Al_Fel

Lost ancient high technology. Do you believe?

97 posts in this topic

Simple really, Do you believe the history books or do you think there has been an advanced race that could do things we can't do today. Let's get the ball rolling with the Pyramids. Do you think the Egyptians built the pyramids 5000 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion over close this thread

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. I think we've lost a lot of information over the years and went a long way backwards before progressing again but I don't see why the pyramids couldn't/wouldn't have been made by a lot of slaves over a long period with the help of dudes with very big whips...

When they unearth things like the antikythera mechanism you've got to just wonder how they managed to design something like that, make something like that and then how the hell can you lose that ability for 2000 years. That's a proper facepalm there!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Da Vinci, certainly had his head screwed on and has been suggested that he paved the way for many modern inventions such as the helicopter, which was originally made in the 1940s, yet he had the basic idea in the 15th century amongst other daft inventions., Submarine, telescope to name a few.

He also studied subjects such as astrology before they technically existed. so yes, we have taken a huge step backwards. either people where really smart back in the past, or there was a lot of time traveling bearded men.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This box is what caught my attention to start me off on this subject. It's cut out of one solid piece of granite, the lines are perfectly flat, the corners are square and it has bore holes top and bottom in the opening as if there were doors on it. My questions aren't so much how did they make it but more why did they make it? I'd be interested to see if this could be replicated to the same standard with modern tools and how long it would take. Why would ancient people spend so much time making something like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're interested in stuff like this I'd highly recommend Collapse by Jared Diamond (Y) 

13 hours ago, monkeyseemonkeydo said:

Lol. I think we've lost a lot of information over the years and went a long way backwards before progressing again but I don't see why the pyramids couldn't/wouldn't have been made by a lot of slaves over a long period with the help of dudes with very big whips...

When they unearth things like the antikythera mechanism you've got to just wonder how they managed to design something like that, make something like that and then how the hell can you lose that ability for 2000 years. That's a proper facepalm there!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Al_Fel said:

Why would ancient people spend so much time making something like this?

I think it'd be fair to say that back in the day workers right, HSE and all that jazz wasn't quite the same level as it is now, so if you're a powerful person and you want some people to make some shit, they made it happen :P  I know that's a simplification of it, but all I mean is that I don't think time/cost is really a factor with any artefacts like that.  Especially with Egypt it seems that a lot of their undertakings like that were just vanity projects for powerful people, so getting a bunch of slaves to spend however long it takes shaping a box isn't really a problem.

Took a trip to St.Davids recently, and it looks like a random little Welsh coastal town until you happen to cut down an alley way and see a f**king massive cathedral, alongside the bishop's palace.  It literally comes out of nowhere, and isn't in keeping with any of the other buildings nearby.  They had the power, influence, time and man-power to just make it happen.  

I'm aware that they're at totally different points in history, but my point is that throughout history, if powerful people want to make things happen they can make them happen - time and money doesn't really have to come into it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mark W said:

I think it'd be fair to say that back in the day workers right, HSE and all that jazz wasn't quite the same level as it is now, so if you're a powerful person and you want some people to make some shit, they made it happen :P  I know that's a simplification of it, but all I mean is that I don't think time/cost is really a factor with any artefacts like that.  Especially with Egypt it seems that a lot of their undertakings like that were just vanity projects for powerful people, so getting a bunch of slaves to spend however long it takes shaping a box isn't really a problem.

Took a trip to St.Davids recently, and it looks like a random little Welsh coastal town until you happen to cut down an alley way and see a f**king massive cathedral, alongside the bishop's palace.  It literally comes out of nowhere, and isn't in keeping with any of the other buildings nearby.  They had the power, influence, time and man-power to just make it happen.  

I'm aware that they're at totally different points in history, but my point is that throughout history, if powerful people want to make things happen they can make them happen - time and money doesn't really have to come into it.

A common misconception of the great pyramid of giza was that it was a tomb. That's not the case. It served another purpose that no one actually knows. From what I've seen to me it seems more likely that the Egyptians found the pyramids rather and built them. I think you should let go of what you learnt in school or even history books about the pyramids because that's not the real story.

There's other evidence of civilisations claiming building work that clearly isn't their own. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Proof" seems to be a strong word for what was in that video...?

I'm not just trying to be obtuse or close-minded or anything, that guy didn't really seem to actually offer any real form of proof or actual theory about how they could have come to be?  It seemed to largely just be him saying "These big stones are different to these little stones", and "look at this tightness of fit"?

I'm not saying I've got an explanation for how or why those stones came to be, but then again neither does he from the looks of things (at least he wasn't chatting breeze about anti-gravity lifting pods like people in the comments section though...).

EDIT:  Just to elaborate on it a bit - this is the first time I've really heard of people talking about this concept, so maybe that just wasn't the best first video to watch?  In the comments there were people saying stuff like:

"Clearly the builders somehow made the stone soft and also had anti gravity...looks like lasers were used to cut the stone...the protrusions in some of the stone are from the device they used to make the stone soft...when they pulled the device away from the stone sometimes it caused those protrusions...kind of like the way dough or plasma would react."

That seems quite a leap for me from the basis of that video, so I guess I just don't have the right priming for it or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark W said:

"Proof" seems to be a strong word for what was in that video...?

I'm not just trying to be obtuse or close-minded or anything, that guy didn't really seem to actually offer any real form of proof or actual theory about how they could have come to be?  It seemed to largely just be him saying "These big stones are different to these little stones", and "look at this tightness of fit"?

I'm not saying I've got an explanation for how or why those stones came to be, but then again neither does he from the looks of things (at least he wasn't chatting breeze about anti-gravity lifting pods like people in the comments section though...).

EDIT:  Just to elaborate on it a bit - this is the first time I've really heard of people talking about this concept, so maybe that just wasn't the best first video to watch?  In the comments there were people saying stuff like:

"Clearly the builders somehow made the stone soft and also had anti gravity...looks like lasers were used to cut the stone...the protrusions in some of the stone are from the device they used to make the stone soft...when they pulled the device away from the stone sometimes it caused those protrusions...kind of like the way dough or plasma would react."

That seems quite a leap for me from the basis of that video, so I guess I just don't have the right priming for it or something...

For me that video is proof that there were at least 2 different groups of people working on that structure. Ones that built it with a skill set we don't understand yet and one that patched up what they seemingly found. I'm not saying I've got the answers but I am saying what we are taught in school and in general about these ancient structures isn't right either. There's a lost history to this planet and I think its important to try and understand what went on thousands of years ago.

I don't really read the comments if I'm honest but there's always going to be crazy people saying they know it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Al_Fel said:

A common misconception of the great pyramid of giza was that it was a tomb. That's not the case. It served another purpose that no one actually knows. From what I've seen to me it seems more likely that the Egyptians found the pyramids rather and built them. I think you should let go of what you learnt in school or even history books about the pyramids because that's not the real story.

 

How is it a misconception? It’s a tomb? If no one knows what the other purpose is why do we think there is another purpose? Why is it more likely they “found” them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, marg26 said:

That seems a bit of a leading way to put it?  From the actual paper they wrote:

"While our scenario may naturally explains the peculiar acceleration of ‘Oumuamua, it opens up the question what kind of object might have such a small mass-to-area ratio? The observations are not sufficiently sensitive to provide a resolved image of ‘Oumuamua, and one can only speculate on its possible geometry and nature."

That was them talking about how it could be a random piece of 'something' in space.  At the end they do say:

"If radiation pressure is the accelerating force, then ‘Oumuamua represents a new class of thin  interstellar material, either produced naturally,through a yet unknown process in the ISM or in proto-planetary disks, or of an artificial origin."

...then going on to say:

"Alternatively, a more exotic scenario is that ‘Oumuamua may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth vicinity by an alien civilization."

Within that piece at the end of the paper it gives a slightly different feel to it than the "More evidence it's an alien probe..." line.

1 hour ago, Al_Fel said:

For me that video is proof that there were at least 2 different groups of people working on that structure.

4917131719_5968e4bb94_b.jpg

Looks like there were a few different groups involved in that too?  ;)  I'm being facetious there - all I mean though is that there being two different groups of people working on something doesn't necessarily mean I buy into some of the suggestions from that video.

Again, looking at St. Davids Cathedral, there are super ornate carved stone features in it, but the bulk of the lower sections of wall is just random rubble-like stone thrown together.  There were clearly advanced stone masons/carvers/whateverthey'recalled doing the ornate, decorative work, and there were just randomers putting the lower sections of wall together.

30l.jpg

clock-tower-and-dial-of-st-davids-cathed

DSC09821.jpg

St-Davids-cathedral-75.jpg

St-Davids-cathedral-76.jpg

Again, I know that it's a completely different scenario.  I'm just not really getting where that guy's going with it.  It feels like conjuring up a religion based on the idea that we can't understand how the world has come to be, so there must be some form of God, and then extrapolating who he is from that first idea that doesn't necessarily hold any water.

I'm not disputing that our historical interpretation of it is probably wrong - we'll never really know much of our history, and what we do know is typically distorted to fit the 'right' view on things, but again I don't really see how that guy pointing out that two groups of people worked on something and some rock formations having tight fits is really proof of anything in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your pictures and examples are of examples where the later groups of people working on the site had the more sophisticated technology and skills.

I think Anal's point (and the video's and others like it) is that, in contrast to your pictures and examples, the foundation of the walls/buildings are the seemingly more advanced tech, and the people that later added stuff on top of it appear to have regressed.
Their question being: "Why?"

 

I'm not taking sides on this. Many of them do put forth some compelling arguments. I don't agree with what they claim, but they have raised questions.
If they stopped doing the super flush fit block style walls, there must have been a reason. If it was time/effort/money, then that goes against the "rich people will make it happen" argument.
It's a f**king interesting situation, even if the actual answer turned out to be something mundane like the skilled workers weren't being paid enough so went on a hunger strike and all died having never taken apprentices :lol:

 

Edit: Oh. I just flicked through the video. I thought it was a different one. There's a wall of that style somewhere where more basic building style walls had been built atop it, using the fancy ones as a base. Ignore me, I'm not paying attention. I should actually be working, rather than talking about ancient aliens on a bike forum :oops: 

 

The other thing that's really interesting for me is the erosion on the base of the Sphinx. Apparently a tonne of geologists all agree that it's what they would expect after 20,000 years of water erosion.
Either it's way older than traditionally thought, or it was built more like 4,000 years ago and then people had massive waterfights every day using it as cover, or current geologists don't know what they're talking about.
Whichever it turns out to be, it's interesting just because the artefact supposedly doesn't adhere to its backstory. (Obviously at the mercy of experts - I don't know shit, but the mystery is fun.)

Edited by aener
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched something about Easter Island recently about how so many of those heads were moved so far with no technology, they simulated it and it was just about doable with a lot of men and a lot of logs to roll them on, not exactly ancient I know but still, and I always assumed there were 10 or 20 of those heads, there are 887!!!..........................

To me, Easter Island and the whole of Ancient Egypt is mental, and the Mayan stuff.

ei.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, manuel said:

How is it a misconception? It’s a tomb? If no one knows what the other purpose is why do we think there is another purpose? Why is it more likely they “found” them? 

Because no tombs have ever been found in the great pyramid of giza. The general story people seem to believe is the Pharos had the pyramids built by slaves as a tomb for them in the after life etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But khufu’s big granite sarcophagus is inside in the kings chamber no? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this subject is very interesting and I love a good mystery. As has been said we will never know what actually happened back then, but I think you're a fool to believe what some historians are telling you. Historians aren't scientists so you can't really just accept what they say. What's wrong with questioning History?

There are megalithic structures all over the world and there is no good explanation as to why they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, manuel said:

But khufu’s big granite sarcophagus is inside in the kings chamber no? 

I'll be honest i'm rubbish at remembering these things. There are many 30ton+ granite boxes and the most recently discovered one contained 3 skeletons and a pool of blood.

I know I'm being Johnny youtube videos here but I'm buying into these explanations haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Al_Fel said:

To me this subject is very interesting and I love a good mystery. As has been said we will never know what actually happened back then, but I think you're a fool to believe what some historians are telling you. Historians aren't scientists so you can't really just accept what they say. What's wrong with questioning History?

There are megalithic structures all over the world and there is no good explanation as to why they exist.

1

But a lot of Historians work collaboratively with scientists for the likes of Carbon14 dating/etc to verify findings/theories. The joy of it being that as a science theories can be changed/adapted to reflect new discoveries, as opposed to going down the other route of defending a story in spite of new evidence. That's far from saying we know it all because we absolutely don't, but current teachings are the best knowledge we have and are relatively well founded. Nothing wrong with questioning History, in fact it's largely encouraged in greyer areas to help test hypotheses and progress. Peer review for the ween.

The megalithic concept is often described as a religious/closer-to-gods/higher-than-the-plebs type affair. Until someone builds a time machine (if they could, surely we'd already be aware of it...) we'll likely never have absolute proof, so best guesses will have to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Al_Fel said:

I'll be honest i'm rubbish at remembering these things. There are many 30ton+ granite boxes and the most recently discovered one contained 3 skeletons and a pool of blood.

I know I'm being Johnny youtube videos here but I'm buying into these explanations haha.

I had to switch the first video off halfway. I’m sorry - it’s conspiracy theory nonsense. I’m not going to bother with the bottom one. 

Yes, there are a lot of things we don’t know about the pyramids, but... 

it annoys me when, someone reads a few headline articles without knowing the full story, enterprets it their own stupid way, and then claims the ‘general public’ are being misled. Deciding what’s possible with a hand tool without having ever wielded one, deciding that information is being suppressed. All that shit. No. It’s a f**king tomb, built by some pretty f**kin dedicated powerful dude who wanted to live long, with what seems nearly limitless resource.

sorry that rant isn’t for you it’s for people on the internet making shit up - like flat earthers who have been in grizzle recently and filmed a friend trying to talk to them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, manuel said:

I had to switch the first video off halfway. I’m sorry - it’s conspiracy theory nonsense. I’m not going to bother with the bottom one. 

Yes, there are a lot of things we don’t know about the pyramids, but... 

it annoys me when, someone reads a few headline articles without knowing the full story, enterprets it their own stupid way, and then claims the ‘general public’ are being misled. Deciding what’s possible with a hand tool without having ever wielded one, deciding that information is being suppressed. All that shit. No. It’s a f**king tomb, built by some pretty f**kin dedicated powerful dude who wanted to live long, with what seems nearly limitless resource.

sorry that rant isn’t for you it’s for people on the internet making shit up - like flat earthers who have been in grizzle recently and filmed a friend trying to talk to them.

 

 

Haha that's fair enough if you don't want to play (skip that first video to 11:45 and watch a few minutes from there). I find it exciting to hear other interpretations of what might have happened. Maybe I'm a lot more gullible than you? My opinion is a lot of these historians think they know everything and they are trying to make it fit their narrative of what happened. You say it's just a tomb but who decided that it was just a tomb? 

3 hours ago, monkeyseemonkeydo said:

Ta da!

 

2.5 ton rock on a sled. How about trying that with a 1200 ton rock? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.