Info on the Pyramids of Giza- we're not being told something

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm pretty sure a group of 2000 people can move a stone mounted on a sled in the desert on their own

Sure, but how do you move stone blocks over 600 miles at the rate of 3 every minute for 10 or 20 years? And how do you get the block in place with 2000 people standing around it, hundreds of feet off the ground? Humans are incredibly ingenious, but how come we can't do this now, thousands of years later with all the machinery and technological advances we've made?

I don't know about you, but I've never seen a theory that addresses the speed and logistics of building something on this scale. Moving a few hundred pound rock a few feet on rollers or a sled, doesn't answer ANY of the real questions about the pyramid's construction.

boats for the most of the trip

they used boats to move the rocks from the quarry (they did the same for obelisks), then they used the sleds

and what do you mean by the REAL questions?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
boats for the most of the trip

they used boats to move the rocks from the quarry (they did the same for obelisks), then they used the sleds

and what do you mean by the REAL questions?

Real questions like how can you use boats to move the rocks? Sounds plausible until you figure that Egyptian boats were only large enough to carry the weight of one or maybe two stones the weight we're talking about. That means a boat had to arrive at the worksite and unload it's block every 20 - 40 seconds. There would also need to be an unbroken line of boats from there to the quarry 600 miles away, and an unbroken line of boats from the quarry to the worksite. A continuous loop 1200 miles long, in constant motion for 10 years or more. There would need to be a continous supply of blocks being cut and moved into position for loading, as many as 3 per minute, 24 hours a day. And they would need to be unloaded and moved away from the dock at the same rate, never pausing for decades.

Supposedly, this was done by volunteers during the season when the nile flooded and their fields were under water, so you can multiply those rates by six if they only worked two months a year. What is that, 18 blocks a minute? And boats? If they were 50 feet long, they would need 126,720 of them to do the task.

Originally posted by RF Squibbles
Why is not possible that several civilzations have come and gone that where as great if not greater than what we have today.....

A good question, but one most would frown upon.

We are the best ever, as we are today. We have evolved this way, so the idea of DEVOLUTION, is not one willingly embraced.

An Idea like yours, would allow for the Mythos of Ancient Civilizations to be considered a viable reality, and reflective of a Truth that has been denied.

Others have some speculative theory called Evolution. This satisfies their needs, to believe a fiction, is truth.

All the while the Truth is infact ignored and dismissed as something that "The Whack Job's" created.

But God Bless them anyways. They will learn the truth. Some just take a while longer than others.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by stumason
Besides, I'm not saying that were "advanced" as us, but saying that there was no civilisation for 95 % of modern humans existence is a bit far fetched. There are ruins dating to before the end of the last Ice Age that are now submerged due to the flooding. Check out the Black Sea, or India, or Japan, or any of dozens of sites around the world.

Open your mind and don't be so ignorant.

Stumason,

My feeling is that perhaps you should educate yourself on these "ruins" that pre-date the end of the Ice Age before you start throwing around aspersions such as "ignorant."

The Black Sea "ruins" are not indicative of any "civilization" at all. They might indicate some unknown culture we know nothing of, but there's nothing so far to indicate any "advanced" anything.

There have been no "ruins" found in India that pre-date the end of the Ice Age. Sure, there are archaeological sites, but the use of the word "ruins" is quite a stretch.

By mentioning Japan, I assume your talking about Yonaguni, a natural stone formation that was above sea level prior to the end of the Ice Age. Even if humans used the site prior to it's being submerged, the fact remains that it is a natural stone outcropping. While such stone formations might be shaped or possibly leveled or some such, they cannot be "constructed," they are part of the geology of the area. Such geological features are no more "ruins" than the caves with the paintings that are found in France. If you look at an aerial photo of Yonaguni Jima, you'll see that the entire island has a similar morphology to the so-called "monument."

On the other hand, it depends on your definition of "civilization," to paraphrase a former president. If, to you, a clan of nomads following migrating animals around makes up a civilization, well then you're right.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobeSure, but how do you move stone blocks over 600 miles at the rate of 3 every minute for 10 or 20 years? And how do you get the block in place with 2000 people standing around it, hundreds of feet off the ground? Humans are incredibly ingenious, but how come we can't do this now, thousands of years later with all the machinery and technological advances we've made?

They didn't do this. The vast, vast majority of stones used in the pyramids was quarried right there at Giza. Some ornamental stones were brought up the Nile by boat. These stones were quite large, but they were not the largest of the stones used in the pyramids. As I recall, we have found paintings of this being done, just not associated with pyramid construction.

And we could do this now. But it's not cost-effective. Pouring concrete into pre-built forms is much, much cheaper and faster. Imagine the permits required to construct such a massive building using stones this size. In Manhattan, you'd destroy the subway system just bringing in the stones. Also, how much stone do you suppose could be removed from the interior of the pyramids without compromising their structural stability? What I'm getting at is that there would be precious little space for rent inside an extremely expensive building.

Harte

ok so they do not have the exact same ways of thinking as us..... your not thinkning out of the box far enough... "theres more than one way to skin a cat". why is it not plausible that there people of there time thought of a completly different from our people of our time...


On discovery channel talking about super volcanoes there was talk of at some point in history the human gene poole was nearly wiped out sortof "bottle knecked" but its was not touched upon for some reason it also said only a certain number made it and thats where we are have today....


so then what if mankind has destroyed itself before we are just the survivors....

no one is giving humans advanced enough to build massive pyramids the ability to destroy themselves


I throw this question out there what would happen tomarrow if 75% of the earth was destroyed nuclear or biological. There where parts that survived that 25% which was some how relativly untouched. what would our civilization become what would have become of the majority of the world? what would it look like to whoever came to power after us, say however long it took from ancient egypt to now?




so enclose why would we act as if egyptions are enferior when they did things we dont even comprehend before our parents parents where even born.... we treat them like animals i belive humanity has been near the pinacle of its being before ...

perhaps someones earlier post about the nuclear symbol was correct could the pyramids be ancint super weapons or something equivalent to our skyscrapers

I believe if our time ever crashes that hard we will be looked at the same as the egyptions looked at as simpletons... could the tech of the day be passed down peraps and get better everytime?



[edit on 12-6-2006 by RF Squibbles]

My feeling is that perhaps you should educate yourself on these "ruins" that pre-date the end of the Ice Age before you start throwing around aspersions such as "ignorant."

My feeling is you may also want to educate yourself Harte bfore doing the same

The Black Sea "ruins" are not indicative of any "civilization" at all. They might indicate some unknown culture we know nothing of, but there's nothing so far to indicate any "advanced" anything.

No matter how many quote marks you use to try and make what someone says seem like it is not true, I can assure that the Black Sea ruins are exactly that.

Discovered by Robert Ballard and funded by National Geographic, the ruins include a stone and wood structure, tools and even pottery (Yes, pottery) dating to at least 7,500 years ago. They have discovered other sites that are similiar and show that prior to to the Black Sea flooding, there is evidence of extensive human settlement in the area.

Today Ballard, famous for finding Titanic, confirmed that his research team, sponsored in part by the National Geographic Society, has identified a wooden structure on a gently sloping shelf near the convergence of two submerged ancient river beds.

“This is an incredible find,” Ballard said in a telephone call to the National Geographic Society from the expedition ship Northern Horizon. “It consists of [the remains of] a single building with a hewn beam and wooden branches that formed the walls and roof of a structure—most likely a house. We have also found and photographed stone tools, possibly a chisel or an axe, and ceramic storage vessels, all untouched since the flooding of the Black Sea.”

The find represents “the first concrete evidence for the occupation of the Black Sea coast prior to its flooding,” says expedition archaeologist Fredrik Hiebert, of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. “This is a major discovery that will rewrite the history of civilizations in this key area between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”

The wooden structure is the only building sighted so far during the expedition. As the search continues, the team hopes that additional finds will suggest a settlement pattern along the ancient coastline. Using sonar profiles, Ballard’s team has identified more than 50 potential search areas similar to the site of the structure.
Source

If a settlement is not indicactive of civilisation, I don't know what is.

And just to clear matters up, I would call any permament settlement "civilised".

Certainly, the fact that they had stoneworking and pottery would indicate some sort of specialisation of skill sets amongst the local people, allowing some to produce food, others to produce pottery etc etc. Ergo, civilisation, albeit fairly primitive.

The fact that these people are almost unknown to Science goes to show that Human history, all 100,000 years of it, is largely unknown and is made up of a lot of guesswork, due to the patchy nature of ANY evidence.

Even recent history, such as Greece or Egypt, is largely a mystery, with alot of info coming from a (relatively, in comparison to the extent of human society) very small amount of sources.

I would go further into India and others, but do not have the time. Of course, if you insist on arguing the toss, then I will, but I think I have at least proved your assertions that the Black Sea ruins were nothing more than nomads chasing deer as false. These people evidently lived, worked and died in, what was at the time, a large society living around a massive fresh water lake.

edit for 'ex' tags

[edit on 12-6-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by RF Squibbles
so then what if mankind has destroyed itself before we are just the survivors....

no one is giving humans advanced enough to build massive pyramids the ability to destroy themselves

what would our civilization become what would have become of the majority of the world? what would it look like to whoever came to power after us, say however long it took from ancient egypt to now?

This is fair to ask but if I may offer this in response.

The Ancients have told us what happened. They tell us ever so clearly and in specific detail, what man became during these times in the past. They echo this on a Collective Basis with only minor differences or unique additions occassionally.

We just do not wish to believe them. These once fantastic and intelligent peoples, that gave us all this wonderment to ponder over, also told us what happened.

Ahhh, But it's Mythos. Not Fact.

so enclose why would we act as if egyptions are enferior when they did things we dont even comprehend before our parents parents where even born.... we treat them like animals i belive humanity has been near the pinacle of its being before ...

perhaps someones earlier post about the nuclear symbol was correct could the pyramids be ancint super weapons or something equivalent to our skyscrapers

I believe if our time ever crashes that hard we will be looked at the same as the egyptions looked at as simpletons... could the tech of the day be passed down peraps and get better everytime?

[edit on 12-6-2006 by RF Squibbles]

But what if we presume, these simple people where exactly what they presume to be? And they are not the Builders, as the Ancients note, and those who did do this, where lost, as is also detailed.

Just asking.

Ciao

Shane

What is the Mythos that they have told us Shane, that we all ignore? Could you give us a quick summary.


I'm thinkning it was those "6 fingered" and "2 rows of teeth" giants!
The giants were killed in the flood. And the few that remained never reproduced, or bred into the normal population.
Those giant remains could have something to do with the Pyramids.
Think about how much easier it would be to make the pyramids if you have a few giants to help the little humans.

Fun topic!
I never tire of the Pyramids, because its evidence you can't ignore.
I mean there it is, huge structures that don't go away.
If they had been washed away with erosion, the skeptics would claim they never existed at all.





[edit on 12-6-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]

Originally posted by stumason

The Black Sea "ruins" are not indicative of any "civilization" at all. They might indicate some unknown culture we know nothing of, but there's nothing so far to indicate any "advanced" anything.

No matter how many quote marks you use to try and make what someone says seem like it is not true, I can assure that the Black Sea ruins are exactly that.

Discovered by Robert Ballard and funded by National Geographic, the ruins include a stone and wood structure, tools and even pottery (Yes, pottery) dating to at least 7,500 years ago. They have discovered other sites that are similiar and show that prior to to the Black Sea flooding, there is evidence of extensive human settlement in the area.
If a settlement is not indicactive of civilisation, I don't know what is.

And just to clear matters up, I would call any permament settlement "civilised".

Yes, were I not aware of Ballard's finds, I wouldn't have commented on your remark concerning them.

Here you have one, single wooden structure, with the "hope" of finding settlements, and no evidence that they were permanent, unless by permanent you mean they were left standing when the people moved off to their summer settlements.
And while you may call any peoples with a permanent settlement civilized, anthropologists certainly won't. To see their view:

Everyone lives in a society and a culture, but not everyone lives in a civilization. Historically, civilizations have shared some or all of the following traits (some of these were suggested by V. Gordon Childe):

Intensive agricultural techniques, such as the use of human power, crop rotation, and irrigation. This has enabled farmers to produce a surplus of food that is not necessary for their own subsistence.

A significant portion of the population that does not devote most of its time to producing food. This permits a division of labor. Those who do not occupy their time in producing food may instead focus their efforts in other fields, such as industry, war, science or religion. This is possible because of the food surplus described above.

The gathering of some of these non-food producers into permanent settlements, called cities.

A form of social organization. This can be a chiefdom, in which the chieftain of one noble family or clan rules the people; or a state society, in which the ruling class is supported by a government or bureaucracy. Political power is concentrated in the cities.

The institutionalized control of food by the ruling class, government or bureaucracy.

The establishment of complex, formal social institutions such as organized religion and education, as opposed to the less formal traditions of other societies.

Development of complex forms of economic exchange. This includes the expansion of trade and may lead to the creation of money and markets.

The accumulation of more material possessions than in simpler societies.

Development of new technologies by people who are not busy producing food. In many early civilizations, metallurgy was an important advancement.

Advanced development of the arts, including writing.

Source

Of course, there are other definitions. They are similar, but somewhat varied. When having a conversation about a thing, I suppose people should first agree about what this "thing" is that they are conversing about.

By your definition, by the way, civilization extends further back than 100,000 years. There were "settlements" as permanent as the single wooden hut Ballard mentions that date back to at least Cro-Magnon. Probably earlier. Admittedly, they were not constructed, as far as we know.

A good example of a much earlier civilization (according to your definition):

At 15,000 to 18,000 years old, small villages of bone huts like this one are some of the oldest towns we've ever found. They give us a glimpse of humans' early efforts to get along in communities. Community life demands a different strategy than living in small family groups: people need to cooperate, and divide up duties and wealth.

Source
These folks didn't have pottery, though. But pottery at the Black Sea site is no surprise. The oldest known pottery comes from the Jomon culture, and dates to an astounding 16,000 years ago.

No, the fascinating (actually almost revolutionary) aspect of the Black Sea site is that there were people there, as this was previously not known and in fact argued against, and not how sophisticated they were or how old the site is.

Originally posted by stumasonI would go further into India and others, but do not have the time. Of course, if you insist on arguing the toss, then I will...

Please do. Enlighten me.

Originally posted by stumason...but I think I have at least proved your assertions that the Black Sea ruins were nothing more than nomads chasing deer as false. These people evidently lived, worked and died in, what was at the time, a large society living around a massive fresh water lake.

I didn't mean to imply something about the Black Sea inhabitors that is of course not yet known. I was making a general remark about what it is that we do know of earlier cultures. I apologize if I wasn't exactly clear in my statements.

Your comment to rockpuck:

Originally posted by stumasonThere are ruins dating to before the end of the last Ice Age that are now submerged due to the flooding. Check out the Black Sea, or India, or Japan, or any of dozens of sites around the world.
Open your mind and don't be so ignorant.

So, now that you refreshed your memory concerning the (tenative) date for the Black Sea site (5500BC), will you admit your own ignorance in calling rockpuck "ignorant", or will you continue to maintain that this site pre-dates the end of the last Ice Age?

Harte

[edit on 6/12/2006 by Harte]

Originally posted by Kilik11

Yeah, so who did it? Space aliens? People from Atlantis? Leprechauns?
Show me proof of any of those three, and maybe I'll buy it.

P.S. - They used water power. If one thing these Egyptians knew a thing or two about, it was hauling stuff around on boats.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by Enkidu]

Originally posted by Harte

They didn't do this. The vast, vast majority of stones used in the pyramids was quarried right there at Giza. Some ornamental stones were brought up the Nile by boat. These stones were quite large, but they were not the largest of the stones used in the pyramids. As I recall, we have found paintings of this being done, just not associated with pyramid construction.

Well I'm glad they didn't have to travel 600 miles for all the stone, but that only cuts out the river trip which is the only part that didn't require huge effort. They still needed to cut 2.3 million, two ton blocks and have them arrive at the worksite every 40 seconds.

And we could do this now. But it's not cost-effective. Pouring concrete into pre-built forms is much, much cheaper and faster. Imagine the permits required to construct such a massive building using stones this size. In Manhattan, you'd destroy the subway system just bringing in the stones. Also, how much stone do you suppose could be removed from the interior of the pyramids without compromising their structural stability? What I'm getting at is that there would be precious little space for rent inside an extremely expensive building.

Harte

Obviously there's no comparison between a steel frame and concrete skyscraper and a solid pyramid. So.. umm.. yeah.

Back to the subject, there are 9 granite slabs in the ceiling of the King's chamber that weigh around 45 tons each. They're at a level of approx 220 feet which means if we were to try to build this with a modern crane, it would need a working jib length of at least 380 feet (to place the blocks in the center of the pyramid). The largest tower crane ever built has a jib length of 260 feet. We could build a longer jib, but the further the load is placed along the jib, the less actual weight can be lifted. At 260 feet, the maximum lift is about 4 tons. In fact, the maximum lift weight of modern cranes is less than 20 tons anyway, so a 45 ton block is out of the question wherever you needed to place it.

So, we really can't build this pyramid today regardless of how many ropes, rollers, sleds, pulleys or milk they supposedly used.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Back to the subject, there are 9 granite slabs in the ceiling of the King's chamber that weigh around 45 tons each. They're at a level of approx 220 feet which means if we were to try to build this with a modern crane, it would need a working jib length of at least 380 feet (to place the blocks in the center of the pyramid). The largest tower crane ever built has a jib length of 260 feet. We could build a longer jib, but the further the load is placed along the jib, the less actual weight can be lifted. At 260 feet, the maximum lift is about 4 tons. In fact, the maximum lift weight of modern cranes is less than 20 tons anyway, so a 45 ton block is out of the question wherever you needed to place it.

So, we really can't build this pyramid today regardless of how many ropes, rollers, sleds, pulleys or milk they supposedly used.

Why would you think that? We could do it like the Egyptians, with a smaller crane and a couple of bulldozers. You build up the sand as you go. When you're done, you remove the sand.

The Egyptians did this with ramps, but if we used a crane, we wouldn't need no stinkin ramps. We'd only need enough sand to drive the crane up on. Simple for us, deadly difficult for them.

The entire concept of how often blocks would have to be delivered is calculated incorrectly anyway. The averaging of the number of blocks per hour is not the way to do it. They were building a pyramid, not a cube. Still doesn't make it easy, though, but the higher they went, the fewer blocks per day that had to be delivered.

I've seen where a construction engineering firm looked at the feasibility. That's where Lehrner and Hawass got their numbers from for the estimate of the size of the work crew. The engineers said it was feasible, and within the time period specified.

Harte

I'm glad this came up in the context of this thread because it is something that has always been a great question.

We think we are superior because of our technologies...but that's not really true. There have always been sciences (as the artifacts themselves reveal).

from The Mind in the Cave by David Lewis-Williams (Thames & Hudson)

...the making of blades and pigment processing using grindstones date back to 250,000 years ago. Long distance exchange and shellfishing started about 140,000 years ago. Bone tools and mining are about 100,000 years old.

Such endeavors by these primitive societies required a social system in order to use trade to make life better. I would suggest that such commerce is a mark of civilization.

from The Civilization of the Goddess by Marija Gimbutas (Thames & Hudson)

I reject the assumption that civilization refers only to androcratic warrior societies. The generative basis of any civilization lies in its degree of artistic creation, aesthetic achievements, nonmaterial values and freedom which makes life meaningful and enjoyable for all its citizens...

Also, the use of writing is a valued mark of this loosely contrived meaning of what civilization requires, and the earliest writing seems to come from Uruk, a Sumerian city in what is now Iraq.

from The Lost Civilization of the Stone Age by Richard Rudgley (Simon and Shuster)
It is generally agreed that the earliest known writing during the period 3500 to 2800 BC. Expert opinions favour 3100 BC as the most likely time for this major historical landmark to have taken place.

However, there's more to it than that. Before writing, people used tokens as a means of augmenting trade. You would take your produce to market and receive tokens for your goods. These carved stone tokens took the shape of cones, spheres, ovoids, tetrahedrons, discs, etc., and could be exchanged for other goods, much like money is used today.

from Before Writing by Denise Schmandt-Besserat (University of Texas Press)

I became increasingly puzzled by the tokens because, wherever I would go, be it Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey or Israel, they would always be present among the early clay assemblages. If they were so widely used, I reasoned, they must have had a useful function. I noted that the tokens were often manufactured with care and that they were the first objects to have been hardened by fire. The fact that people went to such efforts for their preparation further suggested to me that they were of importance.

and

from The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age (again)
The study of these tokens became her (Schmandt-Besserat) main work and over the next 15 years she assembled a vast body of convincing evidence (based on analysis of over 10,000 tokens and related artifacts) to show a highly effective system of accounting had existed since the Neolithic period of the Near East (8000 BC)

So...what's the difference between tokens and a scratch in a clay tablet? Not much, really...both methods did the same thing in conveying a message. Prior to the use of tokens, I would imagine trade consisted of: " I'll give you this finely worked axe or flint knife for that cave bear pelt."

Civilization is marked by cohesive systems...people working together, travelling great distances and using common tools to enable trade to happen effectively.

IMO, it has nothing to do with iPods.

There's also a tendency to jump to the conclusion of labelling artifacts or monuments as "ritualistic" in purpose

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
What is the Mythos that they have told us Shane, that we all ignore? Could you give us a quick summary.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]

We, it seems your are aware of one.

The Greeks and Romans have assorted Mythos in respects to this age.

Actually, a gentleman named Patrick Heron, has an interesting book called the The Nephilium and the Pyramid of the Apocolypse, which is very specific to what you note, with the comment on Giants.

I am still holding to Enoch, as the builder myself, but thats another story.

But Yes, we have Lore and Legends around this globe that tell us exactly what occured. It's just easier for some, to discredit it, and then have no viable alternative to offer for consideration, except of course Fluke and Happenstance. But to those, this makes more sense than the truth.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold

If they had been washed away with erosion, the skeptics would claim they never existed at all.

Not skeptics but people who have as their goal denying everything. Only denying, denying, denying... God knows the purpoise

As for the gigants, hmmm the same people are ready to deny their existence as a tale from the past or just Genesis verse



This photo is a mummy found in Ireland. For sure the usual denyers and "skeptics" gonna say is a fake, hoax or a art work PATHETIC !!!

[edit on 12-6-2006 by Telos]

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
If they (EDIT - the pyramids - Harte) had been washed away with erosion, the skeptics would claim they never existed at all.

Monoionic_Gold,

Do you offer any theories regarding other things that definitely existed but have since been eroded away and are today "denied" by these skeptics??

Can you explain why it is that these "skeptics" you refer to all pretty much agree to the existence of the Colossus of Rhodes, despite the very real fact that there is not a trace of this unbelievably large cast bronze statue that remains today, or even that remained within recent history?

Originally posted by TelosNot skeptics but people who have as their goal denying everything. Only denying, denying, denying... God knows the purpoise

I've never heard of such a person that has as their goal simply denying everything. However, there are many people that require at least a small amount of evidence before they will consider seriously any anthropological or archaeological theory. These kinds of people are often referred to as "rational," "sane" or even "normal."

Originally posted by TelosAs for the gigants, hmmm the same people are ready to deny their existence as a tale from the past or just Genesis verse

This photo is a mummy found in Ireland. For sure the usual denyers and "skeptics" gonna say is a fake, hoax or a art work

PATHETIC !!!

Attempting to inoculate yourself against any argument with a pre-emptive statement about what the "usual denyers(sic) and 'skeptics'" will say about this?
PATHETIC ??? What's PATHETIC !!! is that somebody can be so easly misled and be so naive as to believe that a figure carved from gypsum is a giant, when the hoax was admitted by it's creator before the end of the 19th century!!

The Cardiff Giant, Chapter LVI of Andrew White's Autobiography.
From White, Andrew D. Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White. New York, The Century Co. 1917. In two volumes.

CHAPTER LVI
THE CARDIFF GIANT:
A CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN FOLLY–1869-1870

...Before long the matter entered into a comical phase. Barnum, King of Showmen, attempted to purchase the "giant," but in vain. He then had a copy made so nearly resembling the original that no one, save, possibly, an expert, could distinguish between them. This new statue was also exhibited as "the Cardiff Giant," and thenceforward the credit of the discovery waned.

The catastrophe now approached rapidly, and soon affidavits from men of high character in Iowa and Illinois established the fact that the figure was made at Fort Dodge, in Iowa, of a great block of gypsum there found; that this block was transported by land to the nearest railway station, Boone, which was about forty-five miles distant; that on the way the wagon conveying it broke down, and that as no other could be found strong enough to bear the whole weight, a portion of the block was cut off; that, thus diminished, it was taken to Chicago, where a German stone-carver gave it final shape; that, as it had been shortened, he was obliged to draw up the lower limbs, thus giving it a strikingly contracted and agonized appearance; that the under side of the figure was grooved and channeled in order that it should appear to be wasted by age; that it was then dotted or pitted over with minute pores by means of a leaden mallet faced with steel needles; that it was stained with some preparation which gave it an appearance of great age; that it was then shipped to a place near Binghamton, New York, and finally brought to Cardiff and there buried. It was further stated that Hull, in order to secure his brother-in-law, Farmer Newell, as his confederate in burying the statue, had sworn him to secrecy; and, in order that the family might testify that they had never heard or seen anything of the statue until it had been unearthed, he had sent them away on a little excursion covering the time when it was brought and buried. All these facts were established by affidavits from men of high character in Iowa and Illinois, by the sworn testimony of various Onondaga farmers and men of business, and, finally, by the admissions and even boasts of Hull himself.

My emphasis.
Source

More, if you want to argue:
www.museumofhoaxes.com...
www.farmersmuseum.org...
www.historybuff.com...
www.britannica.com...
www.everything2.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.infoplease.com...

I could go on if you wish.

Harte

Come now...
You have to admit, that if the pyramids were not there in our face, you would have a hard time beleiving a bunch of humans moved these giant stone blocks for 10 years straight, to create.... well what the heck is it anyway?
Its a giant stone geometric shape.

That had to be a pretty darn important structure to put that much effort for.
But why?

I think that would be the hardest part for me to swallow. Why would they do this, for 10 years?
There had to be some big pay-off or reason.

I would imagine that IF little humans did make the pyramids in that time frame, they must have been well fed and well paid, and seriously well equipped. Seriously...

I just don't see the 24 hour labor thing, blocks going into place every few minutes using milk for lube, giant stone blocks that shouldn't be cut with the tools they had, making any sense, no matter how you try to rationalize it. I think your crazy if you beleive that. You are the fringe. You are the kook. In my opinion.

Just call me skeptical of your outlandish claims that humans built the pyramids in the methods you beleive.

There... now we can both be skeptics.

Originally posted by Harte


Attempting to inoculate yourself against any argument with a pre-emptive statement about what the "usual denyers(sic) and 'skeptics'" will say about this?
PATHETIC ??? What's PATHETIC !!! is that somebody can be so easly misled and be so naive as to believe that a figure carved from gypsum is a giant, when the hoax was admitted by it's creator before the end of the 19th century!! Harte

There you go I was wondering why it took so long.

Ok I'm coming up with few excerpts and try to give you a little modest evidence

Chad's Giants
In 1936, two French archaeologists, Lebeuf and Griaule, led an expedition to Chad in North Central Africa. As they crossed the plains they saw some areas covered with small mounds. They also found large numbers of these mounds around Fort Lamy and Goulfeil. Deciding to investigate, they dug up several egg-shaped funeral jars that contained the remains of a gigantic race, along with pieces of their jewelry and their works of art.1 These giants, according to the natives, were called the Saos.

Scholars who traced their history say they came from Kheiber, located north of Mecca, to Bilma, which is situated about three hundred miles north of Lake Chad. A people with a "well-developed religion and culture," they grew in numbers and founded communities at Fort Lamy, Mahaya, Midigue, and Goulfeil. They lived in peace in their new land until the close of the ninth century when the Moslems made wars against them, intending to force their accep-tance of the Islamic faith. The Saos giants who converted to the faith lived to become servants of the Arabs. But those who steadfastly refused to convert were eventually wiped out. By the end of the sixteenth century not many Saos remained. (See Jericho's Giants; also see Curigueres; Ifrikish ibn Kais; Sudan's Giants; Watusi Giants; Zanzibar's Giants)

Moroccan Find
At Agadir in Morocco, reports Peter Kolosimo, the French captain Lafanechere "discovered a complete arsenal of hunting weapons including five hundred double-edged axes weighing seventeen and a half pounds, i.e. twenty times as heavy as would be convenient for modern man. Apart from the question of weight, to handle the axe at all one would need to have hands of a size appropriate to a giant with a stature of at least 13 feet."2 (See Australian Giants; La Tene; South American Giants)

The Union reported that a Howard E. Hill of Los Angeles was recounting the work of Dr. F. Bruce Russell, a retired Cincinnati physician who had originally located the first of several tunnels near Death Valley in 1931, but had not been able to return to the area until 1947. With the help of Dr. Daniel S. Bovee, who with Hill's father had once helped open up New Mexico's cliff dwellings, Russell had recovered the remains of several men of 8 to 9 feet in height. LINK

Hidden Proofs Of A Giant Race




As you read this series of extracts, try to visualize the proverbial series of contemporary evolution...something is amiss.

1. Large bones in stone graves in Williamson County and White County, Tennessee. Discovered in the early 1800s, the average stature of these giants was 7 feet tall.

2. Giant skeletons found in the mid-1800s in New York state near Rutland and Rodman.

3. In 1833, soldiers digging at Lompock Rancho, California, discovered a male skeleton 12 feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by caved shells, stone axes, other artifacts. The skeleton had double rows of upper and lower teeth. Unfortunately, this body was secretly buried because the local Indians became upset about the remains.

4. A giant skull and vertebrae found in Wisconsin and Kansas City.

5. A giant found off the California Coast on Santa Rosa Island in the 1800s was distinguished by its double rows of teeth.

6. A 9-foot, 8-inch skeleton was excavated from a mount near Brewersville, Indiana, in 1879. LINK

I can go on forever but I don't wanna get banned from this forum for posting so much external sources. I provided you with the links, check them out and you'll find tons of information.

Here is another photo of a giant skeleton that I had in my hdd and I don't know the place where this skeleton has been found it.



I hope this is not a hoax too

Originally posted by Telos

I hope this is not a hoax too

Just in case you were serious:

www.snopes.com...