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.


pyrimids: Egypt or Advanced Civs?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2003 @ 09:24 PM
i was watching some thing on the discovery channel about the pyrimids and there was a guy talking about how the people of egypt back then could NEVER have built the great pyrimids.

i thought that what he had just said was the most stupid thing i have ever heard.

he goes on to describe that civs like atlantis and others from around the world came and built them. but obvously this is not recorded in the history books or writings of egypt.

just want to know what you all think abou this.

posted on Jun, 9 2003 @ 06:21 PM
To build something big with the technology the Eqypts had, it had to be heavy at the base and light at the top, with a square base, to accomodate square bricks. So naturally you are going to build a pyramid structure whether you are an Aztec or an Egyptian.

That's what I think anyway...

posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:52 AM
Thats a fairly logical conclusion negating a 'few' details....

The Pyramid of the Sun is half the height of the Great Pyramid of Giza and has the identical base.

The astro mathematics of both are very complicated and astounding.

The mathematical precision alone requires greater knowledge than does to build it.....with bronze chisals!


And these two 'archetectual wonders' are not in a league of their have Angkor Wat, etc.

This is not a matter of equating technological levels to 'simple' building designs and principles....such as heavy at the base and light at the top; having a square base and such. These structures were built with a level of intelligence which could easily equate to the level our civilization has today.

The study of 'ancient historical writings' are impressive and full of many and varied questions but doubt of their intelligence, ingenuity, and 'the methods behind' their respective designs lends one to believe that it was not a matter of 'simple this and simple that'....


posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:57 AM
feel that ancient man was "less intelligent" than today. They simple hadn't had as much time to develop the inventions that we take for granted today, but they weren't stupid.... Man had the knowledge, and the physical ability to build all of those assume that some mysterious outside force was needed, is pure conjecture, and a great disservice to the ingenuity of our ancestors....

posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 12:17 PM

A couple of very respected archeologists, Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval and more, believe that the pyramids are in fact much older.
They believe that they were build around 10,000 BC, instead of around 2000 bc...

This is about the Temple, leading to the great pyramid:
I quote from their book The message of the sphinx

The unifying features of these ancient and anonymous structures are the stark, undecorated austerity of the building style, and the use throughout of ponderous megaliths - many of which are estimated to weigh in the range of 200 tons apiece. There are no small blocks here at all: every single piece of stone is enormous - the least of them weighing more than 50 tons - and it is difficult to understand how such monsters could have been lifted and manouvered into place by the ancient Egyptians.
Indeed, even today, contractors using the latest construction technology would face formidable challenges if they were commissioned to produce exact replicas of the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple.
The problems are manifold but stem mainly from the extremely large size of blocks - which can be envisaged in terms of their dimensions and weight as a series of diesel locomotive engines stacked one on top of the other. Such loads simply cannot be hoisted by the typical tower and hydraulic cranes that we are familiar with from building sites in our cities.
These cranes, which are pieces of advanced technology, can generally 'pick' a maximum load of 20 tons at what is called 'minimum span' - i.e. at the closest distance to the tower along the 'boom' or 'arm' of the crane.
The longer the span the smaller the load and at 'maximum span' the limit is around 5 tons.
Loads exceeding 50 tons require special cranes. Furthermore, thee are few cranes in the world today that would be capable of picking 200-ton blocks of quarried limestone. Such cranes would normally have to be of the 'bridge' or 'gantry' type, often seen in factories and at major industial ports where they are used to move large pieces of equipment and machinery such as bulldozers, military tanks, or steel shipping containers.
Built with structural steel members and powered with massive electric motors, the majority of these cranes have a limit of under 100 tons. In short, a commision to put together a temple out of 200-ton blocks would be a most unusual and very taxing job, even for modern heavy-load and crane specialists.
in the united State there are presently only two land-based cranes of the 'counterweight and boom' type able to handle loads in the 200-ton range.

From page 27-28, The message of the Sphinx

posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 03:45 PM
on one of the educational channels, that showed how they'd move these blocks, and tilt them into position. Largely, it was clever uses of sand as a tool to lower things into position from a height, such as a ramp, etc. Their way around the problem was simply to lower, using gravity as an assist, rather than try to lift against it...

posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:52 PM
According to recent findings, Robert Bauval has actually changed or pushed back the date to 11,500 B.C.

Since I can't seem to get my freakin' HTML turned on...I can't post a link to this change....sorry.


[Edited on 18-6-2003 by Seekerof]

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 04:50 AM
sure you can, just copy and paste the URL in your message, or use the XMB codes, explained here:

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 05:25 AM
Hancock offers are very good argument for the reasons for the construction of the pryamids. But his bases for argument basically comes down to the the Pirie Reis map and the radioactive dating of the various constructions. His book Finger Prints of the Gods, is well worth the read, the mathematics and astronmy is mind bogging.

IMHO is he is more or less on the wrong path.

Buval the co-author of Chariots of the Gods is even madder beling that Aliens are resposible for the construction of the prymids.

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 06:04 AM
So basically you are saying that they are wrong...
Well they studied the Sphinx and the pyramids for several years, and came to the conclusion, backed up by dozens of facts, that the pyramids are much older than what has been accepted by egyptologists. As you said, the astronomical theory that they came up with is mind blowing, but correct.
There are no real fact ever found that tell that the Giza pyramids were build for Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. Just because they found a couple of artifacts referring to them near the pyramids doesn't automatically mean that the pyramids were build especially for them.
Bauval and Hancock believe that the praids were build much earlier, and that a couple of thousand years later, the Pharao's used them for burial purposses.

Many historians belive that the Sphinx was build escpecially for the Pharao Khafre. And that its face resemble's his face.

Another quote from their book:

As a man who knows and works with faces every day of his professional life, he was commisioned to make a detailed study of the points of similarity and difference between the Sphinx and the Khafre statue. Months later, after returning to his lab in New York where he undertook careful comparisons of hundreds of photographs of the two works, Domingo reported:

After reviewing my various drawings, scematics and measurements, my final conclusion with my initial reaction, i.e. that the two works represent two seperate individuals. The proportions in the frontal view, and especially the angles and facial protrusion in the lateral views convinced me that the Sphinx is not Khafre..."

So on the one hand we have a top forensic expert, Frank Domongi, telling us that the Sphinx's face does not represent Khafre's face. And on the other we have Mark Lehner, the Egyptologist computer buff, saying that only with Khafre's face does the Sphinx 'came alive'.

The Egyptologists accepted that the pyramids were build for the Pharao's, but have no real evidense to prove that theory.

There is no proof that the pyramids were build around 2000 BC.
There is no proof that the pyramids were build for the Pharao's.
There is no proof that the Sphinx was build for Khafre.

But still everybody believes the pyriamids were build by hte Egyptians for their pharao's around 4000 untill 2000 BC...

Zahi Hawass said this about one of the professional scientists that were working with Hancock on the study of the water erosion of the Sphinx:

Amarican hallucinations! West is an amateur. There is absolutely no scientific base for any of this. We have older monuments in the same area.They deffinately weren't built by men form space of from atlantis. it's nonsense and we won't allow our monumnets to be expoloited for personal enrichment. The sphinx is the soul of Egypt.

To me he sounds quite like the former Iraqi minister of information...

This was on the page before:

It was at this crusial moment, while the members of the team were putting together the first independent geological profile of the sphinx, that Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Egyptian Antiques Organization's Director-General of the Giza Pyramids, fell upon them, suddenly and unexpectedly, like the proverbial ton of bricks.
The team has obtained their permission from Dr. Igrahim Bakr, then the President of the Egyptian Antiques Orginazation. What they had not known, however, was that the relation between Bakr and Hawass were frosty. Neither had they reckoned with Hawass's energy and ego. Fuming that he had been bypassed by his superios, he accused the Americans of tampering with the monuments.

it almost seems like Hawass doesn't want to have an independant research on the Sphinx history...

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 01:34 PM
"Just because they found a couple of artifacts referring to them near the pyramids doesn't automatically mean that the pyramids were build especially for them."

This is a good point. The ancient Egyptians were well known for taking existing monuments they admired, and than attributing them to current (at the time) leaders instead. Remember, most of the artifacts in Tut's tomb were pilfered from those of his parents.....
The names were then scraped off, and re-engraved....

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 02:05 PM
yes that is exactly what Bauval an Hancock said too.
many Epyptologists think that the Sphinx was build especially for Khafre, but there is evidence however that the Sphinx was reshaped, possibly to make it look like him.
now because they believe the Sphinx looks like Khafre, they believe the Sphinx was build at the time Khafre lived.

The same thing goes for the pyramids aswell.
Hancock believes that the pyramids were build as Temples or for other religious reasons. And that the Pharao's used them, and redecorated them to serve as a way of transport to the stars, for eternal life for the Pharao.

Anyway, I can go on and on quoting from their book, but I suggest you buy and read it. Truely fasinating stuff.

I never liked the history classes at school, but was always in the front row when the chapter of Egyptology was on the program.

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 06:27 PM
Hi guys, here is that site for Bauval's latest info and change from 10,500 to 11,500 B.C.


posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 06:32 PM
This is also where I found the info at: (good info on this thread)


posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

in the united State there are presently only two land-based cranes of the 'counterweight and boom' type able to handle loads in the 200-ton range.

From page 27-28, The message of the Sphinx


Well let's see,

There used to be three. I was witness to a crane come to Corpus Christi, Tx. mounted on a train. It preceeded to lift a 225 ton high content sulpher cracking unit to the top of a 400' [?] tower. It never had to boom down more than a few degrees from 90.
However, within one minute of the lifting cables being removed that entire boom collapsed to the ground. Landing less than 10 feet in front of a row of 20 or 30 porta potties that were filled at lunch time. Because that was the safest time to perform what was labeled at the time [early 80's] as the heaviest lift ever.
The miracle was not the lift, the miracle was that no one of the 2000 workers present was injured. The Egyptians did not have that good of a safety record. And in order to build a pyramid we would have to build a similar crane in the desert that would have to have the reach and counter weights and structural strength to place a capstone on the top perfectly.
Now for you wizards and geniuses out there. My question is, where did those funny Egyptians stash a crane that large?

Tut Tut Tut!!!!!!!!

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 07:23 PM
The pyramids also have chambers inside of them that appear to point toward the belt of orion- perhaps as some type of symbol of mankind's origin/destination?

What if the pyramids all over the world contain the esoteric knowledge that the illuminati have been restricting? Maybe that's the reason for the wall to be built around the Giza Plateau?

Yes, some of the blocks were 270 tons, perfectly chiseled (i.e. foundation stone).

Why did they go through such great length to build them (regardless of method)? What did they gain from this enormous construction project? It must have been worth it. Where did they get the idea to build them?

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 10:14 PM
What about the workers graffiti found inside the pyramids? Didnt they find such markings that had workers (or slaves) insulting the work leaders?

I think man built them, they had everything they needed. Almost unlimited manpower and proper motivation i.e. fear of death. Although why is another question.

Future civilzations might wonder why built roller coasters. It would seem like a form of transortation that took too many turns only to get you right back where you started.

Just because there is no record of how they were built means nothing. In 10,000 years from now one would be hard pressed to come up with something simple like Coronal Sanders secret recipe. Maybe whoever built them wanted it have bragging rights and kept the methods secret.

posted on Jun, 20 2003 @ 04:24 AM

Now for you wizards and geniuses out there. My question is, where did those funny Egyptians stash a crane that large?

Who said they used cranes. The example Graham gave with the cranes is just for people to understand how difficult it must have been for the Egyptians 4000+ years ago...

posted on Jun, 20 2003 @ 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

Now for you wizards and geniuses out there. My question is, where did those funny Egyptians stash a crane that large?

Who said they used cranes. The example Graham gave with the cranes is just for people to understand how difficult it must have been for the Egyptians 4000+ years ago...


My friend,
That was a sarcastic comment at the end of a factual statement. I do not believe cranes were involved in the erection of the Pyramids. I am merely stating that industrialized equipment capable of erecting such a stucture does not exist. As a civilization with our technology we could build such equipment, but for what? To merely duplicate what the ancients accomplished without it!!
Even Trump would not attempt that.



posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 07:54 PM
nothing to do with the building of the pyramids

but wasnt there a secret unopened chamber near the pyramid of giza
somewhere below the sphinx

whatever happend to that did they enter it ?

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in