Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Frank_Doernenburg@do2.maus.ruhr.de (Frank Doernenburg)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 96 23:21:00 +0200
Hi, Jiri.
Sorry, but im on the edge to loose my tempers. What has Nazi ideology to do
with digging sites of 1904??????? Please, keep politics outside and
concentrate on facts.
You said, that there is no transport known of objects more than 100 tons
during roman times? Oh, please forgive me, then the Obelisk of Rome (510
tons) must have been zapped there by aliens. Ant the obelisk of Theodosius,
too. And the roman Author Marcellinus Comes must be a liar, telling that the
thing was transported by Romans and not by UFO-men.
And the relief on the socket of the obelisk must tell lies, too (where you
can see exactly, how the romans stole the obelisk from Egypt and transported
it over land).
If you want any reference to the temple of Baalbek (first mentioned after 20
AD!!!), read "Theodor Wiegand, Baalbek, 3 Bde, 1921-1925". It will answer all
your questions (but I don't think, that you will do it, because it would
shatter your fantasies, too).
JM>1) typical roman architecture.. Yet, the location is Lebanon, and has
JM>been a sacred site for millenia before the Romans.
No, it was not a sacred site. The colony "Heliopolis" was first mentioned
after 20 AD. There are no previous mentionings of Baalbek before this time.
There are only some unconfirmed speculations about a village "Ba'li", founded
in 804 BC, but they are not confirmed. But: Around Baalbek, no ruins older
than Augustus were found! And the village "Heliopolis" near the temple was
not named after the greek god Helios, but after the roman "Iupiter
Heliopolitanus".
JM>Lastly, why do Roman sources attribute the Baalbek platform, and the
JM>Trilithons to unknown builders, and not to themselves? It doesn't make
JM>any sense, does it? If the Romans were the true builders of Baalbek -
JM>they would have taken the credit for their architectural exploit!
Sorry, but where from do you get this sh.t? There are several mentionings
about the building process and the abortion of the thing in roman
literature, but there are others here to fill in the details.
but I think, there are others here who can contribute details.
As I said: Your sources ae shitty, you are not arguing on facts, but only on
believes (or wishful thinking). I think it's hopeless to argue with you.
Believe what you want and think it's true.
Bye,
FD
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Vladimir Vooss
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:45:19 +0000
Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
> Ann McMeekin (am@rtel.co.uk) wrote:
> : > Ths is a troll, correct?!?!?
> :
> : Actually, no, unless asking for information is a troll, in which case
rest snipped
>
> I do not mean to preach, but if you were really interested in
> how the pyramids were built, you might have asked.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
She did, Paul. That was the first thing she asked. People immediately
jumped on her. And I do believe you're preaching - to the jump meisters.
You've got to admit, this wasn't any fun for Ann. And it's Ann's
sensibilities that are at issue here, not your'all's decision to decide
whether a request is a troll and therefore quick meat to jump on. If the
net, and this newsgroup has any resemblance to the human race, an
apology to Ann wouldn't hurt.
Vladimir Vooss
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Kevin@Quitt.net (Kevin D. Quitt)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 04:11:33 GMT
On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:41:45 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
wrote:
>Ten times as much weight remains the decisive consideration.
Not at all. The considerations are the axle friction (none for the stones,
plenty for a car), and the rolling friction (much lower for a larger, hard
wheel).
>Modern tires roll easily, and their rubber is quite hard.
Actually, they don't, and have you seen how much the rubber flexes? That's
the energy you're putting into pushing the car, being turned into heat. Why
do you think the solar racers and high-mileage test vehicles use large,
solid rubber tires? It's because of the tremendous gain.
>> Third, it's no harder to make a large wheel round than a small one.
>Then make me a wheel mile-high!
While you're being an ass, why not ten miles?
>> Fourth, balance doesn't matter, because the wheels turn at very low speed.
>
>Spin a top. It only falls after losing the speed of rotation.
>At lower speeds, balance is the most important factor.
Balance is meaningless for an axle with wheels at the end. Maybe you just
can't visulaize what I've been talking about. Nail a solid wood wheel on
either end of a 4x4. Now, imagine the 4x4 is a block of stone sticking
through matching holes in the wheels, which wheels are (e.g.,) 6 feet in
diameter. Got it? No balance problem at all. Now wrap ropes around the
stone (which is off the ground) in the desired direction of travel. Get
people to pull on the ropes for uphill or downhill travel, or you can push
on the wheels on the level.
>> First of all, do you think only scientists work for NASA? You think they
>> don't have firefighters, trash collectors, drivers, and every other
>> blue-collar trade imaginable?
>
>And they are all given a free account with nasa.gov.? I don't think so.
Any employee can get an account, and almost all can get a computer.
>A large irregularly shaped stone? Really?
It's harder, but it can often be done. No, any arbitrary shaped rock can't
be used, but one that's roughly elliptical will work. You'll need to find a
way to bind the wheels to each other so they don't slip off the rock.
>Should I search through the first decade of OMNI? Thanks.
If I find it, I'll let you know. It's the best reference I can give for
now.
>It's rather tough to look like something, when not being shaped quite
>right for it. You must have a lot of fantasy.
They weren't quite the right shape for a cradle. They were pretty much
exactly the right shape for rolling blocks of stone. Sorry for not making
that clear.
>For one, you have hidden the wheel under six feet of dirt,
No, the stone is under six feet of dirt. I have no idea what happened to
the wheels.
>for two, you claim to have had no help. ON a kibbutz, it is unlikely.
Actually, I don't recall making that claim. I did have help making the
wheels and placing them on the stone. I *didn't* have help moving the
stone, since that was the whole point of the exercise.
>I just don't envision you doing this.
Your lack of imagination isn't evidence for anything.
>You saw the idea in OMNI,
Yes, I wasn't the only one to think of this.
>or saw it applied by a truck with a winch,
>as you mention. Don't they have those on kibbutzes? Sure?
Of course they do. We didn't move the rock that way because it was the
easiest or best way to do it. I moved it that way because I had made the
comment that it could be done; they found it hard to believe and agreed to
let me perform the experiment.
It's really not that big a deal to be able to move a great deal of weight on
a hard surface. Haven't there been musclemen who've pulled airplanes as a
demonstration? They're certainly the equal in weight (and more) of the
stone I moved. I'm sorry it's not more mysterious.
You just have a hard time understanding that high-tech isn't required to do
a lot of gross work. If one man can lift 50 pounds, then 1000 men can lift
25 tons. (The problem is finding a way for them all to be able to work at
the same time.)
--
#include
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: gblack@midland.co.nz (George Black)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 22:20:02 GMT
>That's not a valid argument. At least if you believe those who suggest
>Viking contact with the new world. If Vikings came to the New World
>and returned to tell stories, where are the new world crops and artifacts?
>Why no metal working or Viking artifacts, culture, language, etc. in the
>New World? Negative evidence does not prove anything. Polynesians are
>also missing many cultural artifacts from areas of Asia, both insular and
>mainland, and even the Western Pacific from whence they came. What
>would be important is positive evidence of contact. I'm simply
>referring though to contact, and not the type of cultural influence
>suggested by Yuri.
>
>Paul Kekai Manansala
The probability of a Viking contact is documented in the Graenlendinga Saga
and Erik's Saga.
There is also a history that documents the voyage of 3 Irish monks
(Dicuil's geographic treatise) toward the landmass now known as America with a
stop at the Faroes.
From the history of the landings in Vinland it is evident that they took
everything with them and spent a lot of time fighting the Skraelings.
They took back (Karlsefni and his men) such things as vines and grapes and
pelts.
There IS a coin recovered from a dig that is of interest but I do not know too
much about that dig.
The sagas refer to return voyages with the new people taking over and
rebuilding the old sites.
However this has little or nothing to do with claims of Pacific contacts.
Another 'proof' of the seperate development of the Polynesians is
(1) Language. There is the one group all throughout the Islands.
(2) Legends. No matter where from in the Polynesian inhabited group the
legends are similar. The main players have the same or very similar names.
Regards
>
>
Some people can stay longer in an hour than others can in a week
gblack@midland.co.nz
Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphics
From: amann@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Angus Mann)
Date: 17 Sep 96 22:51:42 +1000
On 15-Sep-96 05:23:42 NeilUnreal wrote:
>I am learning Egyptian hieroglyphics on an amateur basis. This week I
>attempted hieroglyphic immersion learning by transliterating my grocery
>list into hieroglyhpics. I must be making progress -- I got home from the
>store with everything I needed and nothing extra!
>I have a copy of K.T. Zauzich's book (translated by A.M. Roth) and a
>translated and transliterated copy of the Book of the Dead. Are there
>other translated/transliterated texts available inexpensively? Learning
>from the the texts themselves seems more rewarding than rote memorization.
> Also, can anyone suggest any other lexicons and grammars which are either
>in print or are widely available on the used book market?
Your best source, if your local library's resources on the subject are rather
sparse, is the library at the nearest University. Naturally, one which offers
Archaeology as a course would be the most helpful :) Whilst you will be able to
read texts in there, and photocopy portions, you should also ask about what
borrowing privelidges are available to the public.
--
Angus Mann, Sydney Australia
eMail: amann@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
Finger amann@postbox.usyd.edu.au for Public Key
2D 35 17 4A 78 78 89 05 97 F0 FB 54 1F 26 CF EE
--
Subject: Re: ARK OF COVENANT FOUND IN ISRAEL !! (???)
From: amann@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Angus Mann)
Date: 17 Sep 96 22:43:30 +1000
On 15-Sep-96 13:48:17 Morten Mjøsdal wrote:
>The following was posted in alt.prophecies.nostradamus.
>Is there anything to this, or is it just the mindwork of some crazy
>people?
>It makes you wonder!
>THIS WAS NOT POSTED BY ME!
[snip]
>>>THE PROPHETIC TELEGRAPH No.78 January 1996
>>>>From Arthur & Rosalind Eedle. Oxleigh, Langham Rd, Mumby,
>>>Alford, Lincs, LN13
>>>9SQ, England. (Phone/Fax: 01754 872539)
>>
>>
>>> THE ARK OF THE COVENANT
>>
>>
>>
>>> In November of last year when writing P.T.73. I closed
>>>with a mention of the possible discovery of the Ark of the
>>>Covenant in Jerusalem.
>>
>>>Since then I have had the opportunity of following this up, and
>>>have found what seems to be conclusive evidence. My earlier
>>>account contained some errors, for example, I had assumed that it
>>>was Jonathan Gray who made the discovery whereas in fact it was
>>>Ron Wyatt. from Nashville, Tennessee. I would like to apologise
^^^^^^^^^
I think that sayd it all, folks? :)
>>> The story begins in 1978, when Ron Wyatt was swimming
>>>in the sea At Ashkelon, one of the ancient cities of the
>>>Philistines. He stubbed his toe on something, and found that it
>>>was the rim of a large pot. Further investigation revealed that
>>>it was a Canaanite burial pot, the like of which archaeologist
>>>had long been searching for but had hitherto not found. When this
>>>news was brought to the Director of Antiquities in Jerusalem, he
>>>was delighted, and the event, seemingly by "accident", proved to
>>>be the means of cementing a relationship which was to serve a
>>>greater purpose later.
>>
>>
>>> A short while afterwards, Ron was standing talking to
>>>the Director of Antiquities, facing the cliff known as Golgotha,
>>>or Calvary. (These words both meaning place of skull are
>>>respectively Hebrew and Latin.) Suddenly Ron found his arm
>>>shooting out, and he pointed, saying "There's Jeremiah's Grotto
>>>- that rubbish heap - the Ark of the Covenant must be in there!"
>>>The Director answered spontaneously, "Then you must find It."
