Comment: I want you to actually try

(See in situ)

I want you to actually try

"I've heard "laser flat" in this context before, and it's a misnomer for variance around 1 millimeter (are porous rocks really flat?), and that can be achieved with a foot- or arm-powered mill with sufficient hardness greater than the target being milled."

and you tell me how easy, or how long it will take you to come up with a perfectly flat wall sized horizontal countertop with tools of the day.

oh oops, you can't because they have no way of dating stones accurately. to assume the pyramids were built at the time of proclamation date, is akin to you inscribing you built the Empire State building and suppose the world collapses and some later human civilization 'discovers' it, and assume it to be so merely based on your own inscription. or like some later civilization coming upon the clip of GWB saying 'mission accomplished,' and solely based on that propaganda video, automatically assuming that is exactly what happened.

try achieving that level of flatness by rubbing two granite together. even if you were using one manually maneuverable piece vs. a 2 ton block. or, chances are it were perhaps heavier than 'mere' two tons, as obviously the starting block would've weighed significantly more. not to mention, more rough in surface texture, requiring far more manual hours chipping away to get it as flat as possible before rubbing two granite together to achieve your not-"laser like" flatness.

regardless, it would not be easy, even with modern tools, let alone doing it manually with tools of the day, whatever that is presumed to be.

also your focus on the "laser flat" is telling, as the core of the question is the unlikelihood of achieving that level of flatness at all, with the tools that contemporary archeologists and scientists themselves assume not to have existed then. not, whether or not it was made "laser flat," but it was made flat at all.

and really though, if we were to mull "are porous rocks really flat." well, then suppose the one should also consider 'is matter really solid?' a question on intellectual parity with the former query.

but that's not the numerical finality to literary descriptive arena we were really shooting for, now were we?

and, no:

And to be exact, it's the length of the base perimeter sides, in egyptian cubits no less, that demark the number of days in a year, not the ~204 steps in the Great Pyramid. One stands a better chance saying that's the # of bones in the human body if there are two missing layers on top instead of just one.

ah, ah, ah: I was clearly referring to pyramid cultureS worldwide, as in the "ancients," as I don't just cite, or to be more specific, just allude to the Giza Egyptian Pyramids in that, as they're not the only satellite viewable ancient structures built to compass spec, whose steps, construction, design and layout reflect numerical/orbital gnosis:

um, all one has to know are ginormous satellite viewable structures built to perfect true N, E, W, S (actual origin of the word 'news'), with mathematical precision, with number of steps recognizing the days of the year, and other numerical exposition of their knowledge in an era by modern account in which the ancients didn't have the technology to build such things.

my friend, you're making non-existent literary jumps not based on things I actually stated, but simply based on your own stated assertion, to simply make a better argument toward that stance, and are simply interpreting.

and this?

As for sharing know-how, a pyramid was the most stable structure available at that time [you can prove this? how?], so it's not surprising the very general shape of a pyramid would independently develop—unless you consider step pyramids exactly the same as the Great Pyramid. Space/the sky was a generally unreachable realm to all of them, so each independently studying it (lots of time on their hands) would come up with the same information, just like the analemma.

I agree.


absolutely. but it's my, and your highly probable, and may even be a likely assumption. but it's still only an assumption based on what you figure makes sense to you.

the difference: I don't claim this is WHY they did it, as you seem to be asserting.

my rebuttal is based on the general consensus of the modern white-robed class that in the pre-Diluvian era, the contemporary intelligentsia predominantly assert as IF it's a proven "fact" that there were supposedly no trades, or communications between Egyptians and the Americas, or the Far East.

again, no proof that the current date of the pyramids in Americas have any validity, as much as the same case they make about the Egyptian ones; there is NO acceptable dating methods for stones, let alone when they were carved out of their quarry, PERIOD; well other than toolmarks.

then to be perfectly certain, you'd have to first establish the existent metallurgy of the time, which again are solely based on tools found in that supposedly dated era. which is erroneous for two reasons: 1. that 'date' of the pyramids themselves, is not verified 2. finding tools dated near an era archeologists erronesously designated, found near the pyramids does not automatically mean those tools and artifacts are from the date of the build of the pyramids.

Yet, they all just 'happen' to build ginormous pyramidal structures, worldwide... for no reason?

what, simply because it's a stable structure (assumption), when clearly they were constructed under ritualistic paradigm to historical archive in mind?

deductive leap much?

and thanks for proving what I've asserted all along:

This alone is not surprising. [assumption] That some would share identical perimeters across the Atlantic is a little more interesting, but I haven't verified that for myself. [admission]

I'll take Bob Brier's admission at face value:

What we don't know is exactly how it was built, a question that has been debated for millennia.

Rest are nice intellectual conjectures. Again, NO PROOF. Just more highly likely, and highly probable.

and no offense, but the 'corkscrew' thesis is the most moronic one I've ever heard. so you think the people who knew how to build the pyramids actually wasted more resources in support system to build the pyramids, than the pyramids themselves? talk to any architect and engineer, then get back to me.

well, so okay: some projects do require more in setup like dams and bridges, but even then, much of the weight distribution structures remain and become part of the final design. not, as in the case of pyramids, even if you were to consider the internal cork screw as the more likely one than the external; you still need external ramps to transport the same amount of blocks. so, the argument as argued, effectively becomes moot.

his assertion is that Jean-Pierre Houdin's cork screw ramp is different than an exterior cork screw ramp because his, is internal and up:

an internal corkscrew structure ramping up the inside of the pyramid, effectively using the structure as a ramp itself.

um, the same amount of blocks would still have to be transported to the same site. even with Houdin's hypothesized design, ramps are still needed to transport/carry/roll and build those ginormous tons of stone blocks, unless you're of the school that thinks much of the blocks were 'cast' (another assumption).

unless the structure began lower than its surroundings, as in the foundation level were the ground level to begin with, that's theory has no more validity than a Lego architect's ego.

I'm sorry, was I supposed to find actual evidence for rebuttal in these pages?

Because I see none.

Defending an irrelevant negative is what a prosecutor does to 'win' an argument, not to try to find, and/or prove the truth.

all BOTH blog entries are doing, are refuting Sitchin, Daniken and Graham Hancock, which doesn't prove that the refuting author actually knows the origin, just more "highly probables." That's NO PROOF.

Frankly you citing me all those links to 'prove' how pyramids were or were not built, has as much validity in trying to prove the origins of the pyramids, as Graham Hancock, Bauval, Daniken, Sitchen, Bob Schoch, or Zahi Hawass, assert.

they are all hypotheses, as in unproven theories. PERIOD.

um, really?

Ignoring all this evidence is more a testament to how stupid you think the past and smart you think the present than what is likely the case.

did you by chance actually read my opener?

his sole premise is his personal aversion to the notion that something older than us in a non-traditional nonlinear view of human history may have had an influence on human history.

what part of that makes you think that I assume "how stupid you think the past and smart you think the present than what is likely the case"?

in fact, all that tells me is that you're responding to statements I've never made, solely arguing against what you ASSUME to believe that I said. besides, you just make all my arguments for me: you assume.

Those are NOT "evidence."

If anything, what you apparently believe presumes/arises out of the fundamental status quo premise that asserts that our contemporaries are far more 'smarter' than the ancients; that somehow, our human history is simple: 'start low primate in past, to high tech civilization of today'-meme. Not, as true reality reflects, human civilizations rose and fell, equally technologically, in a wave of nonlinear, up and down fashion, vs. the low to high curve more typically accepted and asserted by contemporary 'scientists.'

all I'm doing is questioning the contemporary White-robed cultists, as anyone who'd equally question all subsidized, heavily politicized field. I am HUMBLED by the ancients and history. I'd say my opening paragraph pretty much proves that.

as for Haramein. I made ZERO defense on behalf of his beliefs or assertions. my reply was in regard to the fact that the website you cited in no way debunked anything. apparently, regardless of what you or the blogger says about Haramein, neither of you are proving anything, nor more specifically of the 'debunking' site, it still disproves nothing.

now now Jon, now you're getting snidely cute and personal. no need, as not once did I attack you, just the blogger you cited:

...Though I guess I should have known better than to argue with someone who thinks North East West South is the etymological origin of the english word "news", despite prior languages' words for those directions and the concept of original information.

by your logic, I should ignore everything you said, because apparently you're rebutting things I've never said, nor stated. Or as I parsed above, still haven't proven anything. all of which would've been clear if you re-read my opening paragraph.

besides, you're a mod; have you seen the way I write and rebut? you're gonna be here all day. lol.

so, this is how it's gonna go: I respect everyone here too much to waste anymore time arguing over one person's hypothesis and your belief and interpretations of that person's vs. my own understanding of their hypotheses, etc. we'll still be, in the aggregate, arguing over one hypothesis vs. another hypothesis, which is pointless.

so make of it what you will.

in closing, as I pretty much assume throughout, all I have are questions, and simply admit that in the aggregate, all I know is that I know that I know nothing.

nothing more, nothing less.

the question is, no doubt you know that while not all, but much of contemporary science is merely a political grant-whoredom. so, why wouldn't anyone here question them as vigorously as any of us would question another corporatist subsidized arena: govt and their data?

- cheers.


One theory claims that the English word "news" developed in the 14th century as a special use of the plural form of "new."

again, "theory," being the keyword.

granted, I am also making an assumption, on a theory that I read up years ago which I cannot recall in what book, that stated that news' actual etymology is an acronym for North East West South.

I chose to believe that because at the time I couldn't track down a definitive etymology of the the term "newS," if as then and now, existent and much accepted theory that suggested it's merely a plural of "new."

frankly, the notion that "news" is info collected from all four directions seemed to make much more etymological sense, than the leading status quo unproven theory that it's a mere plural of "new," which that term itself cannot be fully tracked down, to my satisfaction.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul