Gyroscopic Investing

What if the similarities among the monuments are a result of them all being built by the same species?

Maybe we have something in our genetic structure that makes certain shapes and scales more pleasing than others.

When humans are provided with a certain amount of surplus production, maybe they just have a tendency to build tall things.  In a world without steel or skyscraper engineering technology, materials and tools, maybe a pyramid shape is simply the best way to build a tall monument.

The trouble I am having with the unknown prehistoric advanced civilization thesis is that there doesn't appear to be any evidence for it other than advanced construction techniques that seem too advanced for what we know of the cultures that supposedly built them.

But didn't the central and south American cultures that were supposed to have built the step pyramids also come up with very complex astronomy?  Didn't they come up with that crazy Mayan symbols-based language that suggests a very advanced form of communication and recordkeeping?

If you look at the subtlety of thought and insight in Archimedes' discoveries from 2000 years ago, what's to say that other ancient engineers didn't come up with similarly ingenious uses of levers and other simple tools?

I wonder if there are any mainstream archeologists who have gone from the traditional understandings of the pyramids' history over to this "more ancient civilization" thesis.  If the storyline is that compelling, I would think there would be at least one such person.

One can't deny that these alternative narratives of history are presented as entertainment more than scholarship, right?  I'm not saying that makes them more likely to be right or wrong, but making a movie for purposes of entertainment follows a different set of reasoning processes than a journal article that will be subject to peer review.

I'm not so sure the "coincidence" explanation holds much water. Besides, those construction techniques are what you would do to make something Earthquake-proof. It's unlikely that all these cultures came to the same exact conclusion for solving a very difficult problem. And the similarities of astronomy and hieroglyphics makes them all seem like they all had a common teacher or somehow coordinated with each other.

The archaeologists really seem to be completely baffled by the precision of these structures around the world. And nobody wants to talk about how many of them line up in an Equatorial-style circle that intersects with the Giza pyramid. Again, nobody has a plausible explanation for that.

When the NOVA archaeologists failed at making a pyramid the way they claim they were made, Hopkins summed it up by saying...

MARK LEHNER: Do you think they could build the real thing in twenty years?

ROGER HOPKINS: I think they could have, you know? What I've seen here is just absolutely amazing. I found that my masons, my quarry men, and my stone setters were all fairly accomplished, very good craftsmen. Shouldn't have come as a surprise; they had such a long history of thousands of years doing this. When I look at the Great Pyramid, the marvel there for me is not the stonework as much as the level of organization that these ancient Egyptians had, getting their society to pull together in such a way that they not only had blocks of stone, but bread on the table.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcript ... ramid.html

In other words, the archaeologists don't really care to explain the precision of megalith structures — particularly when nobody knows how to reproduce it today.

MediumTex wrote:I wonder if there are any mainstream archeologists who have gone from the traditional understandings of the pyramids' history over to this "more ancient civilization" thesis.  If the storyline is that compelling, I would think there would be at least one such person.

That would be like Larry Swedroe spending time learning about the Permanent Portfolio. His career's work depends on him not understanding it.

Gumby wrote: We aren't talking about mediums, psychics, ghost-hunters, fortune-tellers here. Not sure why you would bring that up.

The "psychic" Edgar Cayce was one of the first purveyors of the nonsense linking the Pyramid to the legendary Atlantis.  It was Cayce that claimed there was an "Atlantean Hall of Records" buried somewhere near the sphinx.  (Edit: I assume that you don't believe this claim, but if you do I'd rather not know this about you.)

Gumby wrote: In other words, the archaeologists don't really care to explain the precision of megalith structures — particularly when nobody knows how to reproduce it today.

You keep asserting this but I am baffled as to what it is you think was beyond the capabilities of humans from this time period.  Remember -- these are not apes or lesser beings, but actual people that had simply acquired less technology than humans of today.  They had fully functional brains and thought up things that would amaze you.

What is it you believe that they had absolutely no way of doing?  Specifically.  Preferably something measurable like "no way can they people lift a bunch of 2.5 ton stones up so high".

There's great video of a retired carpenter from Michigan showing off a variety of ways to move extremely heavy weights, all completely compatible with ancient technology.

Here he is showing off a variety of locomotion and turning mechanisms, including raising a 19,000 pound block (nearly 10 tons) by himself using simple tech completely within reach of the Egyptians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4

Do you believe that the intellect of this retired carpenter in Flint, Michigan is completely unique throughout human history?  Or is he just one more clever, curious human like the many that came before him?  What specifically makes your historical worldview require the bizarre addition of these aliens \ Atlanteans?

MediumTex wrote: I wonder if there are any mainstream archeologists who have gone from the traditional understandings of the pyramids' history over to this "more ancient civilization" thesis.  If the storyline is that compelling, I would think there would be at least one such person.

Interestingly, at least one person went the other way.  Mark Lehner was an Edgar Cayce devotee who went to Egypt hoping to substantiate Cayce's claims.  In the end, he discovered that they were all bunk and he became a real Egyptologist.  He said: "I no longer believe in [Edgar] Cayce's theories. Now that I've studied Egyptology I can see strong evidence proving the Sphinx was a creation of the fourth dynasty [about 2500 BC] and not 10,000 years old as Cayce said."

Lone Wolf wrote: What is it you believe that they had absolutely no way of doing?  Specifically.  Preferably something measurable like "no way can they people lift a bunch of 2.5 ton stones up so high".

How about the string of monuments around the equator?

That's a sort of interesting pattern.

Lone Wolf wrote:The "psychic" Edgar Cayce was one of the first purveyors of the nonsense linking the Pyramid to the legendary Atlantis.  It was Cayce that claimed there was an "Atlantean Hall of Records" buried somewhere near the sphinx.  (Edit: I assume that you don't believe this claim, but if you do I'd rather not know this about you.)

Nope. Don't believe in psychics. All I'm saying is that archaeologists have done a very poor job at explaining how similarly constructed megalith structures, all over the world, are dragged (sometimes hundreds of miles), fused together precisely, and form a perfect circle that spans the globe and splits it into two equal halves. You haven't done a very good job explaining it either!

Lone Wolf wrote:There's great video of a retired carpenter from Michigan showing off a variety of ways to move extremely heavy weights, all completely compatible with ancient technology.

That was pretty cool. Thanks for sharing. But, it still doesn't explain the Great Circle of well known megaliths.

Lone Wolf wrote:Do you believe that the intellect of this retired carpenter in Flint, Michigan is completely unique throughout human history?  Or is he just one more clever, curious human like the many that came before him?

The man in that video didn't carve a 90 ton andesite stone out of a mountain side quarry. Can you explain how the Incas did this with little saws and handfuls of sand?...

[align=center][/align]

...How did they slice behind the blocks?

Lone Wolf wrote:What specifically makes your historical worldview require the bizarre addition of these aliens \ Atlanteans?

All I'm saying is that archaeologists haven't explained why megaliths are perfectly fused together — all with precision earthquake-proof designs — in a great equatorial-style circle around the Earth. It's a mystery. And, again, you haven't explained it either. What else can I tell you? I'm not saying that aliens or Atlanteans have to exist. I'm just saying that it seems a bit narrow-minded to rule them out entirely — particularly when modern archaeologists still can't replicate precise pyramid building even with modern assistance.

this talk of ancient mystery's, and lone wolfs link about the block mover led me to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15_DQUm ... re=related its been a while since i had heard any thing about this place, its modern but in some ways just as mysterious as Egyptian monuments...

(BTW there are some far out theory's in this video)

Gumby wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:Do you believe that the intellect of this retired carpenter in Flint, Michigan is completely unique throughout human history?  Or is he just one more clever, curious human like the many that came before him?

The man in that video didn't carve a 90 ton andesite stone out of a mountain side quarry. Can you explain how the Incas did this with little saws and handfuls of sand?...

[align=center][/align]

...How did they slice behind the blocks?

Well, we don't know that blocks came out of those spaces, do we?  All we know is the shape of the space that was left behind.  They could have been carving an art nook and what came out of those spaces could have been in the form of little chips of stone, right?

Lone Wolf wrote:What specifically makes your historical worldview require the bizarre addition of these aliens \ Atlanteans?

All I'm saying is that archaeologists haven't explained why megaliths are perfectly fused together — all with precision earthquake-proof designs — in a great equatorial-style circle around the Earth. It's a mystery. And, again, you haven't explained it either. What else can I tell you? I'm not saying that aliens or Atlanteans have to exist. I'm just saying that it seems a bit narrow-minded to rule them out entirely — particularly when modern archaeologists still can't replicate precise pyramid building even with modern assistance.

Maybe part of the reason we can't replicate it today is because craftsmen today haven't grown up in the world of ancient Egypt with all of their customs, practices and unique approach to engineering and building.  However good people today may be with power tools and computer-based design tools, they're just not very skilled in more low-tech approaches to engineering and building.

It seems like in most primitive civilizations, there were skills that took a LONG time to master, whether it was building a fire with two sticks, successfully tracking animals or predicting the movement of stars in the night sky.  It took longer than it does today to master many skills, in part, because you needed more human ingenuity to make up for a lack of technology.  I can almost guarantee that if you took the guys who are doing the experiments in low tech stone cutting, shaping and moving and gave them 10 years to practice exclusively using the tools and techniques from ancient Egypt, when you came back to them 10 years later you would find that they were a LOT better at it.

MediumTex wrote:Well, we don't know that blocks came out of those spaces, do we?  All we know is the shape of the space that was left behind.  They could have been carving an art nook and what came out of those spaces could have been in the form of little chips of stone, right?

Not exactly. Ollantaytambo is comprised of huge Andesite stones. That was a photo from its quarry. Here's another view of one of the quarries...

[align=center][/align]

Ollantaytambo, a Pre-Inca fortress, with rock walls of tightly fitted blocks weighing between 50 and 100 tons each. Most of the blocks consist of a hard andesite, the quarries for which are situated on a mountaintop seven miles distant. As well as the difficulties that must have been experienced in dressing the stones, they had to be lowered down one mountain, over (presumably), a river canyon with 1000 ft sheer rock walls, then raised up the mountain the complex is situated on.
Source: http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/top50stones.htm

See also: http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/peruollantiatambo.htm

Andesite is an incredibly hard rock. Archaeologists have done a poor job of explaining how they were able to slice it and fuse it together.

Here is one theory I was able to find...

http://books.google.com/books?id=JlA7BW ... &q&f=false

...but mysteries still remain even with that explanation.

As I keep saying... Archaeologists have done a very poor job explaining how it was done and why there's a perfect circle of these incredibly similar mysteries splitting the Earth in half. That's all I'm saying.

Gumby wrote:

MediumTex wrote:Well, we don't know that blocks came out of those spaces, do we?  All we know is the shape of the space that was left behind.  They could have been carving an art nook and what came out of those spaces could have been in the form of little chips of stone, right?

Not exactly. Ollantaytambo is comprised of huge Andesite stones. That was a photo from its quarry. Here's another view of one of the quarries...

[align=center][/align]

Sorry, what I meant was that we don't know that blocks came out of those particular empty spots in the rock in the photo you posted where it looks like they would have needed to cut in spaces that would have been near impossible if a block was being removed from the quarry.  It's possible that those cutouts were taken out in small pieces and the sides were smoothed for the removal of the blocks on either side of and below the cutout section. 

All I'm saying is that a block shaped cutout doesn't mean that a block came out of that space.  All it means is that the material that was removed left a block shape behind.

I don't know how they did it, or if someone helped them, or if someone else did it.  It's clearly impressive and hard to explain.

I was thinking that it would have been very hard for certain creatures with very small arms to accomplish these things. 
http://trextrying.tumblr.com/

Gumby wrote:All I'm saying is that archaeologists haven't explained why megaliths are perfectly fused together — all with precision earthquake-proof designs — in a great equatorial-style circle around the Earth.

This was intriguing enough, so I looked at the data.  In the end, I was not very impressed with this claim.  The only source appeared to be: http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/.

Remember that there are an infinite number of possible great circles that you can choose.  A "great circle" is just a line drawn around the Earth that has as its center the center point of the Earth.

By definition any two points on Earth fall on some great circle.  For example, I can draw a great circle that connects the sprawling Lone Wolf Estates to the North Pole.  By choosing these two points, I have made them uninteresting.  The only data that can be interesting are what other points lie on the "great circle" constructed with these points.

Therefore, to examine whether anything amazing is happening, you must "throw out" two points that lie precisely on the great circle.  For this one, I'd treat this as a great circle constructed off of Giza and Easter Island and take it from there.

Once you toss those two points, you are left with a list of 15 points that are supposed to be on or "pretty close" to the original circle.  Of these, only 5 are megalithic or particularly well-known.

Ollantaytambo (Peru, megalithic)
Machupicchu (Peru, A-list megalithic site)
Khajuraho, (India, megalithic)
Persepolis, (Iran, megalithic)
Petra (Jordan, non-megalithic but awesome!  Think "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".)

This leaves us with 4 truly "megalithic" sites, plus Petra, which you pretty much have to count just because it's such an awesome site.  So I'd call 5 out of the 15 remaining points "interesting".  All of the either sites used much more modest brick construction techniques or in some cases, had no construction at all and only consisted of primitive rock art or earth lines, like Nazca.  (A few I hadn't even heard of.)

In a world with nearly 1000 UNESCO heritage sites, this doesn't seem particularly mind-blowing.  Note also that with the exception of Ollantaytambo, none of the megalithic sites listed above lie precisely on the great circle but are rather "pretty close".

So overall, the "great circle" winds up being a lot less amazing than it first appears to be.

Gumby wrote:The man in that video didn't carve a 90 ton andesite stone out of a mountain side quarry. Can you explain how the Incas did this with little saws and handfuls of sand?...

When we're talking about civilizations with written records, we can be fairly certain of never finding a decent instruction manual lying about.    My best guess is chiseling small niches and inserting wooden wedges, then saturating them with water to cause them to expand.  It's well-documented that the Egyptians used this technique.  One thing that the Incas might have been able to also do is freeze them, creating even greater expansion.

Claims that the Egyptians didn't construct their pyramids, though, fly in the face of not only archaeological but written evidence.  I'd have to be a pretty insecure person to draw pictures of me and my Egyptian friends hauling a bunch of stone blocks around in order to take credit for the work of Atlanteans. 

[edit-bad image link]