Fingerprints of the Gods

[Lone Wolf]

It would have weighed nearly 1,200 tons upon completion and would have been transported hundreds of miles from that quarry. Archaeologists suggest that laborers would have used ropes to pull it onto a barge, transport it hundreds of miles, and then raise it in its desired location. But archaeologists haven't been able to successfully move or raise something even close to that scale before with the system they've imagined.

This was actually surpassed in the late 18th century.  The "Thunder Stone" (the base of the Bronze Horseman statue in St. Petersburg) was even larger (1500 tons) and was successfully moved over both land and water.  Pain in the butt?  You bet.  But the journey was accomplished with nothing but human labor.

And the Egyptians never even tried to moved their obelisk out of its quarry.

All this supposed "rope-pulling" technology and laser-precision stone cutting lost somehow.

Not lost -- there are plenty of diagrams that show how it was done.  For example:

Teams of oxen or manpower were used to drag the stones on a prepared slipway that was lubricated with oil. Said Redford, a scene from a 19th century B.C. tomb in Middle Egypt depicts "an alabaster statue 20 feet high pulled by 173 men on four ropes with a man lubricating the slipway as the pulling went on."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104302.htm

The great insight of the Egyptians was how to eliminate enough friction to get these big stones moving.  As for the precision, I'll grant you that it's extremely impressive.  But "space-age" is a bit of a stretch.

It has been estimated that a ratio of two men per ton would be required for moving loads over flat surfaces; nine men per ton would be required for moving loads up a 9° slope. Practical experiments moving loads on a sledge over a lubricated track have shown that one man could pull one ton (or an oxen, five tons).

A great link with good material on how this was likely done.  It has some very nice Egyptian diagrams that show with great details how these big stones were moved. http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/extremasonry.htm

All while the Egyptians had no clue or reference to the fact that they had built their largest pyramid perfectly along a precise global circumference — that sits at exactly 30º to the equator — with the other sacred monolithic sites around the world: Easter Island, Nazca, Machu Picchu, Petra, Siwa, Tassili n'Ajjer, the Pyramids of Paratoari, Ollantaytambo, Aneityum Island, Preah Vihear, Sukhothai, Pyay, Khajuraho, Mohenjo Daro, Persepolis and Ur... all sharing Magnetic North as their geographic pole.

Magnetic North shifts by something like 25 miles per year and has shifted nearly 700 miles in the last 150 years alone.  Considering that these sites are all from different time periods, you can't talk about pointing to "Magnetic North" unless you specify Magnetic North when.  (Unless you are talking about a very low degree of precision, in which case MT's climate hypothesis makes the most sense.)

[Gumby]

This was actually surpassed in the late 18th century.  The "Thunder Stone" (the base of the Bronze Horseman statue in St. Petersburg) was even larger (1500 tons) and was successfully moved over both land and water.  Pain in the butt?  You bet.  But the journey was accomplished with nothing but human labor.

Please... They used a metallic sled to move it over land. It took 400 men nine months to move the stone 6Km. An enormous barge was constructed exclusively for the Thunder Stone. The vessel had to be supported on either side by additional two full-size warships.

Nice try though....

As for the precision, I'll grant you that it's extremely impressive.  But "space-age" is a bit of a stretch.

According to the site you referenced, it claims that "The Great pyramid had approx. 115,000 casing-stones weighing 10 tons or more, to 0.1 inch tolerance." ...and..."Merely to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the joint seems almost impossible; it is to be compared to the finest opticians' work on the scale of acres" ...and that... "Copper or bronze, alone are not strong enough to cut limestone or granite."

In fact, the entire "ancient construction" website you referenced documents dozens of unexplained pre-historic high-tech stone-cutting techniques (precision cut stone with ancient machine grooves, high-powered drill marks, etc.). Thanks for sharing that!

Here's a great quote from that site:

In the Cairo museum one can see several examples of simple copper and bronze saws, which Egyptologists claim are like those utilized in the cutting and shaping of the pyramid blocks. These tools present a problem. On the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, copper and bronze have a hardness of 3.5 to 4, while limestone has a hardness of 4 to 5 and granite of 5 to 6. The known tools would have cut through limestone but would be useless with granite. No archaeological examples of iron tools are found in early dynastic Egypt, yet even if they were, the best steels today have a hardness of only 5.5 and thus are inefficient for cutting granite.

Some years ago Sir Flinders Petrie, one of the "fathers" of Egyptology proposed that the pyramid blocks had been cut with long saw blades studded with diamonds or corundum. But this idea presents problems too. The cutting of millions of blocks would require millions of rare and expensive diamonds and corundum, which constantly wear out and require replacement. It has been suggested that the limestone blocks were somehow cut with solutions of citric acid or vinegar, yet these very slow-acting agents leave the surface of the limestone pitted and rough, unlike the beautifully smooth surface found on the casing stones, and these agents are completely useless for the cutting of granite. Evidence suggests that the stones were split in the same fashion as they are today.
Source: http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Ghizahow.htm

Magnetic North shifts by something like 25 miles per year and has shifted nearly 700 miles in the last 150 years alone.  Considering that these sites are all from different time periods, you can't talk about pointing to "Magnetic North" unless you specify Magnetic North when.  (Unless you are talking about a very low degree of precision

That's correct. It points to the area of where Magnetic North has tended to reside. So, it would make sense that the circle is referring to Magnetic North at a specific point in time.

in which case MT's climate hypothesis makes the most sense.)

Hardly. There's nothing agriculturally significant about any of those megalith locations. And it sill doesn't explain the strikingly similar construction techniques along that very specific circle. Even the archaeological explanations for why most of those monolithic sites were built in the first place are dubious at best — they are all mysteries. Keep in mind that the circle of megalith sites encompasses the widest possible circumference of the Earth along that angle of intersection of the Equator. The chances of that alone are staggering.

[MediumTex]

Gumby,

Are you just arguing that there is no possible explanation, or are you arguing for a particular explanation?

I would say that the existence of a prehistoric highly advanced civilization that left behind no traces other than monuments that are mistakenly attributed to the people who lived in the areas where the monuments were built is sort of shaky to me.

According to the theory, did the advanced civilization just travel around the world building monuments before returning to its base in Antarctica?

I agree that there are a lot of questions, but Occam's Razor comes into play at some point.

[Gumby]

Are you just arguing that there is no possible explanation, or are you arguing for a particular explanation?

I have no explanation. The fact is that we know very little about the Predynastic, Protodynastic or Early Dynastic Period of Egypt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protodynas ... d_of_Egypt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Dyna ... d_of_Egypt

The Giza pyramids are assumed to have been built during the "Old Kingdom" but for all we know, they were built much earlier.

I would say that the existence of a prehistoric highly advanced civilization that left behind no traces other than monuments that are mistakenly attributed to the people who lived in the areas where the monuments were built is sort of shaky to me.

Not sure why you claim there are "no traces". As I said before, there is evidence. The problem is that the evidence may very well be classified incorrectly.

Here are supposed religious basins at the Giza pyramid:

[align=center][/align]

Here is a supposed religious altar:

[align=center][/align]

Here are two supposed vases at the Cairo museum:

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

Supposedly the Cairo museum and the Louvre have thousands of unexplained high-tech "vases" in their collections. Many were found under a single pyramid. But, if you're an archaeologist, you get to call it a vase and be done with it.

According to the theory, did the advanced civilization just travel around the world building monuments before returning to its base in Antarctica?

I have no idea. I haven't read about that theory. All I'm saying is that there are too many global coincidences and similarities for it to be dismissed as chance. And the high precision cutting, drilling and alignment of the Giza pyramids leaves engineers dumbfounded — they have no idea how they were able to construct them on that scale. I think these questions deserve serious consideration rather than a quick dismissal.

[Lone Wolf]

Please... They used a metallic sled to move it over land. It took 400 men nine months to move the stone 6Km. An enormous barge was constructed exclusively for the Thunder Stone. The vessel had to be supported on either side by additional two full-size warships.

Ah well, at least I was impressed!    That's a stone twice as big as anything the Egyptians are known to have moved and nothing but cleverness, simple machines, and manpower doing the dirty work.

According to the site you referenced, it claims that "The Great pyramid had approx. 115,000 casing-stones weighing 10 tons or more, to 0.1 inch tolerance." ...and..."Merely to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the joint seems almost impossible; it is to be compared to the finest opticians' work on the scale of acres"

Oh, it's incredible precision, no doubt.  A couple orders of magnitude from "space age" precision, but utterly impressive for ancient technology.  We definitely agree on that.  The one question we don't line up on is the minor point whether this was all performed by unknown aliens. 

"Copper or bronze, alone are not strong enough to cut limestone or granite."...In fact, the entire "ancient construction" website you referenced documents dozens of unexplained pre-historic high-tech stone-cutting techniques (precision cut stone with ancient machine grooves, high-powered drill marks, etc.). Thanks for sharing that!
...
In the Cairo museum one can see several examples of simple copper and bronze saws, which Egyptologists claim are like those utilized in the cutting and shaping of the pyramid blocks. These tools present a problem. On the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, copper and bronze have a hardness of 3.5 to 4, while limestone has a hardness of 4 to 5 and granite of 5 to 6. The known tools would have cut through limestone but would be useless with granite.

Don't get the wrong idea about Egyptian "drills" -- this isn't Craftsman.    The Egyptians used the man-powered "bow drill".  Here's a hieroglyph and a photo of a modern reconstruction: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempire ... ing07.html

The next bit is one of my favorite "ancient engineering" tricks.  Your point about the relative hardness of granite (a 6 on the Mohs scale) is right on the money.  Fortunately for the Egyptians, they had easy access to material that is a 7 -- silicon dioxide aka common desert sand!  If you place sand at the point of contact of the copper tube on your bow drill, it easily slices into granite.

Here's a video of this in action: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science ... -video.htm

It's just straight-up human ingenuity.  We share very few of the beliefs, values, or rituals of the ancient Egyptians.  But what connects us is biology.  They were every bit as intelligent as we are today.  What's fascinating is seeing how their intelligent manifested itself in the context of vastly different toolsets and goals.

