• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

italian pyramids

Yes, very interesting...

and there is a perfect alignment with the Orion constellation
Click to expand...

Cripes.. As if anything is not aligned with some constellation...:rolleyes:

Besides the fact that they couldn't have been 'perfectly' aligned with orion when they were built, 3,000 or more years ago.
 
Interesting. Though despite what the story says they aren't the first pyramids discovered in Italy. There's one in Rome:

http://www.roma2000.it/zpiramid.html

The Roman empire did alot of looting in Egypt, so I guess that's how they got the inspiration.

Peter :)
 
Ya it is strange. They say them pyramids are 3,000 years old and aligned with Orion. But they don't say how they figured that age or in which way the alignment is laid out. It is intriguing though; I'll be looking forward to more news and excavations.
 
And what is the betting that any alignment with Orion is going to be taken as proof of alien intervention? -- As if Orion was not every bit as visible in the night sky then as now. As if not even a caveman could mark out Orion on the ground if he so wished :rolleyes:

Hans
 
From the link:
Their age is still undefined although they are surely older than 3000 years. Nothing was found nearby which may help to date the structures and in the area there was not any civilization able to build similar structures at the time (the people who lived there were mainly gatherers and hunters).
Click to expand...
Three possibilities:

1. The assumption about the dating is incorrect.

2. The assumption about the capabilities of the civilizations locally present at the time is incorrect.

3. Space aliens did it.

Why the H*LL would any normally constituted person conclude that possibility #3 is, a priori, the likeliest of the three scenarios?

As a side note, Neolithic societies in what is now Italy seem to have emerged from the hunter-gatherer stage about 6,500 years ago.
 
Who cares what history books say; as if they had figured everything out anyway. This is potentially a great discovery. Much like Stonehenge, it represents a challenge to the status quo. If the dating is correct (the article doesn't say how they did it anyway) then it means someone built these structures in 1,000 BC Italy. I'm discussing it with folks at the office now. If the Egyptians built the Giza pyramids in 2,500BC I don't see why the italian pyramids cause such a problem. They certainly don't seem to be as perfect as the Egyptians, but then again probably because they were built in a lush environment.
 
Frostbite said:
Ya it is strange. They say them pyramids are 3,000 years old and aligned with Orion. But they don't say how they figured that age or in which way the alignment is laid out. It is intriguing though; I'll be looking forward to more news and excavations.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating...

"Cripes.. As if anything is not aligned with some constellation..."
Click to expand...
Do you have a bathroom? ... With a window behind the toilet, or the bathtub?

What do you suppose is the significance of the stars you can see when you are taking a leak?
 
Oh my, what a lame argument. What's so hard to accept about the Giza pyramids - and now these Montevecchia mounds - being aligned with Orion? Are you saying the Egyptians had no astronomical talent? Frankly, I don't see a big deal about it. Check out also the ancient temples of Angkor Wat which are laid out in a Draco constellation pattern. What's the big deal with that? They looked up in the sky, associated some star clusters with a certain deity of theirs, laid out the land according to that constellation and built their temples. Why is it you "skeptics" have such a hard time with that?
 
Frostbite said:
Oh my, what a lame argument. What's so hard to accept about the Giza pyramids - and now these Montevecchia mounds - being aligned with Orion? Are you saying the Egyptians had no astronomical talent? Frankly, I don't see a big deal about it. Check out also the ancient temples of Angkor Wat which are laid out in a Draco constellation pattern. What's the big deal with that? They looked up in the sky, associated some star clusters with a certain deity of theirs, laid out the land according to that constellation and built their temples. Why is it you "skeptics" have such a hard time with that?
Click to expand...

I personally have no problem with things being aligned with constellations. However, many things that some claim are aligned (such as the Giza pyramids and Orion's belt) are not. Angor Wat is not is not aligned with Draco, it is alleged to have been aligned with Draco back in 10,500BC. Do you see where the implication is going?

We have extensive knowledge of the age and period that Angkor Wat was built in. So we know when it was built and it was certainly much later than 10,500 B.C. Do you see where we're going?

Invariably, the next phrase I hear from supporters of these prehistoric alignments is "So humans could not have built them".
'scuse me while I gag.

I'm not taking anything away from the Egyptians or the builders of Angkor Wat, in fact I'm making certain they keep the credit for having built such magnificent structures. I refuse to let some armchair woowoo archeaologist wannabees steal the hard work and knowledge and credit it to their imaginary Annunuki.
 
I knew that was coming, and I understand why you're afraid of the implications of Giza and Angkor Wat being aligned to constellations. But the fact is that they are arranged like constellations (not necessarily aligned to them), which suggests more than a mere coincidence, and nothing more than that the Egyptians and Khmer people had some astronomical interests. They laid out these structures like constellations, but wether they were aligned in 10,500BC remains to be absolutely proven. And anyway, even if it is the case, it still doesn't mean the structures were built in 10,500BC. Perhaps that date was important to them, like the year zero of various modern calendars. It doesn't take advanced technology to observe the precession of the constellations, and to calculate their locations in the past, and building monuments to represent a certain date.

The only three pieces of evidence that the Giza structures could've been built before 2,500BC, that I know of, are bits of mortar containing straw particles which were carbon-dated to around 3,000BC (carbon-dating results can lost accuracy depending on various factors anyway) and this Orion alignment scheme. And of course water-weathering around the Sphinx but that could've been caused by humans, much like Napoleon's armies using the Sphinx as target-practice. That doesn't prove squat.
 
Frostbite said:
I knew that was coming, and I understand why you're afraid of the implications of Giza and Angkor Wat being aligned to constellations.
Click to expand...


I would hardly call it "being afraid".

But the fact is that they are arranged like constellations (not necessarily aligned to them),
Click to expand...

"arranged like" is pretty darn weak, quite frankly. It is wishful thinking.

which suggests more than a mere coincidence, and nothing more than that the Egyptians and Khmer people had some astronomical interests.
Click to expand...

First of all, they are not aligned with anything. For Angkor doesn't resemble anything stellar from that era. The "Orion belt alginment" of the Giza pyrmaids is also wishful thinking, its aligned wrong (its reversed), the size to magnitude is off, and the guy who wrote "The Orion Mysteries" had to use an overexposed and inverted image of the belt to get a match. Do the calculations for 2600 BC and 10,500 and there simply is no match. Its been done several times in the USENET group sci.archeaology.


They laid out these structures like constellations, but wether they were aligned in 10,500BC remains to be absolutely proven. And anyway, even if it is the case, it still doesn't mean the structures were built in 10,500BC. Perhaps that date was important to them, like the year zero of various modern calendars. It doesn't take advanced technology to observe the precession of the constellations, and to calculate their locations in the past, and building monuments to represent a certain date.
Click to expand...

Uhm, actually it does take quite a bit of technology. You have to have some serious measuring ability, and a long period of uninterrupted observation.

The only three pieces of evidence that the Giza structures could've been built before 2,500BC, that I know of, are bits of mortar containing straw particles which were carbon-dated to around 3,000BC (carbon-dating results can lost accuracy depending on various factors anyway) and this Orion alignment scheme.
Click to expand...

There's also the dating and notes at the quarries, the records of laborers. The evidence of the pyramid is far more extensive than what you have listed.

And of course water-weathering around the Sphinx but that could've been caused by humans, much like Napoleon's armies using the Sphinx as target-practice. That doesn't prove squat.
Click to expand...

Napolean's troops never did that.
 
Wow. It certainly is nice to have figured everything out. You should write books on the subject.
 
Frostbite said:
Wow. It certainly is nice to have figured everything out. You should write books on the subject.
Click to expand...

Its called "basic research". Would you like a fewlinks to start you out?
 
Actually yeah, I don't like your confrontational attitude but still I'd be interested in a few links. I've browsed www.snopes.com a little and made a couple interesting discoveries, and if you got anything of the likes I'd be much interested.

Thanks.
 
Frostbite said:
Actually yeah, I don't like your confrontational attitude but still I'd be interested in a few links. I've browsed www.snopes.com a little and made a couple interesting discoveries, and if you got anything of the likes I'd be much interested.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I assume you've found out about Sphinx/Napoleon bit being fiction already.

I'll start with a few newsgroup discussions. These are ones with verifiable figures:

Frank Dorenurg's calculations.

There's also his website regarding Orion

That's fer starters. I should have some more. However, if you have a copy of Randi's Flim-Flam, you might want to note his bit about the "resemblance" a dot pattern the Hill's (who claim they were abducted by aliens) made has to almost a 1/2 dozen constellations. It is a related study in how a pattern of dots can be made to fit a whole bunch of things.

That's a start.
 
Frostbite said:
Wow. It certainly is nice to have figured everything out. You should write books on the subject.
Click to expand...
The pinnacle of intellectualism.

Why would anyone think that you'd have to go to Egypt to get the idea to build a pyramid? If you want to build a really massive stone structure, then the pyramid shape is a no-brainer. You don't have to have sophisticated (by later standards) building techniques to get it to stand up because it spreads the weight over ever-increasing (top to bottom) footing.
 
Frostbite said:
Wow. It certainly is nice to have figured everything out. You should write books on the subject.
Click to expand...

You do understand don't you, that if these pyramids were aligned with Orion 3,000 years ago, they wouldn't be aligned with Orion today?


You can take it from there...
 
hgc said:

The pinnacle of intellectualism.

Why would anyone think that you'd have to go to Egypt to get the idea to build a pyramid? If you want to build a really massive stone structure, then the pyramid shape is a no-brainer. You don't have to have sophisticated (by later standards) building techniques to get it to stand up because it spreads the weight over ever-increasing (top to bottom) footing.
Click to expand...

That's not even the point. The point is, even if kookbreaker's links were pretty good, it still doesn't deny that the Giza plateau was built as a representation of the Orion constellation. Bauval and Hancock went too far when they said the whole thing was aligned with Orion, the Leo constellation and the Milky way in the year 10,500BC (obviously to sell more books) and, not only did they tweak some numbers and flip the whole starmap on its y axis but they seem to think whoever built the pyramids were extremely accurate.

The Menkaura pyramid deviates by 30 meters when both layouts are compared, but that coincides with the fact that it's the only pyramid which has hieroglyphics. Khufu and Chephren's pyramids only have quarry marks, which lead me to believe that nobody was ever allowed to enter the two bigger pyramids, and they were built in a much different context. Perhaps the Menkaura pyramid builders built their pyramid over a landmark, with much lesser zeal.
 
Diogenes said:


You do understand don't you, that if these pyramids were aligned with Orion 3,000 years ago, they wouldn't be aligned with Orion today?


You can take it from there...
Click to expand...

I never said they were aligned with Orion, I said the Giza plateau was laid out like Orion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom