Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > megalithic construction      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 79
megalithic constructionPage 4 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SUMER AND THE BIBLE
http://historel.tripod.com/orient/03mesop.htm

Mystery religions of ancient Egypt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqju5lY79Sg
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 80
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/21/2011 3:27:18 PM
Thera and Santorini are the same island.

Thera was a Cretan city; everything that I have read indicates this. I don't have time to check my library, but even Wikipedia says:


Excavations starting in 1967 at the site called Akrotiri under the late Professor Spyridon Marinatos have made Thera the best-known "Minoan" site outside of Crete, the homeland of the culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorini

You are right about Knossos not having running hot water. The Wikipedia article mentions pipes for hot and cold water in Thera; the hot water could have been heated by geothermal means, which could be a reason why Knossos, which had flush toilets, had only one pipe to supply water.

The connection between Plato and the supposed Egyptian tale is Solon, who lived 150 prior to Plato. However, the supposed tale told by Egyptians had Athenians fighting the Atlanteans 9,000 years prior to Solon's time--that is stretching a myth so thin that there can't be ANY basis in fact for it. I tried to find Solon's account, but I can only find articles talking about Solon's visit to Egypt, but no document to show that he wrote about it. From what I gather, there is NO evidence that Plato got the story from Solon--he couldn't have gotten it directly and there is no written account by Solon. http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/james/; http://www.skepdic.com/atlantis.html


And the tri coloured stones at thera are something I cant recall seeing in any other ancient ruins but they were specifically mentioned by plato based on the stories he heard whilst in egypt


It wasn't Plato who heard the story in Egypt, but supposedly Solon--again, 150 years before Plato's time.

Thera could be the basis for the Atlantean MYTH, but there is no basis in fact for the highly advanced civilization it was supposed to be.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 81
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/21/2011 4:39:55 PM
I might be mistaken, but I am sure platos first mention of atlantis came after a visit to egypt or somewhere in the region which was why they concluded he had picked up the story from the locals

As for "highly advanced civilisation" technically in that age they were. Nobody else in the surrounding predominant cultures, not even the greeks or romans were anywhere near them in terms of building technology and its also theorised their shipping due to it appearing to be a commerce and trade driven culture

In those days there wasnt much that could be "advanced" as nobody I have seen was suggesting they had plasma screen TV's or cell phones. So it would only take things like manufacturing techniques, shipbuilding, construction and water management to have them viewed as "highly advanced" compared to other existing cultures

Its also theorised from the art thats been uncovered that the society itself was highly advanced too compared to their neighbours in terms of equality, wealth which is often seen as a form of advancement and spirituality

And we would still have no real idea about how advanced their education, level of scientific knowledge or physics might have been as well as philosophy, political structure, legal system and even their weapons technology all of which could also be viewed by other cultures as being more "advanced"

Bearing in mind that practically everyone else at the time could only manage to build either stone structures or single story housing that could have any hope of surviving earthquakes, didnt have much more water management that sewers and were still crapping in holes in the ground or through holes directly over sewers.

So "highly advanced" back then might not effectively be much up from what we would class as third world now if its even on that level of technology by a modern day yardstick

And thats without the benefit of the tale being exagerated as it became a hand me down story. If I get a chance over the weekend I'll see if I can find the tri colour stones reference. But I'm sure it was attributed to plato and the actual quote itself was listed but I wouldnt bet my life on it

Tony "Bliars" I would wager in a heartbeat, but not my own lol

Then again though, that doesnt say much as I'd bet his life on a claim that the moon is really just a big solar powered LED torch made out of empty washing up liquid bottles after a blue peter episode in the 1970s
 RandomScause
Joined: 8/16/2011
Msg: 82
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/21/2011 5:21:03 PM
We make a fuss, because SOME of those things DO look harder to do than how you describe. For myself, I want to know how they did it, in order to better understand them as people, and thereby to better appreciate the rest of my planet-load of critters.

+++++++++++++

That's very grand of you, Igor. I usually take them out for a brewskie or two, and they let their tongues a bit loose after the tird round or so.

So I know much more about ancient construction than anyone, including myself, because I understand mummies as people, I don't only admire them for their well-preserved bodies and artistic make-up.

What they did is nothing. They watched an ancient species of squirrels build the pyramyds, Stonehinge, and other megalithic idioms. The squirrels were part of a Biblical curse or plague that the executive editorial board saw better to be left out from the original manuscript. You see, a body woke up one morning, a sailor, say, and under his ship that morning was a huge mofo of an ancient city that warn't been da the day before. Or you are a farmer three-four-thousand years ago, at eight-thirty in the morning, and get up to sow corn or wheat, and bang, dem rotten little squirrels erected a big honking pyramid on your field, and now you can go complain to the pharaoh.

Luckily the stone-hearding squrrels evolved into beavers, and now they build dams, which were also an atavism to the prehistoric floods, but never mind.

Once I was lucky enough on an assignment to interview a little squirrel, barely 11,000 years old (and not 10,000 -- although one has to be careful, coz squirrels have a cult of adoring their elders, and sacrificing lions and tigers to them.) And this wizened old squirrel told me that in prehistoric times the termites were formidable builders, they built, among other things, Pluto, and Io, one of Jupiter's twelve moons.

Nobody knows for sure where the termites learned monolythic planet-building, but some say that Battierrra Culminatiea, an early form of the measles bacterium, were responsible for building the solar system and the Milky Way Galaxi.

When the last living human's body starts to cool, we will see giant golems build huge wooden huts, about the size of a deck of cards, and ten thousand years down the road their progeny will wonder how in hell they were able to do that, when the progeny's largesse can muster up a matchbox, but nothing more substantial.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 83
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/21/2011 5:22:38 PM

I might be mistaken, but I am sure platos first mention of atlantis came after a visit to egypt or somewhere in the region which was why they concluded he had picked up the story from the locals


You are mistaken. I had researched this for the myth class that I teach and refreshed my memory before my last post: everything that I read said that Plato attributed the story to Solon. Check out the links that I provided.


As for "highly advanced civilisation" technically in that age they were. Nobody else in the surrounding predominant cultures, not even the greeks or romans were anywhere near them in terms of building technology and its also theorised their shipping due to it appearing to be a commerce and trade driven culture


I mean no offense by this, but you need to show sources for your claims, especially since the Plato reference is incorrect.
 RandomScause
Joined: 8/16/2011
Msg: 84
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/21/2011 5:38:14 PM
The styles of writing are VERY different, and though we have been able to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and Sumerian cuneiform, the writing of the Harappans remains a mystery.
++++++
The writing of the Harrapans is a mystery coz there is no equivalent Rosetta Stones to get the posterity start on some footing.

I thought that writing was invented to enhance trade. It started when a merchant's business grew larger than what he could handle, and he had to hire captains for ships and caravans to deliver the goods. ("Under 400 days or it's free.") The captains, like people of today, could not be trusted, so a bill of the lade had been prepared, by making little clay replicas of the goods to be delivered, and this was enclosed in a clay box, and the whole thing fired to hardness. This way the shipper-receiver at the other end had a sure way to check the goods delivered against what ought to have been delivered. Later negotiations to future trade contracts were carried out this way, and the tiny clay pigs, clay bales of hay, clay birds and clay slaves were further and further simplified, until such time that the connection to its real visual form of the object of what the representation meant was lost, and symbolic language found a written form.

I like this theory. Most writing started out (if not all) from a visual representation, which was refined and simplified later.

One thing that they can read now but not in my childhood is the knot-writing of the Inkas. The Inkas sent written messages by having a number of strings of different lenghts attached to a stick, and had the strings knotted in parts, and colored. This told a message.

In the South Pacific they had no writing, but a very accurate visual map to direct sailors to other islands, incredibly far from each other. The map was made with straight and curved bamboo, or some vine, and pearls were threaded in place where the islands were located. The map had been done to scale, and the straight and curved lines represented the wave forms in the water that the competent sailor would read. For instance, the curved things were the reflected waves (as when a stone is dropped in to still water) from the shores of an island, and the straight things were the parallel waves that traversed the ocean in the appropriate season. This is not writing, but similar in the sense that instead of words ("turn off I95 at exit 284, and proceed 8 miles East on Exeter Road") it gave a nearly symbolic explanation on what to do when and how to find a potentially remote island when navigating an incredibly small and fragile boat.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 85
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/21/2011 6:15:41 PM
Sources to what exactly?

The roman and greek civilisations hadnt even formed yet when the minoans were wiped out and the sumerians empire had already crumbled before or during the minoans theorised cultural life span so there was only really the egyptions in that area of the world anyway. Even the ancient greek civilisation isnt classed as having formed until sometime around 1000bc

And the egyptians certainly didnt have a similar level of building finesse and technological expertise which is why the palace on crete and the buildings unearthed on thera are seen as so remarkable in the first place predating roman and greek sophisticated building techniques by as much as a 1000 years or more depending on how early the minoans and therans started using those techniques

So it would be a bit difficult for cultures that hadnt even formed yet to have had similar levels of building technology really if thats what you were meaning

And egyptian building techniques whilst baffling in terms of the pyramids which may not even have been built by them anyway didnt have very sophisticated building techniques at all, and were mostly throwing up dried mud single story structures for living accomodation, rather than multistory butted masonry as they had been a fractured group of rival cultures for quite a long time lacking cohesion or common interest

So who exactly might have had any kind of technology on a par with the minoans I'm kind of stuck on really, as its a bit hard to provide evidence of a similarly technologically advanced culture that has no name and isnt listed anywhere I'm aware of as the egyptians would seem to be pretty much it before 1500 BC, and its actually claimed by some of the later carbon dating that thera erupted as early as 1600-1700 BC anyway which puts them even further before romans, greeks and ancient greeks actually existing
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 86
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/21/2011 6:19:36 PM

I thought that writing was invented to enhance trade. It started when a merchant's business grew larger than what he could handle, and he had to hire captains for ships and caravans to deliver the goods.


Writing was invented for trade and to catalog the king's wealth and to account for taxes.


I like this theory. Most writing started out (if not all) from a visual representation, which was refined and simplified later.


Writing began as pictorial representations of concrete items--a picture of the sun was the sun. As time passed, the symbol became more abstract, so the picture of the sun could mean enlightenment in more ways than one.


The captains, like people of today, could not be trusted, so a bill of the lade had been prepared, by making little clay replicas of the goods to be delivered, and this was enclosed in a clay box, and the whole thing fired to hardness. This way the shipper-receiver at the other end had a sure way to check the goods delivered against what ought to have been delivered. Later negotiations to future trade contracts were carried out this way, and the tiny clay pigs, clay bales of hay, clay birds and clay slaves were further and further simplified,


Where did you get this information? I have not heard of this system, but it is interesting.

I had also not heard of the Incan knot system, but it seems to be numeric.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 87
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/22/2011 6:27:13 AM

Sources to what exactly?


For everything that you propose!

The roman and greek civilisations hadnt even formed yet when the minoans were wiped out


What time frames are you discussing? Greek culture derives heavily on Minoan culture. Thera exploded somewhere between 1627 BCE and 1600 BCE: by 1600 BCE, Greece was already developing the heroic legends of Oedipus and Heracles. Mycenae was clearly developing by 1400 BCE, but Knossos was not destroyed until circa 1370 BCE. By 1300 BCE Mycenae was in full bloom. http://www.ancient-greece.org/resources/timeline.html

The Achaeans/Mycenaeans were not "Greek" per se, but they were the beginnings of Greek culture: their myths that are the basis for Greek myth. In fact, it was the Achaeans who fought the war with Troy, but if you ask most people who fought the Trojans, they will say it was the Greeks because we so closely identify the two cultures.

The myth of Theseus, supposedly King of Athens, is in part based on the Athenians giving tribute in the form of their best youth to Crete. Theseus kills the Minotaur to end the tribute. It is theorized that this myth is allegorical history for the mainland breaking away from Minoan dominance. The myth clearly shows the interrelation of Greek culture and Minoan culture. In fact, when Knossos was destroyed, it allowed a shift in power to the Mycenaeans . http://www.ancient-greece.org/history/minoan.html

The Romans came later, of course.

By the way, Thera WAS Minoan.

The Minoans not only traded with Egypt, but with Syria and Asia Minor. They traded with Anatolia (Turkey); in 2009, evidence of Minoan culture was found in Israel. Crete had many, many "colonies" and founded cities in diverse places. If their technology was not utilized in those places, it wasn't because it was an "unknown" technology, but for other reasons. http://project-history.blogspot.com/2006/01/ancient-minoan-trade.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization

One source says:
The Minoans adopted early techniques for working with stone from their Egyptian contacts.
http://www.ktimatoemporiki.gr/content/285/


And egyptian building techniques whilst baffling in terms of the pyramids which may not even have been built by them anyway didnt have very sophisticated building techniques at all, and were mostly throwing up dried mud single story structures for living accomodation, rather than multistory butted masonry as they had been a fractured group of rival cultures for quite a long time lacking cohesion or common interest


Which dynastic period are you talking about? With discoveries of the workers' "cities" and other evidence connected with the building of the pyramids, how can you substantiate saying that the pyramids "might not" have been built by the Egyptians? What proof can you provide for such a statement? When you say "rival cultures," do you mean upper and lower Egypt? The Hittites?

Again, no offense, but you are making general and fragmented claims and not backing them up with sources.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 88
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/22/2011 5:53:12 PM
Theres several trains of thought about the pyramids and surrounding structures that go totally against orthodox egyptology

The sphinx for one has had academics argueing about the amount and type of water damage for ages as well as the fact that the concordes which would normally in those days have been build to the bank of the river the structures were built around as was the norm stop at a point where the nile hasnt been for over 10,00o years

Its also impossible to date a structure, so theres no way to actually date things like the pyramids, so most assumed dating comes from when theyre first mentioned and written accounts none of which can actually be substantiated nor verified anyway

As for "cities", the assumption theyre workers cities is based on the initial assumptions that the egyptions built them

If they didnt, they would just be "cities" nor workers cities. But could just as easily have been for workers building the newer pyramids and structures around them too as many of those are known to be much newer than the pyramids themselves

The pyramids also have a very complex and extensive tunnel network underneath them that indigenous tribes claim were water tunnels (man made tunnels, not natural ones) which run under the pyramids and some of the other older structures. Those too stop where the niles banks would have been over 10.000 years or so ago.

So theres quite a bit of reason to suspect that the site itself was being developed long before either egyptian culture was recorded as being in existence and also before orthodox historical beliefs claim there was any civilised human societies on the earth

But as with any type of scientific revision the people who control and rely on the current orthodox assumptions tend to be resistant to any change


The tunnel system however is just one of the aspects of the pyramids that orthodox egyptology doesnt tend to draw attention to if it can help it, so I've found that a hell of a lot of people dont even know they exist or that they run right underneath the pyramids

But according to some of the local indigenous tribes the actual function of the three pyramids and some of the buildings nearby was medicine, both diagnosis and treatment using the flowing water, static electricity and the accoustics of the rooms

Infact if you search for newer translations of the glyphs it seems that the way orthodox egyptologists have been dechipering them could be extremely innacurate, as theyre actually still used by some tribes even now. But the way the language actually works isnt anything at all like we thought it did and some new translations of what were origionally thought to be timelined accounts are now being treated as something entirely different, planetary alignments or locations in the sky I think it was

For references theres a 5 part documentary that goes through some of the newer theories about the pyramids called the pyramid code which pulls together some of the new theories as well as expanding on things that orthodox thinking just cant effectively explain (like the water tunnels) which you might find interesting if you havent already seen it
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 89
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/22/2011 6:43:27 PM

For references theres a 5 part documentary that goes through some of the newer theories about the pyramids called the pyramid code which pulls together some of the new theories as well as expanding on things that orthodox thinking just cant effectively explain (like the water tunnels) which you might find interesting if you havent already seen it


I rarely get "hard" information from documentaries. I might mistake fake pictures of giants as the real thing. I also do not own a TV. However, I did watch one episode of this on Netflix and didn't bother to watch the rest of them.

What some people don't seem to understand is that documentaries are made with a specific audience in mind, and they pander to that audience. The information in this documentary is pure speculation meant to attract people with a need for the fantastic. It is called "pseudoscience."

One should always consider new theories, but those theories should be based in reality. Providing "proof" from "documentaries" such as this is not offering proof at all.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 90
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/22/2011 7:04:44 PM
I do get your point there, but the series also included several egyptologists whose theories were the basis for the series rather than it just being picked from thin air as well as interviews with tribesmen who are indigenous to the area and who are responsible for the newer translations

Thing is though, the existing assumptions are also "just" theories ontop of theories ontop of assumptions, so theyre not actually founded in fact to begin with. But the same as when orthodoxy thought the world was flat you can have a concensus of what is "accepted" that isnt actually very acurate and certainly isnt and cant be "proven"

But that due to that orthodoxy will be quite vehemently resistive to anything that questions its validity. Thats has always been the pattern of science in practically any field

And its also not uncommon for what IS known to be altered or interpretted to fit in with an orthodox view too.

I think one of the main things that did stand out is the lack of decoration in the main pyramids which is synonomous with tombs in most cultures including the ancient egyptians. Yet theyre still claimed to have just been tombs nonetheless

The causeways ending at a point the banks of the nile hasnt been for far longer than the pyramids are claimed to have been built is also odd, but there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory that the foundations the pyramids are built on is much older than the pyramids themselves so that might be more to do with when the site was first developed rather than the pyramids if the site itself has some special significance

A basic problem with human psychology is that we have a predisposition to elevate the first account for something we hear above all subsequent ones, which rather than being viewed equally then on a subconcious level have to not only prove their own validity, but disprove the validity of previous accounts. Which means that even if a subsequent account we hear is true and the first one isnt we tend to find it harder to believe the second one which I cant recall the name for, but its the reason we have a specific order for questioning and closing arguements in the legal system

Not saying thats the case here btw, simply that its one of the negative underlying factors that we have when viewing multiple versions of things where its not completely clear which is right. As well as with science especially anyone making or having made a living out of "expertise" on a particular paradigm is predominantly going to oppose any new variation where others would have more expertise or where a new perspective might make theirs redundant

So with this kind of thing the first version tends to be far more resilient than subsequent ones irrespective of acuracy or likelyhood as seen with many areas of astrology, science and even medicine

It should also be noted that with things where most "knowledge" is actually theorises rather than proven, the people classed as "leading authorities" are infact just experts on a particular group of theories rather than being experts based on fact which is how we do tend to view them

The documentary doesnt really push alternatives very much though, it just focuses on things that orthodox egyptology skirts around or doesnt offer any form of explaination for initially then offering in some cases several other theories that just seem to explain them or explain them in a potentially more likely way as well as bringing in aspects that are fairly new discoveries like the Giza site being almost exactly the mid point both vertically and horizontally in the the landmass as well as being exactly on the magnetic equator

Things that werent even known when orthodox egyptology, some of which might just simply be coincidental, but they also might not be, Either way its there to be theorised about and totally ignoring it just because it wasnt known 100 years ago is hardly "scientific" as it could be relevant to their builders or even their purpose
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 91
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 6:30:51 AM
Those "documentaries" are pseudoscience. They discount the myth of the Egyptians and they grasp at straws.
 Dreamer_in_SC
Joined: 6/13/2011
Msg: 92
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 7:34:15 AM

Those "documentaries" are pseudoscience. They discount the myth of the Egyptians and they grasp at straws.


Hate to break it to you gwen but what i stated earlier and others also were trying to point out is there is no science about it.

It is all just guesses and assumptions because there is no way to accurately date anything. Even if objects inside were carbon dated that still does not offer scientific proof of age because it would be no different than if you bought an old house and moved into it. Your things would be in it but that does not mean you commissioned to have it built or built it yourself.

In case you did not know that is why many in that field were trying to find the smoking gun on how it was done so that the many artifacts found that could be dated could attempt to provide a scientific basis for their assumptions.. Yes i said assumptions and not theories.

There comes a point when the gaps are so vast that theory does not fit any longer and an assumption or guess is the only valid legitimate claim.

You don't know, I don't know, the ones writing books, documentaries, and conferences also do not know. Yes even teachers in higher education have just as much chance of claiming anything fact as john doe that has watched a few shows on the history and discovery channels.

Bottom line is this. You are attempting to dismiss someone elses opinion calling is pseudoscience when the facts are the entire topic of study using the scientific method IS pseudoscience. There is no proof at all. Claiming authority on translations does not make the original any more valid even if the translations were 100% accurate.

By attempting to use those types of things as forms of proof may sound great but it is not any different at all as if myself or any other poster here wrote our opinion in stone.

You would be attempting to claim scientific fact off from a written record left behind that due to not being able to date rock could have been done at any time. It could have even been done on the rocks before they were assembled into a structure.... Anyone saying different clearly knows nothing about science or even what a fact is. Definatly not what proof is that is for sure.

Just my observations and opinions
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 93
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 11:25:06 AM

Bottom line is this. You are attempting to dismiss someone elses opinion calling is pseudoscience when the facts are the entire topic of study using the scientific method IS pseudoscience. There is no proof at all. Claiming authority on translations does not make the original any more valid even if the translations were 100% accurate.


True, I don't know, but I also discount claims made by Madame Blavatsky.

In this forum, few have given any "evidence" beyond vague references to documentaries. Where I produced sources and dates, the person with whom I was dialoging made no comment on them. I find that most posters have done no research beyond watching some TV shows.

I have considered the alternative "theories" and find them lacking. Until stronger evidence can be given, they remain pseudoscience--just like Sitchin's claims about Sumeria being settled by aliens.

My field is mythology, but in order to understand the myth of a culture, you need to know something about the "workings" of the culture. I said that I had watched one of the documentaries; I didn't watch the others because in the first, there were erroneous statements made about aspects of Egyptian culture. Sloppy research--which carries over into other areas of the research. People would rather create and believe in fantastic scenarios. If one doesn't have a grounding in what is presented, they will believe anything--like believing photoshopped pictures of giants prove that they exist.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 94
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 11:25:59 AM
As the previous poster has already pointed out, orthodox egyptology is also "psuedoscience", infact in some ways its worse than that as its based as much on assumption as anything else, and making things fit into an already emerging set of assumptions of the timeline of human civilisation on earth with many of the things being questioned in more modern times not even being known, factored into or allowed for when the current orthodox views were formed.

As was the case when people believed the earth was flat orthodoxy will tend to cling to its claims inface of any holes in their theory that might exist, and infact when it was first theorised that the earth moved around the sun rather than the universe revolving around the earth "scientists" spend a lot of time and energy altering facts and findings to continue claiming the earth was the centre of the universe and silencing people who tried to claim otherwise

Nowadays when prominence in a particular field, income because of that prominense, book deals, paid speaking venues and even governmental positions will all depend on keeping a set of theories as the accepted view the list of reasons to cling to theories that have more holes and unanswered questions than answered ones becomes even longer and more compelling

And the negative effects of someones theory they have gained recognition, income and employment because of being completely or partially replaced by a new one becomes something people will work harder to avoid for the duration of their lifetime

And this type of thing stops science from being "scientific" in the true sense of the word

Infact orthodox egyptology even struggles to explain why the pyramids would have been built where they are so far away from water or vegetation when the norm was to locate settlements and therefore important structures near to rivers in arid enviroments or what purpose concourses that would have simply terminated at a sand pit might have served as well as the purpose of the tunnels under the pyramids if there was no water there to flow into them as the timeline claimed for the pyramid is several thousand years short of the area having any water near to where the concourse ends which is quite a major flaw in the claims really

Even offering the possibility that the concourse and the foundations the pyramids were built on might have been the site of something else previously and the site held some religious or other kind of significance might have been a way to try and merge those questions into the orthodox view. But as far as I am aware the most common response is to just class them as irrelevant details that dont need explaining because what is already being claimed is fact, and thats that

Which is more akin to a petulent six year old than any genuinely "scientific" discourse really
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 95
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 2:46:47 PM
I was trained formally to present information based on research and to quote reliable sources, providing data, names of theorists, and dates where required. I don't even pass papers from my first year college students who do not fulfill this criteria.

Obviously, the people on this thread know more than I do about substantiating claims, so I will simply bow out from the conversation because it has become circular.

Have fun!
 Dreamer_in_SC
Joined: 6/13/2011
Msg: 96
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 4:16:00 PM

I was trained formally to present information based on research and to quote reliable sources, providing data, names of theorists, and dates where required.


That is the exact point trying to be made. It can not be done with the pyramids and it can not be done with mythology even. You can not apply the scientific principles on subject matter that does not have a chance of ever being scientific and call it science just because you used similar methods.

Even if you do your own research then you would be siting the source as yourself. If your name is not on the official list of experts in the field then as you said yourself it is not a reliable source.

You could have 100+ reliable sources in your research but if all 100+ are wrong then you have learned nothing at all.

That whole citation ladder is built for one purpose. To keep those who first proposed ideas and theories moving up that ladder each time their work is used as a source.

You are simply doing what you are told to do which is raise up the next generation of grads who are there to boost up and utilize the work of prior generations of academics.


I don't even pass papers from my first year college students who do not fulfill this criteria.


What that says to me is you do not allow free thinkers in your classroom. Not allowed to speak their minds but instead are limited to regurgitating someone else's words just to be granted a grade in your class.

That is higher education learning to you? To put limits and restrictions on your students?

My favorite teacher was my Psychology Professor. I found it incredibly ironic for him to have said that imagination is critical considering that class was in statistical ethics in psychology research.

It was because no matter how good you are you can never account for every variable. You must have a good imagination to be able to spot when variables pop up that were not accounted for.

Instead of including them they just get brushed off to the side.

Mythology is not a science. Egyptology is not a science. Linguistics is not a science. There are many things that have no chance of being considered a science that are simply because the scientific method is utilized. At the core though.... The scientific method is being applied and utilized on assumptions, guesses, and opinions.

That is where the real issues are. Examining ONLY the observable and discarding any other assumptions or opinions and yes that means even everyone elses research because it is not needed to see the observable.

In a nut shell... I would not need to read a book or thesis or theory by person "x" and then quote passages from it simply to observe and report on anything scientific. Science is not built that way. It is intended to be seen the same by whomever observes it to come to the same conclusions. (without being steered in a specific direction) Today's science however is nothing but the latest crop of scholastic minions sent forth into the scientific abyss to locate and test theories and work that others have already done. You know, in an attempt to grant rock star status to a segment of society that is often ignored, unless something breaks at least. Then of course it is "quick hit the panic button and call in all the smart people to fix it."

Hey it is up to you but i would not be so harsh if you ever had a student come through your classes that were capable of original thoughts. Those are the ones we hear about down the road. NOT the ones that did nothing but regurgitate the words of others.

Just my thoughts and opinions
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 97
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 4:56:04 PM
Einstein as I recall managed to evade "indoctrinated orthodox" education

Gee, I bet he was really pissed off about that, he could have been a REALLY reknowned scientist if he'd been able to work his way through the scholastic levels

Instead he ended up being a nut job nobody whos theories were ridiculed for decades

(he also had crazy hair too which I'm sure didnt exactly help)
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 98
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 10:07:57 PM
Neanderthals are a name given to humans, as far as I can make out.
 migvalk
Joined: 12/22/2010
Msg: 99
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/23/2011 10:57:43 PM
maybe they got help from outer space
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 100
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/24/2011 7:39:20 AM

That is the exact point trying to be made. It can not be done with the pyramids and it can not be done with mythology even. You can not apply the scientific principles on subject matter that does not have a chance of ever being scientific and call it science just because you used similar methods.


And the point that I am trying to make is that one does not accept the fantastical at face value OR accept any proposed theory without researching to see what the other options are AND if the information is accurate. I am a layperson when it comes to many issues, but even I have seen enough in accuracies in the "documentaries" given as support to know that the theories are ignoring or overlooking many aspects.

Mythology is not "science" and can be interpreted in more than one way. However, when pyramids contain the rituals and spells that will allow the pharaoh to enter Tuat, it is obvious that they pyramids are tombs.


What that says to me is you do not allow free thinkers in your classroom. Not allowed to speak their minds but instead are limited to regurgitating someone else's words just to be granted a grade in your class.

That is higher education learning to you? To put limits and restrictions on your students?


When you have a teaching credential, spent three years getting a dual MA, and have taught college classes for 11 eleven years, you will be qualified to criticize my pedagogy.

Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.


Hey it is up to you but i would not be so harsh if you ever had a student come through your classes that were capable of original thoughts. Those are the ones we hear about down the road. NOT the ones that did nothing but regurgitate the words of others.

Just my thoughts and opinions


Ad hominem. Not only are you lacking in the understanding of research, but you attack me instead of merely disputing what I say.

You are not a college instructor, eh? So what you would "do" is a moot point.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 101
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:14:09 AM

When you have a teaching credential, spent three years getting a dual MA, and have taught college classes for 11 eleven years, you will be qualified to criticize my pedagogy.

Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.


I think thats kind of the point really

Even nowadays many things are taught that are scientifically known to be innacurate, but theyre just easier to teach and for students to understand and 99% of them wont ever be adversely affected in their working life by never knowing the updated version


Also, education tends to run behind cutting edge by various timeframes in different fields. In order for structured courses and texts to be used across an entire education sysrtem it just CANT use "new" ideas or discoveries. Its only option is to teach, and then test on what was thought to be true, 1, 10 or even 100 years ago

Despite it actually being by any real definition "unscientific" most science relies on resisting change even in many cases after it is known to be necessary and even once what is being taught is known to be outdated or lacking in validity

Because often new knowledge and technologies come along that punch holes in orthodox beliefs, but might still require decades or even centuries to at first figure out why initial assumptions were wrong, and then to try and formulate new explainations and a new flavour of orthodoxy

That isnt by any means a critique of education, because for some very obvious reasons it CANT work any differently otherwise there would be no collective basis for structure, testing and comparing somebodie knowledge

But by the same token, just because it HAS to work that way doesnt make it either right not factual. Especially in areas where the entire base of knowledge is only formed on a mountain of assumptions, theories and incomplete information to begin with

Because as with some of the things you class as psuedoscience, theyre things that we didnt have knowledge of when the orthodox versions of egyptology was started, or where we didnt have the technology to verify or negate assumptions or theories

One example there being that it has been assumed the tunnels and rooms were carved into the pyramids using candles, lanterns and flame torches as thats the only forms of artificial light we think they had back then

But modern testing as shown theres no trace elements of any residue from any forms of burnt material in the stone and in the sarcophagus (sp?) base in the great pyramid theres no ornamental markings normally found on one used for burial, nor is there any forensic evidence of embalming chemicals or dead matter which would be easily identifiable with todays test equipment and would have been present if it had ever been used as a tomb even if robbed later on

Orthodox egyptology couldnt have tested for any of that, and now cant explain why none of those things can be found, and cant even come up with a theory that fits the accepted time line and technology to explain how the tunnels and chambers could have been masoned without light

So it seems to just ignore them and dismiss any other theories as "psuedoscience" whilst not being able to offer its own explainations
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 102
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:25:11 AM

Neanderthals are a name given to humans, as far as I can make out.


More of a separate species of the genus "homo." As in homo neanderthalensis.

We're homo sapiens.

So no help for your creationism here. Sorry.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 103
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:33:36 AM
As near as I can tell, there are people on these threads whose approach to these subjects is to look at the science and go, "I don't understand that stuff so I want to think it's really X. You can't prove it isn't and it's a cool idea so it is now true! My ignorance is the deserving of the same regard as your knowledge! So there!"

Critical thinking, folks. Try it.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > megalithic construction