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: 17
33
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

Unfortunately there is zero evidence for them casting stones -


Not anymore. Recent studies that took 3+ years to complete by experts from Drexel University have found molecular telltale signs that many of the stones were cast.

www.sciencedaily.com...




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Deadeyedick, forget your visions. Mr Mask has his opinion written in stone. He will not budge even if the lord himself tells him to move. Everytime he hears the words "vision" and mono-atomic gold", he freezes and a pole is inserted to where the sun dont shine, and becomes agitated that people believe this nonsense.

See, it happens like this. he wants things to go his way or no way at all. He says that the only topic at hand (mono-atomic gold) is the only subject to be talked about on this thread and NOTHING else......but then goes about explaining how the pyramids were built but doesnt want to talk about the sarcophagus in the khufu pyramid when I want to talk about it. Its his game. He wants to talk about his subjects and nothing else.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
And harte, that sarcophagus that you showed a couple of pages ago was khafres tomb wasnt it? Pretty empty too! Which raises more questions. Why do some of Khufus sons have inscriptions on the sarcophagus and some dont?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
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.

where have you been hiding man. Many researchers have been proven wrong in the past on many many subjects but that's besides the point. Who are you to say they were correct. After all were only human



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

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.
it's funny because all other aspects of their lives are written in stone yet nothing merely as a single drawing of lifts, scaffolding or a flimsy ramp to show how they went about putting them together for 85 years. Seems kind of odd if you ask Me. But I'm not here to make you believe, merely voice my opinion



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 5lettersTrue. I have also had a vision of him. He does what he does because it is all his spirit knows to do. Those type spirits truely believe they can win by their own means of inserting false beliefs to a subject. They have no idea of how to harness any true power and they stick to degrading others. Notice when i shared my vision of the statues being moved in peru he just claimed it was a theory that has been stated but failed to see that i mentioned that the statues or whatever you want to move had to be covered in an oil then harmonics applied.

It is telling that we have never claimed any of the alternative theories to be completly factual and they are posted for debate reasons and to just open ones mind to other possibilities but you know when one is completly closed off to any other thought on a subject that is widely debated then there is an agenda usually. We have made gold in our day and age but somehow the thought of there being an easier way to do is just beyond there parameters of debate. After this world no one will be able to say to me why didn't you share info with us. We could have changed things. That is why i share them when i can. It is not because i want to be right or have people believe me that do not want to. I am not after flags or stars just a clean concious.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Oh, god, deadeyedick......did you....just say...you had a vision......again?

Well, that does it, you are officially mentally ill and you are complete insane!

looooooolllll

Well, I also think that you said things that were hard to believe too, but I never say you're wrong....like some people say....(ahem), because you may absolutely never know. No matter how crazy it sounds, there may always be that chance that it was correct all along



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Let me apologize in advance for going slightly off topic - regarding the "cast" pyramid blocks, aka the "concrete pyramid theory" - it is false. The core blocks were quarried and the extent of the quarries are fairly well known. The core blocks, aka the packing blocks, were not precision made. They vary in thickness, width and height. In fact a detailed measurement of each tier of the GP, the "layers" show them to vary quite a bit in thickness, due to the thickness of the bedding plane of the quarry. That obviously wouldn't happen if the blocks were "cast."

However, consider that the uneven sizes resulted in gaps and voids between blocks. Lehner mentions this in his The Complete Pyramids. Those voids were filled with mortar, rubble, grit and just about anything else at hand, and the quarrying operation would have produced it in spades. They did not leave these voids empty, wisely so, as that could cause movement in the blocks. There were also voids between the core packing limestone blocks and the outer Tura casing stones. Think of the core stones as the "rough framing" and the casing as the "finished framing." Since the finished outer casing HAD to be placed precisely, they couldn't allow the core stones to obstruct their placement, meaning the step they formed had to include a gap, a "padding" to allow for the placement of the casing stones. This would result in a gap as well, also to be filled with mortar and rubble. Now it's the mortar and rubble that is sometimes seen, having solidified into an accretion over the eons, in sections where the casing and some core stones have fallen away.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: Hanslune

Unfortunately there is zero evidence for them casting stones -


Not anymore. Recent studies that took 3+ years to complete by experts from Drexel University have found molecular telltale signs that many of the stones were cast.

www.sciencedaily.com...


I would have to disagree with you on that and while Barsoum's study (love that name I always think of Llana of Gathol) and the work of Davidovits were interesting they have not been accepted by the consensus due to disagreement over their conclusions.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: pimptriggs


it's funny because all other aspects of their lives are written in stone yet nothing merely as a single drawing of lifts, scaffolding or a flimsy ramp to show how they went about putting them together for 85 years. Seems kind of odd if you ask Me. But I'm not here to make you believe, merely voice my opinion


All? Are you sure? There isn't much from the IV Dynasty due to the destruction caused by the Intermediate period, we know far more about the later periods so its unfair to compare.

Not odd at all, again if you want something to be mysterious you can do by thinking up all kinds of things.

What would you expect a pyramid 4,500 years old to look like so that it wouldn't seem mysterious to you?


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



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Howdy,

I'd like to stray a bit and also talk about the foram fossils found within the limestone blocks of the pyramids, which I have not seen personally, but have been told exist. I've seen some pictures of nummulitic limestone blocks with some fossils quite large, which I am also told persist throughout the pyramid as a structure...

I can't imagine casting (which requires crushed material) would preserve so many large fossils intact, as I find it difficult to find large fossils intact, even in bedded rocks. Plight of a rock hound... : /

I like your hypothesis about the grit/mortar though. It makes sense to me that something like that could cause confusion... And it could possibly end up being cemented together by calcite in the limestone being dissolved by rainwater and re-precipitated around the grains in the "grout." It would even look like a solid rock at that point. (I've seen this with some fault gouges in my area...)

Of course, I'm just spitballing here.
No idea if anything I said, or even you said (no offense) is accurate to the ancient Egyptians.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Hes trying to justify the need for the Annunaki to *build* the pyramids.

The pyramids are Doorways to Accension Chambers.
The Egyptians talk about it.
Think about factories for turning humans into accended beings.

Think of the Halls of two truths.





I actually can stand by this.... that man created the greatest of monuments based on someone's delusional fabrication of what happens to a human when they die. Nothing beats good old-time religion...



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

The fact that the quarry was nummulitic limestone is the reason the Tura casing stone had to be hauled in from the other side of the nile. There is no way to polish nummulitic limestone, it'll always be rough in appearance, not exactly suitable for a gleaming edifice to your pharaoh. The fact that the core blocks are nummulitic is just another piece of evidence they're not "cast."

This paper addresses Davidovits/Barsoums theory: 2007, The Great Pyramid Debate, 29th ICMA

Evidence from Detailed Petrographic Examinations of Casing Stones from the Great Pyramid of Khufu, a Natural Limestone fromTura, and a Man-made (Geopolymeric) Limestone

Dipayan Jana

Construction Materials Consultants, Inc. and Applied Petrographic Services, Inc. Greensburg, PA 15601 USA



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Thanks for the link to the petrographic paper. I'm actually excited to read that one when I have the time.
In fact, the fact that this source has ties to Greensburg makes it a must read for me...

That said, my formatting was a bit unclear, but I was trying to say I agreed with you for a reason that might be clearer and slightly more obvious than the process of concretion of which you were referring.


I can definitely understand why polishing a fossiliferous limestone would be difficult, but I wouldn't have thought about that had you not pointed it out, so thank you for clarifying.

In essence, yes, I agree.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

To be honest it was Mark Lehner who said it, I was just paraphrasing from his book. The core blocks that we see today could never have been polished to any degree of smoothness, the fossil shells (nummulites) run throughout the entire stone. Hence the AE had to fetch Tura or Granite from afar to case the inner core.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: pimptriggs
it's funny because all other aspects of their lives are written in stone...

A common, and utterly false, claim made by the fringe.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: pimptriggs

True: the earth is flat, and the universe does not revolve around Earth, but you cannot "debunk" science with a clever phrase. You need proof, and so far the proof stands on the side of spectrograhics (as far as that portion goes). There is much debate over quantum physics but the only debate you will find regarding spectrographic analysis originates with a distinct lack of scientific methodology. Which is to say: the clever phrase, or the uninformed opinion.

Show me how or why spectrographic analysis is faulty using science and I will respect the opinion that it may be faulty. Use a catchy phrase and I will all but ignore it, or I will make fun of it.

I don't really have a problem with someone playing "what if" but when the "what if" is presented as factual information then that is problematic. Something that sounds like it belongs in the fiction section of the library that cannot be proved cannot or should not be presented as factual. That is the core of fraud.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
Show me how or why spectrographic analysis is faulty using science and I will respect the opinion that it may be faulty.

You know you can't possibly expect a rational answer to that!

I personally used spectography to analyze samples of aluminum alloys in a previous job.

We verified through titration the chemical analysis given by spectroscopy, that's how such things are calibrated. That pretty much proves that spectroscopy works.

If you want to claim spectroscopy is invalid, then you'll have to explain how wet chemistry gives the exact same result as spectography.

I mean, maybe they're both invalid, but in that case, how do they always provide exactly the same results?

Harte
edit on 7/26/2014 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Oh, hey! I just noticed you were in Memphis. Send me some ribs from BB King's!! I so very much miss those ribs!!



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Harte

Oh, hey! I just noticed you were in Memphis. Send me some ribs from BB King's!! I so very much miss those ribs!!


I feel for you, man.

We all know you can't get decent BBQ in Texas!

Harte




top topics



 
33
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join