The "Egyptians" didn't build the pyramids. Those mongrels didn't do anything of note, aside from draw mongrel graffiti all over the relics amongst which they lived.
The Great Pyramids, Luxor, and the Sphinx were built around the beginning of the Younger Dryas by some pre-bronze age civilization.
I do, however, agree that the pyramid blocks may have been molded by some means.
The story I remember being told as a kid was that they built the great pyramid over the course of 20 years.
There are about 2,300,000 stones in the great pyramid.
They each weigh on average from 2.5 to 15 tonnes.
That means they would have had to cut, perfectly shape, quarry (from hundreds of kilometers away) and place 13 stones PER HOUR.
Let's say for shits and giggles that it took them 200 years to build it. That's still 1.3 stones per hour to cut, shape, quarry and place.... absolutely perfectly.
Impossible.
Either it took them thousands of years to build the great pyramid using construction methods we still can't agree on, or we have the entire thing completely wrong from stem to stern.
It's a real head scratcher so I appreciate a post like this.
I'm inclined to believe this. My cats can't even push a 2.5lb weight and if the proportion differences are similar between giant and human then they should be able to get that shit done pretty easily.
Tptb probably tell the bs stories to get ppl motivated to innovate so they can benefit
There's already evidence that they used a primitive type of cement. So, the blocks weren't cut. They were put into molds, and left to set. All they had to do was make wooden (hollow) blocks to hold the material, and then remove them at a later time. Rinse, and repeat. People did not need to carry, cut, or move around giant stones.
When you use advanced technology you also use advanced materials.
If you have an electricity at the level you use it like a regular tool, you inevitably have a lot of other interesting things too.
There are too little out-of-time artifacts to be certain about all that advanced ancients theory. Either most are purposedly hidded from our knowledge by some conspiracy, either not found yet, either does not exist.
However there is still a small possibility that ancient artifacts, like all that strange ugly jewelry and decorations are too advanced tech for us to understand how it works and how to use it. But something tells me that probability is very low.
A logical hypothesis is, by definition, developed a priori.
If a man enters a room known to have only one egress, and you are watching that egress, and have not witnessed the man exit the room, then you could easily develop a hypothesis that he has not left that room. In the same analogy, if the room has a secondary egress, but it is far more difficult to use (e.g., a fire escape through the ceiling), it would still be reasonable to develop the same hypothesis.
Theorizing about things based on what seems likely and what seems unlikely, given whatever knowledge you do have, is perfectly reasonable within this kind of framework.
The "Egyptians" didn't build the pyramids. Those mongrels didn't do anything of note, aside from draw mongrel graffiti all over the relics amongst which they lived.
The Great Pyramids, Luxor, and the Sphinx were built around the beginning of the Younger Dryas by some pre-bronze age civilization.
I do, however, agree that the pyramid blocks may have been molded by some means.
I just came here to say basically the same thing: "What if it wasn't the Egyptians?" And, what still lies buried beneath the sands?
They weren't "mongrels". At least relative to other contemporary civilizations. Look at this dental work: https://dental-polishers.com/dentistry-in-ancient-egypt/
They had some kind of tooth drilling tech, could manufacture copper wires, had oral surgery etc.
And it's easy to date a skeleton with radio carbon dating, so it's not like we mistakenly found a corpse that pre-dated the Egyptian civilization.
At least not the dynastic Egyptians but yeah, spot on.
Check this out.
The story I remember being told as a kid was that they built the great pyramid over the course of 20 years.
There are about 2,300,000 stones in the great pyramid.
They each weigh on average from 2.5 to 15 tonnes.
That means they would have had to cut, perfectly shape, quarry (from hundreds of kilometers away) and place 13 stones PER HOUR.
Let's say for shits and giggles that it took them 200 years to build it. That's still 1.3 stones per hour to cut, shape, quarry and place.... absolutely perfectly.
Impossible.
Either it took them thousands of years to build the great pyramid using construction methods we still can't agree on, or we have the entire thing completely wrong from stem to stern.
It's a real head scratcher so I appreciate a post like this.
I assumed they worked on more then one stone at a time lmfao
Interesting idea.
Maybe ancient civilizations exchanged technology with each other?
Another example I found, from only 900 years ago, that shows evidence of machines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPn0NsZDtkk
Makes you wonder, if history from 900 years ago is so unclear, what about history from thousands of years ago?
The pyramids we're build by the giants mentioned in Genius and the buildings survived the great flood.
I'm inclined to believe this. My cats can't even push a 2.5lb weight and if the proportion differences are similar between giant and human then they should be able to get that shit done pretty easily.
Tptb probably tell the bs stories to get ppl motivated to innovate so they can benefit
There's already evidence that they used a primitive type of cement. So, the blocks weren't cut. They were put into molds, and left to set. All they had to do was make wooden (hollow) blocks to hold the material, and then remove them at a later time. Rinse, and repeat. People did not need to carry, cut, or move around giant stones.
Pretty easey to figure out if the blocks are cast.
When you use advanced technology you also use advanced materials.
If you have an electricity at the level you use it like a regular tool, you inevitably have a lot of other interesting things too.
There are too little out-of-time artifacts to be certain about all that advanced ancients theory. Either most are purposedly hidded from our knowledge by some conspiracy, either not found yet, either does not exist.
However there is still a small possibility that ancient artifacts, like all that strange ugly jewelry and decorations are too advanced tech for us to understand how it works and how to use it. But something tells me that probability is very low.
I believe you will enjoy the UnchartedX channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/UnchartedX
Without proof or evidence to support your idea, you're just brainstorming a scifi novel.
Before securing evidence, you must theorize a hypothesis.
Its figured out how they built them.
A logical hypothesis is, by definition, developed a priori.
If a man enters a room known to have only one egress, and you are watching that egress, and have not witnessed the man exit the room, then you could easily develop a hypothesis that he has not left that room. In the same analogy, if the room has a secondary egress, but it is far more difficult to use (e.g., a fire escape through the ceiling), it would still be reasonable to develop the same hypothesis.
Theorizing about things based on what seems likely and what seems unlikely, given whatever knowledge you do have, is perfectly reasonable within this kind of framework.