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.

 

pre pyramid plateau

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

no *snip* my maths dont take into account any work teams, just the value of work needed by the hour.
have as many teams as you like, and fit them into your projected work area, a sand ramp.






 

Mod Note: Please Review This Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory
edit on Thu Sep 8 2016 by Jbird because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

"When you require psychic powers to prove a hypothesis, then your hypothesis is baloney "
aye, and people in glass houses should not throw stones!
by the way, what is the example of me trying to use " psychic powers" ?
and why the # cant you read?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk

"When you require psychic powers to prove a hypothesis, then your hypothesis is baloney "
aye, and people in glass houses should not throw stones!
by the way, what is the example of me trying to use " psychic powers" ?
and why the # cant you read?


Where your hypothesis requires that the Egyptians replaced the samples later used in radiocarbon tests (Which proved the dating) in the right order.
Which requires the psychic power of prophecy for foreseeing the invention of radiometric dating,

Why is it that you haven't mentioned the radiocarbon dating done all over Giza in any of your posts yet, are you ignorant of it or just aware that it makes your claims look like idiocy ?
Why is it that you haven't mentioned the radiocarbon dating done all over Egypt in any of your posts yet, are you ignorant of it or just aware that it also makes your claims look like idiocy ?


Entry level nonsense, you probably even aren't aware of Catchpennys Egyptology page
www.catchpenny.org...
I would recommend you read all of it, might save the rest of us getting bored to death with your nonsense later



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

so explain yourself in context of the discussion.
itll save you from death by boredom
"Where your hypothesis requires that the Egyptians replaced the samples later used in radiocarbon tests (Which proved the dating) in the right order.
Which requires the psychic power of prophecy for foreseeing the invention of radiometric dating,"
what the # are you on about?
why i am to argue with radiocarbon dating?
where did i argue with it?
where does it conflict with my posts?
i thought we were currently discussing movement of physical quantity over time?
maybe reread the past few pages



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte
"No, I got that.

But I'm still waiting for your explanation of the red ocher glyphs.
Do you think the Egyptians stole the language from these earlier pyramid builders as well as the structures?"

the explanation is as is said.
the upper chambers, air shafts and tura facing were built by khufus lads.
so in fact you didnt get it.
again.
thats three times now.

Yes, you say and have said a lot, but "the explanation...as said" doesn't explain anything.
I'm blocking ads here so I can't upload a pic, but click here and tell us about these shafts that are in the upper reaches of the GP.

Harte


(post by Marduk removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Can we dispense with the Sniping , Please.





TIA



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

i take your point, however you will note that in your source, the program management b.c.

that at level 50, thats nearly 70 percent of the finished mass, althogh it doesnt look it in section, and interestingly enough the ramp is at 23 metres which is, suprisingly, the 23rd course (base 10 maths, anyone?)
queens on 25ish metres and kings on 45ish metres



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

i take your point, however you will note that in your source, the program management b.c.

that at level 50, thats nearly 70 percent of the finished mass, althogh it doesnt look it in section, and interestingly enough the ramp is at 23 metres which is, suprisingly, the 23rd course (base 10 maths, anyone?)
queens on 25ish metres and kings on 45ish metres
Yet it's plain that the Queen's Chamber is nowhere near any "upper" part of the structure and there are shafts there.
What you are claiming is that the AE's happened across a slightly raised platform at Giza and erected an entire pyramid on it. All you need to do is to realize that the AE's built the 178 courses above the Queen's chamber, so why insist they didn't build the 25 courses below it?

Harte



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

"So lets get this straight, in your opinion as you stated up above there, there is no evidence that the pyramids were built by Egyptians "
yeah, so lets get that straight for the thirtieth time.
no, thats nothing at all like i said. and its only one of them! for the second time, in fact about 30 percent of it
and its written word on the internet, so no ones saying anything, and no ones said as above except you,
and what i have written is still there, so you can still read it.
*snip*
edit on Thu Sep 8 2016 by Jbird because: removed OT comments



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

"You know next to nothing about this subject and earlier on you claimed you were going to write a book..."
i joked i was going to write a book.
and what subject is it i know nothing about, egyptology or construction and engineering.
hows your engineering?
is it on par with your maths?
why dont you try refering to the material at hand instead of reverting to misdirection and obfusification?
wanna buy a bridge?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

yeah, gee, its almost like the air shafts were sighting lines sealed of during construction....
"What you are claiming is that the AE's happened across a slightly raised platform at Giza and erected an entire pyramid on it."
why the # not, thats what happens everywhere else.
what is the problem with a pedigree?
it doesnt even conflict
why are these speculations so territorial?
it was the same with the sphinx
you have no counter evidence to the pyramid being built on a step pyramid
in fact you have scant evidence to claim what you claim (not you specifically, obviously), even though i do not dispute it, currently



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

yeah, gee, its almost like the air shafts were sighting lines sealed of during construction....
"What you are claiming is that the AE's happened across a slightly raised platform at Giza and erected an entire pyramid on it."
why the # not, thats what happens everywhere else.
what is the problem with a pedigree?
it doesnt even conflict
why are these speculations so territorial?
it was the same with the sphinx
you have no counter evidence to the pyramid being built on a step pyramid
in fact you have scant evidence to claim what you claim (not you specifically, obviously), even though i do not dispute it, currently


I hope you can come to realize that there is no burden to provide any counter evidence to a theory - especially one that provides no evidence to begin with.
The number of things to which there is no "counter evidence" is infinite. Does that make them all a reality?

Harte


(post by Marduk removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

"I hope you can come to realize that there is no burden to provide any counter evidence to a theory - especially one that provides no evidence to begin with. "
there is no burden to provide any counter evidence to a theory
well what kind of statement is that?
my theory is supported by the structure itself. but not all of it .
basically you must accept that the theory for the ram pump is created solely by its physical properties and everything on top is possibly relevant, or as orthodox philology states against which, i have no solid argument, and i freely admit this again and again.
but thats not enough for you.
it all has to fit in the conceptual box.
well without conducting an autopsy on all monuments, hence destroying them, we cannot do this.
so the theories will remain theories, which is to say, hypothesis' with evidence.
so we know baalbek was a meteorite strike, a shrine, a platform, a fortress and temple.
the clearest way to demonstrate the supremacy of one idea or creed over another is to supercede its symbolic iconography.
pagan and christian, need i go on.
its been a human constant, throughout.
and one of the pertinent factors in relation to the pyramid is that, though it is from antiquity it is made of relatively small components.
in contrast to usual megalithic fare.
and yet the smallest of the three has the ashlar granite facing as in some distant geographic locales.
the building methods begin at a massive complex level then degrade.
yet the mode of construction remains consistant with other timescales and locales.
you cant have all this nailed down to timescale and mutually contradicting itself.
we already know the pyramid is built on something.
whos to say if its a rock bluff with or without an existant structure and a natural water exit from the past.
instead we are informed the the sub chamber and associated structures are just, a mistake, a change of plan.
square peg, round hole.





edit on 9-9-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

"I hope you can come to realize that there is no burden to provide any counter evidence to a theory - especially one that provides no evidence to begin with. "
there is no burden to provide any counter evidence to a theory
well what kind of statement is that?
my theory is supported by the structure itself. but not all of it .

Your theory is not supported by anything other than your wants.

Harte



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

no. stop . its not about my ego and i resent the implication.
not that its important.
i dont have any wants in a world thats already made
the theory you posted is driven by want and ego.
its a poster boy for whitecollar jobs in construction.
for the physical engineers involved.
hey these guys can build the pyramids in 5 years, lets contract them.
why dont you respond to the content of the post and focus on the physical implications of what is stated?



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

and again.
""I hope you can come to realize that there is no burden to provide any counter evidence to a theory - especially one that provides no evidence to begin with. "
there is no burden to provide any counter evidence to a theory
well what kind of statement is that? "
the theory is flawed.
so the truth needs no revision, or this is the accepted truth and all revisions will be crushed?
refer to your own source document.
lets discuss the numbers. and methods used, oh, none were presented, yet it must be true because..... wait for the summary....."While there is uncertainty as to precisely how the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, there is
certainty about the fact that it was done."
#ing joke.
i sometimes work for this sort of short term attitude and its always the same," well this contract is 3 million cheaper, and thats money in the bank, and we can fix alot of problems with all those jugs of beer and loaves."
risible



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

oh. and its all gone quiet, business as usual then?
sycophants rule!



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

Only up for speculation if you ignore the evidence such as sealed chambers bearing Khufu's cartouches.

Harte


Wasn't there a controversy surrounding Vyse's discovery and the origin of the cartouche? And an ongoing debate about the purpose of the pyramid shafts?

A lot of things seem to be open to debate: regarding the internal structure, for instance, some people even attempted to find a good explanation for the subterranean chamber. And didn't Houdin raise some questions about the structural purpose of the relieving chambers?

Not to mention the various discussions around tool marks that were allegedly not caused by the conventional AE toolkit (chisels, pounding stones, basic copper saws), for example here and here.

But all that is probably just being spread by ignorant uneducated charlatans trying to sell books as opposed to serious Egyptologists who are of course only interested in pure and unbiased evidence /*sarcasm off*/.
edit on 11-9-2016 by jeep3r because: text and formatting



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join