The discussion revolves around the concept of greatness, exploring various interpretations and examples of what it means to be truly great. Participants delve into both abstract notions of greatness and specific instances, including historical achievements and cultural references.
Participants express a range of views on what constitutes greatness, with no clear consensus on definitions or examples. The discussion includes both agreement on the subjective nature of greatness and disagreement on specific historical interpretations and methods of construction.
Some claims about ancient construction methods remain unresolved, with participants expressing differing opinions on the feasibility of various theories. The discussion also touches on the ambiguity of historical records and the challenges of verifying claims about the past.
"I know it when I see it." -- Lewis Powell.Vivan Vatsa said:
I enjoy it and highly recommend others try it.Vivan Vatsa said:
Russ took the words right out of my mouth!russ_watters said:
I've never had a truly great meat loaf.fresh_42 said:
You should consider a visit to Germany.Evo said:
fresh_42 said:
It's great to be great, of course, of course...Vivan Vatsa said:
What is truly great is the mystery of how very heavy stones, some a hundred and two hundred tons, were quarried, transported, very accurately carved and very precisely positioned so many millennia ago that there are neither written nor oral records about them.Vivan Vatsa said:
KenJackson said:What is truly great is the mystery of how very heavy stones, some a hundred and two hundred tons, were quarried, transported, very accurately carved and very precisely positioned so many millennia ago that there are neither written nor oral records about them.
These sites include Sacsayhuaman, Cuzco, Peru; Ollantaytambo, Peru; Machu Picchu, Peru; the Giza Pyramids, Egypt; Tiahuanaco, Bolivia; Nan Madol, Pohnpei, Micronesia; Stonehenge, England; and Easter Island.
These stones were clearly not carved by hand with bronze (or even steel) chisels. Nor were they moved with rope. Some try to say these are evidence of ancient aliens, but that's no different than throwing your arms up in despair.
I'm fairly certain these were constructed with ancient technology and knowledge that was lost in the flood. Several structures, especially the temple at Ollantaytambo and a pyramid north of Giza, are clearly incomplete. The builders got caught in the flood.
The mystery of how they did it is great.
What flood?KenJackson said:
phinds said:
According to which reference frame?micromass said:
It's easy to give an answer that can't be verified or refuted, as many have done. But just look at that picture I posted from Sacsayhuaman. Look at the delicate curves in blocks weighing 100 tons or more that exactly match the delicate adjoining curves. It wasn't jostled into it's exact position with ropes without damaging the other rocks.micromass said:
Oh, grief. I just started looking at the hour-long video you posted. I fear there may be some confusion.micromass said:
Yeah, me too.micromass said:
KenJackson said:
That video has some fascinating stuff in it. Especially the central shaft for building the pyramids. But he's kind of glibly dismissive. It was kind of funny that he dismissed some author for saying but not proving something when that's what he did too. In fact you just can't prove a lot of things. Even respected archeologists sometimes disagree on dates by millennia.micromass said:
KenJackson said:
micromass said:
KenJackson said:
I avoided it because you implied it would get the thread banned. Is that your goal? Are you one who likes to provoke fights to get others kicked out?phinds said:
KenJackson said:
No, my goal is not to get you kicked out, it is to support the forums rules of providing citations for claims you make, as micromass just requested. The point is, you should not make claims you can't support. If you can support your claim, then I will have learned something new.KenJackson said: