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.

 

Lost Technologies of the Pyramid Builders - Possible Evidence for Acoustic Engineering in Aswan

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I'll believe they pounded out all that stuff, moved and polished it when I see it done, real time, accurate and actual size.

Would really like to see how they got one of them big ass obelisks out of the ground.



probably a good idea to actually read the threads you post in before you post, that way you don't get to announce that you have decided on something before you saw the actual evidence contained therein. The OP was bs, a lot of the replies were not


Hell, all these ancient stone megalith threads are the same.

A "how dey do dat" kinda debate.

One side is "pound and chop" the other side is any other but that.

I don't know "how" some of it was done and am sceptical of the official line, that's all.

Unless the finished obelisk is scalloped, I see no reason for whomever, to start with that pattern, unless it was a by product.







posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Unless the finished obelisk is scalloped, I see no reason for whomever, to start with that pattern, unless it was a by product.



Its to do with the properties of the rock, which is very hard, so percussion instruments are the fastest way to remove large chunks, prior to this they would have started a fire to get down to the level they wanted to work, because heat makes the crystalline structure expand so that when you pour water on it and it rapidly cools, pieces can be broken off by hand
Here is an explanation of the process which I posted back on page three
Though to be honest, I don't think any of the credulous bothered to read it, because they prefer to go with the three mile wide mega bass woofer, buried underneath the Obelisk with a nuclear power station to power it, though obviously we are still waiting to see any evidence of that at all



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

Academic Egyptology which has more than proven its case, even demonstrating how it was done will carry on without your input.


That's fine with me, really. And I'm sure they'll carry on without the input of all others who address these kinds of problems, as they have done for 80+ years regarding the pounding theory.

Then they come up with fire and ice in combination with "test-squares/circles" (according to Clarke/Engelbach) to check for inconsistencies in the granite? How deep do they get with that and what difference does it really make? Does it explain the grids and the bevelled ridges? If you think that's a good explanation, then that's perfectly fine. But for me this case is far from closed.

And perhaps we don't need to invoke mechanical waves (such as sound) to create these highly interesting marks on the surface of the granite. Note that the thread premise is a "question" combined with an analogy (patterns) and some criticism regarding Egyptological assumptions, that are as yet unproven. So I guess all this is still up for debate ... at least here on ATS.
edit on 1-3-2017 by jeep3r because: spelling



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Marduk

Academic Egyptology which has more than proven its case, even demonstrating how it was done will carry on without your input.


That's fine with me, really. And I'm sure they'll carry on without the input of all others who address these kinds of problems, as they have done for 80+ years regarding the pounding theory.

Then they come up with fire and ice in combination with "test-squares/circles" (according to Clarke/Engelbach) to check for inconsistencies in the granite? How deep do they get with that and what difference does it really make? Does it explain the grids and the bevelled ridges? If you think that's a good explanation, then that's perfectly fine. But for me this case is far from closed.

And perhaps we don't need to invoke mechanical waves (such as sound) to create these highly interesting marks on the surface of the granite. Note that the thread premise is a "question" combined with an analogy (patterns) and some criticism regarding Egyptological assumptions, that are as yet unproven. So I guess all this is still up for debate ... at least here on ATS.


You just don't get it do you
The Egyptians knew nothing about the method you are talking about, they didn't have megawatt speakers and they didn't have a power source to make it work
They used pounders, the evidence of the pounders is on the granite and experimental archaeology has shown exactly how those marks are formed. The site is littered with discarded pounders, and the Egyptians painted pictures of them using the pounders on tomb walls, Every other culture of the ancient world also used pounders for this type of work and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that proves it,

You have nothing, like your claim for "these kinds of problems" are also people like you who refuse to do any actual research and then base a claim on a credulous belief system which makes you the laughing stock of the archaeological world. Your theories are based on an idiot level understanding of ancient culture. Do some real research, from real sources based on real evidence and stop wasting everybody's time
thanks




posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

You have nothing, like your claim for "these kinds of problems" are also people like you who refuse to do any actual research and then base a claim on a credulous belief system which makes you the laughing stock of the archaeological world. Your theories are based on an idiot level understanding of ancient culture.


Is that all you've got? Then I won't even ask you to take a closer look at all the other tool marks in megalithic stonework all over the world because it's already decided that it's the result of copper chisels, manpower, time, skill and lots and lots of pounding.

And besides, why bother when even scientists and researchers like Davidovits get discredited by Egyptologists despite hard evidence? If you're feeling comfortable in your ivory tower, then that's just fine my dear Marduk.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Marduk

You have nothing, like your claim for "these kinds of problems" are also people like you who refuse to do any actual research and then base a claim on a credulous belief system which makes you the laughing stock of the archaeological world. Your theories are based on an idiot level understanding of ancient culture.


Is that all you've got? Then I won't even ask you to take a closer look at all the other tool marks in megalithic stonework all over the world because it's already decided that it's the result of copper chisels, manpower, time, skill and lots and lots of pounding.

And besides, why bother when even scientists and researchers like Davidovits get discredited by Egyptologists despite hard evidence? If you're feeling comfortable in your ivory tower, then that's just fine my dear Marduk.


There you go again denying the evidence you don't even know about
Can you show me the machine the Egyptians were using
can you describe and show the evidence of the power source
can you show me that the Egyptians even knew what Electricity was
can you show me that all the other cultures you apparently know nothing about had the same technology
can you tell me why those sites are littered with dolomite pounding stones, what were they, just decorative ?
Of course you can't, you don't have a single piece of evidence for something which if it existed would be EVERYWHERE
can you explain why you have no supporting evidence
can you tell me why in the two weeks this thread has been running the only site you linked to is a woo site and why you haven't done any research at all to forward your unproven untested hypothesis
Of course you can't, you have nothing
If I'm in an ivory tower, you my friend are in the intellectual gutter
have fun down there



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: fotsyfots
ONLY dudes whom know FOR CERTAINTY what happened, are the chaps physically there at the time..

So no one has ever been convicted of a criminal offence unless there's been several eyewitnesses to the crime

You should be a defence lawyer for the indefensible
Either that, or maybe get a clue...


So using same bozo logic & playing along with your prefered role play scenario~~~ I as defence lawyer put to the jury the "crime" scene was well contaminated & YOU cant rule out staging of said bashing balls ya ball basher !!
No, didn't think so. I rest my case !!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: fotsyfots
So using same bozo logic & playing along with your prefered role play scenario~~~ I as defence lawyer put to the jury the "crime" scene was well contaminated & YOU cant rule out staging of said bashing balls ya ball basher !!
No, didn't think so. I rest my case !!!!!


Wow I'm stunned, you're completely correct and definitely haven't just shown everyone here that you don't know what you're talking about.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Ok so here is my counter theory to the obviously nonsense one in the OP
the Aswan obelisk was cut out using a fruit which the Egyptians dried in the sun until it went hard

Now these are the factual details
1. this fruit does dry very hard on the sun
2. this fruit is easily held in the hand like a knife
3. this fruit grows readily in the Egyptian environment and is still grown there today
4. this fruit when dried will last a very long time
5. this fruit is real and not at all mythical
here it is


So they were cutting the Obelisk out using sun dried bananas


See, the banana theory is several stages more advanced than yours OP because yours doesn't even have five instantly provable facts supporting it, however I will not be making claims anytime soon, like you that Egyptology is ignoring my theory because that would obviously be ridiculous nonsense and the fact of me saying it would make me sound deluded
Five provable facts more than yours...


I will tell you in all fairness, that there is one provable fact that dismisses this theory completely, do you know what that is,
if not I'm sure Harte will be along shortly to tell you


edit on 2-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Marduk

Academic Egyptology which has more than proven its case, even demonstrating how it was done will carry on without your input.


That's fine with me, really. And I'm sure they'll carry on without the input of all others who address these kinds of problems, as they have done for 80+ years regarding the pounding theory.


First... what makes you think these questions WEREN'T asked or considered by Egyptologists and others? How do you think they came to the conclusion in the first place?

(that was a serious question. How do you think they came up with this?)

Second.... the 'pounding theory' is far older than 80 years. Egyptology as a study actually starts somewhere around 1200 AD (Muslim scholars attempting to translate and record monuments) - modern Egyptology gets started in the early 1800's by Napoleon's expedition to Egypt but these scientists of the 1830's also worked with even older documents from independent scholars who collected material and went to Egypt.

So if you want to blame someone for the pounded rock theory, you probably have to go back to even the ancient Greeks (Strabo- who described quarries) and criticize them.

In addition, the pounders weren't the only tool in use. As time went on, chisels became more durable and were seen more often, particularly iron chisels.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

There you go again denying the evidence you don't even know about
Can you show me the machine the Egyptians were using
can you describe and show the evidence of the power source
can you show me that the Egyptians even knew what Electricity was
can you show me that all the other cultures you apparently know nothing about had the same technology
can you tell me why those sites are littered with dolomite pounding stones, what were they, just decorative ?
Of course you can't, you don't have a single piece of evidence for something which if it existed would be EVERYWHERE
can you explain why you have no supporting evidence
can you tell me why in the two weeks this thread has been running the only site you linked to is a woo site and why you haven't done any research at all to forward your unproven untested hypothesis
Of course you can't, you have nothing
If I'm in an ivory tower, you my friend are in the intellectual gutter
have fun down there


Are you done educating humanity?



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

Everyone deserves a free education...





posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: rounda
So the carbon-dated 4th dynasty tomb pyramids are accurately dated, but the only human remains found in them to give credence to the tomb theory doesn't match the timeline, using the same carbon dating?

You're just #ing with me, right? You can't possibly believe what you're arguing, can you?

If the story don't add up, and you have to use a method of dating to corroborate the story, which coincidentally, can only measure the time as far back as *gasp* when they claim the pyramids were built... with only a 60% chance of being "accurate"... then you must accept the extreme possibility their explanation is, oh my goodness, wrong.

Ah you appear to have got your information on carbon dating from a creationist website and despite all the bluster, you haven't got a clue how it works have you... I mean apart from anything else, your later inhumation which is dated to a much later period seems to be a real problem for you, didn't you want the pyramids to be older, so why mention something inside them which is so well known to be a later addition that even bringing it up makes you sound unhinged..
Apart from anything else, you seem to be completely unaware of the heights of Sneferus pyramids, you think they are much smaller don't you, maybe you should check, because currently you are saying that Sneferu built those, when he is actually known as the one pharaoh who moved more rock for pyramids than any other, he could have built two great pyramids, But you're like, no they are completely inferior, the reverse is true and if you look at the way that Sneferus pyramids were constructed, they are like a set with the GP being the last in the line.

If I mention the quarry marks with Khufus name in them, are you going to come out with some bs from Zechariah Sitchin, well feel free, we could all do with a good laugh

thanks for playing


Again, I have to point out that the red pyramid, in your bull# theory, was built as a tomb, but not used as a tomb for hundreds of years...

You keep talking about quarry marks... yet your precious carbon dating can't date stone, so they prove nothing... and you conveniently ignore being wrong about the reliefs in the pyramids built before and after the 4th dynasty pyramids...

"thanks for playing"



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: rounda

Again, I have to point out that the red pyramid, in your bull# theory, was built as a tomb, but not used as a tomb for hundreds of years..."



Oh its my bull# theory now is it, yes feel free to ignore hundreds of years of scientific exploration in theory of a pile of crap you came up with before you saw any evidence, laughable, you're like a child playing wih a plug socket


You keep talking about quarry marks... yet your precious carbon dating can't date stone, so they prove nothing...

My precious carbon dating dates the organic material in the mortar, so that's
1. quarry marks you can't explain
2, carbon dating you can't explain
You really are saying that the Great pyramid was beyond the technology of the Egyptians, but "oh yeah, they took it completely apart and rebuilt it because that's easy", do you realise how completely absurd you sound



and you conveniently ignore being wrong about the reliefs in the pyramids built before and after the 4th dynasty pyramids...

"thanks for playing"

You are talking about reliefs as if they are the pyramid of Unas and so far you didn't produce any reliefs in pyramids, are you having memory failure or just being stupid, both ?Doesn't seem to matter to you that every time you talk about your "special" hypothesis you don't realise that
1. It doesn't have any supporting facts and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming
2, you ridicule your own intellect

thanks for playing.



edit on 6-3-2017 by Marduk because: edited spelling so the poor intellect i am conversing with can understand easier

edit on 6-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The credulous "You can't explain the Great pyramid. Yes because we accept that Sneferu built the Red and Meidum pyramids, at 105m tall, but the Great pyramid is so much bigger that it can't have been possible for the Egyptians to have done it"
Common sense and Academic Egyptology "But Sneferus two pyramids required more work and more stone than the Great pyramid which was only 40 metres taller, "
The credulous "But whoever built it must have been using advanced technology, because lost advanced high tech cultures always built with stone and copper tools"
Common sense and Academic Egyptology "And how do you explain the carbon dating"
The credulous "its irrelevant because you can't carbon date stone, so we decided to ignore it, they're lying when they said they dated organic materials in the mortar, because we need them to be liars otherwise we got nothing, you're wrong, we will get around to studying the facts later, you can't explain the Great pyramid"
Common sense and Academic Egyptology "lol whut"


to scale



edit on 6-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: rounda

Again, I have to point out that the red pyramid, in your bull# theory, was built as a tomb, but not used as a tomb for hundreds of years..."



Oh its my bull# theory now is it, yes feel free to ignore hundreds of years of scientific exploration in theory of a pile of crap you came up with before you saw any evidence, laughable, you're like a child playing wih a plug socket


You keep talking about quarry marks... yet your precious carbon dating can't date stone, so they prove nothing...

My precious carbon dating dates the organic material in the mortar, so that's
1. quarry marks you can't explain
2, carbon dating you can't explain
You really are saying that the Great pyramid was beyond the technology of the Egyptians, but "oh yeah, they took it completely apart and rebuilt it because that's easy", do you realise how completely absurd you sound



and you conveniently ignore being wrong about the reliefs in the pyramids built before and after the 4th dynasty pyramids...

"thanks for playing"

You are talking about reliefs as if they are the pyramid of Unas and so far you didn't produce any reliefs in pyramids, are you having memory failure or just being stupid, both ?Doesn't seem to matter to you that every time you talk about your "special" hypothesis you don't realise that
1. It doesn't have any supporting facts and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming
2, you ridicule your own intellect

thanks for playing.




You should probably go back and read that part about Djoser...

And again, quarry marks don't prove anything...

I don't have to "explain" carbon dating, since it's not accurate, and your carbon dating doesn't give credence to the tomb theory.

And who said anything about taking a pyramid apart and putting it back together again? Now you're just making stuff up because your feeble theory, backed by "science" doesn't make any sense... unless you're content in accepting a stupid story without using your own brain.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: rounda

You should probably go back and read that part about Djoser....


Oh this bit ?


In case you weren't aware, no pyramid had inscriptions in it until the fifth dynasty and they were all robbed in antiquity,

Where I said no pyramid had inscriptions in them until the fifth dynasty and you countered with


You mean like the relief of King Djoser running for the Hebsed celebration, found in the subterranean chambers of the Pyramid of Djoser? Or the statue of King Djoser found in the complex?


I mean, you seem to be having trouble with what you've already said, I said "In pyramids" which are typically sealed, you seem to think that any inscription even remotely nearby means "inside of" so just for you,

inside
noun: inside; plural noun: insides

1. the inner side or surface of something.
"wipe the inside of the windscreen"
2. the inner part; the interior.
"the inside of the car was like an oven"

Is English not your first language, you seem to be having trouble with the basics...





And again, quarry marks don't prove anything... .

They prove that the stones were laid by quarry men who called their group "KHUFUS GANG", which would be impossible if you were right...


I don't have to "explain" carbon dating, since it's not accurate, and your carbon dating doesn't give credence to the tomb theory..

Oh really, and do you have a source on why it isn't accurate, I mean apart from you as a source because you already admitted

originally posted by: rounda
a reply to: Harte

I like making stuff up.




And who said anything about taking a pyramid apart and putting it back together again? Now you're just making stuff up because your feeble theory, backed by "science" doesn't make any sense... unless you're content in accepting a stupid story without using your own brain.


Because you are clueless about the accuracy of radiocarbon dating and have consistently avoided the question with utter denial, which isn't an answer, then I will have to assume that as the radiocarbon dates come back to the fourth dynasty, that the fourth dynasty if you claim they didn't build it, must have taken it apart to renovate it and put in the extra mortar which destroys not only your idea but your credibility..
Not clever enough to build the pyramid, but clever enough to take it apart down to the foundations and rebuild it, like, what are you smoking over there,

Now if you want to carry on conversing here and not looking like a total idiot, perhaps you could actually start providing some sources..
because you're opinion here is totally worthless...
I mean I know that your sources are Zechariah Sitchin, AnswersinGenesis and Graham Hancock, but you seem a bit reticent to admit that you're a fanboy. Ashamed of yourself or something, or just ashamed of them...


oh and one last thing
Sneferu built all his pyramids as you already said
But Egyptians who had more knowledge than he did when he built the Meidum pyramid and the red pyramid, were incapable of building a pyramid which used less stone than his did

Did you think the Great Pyramid was much, much bigger. because to me it just looks like the third in the series of successes for the Sneferu family...


edit on 9-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Hey, smart guy... where was Djoser entombed?

Under the pyramid.

So reliefs found in the subterranean chambers leading to the burial chambers depicting Djoser means what?

Are you really this dense, or do you just enjoy being wrong? You like to throw out these insults as if you know what you're talking about, but you just can't grasp a simple concept that the only pyramids lacking identification of who they were built for happens to be the 4th dynasty pyramids... which, coincidentally, also happen to be more technologically advanced than the pyramids built after them... which means the people who built pyramids after the 4th dynasty magically forgot how to build pyramids.

"But there's some signs of people chipping some rocks! Technically, inside means just inside the triangle looking part!"
edit on 19-3-2017 by rounda because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: rounda
a reply to: Marduk

Hey, smart guy... where was Djoser entombed?

Under the pyramid.

So reliefs found in the subterranean chambers leading to the burial chambers depicting Djoser means what?

Are you really this dense, or do you just enjoy being wrong? You like to throw out these insults as if you know what you're talking about, but you just can't grasp a simple concept that the only pyramids lacking identification of who they were built for happens to be the 4th dynasty pyramids... which, coincidentally, also happen to be more technologically advanced than the pyramids built after them... which means the people who built pyramids after the 4th dynasty magically forgot how to build pyramids.


Actually, the pyramids at Giza are well-attested by writing found at the site itself. Just not on the inside (except for the so-called "graffiti.")
Funerary temples built on the outside attest to Khufu.
What happened after that was not "forgetting how to build pyramids." It was the circumstance that they could no longer afford to put so much into their construction.
The culture you're talking about changed over time, believe it or not. Perhaps you should look into what we know about that.

Harte



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Why do we bother speculating about the pyramids ?
Because some members (apparently with time machines)
were there and know for a fact how everything was built.
Just very patient copper chiselers with zero knowledge of acoustics
& dumb luck on preservation.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join