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.

 

Astonishing evidence of Atlantis kept from the public

page: 11
130
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Why are people so doubtful that ancient civilizations such as eqypt or rome couldnt have built the massive buildings, statues etc?

1 man, a mr Edward Leedskalnin in 1936 cut and moved over 1000 tons of limestone to create his castle in florida, by himself without the aid of machinery, 1 of the blocks weighs 30 ton.

Now imagine instead 10 000 men working on a structure? What could be achieved? The great pyramids? Easily.

Another thing ive often thought is with the pyramids spread around the world... to me it just seems an archetypal building pattern for pyramids.... blocks stacked that way are most efficient, peoples around the world came to the same conclusions.




posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Aye I see what you mean by bunker , but why advertise the location of your "bunker" in the way the egyptians did with their pyramids , seems like a bit of a target out there in the middle of the desert in plane sight

"Hi enemy we are hiding in here , destroy us if you can "

counter intuitive to make a huge bunker and sit it right out in the open instead of a mountain cave system .

Im sure it wasnt a bunker ! as for a energy grid defense system ? imagine if they were all aligned on ley lines of the earths energy for a reason and when activated they all unite to make a global defense energy shield !

they are all made from quartzite , red granite, black granite, limestone and gold right ? , all harmonically resonating structures according to many researchers , what if they are activated along these lines around the globe and it starts up a energy grid using the earths on magnetosphere and other energy systems ??




edit on 9-2-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: jommison

I am not doubtful of the tenacity of our species to do great things!

I am doubtful however that the Egyptians did build it , as they have no drawings of it etc , no architectural renderings , no calculations of load bearing structures etc
just the logistics of quarrying rock for the pyramids



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Harte

Why not just fill it in then? Why put a hatch. That makes zero sense. A hatch is to keep thing/people out of something. Concrete and you're done. I don't buy it.

Then don't buy it.
Doesn't change the facts.

The fact that the bit broke off was recorded.
The fact that the bit was removed was recorded.

Neither the original attempt (again, by Vyse IIRC) nor the repair was done in secret.

Harte



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

likely how much trouble would you get in if you tried to sneak into the sphinx at night and were caught ?

as Ive read a few reports on numerous japanese kids being caught by guards and taken to the station and held until they get bored and then take money of them !

adn they always let them go
edit on 9-2-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
An interesting idea as to how it was done

but again no written evidence from a civilisation that apparently recorded everything you'd think something this ingenious would have been documented



Just seen this as well for fun!
it would take 472 billion lego bricks to build the great pyramid , I wonder how many humans it would take and how many blocks an hour they'd need to lay down !



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: jommison I've been to Coral Castle and it is interesting and worth a visit but on display are his tools and guess what he had a block and tackle. Yes it would have been back breaking work but as I've said do-able with the tools available at the time



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: jommison I've been to Coral Castle and it is interesting and worth a visit but on display are his tools and guess what he had a block and tackle. Yes it would have been back breaking work but as I've said do-able with the tools available at the time


Definitely back breaking, but he also used an electric winch.

Somewhat less back breaking, that.

Harte



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: jommison
Why are people so doubtful that ancient civilizations such as eqypt or rome couldnt have built the massive buildings, statues etc?

1 man, a mr Edward Leedskalnin in 1936 cut and moved over 1000 tons of limestone to create his castle in florida, by himself without the aid of machinery, 1 of the blocks weighs 30 ton.

Now imagine instead 10 000 men working on a structure? What could be achieved? The great pyramids? Easily.

Another thing ive often thought is with the pyramids spread around the world... to me it just seems an archetypal building pattern for pyramids.... blocks stacked that way are most efficient, peoples around the world came to the same conclusions.


The blocks at Coral Castle are 30 tons. Egypt was never about the size of the limestone block, the debate was about the tools used to cut the limestone and what was the mechanism used to elevate the limestone block into position to make the Great Pyramid at Giza. At Baalbek, there is no machinery that could have lifted a 900-ton granite stone from a quarry.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I think the pyramid blocks were transported the same way as the large statues.

Like this...

www.google.com.au... #imgrc=CaCr7Kdr0SzVCM:

Coomba98.

Edit.
Pictures not working but its 8 down on the left
edit on 9-2-2018 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
If I lived near a river where there were a lot of really strong reeds available (like, say, The Nile), I'd slide some of those reeds underneath the blocks through small trenches, pull the reeds over the top, rolling the block as I went, and then tie the reeds so that they created a loop. Depending on the size of the block, you just do that until the block is essentially wrapped in a cylinder of reeds, and then roll it to where you want it to go.

Not a wheel, exactly. But it seems like it would be relatively easy to do, with the benefit of being able to reuse the reeds until they wore out. I've heard that some people think the Stonehenge rocks might have been moved that way. And they didn't even have those nice reeds.




posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: jommison
Why are people so doubtful that ancient civilizations such as eqypt or rome couldnt have built the massive buildings, statues etc?

1 man, a mr Edward Leedskalnin in 1936 cut and moved over 1000 tons of limestone to create his castle in florida, by himself without the aid of machinery, 1 of the blocks weighs 30 ton.


There are books and photos about Ed - and he used modern machinery. I've visited Coral Castle and they have his setup there. He had help moving things (including using friends' trucks) and he even had high school shop classes come to Coral Castle so he could show the boys how he moved and built things.


Another thing ive often thought is with the pyramids spread around the world... to me it just seems an archetypal building pattern for pyramids.... blocks stacked that way are most efficient, peoples around the world came to the same conclusions.


(sigh) That would be a great idea, but it doesn't explain why there's a 1,000 year gap between the building of pyramids in Egypt and the building of pyramids elsewhere (Egyptians had not been building pyramids for a long time.)



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
If I lived near a river where there were a lot of really strong reeds available (like, say, The Nile), I'd slide some of those reeds underneath the blocks through small trenches, pull the reeds over the top, rolling the block as I went, and then tie the reeds so that they created a loop. Depending on the size of the block, you just do that until the block is essentially wrapped in a cylinder of reeds, and then roll it to where you want it to go.

Not a wheel, exactly. But it seems like it would be relatively easy to do, with the benefit of being able to reuse the reeds until they wore out. I've heard that some people think the Stonehenge rocks might have been moved that way. And they didn't even have those nice reeds.





They used sledges of wood. There's even pictures of them moving things on sledges.

The reeds in Egypt are papyrus and very thin. They wouldn't make wheels. In addition, wheels are not very good on sand.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: jommison
Why are people so doubtful that ancient civilizations such as eqypt or rome couldnt have built the massive buildings, statues etc?

1 man, a mr Edward Leedskalnin in 1936 cut and moved over 1000 tons of limestone to create his castle in florida, by himself without the aid of machinery, 1 of the blocks weighs 30 ton.

Now imagine instead 10 000 men working on a structure? What could be achieved? The great pyramids? Easily.

Another thing ive often thought is with the pyramids spread around the world... to me it just seems an archetypal building pattern for pyramids.... blocks stacked that way are most efficient, peoples around the world came to the same conclusions.


The blocks at Coral Castle are 30 tons. Egypt was never about the size of the limestone block, the debate was about the tools used to cut the limestone and what was the mechanism used to elevate the limestone block into position to make the Great Pyramid at Giza. At Baalbek, there is no machinery that could have lifted a 900-ton granite stone from a quarry.

No 900 ton stone was lifted from the Baalbek quarry, so it's not really a problem at all, is it?

Harte



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Harte

Why not just fill it in then? Why put a hatch. That makes zero sense. A hatch is to keep thing/people out of something. Concrete and you're done. I don't buy it.

Then don't buy it.
Doesn't change the facts.

The fact that the bit broke off was recorded.
The fact that the bit was removed was recorded.

Neither the original attempt (again, by Vyse IIRC) nor the repair was done in secret.

Harte


That doesn’t explain why they put a hatch there though does it?

Also It is unknown who made the hole in the head of the Sphinx but it is Theorised the hole began as a means of fixing a headdress in the manner of the new kingdom. Then was later deepened in search of hidden chambers.

Vyse drilled a hole on the back of the Sphinx about 4ft away from the head and approx 27 feet deep. The drill bit did indeed break off, and he tried to extract it with dynamite. Thankfully he gave up with that before he caused further damage.

There are holes,boxes, shafts, as well as natural fissures all over and around the Sphinx. Which apparently go nowhere and have been covered either with stone or filled with cement in the name of restoration. However a Japanese team from the Waseda University did a survey and found the following.


The results were: A. South of the Sphinx. The Japanese indicated the existence of a hollow 2.5 m. to 3 m. underground. And, they found indications of a groove on the Sphinx body that extends beneath the Sphinx. B. North of the Sphinx. The Japanese found another groove similar to the southern one which may indicate that maybe there is a tunnel underneath the Sphinx connecting the south and north grooves. C. In front of the two paws of the Sphinx. The Japanese found another hollow space about 1 m. to 2 m. below surface. Again, they believe that it might extend underneath the Sphinx. The conclusion of the Japanese work suggests that the sanctuary of the Sphinx contains more cavities below the Sphinx than were previously known.


And this


The combined data collected by the recent research at Giza resulted in the indications that there is/are: 1. Hollows located under the Sphinx as yet, not identified. 2. Cavities running from north to south underneath the Sphinx. 3. A tunnel south of the pyramid of Khufu ...


Highlighting mine.
Source

edit on 10-2-2018 by surfer_soul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Harte

Why not just fill it in then? Why put a hatch. That makes zero sense. A hatch is to keep thing/people out of something. Concrete and you're done. I don't buy it.

Then don't buy it.
Doesn't change the facts.

The fact that the bit broke off was recorded.
The fact that the bit was removed was recorded.

Neither the original attempt (again, by Vyse IIRC) nor the repair was done in secret.

Harte


That doesn’t explain why they put a hatch there though does it?

Also It is unknown who made the hole in the head of the Sphinx but it is Theorised the hole began as a means of fixing a headdress in the manner of the new kingdom. Then was later deepened in search of hidden chambers.

Vyse drilled a hole on the back of the Sphinx about 4ft away from the head and approx 27 feet deep. The drill bit did indeed break off, and he tried to extract it with dynamite. Thankfully he gave up with that before he caused further damage.

There are holes,boxes, shafts, as well as natural fissures all over and around the Sphinx. Which apparently go nowhere and have been covered either with stone or filled with cement in the name of restoration. However a Japanese team from the Waseda University did a survey and found the following.


The results were: A. South of the Sphinx. The Japanese indicated the existence of a hollow 2.5 m. to 3 m. underground. And, they found indications of a groove on the Sphinx body that extends beneath the Sphinx. B. North of the Sphinx. The Japanese found another groove similar to the southern one which may indicate that maybe there is a tunnel underneath the Sphinx connecting the south and north grooves. C. In front of the two paws of the Sphinx. The Japanese found another hollow space about 1 m. to 2 m. below surface. Again, they believe that it might extend underneath the Sphinx. The conclusion of the Japanese work suggests that the sanctuary of the Sphinx contains more cavities below the Sphinx than were previously known.


And this


The combined data collected by the recent research at Giza resulted in the indications that there is/are: 1. Hollows located under the Sphinx as yet, not identified. 2. Cavities running from north to south underneath the Sphinx. 3. A tunnel south of the pyramid of Khufu ...


Source

A 30 year old source.

The supposed cavities mentioned in the Japanese study were examined during the groundwater study performed several years after that finding.
Typical fissuring you can find in ANY limestone bed.

Now, you either left that part of the story out in order to mislead, or you don't know much about the subject.

Harte
edit on 2/10/2018 by Harte because: of the wonderful things he does!



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Harte

Why not just fill it in then? Why put a hatch. That makes zero sense. A hatch is to keep thing/people out of something. Concrete and you're done. I don't buy it.

Then don't buy it.
Doesn't change the facts.

The fact that the bit broke off was recorded.
The fact that the bit was removed was recorded.

Neither the original attempt (again, by Vyse IIRC) nor the repair was done in secret.

Harte


That doesn’t explain why they put a hatch there though does it?

Also It is unknown who made the hole in the head of the Sphinx but it is Theorised the hole began as a means of fixing a headdress in the manner of the new kingdom.
Source


This is true, that I conflated Perring's hole with the one in the head.
However, your own source states that the hole in the head was cemented over. And your source (catchpenny) includes a pic of an actual sphinx with the sort of headpiece theorized.

On the other hand, what other theory concerning this hole is backed by anything at all other than pure speculation?

Harte



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Why did you quote me but deliberately leave out the part out about the results? It seems to me you’re the one attempting to mislead here...

Or show me the more recent survey undertaken that backs up what you claim. Because I can’t find it.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte




On the other hand, what other theory concerning this hole is backed by anything at all other than pure speculation?


I didn’t propose another theory for the hole in the head. But while where on the subject let’s noy forget the headdress theory is also speculation, only suggested because there are examples of such in later kingdoms. Is there any evidence of such a headdress besides the hole?



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Harte

Why did you quote me but deliberately leave out the part out about the results? It seems to me you’re the one attempting to mislead here...

Or show me the more recent survey undertaken that backs up what you claim. Because I can’t find it.

Because the study that is your source is 30 years old.
I handed you far more recent results.

That Japanese survey has been discussed and cited hundreds of times here at ATS since I've been a member. The results have been explained by actual excavation (drilling) and the use of cameras.
There's a story about it here: www.scribd.com... 79-YSI-Level-Scouts-Monitor-Groundwater-Beneath-the-Sphinx


Researchers drilled four boreholes four-inches in diameter and 20 meters (66 feet) deep into the bedrock
beneath the Sphinx. They dropped cameras into the four-inch boreholes to look into the rocks supporting the statue.


Or, you could read the snark written by Phillip Coppens concerning this, if you care to. He dwells on the semantics of a quote from Zahi Hawass.

Harte




top topics



 
130
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join