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.

 

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

page: 18
50
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
The circumference of the Queen's Chamber denotes the size of Earth. The shape of the pitched roof and four squared walls represents a house stating 'You are HOME'. The 'Five-step Niche' is the geometric mathematical riddle to Earth's Moon. The base square of the Niche signifies the circumference of the Moon. The upper 'four squares' of the Niche represent that it takes 'four' Lunar faces to cover 'one' Earth face. This characteristic is known as 'stacking'.


Stacking the Earth’s Moon 'Four Times' equates to the Earth’s Diameter as the upper four squares to the Niche represent. 7,913 miles is Earth’s average diameter as our Moon measures 2,159 miles. The Moon’s luminescent surface allows easy visibility although it's distance from Earth equals a quarter million miles away. (236,339 miles)


The anamoly of the rectangular shaft inside the base square of the Niche is mathematically represented a the 'Perigee-Apogee' between Earth and our Moon.


As the Niche is offset and not center to the Queen's Chamber, it is referencing a clue to the Moon's eliptycal orbit.
Curiously the floor directly in front of the Niche is recessed at approximately one metre and at one time was compacted with a dirt substance which consequently is the only place in the Great Pyramid that is such. (if the dirt had not been removed and could be laboratory tested, would it show the same composition as moon-dust?)


As a peculiar note, it should be known that the Queen's Chamber at one time was indeed covered in a salt composition which would be a direct correlation to Earth's acidic salt oceans.
The floor is a rough unfinished area enstranged to the perfection of the rest of the Queen's Chamber explaining Earth's rough terrain surface.



**Grand Gallery explanation:
By understanding the Great Pyramid of Giza is in fact a geodesic replication in exactness of our solar system, the riddle of the enigmatic Grand Gallery is readily acknowledged and explained through examination.
According to the layout of the geodesic design as an abstract version of a thermometer which replicates connecting Mercury to the Grand Gallery, thereby showing it's funicular design.
Science and astronomy has taught us that Mercury moves in towards and away and back again in a perpetual solar dance with our Sun. This was established by mister Albert Einstein during an observational view of a solar eclipse by astronomers to verify his mathematical calculations in regards to his contribution to solar mechanics in the month of May during 1919.
The design of the Grand Gallery is eight 'corbelled' massive stones per side with an incorporated roof design made up of many smaller stones.
The lower block on both sides incorporates rectangular notches shown as large increments on a thermometer with the multi-layered ceiling signifying the smaller increments incorporated in between the larger notches. The notches distances as equated by each of the Grand Gallery's pathway stones indicating the distance between notches. The entrance is referenced by a step down design signifying the space between the notches as they equal the same length squared. The base step-down design also incorporates the base 'holding' area of the thermometer.
Standing at the Grand Gallery's base with it's 1:2 ratio grade degree incline angle looking up to the anti-chamber opening angle implies a Geometric Thermometer in exact replica including increments. The double eight corbelled sides signify two eight's as in reference to Mercury's eighty-eight day 'retrograde' movement.

The 'over-flow' step known in antiquity as 'the great step' leads entrance to the planet Mercury signified by the Anti-chamber interestingly designed in Red Granite; showing Mercury over-flowing into the geodesic 'Thermo-mercumeter' known as the Grand Gallery.


continued..




posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The Subterrannean Chamber
Length [planned] 46 feet - Jupiter's Radius is given at 43.441 miles
Width [planned] 24 feet - Gravity given at 24.79 m/s2
Height [planned] 17.5 feet - Mass is 317.8

The jovian planet of Jupiter is primarily a gas planet with very little oxygen being produced.
Coincidentally, the Subterrannean Chamber is oxygen deficient, residing approximately 113 feet below the Giza Plateau's surface. It also sits 183 meters below the pyramid's apex.

Forming a road to the Greek word Pyramidos -meaning 'pyre' for fire -and 'mid' for middle, establishing the meaning 'Fire in the Middle'..our Solar System's Sun, represented by the King's Chamber showing our Sun-Star and what this decoding precisely shows.



Egyptian history dictates the Great Pyramid was built without any type of secular blueprints, no model or history of the pyramid build has been as of yet located and produced for archaeologists or academics viewing providing confirmation to the ancient Egyptian claim.
The claim stipulates the King is to be buried in the sarcophagus so that the King may use the eight inch passageways to return to his rightful place as a God among the Heavens.
It is suspected the Queen's Chamber was originally built to contain the dead Pharaoh's remains, with a mid-build plan change to relocate the Pharaoh at a higher level closer to ascension.
The Queen's Chamber was never intended for the Queen's burial and the Subterrannean Chamber holds no belief to be allocated for the King and Queens's funerary servants. All this appears as speculation as it ignores other areas such as the Grand Gallery and the 'five-step' Niche with it's rectangular tunnel to nowhere inside the Queen's Chamber. It also leaves no explanation as to why the two eight inch passageways of the Queen's Chamber do not exit the pyramid as the King's Chamber celestial causeways obviously do.


3:4:5 Triangle
A right triangle where the sides are in the ratio of the integers 3:4:5
This is one example of the many "pythagorean triples".
Any triangle whose sides are in the ratio 3:4:5 is a right triangle. Such triangles that have their sides in the ratio of whole numbers are called Pythagorean Triples. There are an infinite number of them, and this is just the smallest.
If you multiply the sides by any number, the result will still be a right triangle whose sides are in the ratio 3:4:5. For example 6, 8, and 10.


What is a PYRAMID?
Pyramid (from Greek *pyramidos*), geometrical object, whose base is a polygon (3-4-5 etc.) and whose sides meet at one point - apex of a pyramid.

Okay..now that is out of the way, let's get into the numbers shall we?

continued..



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk


Hahaha...I get it - information overload: too much to take in all at once..time for a humor break

[SNIP]

I'll let this settle over night and finish this adventure tomorrow,
buckle up folks..as I said - I have decoded many monuments of antiquity
and a specific code.. so for those of you whom enjoy this archaeohistorians quest -
I'll be presenting many threads over the next year to explain it in detail.
It will include factual history, scared geometry, mythology and scripture.
Academians will not like this - nor will Alien beleivers..and the religious - well they are definately not going to like it when I show them what is actually written in the bible and it has nothing to do with the religion they are pushing and everything to do with math. astronomy and an ancient civilization and the message they bestowed upon their offspring written on the monuments of antiquity located at all four corners to our planet.


Again - it is time for our rightful history to appear..
and it is the advent of technology that will lead the way by those who feel in their soul
that we have been lied to for way too long.

Fun times ahead folks - enjoy!



edit on 12/17/2015 by eriktheawful because: Image violated Terms and Conditions.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I'm wondering if you have an answer for the dating issue, the vast majority of the lines date from 200 BC to 500 AD.
Your claim would have to be that they got the dating wrong because you need them to be about 2500 years earlier, are you just going to say "radiocarbon dating is unreliable, when we all know its accurate, or did they have time travel



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
I'm wondering if you have an answer for the dating issue, the vast majority of the lines date from 200 BC to 500 AD.
Your claim would have to be that they got the dating wrong because you need them to be about 2500 years earlier, are you just going to say "radiocarbon dating is unreliable, when we all know its accurate, or did they have time travel



The Nazca drawings are much older than the date of 500 AD.
It's a known FACT they CAN NOT radiocarbon date the lines themselves..just the pottery shards, textiles and skeletons - and they are not the creators of this complicated blueprint.

Do you think the Egyptians traveled to South America and created these schematics knowing about future technology, but never bothering to use it themselves..? oh wait - time travel: so are your implying a portal?

Through my findings, I do not support the idea of time travel or Alien intervention -
I am speaking of an unregistered in our history books lost technological civilization.

edit on 17-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: A's mature advice



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
You guys both let yourselves down when you bicker and name call.

I know, it's ironic that one such as I is calling you both out, but can we actually address the points you're both making in a mature and reasoned manner. no matter how ridiculous you BOTH may find the notion.

The best way to counter an argument is with a well-constructed counter argument and reason, not bickering and name calling.

Above all, deny ignorance



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki
You guys both let yourselves down when you bicker and name call.

I know, it's ironic that one such as I is calling you both out, but can we actually address the points you're both making in a mature and reasoned manner. no matter how ridiculous you BOTH may find the notion.

The best way to counter an argument is with a well-constructed counter argument and reason, not bickering and name calling.

Above all, deny ignorance


Well excuse me, but Mr trumpet seems blissfully unaware that the lines were dated by the moss that died on the underside of the rocks when they were turned over to create the lines. So the lines have been scientifically dated to 200 BC to 500 AD, which was of course, the period when the Nazca culture was at its height




The Nazca culture (also Nasca) was the archaeological culture that flourished from 100 BC to 800 AD beside the dry southern coast of Peru in the river valleys of the Rio Grande de Nazca drainage and the Ica Valley


So that leaves him either
1. claiming a cover up - not credible
2. claiming that the radiocarbon dating is wrong - not credible
3. Time travelling aliens - not credible.

Either way, I think its clear that his claims are a result of self delusion.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Great advice A


Readjusted my reply in accordance with your supreme advice!

In sincerity - all apologies Marduk.

(Mods - there maybe should be a handshake icon as a peace offering..instead of the thumbs up?)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
So you are choosing to ignore the dating problem ?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk




Well excuse me, but Mr trumpet seems blissfully unaware that the lines were dated by the moss that died on the underside of the rocks when they were turned over to create the lines. So the lines have been scientifically dated to 200 BC to 500 AD, which was of course, the period when the Nazca culture was at its height


If I remember correctly, the moss was from the oldest formations from 500 BCE which were created by piling up rocks. Hence the moss from their bottom layer. One of the most concrete tests they were able to perform was from using 14C on a survey stake. This puts that site within the 200 BCE to 500 CE time frame. As the stylistic similarities and construction techniques as well as associated artifacts are uncanny, it is certainly associated with a single culture and the culture living in the area at the time these glyphs were created was the Nazca. The funny part is that contrary to ignorant opinion, you can see every single one of these geoglyphs from the surrounding hill tops, but people are so focused on magical mythical beings being necessary for the existence of anything they can't be bothered to understand that they all completely ignore that as cool as they are, the Nazca Lines aren't the real marvel of engineering. The engineering that went into the Nazca getting ground water up to the surface to use for irrigation. It's was nothin short of brilliant. But hey... Aliens



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

Mr trumpet seems blissfully unaware that the lines were dated by the moss that died on the underside of the rocks when they were turned over to create the lines. So the lines have been scientifically dated to 200 BC to 500 AD, which was of course, the period when the Nazca culture was at its height




The Nazca culture (also Nasca) was the archaeological culture that flourished from 100 BC to 800 AD beside the dry southern coast of Peru in the river valleys of the Rio Grande de Nazca drainage and the Ica Valley


So that leaves him either
1. claiming a cover up - not credible
2. claiming that the radiocarbon dating is wrong - not credible
3. Time travelling aliens - not credible.

Either way, I think its I think its clear that his claims are a result of self delusion.ote]

Personally I don't believe in Alien intervention nor do I believe in time travel..and I believe that RCD is flawed as is much of archaeology due to this fact.

Now is it a cover up? interesting thought....look at the world Governments and you decide.

Now is it self delusion?

Let's decide this tomorrow when I finish this expose and hopefully other members have a say
whether this new age technology self studied Aquarian brings a new light to the question of a pre technological civilization truly once existing.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet


Personally I don't believe in Alien intervention nor do I believe in time travel..and I believe that RCD is flawed as is much of archaeology due to this fact.

Now is it a cover up? interesting thought....look at the world Governments and you decide.

Now is it self delusion?

Let's decide this tomorrow when I finish this expose and hopefully other members have a say
whether this new age technology self studied Aquarian brings a new light to the question of a pre technological civilization truly once existing.


Your belief that Radiocarbon dating is flawed is not credible. Do you have any evidence at all to support your "belief"

A pre technological civilisation, for which there is no evidence, no records, no archaeology and no mythology
Sure, run with that. But could you admit that you stole the idea from the unqualified journalist Graham Hancock while you're at it...

edit on 17-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet


Personally I don't believe in Alien intervention nor do I believe in time travel..and I believe that RCD is flawed as is much of archaeology due to this fact.

Now is it a cover up? interesting thought....look at the world Governments and you decide.

Now is it self delusion?

Let's decide this tomorrow when I finish this expose and hopefully other members have a say
whether this new age technology self studied Aquarian brings a new light to the question of a pre technological civilization truly once existing.


Your belief that Radiocarbon dating is flawed is not credible. Do you have any evidence at all to support your "belief"

A pre technological civilisation, for which there is no evidence, no records, no archaeology and no mythology
Sure, run with that. But could you admit that you stole the idea from the unqualified journalist Graham Hancock while you're at it...


No I didn't plaguerize GH..but I have read his 1st book Fingerprints back in the 1990's.
In the late 1970's a friend loaned me a book of which I still own a copy titled "In search of ancient mysteries" by Alan Landsburgh.
Interesting book which details quite a bit of information for a small book.
My friend was 8 years my senior and heavily interested in ancient history..he knew much and became my mentor.
If you must know I grew up in a RC household and had to attend RC school all my grade school years with church on Sundays. RC 's teach scripture on a daily basis so it gets drilled into you.
I plaguerized scripture and the Tower of Babel anology.

I wasn't satisfied with what religion taught and finding out discrepencies in actual history,
knowing that in 1964 the Vatican removed passages from scripture but wouldn't say what they were -
I found a pre 1964 KJV bible and dug deeper. (grandparents 1898 version)
There was still too much missing so I decided that the other religious denominations bible's
might hold the missing clues - so I read what I could understand of them in search of answers...
The Torah, Qu' ran, the Kabbalah..there were some clues but still didn't add up to factual history.
It came down to translating scripture back to Hebrew.
Yes there is truth in scripture...just not the way religious empires support.

I became friends with a now retired Pentagon official who is a mythology and archaeo-astronomy major
skilled in ancient civilizations. He has written books on this subject, writing one now and then has promised when he is free to join my quest.

At the same time I became friends with a sacred geometry, self taught historian who is a math wiz.
Damn this guy was arrogant - called everyone Sheeple, including me but he was funny and intelligent,
and we became friends as I hope we do Marduk..and I learned much from him as I know I will from you.

That helped me quite a bit in my 'delusional decodings'...lol
It's quite humbling the people who have joined my quest since I 1st published a video almost a year ago now.
Every discretion of academics one could think of..from a retired Harvard law professor, a professional archaeologist,
Engineers of different fields including space technology, a few school teachers to just regular people.
I'm still in search of an astrophysicist to correlate my mathematical findings of G1 and other monuments.

My evidence to support RCD is flawed?

Just my own intuition -
Archaeology was basically founded around Egyptology..and Egyptology is
the reason RCD was founded and conveniently introduced into Archaeology as evidence.

Very tight circle don't you suspect? You did mention cover up.

What are they trying to hide..?

edit on 17-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: fun



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
So.....the "elite" end up in a TOMB, just like everyone else? lol hahahahhahahah All that wealth, only to be covered in a pile of dirt. That's FUNNY.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet



Archaeology was basically founded around Egyptology

No, that was just Petrie .

The three fathers of archaeology are

12 March 1626 – 7 June 1697 en.wikipedia.org...
1754 – 31 December 1810 en.wikipedia.org...
17 April 1880 – 20 February 1960 en.wikipedia.org...

Of the three only Woolley was active in Egypt, his assistant you may have heard of.

His name was T.E. Lawrence
You should read Woolley, his books make Sitchin look like an infant

The first thing you need to learn to do, is to stop making blanket statements when you aren't sure of the facts. It damages your credibility



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

Your belief that Radiocarbon dating is flawed is not credible. Do you have any evidence at all to support your "belief"

It's easy when you use "double pi mathematics."


Harte



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
do you have any source about the validity of carbon dating. If I google it than it is evident that it is not valid for older dates, as I said in my previous posts already.

When you get away from all christian sites and their claims I have found this site. Which it seems have nothing to do with Christianity.

amazingdiscoveries.org...

So how valid is this, judging by that, carbon dating is one big assumption. Is this info old or wrong?
Any source are welcomed I want to know the truth about it and not some opinion of a Christian guy : )
edit on 14503517891229December2912293115 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity

do you have any source about the validity of carbon dating. If I google it than it is evident that it is not valid for older dates, as I said in my previous posts already.


Valid for which older dates? Nobody has ever claimed that 14C testing is useful beyond 50-60KA and I know a lot of people who aren't comfortable using ascribed dates of more than 45-50KA. But it's pretty irrelevant in this particular thread as we're talking about a structure that is younger than the half life of 14C making the margin of error so negligible that a date to within a couple of decades +/- is easily accomplished. One of the best methods of calibrating your reading is by comparing dendrochronology. If I take a core sample from a 6000 year old tree for example, I'm going to give a sample of that core to someone else to run 14C and mass spectrometry, before I count my tree rings. Then we compare our results. The results always line up unless there is contamination. As I pointed out earlier, no one dating method is ever accepted. There is always cross referencing with other dating methods and there is always a known margin of error included with any date.



When you get away from all christian sites and their claims I have found this site. Which it seems have nothing to do with Christianity.

amazingdiscoveries.org...

This source is complete garbage and most certainly a Christian based source. I only had to get a few paragraphs in before they started getting into "pre-flood" and "post flood" levels of atmospheric carbon.
Since the only people pimping an actual world wide flood event are certain sects of Christianity, I don't feel it's a big stretch to go there.

So how valid is this, judging by that, carbon dating is one big assumption. Is this info old or wrong?
Any source are welcomed I want to know the truth about it and not some opinion of a Christian guy : )

It's not at all valid and 14C dating is in no way assumption.

hbar.phys.msu.ru...

journals.uair.arizona.edu...

www.whoi.edu...

journals.uair.arizona.edu...

journals.uair.arizona.edu...

cdiac.esd.ornl.gov...

www.radiocarbon.org...



edit on 17-12-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet

Northing wrong with what I said..and it was accurate. The Great Pyramid is off exact alignment by less than 3 minutes of arc..quite an achievement that wasn't surpassed until modern times. Go ahead and nit pick the 3 minutes of arc, but in reality - it is what I said and aligned to the cardinal points; only people with an agenda will misconstrue the statement.


You need to pick a point and stick with it. Either the pyramids have a precise alignment as you earlier claimed, or they're close enough to fool people who don't know better so we'll pretend its a precise alignment and ignore the fact that it was actually aligned to circumpolar stars because that doesn't work for your preconceived nation. The preconceived notion that no matter he wrong you might be, how much evidence there is demonstrating that you're absolutely wrong and compound all of that with the actual lack of actual evidence to support your position... You will NEVER admit you might be wrong. It's the exact opposite of science and it's beyond intellectually dishonest.


The Ancient Egyptians managed to line up the sides of their pyramids to the points of the compass, with extraordinary accuracy. The most accurate is the Pyramid of Khufu, also called the Great Pyramid. The east and west sides miss true north by less than three minutes of arc (roughly one tenth the diameter of the full moon). With this kind of accuracy, it's no wonder they were one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It took over 4,000 years before the astronomer, Tycho Brahe, was able to take astronomical measurements to a greater accuracy.



So you accuse me of cherry picking and yet, you have seem to be the one with a cherry picking exercise.


Not even close. You're the one who claimed earlier in this thread that the GP was aligned to cardinal points with Precision. It's off by around 4 min, not less than 3 by the way. Using Petrie's hypothesis for how the pyramids were aligned(he never field tested it himself), tests were done in the 80's to ascertain the effectiveness of this method. Using Petrie's method, they were able to set up an alignment to ~1min of arc, so more precise than the Egyptians. It's rather entertaining though watching you flit about like a little elf, ignoring information that shows you're clueless and changing ever so slightly your wording when confronted with something you think you can prove but seem to forget that we can read all your hyperbolic conjectures and call you out on your goal post shifting tactics.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join