Ancient Skies - Vol 13 No 2 - 1986-87

Magazine Overview

Title: ANCIENT SKIES
Issue: VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2
Date: MAY-JUNE, 1986
Publisher: ANCIENT ASTRONAUT SOCIETY
Country: USA
Cover Headline: CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS OF THE GREAT PYRAMID

This issue of Ancient Skies delves into the profound mysteries surrounding the construction of the Great Pyramid of Cheops, presenting arguments that challenge conventional archaeological explanations and suggest the involvement of advanced, unknown technology. The magazine also features a discussion on the challenges and biases faced by the field of paleovisitology.

Construction Logistics of the Great Pyramid by Ted Powell

Ted Powell's article meticulously examines the logistical hurdles of building the Great Pyramid, highlighting its immense scale and precision. He contrasts the pyramid's construction with modern hydroelectric dams, noting that only a few Western dams exceed it in mass. Powell questions the purpose of its alien-like design and the incredible precision of its block assembly, which have baffled archaeologists for centuries.

Powell references the 1799 survey by Napoleon's engineers, who discovered base anchor-sockets that allowed for accurate determination of the pyramid's dimensions and angles. Their measurements indicated a slope angle of approximately 51°49'14", with subsequent research yielding similar results. A key discovery was the base alignment with the Earth's N-S spin-axis to within an incredible 5' of arc (0.00023%). A 1925 Egyptian government survey confirmed this alignment with even greater precision.

Further details include Jomard's discovery of a 37" concavity deviation at the four side bases. The article also discusses the work of 19th-century British investigators Col. Richard Howard Vyse and Prof. Piazzi Smith, whose research on casing blocks revealed a mean slope angle of 5°51', 14.3". The precision of these blocks, finished to near optical tolerances of 0.01"/75", is emphasized.

Powell posits that if a hypothetical pyramid with this precise slope angle and a height of 1.000000 were geometrically drawn, it would yield a value of Pi out to six decimal places, along with surprising geometric and trigonometric relations. He questions whether this precision, along with the base alignment, is mere coincidence, suggesting it points towards a deliberate design to 'square the circle'.

He challenges the conventional explanations for how such precision could be achieved with the tools available to ancient Egyptians, such as crude wooden or brass transits and knotted ropes. The article raises questions about how the ancients were aware of the Earth's true shape, spin-axis, and true north to such a degree of accuracy.

Powell also questions the availability of skilled labor, architects, and engineers in ancient Egypt for such a project, especially given the supposed construction date of 3500 BC and a population significantly smaller than some modern states. He dismisses the idea of illiterate slaves executing such precise work through witchcraft or mass hypnotism.

Analyzing the logistics of quarrying, sizing, finishing, and transporting approximately 2,300,000 stone blocks (each weighing 2.5 tons, with some up to 90 tons and a few as much as 600 tons), Powell calculates the immense requirements for ropes, roller logs, and manpower. He estimates that moving blocks using primitive methods would require an army of 1 million men and 600 years, or 75 years at a rate of 100 blocks per day. He also questions how such a large labor force would be housed, fed, and supported in a harsh desert environment.

The article critiques the common depiction of labor gangs rope-hauling massive stones on sleds over lubricated causeways, noting this was at ground level and applied to smaller pyramids. It suggests that the scenario of 'whiplashed slaves' for the Giza colossus is amateurish absurdity. Citing Herodotus, Powell notes that the ancient Egyptians completed the pyramid with only 100,000 paid, trained artisans and workers in 20 years, working in 3-month shifts. He questions how this was possible with primitive manual labor and equipment, and what the cost and manpower would be for a modern nation to replace the casing stones with concrete.

Powell further discusses the possibility that some outer sandstone blocks might be a reworked synthetic material, a form of ancient concrete, based on microscopic analysis. He also ponders the purpose of the upward-slanted main north tunnel passage, suggesting it might have been for dielectric waveguide communication, navigation, or astronomical observation.

He summarizes the consensus among many antiquities experts: the Great Pyramid's enormity and precision were beyond ancient Egypt's capabilities, implying the involvement of an unknown outside agency with advanced technology. The article concludes by listing numerous historical volumes consulted on the Great Pyramid.

Building the Scientific Paleovisitology by Dr. Vladimir V. Rubtsov

Dr. Rubtsov responds to an article by Dr. Stuart W. Greenwood, who proposed establishing Scientific Investigative Committees (SICs) to stimulate research into paleovisitology (the study of extraterrestrial visitations to Earth in the remote past).

Rubtsov identifies four main reasons why modern science largely rejects the study of paleovisits:

1. Interdisciplinary Nature: Paleovisitology requires integrating knowledge from diverse fields like astronomy, history, cosmology, philology, astronautics, archaeology, engineering, and mythology. Modern science's highly differentiated structure struggles with such heterogeneous, interdisciplinary problems.
2. Underdevelopment of the Problem: There is no theoretical model for paleovisits or their traces. It is difficult to distinguish extraterrestrial artifacts from terrestrial ones, making conclusions lack scientific persuasiveness.
3. Lack of Common Ground with Traditional Disciplines: Paleovisitology does not align well with the usual problems of history, philology, archaeology, mythology, or even astronomy and cosmology. Proponents often try to overturn established principles, leading specialists to become disinterested or hostile.
4. Anti-Paleovisit Prejudice: A significant, often irrational, prejudice exists among scientists. This stems partly from the current underdeveloped state of the problem but also from social pressures, where scientists may adopt the opinions of their seniors and colleagues.

Rubtsov suggests that to alter this situation, a community of recognized specialists (especially in history, philology, and archaeology) actively studying paleovisits should be established. This community would develop paleovisitology as an interdisciplinary science, applying its methods to recognized scientific disciplines and gradually integrating paleovisitological works into disciplinary publications. A system of special paleovisitological publications, as a subsystem of the broader scientific publication system, is also proposed to help dissolve the anti-paleovisit bias.

He acknowledges that such a community cannot form overnight but can grow from the existing group of bold scientists and engineers. He supports Dr. Greenwood's suggestion of SICs, proposing that interested Ancient Astronaut Society (AAS) members who are graduate scientists or scholars should submit their propositions for SIC activities to the AAS world headquarters. The list of members and their propositions would then be published or distributed. The SICs could elect a chairman and scientific editor. While Ancient Skies is not a scientific bulletin, a special section for SIC information and publications could be allocated. The scientific editor would be responsible for reviewing manuscripts, a task made more complex in an interdisciplinary field.

Rubtsov notes that the creation of SICs would not solve the main research problems but would help with organizational issues and provide a center for research coordination and idea exchange. He also suggests that SICs could establish relations with traditional scientific societies, periodicals, and bodies dealing with anomalistics.

He concludes that while problems and difficulties are inevitable, starting this work is crucial.

Scientific Study Reveals That Scientists Are Biased

This section reports on a study by Michael Mahoney of the University of California at Santa Barbara, presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. The study aimed to determine whether social scientists or physical scientists were more prone to self-deception. Surprisingly, the study found that non-scientists were more scientific in their approach to problem-solving than either physicists or psychologists.

The study involved 15 Ph.D. physicists, 15 Ph.D. psychologists, and 15 conservative Protestant clergymen (as a control group). Participants were given numbers generated from a mathematical rule and asked to determine the rule. Mahoney reported that the clergymen conducted more experiments, were slower to announce answers, and were less likely to return to a hypothesis already proven false compared to the scientists.

Mahoney also conducted an experiment where phony studies were submitted to scientific journals for publication. Reviewers praised and accepted studies that agreed with their preconceived notions but criticized and rejected studies that disagreed with their hypotheses, even when the methodology was sound. This demonstrated the fallibility of scientists and their tendency to stick to their beliefs even when facts contradict them.

When Mahoney revealed that he was submitting phony studies to test the publication system, he faced backlash from angry scientists. He concluded that while it might be acceptable to experiment on college sophomores, it is not acceptable to experiment on other scientists.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the profound mysteries of ancient civilizations, particularly the Great Pyramid, and the challenges of scientific inquiry into phenomena that defy conventional explanations. The magazine strongly advocates for exploring unconventional theories, such as those involving ancient astronauts and advanced technology, and criticizes the resistance and bias within mainstream science towards such subjects. The editorial stance is one of open-minded investigation, encouraging rigorous scientific approaches to subjects often relegated to pseudoscience, while also acknowledging the need for structured, interdisciplinary research and the potential for bias even within the scientific community itself.