It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationism, taken to its logical extreme, negates the existence of Jesus Christ.

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.


You do not understand physics, that is why you do not not even try to refute what I am saying with arguments.
If I was mistaken(and I don't believe that I was), then I could have been only mistaken in the assumption about which part of the Pyramid would have been more, and which less damaged.

But even if I am mistaken in this(and I don't believe that I was), I would still be right, that an earthquake would cause ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE, to the Pyramid.


(Facepalm)
The damage from Earthquakes diminishes the further away you get from the epicentre. It tends to affect an entire building equally. And like I said - it loosened or knocked off the casing stones, which were then pinched by the locals. We don't have an exact picture of that the Pyramids looked like after the 'Quake.
By the way, I notice that you have still not addressed my point about the coins. Interesting.


How could the earthquake affect the entire Pyramid equally, when the force wave hits THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE PYRAMID; AT DIFFERENT ANGLES!?
As for the coins, coins just like documents can be easily faked.




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.


You do not understand physics, that is why you do not not even try to refute what I am saying with arguments.
If I was mistaken(and I don't believe that I was), then I could have been only mistaken in the assumption about which part of the Pyramid would have been more, and which less damaged.

But even if I am mistaken in this(and I don't believe that I was), I would still be right, that an earthquake would cause ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE, to the Pyramid.


(Facepalm)
The damage from Earthquakes diminishes the further away you get from the epicentre. It tends to affect an entire building equally. And like I said - it loosened or knocked off the casing stones, which were then pinched by the locals. We don't have an exact picture of that the Pyramids looked like after the 'Quake.
By the way, I notice that you have still not addressed my point about the coins. Interesting.


How could the earthquake affect the entire Pyramid equally, when the force wave hits THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE PYRAMID; AT DIFFERENT ANGLES!?
As for the coins, coins just like documents can be easily faked.


You have once again failed to understand my point about the Pyramids and the Earthquake. Try and read it again.
As for coins, I live in London, formerly known as Londinium. If I went out tomorrow with a shovel and dug within the old city walls, I'd soon get myself a handful of coins from different ages. London, Saxon, Norman, etc. So who put those there?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.


Once again, the damage to the lower parts of the rear of the Sphinx is highly contentious. It's also at a spot which used to regularly get covered in sand if it wasn't cleared out regularly. The Sphinx was half-buried when Napoleon saw it - we have the drawing made by the scientists he took with him. So when did that 'water damage' take place if your theory is correct?
As for your video I don't think that you've watched it. I made the mistake of doing so, but gave up when he tried to claim that geologists acknowledge that the biblical flood took place.


I don't know when the water damage occurred, but when I see the lower part of the Sphinx, I can not think of any other process that could have caused the damage that we see(it certainly wasn't wind).
As for the video, Klitzke says(and shows) that in one of the smaller pyramids there is salt to be found, that came from seawater.


(Facepalm)
But the alleged water damage to the lower parts of the Sphinx would have taken place over centuries. It's supposed to be the result of water erosion - rainwater in other words. Not erosion from a global flood and certainly not from something that never happened! There's no evidence for a global flood on the scale alleged by the bible!
The UPPER part of the Sphinx shows very clear WIND erosion. And that's the bit that WASN'T covered in sand on a regular basis!


How could it have been wind erosion, when the Sphinx was covered in sand, when it was found?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.


You do not understand physics, that is why you do not not even try to refute what I am saying with arguments.
If I was mistaken(and I don't believe that I was), then I could have been only mistaken in the assumption about which part of the Pyramid would have been more, and which less damaged.

But even if I am mistaken in this(and I don't believe that I was), I would still be right, that an earthquake would cause ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE, to the Pyramid.


(Facepalm)
The damage from Earthquakes diminishes the further away you get from the epicentre. It tends to affect an entire building equally. And like I said - it loosened or knocked off the casing stones, which were then pinched by the locals. We don't have an exact picture of that the Pyramids looked like after the 'Quake.
By the way, I notice that you have still not addressed my point about the coins. Interesting.


How could the earthquake affect the entire Pyramid equally, when the force wave hits THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE PYRAMID; AT DIFFERENT ANGLES!?
As for the coins, coins just like documents can be easily faked.


You have once again failed to understand my point about the Pyramids and the Earthquake. Try and read it again.
As for coins, I live in London, formerly known as Londinium. If I went out tomorrow with a shovel and dug within the old city walls, I'd soon get myself a handful of coins from different ages. London, Saxon, Norman, etc. So who put those there?


I understand your point, and your point is wrong.
The force hits the sides of the Pyramid at different angles. How you can think that this wouldn't have influence on the distribution of damage zones is beyond me.

As for the coins, take the shovel in your hands, and become a wealthy men. I dare you.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.


Once again, the damage to the lower parts of the rear of the Sphinx is highly contentious. It's also at a spot which used to regularly get covered in sand if it wasn't cleared out regularly. The Sphinx was half-buried when Napoleon saw it - we have the drawing made by the scientists he took with him. So when did that 'water damage' take place if your theory is correct?
As for your video I don't think that you've watched it. I made the mistake of doing so, but gave up when he tried to claim that geologists acknowledge that the biblical flood took place.


I don't know when the water damage occurred, but when I see the lower part of the Sphinx, I can not think of any other process that could have caused the damage that we see(it certainly wasn't wind).
As for the video, Klitzke says(and shows) that in one of the smaller pyramids there is salt to be found, that came from seawater.


(Facepalm)
But the alleged water damage to the lower parts of the Sphinx would have taken place over centuries. It's supposed to be the result of water erosion - rainwater in other words. Not erosion from a global flood and certainly not from something that never happened! There's no evidence for a global flood on the scale alleged by the bible!
The UPPER part of the Sphinx shows very clear WIND erosion. And that's the bit that WASN'T covered in sand on a regular basis!


How could it have been wind erosion, when the Sphinx was covered in sand, when it was found?



(Bangs head against desk)
You really don't do any research at all do you? Not even open a book?
Right. Pay attention, because I'm not going to explain this again. Take notes if you need to. The Sphinx was created by men who carved a large statue out of the rock. The top part seems to have been a natural outcrop. The lower part was carved out of the bedrock? Are you still with me? Top bit - outcrop - lower bit bedrock. This latter part created something called a hole. A void, if you will.
Still with me? Ok, good.
Now, Egypt is very hot. It contains a desert. This is made up of fine particles of rock that we call sand. These are so fine that they can get blown by the wind. If they encounter a hole then they tend to fall into it, thus filling up the hole. Now if the Sphinx is not being maintained by, oh I don't know, Pharaohs and priests, its lower levels tend to get filled up with sand. The UPPER part however, the pointy bit which sticks up above ground level, stays above the sand and is visible. And gets eroded by the wind.
So, just to reiterate because I want to make it very clear, the ENTIRE Sphinx wasn't buried (and that is not what I said, please re-read my posts). Just the bottom bits. Ok? Bottom bits, covered in sand - top bits visible and being eroded by the wind. Got it? IT'S VERY, VERY SIMPLE!!!!



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.


You do not understand physics, that is why you do not not even try to refute what I am saying with arguments.
If I was mistaken(and I don't believe that I was), then I could have been only mistaken in the assumption about which part of the Pyramid would have been more, and which less damaged.

But even if I am mistaken in this(and I don't believe that I was), I would still be right, that an earthquake would cause ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE, to the Pyramid.


(Facepalm)
The damage from Earthquakes diminishes the further away you get from the epicentre. It tends to affect an entire building equally. And like I said - it loosened or knocked off the casing stones, which were then pinched by the locals. We don't have an exact picture of that the Pyramids looked like after the 'Quake.
By the way, I notice that you have still not addressed my point about the coins. Interesting.


How could the earthquake affect the entire Pyramid equally, when the force wave hits THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE PYRAMID; AT DIFFERENT ANGLES!?
As for the coins, coins just like documents can be easily faked.


You have once again failed to understand my point about the Pyramids and the Earthquake. Try and read it again.
As for coins, I live in London, formerly known as Londinium. If I went out tomorrow with a shovel and dug within the old city walls, I'd soon get myself a handful of coins from different ages. London, Saxon, Norman, etc. So who put those there?


I understand your point, and your point is wrong.
The force hits the sides of the Pyramid at different angles. How you can think that this wouldn't have influence on the distribution of damage zones is beyond me.

As for the coins, take the shovel in your hands, and become a wealthy men. I dare you.


The force of an earthquake comes from the ground. BENEATH the Pyramid. It shakes the entire thing. Earthquakes do not travel through the air like an explosion. Ground movement does the damage.
And as for coins - is every single person with a metal detector in on this great conspiracy???



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao


i'm sorry but the bible is THE most "peer reviewed" book in history, dude.

even you have "reviewed" it.



Actually, no. The bible is not peer reviewed. For something to be peer reviewed it must have results that are testable and able to be independently reproduced. Nothing in the bible had been Independently reproduced by any scientist or lab.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.


Once again, the damage to the lower parts of the rear of the Sphinx is highly contentious. It's also at a spot which used to regularly get covered in sand if it wasn't cleared out regularly. The Sphinx was half-buried when Napoleon saw it - we have the drawing made by the scientists he took with him. So when did that 'water damage' take place if your theory is correct?
As for your video I don't think that you've watched it. I made the mistake of doing so, but gave up when he tried to claim that geologists acknowledge that the biblical flood took place.


I don't know when the water damage occurred, but when I see the lower part of the Sphinx, I can not think of any other process that could have caused the damage that we see(it certainly wasn't wind).
As for the video, Klitzke says(and shows) that in one of the smaller pyramids there is salt to be found, that came from seawater.


(Facepalm)
But the alleged water damage to the lower parts of the Sphinx would have taken place over centuries. It's supposed to be the result of water erosion - rainwater in other words. Not erosion from a global flood and certainly not from something that never happened! There's no evidence for a global flood on the scale alleged by the bible!
The UPPER part of the Sphinx shows very clear WIND erosion. And that's the bit that WASN'T covered in sand on a regular basis!


How could it have been wind erosion, when the Sphinx was covered in sand, when it was found?



(Bangs head against desk)
You really don't do any research at all do you? Not even open a book?
Right. Pay attention, because I'm not going to explain this again. Take notes if you need to. The Sphinx was created by men who carved a large statue out of the rock. The top part seems to have been a natural outcrop. The lower part was carved out of the bedrock? Are you still with me? Top bit - outcrop - lower bit bedrock. This latter part created something called a hole. A void, if you will.
Still with me? Ok, good.
Now, Egypt is very hot. It contains a desert. This is made up of fine particles of rock that we call sand. These are so fine that they can get blown by the wind. If they encounter a hole then they tend to fall into it, thus filling up the hole. Now if the Sphinx is not being maintained by, oh I don't know, Pharaohs and priests, its lower levels tend to get filled up with sand. The UPPER part however, the pointy bit which sticks up above ground level, stays above the sand and is visible. And gets eroded by the wind.
So, just to reiterate because I want to make it very clear, the ENTIRE Sphinx wasn't buried (and that is not what I said, please re-read my posts). Just the bottom bits. Ok? Bottom bits, covered in sand - top bits visible and being eroded by the wind. Got it? IT'S VERY, VERY SIMPLE!!!!


Are you saying that the damage done to the lower OUTER parts of the Sphinx, was done by the sand?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.


You do not understand physics, that is why you do not not even try to refute what I am saying with arguments.
If I was mistaken(and I don't believe that I was), then I could have been only mistaken in the assumption about which part of the Pyramid would have been more, and which less damaged.

But even if I am mistaken in this(and I don't believe that I was), I would still be right, that an earthquake would cause ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE, to the Pyramid.


(Facepalm)
The damage from Earthquakes diminishes the further away you get from the epicentre. It tends to affect an entire building equally. And like I said - it loosened or knocked off the casing stones, which were then pinched by the locals. We don't have an exact picture of that the Pyramids looked like after the 'Quake.
By the way, I notice that you have still not addressed my point about the coins. Interesting.


How could the earthquake affect the entire Pyramid equally, when the force wave hits THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE PYRAMID; AT DIFFERENT ANGLES!?
As for the coins, coins just like documents can be easily faked.


You have once again failed to understand my point about the Pyramids and the Earthquake. Try and read it again.
As for coins, I live in London, formerly known as Londinium. If I went out tomorrow with a shovel and dug within the old city walls, I'd soon get myself a handful of coins from different ages. London, Saxon, Norman, etc. So who put those there?


I understand your point, and your point is wrong.
The force hits the sides of the Pyramid at different angles. How you can think that this wouldn't have influence on the distribution of damage zones is beyond me.

As for the coins, take the shovel in your hands, and become a wealthy men. I dare you.


The force of an earthquake comes from the ground. BENEATH the Pyramid. It shakes the entire thing. Earthquakes do not travel through the air like an explosion. Ground movement does the damage.
And as for coins - is every single person with a metal detector in on this great conspiracy???


Of course it shakes the entire thing.
But not every part "of the thing", is shaken TO THE SAME DEGREE!
And that is because of the angle thing.

As for the coins, The majority of the coins were found by "experts".



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

I don't know when the water damage occurred, but when I see the lower part of the Sphinx, I can not think of any other process that could have caused the damage that we see(it certainly wasn't wind).

Ahhh you must be a geologist then or at leafy have some geological background like anthropology or paleontology. That would be the only way you have the expertise to determine that. Since you're the expert could you explain to me why your "water erosion" has an uneven distribution throughout the Giza plateau?


As for the video, Klitzke says(and shows) that in one of the smaller pyramids there is salt to be found, that came from seawater.


Wait... I can't trust history but I'm supposed to trust someone because they made a video? I'm terribly confused by your lack of across the board standards. What agrees with you must be true and to hell with any evidence to the contrary. It's certainly an interesting approach.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: john666

First of all, my heartiest congratulations, and thanks too, for bringing up something so provocative and out of the general run of the mill. Thread flagged, stars awarded for various posts you've made, including the first. You have also conducted yourself admirably on the thread — so far, anyway.

Well done.

Now,


because history is collection of events, made by humans, it would be only logical that history as a whole has a beginning, but that is not what we see. And the reason why the great majority of people around the world doesn't view this as problematic, is because of Jesus Christ mind control program.

You are mistaken. Every history has a beginning. They begin in the creation myths of the cultures that write the histories. Yes, they mostly disagree with each other and are all more or less fanciful in any case. But that is only because writing was only invented long after the human story began, and the accounts were garbled and exaggerated along the way.

And I have to tell you the 'Jesus Christ mind control programme' hasn't made much headway hereabouts. To a lot of my neighbours, this is really the year 2557.

By the way, I find it hilarious that your man Fomenko believes history began in the ninth century (according to Wikipedia, amnyway). No, Anatoly, the history of Russia began in the ninth century, when a bunch of Vikings came down from the Baltic and invented the place. Talk about egocentric...


edit on 19/6/14 by Astyanax because: of a technical point.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

Of course it shakes the entire thing.


But not every part "of the thing", is shaken TO THE SAME DEGREE!
And that is because of the angle thing.

As for the coins, The majority of the coins were found by "experts".


care to show a citation backing up your angular hypothesis?

Just an FYI, the damage to any structure during a earthquake is going to be in the weakest portions of the structure irregardless of imaginary angles. On the Giza pyramids, the weakest portion was the facing stones and their attachment points. This is why they are damaged and mostly missing. The intervening 7 centuries have allowed more damage to the structure from the elements giving us what we have today.

So because coins are found by "experts" that eliminates the legitimacy of all amateur finds? How so?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666


Of course it shakes the entire thing.
But not every part "of the thing", is shaken TO THE SAME DEGREE!
And that is because of the angle thing.

As for the coins, The majority of the coins were found by "experts".


(Facepalm)
No. just.... no. Go away and read some books. Please. This is getting ridiculous.
As for the coins, I guess I must be a part of the conspiracy, as I dug up some Roman coins when I was on an archaeological dig.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
As I have stated, the damage to the LOWER parts of the Sphinx are very contentious. There is a theory that the Sphinx is far older than has been claimed. Any water damage would have had to have been caused when the climate of the Giza Plateau was considerably wetter - about 5,000 years ago at least, which is why it's so contentious. By the way, the lower part of the Sphinx was also damaged by the wind. This is because when the site was kept clear of sand by Pharaohs and Priests, the wind could get to it.
edit on 19-6-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


As I have stated, the damage to the LOWER parts of the Sphinx are very contentious. There is a theory that the Sphinx is far older than has been claimed. Any water damage would have had to have been caused when the climate of the Giza Plateau was considerably wetter - about 5,000 years ago at least, which is why it's so contentious. By the way, the lower part of the Sphinx was also damaged by the wind. This is because when the site was kept clear of sand by Pharaohs and Priests, the wind could get to it.


You can have your cake and eat it too. Erosion from water runoff and a 4th dynasty sphinx.

There are a number of features of weathering and erosion within the enclosure surrounding the Great Sphinx of Giza that suggest the action of flowing water. That this erosion is not uniformly distributed is consistent not with erosion by rainfall per se but by rainfall run-off—an erosive agent that is known to have been experienced at Giza until the late Fifth Dynasty. When the spatial relationship of various features within the Giza necropolis is considered, the extant erosion indicates that the Sphinx may pre-date the reign of Khufu, the builder of the first Giza pyramid. The existence of pre-Fourth Dynasty development at Giza can be inferred from this—support for which is provided by a number of archaeological finds excavated from the site.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


As I have stated, the damage to the LOWER parts of the Sphinx are very contentious. There is a theory that the Sphinx is far older than has been claimed. Any water damage would have had to have been caused when the climate of the Giza Plateau was considerably wetter - about 5,000 years ago at least, which is why it's so contentious. By the way, the lower part of the Sphinx was also damaged by the wind. This is because when the site was kept clear of sand by Pharaohs and Priests, the wind could get to it.


You can have your cake and eat it too. Erosion from water runoff and a 4th dynasty sphinx.

There are a number of features of weathering and erosion within the enclosure surrounding the Great Sphinx of Giza that suggest the action of flowing water. That this erosion is not uniformly distributed is consistent not with erosion by rainfall per se but by rainfall run-off—an erosive agent that is known to have been experienced at Giza until the late Fifth Dynasty. When the spatial relationship of various features within the Giza necropolis is considered, the extant erosion indicates that the Sphinx may pre-date the reign of Khufu, the builder of the first Giza pyramid. The existence of pre-Fourth Dynasty development at Giza can be inferred from this—support for which is provided by a number of archaeological finds excavated from the site.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


Great find! And a very interesting PDF.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

It's certainly not a 100% proven guarantee, but the backing evidence is pretty solid and at the very least helps to explain why the erosion is uneven throjught the Sphinx complex and the Giza plateau in general, which is something that supporters of Schoch and Hancock don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. Going off of Schoch's own 1992 paper, the "dating" he gets actually gives several contradictory dates varying by as much as a few thousand years depending on what part of the Sphinx is being studied. I almost feel bad coming up with data that contradicts all of it because 20+ years ago I would've been a huge supporter of such notions. unfortunately higher education came into play and concepts like due diligence and research have to take precedence to childlike naiveté and giddiness.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


As for the coins, I guess I must be a part of the conspiracy, as I dug up some Roman coins when I was on an archaeological dig.

Nah, you were just a catspaw. The 'experts' buried the 'Roman' coins for you to find.

I've been reading up on this Fomenko guy. He's a treat. Uses data like Plasticine (Play-Doh for you Americans).


edit on 19/6/14 by Astyanax because: there is an edit button.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Nah, you were just a catspaw. The 'experts' buried the 'Roman' coins for you to find.


no way... the devil put them there, underneath the dinosaur bones!


I've been reading up on this Fomenko guy. He's a treat. Uses data like Plasticine (Play-Doh for you Americans).


Doesn't it make your brain hurt when you read stuff from people who are actually quite intelligent and then they fall off the deep end and come up with a whole new revisionist timeline for world history? It's like an extreme version of Linus Pauling only Fomenko never won a Nobel.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I just love how this topic evolved from creationism being end of religion into alternative history...

On this topic you could apply the same rule as Tim Minchin applied to medicine - What do you call alternative medicine that is proven to work? - Answer: Medicine


What do you call alternative history that is supported with evidence and proven as correct - Answer: History.




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join