The Andean SPACE ODDITY at Vilcabamba Peru

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

right angles accurate to 1/100th of an inch,

i call everything you said to be bs, from this one fact.
angles are measured in degrees not inches.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie


*facepalm*

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

So..Michelangelo learned his art from a book?

Those who built Greek architecture learned from a book? What about the Romans and their works...also learned from books? Or did they learn via the craftsman and apprentice model?

Even as late as the Founding of the US the main method for passing along crafts was via the craftsmen and apprentice method. Look at Paul Revere...he learned his silver craft via apprenticeship. Or was it a book? lol

What brilliance in Physics are you referring to? What works of design with accuracy that can ONLY be matched by GPS are you talking about? (You will probably remind me of something I have read about before...my memory is not what it used to be so my questions are genuine and not facetious challenges)

I know the relationships of the pyramids with Syrius, but I am not convinced that relationship can only be achieved with GPS...

Well Giza, being the iconic representation of ancient architecture, was what I was referring to. The dimensions being as precise as they are and the orientation to Sirius is something that I do question.

There's no doubt as you and another poster mentioned, that craft was prized and passed to generations, but I do question conventional theories as to how many of these sites were built give what we're told was the means and technology of the times. I've worked on buildings such as the Empire State Building and understand what is entailed to accomplish building structures on such a scale. I find looking at these ancient sites to be intriguing and go about it with that knowledge. Even the experts conjecture at how these sites were assembled, unlike many of the naysayers responding to the various threads on this subject. They don't have definitive answers, only their best assumptions based on conventional methods of construction.

a reply to: Bilk22

Understood.

The thing is geometry was fairly well understood back in those days, so duplicating the relationship would not be, IMO, something that ancient man could not do. The preciseness of dimensions, while interesting and curious, is also not outside the realm of a civilization that is capable of building the buildings they lived in, or held court in... just a larger scale. Give me a large measuring stick, 6 or even 10 feet long, and I am pretty sure I could lay out, with string and something to use as a compass, a layout for a pyramid myself. I am not a builder...but I know basic geometric principles and can measure.....I am pretty danged sure I could lay out a perfect square that would serve as the base for the pyramid.

posting links to images seems to be the new thing now instead of posting photos with comments like more here and so on. seems like it just happened overnight.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

Understood.

The thing is geometry was fairly well understood back in those days, so duplicating the relationship would not be, IMO, something that ancient man could not do. The preciseness of dimensions, while interesting and curious, is also not outside the realm of a civilization that is capable of building the buildings they lived in, or held court in... just a larger scale. Give me a large measuring stick, 6 or even 10 feet long, and I am pretty sure I could lay out, with string and something to use as a compass, a layout for a pyramid myself. I am not a builder...but I know basic geometric principles and can measure.....I am pretty danged sure I could lay out a perfect square that would serve as the base for the pyramid.

Well my opinion as an architect and builder is that your method would be fraught with errors. Considering the area of the base of the Great Pyramid is a bit over 13 acres, I do not believe you could achieve the precision they achieved, utilizing that method. But that's also something neither of us are prepared to prove through demonstration

One thing that's never been explained to my knowledge or satisfaction, is how did the ancients differentiate between stars and planets? Actually how did they know they were different celestial bodies from one another, just being mere dots of light in the sky? And considering Giza as the subject, what caused them to choose Sirius as a focus for their construction?

Regarding geometry and their understanding of it - where did that come from? How did they know about or understand the concept and relationships of geometry? Doing a little reading, the idea that the dimensions of the pyramid are based on Pi is only conjecture. It's also disputed. However the relationships of the dimensions to Pi are uncanny. Also, Pi is an irrational number with no repeating digits. I have no knowledge of ancient Egyptian numbering system, but unlike our base ten decimal system, they utilized cubits, which I have to believe was somewhat of a random standard that was codified. A cubit is purported to have been derived from the length of a forearm. Whose forearm?

I just think there's quite a lot about these ancient megalithic sites that we are either not told, do not know or do not understand. Hence the conversation

originally posted by: BARACKHUSSEiNOBAMA
posting links to images seems to be the new thing now instead of posting photos with comments like more here and so on. seems like it just happened overnight.

Not through choice my 'insert an image from your library' button doesn't work.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

So..Michelangelo learned his art from a book?

Those who built Greek architecture learned from a book? What about the Romans and their works...also learned from books? Or did they learn via the craftsman and apprentice model?

Even as late as the Founding of the US the main method for passing along crafts was via the craftsmen and apprentice method. Look at Paul Revere...he learned his silver craft via apprenticeship. Or was it a book? lol

What brilliance in Physics are you referring to? What works of design with accuracy that can ONLY be matched by GPS are you talking about? (You will probably remind me of something I have read about before...my memory is not what it used to be so my questions are genuine and not facetious challenges)

I know the relationships of the pyramids with Syrius, but I am not convinced that relationship can only be achieved with GPS...

Well Giza, being the iconic representation of ancient architecture, was what I was referring to. The dimensions being as precise as they are and the orientation to Sirius is something that I do question.

There's no doubt as you and another poster mentioned, that craft was prized and passed to generations, but I do question conventional theories as to how many of these sites were built give what we're told was the means and technology of the times. I've worked on buildings such as the Empire State Building and understand what is entailed to accomplish building structures on such a scale. I find looking at these ancient sites to be intriguing and go about it with that knowledge. Even the experts conjecture at how these sites were assembled, unlike many of the naysayers responding to the various threads on this subject. They don't have definitive answers, only their best assumptions based on conventional methods of construction.

I agree with you. When I look at photos such as these I can't help but think that there's something missing here, this isn't quite adding up -

s30.postimg.org...

s27.postimg.org...

s4.postimg.org...

s4.postimg.org...

a reply to: Bilk22

I agree that we are in the dark about much, but I can assure you that simple geometry was hardly beyond their means. You do know that much of our math actually originated with Arabic peoples, right? That includes base 10 calculations.. The cubit is nothing more than a unit of measurement. To suggest that base 10 and a cubit based measurement system could not work together is incorrect.

Egyptian geometry experts were called "arpedonapti", those who knot ropes. It is by tightening ropes that they drew the two simplest and most important lines in geometry: the straight line and the circle. The first, simply tightening a rope between two points, a kind of operation which image is still present in the expressions "to draw a line", "to draw a perpendicular"; the second, making one of the two points turn around the other which is held fixed. Could they imagine the extent of the development of these two elementary practices? Most probably not. As a matter of fact the practical needs of ancient land measurers supposedly soon caused to emerge the necessity of works of the kind that today we call "with square and compass" and that should most properly be called "with circles and straight lines".

As some scholars have suggested, it is possible that they had the knowledge of Pythagoras' ( VI century B.C.) theorem or, more accurately, the consciousness of its opposite, that's to say the fact that a triangle with sides measuring 3, 4 and 5, in which the square on the longer side is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides, is a right angled triangle. Therefore, if we stretch a ring rope to a length of 12 units, marked at three points at a distance of 3, 4 and 5, towards the form of a triangle with the vertex in the marked points, the angle between the shortest sides of the triangle is a right angle.

I assure you, I could layout a perfect square the size of a pyramid. I could describe the simplest method to employ, which would exercise a bit of trial and error. It is quite likely they knew how to do it better, since they had builders with much more experience than I.

If I had to do it with nothing more than a measuring stick and a compass, I would lay out 2 lines at approx right angles. Place/stretch a string at the measured point based on desired dimensions for each line. From the end of each line, run another length to join at a corner opposite the beginning corner. Assuming that I know nothing about calculating how long the dimension should be corner to opposite corner, I would just measure one, and then the other (in effect, bisecting the square into 4 supposedly equal triangles). If you have corners a, b, c and d, (traveling clockwise) then the dimensions from a to c, and d to b should wind up being equal. If they are not then you make the appropriate adjustments via the string to arrive at the correct, perfectly square, corners and equal length sides.

Using the above method, I am positive I could lay out the base of a pyramid. All the while, the Egyptian builders would likely be laughing at me since I am sure they would have a better method lol

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

So..Michelangelo learned his art from a book?

Those who built Greek architecture learned from a book? What about the Romans and their works...also learned from books? Or did they learn via the craftsman and apprentice model?

Even as late as the Founding of the US the main method for passing along crafts was via the craftsmen and apprentice method. Look at Paul Revere...he learned his silver craft via apprenticeship. Or was it a book? lol

What brilliance in Physics are you referring to? What works of design with accuracy that can ONLY be matched by GPS are you talking about? (You will probably remind me of something I have read about before...my memory is not what it used to be so my questions are genuine and not facetious challenges)

I know the relationships of the pyramids with Syrius, but I am not convinced that relationship can only be achieved with GPS...

Well Giza, being the iconic representation of ancient architecture, was what I was referring to. The dimensions being as precise as they are and the orientation to Sirius is something that I do question.

There's no doubt as you and another poster mentioned, that craft was prized and passed to generations, but I do question conventional theories as to how many of these sites were built give what we're told was the means and technology of the times. I've worked on buildings such as the Empire State Building and understand what is entailed to accomplish building structures on such a scale. I find looking at these ancient sites to be intriguing and go about it with that knowledge. Even the experts conjecture at how these sites were assembled, unlike many of the naysayers responding to the various threads on this subject. They don't have definitive answers, only their best assumptions based on conventional methods of construction.

I agree with you. When I look at photos such as these I can't help but think that there's something missing here, this isn't quite adding up -

s30.postimg.org...

s27.postimg.org...

s4.postimg.org...

s4.postimg.org...

Perfect examples of something that illustrates why I cannot believe the explanations of expert craftsmanship as the means in which these examples were achieved. No grout line and yet a perfect fit done with soft chisels? There could be no trial and error on such large stones. They'd have to be perfect the first time. You're not moving those stones to make small, incremental adjustments. The relief work is amazing too. There's much more to this than we may ever know.

I still have no explanation for the star vs planet identification without any form of advanced way of performing such a determination. Heck, how would they understand what a star or planet even was if all they had was soft, cold chisels? LOL

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

I agree that we are in the dark about much, but I can assure you that simple geometry was hardly beyond their means. You do know that much of our math actually originated with Arabic peoples, right? That includes base 10 calculations.. The cubit is nothing more than a unit of measurement. To suggest that base 10 and a cubit based measurement system could not work together is incorrect.

Egyptian geometry experts were called "arpedonapti", those who knot ropes. It is by tightening ropes that they drew the two simplest and most important lines in geometry: the straight line and the circle. The first, simply tightening a rope between two points, a kind of operation which image is still present in the expressions "to draw a line", "to draw a perpendicular"; the second, making one of the two points turn around the other which is held fixed. Could they imagine the extent of the development of these two elementary practices? Most probably not. As a matter of fact the practical needs of ancient land measurers supposedly soon caused to emerge the necessity of works of the kind that today we call "with square and compass" and that should most properly be called "with circles and straight lines".

As some scholars have suggested, it is possible that they had the knowledge of Pythagoras' ( VI century B.C.) theorem or, more accurately, the consciousness of its opposite, that's to say the fact that a triangle with sides measuring 3, 4 and 5, in which the square on the longer side is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides, is a right angled triangle. Therefore, if we stretch a ring rope to a length of 12 units, marked at three points at a distance of 3, 4 and 5, towards the form of a triangle with the vertex in the marked points, the angle between the shortest sides of the triangle is a right angle.

I assure you, I could layout a perfect square the size of a pyramid. I could describe the simplest method to employ, which would exercise a bit of trial and error. It is quite likely they knew how to do it better, since they had builders with much more experience than I.

If I had to do it with nothing more than a measuring stick and a compass, I would lay out 2 lines at approx right angles. Place/stretch a string at the measured point based on desired dimensions for each line. From the end of each line, run another length to join at a corner opposite the beginning corner. Assuming that I know nothing about calculating how long the dimension should be corner to opposite corner, I would just measure one, and then the other (in effect, bisecting the square into 4 supposedly equal triangles). If you have corners a, b, c and d, (traveling clockwise) then the dimensions from a to c, and d to b should wind up being equal. If they are not then you make the appropriate adjustments via the string to arrive at the correct, perfectly square, corners and equal length sides.

Using the above method, I am positive I could lay out the base of a pyramid. All the while, the Egyptian builders would likely be laughing at me since I am sure they would have a better method lol

I'll agree you can come close to obtaining reasonable results. However, they obtained perfect results. The side dimensions are within 58mm of one another of lengths measuring over 230 meters. That's 2 1/4" and we don't know what time has done to influence that. Then there's the issue of grade. In order to obtain true dimensions the way you suggest, the plane of field being measured must be perfectly flat. This is the reason why surveyors do not do things the way you suggest you would, but we're told they didn't have the science of optics that would be necessary to do it the way it's done today So they too would have to deal with the grade of the terrain. If it weren't perfectly flat, they would run into the same difficulty. I've seen the sticks they used for site lines, but 230 meters is a long way to see and measure something to the accuracy they did. Any rope they would use would be elastic, and especially so over such a large distance, increasing the error factor.

Well it's interesting to discuss. I don't feel we have any real answers, only conjecture based on what conventional beliefs are about that particular time of human history. Thanks for the civil exchange!

a reply to: Bilk22

You are welcome! Thanks to you as well!

As far as grade...you got me, I am hardly any kind of expert on these matters. But obviously when you look at the other works the Egyptians built, as well as such buildings as what the Greeks built, specially the odd way they made the columns, I do not think our ancestors really needed Alien help.

The Greeks, with the parthenon, and other wonders, built their columns a bit larger at the top, than at the bottom for the simple reason that the column, when viewed from below, would appear to be the same size all the way up. Interesting approach, no?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

You are welcome! Thanks to you as well!

As far as grade...you got me, I am hardly any kind of expert on these matters. But obviously when you look at the other works the Egyptians built, as well as such buildings as what the Greeks built, specially the odd way they made the columns, I do not think our ancestors really needed Alien help.

The Greeks, with the parthenon, and other wonders, built their columns a bit larger at the top, than at the bottom for the simple reason that the column, when viewed from below, would appear to be the same size all the way up. Interesting approach, no?

Yes that's exactly correct. They were compensating for perspective.

Maybe they did have help and that's how they were able to achieve what they did

a reply to: Bilk22

Maybe they did have help and that's how they were able to achieve what they did

lol yeah! That's it!

While I will not say impossible, I will say highly improbable.

That is the conclusion of my highly trained SWAG (scientific wild a$$ed guess)

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

Maybe they did have help and that's how they were able to achieve what they did

lol yeah! That's it!

While I will not say impossible, I will say highly improbable.

That is the conclusion of my highly trained SWAG (scientific wild a$$ed guess)

What are your thoughts on the astronomy issue - distinguishing stars from planets and actually understanding the concept of each, without the aid of the technology we have today?

a reply to: Bilk22

I always thought the Sirius thing was a bit of a stretch. The way it is presented as if the pyramids were directly beneath the constellation, and yet, most constellations would fit that bill. I also believe that there are times when what may be most easily explained by coincidence can be just that without any other data available. I do believe in Occam's Razor... I have seen it vindicated quite often in life. We seek to make things more complicated than they really are.

As to whether they truly understood the difference between stars and planets, I wonder.... They referred to Mercury, Mars, and Venus as "the stars that know no rest". In other words, they recognized a difference due to their movements across the sky which did not match those of the stars that were easily predictable..so to speak.

They did, apparently, recognize the North Star as being such... but I cannot say with any certainty exactly how much they actually understood.

I read Stitchin (?) years ago, but have since learned what a crock most of his interpretations are/were. We tend to, often, believe what we want to rather than question everything... I wanted to believe him.

Perhaps there are things, frustrating as it may be, that we will never know for sure. Perhaps answers are just around the corner...

To answer your question: I really do not know enough to speak to the heart of the matter. I am always open to new ideas and thoughts...but I do require some logic and believability.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

We tend to, often, believe what we want to rather than question everything.

Well I'm glad you said this. Certainly applies here and why these threads and this subject in particular, intrigues me so much

a reply to: Bilk22

Yeah, but then there is a point at which I just shut down. Once the "belief" violates science and is based on some uneducated nut "believing" something that also violates common sense and logic I tend to just shut down. Like one thread where one guy "believed" that pyramids were large manufacturing plants to make mono-atomic gold, and was then followed up by a guy (in the thread) who claimed to have had visions where he was running one of these plants......

okie dokie lol

I prefer threads that raise questions and pose potentials that could have been. That do not violate laws of physics in order for the premise to be true lol

I love these kinds of threads, cause there is virtually no way to know for sure what their purpose was. Was it something as banal as a practice area for apprentices? Or was it some kind of religious purpose that resulted in the works we see?

Man! Wouldn't you just love to be able to step into a time machine and go back and see? That would be so totally awesome... instead we have to suffer the sweet frustration of not really knowing, just imagining the possibilities.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

Yeah, but then there is a point at which I just shut down. Once the "belief" violates science and is based on some uneducated nut "believing" something that also violates common sense and logic I tend to just shut down. Like one thread where one guy "believed" that pyramids were large manufacturing plants to make mono-atomic gold, and was then followed up by a guy (in the thread) who claimed to have had visions where he was running one of these plants......

okie dokie lol

I prefer threads that raise questions and pose potentials that could have been. That do not violate laws of physics in order for the premise to be true lol

I love these kinds of threads, cause there is virtually no way to know for sure what their purpose was. Was it something as banal as a practice area for apprentices? Or was it some kind of religious purpose that resulted in the works we see?

Man! Wouldn't you just love to be able to step into a time machine and go back and see? That would be so totally awesome... instead we have to suffer the sweet frustration of not really knowing, just imagining the possibilities.

There ya' go, mentioning time machines again I believe all possibilities are on the table until proven otherwise - even time machines

a reply to: Bilk22

That's one of those "I want to believe" things for me. Unfortunately it seems that if time machines existed in the future we would have seen some sort of proof, or indication by now...so unless they are very very good at covering it up, the odds are not great.