9000+ year old Monolith discovered underwater, dates back to before ice age. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Faunze;48423636]They have found aluminium dating further back than the stone age. I think time and time again we have reached the iron age and that metallurgy and engineering has been a bouncing up and down for tens of thousands of years, I can imagine civilizations with extensive knowledge being wiped out by invaders or natural disasters and their technology being lost, making it all happen all over again. The native Americans still have tales of when they used to live underground during the ice age, and that underground city in Romania (?) could have possibly been used as an ice age city. Depending on when it was actually built.[/QUOTE] Underground city in Romania? All I find when I look that up is conspiracy theorists talking about an Alien-made dome habitat for Giants blocked by hologram wier fields under Bugeci. We have a pretty accurate timeline of human history for the most part - however, we routinely underestimate what they were capable of with what they had. They weren't on the scale of metallurgy or even agriculture, but they absolutely knew certain ways to do things that have been lost to time (and to more efficient ways to do the same thing). Stuff like Stonehenge is a phenomenal example - how in the fuck these ancient peoples managed to lift enormous stones that high in the air is a question that is incredibly difficult to figure out. They had methods that have been lost to time. They were just as smart as we were and they were able to figure out some method of lifting those rocks with the tools they had. It's not too crazy to believe that humans are fucking [i]smart[/i] and that they could do stuff without needing metal. Humans are successful because we iterate on methods we made before - sometimes we lose those methods and we discover a different way to do the same thing.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48421835]We already know this. There are tactics used to move stuff like the Stonehenge that we're unable to replicate. People readily underestimate our ancestors. They were equally as intelligent as we are. There's a very convincing theory that the Pyramids were constructed using an internal ramp and to balance out the weight above the burial chamber they used a sort of freight elevator with ropes, using pitch as a lubricant. It's unbelievable how complicated (yet totally realistic) these ideas are. The fact that people thousands of years ago made maps of wave patterns using sticks is absolutely astounding. They were equally as intelligent as we are, and they were able to use what they had available to make some incredible inventions.[/QUOTE] The most viable theory for the pyramids is that they were built using a pressure system with canals that required very little time to build and was incredibly efficient, as it transported the stones right to the level that they needed to be at without having to be dragged. Humans have been advanced as shit at times, but a lack of communication has left a lot of technologies to time, only to be rediscovered later. Rome a functional plumbing system that still sees use to this day, for example.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48423936]The most viable theory for the pyramids is that they were built using a pressure system with canals that required very little time to build and was incredibly efficient, as it transported the stones right to the level that they needed to be at without having to be dragged. Humans have been advanced as shit at times, but a lack of communication has left a lot of technologies to time, only to be rediscovered later. Rome a functional plumbing system that still sees use to this day, for example.[/QUOTE] Look up the Ancient Aliens debunked documentary. It's 3 hours long, but in the very beginning the guy goes into incredible detail about how a proposed "internal ramp" theory would work. I've read loads about most other theories, but none of them seem to make real sense. A buoyancy system using inflated animal hides to carry the multi-ton rocks up to the summit of the pyramid? It just seems so far-fetched - if the Egyptians had the technology for that kind of canal system full of locks and whatnot, why didn't they use it anywhere else? A giant ramp extending hundreds of feet out from the center of the pyramid just seems unrealistically under-engineered and crude. The internal ramp theory is just too genuine for me and the evidence proposed for it is very convincing. It's just a theory, and it could be totally incorrect, but it's still the most realistic one from my perspective. It manages to explain the existence of the Grand Gallery perfectly as a counterweight-based "freight elevator" system. It's the most convincing one I've seen - the ramp theory is under-engineered and the water-based canal theory is insanely over-engineered. The internal ramp explains a lot of shit about the design of the pyramid that the water system doesn't and assumes is due to ornateness rather than practicality.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48423934]Underground city in Romania?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1444225"]I don't know about Romania, but it's sure as hell happened in what's now Turkey.[/URL] Also, the cleverness of humans is also why [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Interference_Task_Force"]it's a real problem figuring out how to safely store nuclear waste and communicate the danger[/URL] to potentially "primitive" (by current standards) future humans who can be assumed not to speak English or any other contemporary language as it exists now.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48424022][URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1444225"]I don't know about Romania, but it's sure as hell happened in what's now Turkey.[/URL] Also, the cleverness of humans is also why [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Interference_Task_Force"]it's a real problem figuring out how to safely store nuclear waste and communicate the danger[/URL] to potentially "primitive" (by current standards) future humans who can be assumed not to speak English or any other contemporary language as it exists now.[/QUOTE] Hell, even the curses and traps weren't enough to prevent humans from uncovering ancient tombs.

I thought they put the blocks on large sleds as they pushed and pulled them up ramps with a great deal of manpower? They coulda poured water in front of the sleds to make it easier for them to move, or hell maybe they used oil? I remember reading that the Ancient Egyptians had access to crude oil in smaller quantities, but never used it as an industrial-grade fuel.

[IMG]http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/stargate/images/8/86/Atlantis.jpg/revision/20110908224017[/IMG] joke aside this is really interesting, it really does get you wondering what is down in the absolute depth of our oceans, beside Cthulhu of course.

[QUOTE=ironman17;48424051]I thought they put the blocks on large sleds as they pushed and pulled them up ramps with a great deal of manpower? They coulda poured water in front of the sleds to make it easier for them to move, or hell maybe they used oil? I remember reading that the Ancient Egyptians had access to crude oil in smaller quantities, but never used it as an industrial-grade fuel.[/QUOTE] Here's the isolated bit I was talking about in my last post: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPt7EFHIxXc[/media] It goes into detail about how they quarried, polished, and cut granite, then dives into droves of physical evidence about why the internal ramp theory is such a convincing theory. It could be totally wrong, but it explains a ton of issues I've had with other theories.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48423936]The most viable theory for the pyramids is that they were built using a pressure system with canals that required very little time to build and was incredibly efficient, as it transported the stones right to the level that they needed to be at without having to be dragged.[/QUOTE] It's a nice theory but it doesn't work out at all. There was no construction capable of withstanding such pressure back then, and overall reeks mightily of bullshit.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48424087]It's a nice theory but it doesn't work out at all. There was no construction capable of withstanding such pressure back then, and overall reeks mightily of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Yep, they were landing pads for the Gould's ships, the only theory that make sense.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48424004]Look up the Ancient Aliens debunked documentary. It's 3 hours long, but in the very beginning the guy goes into incredible detail about how a proposed "internal ramp" theory would work. I've read loads about most other theories, but none of them seem to make real sense. A buoyancy system using inflated animal hides to carry the multi-ton rocks up to the summit of the pyramid? It just seems so far-fetched - if the Egyptians had the technology for that kind of canal system full of locks and whatnot, why didn't they use it anywhere else? A giant ramp extending hundreds of feet out from the center of the pyramid just seems unrealistically under-engineered and crude. The internal ramp theory is just too genuine for me and the evidence proposed for it is very convincing. It's just a theory, and it could be totally incorrect, but it's still the most realistic one from my perspective. It manages to explain the existence of the Grand Gallery perfectly as a counterweight-based "freight elevator" system. It's the most convincing one I've seen - the ramp theory is under-engineered and the water-based canal theory is insanely over-engineered. The internal ramp explains a lot of shit about the design of the pyramid that the water system doesn't and assumes is due to ornateness rather than practicality.[/QUOTE] We are already 90% sure it was the floatation method as we've built small scale version of them and seen the efficacy of it. Not to mention, building an internal ramp would be aeons more effort. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48424087]It's a nice theory but it doesn't work out at all. There was no construction capable of withstanding such pressure back then, and overall reeks mightily of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Can I see citations or are you just going to claim that? The last people claiming that it was a pressure system weren't morons or fraudsters so I want actual reasoning [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;48424004]Look up the Ancient Aliens debunked documentary. It's 3 hours long, but in the very beginning the guy goes into incredible detail about how a proposed "internal ramp" theory would work. I've read loads about most other theories, but none of them seem to make real sense. A buoyancy system using inflated animal hides to carry the multi-ton rocks up to the summit of the pyramid? It just seems