you're very welcome - seems all quite fascinating to me!
mahalla2's source wrote:As a result of his [Dr Livio C. Stecchini] studies of the stepped Ziggurats of the middle east and the ancient pyramids geometry, he was able to show that these structures incorporated the basic techniques for mapping the structure and design of the heavens and for mapping the terrestrial hemisphere.
mahalla2 wrote:yes, I understand Pons, and since I am not a mathematician I really do appreciate your response. However, what if some of the mathematical formula's today are not quite insinc with what they exactly were 10,000-20,000 years ago, and what if the original pyramid architects (not just the average builder) had access to ancient knowledge (possible AA connection) of universal mathematical measurements that our most intelligent scholars today know nothing about? I realize that you believe in this day and age it is all speculative but perhaps back then it wasn't. And if we truly understood their use of ancient geometry it would seem we might know how to calculate the exact distance to secret locations where many mysterious ancient artifacts were placed thousands of years ago.
cRush wrote:Pons is merely stating that coincidence is [possibly] being misconstrued as intent.
mahalla2 wrote:However, what if some of the mathematical formula's today are not quite insinc with what they exactly were 10,000-20,000 years ago,...
mahalla2 wrote:What if the original pyramid architects (not just the average builder) had access to ancient knowledge (possible AA connection) of universal mathematical measurements...
mahalla2 wrote:...that our most intelligent scholars today know nothing about?
mahalla2 wrote:Thanks Pons and cRush for your really good responses. However, the part I can't seem to wrap my head around is the notion you both stated about coincidence being mistaken for intent because it seems just about everything to ancient people had meaning and intent, right down to every little symbolic dot or dash. Thus, I think very little if anything was ever coincidence (especially the calculation of measurements for anything on such a grand scale as the great pyramid) plus their very survival as an advanced civilization depended on the accuracy of their accomplishments - again, just my opinion
armedequation wrote:I guess the way to look at it would be what geometric functions were actually needed in order to build them and to have them last centuries?
cRush wrote:That level of accuracy is impossible to determine with the tools and knowledge we have today. The scale renders such precision incalculable.
mahalla2 wrote:cRush wrote:That level of accuracy is impossible to determine with the tools and knowledge we have today. The scale renders such precision incalculable.
And that's the whole point - Even with today's advanced scientific/mathematical knowledge and tools there is no way to accurately determine how, why, when, and for what purpose (deliberate intent) the Great Pyramid at Giza was originally constructed so until we know what they knew it would seem senseless and arrogant to discount the mathematical knowledge/capabilities of the original architects.
mahalla2 wrote:However, the part I can't seem to wrap my head around is the notion you both stated about coincidence being mistaken for intent because it seems just about everything to ancient people had meaning and intent, right down to every little symbolic dot or dash.
Pons Asinorum wrote:mahalla2 wrote:However, the part I can't seem to wrap my head around is the notion you both stated about coincidence being mistaken for intent because it seems just about everything to ancient people had meaning and intent, right down to every little symbolic dot or dash.
Well stated Mahalla. When it comes to the assertions of Stecchini, I do indeed believe he attributed intent without justification (although in addition to coincidence, one might add inevitability, too).
In any event, we are all free to hold whatever opinion we wish and "agreeing to disagree" is sound advice.
The lasers that are conjectured to have been used to cut the stones weren't fashioned out of stone as well. Why don't we see evidence of these other advanced materials in Egypt? Why wouldn't these ancient aliens have built a steel structure, or some other formidable structure that has more advanced properties?
armedequation wrote:sorry crush but i dont buy that. Your talking about one of the few if not only place that the great pyramid could have been built concerning total mass. To me the mere fact that a pyramidic structure was chosen tells me geometry plaid a factor :shrug:
armedequation wrote:theres not one steel structure that i know of that would last that length of time. The answer to your former question would be scraping and pillaging as a possibility
You don't buy what exactly? That these "ratios" were embedded into the pyramids by chance? How many of the other pyramids have these exact ratios? They don't all have the same measurements, and there is no relationship between that difference, so we know they can't have the exact same ratio.
Why is it that you think the fact that they chose a pyramid proves that geometry played a factor? Isn't it easier to stack stones progressively at a sloping angle than it is to build straight up?
A little explanation of your stances can go a long way to helping others decide if they want to side with your cause. You offer no insight as to why you refuse to accept that there is another explanation besides "aliens built them".
Geometry is inherent in nature. It is inescapable.
My point wasn't to state that steel would last for 10,000 years, or however long you believe the pyramids have existed. The point I was trying to make is why would an ancient alien civilization come here and build stone structures, instead of steel structures. Was there only intent to leave a monument for all of eternity? Did they envision no practical implementation for these structures? If both of those questions are yes, then fine, my point is invalid. I just can't imagine a super advanced alien civilization, with the ability to travel the stars, coming to Earth and not utilizing metal alloys to build. You're welcome to your own opinions of course. It would be nice if you explained why you have them, though.
armedequation wrote:That most of them arent in there by chance.
I'm not denying that.
But I'm also looking at numbers that *seem* to have purpose. My problem with the pyramids is that whomever planned this build knew what they were doing. I'm not an architect but when I do look at the numbers at this point, there's too many coincidences for me just to swallow that it is all arbitrary.
There really is no proof one way or the other for me to confidently say yes or no. So I dont know how anyone can come to a conclusion on this subject when there's insuffecient evidence but I know which way I am leaning
PS I do have to agree with Nippur on this as well
Bob137 wrote:Something I have noticed in regards to the aligning of the Giza Pyramids with Orion's belt is that the computer program simulation set up that configured this was that at a time of tens of thousands of years ago, (I do not remember the exact date), that at that time it did align up perfectly. The debunkers though utilize our time that does not align up perfectly and utilize that for stating that it does not lign up as reported. Which if you look at all the actual data from the alignment of the older date time, it does align, so that is where the theory came about of the alignment with Orion, in that time period, not ours. So it is then speculated and theorized that the design, and possible construction of the pyramids were done at that time period, not at the earlier date time period, which would be logical!
In other words if someone doesn't use the same calculations and information of the other, but decides to debunk something on the basis of different data, maybe incorrect, and preponderous for such a debunking.
Return to Egypt and the Pyramids
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests