Lost Ancient High Technology Of Egypt Before The Pharaohs Part 1 - 2 Brien Foerster

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: JamesTB

Makes you wonder why he's on a website like ATS...

Because I'm interested in the ancient world and mysteries, the real ancient world and mysteries not the fake one imagined by frauds like Brien and Dunn.

a reply to: Hanslune

i read an interesting article by george lucas, regarding future education, and how the various branches of science are too isolated from each other and as a result, when they read each other's works, they are speaking a different language of their particular speciality. same goes for archaeology. there are people who specialize in specific cultures, specific areas and specific time frames. they need a few classes that meld these into an unified whole so they can speak each other's language, easier, and it wouldn't hurt if there were some classes that incorporated some of the other branches of science into it as well.

architects, engineers and machinists, would be really useful in conjunction with archaeologists, when trying to ascertain what something ancient, is or isn't.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Hanslune

i read an interesting article by george lucas, regarding future education, and how the various branches of science are too isolated from each other and as a result, when they read each other's works, they are speaking a different language of their particular speciality. same goes for archaeology. there are people who specialize in specific cultures, specific areas and specific time frames. they need a few classes that meld these into an unified whole so they can speak each other's language, easier, and it wouldn't hurt if there were some classes that incorporated some of the other branches of science into it as well.

architects, engineers and machinists, would be really useful in conjunction with archaeologists, when trying to ascertain what something ancient, is or isn't.

There is a necessity for specialization due to the volume of material in say Egyptology, the old joke is that you spend your first twenty years reading then the next twenty years reading all the new stuff that was created while reading the older stuff.

When I was an archie, I was on a team that included, botanists, pottery experts, a structural engineer and about ten others I don't recall what their specialization was now, as you find stuff that is sent off to the experts to evaluate.

While I was trained as a Mayanist I ended up working mainly in with Bronze age neolithic sites in Cyprus, the basics are the same everywhere.

a reply to: Hanslune

basics is not what i'm referring to, however. for example, if you want to have a discussion on the topic of puma punku's measurements with an archaeologist who specializes in that area, but you're specialized in the measurements of the osirieon, he/she is going to have to introduce you the language and theories so far associated with puma punku, before ever getting to the minutiae, as you wouldn't be able to understand each other otherwise.

I know thisis not directly related to the pyramids but it is related, can any one refute Dr. Robert Schoch's theory that the great Sphinx predates dynastic Egypt and that the head and repairs where made during dynastic times? He claims there are clear signs of water erosion on the enclosure. Also I'm not claiming that the sphix being older makes the pyramids older even Dr. Schoch states that the sphix was constructed before the pyramids.

www.robertschoch.com...

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: JamesTB

You are deflecting from a failed point once again and switching focus to something else. You said "all", and Harte showed you about 100, 000 blocks that are far from precise and you chose to ignore that. At this point i'd like to say i'm out but it's getting entertaining.

Aww c'mon man. Using that image as a counter-example is complete BS. Both you and Harte are more intelligent than that.

You are witnessing the inner granite blocks that have been raided by the desire of humans and the pelting of weather/environment for thousands of years. Probably more so due to quakes than rain.

The actual outer casing that is still in place is placed to an extremely impressive tolerance.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the Egyptians had super advanced tech (although I am an engineer by career and it is a damn impressive piece of work) but I think some of our currently held paradigms about it may be wrong.

Is it really a tomb? This makes no flipping sense. No mummies have ever been found in it. It has NO decorative art apart from some Khufu graffiti tags. It has no torch soot. It would've taken at least 50+ years to be completed (all processes) and it doesn't make sense for a Pharoah to take that sort of risk.

Was it BUILT in 2500 BC? What links the pyramid to Khufu of 2500 BC? A few name signs and a tiny figurine? There is no documentation regarding it and the Sphinx other than an inventory tool list from roughly that time period. The carbon dating can't be applied to the actual stone or its time of treatment, but we can date wood and charcoal from the area.

For the Great Pyramid we have a range of 3900 BC to 2800 or so BC. Do we have ANY historical evidence? Yeah, Herodotus, a Greek Scholar, who gathered knowledge from an Egyptian High Priest around 800 BC - if I remember correctly. This high priest is the guy where we get our famous 'built in 20 years' quote.

This same guy says the Great Pyramid and Sphinx were built before the first dynasties of Egypt by 'Shepard Kings' (sounds like a reference to some sort of Sumerian/Mesopotamian civilization).

But we ignore that part.

What about the Sphinx weather argument? It is irrefutable logic linking scientific data with scientific data. Were the Great Pyramid and Sphinx simply renovated and claimed by Khufu around 2500 BC? The Sphinx inventory list actually suggests this if I remember correctly.

I don't know. Maybe we are jumping the gun. I'm not saying we have to introduce aliens/advanced tech but I'm simply pointing out there's some inconsistencies between the actual evidence and what we're told.

Fascinating structures anyway. Truly impressive work. Not just chipping away at limestone with a hammer for a long time.

Always interests me how we as humans made megalithic structures first. It's easier to break a material into smaller pieces on the ground/or use smaller pieces first off and then transport it than to transport the full weight against gravity. Simple logic.

They must have used large blocks for an exact reason. Possibly earthquake resistance but can't rule out other harmonic properties either.

God knows what the designers were thinking when planning all of that. Can't relate from a modern perspective/office environment lol.

a reply to: DazDaKing

Of course the pyramids are amazing (etc)... but there is a meme in fringe circles when talking about such sites in that people vastly exaggerating details about them, The OP said there are millions of blocks and all are perfect. It was correct to challenge this and it's not too much to expect a bit of accuracy when discussing such matters

The internet is jammed with phoey on ancient sites and if a few people read this thread they will hopefully learn something rather than all the AA rubbish, which belongs in enjoyable chats that are clearly defined as highly speculative and unevidenced rather than dumbing everyone down.

a reply to: skalla

rather than dumbing everyone down.

i don't think speculative and theoretical study is dumbing down people. in fact, it actually takes intellect to study anything, and it takes a mind capable of thinking 3rd and 4th dimensionally, creatively, metaphorically, and so on, to consider the universe past the most rudimentary level.

a reply to: DazDaKing

i don't think earthquake resistance specifically, as they had already figured out that stones of unequal sizes and shapes, fitted together like jigsaw puzzle pieces, were earthquake resistant. see the osirieon at abydos.

a reply to: DazDaKing

If Khufu had to renovate the sphinx and pyramids how old we're they when he discovered them?

That's really a mind blowing revelation.

What really happened on this planet?

a reply to: BGTM90

The Sphinx is made of limestone strata of different densities, the bulk of the body is softer than the head and lowest portion, and weathered much more rapidly.

Geology of the Sphinx

The Sphinx is carved from the natural limestone of the Giza Plateau known as the Mokkatam Formation. An Eocene-period sea retreated 50 million years ago, leaving an embankment that became the north-northwest part of the Giza Plateau.

The Sphinx is cut from the lowest layers of the Mokkatam Formation, those layers lying directly on the harder petrified reef. We label the Sphinx geological layers Member I, Member II, and Member III after the work of geologist K. Lal Gauri (K.L. Gauri, Geoarchaeology, 1995).

The lowest stratum of the statue is the hard, brittle rock of the ancient reef, Member I. This layer rises to a height of 12 feet at the Sphinx’s rump and only two to three feet at the paws.

Most of the Sphinx body is cut into Member II, seven layers that alternate softer and harder as they rise in elevation.

Member III, from which the neck and head are carved, is softer at the neck and harder at the head. This is good building stone, which is why most of it was quarried away. Member III’s durability explains the remarkable preservation of the Sphinx’s face while the statue’s body has been ravaged by weathering.

This page also links to additional evidence between Khafre and the Sphinx; Khafre’s Monuments as a Unit

that head does not go on that body.
makes you wonder what head was on that body.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Doesn't it look like it would have had a much larger head?

Maybe there is a conspiracy as to why the head was replaced?

Maybe this was the beginning of the mystery school and secrets and the manipulation of history and our culture .

a reply to: onequestion

That head was never 'replaced', it's a part of the living rock formation. I believe it is generally accepted that Khafre altered the head to his visage and style, from an earlier incarnation that was based on Khufu's face. It might be possible that Khufu altered the face from an even earlier version, but that would be impossible to ever determine since any such evidence is long gone. The body however belongs to Khafre's reign, as does the Sphinx enclosure and temple. There's another thread here that goes over that, mentioning that the stone from the temple has been chemically matched to the stone removed from the enclosure.

originally posted by: DazDaKing

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: JamesTB

You are deflecting from a failed point once again and switching focus to something else. You said "all", and Harte showed you about 100, 000 blocks that are far from precise and you chose to ignore that. At this point i'd like to say i'm out but it's getting entertaining.

Aww c'mon man. Using that image as a counter-example is complete BS. Both you and Harte are more intelligent than that.

You are witnessing the inner granite blocks that have been raided by the desire of humans and the pelting of weather/environment for thousands of years. Probably more so due to quakes than rain.

Uh, they're limestone, dude.

Look, the statement was made that all the blocks are precisely shaped and precisely placed.

My pic in that sense is not "complete BS" in any way shape or form.

I've not said much about anything else in this thread. I've commented for the most part about that particular claim. Therefore my post stands and is not BS at all.

I know much, MUCH more about the GP, and some about Giza. But I get tired of constantly relaying the same info over and over so I'll let Hans do it, with these exceptions:

The actual outer casing that is still in place is placed to an extremely impressive tolerance.

If you mean the white Tura limestone, such as is found near the top of Khafre's pyramid next door (and in some spots at the base of the Great Pyramid,) then you are certainly correct.

Is it really a tomb? This makes no flipping sense. No mummies have ever been found in it.

Many king's mummies were relocated after spates of grave robberies. Some of the robberies were committed by the priesthood, BTW.

It has NO decorative art apart from some Khufu graffiti tags. It has no torch soot. It would've taken at least 50+ years to be completed (all processes) and it doesn't make sense for a Pharoah to take that sort of risk.

An engineering firm (DMJM) has estimated about 15 years, IIRC.

Was it BUILT in 2500 BC? What links the pyramid to Khufu of 2500 BC? A few name signs and a tiny figurine? There is no documentation regarding it and the Sphinx other than an inventory tool list from roughly that time period. The carbon dating can't be applied to the actual stone or its time of treatment, but we can date wood and charcoal from the area.

Graffiti left by workers on the inside of inaccessible chambers that were completely locked away by further construction (not by claosing a passageway - these are simply voids in the building itself.)
The signs were completely inaccesible until the spaces were blown open with black powder.

Not sure what you mean by "an inventory tool kit."

C14 dating was done on the carbon from chunks of charcoal that are embedded in the mortar between all the blocks. Samples weren't simply scraped off the surface, they were cores taken with drills going about a foot into the mortar.

That's enough for me. You can take what I said and run with it, finding out for yourself that you, at least, do have misconceptions about the nature of the Great Pyramid.

Harte

a reply to: undo

that head does not go on that body.
makes you wonder what head was on that body.

Before Khafre, there was no body. Just a rock formation that possibly had been shaped to resemble Khufu's visage, before alterations during Khafre's time. Khafre quarried and shaped the "Sphinx enclosure," with much of that stone going into the Sphinx Temple. The strata in the bulk of the body is softer, which has necessitated later repairs made of stone blocks (and in modern times, concrete). The softer stone weathers at a faster rate, so a layman may see it as 'older,' when in fact it is newer than the head. What shape and form the 'head' may have had before the 4th dynasty will never be known, which probably fuels the endless speculation about it.

a reply to: Harte

Your point about the stones not being perfect is pedantic.

You know exactly what their talking about so please do everyone a favor and stop taking it out of context to support your argument.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Doesn't it look like it would have had a much larger head?

Maybe there is a conspiracy as to why the head was replaced?

Maybe this was the beginning of the mystery school and secrets and the manipulation of history and our culture .

imagine how precise they were about everything else. every dimension, every angle, and then they make a body with the head way too small?
doesn't make sense.

i will say this, however, it doesn't make sense to say the ancient egyptians were not advanced enough to produce the monuments. watch this to see what i mean



now if he's right regarding their perfecting technique with stone, and it seems evident that he is, i don't think they were incapable, rather i think they just kept that knowledge as a highly guarded secret and as a result, we still don't know what they did back then. i mean, generally speaking. which is just as frustrating as arguing over it being the work of an earlier atlantean culture, hidden from us.

a reply to: undo

It's weird, they want us to believe that they built these pyramids in the way that they did but couldn't reproduce the results with the body of the sphinx?

Something isn't adding up is it?