Well there were about 200 pharaohs that we know of altogether, and only about 50 of their mummies have been found. Then there are untold thousands of other tombs for lesser nobility, priests, and so forth that have undoubtedly not been discovered yet.

The pyramids don't have a chapel connected to the burial chamber, so in Egyptian belief there would be no way for the ba to return to the body. Apparently they didn't know that ghosts can walk through walls, or at least not stone ones.

And again, they believed that the burial chamber had to be underground. What you're not understanding about the mastabas is that they're just big piles of mud brick on top of the actual burial chamber. Also, the burial chambers are laid out like Egyptian houses were.

As far as the old kingdom being closer to ancient Babylon, it was. The architecture was identical. They even used Babylonian cylinder seals that were from Babylon, and had Babylonian imperial symbols on them, suggesting that the old kingdom was actually under Babylonian authority. The only narrative that makes sense is that Babylonian governors were sent to Egypt, bringing their official seals with them. Even once dynastic Egypt starts, you still see Babylonian imperial iconography associated with the pharaoh. Take the Narmer Palette, for example. It features bull's heads and serpopards, which are both imperial symbols of Babylon. The bull was a Babylonian symbol for kingship, and the serpopard represented the power of the state. The serpopard itself was actually the state symbol of Babylon. It's the animal you see on all their cylinder seals from that era, and the animal you see on the Ishtar gate.

What is literally on the walls of the burial chamber? I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Have you guys watched this one?  I posted it already but you might have missed.  It makes more sense than a lot of other theories.

Hahaha yup. A bunch of drunk guys just fooling around in the backyard.

Thats why We dont know exactly how and why...they didn't either.

Those dates of around 3000 BC would make the pyramids antediluvian by Biblical dating. That presents a serious problem for the water pump theory, because, according to the Bible, there were no deserts before the flood, and therefore no need for irrigation. The Bible says the whole surface of the earth was watered by a mist every morning.

I also think that Narmer is the Egyptian word for Nimrod, who was post flood. Not only do the names sound similar, but there's a lot of evidence that the Babylonian and Egyptian royal families both go back to Nimrod. We also don't know exactly how Narmer was pronounced. For that matter, we don't know how Nimrod was pronounced originally. Most theologians think that Nimrod was a title, not his given name, anyways. According to Hyslop, the Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons are the same in origin (i.e. Nimrod, Semur Amat, and Tammuz correspond directly to Osiris, Isis, and Horus). In the Egyptian king's list, Narmer is the first.

So if the pyramids are pre flood, then Narmer couldn't have built them, because we know the Old Kingdom is post flood. I think the strongest evidence is that they are pre flood, because the radiocarbon dating matches up with what Josephus said about them being antediluvian.

I'm sure the water pump theory is part of it, but I think just to create the resonance to generate power. What he said about the energy being beneficial to living things, though, that matches up with what the folklore says. According to tribal folklore in Egypt, the pyramids used to give off an energy that helped living things stay healthy. They claim the temple next to the pyramids was actually a hospital where the energy from the pyramid was focused into some kind of resonance chamber. So maybe there's a vein of truth in that.

According to Josephus and the Apocrypha, the great pyramid was built right before the flood, but also another pyramid was built at the same time out of clay brick. The clay brick pyramid was destroyed in the flood, but the great pyramid survived.

This has led many to conclude that the Tower of Babel was the reconstruction of the clay brick pyramid that was destroyed in the flood. Since the Bible makes it clear that the Tower of Babel was a stargate, it's reasonable to conclude that it's predecessor was, as well. That would go a long way to explaining the flood in general. If there's one surefire way to piss God off, it seems like trying to access higher dimensions is the way to do it. According to ancient mythology, the Tower of Babel had a fifty foot high wall built around it. Supposedly, Nimrod expected God to flood the world again and built the wall to hold back the flood waters. He failed to anticipate God's creativity, though. Long story short, my guess is that the great pyramid was the power source for an antediluvian stargate. I think they were trying to access higher dimensions, and that was the final straw that prompted God to destroy their civilization.

One thing about the Babel story is that God took them seriously. It implies that, had they completed the project, they would have gained access to the heavens. Had these been simpletons who really thought they could build a literal tower to heaven, God wouldn't have taken them seriously. We're obviously failing to read between the lines in assuming that it was a literal tower.

Pursuant to the last post, I forgot to mention the Emerald Tablets and what they have to say about the great pyramid. According to the Emerald Tablets, the great pyramid is built on top of an entrance to the Halls of Amenti.

Basically, they say that the pyramid was built to resurrect the old gods, who were trapped in the bowels of the earth. It talks about the ancient gods, with Thoth as their leader, descending into human form to free mankind from his bondage.

This is very much in line with the Biblical story of the watchers. The Bible says that the Watchers, at the direction of Semjaza, "left their first estate," which many have said relates to their bodies, implying they took human form.

For their crime, God cast them into Tartarus, which is likely the same as the Halls of Amenti mentioned in the tablets. This was all pre flood. The judgement of the Watchers, according to the Book of Enoch, took place shortly before the flood.

So the Emerald Tablets really line up with the idea that the Tower of Babel and the great pyramid were interconnected, and both attempts to raise the old gods back into physical human form. It's important to note that the terms heavens in the Bible isn't restricted to the good heaven. There are multiple heavens, some of which are inhabited by the fallen angels. A better modern day translation would be other dimensions. It sounds very much like they were trying to access Tartarus via some kind of portal.

And beer remained a form of remuneration all the way to the 20th century.  

With the rum ration part of your pay included a (originally) a pint of brandy (later rum) per day.  There were options, this could be substituted with the money equivalent of the drink or 1.5 gallons of beer.  Per day.  The Royal Navy discontinued the rum ration in the 1970's.

Fair well beer pay, you got shit done.

DMT is a helluva drug.

Not snarkily saying you use DMT.

The people who made up and actually believed that stuff were so far out of the modern headspace they might as well have been aliens.

The Emerald Tablets are supposedly the repository that was found either in the pyramid or the sphinx. Because of their content, my opinion is that they're genuine. While they're written from a luciferian perspective, they do mirror the Biblical account almost exactly, and also mesh with the Jewish history that was recounted by Josephus.

According to Josephus, at least part of the pyramid's function was to survive the flood and protect knowledge that pre flood man wanted to preserve for mankind after the flood. And the Apocrypha does state that men after the flood dug up an antediluvian city and found the lost knowledge of the watchers, and people speculate that's probably where Nimrod got the idea to build the tower of Babel.

I don't think DMT was involved. And I certainly don't think you have to be on drugs to believe it. If you believe in the Bible, and you're well versed in scripture, then it makes perfect sense. Isaac Newton was a big believer in the Emerald Tablets, and I don't think he was even a drinker, much less doing crazy stuff like DMT.

But when the scientific evidence is meshing with the greater body of historical evidence, what is one to do? I can say with absolute certainty that Narmer nor anyone else built the pyramid in the old kingdom. They simply didn't have the capability or workforce. The largest city in Egypt at that time was Nekhen, and it was puny. Maybe 7,000 people at its height, which would have been after Narmer's death. In Narmer's own time, maybe half that. They didn't even work stone. Every single building in Nekhen was mud brick, just like in Babylon.

I'm also very skeptical of the utility of the pyramid as a water pump. For a civilization of that kind of prowess, you can't convince me that they couldn't have come up with the water screw independently. That guy is also failing to mention that the motif on one of the scorpion maceheads, which he actually showed, depicts one of Narmer's immediate successors, probably his son, presiding over the dedication of an irrigation canal. There's actually quite a bit of art depicting their irrigation methods, and it's always manual labor. The location of the pyramids doesn't make much sense either if they were built in the time of Narmer, or anywhere within maybe 500 years. Nekhen was the center of civilization at that time. That's where all the agriculture was happening. At that time, that's where the floodplains from the Nile were. It was actually the Nile changing course like a thousand years later that prompted them to abandon Nekhen and move the capital.

Here's the scene in question, with an unknown old kingdom pharaoh dedicating the opening of a typical irrigation canal:

If I understood you correctly, the Bible's timeline does not match the Great Pyramid's dateline?   The movie's author's theory that Narmer could have build the Great Pyramid (or part of it) matches his reign (give or take).

The date commonly given for the beginning of Narmer's reign is c. 3100 BC. Other mainstream estimates, using both the historical method and radiocarbon dating, are in the range c. 3273–2987 BC.

Where is Narmer's reign determined to be post-flood (around 2500 BC?)?

For me, the elephant in the room is still the part that no one can explain how the workers could move that volume of rocks in the short period of time they claim they did.  

However, if we split the construction into different eras then it begins to be possible.  Narmer could have built the base with the pumps part while others after him added more stuff on top of it, maybe even destroying the original purpose in the process (not unheard of in other cases).

Even today Menes and Narmer's situation is not very clear.  Same person?  Father and son?  I could not find a good source for that lineage.

This article suggests that Menes (1st pharaoh) is Nimrod's (Narmer?) son.  Nonetheless, it appears that Nimrod was a conqueror and also wanted to develop Egypt.  He brought his experts to design a building that would help mitigating the desertification (already going on at that time).

http://genesis6conspiracy.com/chapter-88-the-kings-of-nimrod-and-ham/

As far as the Bible itself, we could open another can of worms if we start discussing some of its timeline and even some of its content and actual meaning.  Yes, if we calculate the flood using the Bible's (understood) timeline, the Great Pyramid is older.  Is it possible that there's a misunderstanding on that assumed timeline?  Or, maybe not all Earth was a "big paradise"?

This is brand new to me.  I need some time to digest it.  I still have in my mind that the Babel Tower was some kind of tool that unified all peoples and someone got pissed because of that.  

According to the Biblical timeline, Noah's flood was around 4300 years ago. Archeologists want to claim that civilization is 10,000 years old, but there are all kinds of problems with their dating methods. I'm a Bible believing Christian, so I'm going to take the word of the book that's proved to be inerrant for the last several thousand years, vs. the word of sources that cannot be verified. The Egyptians especially were very prone to stretching their dates to make themselves appear older than they were. The Babylonians did the same thing.

So if we're taking the Bible at its word, then 3,000 BC would be about right if the pyramids were built by antediluvian mankind.

Narmer would have lived in about 2,500-2,000 BC, assuming he is the same personage as Nimrod, which I think is overwhelmingly supported by Hyslop's findings. We know that would be Nimrod's time because that's when Abraham lived, and Abraham's father was Nimrod's high priest. That would also place Uruk at about that same time.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge discrepancy. Especially when you consider how much speculation and circular reasoning is employed in dating ancient sites.

I'm fine with the discussion of biblical history if you two want to go into it. Go as deep as you like. I am interested.

It's more than just Biblical history. It's the sum of the whole of mythology. As far as ancient sources dealing directly with the pyramids, we have Josephus and whatever mythology he was pulling from, the Emerald Tablets, and Herodotus. Herodotus is the only source that attributes them to Khufu, and I think he was about five hundred years after the fact. He was also kind of accused of being a hack by his contemporaries. I don't think anyone necessarily accused him of lying, but he was known for not really checking his sources or doing his homework.

Then there's the greater body of mythology, and the version told by Josephus makes more sense in that context, and apparently lines up with the radiocarbon dating. There's also the local folklore that backs up that version of events.

So the Bible is just one small part of it.

The thing about the Bible that I cannot shake out is that it is a book based on events' descriptions by (usually) uneducated folks who wrote what they understood they saw, or heard, and all that content was then arbitrarily edited by a group of other folks (God knows what interests and agendas they had) to come up with a final Book.  Lots of stuff was taken out, and who knows where they ended-up, and who knows what was inserted "because it would look better".  Add that for over a thousand years the only way to get a copy was by having someone writing it and trusting that person would not edit it.  I have to keep that in mind anytime I refer to the Bible.

So, despite being brought up as a Catholic, I keep an open mind about the Bible, despite a lot of its content being verified.  I say this because so many events and reports that happened even less than 100 years ago still have more than one version about it.

If we take that the big flood really happened around 4300 years ago then there's a good probability that the Great Pyramid was built (at least started to be) before it.  Furthermore, the big flood may not have happened as described in the Bible (maybe because the folks who wrote it made edits there?).  There are some evidences of a big flood, but apparently not in a global scale.  Here's a couple articles debating it.

Did Noah's Flood Cover the Whole Earth?

Did The Biblical Flood Happen?

I recently watched a series by BBC on Netflix where a specialist presented some good arguments about how some events really happened and how the Bible describes them.  She dives dip into the culture of that time, words and their actual meaning, etc.

Bible's Buried Secrets

Found one on Youtube.  It's worth watching all of them.



One thing to keep in mind about all this is based on what we are presently experiencing ourselves.  Notice how the "powers to be" try by all means to "sanitize" and "cleanse" information.  It's very difficult because of how spread it is but we still see blatant censoring and worse.  Do you think it changed much from what folks did in the past, and much easier, since they had full control of the sources?

So, the old "trust but verify" still applies.   Makes sense?

I just know that the Bible has been right when archeologists were dead wrong. Take the existence of Pilate for example. The historians said there's no way any Judean governor by that name existed, because the Romans keep such detailed records. Case closed.

But then they dig up a plaque commemorating an aqueduct to none other than Pontius Pilate.

Then they said there's no way that King David ever existed. He's the King Arthur of the Jews, an amalgamation of various minor chieftains, and so forth. They said Judea was too small to raise an army, that they were just a bunch of shepherds living in tents.

Then they found a stone from a rival empire listing King David as one of the enemies they had gone to war with. And then they found a huge fortified city that proved that Judea was an actual empire at that time, vs. just some guys living in tents with their sheep.

Then there's a lot of archeological evidence that gets ignored. Like the discovery of what is likely Joseph's tomb in Egypt. Then there's a place in Saudi Arabia where there's a pillar on the shore of the Red Sea that had Moses inscribed on it. Some divers went down there and sure enough there were a bunch of Egyptian chariots on the sea floor. That part also had a sand bar just under the water, so it was the only place that something like what is described in the Exodus could have happened.

So wherever ancient history is concerned, I'll take the Bible over modern sources. And second to that, I'll take mythology. After that, ancient historians. Those three sources, placed in the context of one another, yield a very coherent story of the ancient world.

ETA: I have seen that episode. In my opinion, they're suffering from a very bad case of confirmation bias. They keep moving the goal post. If conventionally accepted archeological theories were treated in the same way, you could call into question pretty much the entire ancient world. For example, you could make an equally compelling case that Hammurabi never existed. The difference between Jewish history and other histories is that archeologists and historians are willing to take non Biblical sources at face value, whereas they automatically assume that any Biblical event is automatically a lie and set the bar extremely high. And then when that bar is reached by evidence, they move the goal post.

Been studying the Joseph Imhotep connection recently.

Mythology is a fascinating topic mostly because its border with religion quite often tend to blur.  It also can bring heavily biased opinions because of one's deep beliefs.   So, just so you guy understand where I stand.  I believe that the universe is not the result of mere chance and random events that made "darkness" into "light" and "protein blobs" into "human beings".  There's definitely the hand (or hands) of a Creator (or more than one) there.  We can call this Creator God, or any other term that makes everyone comfortable.  The big question is how it happened, followed by several whys.  Maybe one day we will understand that.  My belief is that it happens when we "die", or transcend into another stage.

One thing that makes this a bit easier for us is that the main religions seem to agree that life does not end when we die.  I might be very disappointed when my day comes but I am very optimistic about it.

Back to the mythologies, religions and legends.  The latter are also important since several ended-up verified (e.g. Troy, the Titicaca civilization, etc.)

I agree that we need to view and study our History with all in mind and most of all, with an open mind.  As we recently discussed, it appears that religion plays a role when some authors try to defend one side or another of an argument.  It's understandable, since some of their beliefs are deeply rooted into their lives and if they crash their lives might also crumble.  Others only have egos and other personal (usually financial) interests when defending their point of view.  It seems that Egyptology is full of those and we are seeing some breakthroughs thanks to folks invsting their own time and money and publishing what they find.   The Internet made a lot easier to broadcast one's opinion and findings.  It also tells that we need to know how to filter the noise.

Herodotus seemed to be a big time traveler.  Not sure whether he had time (or willingness) to dig deep into the information he gathered or just collected it and published them without much verification.  Considering the amount of time one would take traveling at that time, it's unlikely he spent much time in the places he visited.  Some critics claim he either made up or trusted too much what he was being told.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus

So, he was definitely a controversial guy.  Nevertheless, he also provided some reliable accounts.  In the pyramids' case I tend to believe on his account of 100,000 workers if we will believe the great pyramid was really build in just 20 years.

Wasn't Troy found thanks to his writings?  

On the other hand, Josephus seemed more disciplined in terms of accuracy and what he write.

I think both have their own merits.  Herodotus used several sources and listed them and apparently let the reader decide.  Josephus filtered the sources and wrote what he saw as "facts" (is it possible there was some bias?).

Not much different than nowadays we having to do our own homework to see what is good info?  

I wholeheartedly believe that Khufu undertook a massive restoration of the Giza plateau, including the pyramids. I could even entertain the idea that he was so proud of his work that he had himself buried in the great pyramid, though I think that's unlikely for reasons already stated.

I could absolutely believe it took as many as 100,000 workers over the course of two decades to finish the restorations. Just digging the Giza plateau out of the sand would have been a truly monumental undertaking using nothing but wooden shovels and baskets.

And I could see this undertaking being so huge that over the course of 500 years people forgot that the pyramids were already there and ended up attributing them to Khufu.

And I could see Herodotus failing to dig deeper and just taking some yocals word for it. The thing is, though, because of Josephus we know that there were alternate theories, and Herodotus doesn't even mention them. So one is left to wonder whether he just didn't do his homework, or whether he was inserting his own opinion, or even flat out making things up to gain notoriety, as some have accused. Who knows.

But since the radiocarbon dating matches up with the Biblical timeline, and that fits the greater body of evidence, I have to go with that conclusion.

Yea, I guess in the end it's just a matter of faith. I think people lived longer before the flood because the atmosphere was richer and they had a better diet, plus fewer errors in their genome since they were closer to Adam.

What stands out to me is that the Biblical timeline is within the realm of possibility, whereas the timelines you see from the Babylonians and Egyptians, and even the Greeks, were all pretty outlandish, and contradict one another beyond what could be considered any reasonable margin of error.

Especially when you look at their creation myths, it's obvious they're trying to rewrite history in a way that takes Jehovah out of the picture, and a big part of that was stretching the timeline to make their civilizations much more ancient than they actually were. They're just so far outside of the realm of possibility that you have to discount them, based on what we know.

But the Biblical timeline for civilization isn't that far from the official narrative, especially considering the amount of time that's transpired and how little we have to go on. When you look at all the uncertainties, the discrepancies between the Bible and academia, timeline wise, really aren't that much of an issue. The Bible says 6,000 years, and academia says 10,000. The Bible says approximately 4,000-4,500 years for Egypt, counting from the Old Kingdom, and academia says more like 5,000. Academia says 6,000 years for Uruk, the Bible says 4,500. Such minor discrepancies can easily be explained, and are pretty trivial if you ask me. I think academia is pretty crazy for throwing out ideas because of a discrepancy of a few hundred year timeline for things that happened many thousands of years ago.

It's even hard to date things that happened in fairly recent history. And once you go back before the Gregorian calendar, the margin of error gets really wonky the further back you go. Before Rome, and all bets are off. That's the point when you're having to date things by how many inches of soil were covering them, and that requires making lots of assumptions, and going off of ancient sources that were based on oral histories, that were then exchanged between peoples and civilizations using different calendars and speaking different languages, which were then compiled by slightly less ancient historians, who would have injected their own assumptions wherever discrepancies were found. And what we're left with in the end are some half baked footnotes in the history books made by monks in the middle ages, who might not have even had a good grasp on the languages they were translating.

Neat thread though

Well in my opinion the erosion on the Giza plateau happened due to the flood. Probably more due to the water draining away than to the actual flood itself. Being right next to the Nile, there would have been huge, fast running torrents of water draining off the plateau into the Nile, and the Sphinx enclosure especially would have been a natural path of least resistance. You can imagine that horseshow shaped enclosure probably would have looked something like Niagara Falls for a few days or weeks.

According to mythology, mankind even intervened after the flood to drain the land. Supposedly most of China was still underwater, and emperor Yu gained his fame for his engineering projects to drain away the residual waters left over from the great flood. I think some people even claim he was Japeth, if I remember right. According to the Chinese chronology, Yu ruled around 2,200 BC, so about 4,200 years ago, which would put the Chinese date for the great flood at almost exactly the same as the Hebrew Bible.

It would have taken quite a few hundred years to build up a population. Think the flood waters were hanging out that long?

Creationists think that a lot of inland seas were created during the flood. I think the better question to ask is why would these people make up such a weird story. And how could the story be so similar across so many cultures that allegedly haven't had any contact with one another for many thousands of years. All over the world there are flood myths where eight people survive a deluge in a big boat. It's just really hard to explain away, other than to just accept that that's what actually happened. It's especially hard to explain how the Chinese flood myth could be so similar, when there was supposedly no contact between China and Mesopotamia. The evidence is even in the development of their language.



So if the flood really happened, and at the time that the Bible (and other sources) say it did, then that would easily explain how the Sphinx could become so weathered in a compressed timeline.

Im willing to accept if they were build prior, Im always looking at the evidence but Im inclined to believe the pyramids were build after the flood.

I think the tower of babel was just an ordinary pyramid structure. Not some kind of stargate or attempt to actually reach heaven (that would've been impossible and even they knew that). If God hadn't split them up we'd be flying around in airplanes and have computers and cellphones a 1000 years ago, which would've gone against Gods timeline; why he did what he did.

That said, the great pyramids and others around the world would've been build by scattered people who took that knowledge with them, and improved upon it. The tower of babel was baked bricks but all these other ones are stone, or rather geopolymer tech (why they're fitted togather so tight). The sphinx is weathered but I dont think anything survived the flood, at least not sitting upright afterwards???

So precise, so ingenious, so advanced....  and now it's this:

According to the gap theory, the earth was created (many millions/billions of years ago) and put under the admin of lucifer and his subordinates. Lucifer rebelled then the earth was catastrophically flooded and everything wiped out and buried. Whether or not God flooded it or satan did in a tissy fit we dont know. The first few verses of genesis says there was no light. If the world had been in that flooded condition for a while before God showed up, then its a good chance the earth was a huge ice ball for a while.

There were some engineers who did some computer models and concluded that the pyramids could have survived a global flood. Also looked at other sites like Puma Punku and concluded they were destroyed by a huge wave of water. Then you look at the major megalithic sites in South America and Russia, and it's hard to imagine that anything other than a global flood could have destroyed them, considering major earthquakes can hardly touch them.

I couldn't even begin to speculate. With the earth being billions of years old, I think it's pretty absurd that anyone considers anything geological an exact science. There are creationists who say the pyramids were built after the flood because they're built on top of a layer of sea fossils, and they're assuming that those were laid down by the flood, presumably I guess because they assume that the earth is only six thousand years old. So I think trying to use geology to date things gets both sides in trouble more often than not.

In our brief discussion about the Andean megalithic constructions and the Egyptian pyramids we easily saw how many "famous" archaeologists are full of it.  Either arrogance, ego, financial interests or other motivations we found several holes in their theories with some plainly requiring lots of suspension of disbelief.

I believe that the Bible in general is correct.  The people who wrote it probably did not want to stretch things too much.  However, we also do not know what was left out or edited to match some interests.  The part that raises most of the flags for me is the Church being the sole responsible for the original Bible's guard and copying.  And we all know what happened during the middle ages.  Pages being removed, added or edited are well within the realm of possibilities.   I think that only when Gutenberg enabled the Bible's easier proliferation, he also helped preserving it.

So, yes, I trust the Bible but not per se.  I also need to see other reputable sources before I trust it.

That series is very good for raising some very interesting questions about the meaning of what is in the Bible.  The author clearly says she is stating theories based on words' meaning, cultural habits (mostly at that time) and so on.  I liked her explanation of what the Bible describes as "Paradise" possibly actually have been.    Anyway, for me it was just one more example of what I said above about always cross-checking several sources.

We have seen several examples along History showing some groups trying to erase others in order to get absolute power.  Like you said, it could have been a long time making people forget, or someone intentionally erasing evidence that went against his/her interests.

Nowadays we see this blatantly happening and we have ubiquitous information that makes it more difficult.  But it still happens.

Imagine in a time when documenting stuff was in the hands of a few and those few under a despotic ruler who did not like people questioning him/her.

Romans set the Alexandrias's library ablaze and wiped out unimaginable History and knowledge.  Imagine what else was either wiped out or changed to conform to someone's desires.

Then add to several folks nowadays putting their personal interests above the real facts and findings.

I am leaning towards the "very old" timeline (pre-flood) for at least part of its (possibly several others) construction, until we can get really solid evidence about what really happened there.

I also like the holistic approach and cross-checking several sources.   History teaches us how things can be easily twisted by the "victor".

Fascinating.  Molding the blocks also makes a lot more sense when building the structure.

There's a group claiming that a lot of the blocks in the Egyptian pyramids were also molded.  Of course, being quickly dismissed by the mainstream folks.

We know that the Romans knew how to make cement that survives until today in harsh environments.   So, why older civilizations would not know how to make and use similar compounds?

https://web.uvic.ca/~jpoleson/ROMACONS/Caesarea2005.htm

I agree that a 500 years error in events that happened 6000 years ago or even farther beyond is acceptable.  We are talking about a 10% error margin or a lot less.

Cross checking different sources helps us fine tuning the timeline but unless we can find very solid evidence it will be hard to get a definitive answer.

One problem with the pyramids being molded is the fossils in the stone.

I'm not denying the great flood, but it might not have been as great as portrayed or believed.

http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/flood.php

Furthermore, different civilizations describe great floods, did they all happen at the same time?  We have seen how time is "fluid" when we are checking historic events across the world.  

Well... ancient civilizations might have also started "affirmative acts" and other stuff like that...  Which would also explain their demise...

Fossils or stuff like seashell remains, etc, that could have been used as aggregate?  I doubt that at that time people would care about grinding anything when preparing the aggregate.

Tuned in to the thread.
Whew!
Heady stuff!

IIRC the core limestone has been matched to several quarries relatively close by. The fossil make up of the stone in the quarry matches that of the pyramids.

But there is this.

I understand that the theory is that only some stones were quarried and others were cast.  It makes more sense than pulling millions of them up a ramp and using thousands more people and resources, and taking much longer.

From that video I got to this one.



It talks about a book that teaches how to do it.  How's anyone's Russian?

https://docviewer.yandex.ru/view/0/?

And it also points to this interesting website that lists many megalithic sites worldwide.  Good for that project checking how they are oriented.

http://megaliths.org/browse

Anyway, the "stone cast", like several others is just another theory.

Some other interesting stuff.  Actually a big claim there that I could not find any references anywhere else.

Go to 6:00 in this video for it.  The beginning is also interesting but if you are in a hurry, skip to the 6 minutes mark.



I looked for Mount Meru but my search-fu today is weak.  Did not find anything worth posting except Wikipedia.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru

The Mogao Caves in China also did not bring anything about that specific scroll.  Also searched using Google images but nothing related came up.  It completely messed up the image search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogao_Caves

headstoner will love this one.

Interesting stuff about that hammer.

Also:  "if you call the professionals the artifact disappears!  I think I'll call the Smithsonian!  You call the Smithsonian and all of a sudden it's gone!".

Hey Brass, is that you?