>>>But Ron was surprised at himself. He had no thought in his mind
>>>about the Ark, and couldn't understand why he had made the
>>>remark. This was miracle number one. and the Director's
>>>enthusiastic response and request for him to find the Ark was
>>>miracle number two - a most unlikely offer, seeing it was given
>>>to a foreigner, and that it Concerned THE most holy, sought-after
>>>artifact in the Jewish world.
Now if someone can PLEASE help me stop laughing after those two paragraphs :)
--
Angus Mann, Sydney Australia
eMail: amann@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
Finger amann@postbox.usyd.edu.au for Public Key
2D 35 17 4A 78 78 89 05 97 F0 FB 54 1F 26 CF EE
--
Subject: Re: The Minoan Linear A Language?
From: Berlant@dynanet.com
Date: 18 Sep 1996 10:52:56 GMT
In article , ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>"Alan M. Dunsmuir" wrote:
>
>
>>Maurice Pope, in his 1975 book "The Story of Decypherment" end with a
>>tentative 'family tree' of writing systems, which shows 'Aegean Scripts'
>>and 'Hittite Hieroglyphic' as siblings, on a quite different branch from
>>that occupied by 'Semitic consonantal alphabet' and its many off-spring,
>>which in turn is separated very early on from the cul-de-sac branch
>>labelled 'Egyptian Hieroglyphic'.
>
A different opinion was presented by Laurence A. Waddell in his lightly
regarded "Sumer Origins of Egypt", which traces many early
Egyptian hieroglyphs back to Sumerian pictographs -- in many cases
convincingly.
Subject: Re: Leader of Mysteries
From: "Ann McMeekin"
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:41:28 +0100
> I was one of the people who responded to your request. I did not
> attack you or insult you. I used humor to suggest that the idea behind
> your question did not have much value.
The only question I asked was where to find the start of the threads. I
did NOT ask if the pyramids were built by aliens.
> Regardless of your Internet or Usenet experience, if you are involved
> with these questions at all, you should be aware of the reaction of
> the scientific community to postulating about space aliens. That part
> of the reaction should not have come as a surprise.
Precisely! Which was the reason for not making any comment as to whether
I personally thought that aliens built the pyramids or not. I have enough
sense to be able to figure out that if I had posted a message saying "Hey
guys, I think that Aliens built the pyramids" in a newsgroup occupied by
scientists, I should expect ridicule. As such, at the moment, I don't
have any particular opinion about whether they did or did not, but am
interested to see the evidence for both sides of the argument.
> You may have received poor treatment (though mostly it was jokes), but
> you responded very quickly with your own pricklyness. This suggests
> that if you were not expecting this kind of reaction, you have been
> involved this kind of "dialogue" before.
In as much as I will alwyas respond to any sort of unfair treatment
(whether online or in real life) yes, I suppose that I have been involved
in such "dialogue" before. I certainly did not set out to start a fight.
If someone patronised you, I really don't think you'd just let it pass
without coment.
--
Ann McMeekin
am@rtel.co.uk
100702.75@compuserve.com
Section Leader for Mystic Places on Compuserve's Mysteries Forum
GO MYSTERIES
Subject: Re: Immortal Emperor
From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir"
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:49:11 +0100
In article <51olqo$97j@news.enterprise.net>, Adrian Gilbert
writes
>I am surprised noone has mentioned the BBC documentary that was shown in
>Britain on Sunday about work going on in China with the tomb of the First
>emperor,
I'm not. A more over-hyped and underweight blurb for a commercial
organisation's feeble attempt at mounting an Archaeology Exhibition
would be hard to find. ("Roll up to the British Museum, everybody, and
queue to see Rupert Murdoch's <>")
The nearest I could find to it was the same presenter's (Dr Tony
Spawforth, the non-thinking man's Michael Adams(?)) fairly recent (and
similarly near-vacuous) epic on 'The missing tomb of Alexander the
Great'.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: felixm@ccnet.com (David Cloutman)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 23:45:38 -0700
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: : I'm glad you won't insist on a point for which there does not appear
: : to be any supporting evidence.
: I think the best supporting evidence is simply that there's no evidence
: that there are any insurmountable obstacles on the way. There's no Berlin
: Wall on the way, or anything...
: : The Aztec long-distance traders were called the Pochteca. There is
: : good evidence that they engaged in far-flung trading missions within
: : Mesoamerica - probably as far away as Guatemala.
: So why would they stop in Guatemala? And what would prevent the
: Guatemalan peoples from travelling south? Just asking...
I'm not a professional expert on Mesoamerica, but I think I can field
this one fairly easily. The central american land bridge is a large,
malaria infested jungle. Anyone who has ever read accounts of the
construction of the Panama Canal should be aware of hostile the
environment is. Beyond Panama are the vast jungles and mountains of
Columbia. I once heard the average lifespan of a modern South American
indian living a traditional egalitarian lifestyle being quoted at 25.
Without a knowlege of the enviroment or the people of the South American
interior, it is unlikely that Mexica traders would have faired any better
than their European counterparts. It is all a matter of geography and
culture. The Mexica just weren't prepared to make such a mission. In
light of this, diffusion through Pacific water routes seem much more
reasonable.
--
______________________________________________________________________
|The secret of happiness is to face the fact that | |
|the world is horrible, horrible, horrible... | David Cloutman |
| -Bertrand Russell | felixm@ccnet.com |
|_________________________________________________|____________________|
|Personal: http://www.ccnet.com/~felixm/index.html| |
|Ask the Philostopher:http://www.ccnet.com/~felixm| Fight the CDA! |
|_________________________________________________|____________________|
Subject: Re: New Pharohs tomb found?
From: grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 13:42:59 GMT
> Saida wrote:
> >Mike Yates wrote:
> >>
> >> In an article dated Tue, 17 Sep 1996 03:35:34, Greg Reeder
> >> writes
> >> >Some of my sources believe it is an internet fraud. What do you
> >> >all think?
> >> Fraud or not, it made the main national TV news here in UK. It was said to
> >> have been discovered several decades ago by an Egyptian who promptly
> >> bought the land and built his house over it. They did not say if this was to
> >> protect it or to plunder it or why it has now come into the news.
> >> --
> >> Mike Yates Frome Somerset England
> >
> >
> >That's a good one--find a tomb and simply build a house over it, thereby
> >hiding it from view, and get yourself a "bargain basement" (sorry, an
> >Americanism) while you're at it! What I'm trying to say is--one can
> >have a jumble sale, then, whenever one wants from the "cellar". If
> >one's cellar has occupants, one merely keeps "mum" about it. This
> >fellow who built the house, his name didn't happen to be Rassoul by any
> >chance?
>
> Now we have UK television news reporting this discovery along with El
> Ahram in Cairo? and I got email about the French paper Liberation 9.19.96
> page 34, reporting that the tomb belongs to a king and queen, 19th
> Dynasty, at El Qurna. Very curious that the "authorities" in Egypt are
> so far silent on the subject. The most convincing part is the house being
> built over the tomb. The other parts do not make much sense. What is the
> source of these stories? Can't waite to find out what's going on! I don't
> think the Rassoul's would dare to that all again.
> --
> Greg Reeder
> On the WWW
> at Reeder's Egypt Page
> ---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
> reeder@sirius.com
>
>
It was also reported on South African radio news - only on one bulletin 0800 last Sunday morning.
Nothing else. If there's a house built on top of the tomb it cannot be in the Valley of the Kings! The
only place where that frequently happens is on the west bank at Qurna - and those are the tombs of the
Nobles. Isn't there anyone out there with some contacts at AUC who can throw some light - or is it just
a hoazx or another person who, like the recent discoverer of Alexander's tomb at Siawa, has become
over-enthusiastically presumptuous!
Somebody from Egypt must surely see this newsgroup? Is there anyone there ... please tell us what it is
all about.
----
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa