"Knut, did you watch the documentary?  These are engineers and builders who don't understand how this could be done. "

I don't need to watch this specific documentary to know the arguments, this is nothing new, after all.

We may not know exactly how things were built, as some things may be achieved in different ways, but what we do know, is that when you don't care about the time it takes, the money or how many die building it, there were tools available at the time capable of doing it.

Stones can be moved with water transport, with wagon structures or rolling logs. Wheels, cranes and pulleys were invented that could pull many tons of weight. Many slaves were available to lend their strength to this.

As a for instance, when Thor Heyerdahl proposed his theories of settlement of some pacific areas by way of the Americas and the possibility of Egyptians travelling to Central America, he was told that it was impossible because the people in question lacked the technology to do that. Through his expeditions he proved otherwise.

Now, large parts of his theories have later been debunked using genetic anthropology etc. I.e: new hard facts.  That's how science works.  But what Heyerdahl demonstrated was that they had the technology needed and the idea that they didn't was just an unscientific prejudice passed off as fact.

That's the good part of actual science: even the people who are wrong can provide insight and clarity.

But what they also found with the RA experiment was that the knowledge of how to do things right is mostly passed down through workmen, and that the smallest thing can matter. For instance,  RA 1 sunk because the reed-boat builders hadn't built a boat that large before and didn't realize that a simple rope line depicted in paintings of reed ships was actually used to maintain the integrity of the structure. The only difference in the succesful RA 2 was those ropes.

It is not difficult to find engineers and builders that don't know how the pyramids were built. But if you find someone with an actual interest in ancien techniques, I'm sure they could show you with charts and models at least one plausible way it might be done.

At the very least, to take such a documentary seriously, I'd expect an examination of tools known to exist at the time, extrapolating from other ages and uses and determining "If we use pre-industrial revolution technology, how would we have done this?"

Even if we don't know exactly what was available 3-5000 years ago in Egypt, we know what was available when cathedrals were built. So by checking if those tools could build a pyramid, we can establish a frame of reference.

After that, going backwards in time by checking the tools available to other civilizations building large structures, it's possible to get even closer.

Some guys shrugging and going : "we have no idea" , have no credibility.

If they said: "we have done experiments and have determined the minimum necessary level of technology, and here is the difference between what is necessary and what we can prove that they had", then I might find them interesting.

The truth is, we have a pretty good idea how the pyramids were built, because variations and improvements of those technologies and techniques are still in use. Enormous structures with an increasing level of solidity and refinement have been built continuously since.

And the wonder of a pyramid is actually dwarved by the awesome architectural undertaking of, for instance, the 17th century English artificial Canal and waterworks system.

How did they do that?   ;-)

"listen to what he says about this insect shell materials properties and try to keep an open mind.  I will explain to you why his story may have some truth in it."

I listened for 30 seconds and it was some guy talking about using insect shells to create some form of stasis chamber. You know, finding bug shells in a dark, dusty tomb is not really a mystery. Finding an exposed tomb empty after 3000 years of grave-robbing is not a mystery.

I would be really interested in watching a film about the technology used to build the pyramids. Watching a movie with people who don't know and don't even care to find out is about as interesting as watching a bunch of guys saying they can't draw and that this means no-one can draw and somehow all painters and illustrators ever must have used photocameras and advanced editing software.

Rembrandt owned a mac for sure. How else could he have done it? Right?

I kid, but that's really how silly this seems. 

"This engineer Christopher Dunn has examined the tools claimed to be used.  but no one has been able to use these methods to produce artifacts to the level of perfection found in the pyramids etc."

So if I get hold of Joe Kubert's drawing tools and am unable to produce work at his level, that proves that Kubert's art  wasn't really made with those tools but by some super secret hyper advanced tool given to him by space aliens?

I can sort of buy that. (No. Not really).

Again: what you're talking about are people looking at the pyramids and going "Duh, I don't know how they did that."

If they couldn't do that with those tools, but we can do it with modern tools, at what point does known technology (i.e. known to Chris Dunn) reach the level of sophistication where that can be done? With Athens? Rome? The magnificent ancient cities of China?

All you're really showing me is that you can make anything seem mysterious by having an "expert" go : "How did they do that?"

"but there are too many unanswered questions. "

No, there aren't really. The answers are there, you've just listened to people who ignore the answers because they don't like them.

"I also think this may be because you have not seen all the evidence presented."

I first heard about stuff like this over 30 years ago, and every time I've looked, it's failed the "smell test" within 15 minutes. There are the facts, and there is the methodology for evaluating facts, and this stuff doesn't come close to bei8ng methodologically sound.

Do you know how this claim of "advanced technology" would be proven scientifically? You try to disprove it. That's how a theory is tested. You pick at every single flaw and imperfection until whatver is left has withstood massive scrutiny.And that's not what claims like this are about.

You first have to honestly try to prove to the best of your ability that it would be possible to build the pyramids by contemporary means, and fail. So that you would know just how impossible it was and why.

So these guys just shrug and say "impossible". Not "We tried, here's video of an experiment with moving a 15 ton rock using ropes, pulleys, rolling logs, hundreds of men and a wooden crane or windlass. Wouldn't budge". Just "shrug".

We know that these techniques work (because we've seen them work fir thousands of years) , and that by extrapolation most of the building of the pyramids is easily explained. the few percent left over are architectural details or construction details that require some expertise.

"I will try to lay out this evidence if you are interested."

I'm really not. You put forth the "magnetic alignment" argument like it was some huge piece of proof of technology at a modern level or beyond being used, when it in actuality boils down to a rock on a piece of string.

I believe that you are convinced of this, but based on what you've provided so far, I don't trust your judgement as to what is or is not solid evidence.

A lodestone explains magnetic alignment, graverobbers explain the absence of a mummy or decorative elements. As for "smooth rock", masons seem to have no problems with that anywhere, using basic tools. The presence of bug shells in only one location may come down to only on place in the building having the conditions necessary to preserve them.

And for each of these there may be 3 or 4 more possible explanations, all of which would need to be identified, tested and dismissed as not only improbable but impossible in order to embrace answers that are sorely lacking in any real evidence whatsoever.  

••

You have. Many times.

I reject any notion of voodoo technology being employed by our ancestors, in whatever form it may take. The history of humankind is a long process of stops and starts, with progress occurring in bits and pieces, often in isolation before global communication became possible. (The single most revolutionary invention was the printing press, which made possible the easy dissemination of information over wide areas.)

What many ancient civilizations had that we "don't" was time. The Egyptians had a relatively stable civilization for thousands of years. With that kind of time, much can be accomplished that seems "impossible" today.

We don't need to invoke aliens, or voodoo technology, or any combination thereof. All we need is to acknowledge that our ancestors were just as smart as we are, and did the best they could with what they had.

Years ago I briefly dated a woman who was a firm believer in Atlantis legends. She pointed to the Pyramids, and other pyramidal structures around the world, as "proof" of Atlantis. How, she asked, could these similar structures spring up around the world at the same time, if there wasn't a common guiding intellect behind all of them? She didn't like my answer -- that "at the same time" actually represented hundreds, and even thousands of years, and that when "primitive" cultures start to build massive structures, the pyramid shape is a natural evolution of form. Without steel girders and other such supporting structure, a pyramid is the only way to construct a truly massive building beyond a certain height.

And even the Egyptians took a while to figure that out. Consider the famous "bent" pyramid.

The builders started at too steep an angle, and had to "bend" inwards in order to complete the structure. Subsequent pyramids avoided this mistake.

Agreed.

I've always found it somewhat insulting to Egyptian ( and Aztec) achievements to say "An alien must have helped".