Jun 6, '10, 12:25 AM
If it wasn't for conspiracy theories,I wouldn't watch the TV specials debunking them. So I thank them for that.
Jun 9, '10, 11:06 AM
darkloard1967 - sorry about that, the last few days have just been crazy.
I'm still going through this material, but I do want to mention a few things and probably ask a few questions. Thanks again for posting this stuff, I really do find it fascinating and I hope that you don't find my criticisms offensive - I'm not intending to be offensive in any way.
I'm actually very much on point with Werewolf in terms of how we think. I'm just not capable of accepting information, especially with regards to scientific theories, that can't stand up to testing using the scientific method.
Critical thinking is not about being closed minded, I'm very open to a lot of experiences and knowledge, but when it comes down to weighing what's truth and fiction I really do believe that testing using the scientific method is the only reasonable way to measure what makes sense. Unfortunately all of our human senses and methods of perception are flawed. So I simply can't accept theories, or even evidence, if scientific method isn't applied.
I'm also not claiming to be an expert on any of these subjects, I'm just trying to explain my problems believing the theories you're presenting.
Here's why some of your theories don't stand up for me:
There is a fundamental difference in the way we both think about the materials and effort used to build the Great Pyramids. You have a problem believing the time and effort that it would take to build and excavate the materials wouldn't be done if they were just monuments. I don't. In fact I don't think that a powerful empire would build monuments out of common materials in an easy way - what would be the point? Why would they use all their wealth and power to build something unimpressive?
it doesn't seem as though there is a singular consensus about exactly what materials were used to create the pyramids. This is an interesting article examining the theory that at least some of the materials used might have been concrete made from limestone as oppose to just cutting slabs: Discovery Channel :: News - Animals :: Were the Pyramids Made With Concrete?
In any case, here's what wikipedia has to say about some of the minerals you've brought up:
"Limestone is very common in architecture"
"Granite is a common and widely occurring type of intrusive, felsic, igneous rock"
"Quartz is the second most abundant mineral in the Earth's continental crust, after feldspar."
"Calcium Carbonate...a common substance found in rock in all parts of the world"
Again, we have a fundamental difference in opinion about these minerals. Because these minerals are so common it seems as though it would be impossible to build the pyramids with out them. If the theories you're presenting made sense, and the minerals found in pyramids were there for reasons other than just holding the structure together, these theorists need to propose alternatives. Substances that were available, usable and didn't contain limestone, granite, quartz or calcium carbonate. Does that make sense? Maybe there are theories about this that I'm just unaware of.
Last edited by Brazoo; Jun 9, '10 at 11:18 AM.
Jun 9, '10, 11:08 AM
I checked out this link that you provided: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation - http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index...-PIRAMIDA.html
I'm sure you already know that these formations/structures aren't considered to be manmade by the general scientific community. That's a whole other debate, but for now I just want to look at the experiment you posted. Truthfully I'd consider it to be pseudo-experiment, and I'll tell you what's fishy about it to me.
First I researched the doctors on their websites. Dr. Harry Oldfield doesn't list what field he's suppose to have a doctorate in and he doesn't list the institution where he earned that title even though he has a generous biography on himself. So that's weird to me. He says he won an "Alyce and Elmer Green Award for Innovation" so I looked up their site, they're a collective of practitioners and researchers in the field of "Energy Medicine", which includes Touch Therapy, Holistic Medicine, and other New Age practices that simply do not stand up to testing using the scientific method.
EDIT: In the article it says "Dr. Oldfield is a trained biologist, Honorary Doctor of Sciences, visiting professor at Grenada Unversity’s School of Medicine, and member of the Royal Society of Microscopic Research in Oxford."
So I googled "Royal Society of Microscopic Research in Oxford" funnily enough the only two things I got was the article you posted and this article debunking the article and Dr. Oldfield's credentials: [Le site dIrna] Pseudo-scientific validation
And here's another article debunking his claims: BadPsychics By Jon Donni - News
Dr. Karin Tag lists herself as a Dr. of Holistic Sciences and a Crystal Skull Researcher - so at least she's being upfront.
THEY created the theory of electromagnetic fields as proof that the Bosnian Pyramids were manmade, and THEY came up with the instruments to measure the fields. So they're asking me to accept evidence based on two different theories that THEY pioneered while measuring with instruments THEY created using data that THEY interpreted. That's just not how proper experimentation works. I mean, you have to understand how far out from my way of thinking that is. You could confirm anything you want to believe using that logic. Even if I can be willing to believe they got results from their instruments that showed there was something unusual about the "pyramids" (I can't) it's still a really long long long stretch connecting that data to the presence of extra-terrestrials.
I wanted to talk about a couple more points too - so I'll try to post more a bit later!
Last edited by Brazoo; Jun 9, '10 at 1:05 PM.
Okay, so I can't be amazed by how accurate the Egyptians were with the placement of the Pyramid Giza yet because I don't understand some of the terms you're using.
Originally Posted by darklord1967
I can't find mention of the term "center of the land mass of the earth" outside of sites featuring information similar to the theories you're talking about.
I want to get this straight, you're saying that the the lines of latitude and longitude that crosses through the most land area on Earth meets up at the Pyramid? And that's what the "center of the land mass of Earth " is? Again, I can't find any information outside of the theory you're presenting to confirm this. Are they're any outside geographical sources to confirm this? I've looked through some of the more commonly accepted sources for info about the pyramids and couldn't find reference to this on any of those either. If that measurement can't be confirmed I can't be amazed by it.
I did find sites that confirmed this fact. To me it's impressive, but not impossible. As I understand it the Egyptians worshiped the sun for centuries - and I believe they had fairly accurate calendars - it follows that they'd know when to expect the longest day (the summer solstice). If they charted where the sun rose and fell on that day they'd have a very accurate idea of due East and due West. It stands to reason that that's how they calculated which way the Pyramids would face.
Originally Posted by darklord1967
I don't get this one. Anything sticking out of the ground will act as a sundial - no?
Originally Posted by darklord1967
I'm going to take another break now, but I did want to leave you with this interesting resource published on BPS's website for NOVA. Full of information on experiments like this, which they used to calculate man-hours for creating the pyramids:
"in a NOVA experiment we found that 12 men could pull a 1.5 ton block over a slick surface with great ease. And then you could come up with very conservative estimates as to the number of men it would take to pull an average size block the distance from the quarry, which we know, to the pyramid."
NOVA Online/PyramidsThe Inside Story