• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ancient Pyramids and other structures, astronomical alignment & similarity.

And you're following very well.

The above statement was in reference to finding two athletic stadiums, of similar size and shape on two different continents, before Columbus.

Just amazing!

And there's evidence that cultures on two different continents that shared no linguistic similarities both made shoes in pairs!!!!

And some of them were even similar in size and shape!!!


And disparate cultures also both made pottery using largely the same techniques!!! And some of the pot shards strongly suggest that some of the containers made were of similar size and shape!!!!!

It's uncanny!
 
I am really only interested in the size of the base, who's [sic] sides of the square base are 725-750 ft each...I think...?

And that's not cherry picking?

If your rules for determining "similar" are completely arbitrary, it would be more significant if you couldn't come up with a measurement between two arbitrarily selected structures that you subjectively thing of as "similar".

And what of the many comparisons between a New World pyramid and Egyptian pyramids that aren't similar? You just ignore those?
 
You are REALLY witty.

Have you ever considered a career as a comedy writer?

Your talent is going to waste here.

Maybe you could offer classes on how to be as quippy as you, and make some money off those skills...?

...then again, I've been wrong before.
Well you didn't listen when I made the same point in straightforward prose, so I assume you're unable to comprehend it.

Again, there are a great number of reasons why structures and artifacts might be similar even though the cultures have had no contact.

Can you think of why, for example, a sports stadium might be very roughly "similar"?

How about kitchen utensils, plates and bowls? Can you think of any reasons other than that the cultures must have had contact as to why these might look similar?

ETA: And again, we're using "similar" the way you've been using it. Basically that something looks vaguely the same to an uneducated person.
 
Last edited:
I'm still confused about how two civilisations with thousands of miles and years between them should have been able to communicate.
The structures you want to compare have different forms and functions. If you'd really want to compare mesoamerican platform temples (which is IMO a better description than pyramids)with ancient structures an ocean away why don't you compare them to Ziggurats? Mind you, that only enhances the problem of the connection. Mesopotamia is even more distant and even more ancient.
 
That would be speculation on a hypothetical circumstance,
No, it would be studying the evidence at hand, which points to no possibility of Mesoamerican civilisations being capable of contemporary contact with Egyptian civilisations.

The fact is that you prefer to ignore that evidence in order to speculate fantasy.
and NOT drawing a conclusion based on the current incomplete data...
Please quote where the evidence presented so far is incomplete.
What 'conclusion' do you propose that I have made or reached?
That you are ignorant on the subject, therefore prefer to invent fantasy possibilities rather than actually study the evidence.
 
Last edited:
If you'd really want to compare mesoamerican platform temples (which is IMO a better description than pyramids)with ancient structures an ocean away why don't you compare them to Ziggurats? Mind you, that only enhances the problem of the connection. Mesopotamia is even more distant and even more ancient.

Woo sites don't mention Mesopotamia when it comes to bs cultural comparisons, this is because woo authors don't do their own research, they just rehash old crap over and over for each new generation of idiots, as a result KotA has never heard of Mesopotamia. No doubt if he did he would be harping on about the similarity of the names,
:D
 
And isn't it amazing and significant that on these Old World and New World pyramids, the wide part is always at the bottom and the narrow part at the top? :eye-poppi

And in rectangular houses, we almost always see doors made in the walls rather than through the roof? :eye-poppi

And roof angles and building materials are remarkably similar around the world - mud/bricks/stone and wood :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

There's so much "evidence" out there. I can't believe I didn't see it all before... (where's the emoticon for "eye-roll"?)
 
Several posts have been moved to AAH.... Please keep the converation on topic, civil and without bickering.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Why is it so difficult NOT to draw a conclusion?

Speculation is arriving at a conclusion without proper evidence, which I have NOT done.

I am saying we DON'T 'know'...and moreover that these similarities don't rule out the 'possibility'.
Way too much bandwidth wasted on this particular argument. If you can't bring yourself to admit that you are off base on this one, might as well drop it.
 
On the badarchaeology.com site, appropriately, this pyramid thing is used to make a point about a typical feature of pseudoscience:

The fringe literature concentrates not on the usual details of archaeology – the potsherds, animal bones and domestic structures – but on unusual and spectacular sites. A favourite is the pyramid, a monument found principally in Egypt and in Mexico, but with examples elsewhere that have been labelled ‘pyramids’, generally by fringe writers. The geometric form of the monument is all that is usually considered, the probable social context of its use is irrelevant. Whilst we may read much about the unusual features of the Great Pyramid at Giza, we almost never hear about the temples, satellite pyramids and mastaba tombs with which it is associated. Likewise, we are rarely given contextual information about Central American pyramids and the functions they performed in the societies that built them. Moreover, the huge gulf in time between Egyptian and American pyramids is usually ignored or, if it is mentioned, suggestions are made that the archaeological dating is somehow wrong. It is often claimed that the Mexican pyramids are actually much older than conventional wisdom would allow.

Linky.
 
On the badarchaeology.com site, appropriately, this pyramid thing is used to make a point about a typical feature of pseudoscience:



Linky.

quite clear that the two archaeologists who founded bad archaeology haven't really studied pyramidology isn't it. This is a new form of sceptoical archaeology, where the sceptics putting down the believers make a few errors themselves and try a little misdirection. This never works, the few factual errors they make are enough for the believers to drive a bus through. Truth is that the Egyptians built pyramids for hundreds of years while Amerind cultures were building them for thousands from before the egyptian culture existed until long after its death.

if you want to know about a subject, consult an expert on that subject. I am routinely in contact with academic experts on Mesopotamia on both sides of the Atlantic. This is the reason that I am currently blocked by KotA, its also the reason why I have been banned from every pseudo history forum I ever joined
I know too much,
:p
 
Question:
Where's the BEST megalithic stonework, including present or current works?

What single structure represents human mastery in cutting, moving, shaping, and joining "large" stones? *Award points for overall size and the size of individual pieces, difficulty to cut and shape, uniformity of joints, and ability to stand the test of time. NO POINTS for shortcomings in technology. You don't get credit for having to work in the bronze age without diamond tipped cutters.

Straight up, who's is the best?

Hope today's contention isn't the Maya, since last month's contention was the inca and thier pooku poomba site or whatever. I'll second the folks who bring up some of the european cathedrals...

A
 
What I always wonder about in this type of ancient contact speculation is why the contact somehow is always limited to things like building pyramids and the like.
I mean it's assumed that somehow the egyptians/mesopotanians/mesoamericans sailed across the ocean and ALL the evidence of this is somewhat similar buildings?
Why not take minor things like... grain? bronzeworking? horses? potatoes? maize? cocoa?
Each would be easy to carry across the ocean, would have a far greater effect on the other culture and would frankly be more useful than the knowledge of how to build a big pile of rocks.
So why didn't they?
 
Hope today's contention isn't the Maya, since last month's contention was the inca and thier pooku poomba site or whatever. I'll second the folks who bring up some of the european cathedrals...

A

youre late, last page
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5584040&postcount=465
Cologne Cathedral
;)

Each would be easy to carry across the ocean, would have a far greater effect on the other culture and would frankly be more useful than the knowledge of how to build a big pile of rocks.
So why didn't they?
because there wasn't any contact, and its quite clear when 90% of the natives died when contact finally came from virulent european diseases that they had no immunity from, that if there had been earlier contact then by the time the spanish arrived they would have found a lot of old corpses, some ruined buildings and not much else.
:p
 
Last edited:
Oh I agree that all evidence points to there not having been contact. But my question was aimed at those that seem to think there was
 
What I always wonder about in this type of ancient contact speculation is why the contact somehow is always limited to things like building pyramids and the like.
I mean it's assumed that somehow the egyptians/mesopotanians/mesoamericans sailed across the ocean and ALL the evidence of this is somewhat similar buildings?
Why not take minor things like... grain? bronzeworking? horses? potatoes? maize? cocoa?
Each would be easy to carry across the ocean, would have a far greater effect on the other culture and would frankly be more useful than the knowledge of how to build a big pile of rocks.
So why didn't they?

This is the best point made here yet.

Thanks Lukraak_Sisser!
 
What I always wonder about in this type of ancient contact speculation is why the contact somehow is always limited to things like building pyramids and the like.
I mean it's assumed that somehow the egyptians/mesopotanians/mesoamericans sailed across the ocean and ALL the evidence of this is somewhat similar buildings?
Why not take minor things like... grain? bronzeworking? horses? potatoes? maize? cocoa?
Each would be easy to carry across the ocean, would have a far greater effect on the other culture and would frankly be more useful than the knowledge of how to build a big pile of rocks.
So why didn't they?


This is exactly the sort of thing that Thor Heyerdahl was into. I have mixed feelings about his success, however.

Kon-tiki seemed at least to give some plausibilty to tales of East-West travel.

Ra, not so much, I think.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom