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: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd
sorry, its a figure of speech. i mean has it yet become widely accepted the the sphinx is not a creation of khafre, due to its age.


No, nor is it likely to. The geologist making the original comment (Dr. Robert Schoch) keeps modifying his theory in more bizarre ways as others point out the errors in his research. Now he's trying to make the sphinx out to be a monument that sat in the middle of a moat. Other geologists and all the archaeologists don't support this concept and as far as I know there's no physical evidence for it (other than his statement that the rock below the sphinx has a lot of spaces... but note that he didn't test elsewhere on Giza. The limestone there is soft and easily eroded and such holes in limestone are common.

...as in Florida where houses and cars and other things disappear into sinkholes.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd
it may take a while, i was trying to evade the existing paradigm with a view to assessing the implications of the structure and its material.
there is sufficient physical evidence within the structure to suggest the construction was not within the technical remit of the reign of khafre, as portrayed by egyptology.


Have you compared it to other structures they were building and to the pyramids of Sneferu (in volume as great as the GP or perhaps larger)?



but thats really the problem of that particular stratum of academia. which is not at all to say that it is incorrect in its conclusions, just that said conclusions are sometimes placed in a chronology based on assumed religious or cultic context.


This is indeed what people who aren't involved in academics, universities, and scholarly research say about research.

However, I think that if you talked with Egyptologists and other scientists you might change your mind.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

(at this rate i have no problem with the first sentence of your reply).
well its a little more involved than that, i think. he wasnt so much modifying his theory as countering critisms which appear to have less evidence.
i will repost this its not so new but i dont consider that too incongrous here
www.davidpbillington.net...



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

"Have you compared it to other structures they were building and to the pyramids of Sneferu (in volume as great as the GP or perhaps larger)?"
yes but, you misunderstand my approach. i dont look at this because...pyramids
its more i saw the interior of the great pyramid and then looked at the others (it was a structure i took pretty much for granted, like most normal people [this was way back before the internet])and not to get too technical, they seem to be imitations or interpretations thereof



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


"This is indeed what people who aren't involved in academics, universities, and scholarly research say about research."
there are likely some very interesting reasons why this appears to be the case



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

"Egyptologists and other scientists"
go on i dare you, no disrespect intended.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

"Egyptologists and other scientists"
go on i dare you, no disrespect intended.
en.wikipedia.org...


Okay... so that's Wikipedia's definition of science. I agree with it.

Not sure of your point, here (maybe it's that we're from different generations and my brain is fossilized.) Yes, Egyptology is a science (subdiscipline of anthropology)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd


"This is indeed what people who aren't involved in academics, universities, and scholarly research say about research."
there are likely some very interesting reasons why this appears to be the case


It seems to be a product of people with a very appealing tale, who wandered up to the real experts and said something like "So, my theory is that the Egyptians came from Polaris, see, and you can tell that because the pyramids all point to Polaris" ... and got shot down by professors and even first year students. They then develop the idea that academics are "afraid" or "close-minded" or "can't think out of the box" ... and it's actually a code for "they didn't take my half-baked idea seriously and unloaded a bunch of facts on me."

In some areas (Egyptologists) they get so many of these ideas that they just don't respond (you could spend days (as you see from these threads) arguing and explaining... and not get your research analyzed or your classes taught or the dig organized or supplies ordered for the dig or (etc, etc.)

And nobody pays scientists to argue and explain to People With Fabulous Ideas.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

"Have you compared it to other structures they were building and to the pyramids of Sneferu (in volume as great as the GP or perhaps larger)?"
yes but, you misunderstand my approach. i dont look at this because...pyramids
its more i saw the interior of the great pyramid and then looked at the others (it was a structure i took pretty much for granted, like most normal people [this was way back before the internet])and not to get too technical, they seem to be imitations or interpretations thereof


Actually, what you see is a bit of experimentation with engineering. I noticed this particularly in the corbelled design of the upper chambers... it develops before Khufu and continues after him and the lower chamber plan was developed during the time of the elaborate mastaba tombs. We also see the impact of logistics, time, and economics (Amenenhat's pyramid was built of mud brick and clay and began collapsing after a few hundred years.)

...etc.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ByrdAmenenhat's pyramid was built of mud brick and clay and began collapsing after a few hundred years

...etc.


My favourite is the pyramid of Dead Jeffrey/Djedefre (Khufu's son) at Abu Rawash
Its the one that shows just how brilliant the fourth dynasty Egyptian engineers were at creating a long lasting structure
Here it is today in all its pristine glory



coordinates if anyone's interested
30°01′56″N 31°04′29″E
edit on 17-6-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


"It seems to be a product of people with a very appealing tale, who wandered up to the real experts and said something like "So, my theory is that the Egyptians came from Polaris, see, and you can tell that because the pyramids all point to Polaris" ... and got shot down by professors and even first year students. They then develop the idea that academics are "afraid" or "close-minded" or "can't think out of the box" ... and it's actually a code for "they didn't take my half-baked idea seriously and unloaded a bunch of facts on me."

In some areas (Egyptologists) they get so many of these ideas that they just don't respond (you could spend days (as you see from these threads) arguing and explaining... and not get your research analyzed or your classes taught or the dig organized or supplies ordered for the dig or (etc, etc.)
And nobody pays scientists to argue and explain to People With Fabulous Ideas."

yeah , we all have jobs and i can play the angry professional in my own field if i liked. but its not productive, simply because everyone thinks they know better, no one ever listens. its a function of the human ego.
so you have to prove them wrong, best done by letting find out for themselves.
in some areas, this is problematic
Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world; the social sciences, which study people and societies; and the formal sciences, such as mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations. Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied science.
Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.
Social science is a major category of academic disciplines, concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It in turn has many branches, each of which is considered a "social science". Social sciences often include anthropology, economics, demography, human geography, political science, psychology, and sociology in addition to many other fields.
Egyptology is primarily regarded as being a philological discipline (in europe)
Philology is the study of language in written historical sources; it is a combination of literary criticism, history, and linguistics. It is more commonly defined as the study of literary texts and written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning.
Where is the evidence for an advanced civilization before 5,000BC? As Mark Lehner said when debating Robert Schoch — “If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization? Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn’t build cities”.
and so we have this conceptual impasse.and where is the fine line with dogma?
in fairness to lehner i imagine he was very frustrated, shochs response was that "it wasnt his problem" which is also a fair statement.
from what i can see,that gives the impression lehner was not interested in even reviewing the paradigm in the face of likely new physical evidence. also not suprising. and politics are everywhere i know.
now , i understand, that if two variables are 100% correlated you can assume the presence of a cause and effect relationship, and here complex lithic production is correlated with sedentary lifestyle, leading him to say what he did
well the evidence to support this heresy came along after a decade or so in the shape of , most notably, gobekli tepe.
so why was it not postulated that " People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn’t build cities. but they did carve rock”.
archeaology uses, necessarily, inductive reasoning. deductive reasoning, however, is widely considered to be the more appropriate method for arriving at supportable, verifiable, and testable conclusions.
thats what most modern western people use as a model (or magic and its successor, the aliens, thanks for that erik), for understanding what they observe.
thats why we are having this little kerfuffle. not because i think i have had an original idea. and not because i think egyptologists are of the same antiquity as their subject material.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
bent pyramid
It has been suggested that due to the steepness of the original angle of inclination the structure may have begun to show signs of instability during construction, forcing the builders to adopt a shallower angle to avert the structure's collapse
yeah but as a humourous aside its done fairly well, considering.

hmm, abu rawash eh? damn romans.
i notice it has some of the same features of the great pyramid as regards siting.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: ByrdAmenenhat's pyramid was built of mud brick and clay and began collapsing after a few hundred years

...etc.


My favourite is the pyramid of Dead Jeffrey/Djedefre (Khufu's son) at Abu Rawash
Its the one that shows just how brilliant the fourth dynasty Egyptian engineers were at creating a long lasting structure
Here it is today in all its pristine glory



coordinates if anyone's interested
30°01′56″N 31°04′29″E


It's not his fault. As a close and convenient source of already quarried limestone, it was dismantled by the Egyptians themselves in antiquity. His downfall was bad location and not bad construction.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: username74

and on reflection, i had to read my initial post, and yep, it was a little late in the day, and i didnt phrase it very well,
well fair enough, my apologies, and when the spinx rises up, although is not really what i intended in the title (poorly thought out as it was) i realise it falls within the remit of the title. so its very organic . so i dont mind being corrected, and i am thoroughly enjoying this, definately educational and a novel experience (for me), but we are all required to have an open mind (within reasonable parameters) are we not?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd
...
Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world; the social sciences, which study people and societies; and the formal sciences, such as mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations. Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied science.


Yes, I know about science and how it's done and the various disciplines. I'm not sure why you felt I needed the explanation.


Where is the evidence for an advanced civilization before 5,000BC? As Mark Lehner said when debating Robert Schoch — “If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization? Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn’t build cities”.
and so we have this conceptual impasse.and where is the fine line with dogma?
in fairness to lehner i imagine he was very frustrated, shochs response was that "it wasnt his problem" which is also a fair statement.

What Lehner probably meant was something along the lines of "we have a lot of digs and a lot of evidence up and down the Nile for settlements and towns with dates of 5,000 BC and earlier. None of them show signs of being an advanced civilization or being in contact with an advanced civilization."

Hunter-gatherers don't wake up one morning and start building supercomputers. It takes time, resources, and so forth to be able to have the tools to build a supercomputer and that's not done overnight or in a hundred years. It leaves marks on the landscape in terms of gathered resources. No one has ever presented evidence of a civilization rising from origins or of groups that within a 100 year time frame go from running away from dire wolves to hunting them down with heat-seeking missiles.


from what i can see,that gives the impression lehner was not interested in even reviewing the paradigm in the face of likely new physical evidence.


It's the other way around: Schoch wasn't interested in reviewing the history and documentation of digs and research on the plateau. It's like someone wandering up to a car in an auto repair shop with a dowsing rod and saying that the ley lines inside the vehicle's trunk are maladjusted. This person hasn't studied the car and the mechanic (who has diagnosed a problem with the spark plug gap) is not being dogmatic when he says "bad gap" and really shouldn't be forced to stop and dowse the car by people who have only seen pictures of the car and don't have a clue how the owner treats the car.

Schoch made the mistake of assuming he knew all about the geology. As other geologists pointed out, he erred.


well the evidence to support this heresy came along after a decade or so in the shape of , most notably, gobekli tepe.
so why was it not postulated that " People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn’t build cities. but they did carve rock”.

Those people were a thousand miles away and there is no evidence they were in contact with Egypt.

edit on 17-6-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: username74
and so to follow, i would like to present the initial idea. there was initial research and development of this idea was on a kind of professional-amateur basis and i am led to believe the guy binned what he was doing because he had a life and a wife to get on with and was starting to attract a bit of fringe attention through association. and fair play to him, i think most of us (more conservative thinkers) would have done the same. but thats for later.
so softly, heres a crash course in the fuction of ram pumps
but before we dive in, a word to the wise
please try and relate to the subject matter in its physical context, without overlaying temporal, contextual baggage on it, just try, it might even be fun.
the first is basic principal, the second is more involved (please note the relative layout of water channels), the third is a slightly monotonous one that well illustrates scale of layout
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
as a laymans side note, ram pumps work in conjunction with "water hammer" which is the banging noise you sometimes hear in your home (depending on your plumbing) when you adjust the taps.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd
sorry we're a bit out of sync' but
"Hunter-gatherers don't wake up one morning and start building supercomputers. It takes time, resources, and so forth to be able to have the tools to build a supercomputer and that's not done overnight or in a hundred years."
whos suggesting all this. over emphasis



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

" Schoch wasn't interested in reviewing the history and documentation of digs and research on the plateau"
hes a geologist.
lehner wasnt that interested in his findings
pretty tit for tat .no?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

"Schoch made the mistake of assuming he knew all about the geology. As other geologists pointed out, he erred."

well as i read it, that doesnt seem to be the case. up until ten, fifteen years ago, at least. i posted the link twice already. west also with scoch. farrell had two goes at it twice sustained. is there some evidence overturning this peer reviewed theory initially from 1991?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

i would also like to point i did give some kudos there for lehner, in his position i would probably have said the same sort of thing and regretted it.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join