> -----Original Message----- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:21 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Fingerprints Of The Gods > > > Gel wrote: > > +1000 > > *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* > > > > Which of those are 4000+ years old and made of 100+ ton blocks?
Look at that page with ancient cut stones for examples: many of them were well over 100 tons: http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/top50stonespage.htm The age doesn't really matter all that much: technology at the time moved very slowly: it's easy to assume that techniques (or more primitive versions of them) that served the Romans or Greeks may have also served the Egyptians 1000-2000 years earlier. > Either way, all of this is supposition - but, if the book is true, it > explains a lot of stuff. If not, it's an interesting read. > Ultimately none of anything you're saying (or I am) is provable. > > I guess I just find it interesting that you're immediately jumping to > construction methods (of any 2000+ year monument of your choosing; > Egypt, Rome, Dubuque) that are within our technology and saying that > unknown technologies are "improbable". Unknown techniques are very probable - even unknown "technologies". Where things get flakey is the idea that there was a highly advanced technological civilization that was the source of these wonders which was eradicated so completely as to leave no unambiguous trace. It's the snowball effect. We might explain the construction as most everybody has: lots of clever methods, lots of labor and lots of time. Or we can invent a new society. Which (since it's no longer around) requires us to invent a method for its total destruction (these crustal shifts). Which requires us to create a method of action for that (this gravity alignment) and so forth. Eventually we get to a point where the supposition can only true if vast areas (usually across multiple disciplines) of our current knowledge is just plain wrong. This is when the bullshit detectors should be clanging. There's no reason that vast areas of our current knowledge CAN'T be wrong - but it's very unlikely. To even consider it extraordinary proof will be demanded. Even Hancock admits that his work isn't "scientific" - he terms its "advocacy". > If Telsa hadn't been around there probably wouldn't be any AC current, > but that certainly wouldn't mean that 4000 year Tesla hadn't existed > and his secrets were forgotten (or kept secret!!) But that's kind of the point: it's almost a certainty that there WOULD have been AC current (or the equivalent). Discoveries are made by individuals but only because the foundation for those discoveries exist. If it weren't Tesla it would have been somebody else. Which is why it's so hard to believe that there was this super advanced civilization, more advanced than our own, which had such a lasting but tangential impact: the undeniable existence of 6,000 year-old structures coupled with the complete eradication of all records, hard evidence and knowledge of their existence. All of these advances occurred only in this tiny society and no place else apparently with no broad foundation to work from. It's hard to imagine how the structures could survive - how the results of the knowledge could survive while all the knowledge itself (and the entire society which generated it) have completely disappeared. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 The most significant release in over 10 years. Upgrade & see new features. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJR Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236466 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
