Lost Roman Map has ATLANTIS at Eye of Sahara Africa! (Richat Structure)

originally posted by: bluesfreak

You still cannot show us where you got the 2.3 can you?

The 2.3 million figure is EVERYWHERE you look. And the laughable misdirection you apply in saying I personally made it up is just totally hilarious.

Yep and it is still wrong

Lets see if you can understand if we take it slow - do you accept that there are parts of the ridgeline incorporated in the G1 and G2?

So, instead of blaming me personally for the 2.3 million figure, what I suggest you should be concentrating on is your prepared answer to the fact that NOBODY KNOWS how big the internal bedrock hill is , thus invalidating that totally made up figure you think solves the problem.

You are the one saying its true but you have no idea where that number comes from - you believe whatever you are told. So you think the pyramid is a solid cube of stone with no slop, gypsum mortar and no ridge? So how do you explain the evidence against these idea?

These same nice open minded people refused to let Graham WALK round Serpent Mound because they don’t like what he says . Which they literally said in a letter .

I believe that was the parks department not archaeologists


I linked to the paper that is basis of the ridgeline theory - why don't you read it so you at least have an idea what you are rejecting.

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: liammc
Very interesting topic.... just wondering though as I have been browsing this forum for years now, why is it the same 3 people all the time who are forever "debunking" stuff on this forum?

It's like they are being paid to do it or something. Very strange.

Or, possibly, if they have years of experience in teaching and/or archaeology (which possibly at least some of them have), they recognise when something is mistaken or incorrect, and point it out.

After all, if you saw something that you knew was wrong, wouldn't you rush to correct it?

Years of experience teaching theories based on flimsy evidence and obvious conjecture derived from cherry picked incomplete records doesn't make you an expert worthy of pointing out anything as wrong.
History is full of examples of self riteous turds forcing their truths on everyone, sometimes for decades or even centuries...until they were proven wrong.
In fact, it's the norm rather than not.

Proven wrong by scientists and historians who, according to your own belief, are all liars.

Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: bluesfreak

It's a good point actually, most archaeologists are NOT engineers, stone masons or otherwise skilled so there interpretation is ALWAYS speculative although stick a lot of speculation together and you have a model, make enough of your colleagues and enough of the less informed believe your Speculation is how it really was and pretty soon you have an established model of the past.

.

Which is why you always have expert consultants with those skills at digs.

The question is, how did they arrive at the margin for error. Personally, I don't know, But I bet I could find out. I just don't care enough about it to do so. Do you?

Well I do now, because it’s a made up piece of garbage that you claim has more precedence than other ‘made up garbage ‘.
I’ll tell you how they arrived at that margin for error, at the risk of repeating myself , ahem,
They wanted to come up with a sum that was neither right nor wrong , and which would inhibit closer examination of claims regarding the timeframe of both the whole project , and the number of blocks laid at what speed .
a reply to: Harte

Don’t patronise me about the ridge line stuff . I have read all this stuff before , which is why I know that they DONT KNOW the size of it internally . Estimates, guesses . Assumptions. Nicely done but still estimates .

Amd as for Hancock

I believe that was the parks department not archaeologists

On behalf of some angry American archaeologists no doubt. I wonder how you feel about Hancock being denied entry to due to his views ?
a reply to: Hanslune

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Don’t patronise me about the ridge line stuff . I have read all this stuff before , which is why I know that they DONT KNOW the size of it internally . Estimates, guesses . Assumptions. Nicely done but still estimates .

So is it zero? How about the slop and gypsum mortar are you going to ignore that also? Okay so what is wrong with the estimate of 23%Can you clearly explain why it is wrong?

Sorry in editing accidentally deleted your question about having Hancock visit the Mound:

They should have allowed him in after he posted a bond for any damage his filming might do. However, I wasn't the head of the Park Department. However, only after hours he may have wanted to go in during visiting hours and that I could agree with them not allowing that. No idea how big is entourage and film crew was.

Just as a query regarding Atlantis and the Greeks.
Did the ancient Greeks of Plato’s time Know of the Americas?

Plato states that the Atlantis island complex was a handy stop off point when sailing to the “other continent”.
He states that the Atlantic was “more navigable then.”

If sea levels were lower, and the Atlantic perhaps bisected by a huge island chain ( the mid Atlantic ridge including Azores Plateau) maybe the sea either side of this chain was calmer , with those mountainous ridges acting as a wave break , you wouldn’t quite get the enormous waves travelling the width of the ocean as we do today .
Perhaps the whole earth system was more tranquil during the late Pleistocene .
If you lived in the area of Egypt at that time, you wouldn’t have known there was an ice age as the climate was great!

But I digress, DID the ancient Greeks know of the Americas , or did Plato just make up “the other continent “ ?

They should have allowed him in after he posted a bond for any damage his filming might do. However, I wasn't the head of the Park Department. However, only after hours he may have wanted to go in during visiting hours and that I could agree with them not allowing that. No idea how big is entourage and film crew was.

That stuff goes without saying as I’d imagine Netflix have thier filming insurance etc very well covered .
Big outfit .
But you know why they REALLY didn’t want him in there, because you are from the school who despise him.

Of course there are amounts of gypsum and mortar , but again so much is unseen and estimated .
To me there will be an average block size per layer , not just for load purposes , but for a basic symmetry . Each layer will have a different average block size as it climbs and they get smaller.
It’s still into the millions …
a reply to: Hanslune

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: bluesfreak

It's a good point actually, most archaeologists are NOT engineers, stone masons or otherwise skilled so there interpretation is ALWAYS speculative although stick a lot of speculation together and you have a model, make enough of your colleagues and enough of the less informed believe your Speculation is how it really was and pretty soon you have an established model of the past.

.

Which is why you always have expert consultants with those skills at digs.

But of course those would be paid experts often only too happy to give an agreeing or at least vague verdict according to there expertise and of course as you know from creationist vs mainstream atheist archaeology and there competing experts everyone has experts on there side.

Being a creationist by my faith anyway though open to speculation and willing to look much further back in time I have seen these arguments many times and some of the CREATIONIST Science experts literally wipe the floor with the atheist mainstream experts.

It's often a tug of war which like ANY Debate can roll on forever and it is only when one side loses the mental stamina or the will to continue that the other side appears to win and it is then left up to the observers of that debate to decide which side they think won, which can then spark another debate.

(Except when one side can be proven to be wrong which is rare when it comes to opinion over substance as many such debates degenerate into).

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Re Khafre

Its smaller and has an estimated smaller amount of stone also. I've never seen an estimate for how many it has.

It’s bloody massive mate . Massive.
In builders terms, even today, it’s massive .
If it has no internal natural core structure, then it too can have its own set of numbers done according to how long Egyptologist’s know it took to build it .
Wonder how many blocks per minute for that massive structure…

Nothing in Wikipedia regarding Khafre block number? (!

It’s 78 million cubic feet in volume . )
If it has no internal core, it could possibly have MORE blocks in total than the GP.. now that would be funny …..
a reply to: Hanslune

Individual stones in the core of Khufu's pyramid (the part we can see) range in size from football-sized to pickup truck sized.
Much of it is not even stacked stone, just a pile held together by mortar.
Consider then what it means to ask how many stones are in the Great Pyramid.

Harte

You have to get past the "built in 20 years by khufu" nonsense first.
As long as you push that ludicrous story, based on the estimated composition of the pyramid, it is patently false.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless
a reply to: Harte
Your MODERN SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATES aren't any more accurate than playing pin the tail on the civilisation, from the Wiki article on Gunang:

"An archaeologist who did not wish to be named due to the involvement of the country's president, stated:

In archaeology we usually find the 'culture' first … Then, after we find out the artefact's age we'll seek out historical references to any civilisation which existed around that period. Only then will we be able to explain the artefact historically. In this case, they 'found' something, carbon-dated it, then it looks like they created a civilisation around the period to explain their finding.[9]"

In otherwords, the SOP is to shoehorn whatever you find into the narrative you already created, instead of realizing that it doesn't fit.

No wonder he didn't want to identify himself.
I wouldn't either if I just explained what is actually wrong with the institution of archeology.

The problem is the lack of evidence for true antiquity at the site.
Would you be surprised that some organic material that old was present under some of the pile of columnar basalt at the site?
Why? Dirt's pretty old you know.

Harte

No, I wouldn't be surprised.
Why would I?
You know what else is pretty old?
Archeologists denying new evidence that calls into question their pet theory.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

The whole clovis culture fiasco. How many careers were ruined by the brilliant gatekeepers that refused to accept or even look at evidence that proved them incorrect? Many of them are still pushing that failed theory when they should be sitting quietly in the corner rethinking why they chose the career they did.

Spot on . Clovis is the summation of the Dogmas faced , when trying to unearth the Truth.
J Harland Bretz was also demonised beyond belief for correctly stating that vast , unimaginable amounts of water carved out the Scablands of Washington State.
Research is also challenging the dogma of the Missoula flood, it’s weird theory that an ice dam incapable of holding in so much water (2000 ft of it) melted, re froze, melted, refroze up to 90 times . During a period of melting. This is being challenged and rightfully so.

Yet all of the above is mainstream today, preClovis having been so for over a quarter century now.
Tell us where "alternative" archaeology has altered its stance based on evidence.

Harte

Mainstream today?
I wouldn't say that.
It's still being challenged by the Clovis holdouts.
And seriously, pushing the date back a couple thousand years isn't exactly paradigm shifting.
Why would alternative archeology alter its stance when the evidence is piling up in favor of the premise?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless
2 million blocks in 20 years = 1 block cut, hauled and placed every 5 minutes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the entire 20 years.
Only an archaeologist could believe that tripe.

A more reasonable pace would be 15 blocks a day.
That would take 365 years.
Just as unlikely.

So leaves 2 options.
1. Magic
or
2. It was built over successive era's by multiple players.
Not just by Khufu.
It doesn't take any special training to figure that out.
Just common sense.

How about 100 blocks placed every five minutes for a year or so, when the pyramid was only 0 to 20 levels tall and there was room for multiple ramps on each side?
Half of the volume of any pyramid is in the bottom one third of the object.

Harte

100 blocks every 5 minutes?
For a year?
So you've taken a ridiculous premise and turned it into full tard.
Brilliant.
You can't explain how they managed ONE block every 4.5 minutes, so your answer is 100 every 5 minutes.
And I'm the troll, lol.
I'll take troll over stunningly brain dead any day of the week.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

originally posted by: bluesfreak
What is the evidence for the exact size of the internal hill? The two sets of estimates cause these divisions because:
You don’t know
Egyptologists don’t know
I don’t know
Nobody knows

just admit it .
You just pick the evidence you choose to believe.
Just pick the one that makes archaeology look smart , as they leave such a margin of error that reasonable focus on the actual number of blocks and the calculations that it throws up , can’t be achieved and is muddied.
Half a million blocks is a ridiculous number discrepancy when it comes to fabrication of stone blocks .
These aren’t just numbers , they are objects .
Assumptions made by people who don’t make stuff, about people who did make stuff.
Ever thought about making half a million of anything ?? It’s such a huge number.
a reply to: Harte

There it is...not the first to say it but it remains a fact.
You couldn't trust these fools to put an Ikea coffee table together, yet they are all experts on stone masonry, large scale construction, and logistics of major construction projects.
That's where the stupidity of the claim it was just hunter-gatherers getting together for a little stone carving hobby at Gobekli Tepe.
You want fringe ideas, that takes the cake.

Probably shouldn't criticize a position without bothering to find out why that position is taken.
If you knew anything about a) What a civilization is and b) Gobekli Tepe, you wouldn't make such a crazy claim.

Harte

I don't think I'm the one with the comprehension issues, Mr. 100 Blocks in 5 minutes.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless
a reply to: bluesfreak
The numbers don't lie.
But archeologists do.
Can you imagine the log jam of boats on the Nile carrying all those stones to be able to place one every 5 minutes?
They must have really had Asterix and Obelix helping out with some of Getafix' magic potion....

You're making my point.
Over 99% of the stone used in every monument at Giza comes from quarries right there at the feet of the pyramids.

Obviously, you lack information concerning whatever it is you're on about.

Harte

The granite came from Aswan.
8000 tons of it.
Since the blocks were 25-80 tons each that's....well thats a sh17load of boats trying to get there in 4.5 minutes.
The limestone is a bigger issue BECAUSE the quarry is so close.
You'd have an even bigger traffic jam.
Just admit it.
The premise of 20 years not possible.
Khufu was a liar.
Mark Lehner an even bigger liar.

Dbl post

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

The trade routes wouldn't have been overland.

They don't need to be. We find evidence of trade that takes place through coastal and oceanic shipping.

And even if they did, what traces would be left after 12000 years?

The very things I mentioned: pottery, stone carvings, jewelry, cloth, bones, coins, leather, swords, etc. You've never been on a dig, I take it, but humans are messy and much older things (remains of houses) even older than Gobekli Tepi (which would be the age of the presumed Atlantis) show up all the time.

Oh... and we have material from the culture that built Gobekli Tepi (and villages as well.)

So if Atlantis had been around and was this wonderfully advanced place, we'd see their administrative buildings in all the places they conquered (good example is all the Roman buildings in Britain) and documents and artifacts from the "mother country" Atlantis. And they'd be in a lot of different cultures, too.

But we don't see this.

Nonsense.
I have never heard of a single archaeology study done 2-300 miles off any coast looking specifically for a lost pre YD civilisation....which is where coastal cities from 12000 years ago would be found.

Show us where sea level rise encroached that far inland.

Harte

Seriously?
Doggerland
Indonesia and Australia.
Florida and the Bahamas.
Throw some isostatic rebound into the mix and who knows where else.

Not that it really matters because the point is NO ONE is looking ANYWHERE off the coasts where the millions of square miles of land has been inundated.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Why don't you question why they won't fund it? Anyone with a shred of curiosity would question that. Why don't you? Jesus Christ, every word you guys say just proves the point that much more. Zero Credibility.

I won’t copy and paste reams of your posts as it’s too much space , but I’m on the same page with you .

Zero credibility in many areas .
That stupid made up sum about the GP core MUST be a joke… well, I keep laughing at it, so it must be.
a reply to: JoeRelentless

It's certainly up for debate how much of the core is a ridge.
I personally think the granite core construction of the interior was built on this ridge with subsequent layers of the pyramid added later over centuries of renovations and add ons..

There is no "granite core construction" at Giza.
You gettin' my point about trying to find out before spouting off yet?

Harte

That you don't know what the hell you are talking about?
Yeah, I got that.
Granite was used in the interior to build the kings chamber and porticullises.
Which is in the core of the pyramid.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

....and why is the fringe not funding this research? They are the one who believe there is something there? Orthodoxy doesn't and more importantly those who give out the money. Also if the mainstream does it the fringe will scream they are hiding what they find......

Also, Hancock has gone out and spent his own money investigating these things.
As has Randall Carlsson, West, Schoch, UnchartedX, ad nauseum.

Oh I don't recall any underwater archaeology done off the coast of North America looking for his cities - it would seem GH doesn't fund stuff - so are you paid by him to tell lies? LOL

You are really such a silly troll - to be a good troll you have to be remotely believable - but we'll give you a chance so show us all this research GH is funding to find these cities? Who running the expeditions, which underwater drones are they using, where are they searching?

Zero Credibility.

Yep an excellent description of yourself

Didn't say he did any looking off of the coast of North America.
He has done multiple expeditions off the coasts of India and Japan...that has actually contributed to some new discoveries.

You'd know all of this if you pulled your head out and stopped acting like a jealous little girl because you've never accomplished anything of note in your career.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: liammc
Very interesting topic.... just wondering though as I have been browsing this forum for years now, why is it the same 3 people all the time who are forever "debunking" stuff on this forum?

It's like they are being paid to do it or something. Very strange.

Because the rest of the people that used to debunk the utter BS on this forum got tired of beating their heads against the ignorance wall.

Use the search function. Better yet, use a site-specific google search to see what I mean.

Harte

There is no "rest of the people".
It's always been the same 3 zero credibility, no accomplishment, dumb asses spouting the same stupid crap.