Astonishing evidence of Atlantis kept from the public

originally posted by: surfer_soul
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?

The point is, there is no entrance to a secret chamber in the head or body of the sphinx there. The hole was there for anyone who could get up there to stand in for literally decades.

You yourself didn't propose this, but the thread has. We are not having a private conversation here.

Obviously drilling 20 meters down isn't going to be good enough for the fringe. They can always claim the "secret chambers" are 21 meters down, can't they.

I'd point out that the origin of the claim that there is a chamber (or chambers) down there is with Edgar Cayce.
But his group, A.R.E. was allowed to explore the idea at Giza and they seem to be satisfied that the findings from the groundwater study invalidate the claim.

I won't state emphatically that there isn't a chamber, just that "voids" found through subsurface seismic studies - specifically the Japanese one - but also including another, earlier one - were explained by the groundwater study.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte The point is, there is no entrance to a secret chamber in the head or body of the sphinx there. The hole was there for anyone who could get up there to stand in for literally decades.

It looks like this explanatory video went right over your head. Clearly it's presented that the hole's been there for at least over a century if not thousands of years after it's mention in 1914 in the book "remarkable discoveries within the Sphinx - the temple within its hollow head" by professor George A. Reisner. George was an American archeologist of Egypt. Plus the article in the Australian paper talking more about it.

Hey man, I just want to say thanks for putting all these videos in one place for us to look at!

I genuinely appreciate it and have found a bunch of what has been covered in the ones I've seen so far to be quite fascinating. At least the first few Egypt ones have been and he's done very well at going out and finding real pictures and etc to support and connect so much of what he talks about!

The questions he's asking are very good and logical questions that show his utter lack of an agenda beyond wanting to know the truth and get to the bottom of why there seems to be agendas of every sort around these sites and their history in the mainstream, NONE OF WHICH have anything to do with finding the actual truth!

There's more interesting stuff and pictures etc to back up the interesting stuff in the videos you link in this thread than I've seen on any dozen or more Ats Egypt threads ever!

originally posted by: roguetechie
Hey man, I just want to say thanks for putting all these videos in one place for us to look at!

I genuinely appreciate it and have found a bunch of what has been covered in the ones I've seen so far to be quite fascinating. At least the first few Egypt ones have been and he's done very well at going out and finding real pictures and etc to support and connect so much of what he talks about!

The questions he's asking are very good and logical questions that show his utter lack of an agenda beyond wanting to know the truth and get to the bottom of why there seems to be agendas of every sort around these sites and their history in the mainstream, NONE OF WHICH have anything to do with finding the actual truth!

There's more interesting stuff and pictures etc to back up the interesting stuff in the videos you link in this thread than I've seen on any dozen or more Ats Egypt threads ever!

I don't know if Jimmy is actually ignorant, purposefully ignorant, or attempting to use disinfo to get YouTube hits.
For example, EVERY so-called "tunnel" he talks about in the sphinx has been looked into and written about over the last 150 years. There is no "secret" or "coverup" there.

If there was, then we wouldn't be able to read the reports about them (made by Egyptologists themselves.)
The fact that the average person doesn't know about them doesn't make them a secret.
Hell, the average person doesn't even know that the sphinx was carved from an existing stone protrusion, and not constructed at all.
The AE's covered it with stone to make it into a statue because the underlying limestone has several layers that are too soft.

This guy is breathlessly announcing to the world his own ignorance (unless, as I said, he's just saying it for hits,) and using the same "facts" that dozens of other fringers have been using since the 1960s to sell books and get spots in paid "conferences."

Most people won't bother to learn enough about the AEs to be able to find a reasonable explanation because learning is hard and YouTube is easy. That doesn't mean these things aren't explainable.
For example, it seems "everyone agrees" that there are two to three million blocks in the GP. But that is simply not the case at all. People think the thing is constructed completely of blocks like we see on the outside, but it's not.
Also, the blocks we do see are certainly not "carved" or "placed with exacting precision" like he tries (like the dozens of fringe authors before him) to imply.

The fact of the matter is, nobody knows how many shaped stones there are in the GP. The core (or what we can see of it) is made of stones of a wide variety of shapes and sizes that are mortared together into a mound. Huge voids exist behind what we see as the outer layer of stones, in the places where we can get to and see them. Voids filled with stone rubble, sand and huge globs of mortar.
The stone count Jimmy is using comes from taking the average size of the (now) exterior stones and calculating the number of them required to create a SOLID pyramid of the size we see.
Obviously, the GP is not solid. I mean, we've been in the chambers. And he doesn't mention that the GP was constructed over a small hill (the extent of which nobody knows.) The hill makes up part of the volume as well.

Harte

I would address more of his baseless claims, but I've done that multiple times here at ATS and I tire of it. I suggest searching here for the info, but the search function here is not that great (unless they've changed it since I last tried it years ago,) so I suggest using a site-specific google search, like this one:
Link to a ATS site-specific google search

Use different search terms for different things. It helps to use the quotation mark feature, or you'll be wading through so much BS you might never get to an explanation.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

I don't know if Jimmy is actually ignorant, purposefully ignorant, or attempting to use disinfo to get YouTube hits.
For example, EVERY so-called "tunnel" he talks about in the sphinx has been looked into and written about over the last 150 years. There is no "secret" or "coverup" there.

You've just walked straight into that. Ok so provide scientific documented evidence of what has been found beyond what is publicly shown of sphinx excavations. For example - at part 5:49 it's explained that in the 70's Mark Laner was the first to excavate the tunnels underneath, whom he and Zahi Hawass denied the existence of for decades. SO we already know there is a covefr up. www.philipcoppens.com...

If there was, then we wouldn't be able to read the reports about them (made by Egyptologists themselves.)

reports that arent damaging of the current historical narrative.

The fact that the average person doesn't know about them doesn't make them a secret.
Hell, the average person doesn't even know that the sphinx was carved from an existing stone protrusion, and not constructed at all.

It does when the information isnt even remotely introduced and discussed into informative documentaries, or basic info in books. In the vids ive posted, its demonstrated that what is revealed, has further boundaries to be explored that are claimed to be either unexplored or are a dead exit.

The fact of the matter is, nobody knows how many shaped stones there are in the GP.

Woudnt take much to equip a scanner like what was used for the latest Mayan findings, to a plane, see all the holes and what have you inside.

a reply to: andre18


Zawi is an Egyptologist, all this stuff is way beyond his brief. The stuff is coming in fast and furious, if he finds something big then he will be relevant.

originally posted by: Harte

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

Well the trouble with that is, they were drilling holes to monitor the supporting bedrock of the Sphinx because of concerns about rising groundwater levels, which the Scribd page goes into in detail. It says nothing about looking for shafts or tunnels beneath the Sphinx or any attempt to confirm or discredit the Japanese survey.

I have been a member of this site since 2008 and a lurker a few years before that. I find it odd that I’ve somehow missed the hundreds of mentions of the Japanese survey and how it has somehow been proved wrong? I’ve downloaded a copy of the PDF from the Waseda University and their findings look legitimate enough to me.

For those interested the PDF is available here Waseda survey PDF

ETA I’ve found a YouTube vid of Hawass and Lehner where he states that while drilling it should be possible to put to rest all these theories that some kind of a tunnel or chamber exist under the Sphinx.
[yvid]3qGzfZHWbZE[/yvid

However Hawass goes on to say that new agers have asked to be allowed to drill under the the left paw. But the Japanese survey mentions nothing of a hollow or groove in that area. Why weren’t they drilling where a Japanese university team found hollows, instead of drilling new agers thought it was?

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.

originally posted by: Byrd
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.

I'm just saying what I would do. I know they used sledges on mud lubricated with water certainly for the larger statutes that couldn't be rolled, and that would certainly be my best bet for those kinds of things.

I would of course weave the reeds into something that would be more like a stiff rope. The Egyptians built boats out of those reeds, after all, so creating a reed cocoon to roll a rock seems doable. And as far as them working well on the sand, I can't imagine that there were a lot of loose sand piles around pyramid construction sites; semi-temporary ramps or roads would be there, so it shouldn't be that much of a factor. But even if there was, I think if it was done correctly to increase the surface area on the sand it would create a kind of "snowshoe" effect that would keep it on the surface.

Just thinking about what skills they already had that could be repurposed to move large rocks and put them in place. You could roll them up level by level using the pulley system in the Grand Gallery. Wouldn't even have to build a ramp.

Just pondering.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Harte

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

Well the trouble with that is, they were drilling holes to monitor the supporting bedrock of the Sphinx because of concerns about rising groundwater levels, which the Scribd page goes into in detail. It says nothing about looking for shafts or tunnels beneath the Sphinx or any attempt to confirm or discredit the Japanese survey.

I have been a member of this site since 2008 and a lurker a few years before that. I find it odd that I’ve somehow missed the hundreds of mentions of the Japanese survey and how it has somehow been proved wrong? I’ve downloaded a copy of the PDF from the Waseda University and their findings look legitimate enough to me.

For those interested the PDF is available here Waseda survey PDF

ETA I’ve found a YouTube vid of Hawass and Lehner where he states that while drilling it should be possible to put to rest all these theories that some kind of a tunnel or chamber exist under the Sphinx.
[yvid]3qGzfZHWbZE[/yvid

However Hawass goes on to say that new agers have asked to be allowed to drill under the the left paw. But the Japanese survey mentions nothing of a hollow or groove in that area. Why weren’t they drilling where a Japanese university team found hollows, instead of drilling new agers thought it was?

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.

If you saw the link I provided, you know they sank 4 holes, not just one by the left paw.

Obviously, they could have missed a chamber, but it's unlikely, given that one of the was holes against the left side of the sphinx, about halfway down the length of the statue.


I'd point out that there remains no evidence whatsoever of any chamber, and no reason at all to believe there is one (other than personal preference for an exciting idea,) and the groundwater survey is only the latest physical subsurface investigation. There were others before, just none as thorough or deep.

Harte

I am always surprised when seemingly intelligent, grown beings still argue against hidden history/knowledge when we have seen so much of it in our own lifetimes.
For example, I never heard of Tesla until I was in my late 20’s, Tesla’s name was never uttered in my all American public school system, never ever never!
Fast forward 20 plus years and my daughters know the name Tesla and they have a brief study of his accomplishments in middle and high school but oh so very brief!
There was a push 10 years ago or so to give Tesla is much deserved acknowledgment that TPTB could no longer deny after all this was hidden knowledge that was still fairly modern but his work that was seized after his death is still “missing” (yet we have had vast technological advancements) and again Tesla is fairly modern, hidden knowledge of such age could be easily 97% hidden from the general public.
We are such silly little beings, denying what already exists!

originally posted by: SEEWHATUDO
I am always surprised when seemingly intelligent, grown beings still argue against hidden history/knowledge when we have seen so much of it in our own lifetimes.
For example, I never heard of Tesla until I was in my late 20’s, Tesla’s name was never uttered in my all American public school system, never ever never!
Fast forward 20 plus years and my daughters know the name Tesla and they have a brief study of his accomplishments in middle and high school but oh so very brief!
There was a push 10 years ago or so to give Tesla is much deserved acknowledgment that TPTB could no longer deny after all this was hidden knowledge that was still fairly modern but his work that was seized after his death is still “missing” (yet we have had vast technological advancements) and again Tesla is fairly modern, hidden knowledge of such age could be easily 97% hidden from the general public.
We are such silly little beings, denying what already exists!

Nobody denied Tesla. In fact, he was celebrated by the public in his heyday and eventually became the symbol or archetype of what society calls a "mad scientist."
But I would agree that history in k-12 is lacking. Maybe if teachers didn't have to teach kids how to act, more in depth study could result.
The period is usually classified in those elementary histories as "The Age of Invention," and there is maybe a paragraph about each of several inventors. Edison is included, but Tesla is often left out because his inventions were of a technical nature. Edison had the phonograph and lightbulb, Bell the phone, etc. all things that are highly visible in our society whereas Tesla's inventions, though vital, are unseen by most people.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

You know you’re growing on me Harte, I’ll reply to your reply to me later. But there are people who deny what Tesla actually achieved as much there are those that claim he did things he didn’t. I put it down to general ignorance and personal beliefs myself. On both sides...

I don’t even recall being taught history at school as such, it was shuffled into The broader subject of humanities, and that was a long time ago! It was decided by someone somewhere that history was a boring, unimportant subject, and that people only needed to know the basic general history timeline. Such a shame as it is actually a fascinating subject that we can learn much from, but will gradually be all but forgotten if things continue on with the way the education seems to currently dismiss it.

Sure with the Information Age we can learn much, more than ever even, but without the basics, to navigate it with, people can get lost in disinformation too.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Harte

You know you’re growing on me Harte, I’ll reply to your reply to me later. But there are people who deny what Tesla actually achieved as much there are those that claim he did things he didn’t. I put it down to general ignorance and personal beliefs myself. On both sides...

I don’t even recall being taught history at school as such, it was shuffled into The broader subject of humanities, and that was a long time ago! It was decided by someone somewhere that history was a boring, unimportant subject, and that people only needed to know the basic general history timeline. Such a shame as it is actually a fascinating subject that we can learn much from, but will gradually be all but forgotten if things continue on with the way the education seems to currently dismiss it.

Sure with the Information Age we can learn much, more than ever even, but without the basics, to navigate it with, people can get lost in disinformation too.

I've never seen anyone claiming Tesla didn't do what he did. But I've seen thousands of idiotic claims about things he supposedly did, but didn't.

I always hated history myself. Still do, to tell the truth. Boring as hell.
What fascinates me are the false claims made about ancient history.
These claims caused me to learn quite a bit of history, but I don't have any broad knowledge, just historical knowledge that tends to counter the individual claims, which is where my interest actually lies.

Harte

Truth is we are ants and Earth was the Planet of Giants. We just toke over it. Why do you think the dinosaurs are extinct?

a reply to: Harte
That’s interesting it explains a lot. You’re more about countering people’s claims than researching things for there own sake, or out of your own interest by the sounds of it.

I find it odd that you have always hated history, I suppose it depends how it’s taught. Dan Carlin makes it sound like an epic movie, and it is the story of our ancestors and where we came from, as well as what we’ve learned along the way. Some teachers though make it seem like little more than recounting certain dates and arbitrary facts with the why’s and wherefore’s apparently irrelevant, and yeah that’s boring...

With regards to Tesla I was debating someone on this very site about if he invented the 2 phase AC induction motor or not. They directed me to a Wikipedia page that had been recently edited and botched to claim that it was someone else responsible for the invention! It might well still be up even.

Why would someone do that I wonder?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Harte
That’s interesting it explains a lot. You’re more about countering people’s claims than researching things for there own sake, or out of your own interest by the sounds of it.

My own interests lie in the claims themselves - where they originated, why they originated, motives, etc.

originally posted by: surfer_soulI find it odd that you have always hated history, I suppose it depends how it’s taught. Dan Carlin makes it sound like an epic movie, and it is the story of our ancestors and where we came from, as well as what we’ve learned along the way. Some teachers though make it seem like little more than recounting certain dates and arbitrary facts with the why’s and wherefore’s apparently irrelevant, and yeah that’s boring...

With regards to Tesla I was debating someone on this very site about if he invented the 2 phase AC induction motor or not. They directed me to a Wikipedia page that had been recently edited and botched to claim that it was someone else responsible for the invention! It might well still be up even.

Why would someone do that I wonder?

Overcompensating for the more ridiculous claims? LOL

Harte

a reply to: Harte

My own interests lie in the claims themselves - where they originated, why they originated, motives, etc.

Probably because they were doing the following:

Overcompensating for the more ridiculous claims? LOL

Though who knows huh?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Harte

My own interests lie in the claims themselves - where they originated, why they originated, motives, etc.

Probably because they were doing the following:

Overcompensating for the more ridiculous claims? LOL

Though who knows huh?

Well, some people are just idiots.
Scratch that.
MOST people are just idiots.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

And really the abundance of evidence for an ancient central world influencing culture goes way beyond some of this. Central regional civilizations look like colonial centers simply superimposed with local flavor and costume. Strip away the façade and you have the same body. The Daughters of Babylon.