No aliens required.  Just human intelligence.

That's correct. It points to the area of where Magnetic North has tended to reside. So, it would make sense that the circle is referring to Magnetic North at a specific point in time.

I guess my point is that with "Magnetic North" wandering hundreds of miles every few decades, does it mean anything whatsoever for sites built thousands of years apart to form "a ring around Magnetic North"?  (The Earth's only about 25,000 miles in circumference!)

[Gumby]

No aliens required.  Just human intelligence.

I never said anything about aliens in this thread.

It just appears that the Egyptians, and other cultures around the globe, were proceeded by a more advanced people, who displayed amazing feats of engineering across the planet.

Are you familiar with Pumapunku?

[align=center][/align]
[align=center]Detail of stone with precisely cut straight line and precision 6mm drilled holes within the line[/align]

The largest of these stone blocks is 7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide, averages 1.07 meters thick, and is estimated to weigh about 131 metric tons. The second largest stone block found within the Pumapunka is 7.90 meters long, 2.50 meters wide, and averages 1.86 meters thick. Its weight has been estimated to be 85.21 metric tons. Both of these stone blocks are part of the Plataforma Lítica and composed of red sandstone. Based upon detailed petrographic and chemical analyses of samples from both individual stones and known quarry sites, archaeologists concluded that these and other red sandstone blocks were transported up a steep incline from a quarry near Lake Titicaca roughly 10 km away. Smaller andesite blocks that were used for stone facing and carvings came from quarries within the Copacabana Peninsula about 90 km away from and across Lake Titicaca from the Pumapunka and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site.

Archaeologists argue that the transport of these stones was accomplished by the large labor force of ancient Tiwanaku. Several theories have been proposed as to how this labor force transported the stones although these theories remain speculative. Two of the more common proposals involve the use of llama skin ropes and the use of ramps and inclined planes.

In assembling the walls of Pumapunku, each stone was finely cut to interlock with the surrounding stones and the blocks fit together like a puzzle, forming load-bearing joints without the use of mortar. One common engineering technique involves cutting the top of the lower stone at a certain angle, and placing another stone on top of it which was cut at the same angle. The precision with which these angles have been utilized to create flush joints is indicative of a highly sophisticated knowledge of stone-cutting and a thorough understanding of descriptive geometry. Many of the joints are so precise that not even a razor blade will fit between the stones. Much of the masonry is characterized by accurately cut rectilinear blocks of such uniformity that they could be interchanged for one another while maintaining a level surface and even joints. The blocks were so precisely cut as to suggest the possibility of prefabrication and mass production, technologies far in advance of the Tiwanaku’s Incan successors hundreds of years later. Tiwanaku engineers were also adept at developing a civic infrastructure at this complex, constructing functional irrigation systems, hydraulic mechanisms, and waterproof sewage lines.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

Sound familiar? Funny how all these similar highly-advanced high-precision megaliths structures can be found all over the globe. Nevermind that nobody really knows how they were all done.

Must be nice to be an archaeologist and not ever needing to explain so many megalith similarities across the Earth's surface.

[MediumTex]

Gumby,

Why would archeologists not want to find the truth behind ancient civilizations?

I'm the one who mentioned aliens, but I don't think it's as dumb as it sounds.  If we are suggesting that no known explanation accounts for what we see in these historical structures, then we have to expand the realm of possibilities, and it's reasonable to consider that technology that has no apparent origin on earth could have been provided by beings from somewhere else.

Do any of the people commenting on the fit and finish of the pyramids touch on the pyramid-as-power-generation-device idea you posted about a while back?

[l82start]

wouldn't microscopic analysis of the cuts give some understanding of the tools used??  i don't quite see why its such a mystery? stone tools leave one kind of mark metal tools another, even cuts made with water jets leave tel-tail signs of how the cut was done...

[Gumby]

Why would archeologists not want to find the truth behind ancient civilizations?

I dunno. Probably ridicule from their peers.

If you look at the Colossi of Memnon, those are the heaviest transported statues on the planet.

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

Each statue weighs 720 tons and is 60 ft high. Each was transported 420 miles from el-Gabal el-Ahmar (near modern-day Cairo) to Thebes, Egypt over land, without using the Nile. It seems like an impossible feat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossi_of_Memnon

If you want to have a full-time job as an archaeologist — with funding — you better come up with a rope-and-camel system to explain how the statues were quarried, and dragged 420 miles by land and raised upright without help from a more advanced civilization.

I'm the one who mentioned aliens, but I don't think it's as dumb as it sounds.

I agree. When I say an early, highly advanced, civilization, I'm not ruling out aliens. I was just referring to the thesis in that movie, which mentions some early and highly advanced civilization as a possibility.

If we are suggesting that no known explanation accounts for what we see in these historical structures, then we have to expand the realm of possibilities, and it's reasonable to consider that technology that has no apparent origin on earth could have been provided by beings from somewhere else.

I agree with that premise.

Do any of the people commenting on the fit and finish of the pyramids touch on the pyramid-as-power-generation-device idea you posted about a while back?

Not that I'm aware of. The reason why I haven't pushed the discussion in that direction is because the documentary — apparently much like Fingerprints of the Gods — looks at the facts and simply wonders what could possibly have built these very similar and advanced megalithic structures in a perfect circle across the planet.

[Tortoise]

There's an inscription above Khufu's burial chamber that directly identifies the pyramid as being Khufu's.  The workers themselves left writing throughout the pyramids, in one case charmingly identifying themselves as "the Friends of Khufu gang".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/wh ... amids.html

Tantalizingly, robotic cameras have recently uncovered additional hieroglyphs in the pyramid's shafts.

http://news.discovery.com/history/pyram ... 10526.html

The inscription of Khufu's name above the "burial chamber" is discussed by Graham Hancock in Fingerprints of the Gods. He explains a few reasons why he seriously doubts the authenticity of those inscriptions. The more recent hieroglyphs discovered by the robotic cameras are pretty interesting, though.

Even if that recently discovered handful of hieroglyphs is genuine, the three Great Pyramids still stand in stark contrast to the other pyramids and temples in the region by having either a complete lack of--or at least extreme dearth of--writings or inscriptions of any kind.

I recently watched The Revelation of the Pyramids, a documentary now available on YouTube.

[align=center][/align]

It's hard not to be a believer after watching that movie.

Very cool documentary, Gumby! Thanks for the link.

The question has come up more than once in this thread: where is the rest of the archaeological evidence of an ancient, highly advanced civilization? Why did they apparently leave behind only a relative handful of massive stone structures in various parts of the world and little else--no tools, no equipment, no strange technological devices or exotic materials? I've been thinking a lot about this. The idea that it's all buried under two miles of ice in Antarctica may be possible, but I admit it may also be a bit of a cop-out... a little too convenient.

Maybe the answer to the question is simpler than we think. Over tens of thousands of years, what truly lasts? What isn't carried away by looters and treasure hunters? What holds up under rain, snow, hail, wind, sandstorms, floods, and earthquakes? What doesn't disintegrate into dust under Mother Nature's incessant bombardment of the elements... year after year after year after year after year...?

Stone. Gigantic, immovable slabs of solid stone.

If you had advanced construction technology and a lot of resources and wanted to deliver an important message to future generations tens of thousands of years hence by building a man-made structure that would last virtually forever, what material would you build the structure with? Metal? Plastic? Glass? Styrofoam? No way--not unless you want to be forgotten in a few thousand years. You build your structure out of stone.

And would you build just one structure? No, because that would be putting all of your eggs in one basket. (We PermPort investors know better than that!) A local disaster could level it. So you'd build several such structures--maybe even dozens of them. And you wouldn't build all of them in one geographic region, or even all on the same continent. No, you'd separate the structures as widely as humanly possible, building them all over the world to maximize the chance that at least some of them would stand the test of time and convey your critical message to future generations.

Isn't that basically what we have today: Various massive stone structures widely scattered around the globe, seemingly built to last for a virtual eternity (and sharing some common fingerprints such as cyclopean masonry, astronomical alignments, and uncanny mathematical relationships in the structures' dimensions)?

[FarmerD]

wouldn't microscopic analysis of the cuts give some understanding of the tools used??  i don't quite see why its such a mystery? stone tools leave one kind of mark metal tools another, even cuts made with water jets leave tel-tail signs of how the cut was done...

One of the earliest Egyptologists Flinders Petrie did perform extensive analsis of stone work cut marks in Egypt and concluded huge diamond tipped saws were used.  Engineer Christopher Dunn has expanded upon Petrie's work.  Both concluded modern stonework cutting tools were used.  Dunn also feels ultasonic machining was used?!?!

http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advan ... ining.html

 

[Gosso]

Tortoise,

Is it also possible that the survivors of the "advanced civilization" could have destroyed their own tools and technology?  There may have been a period of time when law and order was degrading, and they feared the technology would fall into the wrong hands.  Think of the scientists that worked on the Manhatten Project -- I'd bet most of them wish they could have stopped or destroyed that project.

[l82start]

wouldn't microscopic analysis of the cuts give some understanding of the tools used??  i don't quite see why its such a mystery? stone tools leave one kind of mark metal tools another, even cuts made with water jets leave tel-tail signs of how the cut was done...

One of the earliest Egyptologists Flinders Petrie did perform extensive analsis of stone work cut marks in Egypt and concluded huge diamond tipped saws were used.  Engineer Christopher Dunn has expanded upon Petrie's work.  Both concluded modern stonework cutting tools were used.  Dunn also feels ultasonic machining was used?!?!

http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advan ... ining.html

 

  interesting.. it makes me wonder if doing detailed analysis of tool marks that lead to "other than primitive culture "  conclusions might be to "out of the box" for academic archeology,  it seems a bit anti science, but academic circles have there own versions of PC and orthodoxy. i wonder what conclusions a unrestrained and in depth study would find.. the guy in the link you provided seems to have convincing evidence to warrant taking such a unrestrained and in depth look...

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,

Is it also possible that the survivors of the "advanced civilization" could have destroyed their own tools and technology?  There may have been a period of time when law and order was degrading, and they feared the technology would fall into the wrong hands.  Think of the scientists that worked on the Manhatten Project -- I'd bet most of them wish they could have stopped or destroyed that project.

That might make sense if they were trying to prevent particularly dangerous devices, such as atomic bombs, from falling into the wrong hands. But for less dangerous technologies--for example, construction equipment--I wouldn't think so.

It may be that it's just easy for most of us to vastly underestimate the earth's ability to swallow up or disintegrate most materials over several thousand years.

Here's a question: If everyone alive today were suddenly to drop dead tomorrow--leaving all physical structures intact--what evidence would remain of our global civilization in 10,000-20,000 years? Would people find houses, cars, appliances, utensils, machines, shopping malls, freeways, or landfills?

Maybe, but somehow I doubt it. 10,000-20,000 years is a long time. Any of those things I just mentioned that didn't completely disintegrate or erode away over those millennia would probably be deeply buried beneath the ever-shifting surface of the earth, completely inaccessible to all but the most intensive, targeted archaeological digs.

The only signs of our civilization in that far distant future would probably be any extremely large, earthquake-proof stone structures we built or carved. And I'm honestly not sure how earthquake-proof most of our stone and concrete structures really are. Even the ones we design to withstand "The Big One" might very well not withstand "The Really Big One"--which, over 10,000-20,000 years, is probably bound to happen at least once or twice. And that's assuming no floods, Ice Age glacier movements, or other cataclysms wipe those structures off the face of the earth.

[smurff]

In 10,000 years someone would probably find stash of investment books, including a copy of one of Harry Browne's books on the Permanent Portfolio, all printed on acid-free paper, all hidden in a desert cave by a prepper.

[Gumby]

Our next stop on the Earth's circle of megaliths is Ollantaytambo in the Sacred Valley of the Incas, Peru. Again, this is the same circle that lines up perfectly with Easter Island, Giza and 14 other megalith sites that form a perfect circumference around the world.

Here is the Wall of Six Monoliths, composed of six enormous blocks of pink rhyolite:

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

“The gigantic stone blocks are from eleven to almost fourteen feet high, average six or more feet in width, and vary in thickness from about three to over six feet.”? “…some weighing up to 250 tons.”? “…the giant stone blocks were quarried on the mountain on the opposite side of the valley. The heavy blocks of red granite, after they had been quarried, hewed, and shaped, were then transported from the mountainside, across two streams, and up to the Ollantaytambo site, carefully raised, put precisely in place, and finally fused together.”? (Sitchin, 1990).

Notice the phrase "fused together".

Here are some other photos from Ollantaytambo. Notice how similar the precision of the stone cutting and joint matching is to the other megalith sites in that perfect circle around the world. Look familiar??

[align=center][/align][align=center](Click for detailed view)[/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center]
Ollantaytambo by b00nj[/align]

[align=center]
Ollantaytambo by b00nj[/align]

[align=center]
Ollantaytambo by krs10ellington[/align]

[align=center]
Ollantaytambo by krs10ellington[/align]

Here is one of the quarries for Ollantaytambo. It is located a few kilometers away from Ollantaytambo.

[align=center]
Ollantaytambo by b00nj[/align]

And check this out... Nobody can explain how huge blocks of Andesite were sliced right out of the side of the mountain. Andesite is a very hard rock — not too many tools can easily cut through it (let alone behind it).

[align=center][/align]

How did they cut the backside and bottom of the Andesite blocks?? It's nearly impossible.

"How were such titanic blocks of stone brought to the top of the mountain from the quarries many miles away? How were they cut and fitted? How were they raised and put in place? Now one knows, no one can even guess. There are archaeologists, scientists, who would have us believe that the dense, hard andesite rock was cut, surfaced and faced by means of stone or bronze tools. Such an explanation is so utterly preposterous that it is not even worthy of serious consideration. No one ever has found anywhere any stone tool or implement that would cut or chip the andesite, and no bronze ever made or will make any impression upon it."
A. Hyatt & Ruth Verrill — America's Ancient Civilizations

[MediumTex]

Here's a question: If everyone alive today were suddenly to drop dead tomorrow--leaving all physical structures intact--what evidence would remain of our global civilization in 10,000-20,000 years? Would people find houses, cars, appliances, utensils, machines, shopping malls, freeways, or landfills?

Maybe, but somehow I doubt it. 10,000-20,000 years is a long time. Any of those things I just mentioned that didn't completely disintegrate or erode away over those millennia would probably be deeply buried beneath the ever-shifting surface of the earth, completely inaccessible to all but the most intensive, targeted archaeological digs.

The only signs of our civilization in that far distant future would probably be any extremely large, earthquake-proof stone structures we built or carved. And I'm honestly not sure how earthquake-proof most of our stone and concrete structures really are. Even the ones we design to withstand "The Big One" might very well not withstand "The Really Big One"--which, over 10,000-20,000 years, is probably bound to happen at least once or twice. And that's assuming no floods, Ice Age glacier movements, or other cataclysms wipe those structures off the face of the earth.

Our nuclear power plants will provide plenty of evidence of our civilization to future archeologists.

A monument like Mount Rushmore will also probably be around for a while.

[Lone Wolf]

Here's a question: If everyone alive today were suddenly to drop dead tomorrow--leaving all physical structures intact--what evidence would remain of our global civilization in 10,000-20,000 years? Would people find houses, cars, appliances, utensils, machines, shopping malls, freeways, or landfills?

Human civilization is so vastly spread and the amount off stuff that it produces so great that it's inconceivable that all traces would be removed in such a brief span of time.  Even paleolithic cultures, as sparse as they were, left a lot of evidence behind.

One nice example is the statuette Venus of Willendorf.  That's about 25,000 years old.  More primitive artifacts like stone scrapers and pounders have been found that are more like 2 million years old.

We now have many orders of magnitude more people and we produce a lot of stuff.  There will be plenty left in 20,000 years.

The question you're asking is still a profound one.  While an advanced, curious civilization would be sure to find a great deal of our garbage, stonework, and\or road system, what message, if any, will we leave behind?  This is what the Clock of the Long Now project is about.  (This is a huge clock buried in a mountainside, currently under construction, designed to chime once a year for at least 10,000 years.)

The odds that there was an extremely advanced civilization out there that failed to leave any trace are very small.  The notion of an "Atlantean" continent migrating southward to become Antarctica, is actually even more far-fetched though.  Antarctica has been covered by ice for 100,000 years at a minimum.

The important thing to realize about pseudoarchaeologists, mediums, psychics, ghost-hunters, fortune-tellers, etc. is that they are simply entertainers.  Their job is to weave a good yarn, make the most bombastic claims possible, sell a lot of books, and collect a bunch of money.  That's what a good entertainer (rather than a good educator) does.  It's not in their interest to be rigorous or factual and it's certainly not in their interest to seek peer review or feedback from experts that have studied the real evidence from the time periods or areas of study in question.

This stuff makes for great historical fiction.  I'd just say don't take it any more seriously than you would the supposed "Fibonacci" patterns that Harry Browne laughed at in his radio shows.  For learning about things as they truly are, science and rigor are still the only game in town.  A great book on this subject is Carl Sagan's wonderful "The Demon-Haunted World".

[Lone Wolf]

Our next stop on the Earth's circle of megaliths is Ollantaytambo in the Sacred Valley of the Incas, Peru. Again, this is the same circle that lines up perfectly with Easter Island, Giza and 14 other megalith sites that form a perfect circumference around the world.

Thank you for posting these beautiful pictures.  I love them.

Having said that, I think you're vastly underestimating the talent of the Inca masons.  Remember that these South American natives were brilliant people, not mouth-breathing pseudo-savages.  They lived in a region rife with earthquakes and developed extremely thorough, earthquake-resistant masonry.  To get things right, they repeatedly (and tediously) raised and lowered these stones, gradually carving down the lower rock until the fit was flawless.  I'm in awe of the quality of their work.

Can you post a rigorous, replicable analysis of this "megalithic circle" claim?  I'm very skeptical that this will hold up to any reasonable degree of precision.  How many megalithic sites were excluded?  Has the claim been peer-reviewed?

[MediumTex]

The question you're asking is still a profound one.  While an advanced, curious civilization would be sure to find a great deal of our garbage, stonework, and\or road system, what message, if any, will we leave behind? 

I suspect that the nuclear power plants alone will leave a message along the lines of:



The fact that we blew through our one-time allotment of fossil fuels in a couple of centuries will probably also reinforce this message to future archeologists.

If you want a good laugh, check out the hubris on display in the EPA's Yucca Mountain guidelines.

What will the specific standards cover?

EPA issued the final Yucca Mountain standards in June 2001, as 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 197 (PDF) . In developing the standards, EPA considered a large volume of technical information. It also considered discussions with key stakeholders and numerous comments received on a draft version of the standards, which was published for public comment. As a result of a July 2004 ruling by the  US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , EPA, following careful consideration of public comments, amended the standards to provide the following:
   

• extending coverage beyond 10,000 years to peak dose (out to 1 million years)
• establishing a dose rate limit for the post-10,000-year period (100 mrem/yr)
• providing guidance for implementing the standards.

If there is an Ozymandias of our time, it is surely in the form of agencies like the EPA making plans for 10,000+ years from now.

[Gumby]

Human civilization is so vastly spread and the amount off stuff that it produces so great that it's inconceivable that all traces would be removed in such a brief span of time.  Even paleolithic cultures, as sparse as they were, left a lot of evidence behind.

Except you're forgetting one minor detail...

To date, we have explored less than five percent of the ocean

The ocean is the lifeblood of Earth, covering more than 70 percent of the planet's surface, driving weather, regulating temperature, and ultimately supporting all living organisms. Throughout history, the ocean has been a vital source of sustenance, transport, commerce, growth, and inspiration.

Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes.

NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research is leading efforts to explore the ocean by supporting expeditions to investigate and document unknown and poorly known areas of the ocean. These expeditions represent a bold and innovative approach by infusing teams of scientist-explorers with a "Lewis and Clark" spirit of discovery and equipping them with the latest exploration tools.

From mapping and describing the physical, biological, geological, chemical, and archaeological aspects of the ocean to understanding ocean dynamics, developing new technologies, and helping us all unlock the secrets of the ocean, NOAA is working to increase our understanding of the ocean realm.

Source: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

In other words, the overwhelming majority of our planet remains unexplored.

People spend their entire lives looking for "known" shipwrecks on the ocean floor. What makes you think they'll be able to find the "traces" of a buried ancient civilization that may very well be under water?

The important thing to realize about pseudoarchaeologists, mediums, psychics, ghost-hunters, fortune-tellers, etc. is that they are simply entertainers.  Their job is to weave a good yarn, make the most bombastic claims possible, sell a lot of books, and collect a bunch of money.  That's what a good entertainer (rather than a good educator) does.  It's not in their interest to be rigorous or factual and it's certainly not in their interest to seek peer review or feedback from experts that have studied the real evidence from the time periods or areas of study in question.

This idea that "experts" are any better at discovering the truth is flawed.

See:

How to use experts — and when not to: Noreena Hertz

"We make important decisions every day — and we often rely on experts to help us decide. But, says economist Noreena Hertz, relying too much on experts can be limiting and even dangerous"

Archaeologists have little incentive to consider hypotheses that would invalidate their own life's work. They are restricted by a very narrow interpretation — mainly what they can physically find. I suspect that if an archaeologist discovered my home 10,000 years from now, there would be little left — particularly if it was looted. Then the archaeologists might find my hammer, wrench, a saw, nails, a painting of farmers harvesting wheat, and some kitchen knives (if they were lucky) and they would have to assume that I built my house for farming and using only those simple tools. Nevermind that the people who made my house, and their machines, don't live anywhere near me and I don't even know them. The thing about archaeologist is that they make very good localized explanations. But, they don't even try to explain "coincidences" that appear around the world (even if they line up in a circle).

The fact is that the archaeologists also have books to write and money to collect from their own foundations and sponsors. They have no incentive to consider alternative explanations that would invalidate their work. So, they get a bunch of people together to show how things might have been done thousands of years ago...

[align=center][/align]

...and they fail miserably. Unable to drill a hole more than a few inches or struggling to lift something more than a few yards after many days of work — all while claiming validation to support their life's work. But, it's all guess work. It's just as flawed to believe their "expert" "peer reviewed" guesswork than it is to believe an alternative explanation.

This stuff makes for great historical fiction.  I'd just say don't take it any more seriously than you would the supposed "Fibonacci" patterns that Harry Browne laughed at in his radio shows.

Except Harry Browne also says that most of the "gurus" are also full of baloney. Sometimes it can be a dangerous thing to put all of your faith in the ideas of so-called "experts." Peer-reviewed ideas and theories may be the best we can do, but that doesn't make them correct.

[Gumby]

I think you're vastly underestimating the talent of the Inca masons.

Have you met any Inca masons? How do we know that the Incas didn't inherit complex structures or build upon them? Why does the earthquake-proof Inca masonry match up with the earthquake-proof masonry on Easter Island and Egypt? Please ask those Inca masons the next time you talk to one.

Remember that these South American natives were brilliant people, not mouth-breathing pseudo-savages.  They lived in a region rife with earthquakes and developed extremely thorough, earthquake-resistant masonry.  To get things right, they repeatedly (and tediously) raised and lowered these stones, gradually carving down the lower rock until the fit was flawless.  I'm in awe of the quality of their work.

And they likely had help when it came time to precisely cut massive Andesite blocks out of the side of mountains. Nobody knows how to do that today without massive machines.

Can you post a rigorous, replicable analysis of this "megalithic circle" claim?  I'm very skeptical that this will hold up to any reasonable degree of precision.

There is currently only one person, that I know of, who is looking into these geodetic relationships today.

See: http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/

Notice that this Great Circle is precisely splitting the Earth into two sections? It's not just a line across a part of the Earth. It's a complete tilted Equator — splitting the Earth into two precise halves. Why is there so much in common between these sites?

[align=center][/align]

Why aren't more people looking into this? The answer is that if there was indeed something to this, it would invalidate much of their work and career.

How many megalithic sites were excluded?

See for yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... _the_world

Many of the most well-known monoliths are within a degree of this circle. Other monoliths may be part of other symbolic alignments. It would be easy to dismiss if it weren't for the fact that many of these megalith sites employ the same exact construction techniques.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/constru ... niques.htm

Has the claim been peer-reviewed?

No. Nor would I expect it to be. Anyone respectable archaeologist or Egyptologist who peer-reviewed this would likely invalidate their own work if a connection was found between all of these cultures. Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is always dismissed, despite the overwhelming coincidences and hard evidence that keeps popping up...

Here is a very long list of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuente_Magna

...The more you look into these issues, the more questions (and less answers) you find.

[Lone Wolf]

This idea that "experts" are any better at discovering the truth is flawed.

Do you have an example of the claims of pseudoarchaeologists (or mediums, psychics, ghost-hunters, fortune-tellers) that have turned out to be actually, provably true?  Or would hold up in any way to rigorous, skeptical analysis?  What percentage of solid facts would you say have been discovered by scholars and experts vs. authors of popular pseudoscience?

Archaeologists have little incentive to consider hypotheses that would invalidate their own life's work. They are restricted by a very narrow interpretation — mainly what they can physically find.

If you mean that they restrict their conclusions to what can be shown by some sort of evidence, I'd call this a "feature" rather than a "bug".  Drawing conclusions without evidence (or even in opposition to available evidence) is "for entertainment purposes only".    If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is of no scientific value.

So, they get a bunch of people together to show how things might have been done thousands of years ago...and they fail miserably. Unable to drill a hole more than a few inches or struggling to lift something more than a few yards after many days of work — all while claiming validation to support their life's work.

I'm not sure I understand your point here with this image.  This is a picture of a very small team of men easily and successfully moving a (modest) 1.5 ton block of stone.  The program goes into precise estimates of what a construction project like the Great Pyramid would entail and just how feasible the task was for the ancient Egyptians:

(The construction firm DMJM) contacted me and other Egyptologists, and we gave them some references. Here's what we know about their tools, the inclined plane, the lever, and so on. And without any secret sophistication or hidden technology, just basically what archeologists say, this is what these folks had. DMJM came up with (an estimate that) 4,000 to 5,000 men could build the Great Pyramid within a 20- to 40-year period. They have very specific calculations on every single aspect, from the gravel for the ramps to baking the bread.
...
I throw that out there, not because that's gospel truth, but because reasoned construction engineers, who plan great projects like bridges and buildings and earthworks today, look at the Great Pyramid and don't opt out for lost civilizations, extraterrestrials, or hidden technologies. No, they say it's a very impressive job, extraordinary for the people who lived then and there, but it could be done. They are human monuments.

[dualstow]

Soundtrack for this thread. : - )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu-hm5uQNZg

[Gumby]

This idea that "experts" are any better at discovering the truth is flawed.

Do you have an example of the claims of pseudoarchaeologists (or mediums, psychics, ghost-hunters, fortune-tellers) that have turned out to be actually, provably true?  Or would hold up in any way to rigorous, skeptical analysis?  What percentage of solid facts would you say have been discovered by scholars and experts vs. authors of popular pseudoscience?

We aren't talking about mediums, psychics, ghost-hunters, fortune-tellers here. Not sure why you would bring that up. We are talking about recognizing the fact that there are extremely similar architectural megaliths and extremely highly-advanced technological similarities that physically line up across the globe...and recognizing that experts have no meaningful explanation for it. That's hardly fortune telling. It's having questions and getting no genuine answers from experts.

If you mean that they restrict their conclusions to what can be shown by some sort of evidence, I'd call this a "feature" rather than a "bug".  Drawing conclusions without evidence (or even in opposition to available evidence) is "for entertainment purposes only".  :)  If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is of no scientific value.

Totally wrong. Scientists are constantly coming up with unprovable theories. Scientists have theories about what happens inside a black hole, for instance, or what caused the Big Bang. There is no way to know these things for certain. Is that fortune telling or psychic visions? No, of course not.

This is a picture of a very small team of men easily and successfully moving a (modest) 1.5 ton block of stone.  The program goes into precise estimates of what a construction project like the Great Pyramid would entail and just how feasible the task was for the ancient Egyptians

Easily? I don't think so. The team took modern short cuts — such as using a front-end loader to haul and place most of the stones, monitoring work with leveling devices — and they weren't able to reproduce anything even remotely close to the precision of the pyramids — despite working on such a small scale and taking weeks to finish. It was embarrassing.

From the NOVA transcript:

NARRATOR: Because the casing stones need to be placed very precisely, Roger wants to lower these blocks into position with his front-end loader, but Mark is insisting on ancient methods. As the cornerstone is dragged in, it dislodges the baseline string.

ROGER HOPKINS: I didn't want to set it this way, remember that. It was much easier just to come in and set it down where it's supposed to be. I've got to reestablish that line all the way from my north-south line again in order to find this line.

MARK LEHNER: Right now, we don't know where the corner is. It could be anywhere in this whole area, right around in here, because this thing is bent all. . .

NARRATOR: Up on the plateau, the ancient pyramid builders didn't have this problem. They engraved permanent reference lines in the stone foundation.

DAVE GOODMAN: That's good!

NARRATOR: And working on a hard surface also enabled the giant blocks to be positioned with amazing precision.

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, 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.

MARK LEHNER: But, you've got it now as fine as you're going to get it. You're not going to get. . .

ROGER HOPKINS: Well, you know. I mean, we've got other fish to fry here.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcript ... ramid.html

Even working on such a small scale, and with modern aides, the archaeologists were unable to reproduce the precise building techniques of the pyramid and other megalith structures found around the world. And, honestly, they seemed uninterested in doing so.