It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
originally posted by: dragonridr
... the elephant on the room a huge sarcophagus sitting in it. Unless you know of another use they had for them. So far all we've ever found them used for is a dead pharaohs last resting place..
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton
So your going to ignore the mounds of information from the builders explaining why they built the great pyramid and just out right lie saying Egyptologists don't know what the pyramid wad used for??
SC: Okay--until you accept that people are entitled to have different views from you without you then accusing them of lying, this discussion is over.
I do not care for your zealotry. People are entitled to have different views from you without being called a liar. You will do well to understand that.
This discussion is ended.
SC: It seems you are not aware that the AEs had different uses for these stone boxes within pyramids. The AEs used 'qrsw' which were indeed sarcophagi, ususally found in mastaba, rock-cut and shaft tombs. Only a few of the giant pyramids contained a stone box (the vast majority didn't) and the few that were found to contain a stone box were not 'qrsw' but rather 'neb-ankh'. Here, have a look:
DR: ...an Neb Ankh means possessor of life or lord of life it refers to the outer most casing of a coffin...
"The sarcophagus is eight feet long, three feet six inches wide, and two feet three inches deep in the inside. It is surrounded by large blocks of granite, apparently to prevent its removal, which could not be effected without great labour. The lid had been broken at the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open. It is of the finest granite; but, like the other in the first pyramid, there is not one hieroglyphic on it.
Looking at the inside, I perceived a great quantity of earth and stones, but did not observe the bones among the rubbish till the next day..." - G. Belzoni, Narrative, p.271.
"For the record I believe that Khufu did build the Great Pyramid - or anyway most of it (perhaps the subterranean chamber and some other rock-hewn parts of the structure may be earlier)."
] Ed Krupp repeated this "upside down" claim in the BBC documentary Atlantis Reborn (1999).
According to Bauval and Hancock, some astronomers (including Dr. Archie Roy, Dr. Percy Seymour, Dr. Mary Bruck, Dr. Giulio Magli), however, have rejected Krupp's argument. The correlation, they claim, is a visual one when standing north of the Giza pyramids and looking south. Archie Roy, professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow University, and Percy Seymour, astronomer and astrophysicist at Plymouth University U.K., have both publicly rejected several of Krupp's arguments, including the accusation that Bauval and Gilbert deliberately inverted the pyramid map.
In a ruling by the Broadcasting Standards Commission (UK), the committee ruled in favour of Robert Bauval that Krupp's statement that maps were placed upside down was "unfairly" presented in the BBC documentary Atlantis Reborn, without Bauval's having been given a right to a filmed response. Bauval and Hancock's filmed responses to Krupp's statements were included in the modified version of the documentary Atlantis Reborn Again shown on 14 December 2000.
The Great Sphinx is commonly accepted by Egyptologists to represent the likeness of King Khafra (also known by the Hellenised version of his name, Chephren)  who is often credited as the builder as well. This would place the time of construction somewhere between 2520 BC and 2494 BC. Because the limited evidence giving provenance to Khafra is ambiguous and circumstantial, the idea of who built the Sphinx, and when, continues to be the subject of debate. An argument put forward by Bauval and Hancock to support the Orion Correlation Theory is that the construction of the Great Sphinx was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx's lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River are an accurate reflection or "map" of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion's Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively.
A date of 10,500 BC is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion's Belt and the horizon were an "exact match" to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids. These propositions and other theories are used to support the overall belief in an advanced and ancient, but now vanished, global progenitor civilization.
The theory of an older Sphinx has received some support from geologists. Most famously, Robert M. Schoch has argued that the effects of water erosion on the Sphinx and its surrounding enclosure mean that parts of the monument must originally have been carved at the latest between 7000–5000 BC. Schoch's analysis has been broadly corroborated by another geologist, David Coxill, who agrees that the Sphinx has been heavily weathered by rainwater and must therefore have been carved in pre-dynastic times. A third geologist, Colin Reader, has suggested a date only several hundred years prior to the commonly accepted date for construction. These views, however, have been almost universally rejected by mainstream Egyptologists who, together with a number of geologists, e.g. James Harrell, Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai, and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyaym, stand by the conventional dating for the monument. Their analyses attribute the apparently accelerated wear on the Sphinx variously to modern industrial pollution, qualitative differences between the layers of limestone in the monument itself, scouring by wind-borne sand, and/or temperature changes causing the stone to crack.
originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: dragonridr
Chris White invested a lot of work to take a closer look at the ancien aliens history channel scheme:
Also i'd like to point out Hancock was speaking at the '99 scientology conference and who exactly would benefit the most from all the lost and lonely, believing in ancient aliens? Where has Däniken etc. all the money from, for their "research"?
Which country has become prominent to promote ancient aliens and pushing other countries to accept scientology as religion? See why i call it a big conspiracy? It's about nothing less than brainwashing the masses to make way for nothing less than a scientology world of slaves. (Disclaimer: no i can't prove that claim. Yet. I am working on it.)
originally posted by: radarloveguy
I'm no expert , but the official history presented
by archaeology sucks and blows .
I met Hawass once , and asked him why the
He got flustered and started murmuring ,
" Annunaki this , Annunaki that " ,
then scuttled off in the other direction .