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.

 

Pyramids of Giza produced white powdered gold (mono-atomic gold) New Theory!!!!

page: 16
33
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
#26 Happens to be my favourite. a reply to: Mr Mask




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: pimptriggs
LOL sorry that i didnt include that the limestone was mixed with other compositions, initially it is limestone, so stop being a smart ass once again.



this is from the link you gave me

Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.



so where does it say it was easily recreated?
I have another theory on how they were moved and it is from another vision i had. They were coating the stones with a substance then one of them would humm in a certain tone and that would cause it to levitate and could be pushed very easy.

In my vision it was not the pyramids that it was used but it was the stones in peru. A boy and his sister was left behind and told to get all the statues moved before they leave and it would be a sign to their father of something i'm not sure. However they left before they finished the job. I think they were told to leave by an angel who was there to take them foward in time.

Logic tells me that if known means were used in the construction then there would be records of all the ways used. That same logic also applies to why there are no records of methoeds used and that is the lack of facts points us toward other worldly means or majik. That is something that would not be recorded. However it doesn't negate that pure strength was used and not recorded in an effort to give false power to majik. The time restraints and source for the material used negates the pure strength.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

so where does it say it was easily recreated?
I have another theory on how they were moved and it is from another vision i had. They were coating the stones with a substance then one of them would humm in a certain tone and that would cause it to levitate and could be pushed very easy.

Sadly, like your other "visions" that is also wrong and impossible. It is also stolen from another hoaxer who got famous off that theory of nonsense.

Here is how they moved the large blocks.

phys.org...




Logic tells me that if known means were used in the construction then there would be records of all the ways used. That same logic also applies to why there are no records of methoeds used and that is the lack of facts points us toward other worldly means or majik.



Actually bro...the link I just provided you also shows an ancient Egyptian wall painting showing you exactly how they moved large stones.



Notice there is no painting showing your vision to be even remotely true.


NEXT!!!

MM



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

In case you are too busy listening to your "visions" to seek real explanations grounded with real evidence- here is the image that shows exactly what you said there is no record of. "proof of how they moved heavy stones".



Anything else you want to demand is not noted in recorded history that would easily debunk your visions?

MM



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick


Logic tells me that if known means were used in the construction then there would be records of all the ways used. That same logic also applies to why there are no records of methoeds used and that is the lack of facts points us toward other worldly means or majik.



Look at my two posts above...they discredit and debunk your incorrect claims that no evidence was left behind telling us about construction methods.

MM



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask No one is trying to drag you anywhere. You are hard headed to the point of being wrong does not matter. It is not about right or wrong for you it is about falsely elevating yourself over other people. You have done the character assignation attempts over and over in an effort to not admit that you do not have all the answers to the pyramids that can be presented in a manner that satisifes all the questions brought up in debate. You present your side as an end to the debate without reason. Again i challenge you to post all your beliefs in a manner that people can follow them and end the mystery of the pyramids right here and now. You won't do that. You will cop out and give an excuse as to why you don't have too. It is very sad when someone who you feel is so wrong about a subject ask for your proof to get them out of as you put it a box in which i'm thinking in but you refuse and cite the urden of proof bs. It is not against the t&c to provide evidence anywhere if you feel it can end the debate.


(post by Mr Mask removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask As i stated in my post about what i saw not all the pyramids were built the same. Some were put together by force in the begining. I am impressed that you finaly bring something to the debate. I have studided this a bit and find that only a portion of the blocks could have been moved that way. The others are just far too heavy and this still does not answer the time restraints and man power. While it does seem to negate the statment that there is not any shred of proof of how they were built. Now we are gonna have to make a whole lot of assumptions to get anywhere like how the pyramids were built using one set of drawings that show only a way to move small rocks.


(post by Mr Mask removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask
Let's be clear that i stated what i saw and have never claimed to have definitive proof. i showed a way all the mysteries could be answered in theory. You are the one claiming to have definitive proof. Further more i am saying that all definitive proof of my theory would have been hidden or destroyed.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: pimptriggs

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: pimptriggs

and you know this because someone told you its true right? maybe mr mask told you it was true, so you believe it now.



Do you hold to the philosophy that we can know nothing unless we do it ourselves?

you shouldn't believe everything that is placed in front of you either



Yes and you avoided answering the question I asked, try again please.

edit on 25/7/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Mr Mask As i stated in my post about what i saw not all the pyramids were built the same. Some were put together by force in the begining. I am impressed that you finaly bring something to the debate. I have studided this a bit and find that only a portion of the blocks could have been moved that way. The others are just far too heavy and this still does not answer the time restraints and man power. While it does seem to negate the statment that there is not any shred of proof of how they were built. Now we are gonna have to make a whole lot of assumptions to get anywhere like how the pyramids were built using one set of drawings that show only a way to move small rocks.


So basically your debate strategy is to deny or minimize all evidence you don't like and then substitute your un-evidenced personal opinion and act like it is sufficient?

If you have studied this a bit then you would have already known about those and other images of rocks being moved and worked why didn't you bring that up?

How do you explain how the Romans moved heavy stones? How do you explain how heavy stones were moved all over the world at various times by various cultures?

Example: in your opinion could the Romans move, say a 285 ton stone using non magical means?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Mr Mask
Let's be clear that i stated what i saw and have never claimed to have definitive proof. i showed a way all the mysteries could be answered in theory. You are the one claiming to have definitive proof. Further more i am saying that all definitive proof of my theory would have been hidden or destroyed.


Then recreate it? Oh wait you cannot do that. The orthodox explanation has the advantage of having physical proof, documentary proof and it works within the physics of the known world.

Your theory does not.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
They still do not know how they were lifted up the side of th pyramids. Only merely shows how they were moved across the sand


Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.
edit on p2107p31Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:21:03 -0500216603 by pimptriggs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pimptriggs

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: pimptriggs
You can tell me how the pyramid was built can't you.

It is extremely probable that it was built using stones.

Highly improbable that it was made of magic bread. But, whatever floats your boat...

Harte
now your just being a smart ass. And it's limestone friend. And if you go back to your reading class you will understand I did not ask what it was made of.

And I never said anything about magical bread lol I think your grasping at straws now

Nope.

Just posting my opinion.

Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Mask

Actually it is not all limestone. Get up to date on things before you mock someone who has done a great effort here to educate you. Harte seems pretty versed in this subject...I highly doubt he needs you to teach him about what stones are used in the pyramids. But since you got it wrong, I will correct you so you don't (as in never ever ever) do it again.

www.livescience.com...

SADLY that link also explains something I was trying NOT to explain...and that is "how the pyramids were constructed".

Don't feel sad. Your link has it wrong.

It's limestone alright, with some granite thrown in.

Again, not on topic though.

Harte
edit on 7/25/2014 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: pimptriggs

Actually I know it because I have used crystallography to determine rocks compositions and while not exactly the same there are certain similarities with spectrographic analysis.

The laws of physics do not change based on location in the universe.

Not sure what you are trying to prove as you seem to be implying that science knows nothing. Disregard people who have doctorates and have devoted their lives to a subject... it's all about what some ignorant ying yang in a forum "thinks" is the truth. Ignore reason, ignore scientific method, ignore the learnings of the past...it's all about whatever wild assed "theory" the untrained and inexperienced mind can conceive that is important.

Disregard logic, disregard reasoning, disregard common sense. Never deny ignorance.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I have another theory on how they were moved and it is from another vision i had. They were coating the stones with a substance then one of them would humm in a certain tone and that would cause it to levitate and could be pushed very easy.

I doubt that very seriously, but I'll admit that there have been a few times that I myself was greatly moved by a well timed and executed "humm."

Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Thats what's so cool about hummers...


Sorry, I couldn't resist.......



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: pimptriggs
They still do not know how they were lifted up the side of th pyramids. Only merely shows how they were moved across the sand


Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.


Unfortunately there is zero evidence for them casting stones - just look at all the rubble they threw into the quarries. If they had been taking the limestone to cast why did the quarries show they were taken out in blocks? Plus that would have doubled their work.

Think large ramp up then moving them into position and building up from that point.

Sleds, ropes and some well managed teams of men, they may have had some sort of 'machine' but its not known if that was real, something as simple as the sleds or something more complicated like a windlass.

Its only 'mysterious' if you want it to be. Now do we know precisely how they did it? Nope but we can make a pretty good guess by looking how later people did the same kind of work.




top topics



 
33
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join