Top 10 Conspiracy theories

[Park Life 70]

A note from wiki on Samson and Goliath at Harland and Wolf:

"Each crane has a span of 140 metres (459 ft) and can lift loads of up to 840 tonnes to a height of 70 metres (230 ft), making a combined lifting capacity of over 1,600 tonnes, one of the largest in the world. Prior to commissioning, the cranes were tested up to 1,000 tonnes, which bent the gantry downwards by over 30 centimetres (12 in). The dry dock at the base of the cranes is the largest in the world measuring 556m x 93m."

Nowt to do with the pyramids. Just highlighting your post was bollocks

 

But does that crane move?

 

Really man you have no clue about this.

 

Here at Blohm and Voss they have 500 tonne cranes but they are stationary. They pick something up and drop it a 100 yards away.

[Guest alex]

I think they were built by men. In terms of the ones at Giza they probably had tens of thousands of men working on them at any one time. As much as anything else, the lesser pyramids, constructed at times when the Egyptians were less rich and had less men at their disposal tends to back that up. It's also significant, imo, that at the time they were constructed, there was no knowledge on arches and flying butressesand so on. So the only way you build a structure higher was to start with a large base and pile stones on top - like a pyramid.

On top of which the weights you give for the stones are exaggerated about 100 to 200 times. The stones were about 2-3 tonnes. I'd love to the rest of the stuff on the site you got that info off. It was an incredible achievement but there's nothing that isn't explanable in their construction imo.

 

Do you have any ans for the questions btw?

 

Regarding labour they love to tell us the stones were rolled on wooden logs...Err where exactly did thousands of hardwood logs come from?

 

One of the myths is this hired labour lark. Most of the work in the official versions was done by farmers who at the same time were looking after their crops in the fields. There is no way with the tech they had (vine rope, pulleys, copper tools )and the official time line you could knock up the bigger pyramids in 20 years. I think someone worked out you'd need 100,000 men working 24/7 without sleep.

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

[Guest alex]

A note from wiki on Samson and Goliath at Harland and Wolf:

"Each crane has a span of 140 metres (459 ft) and can lift loads of up to 840 tonnes to a height of 70 metres (230 ft), making a combined lifting capacity of over 1,600 tonnes, one of the largest in the world. Prior to commissioning, the cranes were tested up to 1,000 tonnes, which bent the gantry downwards by over 30 centimetres (12 in). The dry dock at the base of the cranes is the largest in the world measuring 556m x 93m."

Nowt to do with the pyramids. Just highlighting your post was bollocks

 

But does that crane move?

 

Really man you have no clue about this.

 

Here at Blohm and Voss they have 500 tonne cranes but they are stationary. They pick something up and drop it a 100 yards away.

Yes, they both move. And as I said, it wasn't providing an explanation for the construction of the pyramids, it was showing the previous post was full of inaccuracies.

[Fop 1]

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Part of the problem is whenever they do calculations they base them on 20 archaeology students (that struggle to lift the sticks) trying to shift a several ton stone with some sticks.

 

Rather than 100's of hardened labours being directed by people who have been moving several ton stones with sticks (and ropes and ramps and ditches and frames) for generations.

 

You've just got to look at the relatively solid data for how much an Irish canal navy could shift (or the US railroad workers) to see what I mean.

[Park Life 70]

I think they were built by men. In terms of the ones at Giza they probably had tens of thousands of men working on them at any one time. As much as anything else, the lesser pyramids, constructed at times when the Egyptians were less rich and had less men at their disposal tends to back that up. It's also significant, imo, that at the time they were constructed, there was no knowledge on arches and flying butressesand so on. So the only way you build a structure higher was to start with a large base and pile stones on top - like a pyramid.

On top of which the weights you give for the stones are exaggerated about 100 to 200 times. The stones were about 2-3 tonnes. I'd love to the rest of the stuff on the site you got that info off. It was an incredible achievement but there's nothing that isn't explanable in their construction imo.

 

Do you have any ans for the questions btw?

 

Regarding labour they love to tell us the stones were rolled on wooden logs...Err where exactly did thousands of hardwood logs come from?

 

One of the myths is this hired labour lark. Most of the work in the official versions was done by farmers who at the same time were looking after their crops in the fields. There is no way with the tech they had (vine rope, pulleys, copper tools )and the official time line you could knock up the bigger pyramids in 20 years. I think someone worked out you'd need 100,000 men working 24/7 without sleep.

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Look man. You get hung up about the crane thing there are stationary cranes that can lift 4,000 tonnes it's not important. The cranes example was just to show the average readily available tech today would have trouble with the pyramid stones. 10,000 men is just not enough.

 

The people making stuff up is the Egyptian Govt.

 

Like the Abydos temple. Unable to explain the erosion patterns and the fact it is on a lower layer (dating it at 10,000 BC ) they tell people the egyptians dug down specifically to build it, cause it doesn't fit in (nor does the Sphinx) with the dynastic timelines.

 

I don't know how or who built them, but I do know it wasn't the Egyptians.

[Guest alex]

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Part of the problem is whenever they do calculations they base them on 20 archaeology students (that struggle to lift the sticks) trying to shift a several ton stone with some sticks.

 

Rather than 100's of hardened labours being directed by people who have been moving several ton stones with sticks (and ropes and ramps and ditches and frames) for generations.

 

You've just got to look at the relatively solid data for how much an Irish canal navy could shift (or the US railroad workers) to see what I mean.

I quite agree. Especially when you were at the stage of expertise they reached by the time the pyramids at Giza were built. You most probably had teams of architects, engineers, paid skilled labourers, slaves. Also, there's a theory the upper stones were poured rather than quarried and so on. It's an incredible feat that they were built within 20 years or so, obviously.

[Park Life 70]

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Part of the problem is whenever they do calculations they base them on 20 archaeology students (that struggle to lift the sticks) trying to shift a several ton stone with some sticks.

 

Rather than 100's of hardened labours being directed by people who have been moving several ton stones with sticks (and ropes and ramps and ditches and frames) for generations.

 

You've just got to look at the relatively solid data for how much an Irish canal navy could shift (or the US railroad workers) to see what I mean.

 

We can't do it Fop. I saw a programme with some

mechanical engineers with state of the art pulleys and rope and 100 locals fail to lift some basic blocks. Never mind the satellite confirmed accuracy of the build.

 

 

Look at the circumfrence of these things, it will give you soem idea.

[Park Life 70]

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Part of the problem is whenever they do calculations they base them on 20 archaeology students (that struggle to lift the sticks) trying to shift a several ton stone with some sticks.

 

Rather than 100's of hardened labours being directed by people who have been moving several ton stones with sticks (and ropes and ramps and ditches and frames) for generations.

 

You've just got to look at the relatively solid data for how much an Irish canal navy could shift (or the US railroad workers) to see what I mean.

I quite agree. Especially when you were at the stage of expertise they reached by the time the pyramids at Giza were built. You most probably had teams of architects, engineers, paid skilled labourers, slaves. Also, there's a theory the upper stones were poured rather than quarried and so on. It's an incredible feat that they were built within 20 years or so, obviously.

 

 

Rubbish.

[Guest alex]

I think they were built by men. In terms of the ones at Giza they probably had tens of thousands of men working on them at any one time. As much as anything else, the lesser pyramids, constructed at times when the Egyptians were less rich and had less men at their disposal tends to back that up. It's also significant, imo, that at the time they were constructed, there was no knowledge on arches and flying butressesand so on. So the only way you build a structure higher was to start with a large base and pile stones on top - like a pyramid.

On top of which the weights you give for the stones are exaggerated about 100 to 200 times. The stones were about 2-3 tonnes. I'd love to the rest of the stuff on the site you got that info off. It was an incredible achievement but there's nothing that isn't explanable in their construction imo.

 

Do you have any ans for the questions btw?

 

Regarding labour they love to tell us the stones were rolled on wooden logs...Err where exactly did thousands of hardwood logs come from?

 

One of the myths is this hired labour lark. Most of the work in the official versions was done by farmers who at the same time were looking after their crops in the fields. There is no way with the tech they had (vine rope, pulleys, copper tools )and the official time line you could knock up the bigger pyramids in 20 years. I think someone worked out you'd need 100,000 men working 24/7 without sleep.

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Look man. You get hung up about the crane thing there are stationary cranes that can lift 4,000 tonnes it's not important. The cranes example was just to show the average readily available tech today would have trouble with the pyramid stones. 10,000 men is just not enough.

 

The people making stuff up is the Egyptian Govt.

 

Like the Abydos temple. Unable to explain the erosion patterns and the fact it is on a lower layer (dating it at 10,000 BC ) they tell people the egyptians dug down specifically to build it, cause it doesn't fit in (nor does the Sphinx) with the dynastic timelines.

 

I don't know how or who built them, but I do know it wasn't the Egyptians.

Look man, you quoted something that exagerrated the size of the stones 100+ times

[Park Life 70]

I think they were built by men. In terms of the ones at Giza they probably had tens of thousands of men working on them at any one time. As much as anything else, the lesser pyramids, constructed at times when the Egyptians were less rich and had less men at their disposal tends to back that up. It's also significant, imo, that at the time they were constructed, there was no knowledge on arches and flying butressesand so on. So the only way you build a structure higher was to start with a large base and pile stones on top - like a pyramid.

On top of which the weights you give for the stones are exaggerated about 100 to 200 times. The stones were about 2-3 tonnes. I'd love to the rest of the stuff on the site you got that info off. It was an incredible achievement but there's nothing that isn't explanable in their construction imo.

 

Do you have any ans for the questions btw?

 

Regarding labour they love to tell us the stones were rolled on wooden logs...Err where exactly did thousands of hardwood logs come from?

 

One of the myths is this hired labour lark. Most of the work in the official versions was done by farmers who at the same time were looking after their crops in the fields. There is no way with the tech they had (vine rope, pulleys, copper tools )and the official time line you could knock up the bigger pyramids in 20 years. I think someone worked out you'd need 100,000 men working 24/7 without sleep.

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Look man. You get hung up about the crane thing there are stationary cranes that can lift 4,000 tonnes it's not important. The cranes example was just to show the average readily available tech today would have trouble with the pyramid stones. 10,000 men is just not enough.

 

The people making stuff up is the Egyptian Govt.

 

Like the Abydos temple. Unable to explain the erosion patterns and the fact it is on a lower layer (dating it at 10,000 BC ) they tell people the egyptians dug down specifically to build it, cause it doesn't fit in (nor does the Sphinx) with the dynastic timelines.

 

I don't know how or who built them, but I do know it wasn't the Egyptians.

Look man, you quoted something that exagerrated the size of the stones 100+ times

 

I'm casual.

 

 

The pyramids discovered under the sea near Japan can be carbon dated cause of the coral. Guess what? Yes they are 10,000 yrs old. There are similar pyramids in China (the Govt farmed over them to hide them).

 

The pyramids along with other important stuff in south american was built around 9,000 to 12,500 years ago. This is no coincidence.

 

 

The Egyptian Govt are just lying.

[Monkeys Fist 38948]

What I find interesting about the pyramids is that they have no 'predecessors'. Granted there are older and smaller pyramids in Egypt, but the leap in standard from those to the Giza pyramids is immense. Like making a B&Q flat pack shed and then next building the Sage.

Nothing to do with 'aliens from sirius' or other such bollix, but a puzzler none the less.

[Guest alex]

I think they were built by men. In terms of the ones at Giza they probably had tens of thousands of men working on them at any one time. As much as anything else, the lesser pyramids, constructed at times when the Egyptians were less rich and had less men at their disposal tends to back that up. It's also significant, imo, that at the time they were constructed, there was no knowledge on arches and flying butressesand so on. So the only way you build a structure higher was to start with a large base and pile stones on top - like a pyramid.

On top of which the weights you give for the stones are exaggerated about 100 to 200 times. The stones were about 2-3 tonnes. I'd love to the rest of the stuff on the site you got that info off. It was an incredible achievement but there's nothing that isn't explanable in their construction imo.

 

Do you have any ans for the questions btw?

 

Regarding labour they love to tell us the stones were rolled on wooden logs...Err where exactly did thousands of hardwood logs come from?

 

One of the myths is this hired labour lark. Most of the work in the official versions was done by farmers who at the same time were looking after their crops in the fields. There is no way with the tech they had (vine rope, pulleys, copper tools )and the official time line you could knock up the bigger pyramids in 20 years. I think someone worked out you'd need 100,000 men working 24/7 without sleep.

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Look man. You get hung up about the crane thing there are stationary cranes that can lift 4,000 tonnes it's not important. The cranes example was just to show the average readily available tech today would have trouble with the pyramid stones. 10,000 men is just not enough.

 

The people making stuff up is the Egyptian Govt.

 

Like the Abydos temple. Unable to explain the erosion patterns and the fact it is on a lower layer (dating it at 10,000 BC ) they tell people the egyptians dug down specifically to build it, cause it doesn't fit in (nor does the Sphinx) with the dynastic timelines.

 

I don't know how or who built them, but I do know it wasn't the Egyptians.

Look man, you quoted something that exagerrated the size of the stones 100+ times

 

I'm casual.

 

 

The pyramids discovered under the sea near Japan can be carbon dated cause of the coral. Guess what? Yes they are 10,000 yrs old. There are similar pyramids in China (the Govt farmed over them to hide them).

 

The pyramids along with other important stuff in south american was built around 9,000 to 12,500 years ago. This is no coincidence.

 

 

The Egyptian Govt are just lying.

Unless you supply a source I'll just assume it's all off some crank site tbh.

The very crux of your argument was that modern technology couldn't even handle stones like the ones used in the pyramids because they weighed over 100 tonnes. They weigh 2-3 tonnes (there are helicopters that could easily lift that, let alone modern cranes - I realise they didn't have helicopters back then btw ). Hence my scepticism at the rest of the info. I'm not saying everything is explainable but it just kills my interest when blatant bollocks is used in stuff like this.

And there's a very obvious reason (which I've already alluded to) why you get pyramids all over the world. Before arches / flying buttresses etc were discovered it was the only method of constructing tall buildings.

Edited November 28, 2008 by alex

[Fop 1]

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Part of the problem is whenever they do calculations they base them on 20 archaeology students (that struggle to lift the sticks) trying to shift a several ton stone with some sticks.

 

Rather than 100's of hardened labours being directed by people who have been moving several ton stones with sticks (and ropes and ramps and ditches and frames) for generations.

 

You've just got to look at the relatively solid data for how much an Irish canal navy could shift (or the US railroad workers) to see what I mean.

 

We can't do it Fop. I saw a programme with some

mechanical engineers with state of the art pulleys and rope and 100 locals fail to lift some basic blocks. Never mind the satellite confirmed accuracy of the build.

 

 

Look at the circumfrence of these things, it will give you soem idea.

 

Never underestimate experience and practice (and lack of health and safety and the motivation of pain/death).

 

Try to get some very fit people to dig as much as an Irish navy and they'll likely fail and have a heart attack (from the diet if not the work load ), yet they did it.

 

It's just generally we consistently underestimate what earlier humans were capable of, be it in building, sailing, travelling or whatever.

[Guest alex]

What I find interesting about the pyramids is that they have no 'predecessors'. Granted there are older and smaller pyramids in Egypt, but the leap in standard from those to the Giza pyramids is immense. Like making a B&Q flat pack shed and then next building the Sage.

Nothing to do with 'aliens from sirius' or other such bollix, but a puzzler none the less.

Aye. That sort of thing is a mystery. It certainly takes one-upmanship up a notch

[Monkeys Fist 38948]

What I find interesting about the pyramids is that they have no 'predecessors'. Granted there are older and smaller pyramids in Egypt, but the leap in standard from those to the Giza pyramids is immense. Like making a B&Q flat pack shed and then next building the Sage.

Nothing to do with 'aliens from sirius' or other such bollix, but a puzzler none the less.

Aye. That sort of thing is a mystery. It certainly takes one-upmanship up a notch

Can you imagine what the instruction booklet must've been like............and in hieroglyphs too!

[Park Life 70]

Those pesky distances to the quarries...

 

Aswan (Assuan) lies 934km south from Giza up the Nile river (about 700 km air-line distance). The granite quarries lie south and southeast of the city of Aswan on the right side of the Nile and cover an area of about 20 km². The granite for the pyramids probably came from the northern part.

 

The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Sorry.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

Most of the stone for the interior of the Great Pyramid was quarried immediately to the south of the construction site. The smooth exterior of the pyramid was made of a fine grade of white limestone that was quarried across the Nile. These exterior blocks had to be carefully cut, transported by river barge to Giza, and dragged up ramps to the construction site. Only a few exterior blocks remain in place at the bottom of the Great Pyramid. During the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century) people took the rest away for building projects in the city of Cairo.

Thats from wiki btw.

[Fop 1]

Those pesky distances to the quarries...

 

Aswan (Assuan) lies 934km south from Giza up the Nile river (about 700 km air-line distance). The granite quarries lie south and southeast of the city of Aswan on the right side of the Nile and cover an area of about 20 km². The granite for the pyramids probably came from the northern part.

 

The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Sorry.

 

Thing is I remember them doing one of those TV programs about moving stone by boat. Historically the big issue was that they couldn't build them big enough/strong enough, but when it was discovered they could someone decided it would make good TV.

 

Basically the only conclusion that could be accurately drawn from the program was that the people in question were shit at making piers/docks.

 

It's like I have no idea how they managed to make the Great Eastern in the 1850's with the technology they had, but somehow they did.

[Monkeys Fist 38948]

How did they cut the granite,( a 'nails' bit of stone ) without metal working knowledge of the standard required?

[Park Life 70]

Those pesky distances to the quarries...

 

Aswan (Assuan) lies 934km south from Giza up the Nile river (about 700 km air-line distance). The granite quarries lie south and southeast of the city of Aswan on the right side of the Nile and cover an area of about 20 km². The granite for the pyramids probably came from the northern part.

 

The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Sorry.

 

Thing is I remember them doing one of those TV programs about moving stone by boat. Historically the big issue was that they couldn't build them big enough/strong enough, but when it was discovered they could someone decided it would make good TV.

 

Basically the only conclusion that could be accurately drawn from the program was that the people in question were shit at making piers/docks.

 

It's like I have no idea how they managed to make the Great Eastern in the 1850's with the technology they had, but somehow they did.

 

Well unlike you and Alex I am aware of th official version. But that is so ridiculous even thinking about it makes me laugh.

[Park Life 70]

How did they cut the granite,( a 'nails' bit of stone ) without metal working knowledge of the standard required?

 

Lazer.

[Fop 1]

Those pesky distances to the quarries...

 

Aswan (Assuan) lies 934km south from Giza up the Nile river (about 700 km air-line distance). The granite quarries lie south and southeast of the city of Aswan on the right side of the Nile and cover an area of about 20 km². The granite for the pyramids probably came from the northern part.

 

The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Sorry.

 

Thing is I remember them doing one of those TV programs about moving stone by boat. Historically the big issue was that they couldn't build them big enough/strong enough, but when it was discovered they could someone decided it would make good TV.

 

Basically the only conclusion that could be accurately drawn from the program was that the people in question were shit at making piers/docks.

 

It's like I have no idea how they managed to make the Great Eastern in the 1850's with the technology they had, but somehow they did.

 

Well unlike you and Alex I am aware of th official version. But that is so ridiculous even thinking about it makes me laugh.

 

I dunno, I just know most people couldn't make a seaworthy raft if it literally had to save their life (although with enough practice and direction they probably could).

[Monkeys Fist 38948]

How did they cut the granite,( a 'nails' bit of stone ) without metal working knowledge of the standard required?

 

Lazer.

whilst keeping the workers going by Tazer?

[Park Life 70]

Those pesky distances to the quarries...

 

Aswan (Assuan) lies 934km south from Giza up the Nile river (about 700 km air-line distance). The granite quarries lie south and southeast of the city of Aswan on the right side of the Nile and cover an area of about 20 km². The granite for the pyramids probably came from the northern part.

 

The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Sorry.

 

Thing is I remember them doing one of those TV programs about moving stone by boat. Historically the big issue was that they couldn't build them big enough/strong enough, but when it was discovered they could someone decided it would make good TV.

 

Basically the only conclusion that could be accurately drawn from the program was that the people in question were shit at making piers/docks.

 

It's like I have no idea how they managed to make the Great Eastern in the 1850's with the technology they had, but somehow they did.

 

Well unlike you and Alex I am aware of th official version. But that is so ridiculous even thinking about it makes me laugh.

 

I dunno, I just know most people couldn't make a seaworthy raft if it literally had to save their life (although with enough practice and direction they probably could).

 

People make like the quarry and the Giza footprint is right next to the Nile. Think about it.

[Guest alex]

Those pesky distances to the quarries...

 

Aswan (Assuan) lies 934km south from Giza up the Nile river (about 700 km air-line distance). The granite quarries lie south and southeast of the city of Aswan on the right side of the Nile and cover an area of about 20 km². The granite for the pyramids probably came from the northern part.

 

The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Sorry.

 

Thing is I remember them doing one of those TV programs about moving stone by boat. Historically the big issue was that they couldn't build them big enough/strong enough, but when it was discovered they could someone decided it would make good TV.

 

Basically the only conclusion that could be accurately drawn from the program was that the people in question were shit at making piers/docks.

 

It's like I have no idea how they managed to make the Great Eastern in the 1850's with the technology they had, but somehow they did.

 

Well unlike you and Alex I am aware of th official version. But that is so ridiculous even thinking about it makes me laugh.

Grassy Knollington strikes again