Thursday, June 16, 2011


Ok. About the pyramids in Egypt. No kidding. This is serious you guys!

I haven't been able to find validation for my own theory about how the pyramids were built.

Most theories revolve around how the Egyptians (or their slaves) lifted humongous blocks, one after the other, to the top of a rising structure as massive as the pyramids especially the Great Pyramid of Giza.)

My theory is that they were built from the top down! I saw only ignorant or derisive comments about this suggestion on a forum someplace in cyberspace. But that was before I explained it.

Here is my theory that makes logical sense, or a least as much sense as saying people moved blocks weighing many tons up to the top of an ever increasing structure as tall as the great pyramid.

My theory is certainly far more reasonable than assuming aliens built the pyramids or aliens taught human beings a method of levitation (that people promptly forgot.)

There has to be an explanation how the Ancient Egyptians (and do we really know who they were?) moved the blocks to the building sites. Once we have the answer to that mystery understanding the rest will be a snap.

Were the huge "bricks" quarried elsewhere and moved to the site? Were they quarried right there in a geological rock deposit long gone from the earth? Or were they perhaps constructed in an unknown way similar to the way a sacred dung beetle makes a ball out of manure? Who's to say the blocks were square to begin with? They could have been rolled there and shaped in cubes after they arrived. Or perhaps they were made with a superior form of concrete?

The possibilities are endless.

Here's how I speculate they were built and it', no more more difficult to ponder than the theory of building them the other way(s).

Built from the top down?!?

Think about it. Weren't the pyramids discovered by someone tripping over a big pointed stone sticking out of the sand? (That's what I heard, though I haven't checked it with Snopes yet.) Didn't that stone turn out to be the top of a pyramid? The discovery of the pointed rock must have resulted in the mother of all gargantuan archaeological digs.

So, my theory is the ancient builders (and I assume they were just as smart--or as dumb--as modern man) dug a hole under one side of the first block, wherever it came from, and pushed, pulled or rolled the next block under it? They then repeated that sequence until they'd moved lots and lots of sand that hopefully blew away in the winds of the desert every night when they knocked off for dinner and beer. When the second block was in position, another hole was dug on the other sides. This process continued until the first layer was in place to lay layer after layer.

I even think that taking sand away from a building site would be a darn sight easier than moving it there to make ramps. If the wind is anything like it is in NM there goes the sand.

If you go to the beach try to make a pile of sand and stand on.

I'm sure some jerk will say it's too hard to put big square rocks under other big square rocks. This same jerk, of course, who easily believes huge blocks were rolled, pushed or pulled onto the top of other blocks. (Or the weirdos who believe in alien builders.)

As far as the remarkable closeness of pyramid blocks (and in other ancient stone constructions around the world) it's a wonder no one else considered the simplest theory...that the weight of the stones would press down over the years and compress the other stones. All it would take is some gravity and some really heavy stones. Hey, we got plenty of that.

As long as we're speculating, perhaps gravity was weaker in the old days. You just never know for sure. Just like believing there might have been atmosphere or water on Mars, right?

This theory can be proved with a simple "experiment." Get one of your rumpled books and stack a pile of other books (or rocks if you want to go to that trouble) on top of it. Come back a few months later and you'll see your rumpled book at the bottom of the pile is no longer rumpled. The weight of the books compressed the rumples. This also works shelf of books -- especially with those hard-readen paperbacks that resemble fans.

My whole point is that no theory is substantiated adequately to be positively, without-a-doubt correct explanation.

A theory is not really a theory without some substantiated evidence anyway. Until that time it's just speculation. Speculations are a dime a dozen. (Sorry for the cliche.)

Another thing, as far as believing the pyramids were tombs--it's not certain they were tombs. Actual burial sites found in the area were not in pyramids. Those other tombs out-numbered the pyramids. In fact, no certain burial sites were found in pyramids.

The truth is, modern man (archaeologist or not) hasn't got a clue how and why pyramids were built.

Oh, regarding another mysterious site Machu Picchu.

Perhaps Machu Picchu was built at sea level and an earthquake bashed the tectonic plates together pushing the site up to the top of the previously non-existent mountains. (I read that theory in a book, by the way.)

Think about it? Wouldn't that make as much sense as builders bringing a bunch of big rocks to the top of a mountain to build another thing we don't know the purpose of?

So, my real point is: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR. (Well, someone said that already but it bears repeating.)

Think about what you do hear and decide for yourself. Don't just buy a theory because a bunch of so-called experts sold a popular idea, swore to it and put it on the Discovery Channel.

In fact, you don't have to believe anything after you consider the all possibilities. The theories cancel each other out.

A hundred or a thousand years from now the "truth" will be just another theory based on "expert" popularized belief if books and television still exist.

Didn't people used to believe draining blood out of sick people would cure them? There were a lot of "facts" in ages past. More people died of exsanguination (ex·san·gui·na·tion--ekˌsaNGgwəˈnāS)than the illness plaguing them. (I think one was Beethoven, though you can't believe everything that comes out of Hollywood.)

Comments are invited.

Monday, June 13, 2011

My Review of Women's Lionshead Mary Jane

Originally submitted at Timberland

Take a look at our Women's Lionshead Mary Jane. We've combined classic Mary Jane styling with sporty, contemporary materials to create our Women's Lionshead Mary Jane.

Womens Lionhead Mary Janwe

By Sandy from Tijeras, New Mexico on 6/13/2011


4out of 5

Sizing: Feels true to size

Width: Feels true to width

Pros: Comfortable, Stable, Good Cushioning, Durable, Breathes Well

Cons: Strap doesn't open, Needs shoehorn to get on

Best Uses: Casual Wear, Travel

Describe Yourself: Trendy, High-end shopper, Stylish, Comfort-oriented

These are wonderfully comfortable; and stylish enough to wear everyday including going out. I can wear them everywhere. My only shoes except for boots in the winter and my old Timberland's that are now "slippers."

I was disappointed that the strap was just for looks and didn't open.

It's advertized as slip-on but I had to get a shoe horn to get the back of my foot in. (I wear Medium width.)

Price is reasonable and these are quality shoes that look great and will last a long time.

I had Thimberland shoes, similar Mary Janes, and I loved them. I can't see why everyone wouldn't love them once they try them.

Easy to order online. No long wait. Delivered right to my door.