and probably is), to move water from the Nile or canals to their fields, and do the same today. The swape is a long pole mounted on another pole or between two poles so that it moves up and down and in a circle. The horizontal pole is mounted off-center, and has a bucket on one end and a weight (often a ball of mud) on the other. Water is scooped up in the bucket, and the arm rotated to the field, where the water is dumped.

Egyptian engineers also built dams. Perhaps as far back as Khufu's time they dammed the Wadi Garawi, southeast of Cairo. This dam was about 33 feet high, between 200 and 370 feet long, and between 150 and 270 feet thick. Egyptian engineers also dammed the Orontes River in Syria, creating the Lake of Homs; the dam is still in use and is about a mile and a quarter long.

Given their mastery of irrigation canals and dam making, why would they go through the trouble of moving 2.5 million blocks of stone to build a pumphouse?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:38 AM

Ancient Egyptian ships were huge, and yes made of wood. One was recently unearthed near the Giza Plateau. They were not as large as the 500-800 ft long ships made briefly by the Ancient Chinese but some were cabable of ocean voyage.

I have seen the fire powered pump work. I have seen every feature in the Great Pyramid match every required feature in the pump - except for one missing butteryfly valve. The Kings chamber/firebox still shows evidence of ash and intense heat, even the ratchets in the great ascending chamber are intact. If one studies these properties with any discipline whatsoever it is clear there is more evidence of the Great Pyramid having much more to it than being an empty tomb with no hyroglyphics anywhere within its walls. I am convinced the proof is incontravertible that the pump at the Giza plateau once worked perfectly. As to what purpose, is more speculative although common sensical than than the clear evidence of all the pump's working features still in existence.

With all the evidence in hand Occum's razor supports this feature of the the Great Pyramid. Forget all the religious BS and foolish pyramid power claims and look at what is really there.

The alternative of course is to follow your own opinion without studying the facts which is a sort of 'intelligent design' way of thinking. To me not caring is preferable to taking a forceful amd uniformed stand.

And Bill, I do not think you are "grating" at all :)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:14 AM

"I am convinced the proof is incontravertible that the pump at the Giza plateau once worked perfectly."

I'm sure that the 'Dänikenians' appreciate the support....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:57 AM

Billdarlin'...oddly enough, believe it or not, YOU are just the type of person AMORC prefers as a member...we prefer Walking Questionmarks.:-) I wish I had my brother's capacity of memory. He'd be a great one to back up some of the things I know and state, without having to go dig through reference pubs. to cite.

Also, to some who may have been referring to AMORC as religious, is is NOT a religion. Religious and/or spiritual people may be members, but it is not a religion.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:29 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMORC

If like me, you didn't know what AMORC is....

Sounds like a load of "Deluded Little Dupes" (as defined in The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM

I assure you, AMORC would NOT want me in their midst! ☺

And 'religion' or ≠ religion, it is, like 'folk', a matter of how wide you set your definitions. It certainly has some of the characteristics, if not the defining one of "Supreme Being who made & controls us".

It IS discussed on the website I noted before. I suppose that members (or is it Internal Revenue?) have the last word about 'official' classification, but when I read about a set of carefully set out, organized and protected metaphysical beliefs and practices, the distinctions blur.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM

Believe me, Bill, you are exactly the type fo person which can make AMORC the org. is it. I mean that sincerely and seriously.

That website, as many others which do not look beyond recent history, is incorrect in some of its statements. For a true, short historical outline of AMORC, please see this page.

Also, Roger and I have been members for over 25 yeas. Nowhere does it say or have we EVER been told to believe we are controlled by anything other than our ownselves. We do not, nor are we told, to address any diety of any kind. It is the ignorance of sites such as you noted which continue the misconceptions.

AMORC's monographs teach one the scientific application of metaphysical laws. And, before any of you poo=poo that, I woudl ask you to consider the following:

Throughout history a number of prominent persons in the fields of science and the arts have been associated with the Rosicrucian movement, such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452 to 1519), Cornelius Heinrich Agrippa (1486 to 1535), Paracelsus (1493 to 1541), Francoiz Rabelais (1494 to 1553), Theresa of Avila (1515 to 1582), John of the Cross (1542 to 1591), Francis Bacon (1561 to 1626), Jacob Boehme (1575 to 1624), Rene Descartes (1596 to 1650), Blaise Pascal (1623 to 1662), Baruch Spinoza (1632 to 1677), Isaac Newton (1642 to 1727), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646 to 1716), Benjamin Franklin (1706 to 1790), Thomas Jefferson (1743 to 1826), Michael Faraday (1791 to 1867), Marie Corelli (1855 to 1924), Claude Debussy (1862 to 1918), Erik Satie (1866 to 1925) and Edith Piaf (1915 to 1963).

Not exactly your everyday, navel-gazing, empty-headed followers, if you know what I mean.:-)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:43 PM

That list of members is as big a load of BS as 'The Da Vinci Code'!!

I'll trust Wiki...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:47 PM

Donuel:

Can you provide a reference to the 'huge' Egyptian ship discovered near Giza? The Egyptians did relatively little open sea sailing. The only open sea ship remains were discovered just this past year. A google on ancient Epyptian ships will give many references to the scarcity of large timbers. In fact, many were made of short lengths of locust wood (about 2 feet long), pieced together. There was a ship discovered in an underground vault at Giza a few years ago but that can hardly be taken as standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:06 PM

FYI on Egyptian ships from a guy who calls 'em all boats.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

Once upon a time in the Sahara Forest . . . .