Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Video: Conspiracy against history - Enigmas of Ancient Egypt


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Andrew12

Andrew12

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 09:46 AM

Do you believe Ancient Egyptians could lift weights over 1000 tonnes?

Do you believe Ancient Egyptians built the great pyramids?

Do you absolutely trust everything the official science tells you?


If you don't, this film is for you.


However, in this documentary you won't find those crazy theories of Erich von Daniken and the like...


Because mostly this film is about two things: Facts and Common Sense


Featuring amazing and unique footage from Egypt filmed by the team of scientists, this documentary is an eyeopener for all truly interested in the real history of mankind.


Enigmas of Ancient Egypt



Youtube links for


teaser:


trailer:

Edited by Tormod, 20 August 2010 - 03:49 AM.
Testing media tag


#2 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 12:37 PM

Do you believe Ancient Egyptians could lift weights over 1000 tonnes?

Do you think that this might be a misleading question? The implication is that it was necessary to lift weights of that magnitude, when it was only necessary to move them. Lifting and moving are quite different in terms of the mechanical demands of the tasks.

On a related matter, within the second video, the presenter repeatedly states that no modern crane can lift 1,000 tonnes. This is one of the few clear observations made in the clip and it is factually wrong. (For example, see this wikipedia article.) It reduces ones confidence in the overall argument when simple errors like this are made.

Do you believe Ancient Egyptians built the great pyramids?

There is probably no good reason, other than mental illness, not to believe this.

Do you absolutely trust everything the official science tells you?

Since you are posting only to promote this video, I doubt any reply will be forthcoming, but...
1. Do you think regular members of a science forum, many educated in the sciences, some engaged in scientific research, will trust anything without proper investigation, or consideration of the evidence?
2. What is official science? Use of the terms suggests the author does not understand how science works. True, there are official scientific bodies, but such bodies rarely, if ever, issue pronouncements on matters. The truth of any scientific issue emerges from the rough and tumble of competing hypotheses aired in conferences, journals and passionate emails.

#3 Andrew12

Andrew12

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:25 AM

Yeah, a typical answer I expected. A kind of: "I didn't read this book, but it's crap".
Very informative :thumbs_up and makes sense :hihi:

#4 maikeru

maikeru

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 794 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 09:12 AM

Do you believe Ancient Egyptians could lift weights over 1000 tonnes?
Do you believe Ancient Egyptians built the great pyramids?
Do you absolutely trust everything the official science tells you?
...


I made a post here a long while back about a discovery that suggested that the Egyptians made the pyramids from a form of limestone concrete. Thus, no need to haul limestone blocks weighing 1000 tonnes or whatever. So, in other words, they would've cast, molded, and shaped the limestone concrete blocks on site and used them there and made their lives as laborers much easier. This makes better sense to me than huge teams or masses of slave-workers as depicted in certain religious texts and traditions, cough, cough, for which we have little to no evidence for. What we do have evidence of is camps of highly skilled, knowledgeable workers hired by the pharaohs.

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids | LiveScience

According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.


A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

The stones also had a high water content—unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau—and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. “Therefore,” says Barsoum, “it’s very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block.”


That said, I still enjoy watching a certain old Cecil. B DeMille movie with Charlton Heston, even though it bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever. :thumbs_up

Edited by maikeru, 16 August 2010 - 09:23 AM.


#5 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 09:19 AM

So, exactly what alternative do these people propose?

One recent idea, that has been discussed in our History Forum, is a kind of limestone concrete that was cast in situ.

#6 Andrew12

Andrew12

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:51 AM

I made a post here a long while back about a discovery that suggested that the Egyptians made the pyramids from a form of limestone concrete. Thus, no need to haul limestone blocks weighing 1000 tonnes or whatever. So, in other words, they would've cast, molded, and shaped the limestone concrete blocks on site and used them there and made their lives as laborers much easier. This makes better sense to me than huge teams or masses of slave-workers as depicted in certain religious texts and traditions, cough, cough, for which we have little to no evidence for. What we do have evidence of is camps of highly skilled, knowledgeable workers hired by the pharaohs.


yeah, the limestone concrete theory is assessed in this documentary, and these scientists actually show the evidence on site that this theory has nothing to do with reality, because the Great pyramid is made of actual limestone blocks full of shells. You will see it yourself in the film.

I am not saying that concrete has never been used in the construction of pyramids, BUT the evidence shows that concrete has never been used in construction of the Great pyramids on the Giza Plateau.


So, exactly what alternative do these people propose?


Well, these people will show you clear pictures of the use of circular blades, tube (core) drilling, sings of the stone melting technologies, opinion of modern stone processing technologists, and other FACTS and opinions. Also, they will show you that under some primitive constructions built by actual Ancient Egyptians, there are wonderful high tech chambers beneath them. The difference between what is on the top and hidden in the bottom is virtually staggering.

Edited by Andrew12, 17 August 2010 - 08:57 AM.