It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:08 PM

originally posted by: JimmyProphet
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.

Hi JimmyProphet,

Thank you for your balanced and tempered post. You sum up the situation very well.


edit on 29/9/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:51 AM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

You are wrong. Sort of.. mis-directed if anything. See explanation.

When it was discovered. There were mounds of "silt" along with marine fossils AROUND its base. Tens of feet of it. As if rushing or flowing water had flowed AROUND it for some time.

YOU ARE correct in stating that some of the stone USED in its creation DOES have fossils in it. But that's not what I was hinting towards. I was referring to the accumulation of silt and fossils AROUND its base and IN its cracks. Not of the stone itself

new topics
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in