For those who continue to believe nobody knows why the pyramids were built

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
have you? where are the measurements to prove bamboo technology can produce highly symmetrical, consistent tolerances? maybe you need spoonfeeding but I have been involved in this field long enough to know it can't be done.

a reply to: Marduk

you are a Sitchenite, laughing at your claims for anything, arguing with a man who thinks the babel story or Noah are originals and then comes up with a sci fi explanation, really dries out your crap.

ok I'll repeat: where are the measurements that prove bamboo tech can compare to what we find in Egypt? Keep avoiding that and it shows you guys got nothing.
luis40pr.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Marduk

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
ok I'll repeat: where are the measurements that prove bamboo tech can compare to what we find in Egypt? Keep avoiding that and it shows you guys got nothing.
luis40pr.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Marduk

You have nothing

please provide me with a list of any Egyptian masonry you have personally studied along with your Egyptological qualifications to pontificate on the subject, to include University lectures you have given.
please list the times and dates that you have personally examined Denys Stocks work to check that the tolerances aren't identical and what Denys thought of your claims.
please detail the experiments you have carried out to show that 3000+ years of weathering is not a factor in your measuring along with your geological and meteorological qualifications.
please provide references from qualified Egyptologists who have helped you to get the permits to carry out your examinations

Alternatively, please provide your own sources on any one making the same claims as you, who can qualify on the above list. Sitchin doesn't qualify, the only training he had was as an economist.

Because if you can't, then its quite obvious that the only complaint you have here is that you are unqualified to present an argument with any coherency and that you are simply deluding yourself into thinking that Aliens were somehow involved.

Which is what we all knew all along anyway.

Maybe, instead of wasting our time here, you could take the time to read what Herodotus said on the subject
www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

a reply to: Marduk I have lived a spiritual experience of reviewing historically correct holographic imagery, which demonstrated like watching a movie the exact review I saw.

This holographic light and sound condition belongs to the atmospheric interaction of recording information.

Science began from the application of the human psyche/spiritual journey and observations, what an Egyptologist or archaeologist thinks is human thinking that always involves a self imposed theory.

Tibetan Monks proved to a Scientist that sound levitation lifted stone boulders. The ancient religion belonging to the pyramids and religion itself discusses aspects of creation as spiritual powers. To make statements regarding the use of the Pyramids and the Temples is to review the layout as a plan. Sound obviously a use in the Pyramid, and the Temple plan has a plan similar to the inside of a transmitter or radio body.

S&F OP...good old fashioned research on your part to create this thread
accurately depicting what academics has taught over the past years.

Interesting observations on both sides of the argument for and against the
Egyptian theory of old age technology versus technological advancements.

This is a link to a short video titled The Unfinished Box -
very unique in it's appearance identifying various different procedures of cutting stone.

youtu.be...

originally posted by: beenharmed
a reply to: Marduk I have lived a spiritual experience of reviewing historically correct holographic imagery, which demonstrated like watching a movie the exact review I saw.

How unfortunate then that you apparently tuned into a book of pseudohistory.

Science began from the application of the human psyche/spiritual journey and observations, what an Egyptologist or archaeologist thinks is human thinking that always involves a self imposed theory.

Clearly then you have no scientific training either, if you did you would know that a hypothesis is arrived at after an examination of all the pertinent facts. When the hypothesis is tested and proven correct, then and only then it is allowed to be called a theory. A theory isn't an assumption, it is an explanation of observations.

Tibetan Monks proved to a Scientist that sound levitation lifted stone boulders..

The Dr Jarl claim was made up in a Swedish pseudohistory book from the 1940s by Henry Kjellson, another of his books was called "Moses had radium in the ark". Tibet is always the place claimed as a centre of the paranormal in those days precisely because it was an effectively closed country until 1951, so no one could go check.
Research is not your strong point either it seems

The ancient religion belonging to the pyramids and religion itself discusses aspects of creation as spiritual powers. To make statements regarding the use of the Pyramids and the Temples is to review the layout as a plan. Sound obviously a use in the Pyramid, and the Temple plan has a plan similar to the inside of a transmitter or radio body.

The pyramid was a tomb, it had a mortuary temple outside, a sarcophagus inside a burial chamber, extra pyramids for the Kings queens and it was built inside a necropolis. It also is the last in a long line of similarly designed previous tombs going right back to the foundation of Egypt. Please drop your silly pretence of knowledge, you're not fooling anyone

However, if you'd like to prove that you are a psychic, simply tell me what I am wearing...

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
This is a link to a short video titled The Unfinished Box -
very unique in it's appearance identifying various different procedures of cutting stone.

youtu.be...

This is a link to the Giza radiocarbon project, which conclusively proves the construction dates.
www.aeraweb.org...

lol. it's obvious you've run out of gas, all you have left is to call me names. I can't take you seriously, you have nothing substantial to contribute. Did Herodotus mention the symmetry and consistent tolerances? Because if he didn't you're just grandstanding.

p.s. nevermind, I read the Herodotus thing and it was nonsense just like the bamboo technology theory. it gave zero technical details so you can save that for somebody else, maybe the person who gave you a star would think it had something to do with what we're talking about. please stop wasting my time, although it's amusing to watch you flail your arms around trying to sound like you have something to offer.
a reply to: Marduk

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
lol. it's obvious you've run out of gas, all you have left is to call me names. I can't take you seriously, you have nothing substantial to contribute. Did Herodotus mention the symmetry and consistent tolerances? Because if he didn't you're just grandstanding with hot air.

a reply to: Marduk

Yup, got nothing at all, you don't know anything about masonry and you don't know what you're talking about.
You haven't examined anything yourself and you wouldn't have the first clue what to look for if you did.
I'm not asking you to take me seriously, I'm just asking you to back up your claims with anything other than your delusional belief. You asked and were provided evidence here for the academic side, don't you have anything at all to back yours, awwwww...

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

You've seen our expert evidence, but you don't have any of your own.
You're done
And everyone but you can see it


btw, I didn't call you any names in my previous post to you, you are projecting...

Really, unless you have anything to back your assertion then your posts in this thread are educationally redundant.

superior evidence? really? none of it compares symmetry or consistency of tolerances and that's a very important detail. Without it the bamboo tech theory is a failure.

p.s. you called me a Sitchinite which is a name. you've embraced the ad hominem with the alacrity only a person who's run out of an argument can. keep it coming it's really amusing and very telling of your personality.

a reply to: Marduk

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
superior evidence? really? none of it compares symmetry or consistency of tolerances and that's a very important detail. Without it the bamboo tech theory is a failure.

a reply to: Marduk

What I find interesting, is the only place I can find the phrase " consistency of tolerances " in relation to pyramids, is in association with claims about aliens building them using lasers

That's where your bull is coming from right, you believe aliens did it
Your cultural racism is astounding.


tell me dudebro, do you think the Great Pyramid was built as a prison for Bel Marduk.
hahahahahahaha

you called me a Sitchinite which is a name

No, in your case, it is a valid description besides that being like two pages ago, did it burn you dudebro, having your only source named like that
here's one of your previous posts

originally posted by: bottleslingguy


I've often wondered about the fantastic stories in Genesis such as how Noah could logistically get two of each kind of animal on the ark and in reading Zecharia Sitchen's book The 12th Planet I learned that he got dna samples from the animals (he still had to get around the globe somehow and was probably helped by Enki). As crazy as it sounds at least it answers realistically how it could be done. Then the issue of how people with an established language (it is thought there once was a common language) could have that change overnight comes up. Well this sounds like just what I've been looking for.

So you are denying that you said that ?
Pretty hard to do, there it is in all its glory, the inspiration for all your understanding of the ancient world, a dead journalist
laughable and pretty tragic really


You should probably google "Atrahasis", its the story that Noah is based on, it predates the bible by over a thousand years
The babel story isn't original either...

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
This is a link to a short video titled The Unfinished Box -
very unique in it's appearance identifying various different procedures of cutting stone.

youtu.be...

This is a link to the Giza radiocarbon project, which conclusively proves the construction dates.
www.aeraweb.org...

Thank you for the link Marduk;

Radiocarbon dating is a relatively new process and some believe it is flawed due to the
atmospheric pressure changes of carbon over past millennium's...which I suspect in the future
will need a correction and an updating. (so it is in science)

I would also like to point out that your use of Herodotus is unfounded as he is a known
liar and deceiver whom was used by the Government to dissuade the population of truth -
much the same we see as todays Government is doing.

All this being said - No One...EVER.... has provided conclusive proof of when the Great Pyramid of Giza
was built; or that it ever housed the body of a Pharaoh foreboding the idea it was built to house a ruler.

Now that Hawass is out of the way..and with the new sonar scan project finding an anomaly, the
Egyptian minister of Antiquities has asked anyone whom has an interest in finding the truth out about
the Great Pyramid to become involved.

If there is honesty in Egyptology, what ever is found behind this anomaly will shed the truth to
the building of the Great Pyramid ending the debate once and for all...

..however - I did say IF, and if we are looking at the same game Egyptologist's have played in the past:
nothing will be revealed

Exciting times we live in.

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet





Radiocarbon dating is a relatively new process

If by new you mean a nearly 70 year old, well tested, widely replicated, Nobel winning advancement that had profound effectson Archaeology and Anthropology then yes, absolutely.

and some believe it is flawed due to the
atmospheric pressure changes of carbon over past millennium's..

The only ones who believe that are those with a specific agenda. One that willfully ignores the rigors of scientific scrutiny. First, nobodymaking such a claim has ever demonstrated this to be the case.Not an iota of actionable data. Second, atmospheric pressure has no affect on ionization of carbon atoms in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. What we're talking about hewre is radioactive decay abnd the correlating ratios of 12C to 14C. Furthermore, the efficacy of 14C dating is well known, extremely well tested and is in fact substantiated. The margin of error is well known and with a half life of 5730 years, that half life exceeds the dates attributed to the Great Pyramid leaving the margin of error extraordinarily legligible, literally to within decades as opposedto dating, for example, Neanderthal rermains that are in the vicinity of 40KA BP. regardless, all dates come with the margin of error included. Now, the problem with dating organic material within the construction of the pyramid ( for those that do not believe the ascribed dates at least) is that at just over 4500 years old, we can calibrate the 14C results by comparing the dates derived to results from other organic samples. We have trees that can be accurately dated via dendrochronology andthe dates obtained via DC line up with precision to the 14C dates. Geological dating is also often used to cross reference a date to obtain the hifghest degree of accuracy. Anytime you see a date, it isnt the only methodology used, there is always cross referencing of various dating techniques.

.which I suspect in the future
will need a correction and an updating. (so it is in science)

And this is the beauty of science. Unlike those with more fringe worldviews and the anti-intellectual and scientifically illiterate, science is indeed self correcting when confronted with new data and evidence.

All this being said - No One...EVER.... has provided conclusive proof of when the Great Pyramid of Giza
was built; or that it ever housed the body of a Pharaoh foreboding the idea it was built to house a ruler.

There is indeed a massive degree of cognitive disonance to get to the point where one proclaims that NO evidence has been given when in fact the case is more typically an issue of not accepting the data at hand. When multiple sources lead to the same dates and there is absolutely no evidence of earlier dating, it makes it a little tough to hold on to the view of the GP not being built when it is dated to while fully ignoring whom it was built by, for and why.

If there is honesty in Egyptology, what ever is found behind this anomaly will shed the truth to
the building of the Great Pyramid ending the debate once and for all...

..however - I did say IF, and if we are looking at the same game Egyptologist's have played in the past:
nothing will be revealed

Exciting times we live in.

quite convenient how you gave yourself an out on any potentialnewdata because now you can easily just throw your hands in the air and proclaim it just more of the same old business as usual.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
superior evidence? really? none of it compares symmetry or consistency of tolerances and that's a very important detail. Without it the bamboo tech theory is a failure.

I'd agree it's an important point.

Would you please go ahead and make that point, rather than simply claim it?

I'd look at any info you have on the symmetry and tolerances of ancient Egyptian holes in cut in granite, for example.

Harte

a reply to: peter vlar



www.aip.org...

The radioactive isotope carbon-14 is created in the

upper atmosphere

when cosmic-ray particles from outer space strike nitrogen atoms and
transform them into radioactive carbon.

So yes - atmospheric pressure does indeed play a part.
Now contamination issues...
Any type of contamination entered into the carbon dating process causes
issues in exacting information.

Any contamination of a sample by outside carbon (even from the researcher's fingerprints) had to be fanatically excluded, of course, but that was only the beginning. Delicate operations were needed to extract a microscopic sample and process it.

I have not thrown my hands in the air, I have studied Egyptian history and they are as confused as those whom make outlandish claims regarding the Great Pyramid as a funerary chamber. Petrie's composite detailing of mathematical calculations are in direct conflict with the accepted mathematical prowess of said AE...and of course - there are many more calculations at Giza unexplainable for the era given including it's precise cardinal alignment and it's geodesic location to the center of our planet. These facts are often conveniently over looked by the Egyptologist's supporters
for they are simply without explanation.

In reality, I have not left myself a convenient out so much as I have offered a way in to the same old business as usual debating a misunderstood monument of antiquity still not quite understood by the advanced civilization of todays technological era.

Your two quotes about Carbon dating are completely disingenuous and don't support your claims at all
Here is the entire first quote, I have highlighted the part you deliberately cut out

The radioactive isotope carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere when cosmic-ray particles from outer space strike nitrogen atoms and transform them into radioactive carbon. Some of the carbon-14 might find its way into living creatures. After a creature's death the isotope would slowly decay away over millennia at a fixed rate. Thus the less of it that remained in an object, in proportion to normal carbon, the older the object was

So basically, you have cherry picked your sentence to make it look like carbon 14 dates are not precise, when in fact, the entire quote is actually talking about how carbon 14 gets into organic material in the first place. That was very dishonest of you.

Your second quote doesn't support your claims either

Any contamination of a sample by outside carbon (even from the researcher's fingerprints) had to be fanatically excluded, of course, but that was only the beginning. Delicate operations were needed to extract a microscopic sample and process it. To get a mass large enough to handle, you needed to embed your sample in another substance, a "carrier." At first acetylene was used, but some workers ruefully noted that the gas was "never entirely free from explosion, as we know from experience."(4) Ways were found to use carbon dioxide instead. Frustrating uncertainties prevailed until workers understood that their results had to be adjusted for the room's temperature and even the barometric pressure.

This time the text is talking about the early days of Carbon 14 testing, about 65 years ago.
The next line is

This was all the usual sort of laboratory problem-solving, a matter of sorting out difficulties by studying one or another detail systematically for months.

So you are quoting what was being done in the 1950s as if it is magically still valid, again very dishonest of you. I notice you didn't take time to explain that they were using beta-counting devices back then, but have now moved on to using accelerator mass spectrometry which has become the method of choice; it counts all the 14 C atoms in the sample and not just the few that happen to decay during the measurements; it can therefore be used with much smaller samples and to much greater accuracy, to the point where researchers fingerprints are no longer an issue. Now I wonder why you decided that wasn't important when you were deliberately quoting out of context. Either because you are ignorant of the facts or because you are deliberately bending the truth, which is it ?

originally posted by: [post=20151581]
I have not thrown my hands in the air, I have studied Egyptian history

Apparently though from what follows, you have been studying it from fringe sources which are worthless

and they are as confused as those whom make outlandish claims regarding the Great Pyramid as a funerary chamber.

Yup, didn't bother to read the OP
Doesn't realise that the GP is in the middle of a Necropolis
Didn't notice that the previous two dynasties and the ones following also used pyramids as funerary chambers
Didn't notice it has a sarcophagus which are only ever found in relation to burials
Didn't notice that it has a mortuary temple outside where prayers were offered to the dead King
Didn't notice it is a building which basically contains only burial chambers
Didn't notice that it has smaller pyramids outside for the dead queens
www.touregypt.net...
Didn't notice that funereal boat which was buried outside
en.wikipedia.org...
Are you going to claim at some point that it couldn't be a burial site because it contains no Hieroglyphs. Please do...

Petrie's composite detailing of mathematical calculations are in direct conflict with the accepted mathematical prowess of said AE

That's Flinders Petrie you're talking about, the Egyptologist, the guy who claimed that it was built by Egyptians and who was never flustered by any of his measurements himself, or some other Petrie ?

there are many more calculations at Giza unexplainable for the era given including it's precise cardinal alignment

The Pyramids are not aligned to the cardinal points, if that is the case, they are six minutes of arc out, what they are aligned to is the circumpolar stars,
en.wikipedia.org...
Called by the Egyptians "the Imperishable Ones”. The Egyptian book of the dead very clearly explains that joining these stars is the dead kings first step in reaching Maat (Heaven). The descending passage lines up with these stars like a launch ramp for the dead kings Ka (soul)
You didn't know that because your credulity has stopped you knowing it, simply, you don't believe it was for a burial, so therefore your subconscious is blocking you from understanding the facts.
There is even a word for it
skepdic.com...

and it's geodesic location to the center of our planet.

That's an invention of Piazzi Smythe, en.wikipedia.org...
and dates to the 1850s
Its quite laughable, here's why
www.catchpenny.org...

These facts are often conveniently over looked by the Egyptologist's supporters
for they are simply without explanation.

The facts that I have just explained to you are without explanation ?
hahahahaha

In reality, I have not left myself a convenient out so much as I have offered a way in to the same old business as usual debating a misunderstood monument of antiquity still not quite understood by the advanced civilization of todays technological

No, in reality you are repeating the same tired old claims which have already been answered which the pseudo historians you have read simply claim have not been answered because it makes them look enlightened. In reality you should probably pick up a book or two written by an actual Egyptologist because the Journalists you have been reading clearly are lying for profit and you have been taken in by them. I've seen all these arguments before, they clearly have the same source.
You've been reading books by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval haven't you, you should know, that neither of them is now claiming that these weren't built as burial chambers by the Egyptians. They moved on to the truth, seventeen years ago.
www.badarchaeology.com...
you should probably join them,
That's the reality here


p.s. Sitchin is not a reliable source either, I'll bet you $1000 right now that you've read and believed him, which is only possible if you've only read him and no one else, obviously, admitting that you believe Sitchin will completely demolish your credibility here, but I can bank transfer that money immediately if you haven't.

a reply to: Marduk

a reply to: Marduk

Must you be so childish as to call everyone whom disagree's with Egyptology a Sitchinite?

Yes I have read Sitchin's intitial work and yes he is misinformed just like those whom believe the
false story behind the Great Pyramid.

Bauval and Hancock may have recanted their belief of what the Great Pyramid is, but I have not, nor
do I submit to the theory it was built to house a ruler as a tomb, for my own research provides different clues.

So you have a $1000 dollars to bet? Would that be from the books you sold that are incorrectly stating
a misclaimed history on certain monuments of antiquity, for if so - maybe we should bet on rather which is the
pseudo science..is it Egyptology or is it a new age archaeohistorian that shall provide the truth to what can be verified using technology to the Great Pyramid's true history?



You can be sure during this debate neither will I run away with my hands in the air nor will I be
obstructed by childish name calling.

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: Marduk

Must you be so childish as to call everyone whom disagree's with Egyptology a Sitchinite?

Yes I have read Sitchin's intitial work and yes he is misinformed just like those whom believe the
false story behind the Great Pyramid.

Bauval and Hancock may have recanted their belief of what the Great Pyramid is, but I have not, nor
do I submit to the theory it was built to house a ruler as a tomb, for my own research provides different clues.

So you have a $1000 dollars to bet? Would that be from the books you sold that are incorrectly stating
a misclaimed history on certain monuments of antiquity, for if so - maybe we should bet on rather which is the
pseudo science..is it Egyptology or is it a new age archaeohistorian that shall provide the truth to what can be verified using technology to the Great Pyramid's true history?

You can be sure during this debate neither will I run away with my hands in the air nor will I be
obstructed by childish name calling.

Ah great, so instead of answering for your radiocarbon dishonesty or answering my point by point demolition of your lack of knowledge, you are having delusions of grandeur oh new age archaeohistorian, You don't have any qualifications do you
lol
I didn't call you a Sitchinite anywhere in my response, but feel free to accept the title while you are admitting he is your major source.
I haven't sold any books. Where are you getting this...
If your own research provides clues, then why don't you start a thread of your own and post them, or would that be too embarrassing for you,
The Great Pyramids true history, wow, never heard that claim before...


You got served, everyone reading this thread saw it happen, how can that be possible unless you are clueless about the subject you are making claims for...Could have had a thousand dollars, but unfortunately your credibility lost you the money

p.s. Sitchin is not a reliable source either, II'll bet you $1000 right now that you've read and believed him/b], which is only possible if you've only read him and no one else, obviously, admitting that you believe Sitchin will completely demolish your credibility here, but I can bank transfer that money immediately if you haven't.

Your accusation is plain for all to see. Exactly who are you to challenge someone on honesty?
You have allowed your ego to overlook your intentional snipes of ridicule.

Have you come to an answer how Google Earth using technology shows Giza centered on the globe? just as Smythe
ascertained.
For the record - Smythe believed God built the Great Pyramid..I don't - Sitchinite's would believe the Annunaki built the Great pyramid - I don't - Egyptologist's believe our AE built the Great Pyramid - I don't.

I do however believe in a past intelligent civilization no longer recorded or acknowledged that is the initial constructor to the Great Pyramid...leaving our AE as the care takers and restorers to a once previously ancient monument.

However Marduk - you are correct that I should start my own thread detailing my conclusive findings using todays technology.

Please look for it after Christmas but before the New Year as I would like your professional analysis -
I shall title it so that you will not forget -

[i"The Nazca Lines Decoded as the Great Pyramid Blueprints"i]

Until then my friend...please brush up on your GLOBAL history as I suspect this thread will be a great humbling adventure
to all whom wish to debate on a dignified level.
It would also help if you understand blueprints..and every aspect of the Great Pyramid's interior and design.

Your accusation is plain for all to see. Exactly who are you to challenge someone on honesty?
You have allowed your ego to overlook your intentional snipes of ridicule.

Yup, no, you have claimed that I called you a Sitchinite, when I in fact claimed that you read and believed (past tense) him. I am fully aware that you've moved on from your beliefs of 2009, but just for the record, heres what you did believe then

...and from what I've read - Sitchin has been right
about his other Sumerian historical information,
so why should we discredit his detective work
regarding the Annunaki and Nibiru..?

2012forum.com...

Have you come to an answer how Google Earth using technology shows Giza centered on the globe? just as Smythe
ascertained.
For the record - Smythe believed God built the Great Pyramid..I don't - Sitchinite's would believe the Annunaki built the Great pyramid - I don't - Egyptologist's believe our AE built the Great Pyramid - I don't.

I do however believe in a past intelligent civilization no longer recorded or acknowledged that is the initial constructor to the Great Pyramid...leaving our AE as the care takers and restorers to a once previously ancient monument.

I already answered that point and linked you to another source which corroborated it.
But if you want me to mathematically show you why its nonsense, then I draw everyones attention to the fact that the NW/SE line neatly cuts your image into Africa on one side and Eurasia on the other with Spain and half of France needing to be cut off and given to Africa for balance.

So :-

Area of Spain 504,645 km²
Area of France 640,679 km² / 2 = 320,340

Area of Africa 30.22 million km²
Area of Africa with half of France and Spain added 31, million km² (approx)

Area of Eurasia 54.76 million km²

Wow looks like your claim is about 23 million km² short chuckles

What, your calculator is broken and you were incapable of doing the math without it.




Well it must have been a hell of a restoration as some of the samples for the Giza radiocarbon project came from the base of the pyramid. Oh, you didn't know that either, doesn't that prove that they must have taken it apart to restore it. If they were capable of taking apart and putting it back together, doesn't that mean they were just as technologically advanced as the lost race you are claiming did it.
Logic, its a foreign country to some people isn't it...

So basically, what you are saying, is that the only point in my refutation of your utter utter nonsense that you think gives you a foothold, is that I called you a Sitchinite

That pretty much shows everyone just how truly credulous you are.



I look forwards to reading your thread, I agree its going to be a humbling experience.


For anyone who simply can't wait until the new year for this astounding thread by Aquarian Trumpet, you can watch it on YouTube right now
www.youtube.com...

Rest assured it is again, cherry picked nonsense and forced conclusions like the rest of the stuff from the same source.