Thread: Ancient Aliens
View Single Post
Old November 12 2012, 07:04 PM   #379
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Ancient Aliens

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Because the engineering and architectural designs for the pyramids are no longer accessible and thus engineers and architects would be ill-equipped to explore that question (especially the "why" which implies judging knowledge about ancient cultures, beliefs, religions and practices, something that is ALSO beyond the purview of engineering).
I disagree with both your points. As for the “how”; it is precisely because the engineering and architectural designs for the pyramids are no longer accessible that engineers and architects would be the best qualified specialists to “reverse engineer” how it was ‘most likely’ done, or not done, as is the case more often.
Reverse engineering is not so straightforward a process as people like to believe. It's a very specialized sub-field in engineering that is actually more similar to forensics and archeology itself. Reverse engineering an ancient structure is next to impossible, for the very reasons you mentioned: I think you're under-estimating how important knowledge of ancient technology and building techniques actually IS, and archeologists are in a far better position to examine those techniques than engineers, almost to the point that an archeologist would be able to tell how a structure was built just by comparing it with other structures whose construction processes ARE documented.

As to “why”; after -and only after- a proper reverse engineering analysis by qualified individuals has been done, would archeologists and Egyptologists be in the best position to judge how an ancient cultures presumed beliefs and religions practices relate to a given monument, or vise versa, or whether those presumptions need to be re-evaluated.
That's like saying archeologists 4000 years in the future won't be able to determine anything meaningful about capitalism until they reverse engineer the Golden Gate Bridge. That's just silly; you could reverse engineer half of San Francisco and it wouldn't tell you as much as a Tommy Friedman book. More importantly, even if you lacked the building schematics for the Golden Gate, you could determine alot about how it was built by comparing it with those of other suspension bridges you DO have data for; reverse engineering it is an interesting exercise for engineering sake, but it isn't helpful for archeologists.

Perhaps, but it would be an educated guess, which is more than what an archeologists and Egyptologists could offer on the subject.
An archeologist wouldn't have to GUESS. He'd be able to consult the ancient records to figure how how they did it. If those records don't exist, then the goal of the archeologist is to find those records and translate them. Reverse engineering the pyramids isn't going to help with that processes.

Sorry, but here’s where you’re flat out wrong and misinformed. The fact is no bodies have ever been found in any pyramid that are an original (that is non intrusive) burial!
I'm not sure why that makes a difference. About a dozen of my ancestors are entombed in a mausoleum in Kentucky right now; my grandmother plans to join them when she dies. As that would involve OPENING the mausoleum in order to place her remains there, "intrusive burial" doesn't strike me as an odd thing to happen in a building designed to function as a tomb.

More to the point, it's not really clear what else the pyramids could have been used for OTHER than that. There's not much room in there for much else; I could see them being used as the Pharaoh's panic room during an invasion, but as others have pointed out, they're not particularly effective as fortresses.
Even sealed pyramids with sealed sarcophagi have proven –when opened by Egyptologists- to be completely empty!
Which is sort of what I was alluding to by Pharaohs faking their deaths and/or pretending to be reincarnated in the personage of their offspring. That would certainly answer the question of why the Egyptians would have buried an empty casket (except for Pharaoh dying in a way that his body couldn't be recovered). Not much evidence for that, but I've heard that theory floating around before.

I never made any claims about the academic world not being inundated with theoriesas to what those alternate claims might have been! Where did you get this from?
From you, when you say things like "it’s not that archeologists have been unable to determine if they were used for some other purpose, it’s that they have been unwilling to try, or even to consider the possibility"

It seems to me they're quite open to that possibility. Perhaps you should be more specific about what you're referring to?

I was referring to Robert Schoch’s analysis of the water erosion on the Sphinx and its enclosure, indicating that the monument is at least several millennia older than Egyptologist thought. It has nothing to do with the geologic timescales you're thinking of.
It does, actually, since water erosion over stone is not something geologists typically use to determine the age of structures -- artificial or otherwise -- because it's extremely difficult to determine at what rate that erosion actually occurred.

Again I think your wrong on this one. It was, I believe, Sir Norman Lockyer –an astronomer- who first brought astronomy to the attention of archeologists as a means of dating and otherwise interpreting ancient monuments.
Never heard of this before, though I know Lockyer as one of the discoverers of helium (not sure who the other guys were).

Archeologists still have not fully embraced archaeo-astronomy,
Neither have astronomers. That may tell you something.

Bullshit! A few perhaps, but most avoid them like the plague.
In exactly the same way that most science teachers avoid problematic students. But in both cases it doesn't take a great deal of prodding to get them to admit "Well, I always hoped..." followed by a cautious, "But where's the evidence?"

as I said; again using Atlantis for an example, the evidence is spread out over many disciplines such as Paleo-Anthropology, Oceanography, and climatology to name just a few, so this is the problem.
Yes, just not in the way you're thinking. Most of the evidence you're referring to has been compiled by people who lack expertise in most of those fields and aren't really in a position to determine whether they are relevant to the legend itself or just odd coincidences related to something else entirely (or garbage data related to nothing at all).

It may seem that way due to my attempt at brevity, but not really. But what empirical data do archeologists have available from their own field that would be contradicted by “aliens did it”?
AFAIK, Egyptian writings contain an account of the construction of the pyramids, for example, or at least imply that the Egyptians didn't think there was anything particularly odd or otherworldly about the nature of their construction. This is even more true of the Mayan pyramids, for which somewhat more detailed writings exist on their significance as well as their construction.

I’m not even sure archeology qualifies as an empirical science, at least not in the strict definition of the term? It’s not really repeatable; you can only dig a site once. And it’s not really testable for the same reasons.
That's not really what "empirical" means, but the point in this case is archeologists cannot (or, as a rule, TRY not) to make claims that aren't supported by concrete findings. They don't make assumptions about what was going on in a particular culture unless they can find some clues that indicate as much.

I concede that you cannot always say the same about anthropologists, though. History records MANY cases where anthropologists chose to interpret the behaviors of ancient or isolated peoples through their own cultural lens and reached totally erroneous or inappropriate conclusions as a result. Things have gotten a lot better since then, but the tendency is still there to some degree.

The only people who AREN'T going to be useful in solving those questions are internet hobbyists who lack a solid background in any of those fields or have experience in a field that is totally unrelated to them.
Like yourself, for example?
Exactly.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote