Any theories on WHY people all over the world lifted up heavy rocks?...

[Iamme]

...WHEN they did? It wasn't just the Egyptians, you know.

The other night they had some show on about the Incas? and how they stacked these boulders weighing like 200 tons!!, and you cannot slip a piece of paper between any two. (The same said about the rocks in the pyramids.)

Then there is Stonehenge and Easter Island and other such places with giant monoliths. And I was trying to find this internet site that shows pictures of this giant boulder perched up on some mountain where these pilgrims go to worship...a most strange phenomenon? of how that rock got there.

What is with this same style that cropped up thousands of miles apart from each other, separted by a huge ocean?

A shared theory is that the builders employed lots of people and they ingenously made crude cranes or whatever and rolled the rocks on logs.

Or did they?

Is there something in common with the ability to move huge rocks with the fact that huge animals lived years ago? Could it be that some event occured for a while that changed gravity (like the moon got real close?), and people took advantage of this while the getting was good? And the builders somehow knew that the way gravity used to be could likely return, and they all thought they would blow peoples minds in the future by building these giant rock formations?

Or really ISN'T there a story here? Is it JUST that people back then were all bored to tears and did not know what to do with themselves to create jobs for all...for the masses...so they came up with moving large rocks as a way to keep people busy? And the fact this went on all over the world? I just can't buy into this premise.

I think they all somehow knew that their structures would be a mind-blower in the future, while yet the undertaking at the time was not near the effort that we currently think it is. Or...if it WAS (still) a great undertaking...they still utilized some trick that we are not thinking of...like perhaps building giant sleuths of water from where the rocks were mined, to where they'd be erected, because they discovered that rocks weighed much less when floated in water...or something. And once on site, perhaps they made huge long ramps of sand and then after getting the stuff up the ramps, carted the sand away to get rid of the evidence of how the heavy rocks got up there. SOME sort of trick.

Something that has also puzzled me is in the fact that years ago we have all these carvings and hyroglyphics left behind...yet none show how the pyramids were built. Why? They showed everything else, it seems. Doesn't this add to my contention they wanted the method kept secret?, because perhaps they figured that if people saw how they were built, that they could also figure out how to more easily dismantle them?

Or maybe the theory, which Dr. Carl Baugh espouses, that dinosauers lived with men, create the possibility that dinosauers helped (like something out of the Flintstones). Then maybe again, I'm on the right track, and perhaps elephants...mastadons or mammoths were used for some of it?

Do any of YOU have theories?

[blutoski]

I don't think this is a phenomenon crying out for explanation. You're mixing eras (the monolithic versus antique eras) and misrepresenting our state of knowledge about construction of these structures.

Skeptics joke that the show named 'unsolved mysteries' was apt, since they took mysteries that had been solved, and discussed them without mentioning the solution. (thus unsolving them)

Mystery makes for better entertainment than physics or history, as any student will attest.

[Horatius]

What is with this same style that cropped up thousands of miles apart from each other, separted by a huge ocean?


Well, at that time, rocks were all they had, and there's only so many ways you can stack rocks.

they all thought they would blow peoples minds in the future by building these giant rock formations?
(...)
I think they all somehow knew that their structures would be a mind-blower in the future,

This right here is the kicker. Pretty much every human being wants to leave something to say "I was here!" to people who follow after. Even today we do it, what else is the CN Tower (http://www.pirateplanet.com/Toronto_Niagra/CN_Tower_2.jpg) good for?

There's also the "Let's scare the hell out of our rivals with our Rock-Balancing prowess" factor to consider. Would you mess with guys who could do this, if all you had was a stick for a weapon?

A shared theory is that the builders employed lots of people and they ingenously made crude cranes or whatever and rolled the rocks on logs.


while yet the undertaking at the time was not near the effort that we currently think it is. Or...if it WAS (still) a great undertaking...they still utilized some trick that we are not thinking of...like perhaps building giant sleuths of water from where the rocks were mined, to where they'd be erected, because they discovered that rocks weighed much less when floated in water...or something. And once on site, perhaps they made huge long ramps of sand and then after getting the stuff up the ramps, carted the sand away to get rid of the evidence of how the heavy rocks got up there. SOME sort of trick.

Well, here and above you've already answered your question. Primative technologies are more than adequate to the task, if you're serious about wanting to do it. There have been a lot of "applied archeology" type programs in the last 10-15 years that explored the techniques used for these things, and in every case they've been able to reproduce similar feats of rock-balancing using technology that would have been available. All it would take is some guy to think of it, and the will to do it.

Something that has also puzzled me is in the fact that years ago we have all these carvings and hyroglyphics left behind...yet none show how the pyramids were built. Why? They showed everything else, it seems. Doesn't this add to my contention they wanted the method kept secret?, because perhaps they figured that if people saw how they were built, that they could also figure out how to more easily dismantle them?


Well, if you're building to last, you don't want to make it easy for other people to screw things up, do you?

Also, remember the pyramids in particular were primarily burial chambers, and would have been targets for thieves. You wouldn't want to make it easy on them either.

