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.

 

Why does it seem so few will accept the obvious?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
exactly... why are so many people eager to run around theorizing without reading the evidence? no writings about the building of the 'great pyramid'..a feat that is therorized to have taken about 20 years and hundreds of thousands of workers over time. a simple minded culture that was not intelligent enough to acuratly depict what they saw ( you know, all those fanciful writings and glyphs about god kings flying around ect) could move 10,40,100,200, 400 ton rocks around. and that the pyramids just happen to have some mathamatical equations in thier size as just a coincidence........among a slew of other issues.....

researchers are just saying what is needed in order to get thier grants,...... to tow the line and dismiss thousands of years of evidence because it would mean that alot of what they think they know is actually wrong, that they missed the clues left behind, that there are 'issues' that should be looked at but wont.

the facts are there.....................




posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Woah, hold on there my friend. The pyramid is the ONLY possible shape that be could be built with those materials? How did you reason that?
Also, could you explain how they were built, do you have a working model?


At that size, yes. It really is. They couldn't do towers that high (they could have carved it if they had a proper-sized formation, but there weren't formations of that kind (ala Petra) around there), and cylinders presented some huge challenges (lots more material needed and not as stable.)

And yes, they had thousands of working models. The mastabas, the step pyramids, and the notorious "bent pyramid" which had a lot of problems.
www.crystalinks.com...

Of the 110 or so pyramids in Egypt, the oldest is actually north of Giza (called the Red Pyramid.) So Egyptians already had a good handle on how to do this before they started Giza:
homepage.powerup.com.au...



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
exactly... why are so many people eager to run around theorizing without reading the evidence? no writings about the building of the 'great pyramid'..

You apparently missed the National Geographic specials and Discovery Channel specials on these. There's a lot of writings there about it, including accounts of when loads of stone arrived and the names of the work crew teams.



a simple minded culture that was not intelligent enough to acuratly depict what they saw ( you know, all those fanciful writings and glyphs about god kings flying around ect) could move 10,40,100,200, 400 ton rocks around. and that the pyramids just happen to have some mathamatical equations in thier size as just a coincidence........among a slew of other issues.....

You might like to do some reading on their engineering and so forth. Or just look at the old temples.

And no, there weren't any writings about god kings flying around. They did write about their god-kings. I have a couple of books on how to read hieroglyphics that I recommend to folks. That way, you can read the inscriptions for yourself.


researchers are just saying what is needed in order to get thier grants,...... to tow the line and dismiss thousands of years of evidence because it would mean that alot of what they think they know is actually wrong, that they missed the clues left behind, that there are 'issues' that should be looked at but wont.


I do hope you'll consider going to school and becoming an archaeologist.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Byrd is so right.

There have been documentaries showing exactlyh how the pyramids were built and actually they re-enacted the scene and managed to move one block of stone similar in those used for pyramids, for a pretty good distance (without any machinery, just wooden axes and ropes).
Obviously it took thousands to do the work, and thousand died in the process, but building the pyramids have been proved possible to do with the technology they had at the time.

The questions could be why they used that shape and how they got the idea of doing that.

Another thing. I read many books on the theory of an alien intervention that helped or even ordered the pyramids to be built. Mostly they base their "idea" on the mathematical and astronomical "references" found in the pyramid dimensions and various measurements.

Now, before I conclude on that, let me specify that I am someone who believes in the existence of life on other planets/solar systems, but some are really out of touch with reality when spitting out wild theories (never based on proofs, by the way).

Regarding the pyramid measurements that would hide astronomical and mathematical datas, as I read I read several books on that and most are simply ridicolous. In fact they would use all possible measurement units and systems (cubits, yard, kilometers, you name it) and then try to find a possible connection.
In this way it is pretty easy to find "something" as sooner or later you will catch a number who can be referred to something else. And if it does not work in cubits, it will be transformed in another measure and make it work.

So, those theories are really on very thin ice.

And again, there are many good documentaries on TV, so watch them; you will get some answers even if not all of them. Unless one doesn't want to watch them because they offer proofs that would unfold his beliefs.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
And no, there weren't any writings about god kings flying around. They did write about their god-kings.


Byrd! Please let me teach you to fly. Then I can show you about the Duat. Ooops, no, we are talking about Egypt! I mean, ancient Egypt! Oh bother... Ptah!

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I am not a great studier or thinker of all this..thou i do live in my own world in a way thou know that i am not an island
i have not read back 2 far in this page..but i can say there is a great difference between the beginning of pyramid building and the end..
the begginning was greater....

if they did not fly then why the modern day helicopter in writtings ,why the little ufos and the pyramid apex flying off with some one in it..
thou i dont think the top actually flew off...thou there is a lot of electricity inside them near the top..
pyramids are powerful....i imagine a pyramid of light around me when needed for protection or when connecting with other people in other ways..and ..aaaaaa anyways



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The pyramids evolved over millions of years from dirt. Dirt started just scattered around beaches and deserts and such. Then it started to organize. It started to evolve into rocks of all shapes. Then it learned how to form itself into perfect blocks. Then dirt gained religion and it longed to reach God. So it built itself into the pyramids we see today.

Oh, and on topic. I think more people don't wonder why because they don't readily see any implications of further inquiry. What's the most one can expect from further inquiry? Months in the desert studing rock? Some people do enjoy that but I doubt the majority of people would find it appealing. Just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd




And yes, they had thousands of working models. The mastabas, the step pyramids, and the notorious "bent pyramid" which had a lot of problems.
www.crystalinks.com...

Of the 110 or so pyramids in Egypt, the oldest is actually north of Giza (called the Red Pyramid.) So Egyptians already had a good handle on how to do this before they started Giza:
homepage.powerup.com.au...


Of course, the chronological order of construction of the pyramids is taught as though it were indisputable fact. Though widely accepted as proven, the basis for this order and these dates is not enough to convince me that it is certain. In fact, much of it is pure speculation and conjecture. Study the research of geologist Robert Schoch regarding the age of the Sphinx for a good example of the physical evidence contradicting the presently promoted time period of its creation. At the least, it raises some reasonable doubt.
As for the documentaries purporting to show how the Giza pyramid was built, I have seen many, and have yet to see one that is not quite easily disproven as being possible given the tools and technology that the people of that time period possessed.
The 200 ton granite block in the ceiling of the King's chamber, 225 feet above ground level is a tough engineering trick even today. And the drill bit marks in the sarcophagus are unexplained as well. There is no known drill that could cut stone that hard that deeply with each revolution, to this day.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Byrd! Please let me teach you to fly. Then I can show you about the Duat.

Nothing about ancient Egypt on that page...



Ooops, no, we are talking about Egypt! I mean, ancient Egypt!
The writers of that page need to go back and check their sources. According to the Egyptians themselves, Duat is specifically the land of the dead


Translators also give it as the "netherworld":
tut-ankh-amun.tripod.com...

...etc, etc, etc...
www.civilization.ca...
www.cwru.edu...
...etc, etc, etc.



Oh bother... Ptah!

Nothing about flying there. "ascending to the throne," yes... but that word is not specifically "flying." It's "rising/ascending." They did have words for flying. That wasn't it.

[edit on 23-2-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Of course, the chronological order of construction of the pyramids is taught as though it were indisputable fact. Though widely accepted as proven, the basis for this order and these dates is not enough to convince me that it is certain.

So you're saying the ancient Egyptians who wrote the inscriptions in the pyramids and in the chapels next to them are lying through their collective teeth when they record the name of the deceased and the lineage and the years of their reign?

Or, perhaps, that the Rosetta Stone (the key to translating the hieroglyphics) wasn't really the same text in 3 languages but rather 3 different texts and nobody's noticed it after 200 years of scholars working intensively on this and all the other texts?

Or are you basing your opinon on "someone whose website I liked said so"?


In fact, much of it is pure speculation and conjecture. Study the research of geologist Robert Schoch regarding the age of the Sphinx for a good example of the physical evidence contradicting the presently promoted time period of its creation. At the least, it raises some reasonable doubt.

It does, though I haven't studied it in great detail. However, his dates wouldn't change things much.



As for the documentaries purporting to show how the Giza pyramid was built, I have seen many, and have yet to see one that is not quite easily disproven as being possible given the tools and technology that the people of that time period possessed.


You must not have watched the ones I did, where they used the same tools as the ancients did.


The 200 ton granite block in the ceiling of the King's chamber, 225 feet above ground level is a tough engineering trick even today. And the drill bit marks in the sarcophagus are unexplained as well. There is no known drill that could cut stone that hard that deeply with each revolution, to this day.


The Egyptians had plenty of experience working granite. The largest quarries were near Aswan, and they used the material in building many of their temples (and some of those have very weighty sections.) A granite sarcophagus ain't that much...
www.summittoursegypt.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

It wouldn't matter how many slaves there were, the design and engineering genius are unique. Unmatched since. We still would likely not be able to duplicate it. I say likely, cuz who knows for sure. Without a plan though, it seems doubtful.


We've shown, duplicated, and documented exactly how they were built, as did the Egyptians. There are plenty of records (as Byrd pointed out) regarding the construction.

As for the pyramid being the ONLY shape, I'll disagree. A cone would also suffice, but that's really just a rounded pyramid, hehe... They didn't have buttresses, arches, etc. so yes, a cone or pyramid would be the logical shape to achieve a tall structure. Why? Simple. Go to the beach. Try to make the tallest structure you can out of sand and water (or stone if the beach has it), using the architectural knowledge of the day. What do you think that structure will be? It'll be either a pyramid or a cone.
A pyramid is simply the more stylish of the two choices... Some early pyramids had only three sides, some had more, the idea is the same.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

So you're saying the ancient Egyptians who wrote the inscriptions in the pyramids and in the chapels next to them are lying through their collective teeth when they record the name of the deceased and the lineage and the years of their reign?

Or, perhaps, that the Rosetta Stone (the key to translating the hieroglyphics) wasn't really the same text in 3 languages but rather 3 different texts and nobody's noticed it after 200 years of scholars working intensively on this and all the other texts?

Or are you basing your opinon on "someone whose website I liked said so"?


In fact, much of it is pure speculation and conjecture. Study the research of geologist Robert Schoch regarding the age of the Sphinx for a good example of the physical evidence contradicting the presently promoted time period of its creation. At the least, it raises some reasonable doubt.

It does, though I haven't studied it in great detail. However, his dates wouldn't change things much.



As for the documentaries purporting to show how the Giza pyramid was built, I have seen many, and have yet to see one that is not quite easily disproven as being possible given the tools and technology that the people of that time period possessed.


You must not have watched the ones I did, where they used the same tools as the ancients did.


The 200 ton granite block in the ceiling of the King's chamber, 225 feet above ground level is a tough engineering trick even today. And the drill bit marks in the sarcophagus are unexplained as well. There is no known drill that could cut stone that hard that deeply with each revolution, to this day.


The Egyptians had plenty of experience working granite. The largest quarries were near Aswan, and they used the material in building many of their temples (and some of those have very weighty sections.) A granite sarcophagus ain't that much...
www.summittoursegypt.com...


The Giza Pyramid has no credible inscriptions inside it at all. The only claimed ones are very likely forged, and were a few glyphs in a relieving chamber above the Kings chamber, purportedly painted there by workers.

I don't know why you assume I would discredit the Rosetta Stone, or even the reigns of the pharoahs. I did not do that at all, I merely pointed out that the attribution of the construction of the Giza pyramid to Khufu, Cheops, whoever, is likely erroneous, imho.

I guess I missed the documentary where they used copper blades and wooden wedges, levers, ramps, and ropes to shape half a million different sized blocks of stone, and placed a 200 ton granite block 225 feet up off ground level.

As for the snide, derisive, insulting 'some website I liked' comment...........I knew this stuff before there was an internet..........so I guess NO would be my reply.

I guess we could just agree to disagree, huh?



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I think what really lets the cat out of the bag is the Pyramids imitations around the Giza Pyramids, looks like sombody failed to reproduce something.....



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Again the wonderful word of 'proof' springs to mind. There is no evidence supporting the idea of any high tech systems being employed to build the pyramids, never underestimate the power of slave labour.

Why is it so hard for people to accept the obvious fact that the pyramids were built by men?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Again the wonderful word of 'proof' springs to mind. There is no evidence supporting the idea of any high tech systems being employed to build the pyramids, never underestimate the power of slave labour.

Why is it so hard for people to accept the obvious fact that the pyramids were built by men?


I have no problem with the idea men built them, in fact, there is no reason to think otherwise. My only difference in view is that I don't feel any amount of slave labour could have done it. The planning and design are extremely high level, and the accuracy that the Giza pyramid's angles and lines are built to far exceed any possible necessity. It is hundreds of times more true to square than the average modern building.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
BG 13 'And the drill bit marks in the sarcophagus are unexplained as well. There is no known drill that could cut stone that hard that deeply with each revolution, to this day.'

A granite sarcophagus ain't that much...
www.summittoursegypt.com...

Here is the 1st line re: the great pyramid, from the link that you provided....
How the Great Pyramid was built is a question that may never be answered

regarding the sarcophagus, the anomalous drillbit marks are what I find amazing, not the stone box itself.

[edit on 2/26/2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Why couldnt the Egyptians manage to accurately place their buildings in the alignments they wanted?

There is still no evidence that any technology beyond slaves, rollers and ropes was used in the construction of these pyramids or any other from the ancient world.

The egyptians could write, therefore they would have written about there machinery, they didnt, ergo no machines.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
It is hundreds of times more true to square than the average modern building.


Sorry, but I've no idea what you mean by this. Any chance you could elaborate and showing some supporting data?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
So could the records the egyptians have and the ruins of work camps near the pyramids be the remains of a huge "restoration" project for the great pyramids? Could the bent pyramids and smaller ones be attempts to copy the great pyramids?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
the ancient pyramids..the first ones..are much more elaborate..more precision etc yada..i would say the later ones built my lack of some knowledge,,it was taken away..lost..

i would say the later ones slaved built..

and you can not listen to everything nat.geographic says or the smithonian etc says all the way...they do have an attic where things are hidden..for good reasons..because it would go against what we know..what scientist have been saying...there is a physics beyonf the way we know it..
has anyone heard of the caves found in the late 1800s in the grand canyon..hundreds of chambers/rooms found with hieroglyphics that were ancient egyptian..it was sealed off and denyed..to the public....i doubted it at first..then recently i found where a camel and one of mastadons or something was found together with tools as well..in the usa in the dessert or somewhere kentucky??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join