so far-fetched - if the Egyptians had the technology for that kind of canal system full of locks and whatnot, why didn't they use it anywhere else? A giant ramp extending hundreds of feet out from the center of the pyramid just seems unrealistically under-engineered and crude. The internal ramp theory is just too genuine for me and the evidence proposed for it is very convincing. It's just a theory, and it could be totally incorrect, but it's still the most realistic one from my perspective. It manages to explain the existence of the Grand Gallery perfectly as a counterweight-based "freight elevator" system. It's the most convincing one I've seen - the ramp theory is under-engineered and the water-based canal theory is insanely over-engineered. The internal ramp explains a lot of shit about the design of the pyramid that the water system doesn't and assumes is due to ornateness rather than practicality.[/QUOTE] Can you link this? I'd not mind watching it actually

[QUOTE=OvB;48421422]There used to be an entire "civilization" under the North Sea. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland[/url] Civilization in quotes because it's not like they were building Rome down there.[/QUOTE] Or were they...... Anyway this monlyth design is pretty neat if I read it correctly, its got a hole down the middle and a hole that crosses it

... atlantis?!

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48424198]Can I see citations or are you just going to claim that? The last people claiming that it was a pressure system weren't morons or fraudsters so I want actual reasoning[/QUOTE] People in the 18th century struggled to make simple pipes that could pump water out of mines 100m or more deep. Egyptians building a watertight stone construction that is well over 100m high is simply not feasible. The water pressure would be far too much. This is also ignoring the fact that stones are heavy and displace a lot of water. Leather bags filled with air would need to displace so much water that the idea seems utterly ludicrous. Not to mention that almost no evidence exists (either physical or historical records), nor any intermediary developments of the technique prior to the construction - not to mention that the explanation only covers a limited number of pyramids and doesn't seem to extend very far into the past or future from the great pyramid. But I mean, even the physics alone is completely broken.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48424198]We are already 90% sure it was the floatation method as we've built small scale version of them and seen the efficacy of it. Not to mention, building an internal ramp would be aeons more effort. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] Can I see citations or are you just going to claim that? The last people claiming that it was a pressure system weren't morons or fraudsters so I want actual reasoning [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] Can you link this? I'd not mind watching it actually[/QUOTE] I linked the excerpt about the pyramids on the last page - here's the full one, which is incredibly interesting (but a little weak at some points). [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ[/media] [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48424328]People in the 18th century struggled to make simple pipes that could pump water out of mines 100m or more deep. Egyptians building a watertight stone construction that is well over 100m high is simply not feasible. The water pressure would be far too much. This is also ignoring the fact that stones are heavy and displace a lot of water. Leather bags filled with air would need to displace so much water that the idea seems utterly ludicrous. Not to mention that almost no evidence exists (either physical or historical records), nor any intermediary developments of the technique prior to the construction - not to mention that the explanation only covers a limited number of pyramids and doesn't seem to extend very far into the past or future from the great pyramid. But I mean, even the physics alone is completely broken.[/QUOTE] One idea of the flotation theory is that wood was strapped to the blocks to increase buoyancy. Even then, I can't believe that - that type of wood is rare in Egypt and would be profoundly expensive for such a temporary use that would guarantee that the would be ruined. The inflated animal-hides theory is even weirder, because it would take an obscene amount of effort to airtight an animal hide and strap it to those blocks. Plus, if a single bag punctured on the way up the water-ramp-things, it would slide right on back down, probably puncturing a bunch of other ones on the way down. It's a really neat and interesting theory, but saying it's the "most accepted" is silly. The "most accepted" theory is that it was a spiral ramp along the outside of the pyramid. We have physical wooden sleds used to transport the blocks - why would those exist if they were boated in via the Nile and then floated through a canal to the pyramid and floated to the top? There'd be no reason to even use wooden sleds. There'd be no reason for pitch to be in the grand gallery. There'd be no reason for a lot of the construction oddities - they'd just be weird design choices.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;48422221]Just think about Europe during the Roman age and what happened after it fell. It took 1000 years to catch up.[/QUOTE] Really the only thing lost after the collapse of Rome was honestly just a loosely held together time of relative peace. And even then that's a little bit of a large claim to make all things considered. The real loss was more social and political than technological. The collapse led to many often warring nations instead of essentially one giant one, the "dark" period actually saw great advances in technology and military tactics. And this was really only until the Catholic church gained substantial traction and did their best to quell the in-fighting. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;48424342]I linked the excerpt about the pyramids on the last page - here's the full one, which is incredibly interesting (but a little weak at some points). [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ[/media] [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] One idea of the flotation theory is that wood was strapped to the blocks to increase buoyancy. Even then, I can't believe that - that type of wood is rare in Egypt and would be profoundly expensive for such a temporary use that would guarantee that the would be ruined. The inflated animal-hides theory is even weirder, because it would take an obscene amount of effort to airtight an animal hide and strap it to those blocks. Plus, if a single bag punctured on the way up the water-ramp-things, it would slide right on back down, probably puncturing a bunch of other ones on the way down. It's a really neat and interesting theory, but saying it's the "most accepted" is silly. The "most accepted" theory is that it was a spiral ramp along the outside of the pyramid. We have physical wooden sleds used to transport the blocks - why would those exist if they were boated in via the Nile and then floated through a canal to the pyramid and floated to the top? There'd be no reason to even use wooden sleds. There'd be no reason for pitch to be in the grand gallery. There'd be no reason for a lot of the construction oddities - they'd just be weird design choices.[/QUOTE] The only place water comes into play with the pyramids that my classes gave was the theory that came about when we discovered the sliding stones in death valley thing. Basically the Egyptians would pour water on the ground at night during stone quarrying season, the water would freeze into a layer of ice that they could then slide the stone across all the way there, just like how the stones in death valley slide across the ground.

[QUOTE=draugur;48424586]Really the only thing lost after the collapse of Rome was honestly just a loosely held together time of relative peace. And even then that's a little bit of a large claim to make all things considered. The real loss was more social and political than technological. The collapse led to many often warring nations instead of essentially one giant one, the "dark" period actually saw great advances in technology and military tactics. And this was really only until the Catholic church gained substantial traction and did their best to quell the in-fighting. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] The only place water comes into play with the pyramids that my classes gave was the theory that came about when we discovered the sliding stones in death valley thing. Basically the Egyptians would pour water on the ground at night during stone quarrying season, the water would freeze into a layer of ice that they could then slide the stone across all the way there, just like how the stones in death valley slide across the ground.[/QUOTE] There's pictographs of people pouring water in front of stone sleds, that's guaranteed. No egyptologist would deny that water was used to at least wet the sand in front of the sled in order to allow it to slide more easily with less friction. I'm arguing against the "flotation" theory which posits that the egyptians built a giant, super complicated near-vertical watertight tube [I]out of stone[/I] to float 2-ton stones tied with inflated animal skins to reach the top of the pyramid. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8[/media] This is the theory I'm arguing against. There's a million things wrong with it and next to no evidence - it ignores that building a canal to ferry the stone from the quarry to the pyramid would be pointless. 6% of the stones on the pyramid were granite - nearly 94% were sandstone quarried less than 300m from the pyramid. It would be faster and more efficient (not to mention historically evident through pictographs) to use sleds there. It also ignores that water gets murky, and that the Nile water was filled with pathogens and insects and parasites. It ignores that working with tools underwater would be next to possible, that using water as a "level" would be likewise impossible in murky diseased water being splashed by underwater stonemasons, and that working in water would lead to massive illness. It ignores that using wood as a "gate" to build pressure in the canal would be fucking awful and leaky and lead to difficulties maintaining pressure - gates like that were used in medieval Europe and leaked everywhere and were terribly inefficient. It ignores that stones would displace water, meaning that the water level would have to be continually adjusted for the displacement of both 2-ton stones and the inflated pig-skins surrounding them. It assumes that not a single block would fail to ascend the water pipe - if one did, you're fucked, you have no SCUBA gear, you can't get it back out easily, you can't see it underwater, you can't breathe underwater, it's clogged the entire mechanism and ruined the entire shaft. It's an awful, awful, terrible theory with a million inconsistencies and literally zero historical evidence beyond pictographs showing boats carrying stones and slightly increased water damage in the lower parts of the pyramid.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48424744]There's pictographs of people pouring water in front of stone sleds, that's guaranteed. No egyptologist would deny that water was used to at least wet the sand in front of the sled in order to allow it to slide more easily with less friction. I'm arguing against the "flotation" theory which posits that the egyptians built a giant, super complicated near-vertical watertight tube [I]out of stone[/I] to float 2-ton stones tied with inflated animal skins to reach the top of the pyramid. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8[/media] This is the theory I'm arguing against. There's a million things wrong with it and next to no evidence - it ignores that building a canal to ferry the stone from the quarry to the pyramid would be pointless. 6% of the stones on the pyramid were granite - nearly 94% were sandstone quarried less than 300m from the pyramid. It would be faster and more efficient (not to mention historically evident through pictographs) to use sleds there. It also ignores that water gets murky, and that the Nile water was filled with pathogens and insects and parasites. It ignores that working with tools underwater would be next to possible, that using water as a "level" would be likewise impossible in murky diseased water being splashed by underwater stonemasons, and that working in water would lead to massive illness. It ignores that using wood as a "gate" to build pressure in the canal would be fucking awful and leaky and lead to difficulties maintaining pressure - gates like that were used in medieval Europe and leaked everywhere and were terribly inefficient. It ignores that stones would displace water, meaning that the water level would have to be continually adjusted for the displacement of both 2-ton stones and the inflated pig-skins surrounding them. It assumes that not a single block would fail to ascend the water pipe - if one did, you're fucked, you have no SCUBA gear, you can't get it back out easily, you can't see it underwater, you can't breathe underwater, it's clogged the entire mechanism and ruined the entire shaft. It's an awful, awful, terrible theory with a million inconsistencies and literally zero historical evidence beyond pictographs showing boats carrying stones and slightly increased water damage in the lower parts of the pyramid.[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing with you, floating giant rocks in channels is fucking absurd at best. Plus if they built giant water-tight stone channels, how the fuck did they get those stones there? More channels, made out of stone? That and the sheer amount of water they had to move to the pyramids for this would be insane, plus evaporation, leaks, spills. These are things modern construction methods wouldn't even consider and we have the technology to do it even easier than they did. Wooden cranes would make more sense than water channels.

[QUOTE=draugur;48424759]I'm not disagreeing with you, floating giant rocks in channels is fucking absurd at best. Plus if they built giant water-tight stone channels, how the fuck did they get those stones there? More channels, made out of stone?[/QUOTE] I know you weren't disagreeing, just pointing out more stuff wrong with the flotation theory. There's pictographs of stones being carried using boats from a further quarrying location (for granite, likely), so I can believe that boats were used to bring them near the pyramids and they were dragged the rest of the way. HumanAbyss was saying the flotation method was "90% sure" to be the actual way it was done, when it's clearly not due to a million inconsistencies and impossibilities considering the level of technology they had available. Making a watertight tube out of stone and wood is laughably impossible and a modern architect could absolutely not come anywhere close to doing it with an Egyptian level of tech, especially on such a large scale with nothing but wood to seal off the passageways. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] Also, here's another cool video about how the Stonehenge could have been made without any modern tools whatsoever using a real simple see-saw lever system. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7q20VzwVs[/media]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48424807]I know you weren't disagreeing, just pointing out more stuff wrong with the flotation theory. There's pictographs of stones being carried using boats from a further quarrying location (for granite, likely), so I can believe that boats were used to bring them near the pyramids and they were dragged the rest of the way. HumanAbyss was saying the flotation method was "90% sure" to be the actual way it was done, when it's clearly not due to a million inconsistencies and impossibilities considering the level of technology they had available. Making a watertight tube out of stone and wood is laughably impossible and a modern architect could absolutely not come anywhere close to doing it with an Egyptian level of tech, especially on such a large scale with nothing but wood to seal off the passageways.[/QUOTE] Ah, right my bad. Yeah. I mean, if the Romans used sleds to move marble from the quarrys in the mountains to their cities, why would it be any less feasible for the Egyptians to use sleds? The Romans were pulling these sleds through mountains all the way to Rome and the like, that's substantially longer than 300m across relatively flat desert and then up a spiral ramp on the pyramid. Wouldn't we also see evidence of these channels inside the pyramids? Like, idk, giant hollow shafts? Limestone, the stone the pyramids are made from have a lower specific gravity on average, and at best would be equal to marble. If it worked for Rome, it'd work for Egypt. [url]http://www.edumine.com/xtoolkit/tables/sgtables.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=draugur;48424851]Ah, right my bad. Yeah. I mean, if the Romans used sleds to move marble from the quarrys in the mountains to their cities, why would it be any less feasible for the Egyptians to use sleds? The Romans were pulling these sleds through mountains all the way to Rome and the like, that's substantially longer than 300m across relatively flat desert and then up a spiral ramp on the pyramid. Wouldn't we also see evidence of these channels inside the pyramids? Like, idk, giant hollow shafts? Limestone, the stone the pyramids are made from have a lower specific gravity on average, and at best would be equal to marble. If it worked for Rome, it'd work for Egypt. [url]http://www.edumine.com/xtoolkit/tables/sgtables.htm[/url][/QUOTE] The idea was that they would have been built on the outside of the pyramid, which still makes little sense. The theory I'm promoting is the internal-ramp theory, proposed by a french architect. One of the big bits of evidence mentioned on the video on the last page talk about how a 1980 team of surveyors looking for hidden passages in the pyramid found a spiral-shaped pattern on the inside of the pyramid. It fits in with the internal ramp theory, which proposed that the ramp was built on the inside of the pyramid, allowing the outer casing of the pyramid to be geometrically exact. The outer-ramp works technically, but it isn't intuitive, and the internal ramp explains so many things that can't be explained with an external ramp, like the reason for the grand gallery and the pitch in the grand gallery and the corner notch way up on the pyramid and the spiral pattern found by the french surveyors and the (now covered) "rope guide" bit at the top of the grand gallery.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48424914]The idea was that they would have been built on the outside of the pyramid, which still makes little sense. The theory I'm promoting is the internal-ramp theory, proposed by a french architect. One of the big bits of evidence mentioned on the video on the last page talk about how a 1980 team of surveyors looking for hidden passages in the pyramid found a spiral-shaped pattern on the inside of the pyramid. It fits in with the internal ramp theory, which proposed that the ramp was built on the inside of the pyramid, allowing the outer casing of the pyramid to be geometrically exact. The outer-ramp works technically, but it isn't intuitive, and the internal ramp explains so many things that can't be explained with an external ramp, like the reason for the grand gallery and the pitch in the grand gallery and the corner notch way up on the pyramid and the spiral pattern found by the french surveyors and the (now covered) "rope guide" bit at the top of the grand gallery.[/QUOTE] Makes sense, you'd have to finish the pyramid from the top down once the base work was laid for external ramps, or a very constant effort to rebuild of the ramp structure which isn't quite efficient and since these structures were ultimately a battle of efficiency where ever you could find it due to the scale of them, putting the ramp on the inside allows for much less headache in the long run.