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.

 

Showing how the first pyramids of ancient Egypt may be 19,000 years old

page: 10
98
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: roncoallstar

That doesn't mean the cap stones were water tight.

The water level at one point flooded the area around the great pyramid, which explains why marine fossils are found within the cracks on the base of the structure.

That flooding mind you, happened during the end of the last ice age. 9800BC !





posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Triton1128

Fair enough, but still we cannot be certain.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: roncoallstar


In Egypt, geologists examining the fossil record have found that the combined effect of melting glaciers in the Mountains of the Moon, plus a sharp rise in precipitation levels in Central Africa, caused the Nile river circa 10,000 B.C. to swell in size a thousandfold, eroding away cliff walls miles from its present banks, and washing out its entire valley throughout the length of Egypt. At the same time, as the Mediterranean Sea began to fill and rise due to higher ocean levels from melting northern glaciers, its waters for a brief period also flooded the lower Nile valley.

These, geologists are certain, are the last major flood events in Egypt’s fossil history, before the sea retreated and the Nile settled down to today’s relatively peaceful, winding flow. Yet, knowing this, geologists are hard pressed to explain why there existed a fourteen-foot layer of silt sediment around the base of the Pyramid, a layer which also contained many seashells, and the fossil of a sea cow, all of which were dated by radiocarbon methods to 11,600 B.P. (Before Present) plus or minus 300 years.


^ This again re-enforces SC's claim. One which I strongly agree with also.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   



What happened to all of the glass?


Not that I know if there was an more ancient civilization, but if it were on a costal area pre ice age melt, it would be under the Mediterranean Sea. Any glass there could quite literally been ground back into sand.

I agree that there should be telltale evidence of such a rather large and advanced civilization. Even trading should eventually show up details of it in other areas round the same timeframe.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Click for graph

^^ this shows the sea level rise over the last 20+ thousand years.

As you can see, 15,000 years ago, the sea level was 110 meters lower. 330ft !!!!

IMO, we need to pick a date. Figure out a good time frame when we knew settlements/trading had been taken place, then do scans of that depth globally around all continents.

Maybe a depth between 350ft - 100ft. Id bet money you'd uncover quite a few ancient trading ports. Just like the discovery of the City of Dwarka!


Our answers are in the oceans.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Reply toy: Scott Creighton


Hello Scott,

To rephrase your last comments slightly:

"A familiar tactic by those of a blinkered alternative persuasion--if you can't deal with the evidence, just pretend it doesn't exist in the hope that it will somehow go away. You're kidding yourself, Scott, and you know you are. "



SC: There is considerable, compelling new evidence presented in my book which shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Colonel Vyse perpetrated a fraud in the Great Pyramid in 1837. That you side with Colavito's view of a paucity of evidence (Colavito's point 'a' and 'b') won't actually change the fact that there is much much more new evidence put forth in that chapter of my book and, I have to say, it speaks volumes that neither you or Mr Colavlito has felt able to even acknowledge this new evidence let alone deal with it.


Regrettably, I couldn't find any convincing evidence at all in that chapter.




And keep this in mind too. When people pick up my book to read, they will see the evidence that I present is much more than Colavito's points 'a' and 'b'; they will see the evidence he and you refuse to even acknowledge is there. And in that moment they will know that you are a blatant liar.



They might very well come to that conclusion about one of us, yes ...

The question is: which one?

Kindest regards,

Hooke



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Hooke


Hooke: Regrettably, I couldn't find any convincing evidence at all in that chapter.


SC: You were not being asked whether you found evidence in this chapter that was "convincing". (YOU may not find the evidence presented in that chapter of my book "convincing" but, you'll be disappointed no doubt to learn, many others do).

Rather, you were being asked if Colavito's 'review' was fair by him stating (to Greg Reeder) that the only evidence in this chapter of my book amounted to his points 'a' and 'b'. Colavito informed one of his readers, who asked him a reasonable question about the evidence in this chapter of my book, that his points 'a' and 'b' was the sum total of the evidence I presented in this chapter of my book. That is simply not true and amounts to censorship. You KNOW it to be an untruth because you know, whether you agree or not with the conclusions I draw from it, that I present much, much more evidence in this chapter of my book than Colavito ever made his readers aware of or would allow them to consider. That is not fair to Colavito's readers and it is certainly not fair to me. You supported Colavito in that untruth thus you are complicit with him in that untruth.

And that's the truth.

SC

edit on 27/9/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton



you were being asked if Colavito's 'review' was fair by him stating (to Greg Reeder) that the only evidence in this chapter of my book amounted to his points 'a' and 'b'. Colavito informed one of his readers, who asked him a reasonable question about the evidence in this chapter of my book, that his points 'a' and 'b' was the sum total of the evidence I presented in this chapter of my book. That is simply not true and amounts to censorship. You KNOW it to be an untruth because you know, whether you agree or not with the conclusions I draw from it, that I present much, much more evidence in this chapter of my book than Colavito ever made his readers aware of or would allow them to consider. That is not fair to Colavito's readers and it is certainly not fair to me. You supported Colavito in that untruth thus you are complicit with him in that untruth.


And round and around in circles we go ...

Jason Colavito:


if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this:

(a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts



originally posted by: Scott Creighton


SC: Vyse IS a proven fraudster--just not a convicted one. The proof of his electoral fraud only came out about 15 years after he died.

I’ve already cited what the witness really said. Didn’t you read it?

Or have you found evidence that Vyse authorised, or even knew about, payments to voters? If so, where is it?

Why, on questions of evidence and proof, do you continually demonstrate carelessness, bias and incompetence?

Electoral matters like this were dealt with by local agents, who acted more for the local political establishment than they did for the candidate. It was this local establishment got the Vyses (father and son) into politics in the first place - as has been explained to you more than once.

Your theory has Vyse behaving with manic inconsistency, just to suit your attempt to spin absence of evidence into evidence. We know from the Caviglia case what Vyse did when faced with serious and detailed allegations: he responded in detail. No such response to the “slanderous paragraph” suggests first and foremost that there was nothing of substance in it for him to answer.

Or perhaps Vyse published a comprehensive refutation of the and you just haven’t found it yet?

Perhaps he just wanted to forget the whole thing and get on with his life?

Perhaps the accuser withdrew his accusations?

“Perhaps” cuts both ways - and yet, somehow, with you, it only ever cuts one way.

The fact is that your entire approach to this question lacks objectivity and open-mindedness - the qualities which you endlessly complain are absent from Jason Colavito’s review of your book.

Your main ploy in these various posts appears to be that of argument from ignorance.

Jason Colavito:


(b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth.




SC: ... Day 7 Magazine claims that the material had been radiocarbon tested by a German laboratory and that the paint was found to be only centuries old.


By the Day 7 Magazine article, I presume you mean this (Google translation of Arabic original):


These lies that tried German Stefan and his team recognized by boarding the cartouche of Khufu room and the theft of a small-sized sample of the cartouche of King Khufu and travel out to Germany and they analyzed there, and then they announced in Bjahh complete and effrontery through the video recorder to them that they analyzed samples of the cartouche of Cheops and reached the result is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink used in the cartridges to codify constructed pyramid details is not old, but Pyramid same age greater than the age of the cartouche of the horns, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu and Msheedah are ancient Jews because they were living in Egypt construction period Pyramid.


This appears to be a report of Görlitz and Erdmann’s original press announcement in late 2013. IIRC, the samples taken from Campbell’s Chamber by the two Germans were said to be too small for forensic analysis to take place: so, if the article contains any information about forensic analysis of the samples, where is that information?


Alas, when I contacted the German laboratory involved to ask them to confirm this report, they refused to confirm or deny anything. (Secret Chamber, “Gunpowder and Plot: A Final Note:” )


I asked what the laboratory said in their reply to you, and you didn’t answer me.

Did the laboratory reply to you at all?

Regards,

Hooke



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton



Others lent their support to Caviglia. R.C. of Manchester did so.


Who knew Egypt better? R.C. of Manchester, who visited Egypt briefly, or Gliddon, who’d lived there for years - who knew diplomatic circles - who knew the expatriate community? Who knew the kind of stick consular officials came in for, and very likely had a good idea of where the attack on Campbell and Vyse came from?

Who was better placed to judge the question?

And note that Gliddon was not just defending Campbell and Vyse. He was also defending the writer of the “slanderous paragraph”, as having made assumptions which the past conduct of some consuls-general had made plausible. As I noted , Gliddon put the story properly in context.

But you ignored that point - along with so many others.

Regards,

Hooke



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: roncoallstar

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Variable

The sphinx is even older than the pyramids. you can tell that from the erosion on it. It happenned when it was wetter.

Some theories from certain people here suggest we might be the 5th itheration of humanity to exist here.


I agree the sphinx looks older because of the erosion, but I don't understand how people seem to forget that the pyramid was covered in casing stones. Wouldn't the erosion would have occurred there, not on the inner layer?


The sphinx doe smore than look older samples of that stone id bet prove its older. But......archaologist have been able to keep the actual age secret because it would undermine the science and claims of egyptologist.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Hooke

Hello Hooke,

Let me keep this simple for you. Jason Colavito wrote:


"if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this: (a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts... (b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old... " - Jason Colavito


You have read my book. Whether you agree or not with my conclusions, are you agreeing with Colavito that his statement above represents the entirety of the evidence I present in Chapter Six of my book?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Regards,

SC



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: roncoallstar

That doesn't mean the cap stones were water tight.

The water level at one point flooded the area around the great pyramid, which explains why marine fossils are found within the cracks on the base of the structure.

That flooding mind you, happened during the end of the last ice age. 9800BC !



The marine fossils are part of the rock from which these structures were built - and NOT deposited upon the structures after their construction!

Pyramids packed with fossil shells

The analysis determined the primary building materials were pinky granites, black and white granites, sandstones and various types of limestones.

The latter contained numerous shell fossils of the genus Nummulites, simple marine organisms whose name means 'little coins'.

"[At Cheops alone they constituted] a proportion of up to 40% of the whole building stone rock," the researchers write in the latest issue of the Journal of Cultural Heritage.

Nummulites that lived during the Eocene period around 55.8-33.9 million years ago are most commonly found in Egyptian limestone.


Nummilitic limestone makes up the bulk of the core packing stones found in the Great Pyramid, and it is what the Mokattam formation, once a sea bed, is primarily composed of. Pointing to these marine fossils within the pyramids and exclaiming they are proof the pyramids predate some sort of ice-age flood is simply bad science.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton



There is considerable, compelling new evidence presented in my book which shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Colonel Vyse perpetrated a fraud in the Great Pyramid in 1837. That you side with Colavito's view of a paucity of evidence (Colavito's point 'a' and 'b') won't actually change the fact that there is much much more new evidence put forth in that chapter of my book and, I have to say, it speaks volumes that neither you or Mr Colavlito has felt able to even acknowledge this new evidence let alone deal with it.


So does that mean that anyone who falls short of full agreement with this claim is liable to be accused of misrepresenting your book? Not that you would ever adopt such a tactic with Vyse’s journal, of course.


originally posted by: Scott Creighton



Hooke: Regrettably, I couldn't find any convincing evidence at all in that chapter.



SC: You were not being asked whether you found evidence in this chapter that was "convincing".


I was not being asked anything at all. I was commenting on your assertion. Fair enough, the word you used was “compelling” - a stronger claim still. As I said previously, I couldn’t find any compelling evidence either. Actually, I couldn’t find any evidence - nothing that I’d call “evidence” in relation to the claims being made.

Regards,

Hooke



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Hooke
Hello Hooke,

You wrote in your last post:


Hooke: Actually, I couldn’t find any evidence - nothing that I’d call “evidence” in relation to the claims being made.


What YOU (or Colavito) "call evidence" is completely irrelevant. Weak or strong, everything is evidence if it is relevant to the argument that is being made by a particular individual. In this instance it is me who is making the argument and identifying various pieces of evidence in support of that argument. And when I present my evidence you cannot simply deny its existence as you have been doing. If you disagree with my argument then you must make your own argument and find better evidence in support of your own argument and present it for consideration. That's how it works.

You clearly do not think Colavito's points 'a' or 'b' is anything you would "call evidence" either so why does Colavito (with your endorsement) just cite these two and not all the other pieces in my book that you do not "call evidence"? Let me tell you why--because you are simply playing semantic silly buggers here.

Chapter Six of my book, as you must surely know, presents (in addition to Colavito's paltry list of items 'a' and 'b') the following further pieces of evidence in support of the fraud allegation being made against Vyse:

c) Vyse's published book(s).

d) Entry of 27th May from Vyse's private journal (his field notes).

e) Entry of 16th June from Vyse's private journal (his field notes).

f) Facsimile drawings of the 'quarry marks' made by J.R. Hill.


With the exception of Vyse's own published works (point 'c' above), none of the evidence above has ever before been presented in book form to prosecute the case of fraud against Vyse. Whether or not you agree with my argument or the conclusions I draw from the pieces of evidence presented in my book (see above list), these documents, nevertheless, constitute physical evidence that I have put forward in support of my argument for the consideration of my readers. In short, this is evidence. Neither Mr Colavito or yourself thought to even acknowledge any of this evidence to the readers here on ATS (or on Mr Colavito's blog). A conspiracy of silence. Keep the masses ignorant. Don't talk about it and it might go away.

It won't.

I wrote earlier:


SC: When people pick up my book to read, they will see the evidence that I present is much more than Colavito's points 'a' and 'b'; they will see the evidence he and you refuse to even acknowledge is there. And in that moment they will know that you are a blatant liar.


To which you replied thus:


Hooke: They might very well come to that conclusion about one of us, yes ... The question is: which one?


From the further evidence I cite above (which anyone will find in my book), it is, evidently, you that is the liar.

If you want to have a proper discussion, Hooke, then stop playing silly buggers; stop your silly semantic meanderings. Now away and behave yourself and stop wasting my time. I've a book to finish.

Regards,

SC

edit on 28/9/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

From the further evidence I cite above (which anyone will find in my book), it is, evidently, you that is the liar.

Perhaps you two should agree upon a definition of "evidence" before you continue?


If you want to have a proper discussion, Hooke, then stop playing silly buggers; stop your silly semantic meanderings. Now away and behave yourself and stop wasting my time. I've a book to finish.

Surely, personalization and ad hominems do not belong in a "proper" discussion?

Morten



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Hello Morten Andreassen,


originally posted by: Morten Andreassen


originally posted by: Scott Creighton

From the further evidence I cite above (which anyone will find in my book), it is, evidently, you that is the liar.



Perhaps you two should agree upon a definition of "evidence" before you continue?




Wiki on the definition of evidence.


Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.


I maintain that much of the material in Secret Chamber, Ch. 6, is so weak that it doesn't count as even circumstantial evidence.


Morten Andreassen: Surely, personalization and ad hominems do not belong in a "proper" discussion?


I think such comments say more about the person making them than they do about the supposed object of them. I just ignore them, and concentrate on what's being said or argued (which, once you've subtracted any irrelevant personal remarks, sometimes doesn't amount to all that much).

Best regards,

Hooke



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

I believe the ancient egyptians had anti gravity to build the prymids, this video explains some ideas about it.


Hi,

I am not so convinced about anti-gravity devices in the exotic sense. But that is not to say, however, that the ancient legend that says the pyramid stones were flown into place might not be without foundation.

There are other possibilities to consider.

.

Regards,

SC



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

I believe the ancient egyptians had anti gravity to build the prymids, this video explains some ideas about it.


Hi,

I am not so convinced about anti-gravity devices in the exotic sense. But that is not to say, however, that the ancient legend that says the pyramid stones were flown into place might not be without foundation.

There are other possibilities to consider.

.

Regards,

SC


I think we are only begining to scratch the surface as to what pyramids were used for.
In my opinion they could have been matrix machines which controll the simulation of reality itself over vast distances.
So I think they were projectors of sorts with the tops being thier reactors/ power supplies.


Scientists at Argonne National Laboratory have discovered a way to use sound waves to levitate individual droplets of solutions containing different pharmaceuticals. While the connection between levitation and drug development may not be immediately apparent, a special relationship emerges at the molecular level.


How the Pyramids were built - Anti Gravity Techniques explained



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Having read Creighton's 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris', I think it is unfair to say there is NO evidence for Vyse's 'forgery' of Khufu's cartouche in Campbell's Chamber. He has supplied more than enough ample evidence to at least trigger reasonable conversations about the veracity of the traditional Orthodox and cast doubt upon this inherent view.

If Vyse's 'electin fraud' is not enough, or even the discrepancies in his own journal that contradict his own findings, then surely Creighton's own journalistic evidence and findings on the orientations of Hill's drawings at the British Museum are enough to cast reasonable doubt upon the work and historical (in)accuracies of Colonel Richard William Howard Vyse.

It seems the traditional Orthodox and it's ardent followers are intent on looking at things with the same old blinkered, self-righteous, and stubborn viewpoint, when new theories, hypothesis, ideas or even tangible EVIDENCE comes along that shakes their world view and belief systems.

Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water but lets engage in a new dialectic. At least for the sake of ones sanity.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Im no scientist but im laughing at the baloon theory. If they are not in possesion of some engineering machine that can reduce a blocks mass and weight while under its power to lighter than air its a silly theory.







 
98
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join