Ancient Civilizations

Still a good listen.

Most interesting part is the he confirms the void above the current opening of the Pyramid used as the main door is real. This void contains a long hallway and who knows what else. I saw it posted around in here earlier but didn't know if it was substantial at all.

Guess it is. The guy says that a big issue is that the entrance used today was never meant to be an entrance at all and it makes accessing such a space very complicated. So they haven't figured it out yet.

Fantastical but still cool. More or less relevant to the thread.

The top is Chichen Itza in 1892. Just to show how much the jungle had overtaken it.

TJT said:

View attachment 588615

The top is Chichen Itza in 1892. Just to show how much the jungle had overtaken it.

Click to expand...

They also had to do a ton of repairs around the whole area.

I'd recommend anyone to go, it's pretty awe inspiring.

I read the Giza Power Plant book recently. The guy's conclusions are of course very interesting but his observations (along with many others over the centuries) are spot on. It's compounded by mainstream archaeology just handwaving away things and claiming it was either an earthquake or graverobbers sometime in the distant past.

Some things of note as they really aren't mentioned much in some of these YouTube channels either.

• The King's Chamber underwent a massive amount of trauma at some point in the distant past.
  • The granite slabs have distinct separation that is not present elsewhere. As the King's Chamber is the more carefully designed room in the entire Pyramid it's unlikely it was on purpose.
    • There is plastering in the King's Chamber. Indicating that some Keeper of the Pyramid at some point came back in and plastered over damage.
  • Damage is not reflected in the rest of the pyramid's structure.
• The portcullis theory I keep hearing about is nothing but speculation and is touted as fact.
  • Supposedly 3 granite slabs were in the antechamber before the king chamber to lock the door so to speak. Secured by an unknown mechanism to raise and lower them.
  • In the 9th century when the robber's entrance was carved out of the north face (modern main entrance) these granite slabs were not present. But the granite plugs in the ascending shaft before the Grand Gallery were.
    • This means that ancient graverobbers would have had to somehow dismantle granite slabs and then painstakingly extract them through whatever tunnel they used to circumvent the granite plugs near the entrance. Which was never found as the Caliph's people dug their own hole around the plugs.
  • The 9th century Caliph who entered the pyramid found nothing in it even then.
• The supporting beams of the King's Chamber are granite and weigh in excess of 70 tons. These were somehow carried down from Aswan.
• The Grand Gallery is at a 30 degree angle and was just a ramp. It was clearly never intended for any traversing.
• Arabs called the Pyramids "The Lights" as the polished casing remained and reflected the desert sunlight to the point that it was blinding at certain times of the day/angles. This effect was present up until the 10th century after the Caliphate broke into it and later partially mined it for stones used in other works.

This guy's video is great on the portcullis theory.

I've got a Big Void right here they can look at.

Details some of the Green Sahara period. The Tamanrasset river flowed East to West and spanned the entire region. Apparently it flowed somewhat as recently as 2000 years ago. It didn't totally dry up it just recessed as there is a massive aquifer deep under the Sahara.

Lots of what Ancient Architects and even the Giza power plant guy are doing is just looking at existing hard evidence that, to them, has no rational or practical explanation. When career academics encounter this they just handwave it away as having some occult reason that is lost to time. But the practicality of doing such a thing is immense.

This is a diagram of the King's Chamber from Petrie's measurements in the 19th century. It isn't speculation. The argument becomes that the King's Chamber was deliberately settled on a corrugated limestone floor rather than on a sheer one like most of the limestone in the pyramid. Additionally, the 5 levels of granite ceiling in the King's Chamber objectively serve no purpose in supporting the structure as the Queen's Chamber far below it only has 1 layer of Granite ceiling. People into structural architecture later corrected archaeology that the gimbaled limestone steeple of these granite structures is supporting all of the limestone above it.

So you have a very specially made granite construction carefully placed within the pyramid (King and Queen chambers) that has explicit designs that serve no practical purpose architecturally but also would never be seen by anyone. Ever. It then becomes an effort to better understand why that might have been made that way. Because doing it this way was considerably more effort than the Queen's chamber way. The King's Chamber has layers of 70 ton granite pillars on top of it.

Another one he harps on are the supposed air vents. The air vents in the Queens chamber were purposefully blocked but the King's vents were open to the outside. He would have ignored this if the vents weren't bent at odd angles. Because a horizontal air vent would have been much less effort to accomplish than carefully carving dozens of matching limestone blocks with the portions of the vent that also had to turn at angles and thus the tolerance for assembling it was much tighter.

The manufacturing tolerances of the Pyramid's construction surpass the tolerances of any modern skyscraper or building. Which was the initial spark for this guy to begin researching it.

TJT said:

The manufacturing tolerances of the Pyramid's construction surpass the tolerances of any modern skyscraper or building. Which was the initial spark for this guy to begin researching it.

Click to expand...

I see statements like this all the time. Could you explain what exactly that means?

The obvious provocative reason for people saying things like that is to indicate that the ancient builders were somehow superior to those of today, but that's such a vague statement that no one ever really quantifies it. Do you mean stone blocks are fitted together within n tolerance, or the entire room is within an RCH of perfect, or what? Because today we use shit like grout so it doesn't have to be within a thousandth of an inch...but if it has to be, like in a lot of high tech fabrication plants, it sure the fuck is. Just because a skyscraper has tolerances doesn't mean we aren't capable of incredible precision, but a statement like the one quoted above just completely ignores that as if to say that they were somehow better back then than we are right now.

Sure, for their time they were pretty precise, I'm not arguing that. But unless you have something specific, I'm pressing X to doubt that their tolerances are better than what we are capable of. Maybe a modern skyscraper doesn't need to be that tight because we build it in a way that has flexibility and leeway, instead of building the entire fucking thing out of stone blocks, but that doesn't mean we couldn't do it. But I see that same type of statement constantly, and it just isn't true. Fucking Jose with a laser level can get a wall just as tight as anything in the pyramids if there is a bottle of cerveza at the end of it.

Unless I'm misinterpretating what you and countless others are saying with statements like that, so I'm open to being proven wrong.

it's pretty much exactly what you are saying plus survivor's bias.

Every stone shit house that was thrown together over the last 10k years that were less precise has toppled over leaving only carefully stacked stone structures. no shit.

modern sky scrapers don't fit together as snuggly!

yeah and Pyramids don't have to deal with winds a 500 feet up or meet earthquake codes either. it's a pointless comparison

Void said:

I see statements like this all the time. Could you explain what exactly that means?

The obvious provocative reason for people saying things like that is to indicate that the ancient builders were somehow superior to those of today, but that's such a vague statement that no one ever really quantifies it. Do you mean stone blocks are fitted together within n tolerance, or the entire room is within an RCH of perfect, or what? Because today we use shit like grout so it doesn't have to be within a thousandth of an inch...but if it has to be, like in a lot of high tech fabrication plants, it sure the fuck is. Just because a skyscraper has tolerances doesn't mean we aren't capable of incredible precision, but a statement like the one quoted above just completely ignores that as if to say that they were somehow better back then than we are right now.

Sure, for their time they were pretty precise, I'm not arguing that. But unless you have something specific, I'm pressing X to doubt that their tolerances are better than what we are capable of. Maybe a modern skyscraper doesn't need to be that tight because we build it in a way that has flexibility and leeway, instead of building the entire fucking thing out of stone blocks, but that doesn't mean we couldn't do it. But I see that same type of statement constantly, and it just isn't true. Fucking Jose with a laser level can get a wall just as tight as anything in the pyramids if there is a bottle of cerveza at the end of it.

Unless I'm misinterpretating what you and countless others are saying with statements like that, so I'm open to being proven wrong.

Click to expand...

Please keep in mind I am just an enjoyer here and I am not a machinist or anything. But I understand his argument like this.

If you build something that is within the tolerance of 0.010 of an inch such as much of the Great Pyramid and numerous other artifacts in the region. You must have had a reason for doing so. As the greater the tolerance the greater level of effort to require it. Furthering this is that this level of precision is beyond reckoning of the human senses. Meaning a system of measurement had to have been designed to measure things down to this level as well as measurement tools to use.

Academia looks at this and just goes "it must have been for religious reasons, whatever." But the guy pointing this out is a machinist. He is not an academic. For practical reasons you wouldn't do something 100x more complicated if you didn't have to. So why did you have to? He points out other things like the Egyptians clearly made efforts to not bother with fine finishing where nobody would ever see it in other places so why is there precision where absolutely nobody would have ever seen it at all?

As the civilization was supposed to have nothing but stone and copper tools to accomplish all of this.

TJT said:

Please keep in mind I am just an enjoyer here and I am not a machinist or anything. But I understand his argument like this.

If you build something that is within the tolerance of 0.010 of an inch such as much of the Great Pyramid and numerous other artifacts in the region. You must have had a reason for doing so. As the greater the tolerance the greater level of effort to require it. Furthering this is that this level of precision is beyond reckoning of the human senses. Meaning a system of measurement had to have been designed to measure things down to this level as well as measurement tools to use.

Academia looks at this and just goes "it must have been for religious reasons, whatever." But the guy pointing this out is a machinist. He is not an academic. For practical reasons you wouldn't do something 100x more complicated if you didn't have to. So why did you have to? He points out other things like the Egyptians clearly made efforts to not bother with fine finishing where nobody would ever see it in other places so why is there precision where absolutely nobody would have ever seen it at all?

As the civilization was supposed to have nothing but stone and copper tools to accomplish all of this.

Click to expand...

Diorite was apparently available. I'm not sure about different variations, but I know in general it is second in hardness only to diamond. It could be used to work the granite.

TJT said:

Please keep in mind I am just an enjoyer here and I am not a machinist or anything. But I understand his argument like this.

If you build something that is within the tolerance of 0.010 of an inch such as much of the Great Pyramid and numerous other artifacts in the region. You must have had a reason for doing so. As the greater the tolerance the greater level of effort to require it. Furthering this is that this level of precision is beyond reckoning of the human senses. Meaning a system of measurement had to have been designed to measure things down to this level as well as measurement tools to use.

Academia looks at this and just goes "it must have been for religious reasons, whatever." But the guy pointing this out is a machinist. He is not an academic. For practical reasons you wouldn't do something 100x more complicated if you didn't have to. So why did you have to? He points out other things like the Egyptians clearly made efforts to not bother with fine finishing where nobody would ever see it in other places so why is there precision where absolutely nobody would have ever seen it at all?

As the civilization was supposed to have nothing but stone and copper tools to accomplish all of this.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you said here in general, but you answered a different question than what I asked. Basically, you are saying that the people that built the pyramid seemed to have better tools and methods than we expected them to, and that they achieved more precision than might have been necessary. Cool, not gonna argue that. I'm not knowledgeable enough nor do I care enough to debate that.

But what I asked was why you said they had superior tolerances to modern skyscrapers or buildings. I say they don't, and I need to see some sort of proof that I'm wrong. This is a similar statement as when people say that we aren't capable of moving Easter Island stones or Great Pyramid stones even with modern technology. That's complete horseshit, because obviously we can move them if we want. But people make those kinds of statements constantly, as if it is fact, despite knowing we have huge fucking cranes that build skyscrapers. Or even when some dude does it in his back yard with logs and horses, which he did with stones similar to the Easter Island ones.

Making blanket statements about how they have tolerances surpassing ours is what I'm questioning. I have no problem if you want to debate about how they shouldn't have the level of machining and precision that they apparently had, but any time someone says "we can't duplicate that feat today" it rustles my jimmies, because it just isn't true.