• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Ancient knowledge, lost or censored ?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Kim, I believe that your continuing insistence on Specific Answers is NOT "proper" at this point in the discussion. What Kieran has posted is an interesting, well produced offering that invites the viewer to join in a process of examination. An examination of some of the physical facts that have been measured/observed about the pyramids at Giza. The "offering" does suggest, I feel, that if you compare these facts to the known capabilities of modern construction/manufacturing there is a justification in conjecturing that the Pyramids were NOT constructed with only ropes/slopes and blood, sweat, and tears. Kieran has not suggested that he possesses the "for sure" alternate method of fabrication and I do not feel that he is under any obligation to provide one, at this point, just so you can pontificate.

If you choose to not particiapate in a civil, learned examination, so be it. But, why not allow those that do so choose to proceed at their own pace?
 
Giza is without doubt my fav earth-bound mystery. It is still there, and it can still be measured, pondered over and it defies explanation.
Any 'expert' -and there are countless books written by them - will have some pet theory as to how it was all achieved. And they are all wrong.
Virtually every explanation I have heard for building them, leaves out some important point that totally nullifies that explanation. An example is that a huge ramp was used to transport the blocks up. Really? The material needed for the ramp would be more than required to build the pyramid. Too steep and angle and you can't move the blocks. How were the blocks quarried at a rate of one per 2 1/2mins? With copper tools? Ahem.

I don't have to imagine alien builders for it to be a mystery. For me though, there is zero doubt that there have been previous unacknowledged civilisations.

Good post Kieran, enjoyed that vid mate.
 
Kim323 said:
You know, I consider myself a tolerant person, and I am.

But, here we go again, and my intolerance for this crackpot stuff grows even more with this video. Excuse the hyperbole, but really.:eek:

May I suggest that the alternative history buffs wend their merry way over to the Lost Knowledge thread that was begun recently, where I offered my two cents worth to an interminable video that Gordon suggested to me?

I'm not going to repeat myself, though the temptation is well nigh irresistible.

I watched Mr. Childress and Mr. Dunn as they offered up more baloney on this pyramid construction stuff. I took notes as I watched that video and tried to keep my opinions of the video specific but short on that thread, and I watched the whole thing, as I had this video already elsewhere, and no offense to Kieran.:) But, please, go check out that other thread.

This video is more of the same. Modern homo sapiens couldn't do it with all of our wondrous technology (and cranes!) at our disposal, so how could people of antiquity?

I'm biting my tongue.

"Sacred lines" indeed of the construction of these, indisputably, wondrous architectural feats, but really, "sacred lines":D , and the music pounds as a cut to someone drawing a line circumnavigating a globe.

ARRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This fringe stuff is beyond the pale, denigrates ourselves and people of antiquity, and flies in the face of, yes mainstream historians and scientists. But there you have the whole point to the "alternative history field": anything mainstream is automatically suspect in and of itself.

I went back and counted, and sure enough, my effort to sprinkle this post with proverbial phrases succeeded.

There is no evidence whatsoever of the many off the wall hypotheses that are put forward for this stuff. Kim:D
Click to expand...


I think you are missing the point a bit Kim. I don't subscribe to any 'out-there' type theory on the pyramids. I don't think it was aliens etc.

What people are trying to say in these videos is that they don't accept the conventional explanation of these things. My personal point of view is modern history is not acknowledging the very strong possibility that there were civilisations that were pretty advanced on earth a long time (probably thousands of years, not tens) before the current taught history puts early civilisations of man.

So, for instance, all that might mean is that there were more advanced tools and knowledge available to the builders than the most basic inventory allowed by current teaching.

I don't see what is so far-fetched with what I've just said.

You know I don't get personal Kim but I am flabbergasted you can call alternative theories on the building of the Giza pyramids 'off the wall' whilst admitting to being a follower of the bible. Do I really need to start quoting the bible to illustrate what I think are 'off the wall' theories contained there?

I realise there is always a sliding scale from 'alternative' to 'off the wall' and I'm not sure the alternative explanations I have for the pyramids are anywhere near 'off the wall.' I think it is a bit off for you to
 
There is no doubt that Wally is a clever, gifted man when it comes to moving these heavy blocks. He goes a long way in explaining megalithic building.
In fact, I would be very interested to hear if he has any theories on how some other large pieces of stone were moved in antiquity.
Some of the most puzzling are:

Balbek in Lebanon.
Some obelisks in Egypt.
Easter Island Statues.

The principle for moving heavy blocks no doubt holds for quite a range of sizes but often some of these blocks have been raised up also. To date I have never heard a single theory as to how the largest blocks in Balbek were moved after quarrying.
 
Gordon, I've expressed my beliefs on religion, and noted where there is no empirical evidence.

I have referenced certain specific authors, scholars, historians, theologians, and yes, scientists, and their books on other threads to back up my assertions concerning religion as it pertains to here on the earth, on good ol' terra firma.

That has become a refuge of some here unwilling to back up their assertions about human antiquity, and it's a convenient and rather, ahem, not courageous way, shall we say, of not addressing the "history" of this fringe stuff.

And that's what I'm asking for here, specifics and evidence for the claims made here and on other threads that allege a host of stuff, so much convoluted and twisty threads of premises that there is really no unraveling them unless:

Those horrid, pesky, and uncomfortable specifics are provided to prove this stuff, and it's really hard to keep up with it, but these, again, are the chief questions that must be asked of these premises, but the specifics are not offered:

1. Which specific structures that are attributed, clearly and historically, to Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. cultures/civilizations, truly magnificent structures indeed, are those alleged to NOT have been built by the humans of these cultures?

2. To rather repeat #1, but gosh, when will anyone answer with specifics and evidence: Which civilizations of antiquity, which ones exactly, and choose from the list in #1 or offer some of your own, cannot have according to these premises, built the wonderful architectural feats we see?

3. Now you bring up, again, the "strong possibility" that there were advanced civilizations before what historians, scientists, and archaeologists have determined is the window of recorded history. That gets us perilously close to aliens, but I know you don't mean that, so:

What is the specific evidence that there were advanced civilizations on the earth, of humans I presume, that predated the Near Eastern civilizations we studied in grade school, and some of us far beyond that? What evidence that points to a "strong possibility"?

4. And then, there you go again with the "more advanced tools and knowledge". Is that the suppressed and destroyed knowledge you've alleged elsewhere and is very relevant to this thread? The knowledge destroyed by the ravenous armies of Europe under the control of that institution described by an eight letter word starting with C, as you allege elsewhere?

5. What, exactly, is this knowledge, and what, exactly, are the tools? Specifics. In another thread, relevant to this one, you allege machining of the blocks of the Great Pyramid of Giza. I watched the hour and a half video you suggested and commented on it.

6. What are the "belt driven" machines powered by water, animals, or humans, that you mention as being those used to "machine" those blocks?

7. Kieran, I had already seen this video, and watched it again here, since you wanted me to. How, and this is just a beginning question, can the Easter Island structures still, really, be a source and evidence for these premises? And sure enough, there is the British machinist Christopher Dunn in the video both you and Gordon have submitted. I have commented on him in another thread, since he formed a large core of Childress's video. I did not denigrate him at all, and commented that I have read his book The Giza Power Plant years ago, and was not impressed.

So, I ask for specifics, and for that request to be ignored with such, well, what (?), points to me that it's easy to rattle stuff off, but when it comes to specifics, then knowledge, an actual chronological knowledge, historical knowledge, military knowledge, cultural knowledge, and on and on, is required.

But my specific questions just require specifics as to who, what, when, and where. Not speculative advanced civilizations, not ephemeral advanced knowledge and tools, not this knowledge getting lost/destroyed/suppressed, not, well, these structures are so well made they MUST NOT and COULD NOT have been built by, well, us, and well, wow, they're so superbly built and the blocks are so heavy and the joints so tight that even we in modern times with our own technology, could not have built them.

The part in that list above that is true is the part about the wonderful feats of architecture they are, the joints so tight, the blocks so heavy, and so on and on because they ARE wondrous feats, and wonders built by little ol' us.

And, in closing, when I hear of "frequencies" that the Egyptians wanted to "harness" as the reason for building the pyramids, I shudder. And in your video, Kieran, this "sacred line" that links these marvels together, well, what do you think your own video is alleging? ;) Kim
 
Well, when it comes to the Greeks and Romans, my passion knows no bounds.

We'll leave Egypt and Easter Island alone, because they offer no evidence whatsoever that the wondrous feats built by those peoples were NOT built, well, by them!

Ah, my beloved Romans, and Baalbek. What impressive structures indeed. Some of my favorite Roman emperors felt the need to sponsor buildings there, Nero, Trajan, my beloved Antoninius Pius, and the wild and hairy and hirsute Septimius Severus, one of my favorite emperors. For wonderful and scholarly biographies of some Roman emperors you can do no better than Anthony R. Birley. Scholarly work, and very readable also.

But back to Baalbek. How were they built? CRANES, among other modes and methods, were employed. No great mystery. No expression of wow, they couldn't have done it, and the premises arising therefrom, are needed to explain their construction.:p Kim

I enjoyed that first video, and will watch the second one, too.
 
@Kim - your obvious admiration of what man could achieve in the past is a good thing and actually I am puzzled as to how you think differently to me, when I think we are thinking more alike than different?
Allow me to explain. You appear to think that my ascribing advanced tech and knowledge to people of several thousand years ago is to do them a disservice, whereas your stating that you think such people could indeed have the very skill and craftsmanship to create the wonders we talk about.

So my difficulty lies with how with how I think we are basically saying the same thing, that the people back then had skills unequalled today. What part of that troubles you?

Remember, at no time am I bringing in aliens, the occult or time travellers! Just good tools, possibly basic machines and certainly mathematics supposedly that only came later.

Perhaps you are not to familiar with maths and do not really understand the feats achieved from the engineering side of things.

History tells us that when the Giza great pyramid was built, there was no knowledge of the golden ratio or the number Pi. That alone is a perfect example of the 'advanced knowledge' that I say must have existed. They knew about things in maths a long time before modern history would allow. Do you dispute the inclusion of these numbers as an accident, or do you dispute that the history of maths is wrong?

Another example is that it is said all these great large carvings were accomplished with only copper tools and stone tools - using these to 'bash out' the shapes they wanted and doing this by eye only.
I put the chances of that so close to zero as to be zero. Perhaps only an engineer can truly appreciate what Chris Dunn is saying. I forget the names right now, but there are these two statues, several hundred tonnes in weight. Chris Dunn made detailed measurements of the features of the faces and I shall mention only one feature here:
Looking straight on at the face, at the curvature of the cheek, it is part of a circle and a perfect part. Now, looking from the side on, the same part of the cheek is also part of a circle, in the other dimension, yet these two circles from different aspects, are part of the same piece of rock, and so any mistake in one is a mistake in the other!
Not only that, but there is exact symmetry between the sides of the face!

To say that feat was achieved by men bashing on copper tools with stones is beyond belief. It is way, way beyond staggering as a feat of construction.

Similar but different precision exists in other features of those faces.

All I am awarding those ancient builders is some knowledge previously not thought known by them and some kind of precision tools that are far more than copper and stone.

What part of any of that do you dispute and how is any of what I've just said an 'off the wall theory'?

No-one need even bring up the great pyramid to illustrate how some of these constructions could not be achieved solely through bashing rock on copper on rock. No chance!;)
 
Kim i have not got time to debate this with you, but this review by another sums up my feelings on this perfectly.

t always bothers me when ‘orthodox’ academia (in any field); the ‘establishment’ if you like – is seen to adopt or maintain a certain position on something (to the exclusion of all other possibilities), when that position is not backed up by the sort of solid evidence you’d expect. The whole ‘It is, because we say it is’ line falls on stony ground here. This type of scientific myopia is as anathema to me as religious or political faith or allegiance. I believe that the single most important and powerful tool one can ever wield is an open mind. Therefore to discount something that’s outside of the party line, simply because it’s outside of the party line is an abomination to free thinking. ​
Case in point, the great pyramid in particular has always been an enigma. Most Egyptologists freely admit that there’s very little (if any) hard evidence that actually links the monument to Khufu. Monuments themselves are all but impossible to date, so corroborative data from other sources is always required. However, even with this in mind; the great pyramid is generally accepted to be Khufu’s, and this ‘fact’ gets added to the history books and taught in schools. This one supposition leads to a thousand others, like the idea that, if it’s Khufu’s pyramid, then it ‘must’ be his burial tomb.​
One absurdity then leads to another, and before you know it, they’re telling you the great pyramid was built in just 20 years. The film demonstrates very ably how completely ridiculous a 20 year build time is, so look out for that part.​
Orthodox thinking, like political and religious thinking is beset with circular arguments that lead nowhere. So for me, any thorough and honest research into the subject must surely be welcome, and I’m willing to at least listen to alternative proposals with an open mind.​
We are all born into a world where ‘the powers that be’ (in their many guises), very much like to convey a sense of surety about the bigger questions of our origins. It seems it’s ok for scholars to argue and be divided over small details, and for those details to be swayed one side or another from time to time and given an official seal of approval, but the big stuff always seems somehow locked to a certain way of thinking and an accepted ‘truth’. Woe betide anyone who offers alternatives, that’s for sure.
There’s a sense that ‘academia’ needs everything to​
always
be neatly wrapped in a shroud of conformity, and very often tied with the thread of faith as well. How unfortunate for all us enlightened beings out there.​
​
​
​
 
Hi, Kieran.

Who wrote that "review by another"?

Vesvehighfolk supplied two links that are interesting. Did you read them?

There is a very recent thread on the forum about one mere mortal and rather venerable (with that word used regarding age!) man, as is "Kim is a venerable old coot," that shows him (alone) doing some impressive things with extremely heavy and (you would think!) impossible to move blocks. I'm not saying that his method was the one actually used by our venerable ancestors, but my oft repeated refrain to not underestimate humans of antiquity, their perseverance, strength, use of concepts of physics and mathematics, tools, etc., is an oft ignored refrain.

It's actually quite absurd to think people of antiquity could NOT have built these magnificent architectural wonders.

There is a mention of the relative pros and cons of the "big stuff" and the "small details" as used by accepted mainstream historians and scientists on one side, and the, ahem, "alternative," well, what? of the other side. What, indeed? I can't seem to find any truly respected and credentialed purveyors of this alternative stuff. There's Childress and the ubiquitous Dunn, but have you read Dunn's book about the Giza pyramid being a machine for harnessing frequencies and energy? HAVE YOU READ IT?:D

So, back to the subject of the big stuff and small details. That "review" is actually very poorly written in terms of, well, many points, but its content establishes nothing. The "big stuff" that the writer maintains mainstream historians are unaware of are the very premises I have been fruitlessly asking my questions in order to establish, so that then we can move on to specifics of which cultures/which structures.

No one will answer my questions, not you, not Gordon, not Aardvark, not Pixel. And this topic is always the same stuff, so mentioning a nearly identical thread on "lost knowledge" is very relevant.

The "review" you supply us establishes no answers to my legitimate questions about who, what, when, where. The "small details" are indeed important as regards these simple questions I have in vain asked again and again.

So, again, scroll up and reread my very few questions asking for specifics, and then we can talk about those specific cultures and those specific structures. It's not enough to post videos, you and Gordon, long ones, I might add, and which I watched. "Frequencies" and a "sacred line" of structures is absurd. But I know you don't have time to supply any specifics, as you've mentioned that lack of time twice. The two videos supply photography of some wondrous doings of men, but none of these structures were not built by men. Kim
 
What bothers me, on an historical level, is simply the untruth of the allegations and premises you and others make about human history, to wit:

1. that there is lost knowledge
2. that there are vanished ancient human civilizations that predated the ones accepted on excellent evidence by, yes, that awful word, mainstream historians and scientists.
3. that there were "belt-driven" machines powered by water, animals, and humans that "machined" the blocks in the Great Pyramid and other structures
4. that the tools, literal and abstract, used by people of antiquity, are so INCAPABLE of creating these wonderful structures of heavy blocks and tight joints moved from quarries a good distance and lifted, that by their very wonderful construction these architectural wonders COULD NOT have been built by people of antiquity, and THEREFORE,
5. you must postulate and insist on the vanished ancient civilizations of #2,
6. and you must postulate and seemingly insist on OTHER tools ancient peoples used. Why? Because WHAT THEY HAD was not GOOD ENOUGH to do it!
7. What circular and non sequitur reasoning. What, as you say above, are the "some kind of precision tools that are way beyond copper and stone"? Describe them, in detail, what power, what materials.
8. that this vanished/destroyed/suppressed knowledge was rendered to such a state by armies from Europe under the agency of the Catholic Church. There were Protestant nations (and Protestant itself comprises, as you should know, from studying the history of the churches in Scotland, Gordon, many denominations, rich in history and good of service to humankind) which also conducted world exploration. But the point is: no vast armies under control of, yes, dare I say it, Christianity, in any form, destroyed all this secret knowledge worldwide.
9. what bothers me is the, ahem, lack of knowledge of history, where basic chronology is shown to be not possessed, that diffusion of knowledge among peoples occurred, and that also knowledge was discovered, building techniques were discovered INDEPENDENTLY, that:
10. Massive and wondrous structures are not some esoteric thing. Clearly, ancient peoples liked to build BIG things, and we still do, therefore:
11. BIG structures NEED BIG BLOCKS OF STONE!
12. Peoples of antiquity found SOURCES of stone, and
13. Transported them, worked them, patiently and painstakingly.
14. They loved precision and beauty, and these structures reflect that.
15. What bothers me is the constant refrain in your and Kieran's videos of "beyond belief," and "way beyond staggering."
15. What bothers me is your statement regarding Pi: "that alone is a perfect example of the advanced knowledge that I say must have existed." WWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!?????????????? I taught high school algebra and geometry, and not bonehead remedial. That is an absurd statement. No knowledge of Pi specifically is needed to construct the Giza pyramid. And what precludes people of antiquity, their thinkers and reasoners, from, pretty easily actually, coming up with the relation to each other of the characteristics of a CIRCLE?????? The concept of its diameter to its circumference? No, not out to how many decimal places, but it's a pretty simple concept. Really, Gordon! That bothers me.:eek:
16. What bothers me is the phrase "by men bashing." Yes, I have mentioned the importance of sheer strength, but I have also, in vain, pointed to peoples of antiquity using concepts of physics and chemistry, and of precision work (by hand!).
17. I spoke to my research into when iron was first smelted, and then forms of even steel, and its diffusion and independent creation among different peoples.
18. What bothers me, alluding again to #15, is that very great precision can be obtained from using ropes and sticks and measuring devices easily created by people of antiquity, and that during construction these methods were employed to stay on the plan.

So, Gordon, that's what bothers me. I also posted on the thread Kieran began on this very same topic. Way too much reliance on Christopher Dunn! Also, there are links by vesvehighfolk and nameless that are interesting in this thread, the Kieran thread, and the thread begun very recently about the man who has singlehandedly moved and positioned huge blocks of concrete. Kim;)
 
What is the current theory on why the Egyptians did not record how the pyramids were constructed? Or is that a misunderstanding on my part? Aren't the main ones actually fake tombs with the bodies buried elsewhere? Were the construction particulars of other ancient structures preserved? Who knows what was in the Library of Alexandria for example. How to construct a monolithic structure for fun and profit and Temple Building for Beginners were probably in there some where.
 
Kim, once again you seem to attribute some beliefs to me/others that we simply don't have. You said at the end there, 'none of these structures were not built by men'.

And? I agree! I completely think they were built by men! Just normal, everyday men! Where is it exactly you think we differ? All I am saying is that there is excellent evidence for there being more than simple copper and stone hand-tools. I believe there was a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy that predates the supposed dawn of these areas, such as trigonometry and geometry.
I also say there is good evidence for their being some type of machines, which can be no more than say, a rotating blade, powered by men or animals or water.

This is as far as my thoughts go on some of these amazing ancient structures. Do you find fault with the views I've expressed in this exact post? If so, can you deal with each point quickly so that I know exactly what it is about these points of view you disagree with?

We all know that during the history of man there have been prevailing streams of thought, usually protected by the institutions of the day and these institutions are often just protecting their own status quo, rather than searching for an objective truth.

I completely agree that Chris Dunn's theories on the pyramid are actually 'pretty out there' but that does not mean that everything he says is not correct. Same with Childress - there is no doubt he likes to take the 'ancient alien' view whenever possible but I do not agree. My agreement with these guys goes as far as there being better maths and tools available than what current egyptology will allow. That is as far as I go!

I will take the evidence of Christopher Dunn regarding machine tool marks anyday over some egyptologist who has no direct experience of these things!
 
I promise you that you will not be able to find any workable solution for the quarrying and movement and placement of the trilithons. The thing is, to move blocks of 1000 tons, would need multiple huge cranes that are extremely strong. Our large cranes today could be used to lift the stone off the ground but each crane would get in the way of it's neighbour. Trying to move all this is another matter altogether!

It is not enough to just say 'they were built with roman cranes' as that is no explanation and I challenge anyone to show me a diagram of how the feat was achieved! If anyone does know, they will have solved a mystery that has baffled the world of engineering and construction for thousands of years.
 
With all due respect is there ANY evidene that shows the stuctures were built by any one else?
And who else could have built them?
And is there any evidence that high tech was involved?
The articles I posted clearly show how it could be done and showss evidence of ramps and other evidenlce
Can any one discount this evidence? The discovery of the ramps shows and points to the method used.
No aliens high tech or weirdness at all!
 
Back
Top