Nostr Web Client

FYI they have historical records of how the pyramids were built.

https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/records-of-the-pyramid-builders/

Copypasta from the article:

> ‘One individual named in the papyri is Dedi, who was a scribe and most likely a member of the royal administration. Although his documents aren’t well preserved, Dedi seems to have overseen the entire escort team, which was split into four smaller sections or phyles. At least three documents also name an Inspector Merer, who was probably the leader of one phyle consisting of about 40 people, based on the amount of food being issued to them. This section is the only one that we have detailed records for, but it was known as the ‘Great’ phyle and so was probably the most important. Merer’s logbooks allow us to follow the different missions allocated to this phyle over the course of a little more than a year. For some of it, they were working on the Akhet Khufu – the Great Pyramid – and at another time they were apparently making a harbour on the Mediterranean coast in the Nile delta, while the final recorded assignment seems to have been in Sinai, which makes sense given where the papyri were found.’ Merer’s daily log entries are as succinct as they are extraordinary. A number of them deal with journeys from limestone quarries at Tura, east of the Nile, to the Great Pyramid, west of the Nile. In general, the Great phyle seems to have managed about three round-trips in ten days. Here is an extract from the log of one such journey:

> …Inspector Merer casts off with his phyle from Tura, loaded with stone, for Akhet Khufu; spends the night at She Khufu; Day 27: sets sail from She Khufu, sails towards Akhet Khufu, loaded with stone, spends the night at Akhet Khufu…

> As well as firing the imagination about what Merer would have seen while over-nighting at the Great Pyramid, his account is crucial for demonstrating that people could arrive by boat. This brings us to the work undertaken at Giza by Mark Lehner.

So some guy had some stone on a boat (we think, based on reconstructed fragments of hieroglyphic papyrus and a healthy dose of poetic license) and that means the Egyptians built the pyramids.

Sorry if I'm still skeptical.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

H 2y ago

So you think it's more likely that ancient aliens came down in a spacecraft and built them for us? Despite there being older and older pyramids that gradually got larger and better constructed over time?

victor 2y ago

Funny how people immediately jump to "aliens" (or assume that's my stance on it).

The fact is that we don't know how they were built, and it is, for all intents and purpose, impossible that the ancient Egyptians did it. If you haven't seen it, this is a really interesting documentary that explains all the problems with the ancient Egyptians theory without trying to give an alternate explanation:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/kuNTF3yZAZeW/

(Sorry for the Bitchute link, it got paywalled on YouTube once it got too popular.)

It also goes into some of the symmetries of the pyramids from around the world and describe how they're geographically placed relative to one another, even though there no way (that we know of) that the ancient civilizations could have known about one another, let alone communicate over such a distance.

bot 2y ago

What’s the tldr on their placement?

victor 2y ago

They're evenly spaced along specific lines across the earth (I can't remember exactly, but it's something like the equator and 30 degrees, centered at the Giza site). This includes the extremely isolated Easter Island site and other remote areas that would have been cut off from the rest of the world.

The explanation starts around 1:15:00 into the documentary--I may not have the details exact.

H 2y ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2124189/?ref_=nm_knf_t_1

https://www.conspiracywatch.info/notice/jacques-grimault

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-endless-repetition-of-a-fake-source-for-pyramid-claims

H 2y ago

BTW Victor, I think your account may have been muted or something. I never got any notifications of your replies but I got all other notifs (that I'm aware of).

victor 2y ago

I just spent a little while reading through the Colavito article and the comments (IMDB is propaganda, and I can't read French, so I didn't delve into the other two) and am unsure what to think other than the mainstream Egyptologists really don't like the documentary authors. No surprise there. The article author makes the claim that the documentary appeals to Atlantis somehow, which it never does. All it does is raise many, many interesting "coincidences" without trying to come up with an explanation other than that there sure are a lot of coincidences.

Some of the comments make a stab at debunking the math in the documentary, and I'm not versed enough to say whether any of them are right. One guy said he put the geometry of the Giza pyramid as presented in the documentary into a CAD program and it all worked out, but that's not exactly a strong argument, either. So I don't know about all of that.

And yeah, my pubkey is forbidden in many ways, so I'm sure the various software and infrastructure the soydevs have built are "protecting" people from me. People often don't like what I have to say or the words I sometimes use to say it.

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

So what is the larger point you are trying to make? The fact that some fact-checkers claimed one of the people questioning the official historic narrative around pyramids is a conspiracy psycho does not mean anything. The fact stays the same - those pyramids consisting of millions of blocks of 2.5 tons each could not be possible built with basic technologies. Some supposedly thousands years old papyri describing moving limestone along the river are completely meaningless in that sense.

H 2y ago

My main point is that we can see the slow but steady development of bigger and better pyramids over time as they got better at constructing them. This wouldn't be observable if an advanced group had just turned up with the tech and started building it themselves.

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

Okay, firstly we can't be too sure about the exact time when any of them were built. Techniques used for dating materials (like carbon dating) are not scientifically sound and at the very best represent educated guesses (this is a whole another subject on its own). But even if we pretend that they are 100% accurate, the observation you are talking about does not explain how people thousands of years ago were able to put literally millions of blocks weighting 2.5 tons each (largest up to 80 tons) on top of each other to form pyramids of +100 meters height. This is extremely hard to do so in the middle of a dessert even nowadays with all of the modern technology we have.

H 2y ago

Carbon dating isn't perfect but it is being constantly honed and to simply call it guessing is dismissive.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/long-awaited-update-arrives-for-radiocarbon-dating/

As long as the object is less than 20kya and is not an animal of some sort the dating works very well. Remember we aren't trying to date to the day, week or month. As long as we are within a decade or so we are going to be ok ordering the ages of these pyramids.

As to a potential solution. I like the one presented in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqZ44C0j5k

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

Carbon dating has never produced accurate results for samples of provably known age. There is no reason to believe it can actually date materials of supposedly much higher unknown age. It is a good example of purely theoretical make believe that plagues most modern sciences.

I mean, sounds good in theory, but can you honestly imagine groups of 30-60 guys dragging huge stones weighing multiple stones at a pretty high angle for long distances? Seems highly unrealistic to me, to say the least. As for the theory of the French guy from the video if I understood it correctly - dragging those extremely heavy stones along narrow ramps with 90 degree angles seems also highly impossible. All of those explanations are purely theoretical and on a closer look have nothing in common with reality. https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeHistory/comments/twzhng/comment/i3jrynd

Also, consider Colossi of Memnon, two gigantic strictures weighing 700 tons each supposedly moved 680km over land. These things simply do not have a proper realistic explanation in the realm of official history.

H 2y ago

Like I said in my previous post, the level of accuracy is important. You can say "It was off by a decade or two" is inaccurate, but it doesn't need to be more accurate than that when we are using it to match up with the historical kings lists and other records the Egyptians kept themselves.

> Using reddit as a source

Even so:

"Even if we assume they only carried the stones from the Nile to the pyramids, that's STILL 8.18 kilometers at least."

Did you watch the video? They quarried the stone beside the pyramid.

Colossi of Memnon was built over 1000 years after the largest pyramid. Once again, do you believe they could not have made further engineering progress in that time? I looked at the wikipedia article because I am not familiar with it and it echoes your claim. However looking at the first reference:

DOI: 10.1126/science.182.4118.1219

It matches the location of the stone but also says that it was almost certainly transported on the nile. It goes into great details on it requiring half as much manpower but I will leave it to you to look into that further unless you have a better source.

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

The thing is that in cases where the actual age of the tested material was known, carbon dating was off by tens of thousands of years or even millions in some cases. People have literally sent their own teeth for testing to different laboratories and got completely different results telling them their own teeth are many thousand years old. And if carbon dating is so extremely bad at dating recent materials, in no way it can be seriously trusted when testing very old material of an unknown age.

They supposedly did query some of the stones nearby, but some of it still was transported by river as official history puts it. The mystery of construction is still a mystery only explained by unrealistic theories that to me look highly questionable to say the least.

I believe they could have made all the progress in the world. Moreover, I am inclined to think that people back then had technologies way more advanced than anything we have currently. The problem is with official history that depicts them as basically cavemen only with pickaxes and ropes who dragged all those gigantic perfectly cut boulders by hand.

You are free to believe any theories thrown your way, however unrealistic they might sound. But I just can’t make myself believe them, it does not add up in my honest opinion.

H 2y ago

Carbon-14 has a half life of ~5730 years. This is why carbon dating is only used in circumstances where the estimated age is less than 20000 years as I had mentioned previously. The older the item is, the less accurate the measurement becomes but still reasonable up to 20000 years. Long before you get to 1m years there is no carbon-14 left to measure so you cannot get a million year mismatch.

You also shouldn't be dating animals because we consume carbon from our environment in different quantities depending on what we eat so measuring teeth in this fashion will not get an accurate result. Another example is mussels that were carbon dated to be thousands of years old because what they ate had very little carbon in them. Carbon dating is simply not useful for dating animals.

For older things other forms of dating are used such as uranium-lead dating but this is not required for anything built in the time of civilisation (last ~12000 years).

We have lost knowledge due to dark ages. For example we only recently discovered why Roman marine concrete is so strong and durable. I believe in the ingenuity of our forebears.

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

Right, I grouped different dating techniques into a single point. All of them never consistently correctly dated materials of the known age, and in case of radiometric dating it was off by tens of millions of years. Talking about carbon dating, it still is based on a number of very questionable assumptions and any results not matching the official history are always simply discarded. Anyways, it was not the main point I was making.

Regarding the dark ages and lost knowledge, I agree with you. In that sense the official historic narrative does not explain a lot of different observations.

H 2y ago

Any examples of failed carbon dating attempts on objects (particularly Egyptian artifacts) that I could look into?

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

I don’t have any examples including Egyptian artifacts on hands, but here are examples of fossils found in Alaska. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0862/report.pdf As you can see samples SL-454 and SL-455 show show a large discrepancy even though both come from the same source. Same as with samples 299, M-37 and L-137X. Here is a more general video about problems with carbon dating and questionable assumptions made when using this method. https://youtu.be/lg5aDoYUyBk