Antipope Innocent II

You just posted a link to a site that has banner ads for Graham Hancock books on it and articles on UFOs and Cold Fusion. Please tell me this is some kind of obscure joke.

FatherMithras

To be fair, it's the only place you can find that level of obscure, ridiculous shit.

Minimalist

Are you one of those who always listens to "experts" or are you a bit more open minded than that?

Some years ago, after Professor Robert Schoch upset the Egyptological club with his dates for the sphinx, Mark Lehner was out there breaking chips off the bottom of the sphinx and whining that erosion on the sphinx was caused by ground water and salt. While doing so, unintentionally I'm sure, the camera showed right over his shoulder on the sphinx enclosure wall, the vertical fissures which Schoch maintained were evidence of extensive rainfall over the limestone wall. In recorded history there has not been that kind of rainfall at Giza.

That evidence conflicted with the happy little theory that Egyptology had developed so it had to be denounced although in the years since they have started to come to terms with it a little.

In any case, let's see them try to build a pyramid using (only) the technology they claim the Egyptians had available. I won't even hold them to the one stone every two minutes rate as it would take them a little while to get up to speed.

FatherMithras

When it's experts versus crackpots, experts win every time. Don't be so open minded your brain falls out. Conspiracy theory nonsense by non experts is idiotic to believe. It's the kind of ting that makes 9-11 conspiracy people so funny.

Toto

Perhaps Graham Hancock will make Wikipedia look more credible

Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

FatherMithras

Clearly a tool of the man. The only people we should trust are people without appropriate qualifications, because they're the only people who can see through all the BS, research the topic on their own and find the secret cheat codes the aliens used.

Joan of Bark

Arguing in favour of a literal Noah's ark as described in the Bible is like arguing in favour of the world being created in seven days ... too silly to debate.

Wayne Delia

Making a 450-foot long boat entirely out of gopher wood and pitch is certainly possible. It's just a 450-foot long wooden structure.

Getting it to float, empty, for as long as a week, in a body of still water, without capsizing under its own internal stresses - now, that would be impossible.

WMD

Minimalist

Simply put, one part of the equation is wrong. This is the equation:

4th Dynasty Egyptians + limited technology* + 20 years = pyramid



* copper chisels, stone hammers, ropes, sleds, muscle-power


Every part of the equation has been attacked by someone and we have no evidence that challenges the attribution to the 4th Dynasty or to the technology available. That means that the time alloted is most likely the crux of the issue. It took longer than 20 years. Egyptology, however, cannot give that up because it means that the "tombs and tombs only" theory goes out the window.

I'd just like to see some experimentation. That's what science is supposed to be all about. But don't cheat and call in the heavy cranes to help out.

Sauron

No, not really.

1. We know the pyramids existed, since they're still here. The point of recreating the ark is for those people who claim it once existed to prove that it is possible.

2. Unlike pyramids, we have no evidence that any such ark ever existed - ever.

3. Last I checked, nobody was advocating junking modern science on the basis of a religion focused on pyramids.