Or maybe the theory, which Dr. Carl Baugh espouses, that dinosauers lived with men, create the possibility that dinosauers helped (like something out of the Flintstones). Then maybe again, I'm on the right track, and perhaps elephants...mastadons or mammoths were used for some of it?


I'm sure they used the animals they had available, just as we would. Not so much dinos though....

Do any of YOU have theories?

I'm a big fan of the, "You think that's an impressive pile of rocks? Watch this buddy!" theory. Sort of like an arms race or a space race, but with rocks :)

[Horatius]

As something else to consider, take a look at the inukshuk (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=ArchivedFeatures&Params=A29). More info here (http://www.sulis.net/inukshuk.htm). These are a much more recent tradition, which lets us have a better idea as to why they were created, even though the rocks used are much smaller. Given more time and resources, I'm sure they could have eventually rivaled Easter Island or Stonehenge.

[Iamme]

I don't think this is a phenomenon crying out for explanation. You're mixing eras (the monolithic versus antique eras) and misrepresenting our state of knowledge about construction of these structures.

Skeptics joke that the show named 'unsolved mysteries' was apt, since they took mysteries that had been solved, and discussed them without mentioning the solution. (thus unsolving them)

Mystery makes for better entertainment than physics or history, as any student will attest.

Replies like yours are common here. An answer is given (by some poster)...in a way. Yet you yourself have not given the answer, even though you know there has been an answer given. I find this interesting.

[Dave1001]

My money's on the dinosaurs living with men, like the Flintstones.

[Iamme]

Well, at that time, rocks were all they had, and there's only so many ways you can stack rocks.



Primative technologies are more than adequate to the task,



I'm a big fan of the, "You think that's an impressive pile of rocks? Watch this buddy!" theory. Sort of like an arms race or a space race, but with rocks :)

1. True.

2. I just saw a recent show employing these primitive technologies and got sort of a sick feeling ...literally...when considering that the builders actually had to pull on the ropes like that for such distances. I have a hard time believing that their methods were as primitive as we think. I think they figured something out.

3. Ha. Ya. Could be.

...............................

I enjoyed your post.

[Iamme]

My money's on the dinosaurs living with men, like the Flintstones.

Are you serious? Seriously. Dr. Baugh is.

[Dave1001]

Are you serious? Seriously. Dr. Baugh is.

I am seriously serious. They built the pyramids with dinosaurs. I sense your skepticism, but I'm glad you had the reasonableness to include Dr. Baugh's theory as a possibility worth mentioning, along with the others.

[Horatius]

There have been a lot of "applied archeology" type programs in the last 10-15 years that explored the techniques used for these things, and in every case they've been able to reproduce similar feats of rock-balancing using technology that would have been available. All it would take is some guy to think of it, and the will to do it.


Here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E0D9163FF932A35751C0A9669C8B 63) are some (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2403stone.html) links to shows and stories about the shows that I was talking about above. The Nova program "Secrets of Lost Empires (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/alph_s.html)" covers a lot of this. I'm sure there are others if you look.

[HeyLeroy]

"With a lever long enough, you can move the world"

And the CN Tower is good for something. It holds up those blinky lights so planes don't hit the tower.

[blutoski]

Replies like yours are common here. An answer is given (by some poster)...in a way. Yet you yourself have not given the answer, even though you know there has been an answer given. I find this interesting.

It's more of an "the claim has so many false assumptions that I don't know where to start". He is asking for the list to provide the equivalent of five textbooks. It is a start for me to ask him to consider his source, and perhaps ask a more specific question than "Your theories?" I gave my theory: there is no mystery.

I do this when I'm on ghost investigations, too: Peer: "Hey blutoski... why do you think the ghost is haunting this house?" Me: "I don't" Peer: "That's not an answer." Me: "Yes it is. That's my answer. No mystery here."

For example: I've been to Gizeh. You can slip paper between the stones, no problem. Except for the ones that were cemented together, which is self-explanatory. I was at Maccu Piccu in the '70s, and the guide pulled the same crap: "You can't slip a razor blade between these stones!" I had my swiss army knife on me, and tested the groove with the nail file. Slipped in no problem. There was plenty of sand and gravel between the stones, and they looked like pretty normal joints to me.

I also pointed out that the op is mixing his eras. The Monolithic era predates antiquity by thousands of years, and is part of another culture. Monolithic structures were built with very different technology. The stones are roughly hewn and poorly balanced and most of the structures have long since collapsed. Henges and perhaps arguably Easter Island may fall into this category.

In antiquity, we have the Mesopotamian structures, and the Egyptian structures that followed. Independently, we have the American pyramids, which were built in two waves. We have relatively good history of the Egyptian constructions, but the others have long lost documentation and we need to rely on archaeology to identify techniques, quarries, &c.

There is also a geological component, as glacial erratics could explain some akwardly placed stones. The stone in question from the op may be one of these. Or not... there wasn't enoug information in the post.

Without reviewing the TV show in question, I don't have a lot of details to examine and discuss, so I started with my primary concern.

[Iamme]

As something else to consider, take a look at the inukshuk (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=ArchivedFeatures&Params=A29). More info here (http://www.sulis.net/inukshuk.htm). These are a much more recent tradition, which lets us have a better idea as to why they were created, even though the rocks used are much smaller. Given more time and resources, I'm sure they could have eventually rivaled Easter Island or Stonehenge.

I read the links. People can do great things when people unify to become like one. It has religious undertones. So this got me thinking that since the Egyptians and Incas built huge stone formations where each stone weighed at the minimum into the multiple tons....what God force drove THOSE people? I never heard that the peoples of the 'God of the Bible' ever were able to come to such a untiy to construct anything of this magnificance and mystery.

But regarding the structures I cited; obviously the tonnage of each rock and the sum total of the rocks is of the greatest issue here. Making giant sandcastles, for example is no real feat.

[Horatius]

2. I just saw a recent show employing these primitive technologies and got sort of a sick feeling ...literally...when considering that the builders actually had to pull on the ropes like that for such distances. I have a hard time believing that their methods were as primitive as we think. I think they figured something out.


Yeah, but they were tough in those days. Tell kids today that, and they won't believe you. [/Yorkshireman (http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm)]

But, seriously, take a look at the show "The Worst Jobs in History (http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/history/worst_jobs/)". People used to routinely do jobs that we today would have our bosses arrested for, if they expected us to do them. Tough, I tell ya.




3. Ha. Ya. Could be.

...............................

I enjoyed your post. I live to serve.

[Horatius]

"With a lever long enough, you can move the world"

And the CN Tower is good for something. It holds up those blinky lights so planes don't hit the tower.

Okay, so you've got me there. So, Mr. Smartypants, why'd we invent the planes? EH?

Gotcha!

[Iamme]

For example: I've been to Gizeh. You can slip paper between the stones, no problem. Except for the ones that were cemented together, which is self-explanatory. I was at Maccu Piccu in the '70s, and the guide pulled the same crap: "You can't slip a razor blade between these stones!" I had my swiss army knife on me, and tested the groove with the nail file. Slipped in no problem. There was plenty of sand and gravel between the stones, and they looked like pretty normal joints to me.

We have relatively good history of the Egyptian constructions, ...

I am envious of you that you were at Giza.

So...it sounds like some of the oft heard facts then are just BS to hype?...to get people to come, perhaps?

Regarding the last sentence I quoted of yours; hmmmm...I guess I never was taught these things or read or seen shows about this. That is...not just possible *theories* on how they could have done it...but how they did indeed do it.

You'd think there would not be this aire of mystery if it was widely known how it was done, exactly. And hence, no need nor intrigue to watched hyped up tv shows on all this stuff.

[fuelair]

...still utilized some trick that we are not thinking of...like perhaps building giant sleuths of water from where the rocks were mined, to where they'd be erected,

That would help explain where Sherlock Holmes went off to some of those times he disappeared from 227B. He became a giant sleuth of water and helped primitive people move big rocks!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Something that has also puzzled me is in the fact that years ago we have all these carvings and hyroglyphics left behind...yet none show how the pyramids were built. Why? They showed everything else, it seems. Doesn't this add to my contention they wanted the method kept secret?, because perhaps they figured that if people saw how they were built, that they could also figure out how to more easily dismantle them?

Well, let's take a more recent example: the Notre Dame cathedral. Very impressive structure, LOTS of artwork in it, including artwork that tells stories (usually biblical ones). But you won't find a description of HOW the cathedral was made in the stain-glass windows. Why is that? Because that's STUPID. The cathedral is there for religious purposes. It is not INTENDED to be a guide for how to build other cathedrals. Any instructions about building techniques would be written down elsewhere, in particular in places where people could actually USE and SHARE that knowledge. Similarly with the pyramids: the writing is for religious purposes, not as a guide for how the damned things were built.

Now, how would Egyptians have written down instructions? They would have wanted to use those instructions and share among themselves. Which means they would NOT have written it down on stone, they would have written it on papyrus. And they would not have hidden those pages in vaults which were intended never to be opened (their dead pharoahs don't need those instructions in the afterlife), they would have kept them in the homes of craftsmen and such. Now, what do you think is going to happen to those pages after a few millenia? They're going to disolve. Of COURSE we don't have any instructions left, because the instructions wouldn't have been in a form or location intended to last forever. Just as blueprints for skyscrapers aren't etched in the steel girders of the building, but kept on paper (or electronically) in formats that can be USED but likely will not last a thousand years.

[Horatius]

Read the links. People can do great things when people unify to become like one. It has religious undertones. So this got me thinking that since the Egyptians and Incas built huge stone formations where each stone weighed at the minimum into the multiple tons....what God force drove THOSE people? I never heard that the peoples of the 'God of the Bible' ever were able to come to such a untiy to construct anything of this magnificance and mystery.


Without a doubt, religions can motivate people to do some amazing things. That's not the same as saying it can produce supernatural results. Take a look at the cathedrals in Europe. Masons invented whole new technologies just to build places to go to church, without any of it being supernatural. The motivation was religion, but the execution was pure technology.

But regarding the structures I cited; obviously the tonnage of each rock and the sum total of the rocks is of the greatest issue here. Making giant sandcastles, for example is no real feat.

You'd have to take a look at when each structure was built. I'd bet good money you'd find the earliest ones used the smaller stones. As they learned more about how to move rocks around, they refined the techniques, and gradually applied it to bigger and bigger rocks, to make bigger structures.

The problem with this is, the oldest structures may not still exist. They're older, smaller, and may have been removed to make way for bigger and better things. But there are sites that show such evolution. Take a look at the pyramids- there's a whole range of sizes, from periods when they were still just figuring things out.

[Brian Pears]

Okay, so you've got me there. So, Mr. Smartypants, why'd we invent the planes? EH?

Gotcha!

To get a better view of the CN Tower!

[Fronzel]

My theory is that people are weird. Why did somebody decide to put 9 tons of twine in a ball? Or a giant palace out of coral? Or what motivated somebody to put Las Vegas in that spot?

The book American Gods said that there were some areas that hit the "spiritual" side of people and created a desire for people to worship it in some way. 10,000 years ago, we get stone buildings, now we get balls of twine, Rocky statues, amusement parks and casinos.

I'm not a spiritual person, but there have been places that have filled me with far more awe then I think was warranted. So I can see how people that are inclined to think of gods do think of gods and decide to create something to mark the place or event.

I just think people are weird.

why'd we invent the planes? EH?

The Wright brothers invented the plane so they could later be used by the Illuminati to attack the world trade center. The conspiracy is far more reaching then you think.

[Dave1001]

Or what motivated somebody to put Las Vegas in that spot?

I suspect that was pretty rational: cause it was the best spot where gambling could be legalized relatively equidistant rom Los Angeles and San Francisco, or something along those lines.

[blutoski]

I read the links. People can do great things when people unify to become like one. It has religious undertones. So this got me thinking that since the Egyptians and Incas built huge stone formations where each stone weighed at the minimum into the multiple tons....what God force drove THOSE people? I never heard that the peoples of the 'God of the Bible' ever were able to come to such a untiy to construct anything of this magnificance and mystery.

It should be pointed out that there is no evidence that Israelites were involved in the construction of the great pyramids. These appear to have been paid Egyptian labourers. The incentive was mostly economic.



But regarding the structures I cited; obviously the tonnage of each rock and the sum total of the rocks is of the greatest issue here. Making giant sandcastles, for example is no real feat.

Yes, but they're not outlandishly large, and we have several techniques for transporting objects of this size that do not require even large teams. A typical block used in the great pyramid could be moved by one person, once modified for transportation. More people would be required to navigate hills.

[blutoski]

I am envious of you that you were at Giza.

Giza was touristy. Maccu Piccu was way, way more interesting. And in those days, you couldn't fly up: you had to hike! I'd love to go back, but I've heard it's too commercial now.



So...it sounds like some of the oft heard facts then are just BS to hype?...to get people to come, perhaps?

I don't think anybody's in charge of tourism to the pyramids, so I doubt there's a conspiracy to fabricate myths. I think the myths are propagated by their sheer popularity. People love a good story, and after Chariots of the Gods, there's no putting the memes back in the bottle. Curse vonDaniken.


Regarding the last sentence I quoted of yours; hmmmm...I guess I never was taught these things or read or seen shows about this. That is...not just possible *theories* on how they could have done it...but how they did indeed do it.

You'd think there would not be this aire of mystery if it was widely known how it was done, exactly. And hence, no need nor intrigue to watched hyped up tv shows on all this stuff.

As ALF used to say: "You'd think."

The motive for the shows is to sell advertising time. There is no requirement for it to be educational or accurate. It does have to be entertaining. And it's a lot cheaper for somebody to say "It's a mystery!" and talk about a global phenomenon of people rolling rocks about without good explanation, than to hire staff to investigate and do a proper documentary. A proper documentary would explain why these structures are investigated by very different archaeologists (they're not very similar and reflect the cultures that built them).

One of the problems is that there appear to have been serveral techniques in Giza alone, since the constructions spanned centuries, and each construction would yeild ideas for better techniques on the next project. Also: there were different construction materials, which had different densities and quarry origins, so required different techniques even for the same pyramid. For example, granite was quarried in Aswan and had to go overland, rather than the sandstone or limestone blocks, which were quarried locally.

NOVA did a documentary called "This old Pyramid" which was a review of the techniques, and a re-creation as close as possible to what we know about the techniques from period records (some Greek, such as Herodotus) and archaeological findings of the construction and quarry sites. ie: we have discarded tools. The calculation is that the manpower required to build the pyramid with techniques and tools we know they had available, in a 20-year timescale is in the range of 4500-5000 men, assuming the labour is restricted to the flood season.

Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass have done a great deal of research on how the Khufu builders lived, and how they were organized, and how the construction was accomplished.

They also show the technique for finishing stone to create tight joins (not as tight as a razor-blade, but very close joins). The evidence is that there were both paid specialists and less skilled conscripted labourers from remote villiages, the latter were rotated in and out of the project.

[blutoski]

Here's an example of their findings: the rolling-across-log theory is bunk. I'll try to find the citation for this.

[blutoski]

Here's an example of their findings: the rolling-across-log theory is bunk. I'll try to find the citation for this.

Ah. It was rejected for size reasons. Here's their proposal based on tools and illustrations, and - get this - construction site graffitti.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What else would you suggest that ancient peoples build permanent structures with?

~~ Paul

[Rodney]

NOVA did a documentary called "This old Pyramid" which was a review of the techniques, and a re-creation as close as possible to what we know about the techniques from period records (some Greek, such as Herodotus) and archaeological findings of the construction and quarry sites. ie: we have discarded tools. The calculation is that the manpower required to build the pyramid with techniques and tools we know they had available, in a 20-year timescale is in the range of 4500-5000 men, assuming the labour is restricted to the flood season. I raised the following question on another thread nine months ago:

"Did 'This Old Pyramid' solve any of the major technical challenges of building that [the Great] pyramid? If so, which one(s)?" See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46655&page=22&highlight=mark+lehner

I'm still waiting for an answer that is backed up by evidence.

[Jeff Corey]

According to Freud, it's obvious that these erections were driven by the Edifice Complex.

[Loss Leader]

When I was a newbie, I was told that Iamme's poosts generally followed the formula: I am interested in topic X but I am far, far too lazy to actually research topic X, so I want you people to just explain it to me.

In my entire life, I have never read a dumber post than the one that started this thread. Pick up a book!

Dinosausr and humans, sheesh!

[blutoski]

I raised the following question on another thread nine months ago:

"Did 'This Old Pyramid' solve any of the major technical challenges of building that [the Great] pyramid? If so, which one(s)?" See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46655&page=22&highlight=mark+lehner

I'm still waiting for an answer that is backed up by evidence.

I think one of the benefits was a hands-on verification of the optimum number of people required to hew, transport, and fit a stone block. The debate based on historical records was useless, and ranged from low estimates in the thousands to estimates of a third of a million. The latter push the economic magnitude of the project into a total impossibility. The finding that a few men could manage a stone easily, and actually that too many people is actually a disadvantage, is a meaningful finding.

In any case, that's just one show. The value of his research extends beyond a tv program.

[Soapy Sam]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/434821.stm

It's very likely that people built large structures in wood before they ever used stone. (See link above for example).
Remember the timescale we are talking about. Wood rots unless adequately preserved. Building in stone may have simply seemed like a more prestigious feat because it would last longer.
There may well have been turf or mud structures even earlier , but they would be very hard to identify now.

[T'ai Chi]

I think we tend to underestimate the pasts' intelligence, work ethic, and creativity. Thus we are automatically biased into thinking whatever they did is extremely amazing.

Using simple mechanical principles, and probably much slave labor for some of them, over much time, would probably get any of them constructed.

[russingram]

I never heard that the peoples of the 'God of the Bible' ever were able to come to such a untiy to construct anything of this magnificance and mystery.



Actually, the peoples of the "God of the Bible" built the cathedrals of Europe, with only human and animal labor. I heard somewhere that the amount of stone was hundreds of times more than moved for the pyramids, and the height was greater, too. I don't think any of the individual stones were the size of pyramid stones, though.

[Diamond]

It must be the same reasoning as someone constantly starting inane threads on message boards.

[Ririon]

Actually, the peoples of the "God of the Bible" built the cathedrals of Europe, with only human and animal labor. I heard somewhere that the amount of stone was hundreds of times more than moved for the pyramids, and the height was greater, too. I don't think any of the individual stones were the size of pyramid stones, though.
A small point: Pyramids are HUGE. Especially the great one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the heaviest and tallest STONE building on the planet is still in Egypt.

[Ladewig]

I think they all somehow knew that their structures would be a mind-blower in the future, while yet the undertaking at the time was not near the effort that we currently think it is. Or...if it WAS (still) a great undertaking...they still utilized some trick that we are not thinking of...like perhaps building giant sleuths of water from where the rocks were mined, to where they'd be erected, because they discovered that rocks weighed much less when floated in water...or something.

When I read this part I was going to point out the difficulties involved, but in doing some research about the pyramids, I found this site which says that barges were used for part of the transport. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html


And once on site, perhaps they made huge long ramps of sand and then after getting the stuff up the ramps, carted the sand away to get rid of the evidence of how the heavy rocks got up there. SOME sort of trick.



Why do you consider building ramps that were later removed away a "trick"?

[Ladewig]

Everything old is new again.

from April 2005

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37870

Why aren't there hyroglyphics showing how the pyramids were built????They had hyroglyphics for everything else! Neal Boortz believes aliens helped to build them. I am not laughing. I believe someone either knew anti-gravity or perhaps the world's magnetic poles reversed and weights became lighter...*some*thing occured. The answer may lie under the pyramids. (Someone maybe stacked stones by the tons to hide a book of knowledge that contained anti-gravity, etc.)There may be writings under them or the shinx, that somehow in the future, through hard work and technology may finally come to the surface. I am vexxed as to what has kept the multi-billion ton pyramids from sinking in the ground to cause a wave of ground to push up from around their perimeter. There were heavy rock and monolithic structures built all over the world around that itime, and I wonder why. Also, Erich Von Danikens (Chariots of the Gods author) South American land drawings and runways, etc. Another topic for discusion.

Just for the record, Iamme, Erich von Daniken has been thoroughly debunked.

[Ziggurat]

A small point: Pyramids are HUGE. Especially the great one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the heaviest and tallest STONE building on the planet is still in Egypt.

The Great Pyramid of Giza may indeed be the heaviest stone building, certainly heavier than any cathedral. But at 481 ft, it isn't the tallest. Ulm Cathedral in Germany, for example, rises to about 530 ft. Construction started in the 14th century, though admittedly it didn't reach its final height until 1890. I think there are a few other cathedrals that also pass the 481 ft. mark.

[SwissSkeptic]

In my entire life, I have never read a dumber post than the one that started this thread.

You've seen nothing yet. May I direct your attention to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62656)? Or this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56407)? Oh, here's another classic. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47069)

No need to thank me.

[Ririon]

The Great Pyramid of Giza may indeed be the heaviest stone building, certainly heavier than any cathedral. But at 481 ft, it isn't the tallest. Ulm Cathedral in Germany, for example, rises to about 530 ft. Construction started in the 14th century, though admittedly it didn't reach its final height until 1890. I think there are a few other cathedrals that also pass the 481 ft. mark.
With a name like that, I'll take your word for it. I think I got this from the "fact" that the Eiffel tower broke the Pyramid's height record. It turns out that "fact" is not really accurate at all, and there really have been some very tall cathedrals built:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_structures

[Loss Leader]

You've seen nothing yet. May I direct your attention to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62656)? Or this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56407)? Oh, here's another classic. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47069)

No need to thank me.


I stand sadly corrected.


Incidentally, I watched a program on pyramids in which they said that the Great Pyramid was the tallest man-made structure on the earth for almost four thousand years.

The host also mentioned that his theory about the heights of the pyramids was that this was the largest building that could be made during the pharoh's expected lifetime.

[Rodney]

I think one of the benefits was a hands-on verification of the optimum number of people required to hew, transport, and fit a stone block. The debate based on historical records was useless, and ranged from low estimates in the thousands to estimates of a third of a million. The latter push the economic magnitude of the project into a total impossibility. The finding that a few men could manage a stone easily, and actually that too many people is actually a disadvantage, is a meaningful finding.

In any case, that's just one show. The value of his research extends beyond a tv program.Have you ever seen the show? If not, have a look at the transcript -- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/1915mpyramid.html You will note several interesting exchanges between Egyptologist Mark Lehner, stone mason Roger Hopkins, and draftsman Martin Isler, with my very helpful editorial comments in brackets: ;)

(1) MARK LEHNER: Are you going to be faithful to the way the ancient Egyptians do it, or are you going to come in here with a backhoe and a loader and a forklift?

ROGER HOPKINS: Well, let's put it this way. I'll be as—probably—as faithful as I can be, given that I only have three weeks here. [So how faithful was he? The viewer is never told.]

(2) MARK LEHNER: We want to do it all this way. Yeah! Get rid of the machines, Roger!

ROGER HOPKINS: Yeah, you do. You do, pal, but I don't. We've got too much of a deadline here to do it all that way. [Sounds like not too faithful.]

(3) MARK LEHNER: Roger, how much do you estimate this casing block to be, on the Khufu pyramid?

ROGER HOPKINS: It looks to me like about fifteen to seventeen tons.

MARK LEHNER: He says it's more than seventeen tons, but I want to know how they got this joint between two fifteen-ton stones so—how they did it so well. I can't put the blade of my Swiss Army knife—And this is often said. It would be hard to get a razor blade in that seam.

NARRATOR: As Roger tries to emulate the ancients' precise joints [with 1-2 ton blocks?], he is once again stymied by the soft surface on which he is building.

ROGER HOPKINS: What's that Mark?

MARK LEHNER: Is that as good as you're going to get it?

ROGER HOPKINS: Well, that's pretty close.

MARK LEHNER: They're doing this by jamming stones in under this side.

ROGER HOPKINS: The problem we've got here, Mark, is that we're not doing our bottom casement stones on. . .

MARK LEHNER: You're not on a stone surface.

ROGER HOPKINS: We're not on stone surface.

MARK LEHNER: So they're jamming these pieces in.

ROGER HOPKINS: Right. So, we can't really get a very tight joint like what they did up on the big pyramids. You know, with a little practice, we could get those fine joints, too. [So with much smaller blocks, Roger couldn't come close to the joints achieved in the Khufu Pyramid, but he's got plenty of excuses handy.]

(4) NARRATOR: Also a professional draftsman, Martin, on paper, makes levering look like a very plausible idea. But today, for the first time, he is putting his theory to the test. He has to lever a one-ton block up one step of the pyramid.

MARTIN ISLER: No loader! No loader!

MARK LEHNER: He says it's too heavy; we should bring the loader. But I told him we had to try it this way.

MARTIN ISLER: We have to try . . .

NARRATOR: After two intense hours, success. Ahmed's levering team has inched the block to the top of the next step. All that remains is a tricky maneuver to get the block off the precarious piles of wood. [It is unclear whether the team ever carried out this "tricky maneuver" with all of a one-ton block.]

(5) MARK LEHNER: Now, we're going to try to pull a sled, and we're going to try to turn a corner with the sled for the first time. We're starting out with a fairly small block [perhaps another one ton block?], pulling it up the incline of the ramp, and around the first corner that the ramp makes around the pyramid. We might need more men to actually make the pull around the corner.

ROGER HOPKINS: We'll add them on as we need them.

NARRATOR: Critics of the ramp method question whether a heavily-laden sled can make a ninety degree turn. But Roger has a plan [With a block nowhere near as heavy as those used in the Great Pyramid.] . . .

ROGER HOPKINS: We're all set. Well, it worked like I figured it would. I mean, I knew I was going to have a little problem on the corner there, but if that had been a five-ton block, we could have done it this same way. [No point in actually trying to move a five-ton block -- one-ton, five-ton, what's the difference?] . . .

NARRATOR: Roger only had enough time to build the ramp around three sides of his pyramid, but he was confident that he could have continued wrapping it around to the top. [Roger may not have accomplished much of anything, but he has supreme confidence.]

(6) NARRATOR: Deep in the heart of Khufu's Pyramid is his tomb. It was supposed to protect the pharaoh's mummified body for an eternity. But all that now remains is his empty granite sarcophagus.

MARK LEHNER: At first glance, this is a deceptively simple room. It's a box, lined with granite on the floor and the walls, and grooved with great beams of granite. But in fact, this is the first time that the ancient Egyptians attempted to span a distance this wide in their stone architecture. And you can see in the cracks in these great granite beams that weight up to fifty to seventy tons . . . [Uh, Mark, how exactly did these 50-70 ton granite beams get there -- about 50 meters above ground level? Oh that's right, Roger moved a one-ton block around three sides of his pyramid, so it's logical that 50-70 ton blocks could be moved up to 50 meters above ground level in the Great Pyramid.]

(7) NARRATOR: With fewer than two hundred blocks, compared to Khufu's more than two million, Roger's pyramid would have no difficulty sitting on the missing top of the Great Pyramid. And although the Great Pyramid is twenty-seven times taller . . .[Oh come on, they're practically carbon copies.]

[blutoski]

Have you ever seen the show?

Yes.

And read the copyright-protected transcript you pasted into the thread.

Yes.

[Rodney]

Yes. So, given the facts that -- (1) Modern machines were used to accomplish at least some -- and perhaps the great majority -- of building "This Old Pyramid"; (2) The builders of "This Old Pyramid" couldn't create a joint as precise as those found between the casing blocks of the Great Pyramid, even though they were working with much smaller blocks; (3) While the builders of "This Old Pyramid" succeeded in levering a one-ton block up one level of this pyramid, it's unclear whether they succeeded in removing the wood from beneath that block using primitive techniques, or rather used modern equipment to do that; (4) The builders of "This Old Pyramid" succeeded only in moving a "fairly small block" a short distance up and around one corner of this pyramid and didn't even attempt to move a medium sized 5-ton block; (5) There are 50-70 ton granite beams 50 meters above ground in the Great Pyramid that "This Old Pyramid" didn't even attempt to explain; and (6) "This Old Pyramid" has fewer than 1/100 of one percent of the number of blocks of the Great Pyramid and -- in stark contrast to the Great Pyramid -- all of those blocks are small -- What was it, exactly, that "This Old Pyramid" accomplished?

And read the copyright-protected transcript you pasted into the thread.Yes. Are you saying that what I did was illegal? If so, I would appreciate an explanation (from anyone) as to when transcripts may not be legally pasted and/or quoted. Thanks.

[Cuddles]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45873

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this thread. Everything you ever wanted to know about pyramids but were afraid ask.

[Soapy Sam]

Well, to be fair, the op was not about pyramids. Iamme's point is that building rather pointless structures using the biggest stones you can handle seems to have been a world wide human obsession from the early Neolithic across Eurasia right up to historically recent times in the Americas. We still do it, except now we use concrete and steel.

Whether that makes it genetic or cultural or both is anyone's guess.

[Cuddles]

Well, to be fair, the op was not about pyramids. Iamme's point is that building rather pointless structures using the biggest stones you can handle seems to have been a world wide human obsession from the early Neolithic across Eurasia right up to historically recent times in the Americas. We still do it, except now we use concrete and steel.

Whether that makes it genetic or cultural or both is anyone's guess.

Fair enough. I'm voting for the "Look what we can do!" argument.

[ponderingturtle]

A small point: Pyramids are HUGE. Especially the great one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the heaviest and tallest STONE building on the planet is still in Egypt.

It was also the tallest building in the world for something like 5000 years, until the Eiffel tower was built.

But the cathedrals are much much more advanced architecturally in that they are not just a pile of stones

[ponderingturtle]

With a name like that, I'll take your word for it. I think I got this from the "fact" that the Eiffel tower broke the Pyramid's height record. It turns out that "fact" is not really accurate at all, and there really have been some very tall cathedrals built:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_structures

Interesting I had hear that the washington monument was the tallest structure in the world for a while and other claims that it was not. I had not heard about those others

[Ririon]

Interesting I had hear that the washington monument was the tallest structure in the world for a while and other claims that it was not. I had not heard about those others
Hey, you believed that part about the Eiffel tower, too? I blame the French... :D

[Josh Redstone]

I don't think there's really much left to question about how or why people built things like this. Why, I watched a program a few days ago where a number of people said they thought aliens imparted the knowledge to build the pyramids. The proram did a good job of making them all look silly :D
When you think about it, it's not hard to undertsand why pyramids were built; if you wanted to build something that big that long ago, the only option was a pyramid. Humans didn't have the engineering knowlege, materials or technology build anything else that large.
Another claim is that pyramids poped up all of a sudden and therefore must have been introduced to us from another source, but when you look at the pyramids in Egypt you can see the progressive attempts to make them bigger and better. The very first pyramids weren't very large at all, and some pyramids, like the bent pyramid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid), is obviously a mistake that helped them learn how to build better.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think there's really much left to question about how or why people built things like this. Why, I watched a program a few days ago where a number of people said they thought aliens imparted the knowledge to build the pyramids. The proram did a good job of making them all look silly :D
When you think about it, it's not hard to undertsand why pyramids were built; if you wanted to build something that big that long ago, the only option was a pyramid. Humans didn't have the engineering knowlege, materials or technology build anything else that large.
Another claim is that pyramids poped up all of a sudden and therefore must have been introduced to us from another source, but when you look at the pyramids in Egypt you can see the progressive attempts to make them bigger and better. The very first pyramids weren't very large at all, and some pyramids, like the bent pyramid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid), is obviously a mistake that helped them learn how to build better.


No everyone knows that the bent pyramid is the result of secret atlantian knowedge adding the holy bend to the pyramid. Either that or an alien shrink ray.

Its True :)

[slipknotmcfadden]

Simple answer: Ancient civilizations' works in stone have lasted this long. Their other works (in wood, papyrus, organic dyes) did not. Therefore, all of their works appear to be made of stone.

In a million years, all that will be left of our civilization is the dried husks of our buildings. The paper, the hard drives, the flash memory, the CDs all will have degraded. They'll wonder why we spent all our time building skyscrapers rather than writing down how we made them.

[Soapy Sam]

Simple answer: Ancient civilizations' works in stone have lasted this long. Their other works (in wood, papyrus, organic dyes) did not. Therefore, all of their works appear to be made of stone.

In a million years, all that will be left of our civilization is the dried husks of our buildings. The paper, the hard drives, the flash memory, the CDs all will have degraded. They'll wonder why we spent all our time building skyscrapers rather than writing down how we made them.

...and in a hundred million, a few folded streaks of iron and calcium salts running miles transcurrently through sediments , some fragments of glass, a couple of oddly radioactive spots and a few hundred kilos of fused material , travelling silently through deep space.

[Cuddles]

I don't think there's really much left to question about how or why people built things like this. Why, I watched a program a few days ago where a number of people said they thought aliens imparted the knowledge to build the pyramids. The proram did a good job of making them all look silly :D
When you think about it, it's not hard to undertsand why pyramids were built; if you wanted to build something that big that long ago, the only option was a pyramid. Humans didn't have the engineering knowlege, materials or technology build anything else that large.
Another claim is that pyramids poped up all of a sudden and therefore must have been introduced to us from another source, but when you look at the pyramids in Egypt you can see the progressive attempts to make them bigger and better. The very first pyramids weren't very large at all, and some pyramids, like the bent pyramid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid), is obviously a mistake that helped them learn how to build better.

I find particularly interesting that not only was the Bent Pyramid a mistake, but the next pyramid built, the Red Pyramid, used the slope of the upper section because they knew it would work. After that they managed to work out a steeper slope that would still work, so these first two look really out of place.

[Roboramma]

I skipped much of the thread, so I appologise if I'm repeating anything here, but I only had a small point to add:

I think that whatever it was that caused people to build impressive structures like the pyramids and the easter island statues is still with us today. Ever wonder why we put men on the moon? I imagine those constructions were done for similar reasons.

[Roboramma]

...and in a hundred million, a few folded streaks of iron and calcium salts running miles transcurrently through sediments , some fragments of glass, a couple of oddly radioactive spots and a few hundred kilos of fused material , travelling silently through deep space.

I always thought it'd be really cool if after our civilization died out, millions of years later another species developed a civilization, and uncovered our remains. I wondered what they'd find, and how they might interpret it.

Thanks for the image.

[bjb]

I always liked the medicine wheels that the American Indians built:

http://wyoshpo.state.wy.us/medwheel.htm

Given enough time, they might have built bigger ones out of standing stones. I'm fascinated by American Indian culture because I believe it is very similar to European culture in pre-historic times. Not that I have any evidence but it's an idea that intrigues me.