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.

 

The Pyramids Of Egypt: Relics Of An Advanced Prehistoric Civilization?

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Quit lying.

You are speculating and I'm basing my assumption on the current information that we presently have.

That took a lot of work to get you guys to just come out and be honest.

Come out and say it directly.




posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Hanslune

So you dont have a more accurate estimate?

You just know the current one is wrong?

Got it So you have no idea


Sure I do the key point is you don't - but no matter the clear implications of your lack of knowledge is that in response to your failure you are flailing about trying to find some estimate that you can then ignore or deny.

It took me yesterday about 1 minute to double check my memory on what the latest estimates are. It not a hard question to research (the present estimates) not where the bogus 2.3 came from that one is a tough one to track down.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Hanslune

Quit lying.

You are speculating and I'm basing my assumption on the current information that we presently have.

That took a lot of work to get you guys to just come out and be honest.

Come out and say it directly.


No were not and you are getting pretty desperate. Why do you need to know the number we both know that you will deny it?

Won't you?

......and off to the salt mines.....
edit on 30/10/18 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
Let me know when you guys are done bloviating on and on about how well researched you are and how many books youve read and you wanna start actually posting information



Why? What would be the point of that? You are provided with stacks of evidence that pour your way and simply either ignore or obfuscate. And then try insulting those that actually still bother to provide that evidence for you.

By the way, as Hanslune keeps asking, why are you so intent on that 2.3 million number? It is an old estimated number. Some modern studies, based on computer calculations, are as low as 600'000. Quite a difference, no?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Let me know when you actually have something that is pin point accurate information

Actual numbers



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Let me know when you guys are ready to create clear and concise points that are backed with links that have the actual quotes you are refering to added to your post.

Until then it continues to be amateur hour here.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackfinger



The heck did I just waste a minute and 15 seconds on?

Learning the difference between a monkey and an ape.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

What evidence?

ZERO

A picture of rocks with a few vague sentences about what it could mean.

Sorry.

If you were serious what you would do is break down how they cane to that conclusion

(2.3 million blocks)

How it was wrong and what the new potential estimate is.

But none of you did that did you?

AMATEUR HOUR



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackfinger



The heck did I just waste a minute and 15 seconds on?

Learning the difference between a monkey and an ape.


Now Phage on the other hand may actually do that.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Flavian

What evidence?

ZERO

A picture of rocks with a few vague sentences about what it could mean.

Sorry.

If you were serious what you would do is break down how they cane to that conclusion

(2.3 million blocks)

How it was wrong and what the new potential estimate is.

But none of you did that did you?

AMATEUR HOUR


You're comedy gold, the gift that keeps giving. Thanks



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

yeah sure, show me how they came to that conclusion and why it's wrong

it's really the easiest way to win yet none of you have done it, I find it hilarious. I've actually read other assertions and data but haven't brought it up.

Smithsonian.edu


The largest and most famous of all the pyramids, the Great Pyramid at Giza, was built by Snefru's son, Khufu, known also as Cheops, the later Greek form of his name. The pyramid's base covered over 13 acres and its sides rose at an angle of 51 degrees 52 minutes and were over 755 feet long. It originally stood over 481 feet high; today it is 450 feet high. Scientists estimate that its stone blocks average over two tons apiece, with the largest weighing as much as fifteen tons each. Two other major pyramids were built at Giza, for Khufu's son, King Khafre (Chephren), and a successor of Khafre, Menkaure (Mycerinus). Also located at Giza is the famous Sphinx, a massive statue of a lion with a human head, carved during the time of Khafre.



The Greek historian Heroditus reported in the fifth century B.C. that his Egyptian guides told him 100,000 men were employed for three months a year for twenty years to build the Great Pyramid; modern estimates of the number of laborers tend to be much smaller.


Encylopedia Brittanica


Approximately 2.3 million blocks of stone were cut, transported, and assembled to create the 5.75-million-ton structure, which is a masterpiece of technical skill and engineering ability.




The question of how the pyramids were built has not received a wholly satisfactory answer. The most plausible one is that the Egyptians employed a sloping and encircling embankment of brick, earth, and sand, which was increased in height and in length as the pyramid rose; stone blocks were hauled up the ramp by means of sledges, rollers, and levers.


You guys are laughable. Let me know when you actually have some concise information. Otherwise I'm sticking to what's out there.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
for the number of 'stones' ..it actually is 9,476 345 mio stones.
note.
They vary in size.

I got the exact number by a telepathic mind reading session from a plaeiadean alien.
They know. Because they counted them.believe them.


edit on 30-10-2018 by anti72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: anti72

yeah sure, whatever



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The 2.3 million stones comes from the fact that the average visible stone on the outside is approximately one cubic meter. Note that the volume of the GP is 2.5 million of those.
The estimate, which comes from early Egyptology, took into account the known voids of the time, but did not account for the voids behind the backing stones.

Please note also the estimate requires the entire pyramid to be built of the backing stone type of blocks, when we know for a fact it is not. They didn't know this when the estimate was made.

The actual core isn't regular like the outside. A lot of it is made up of stones varying in size from a minivan to a football, and the stones aren't even really stacked - they're slopped together with scads of mortar.

Of course, we can't see the entire core, we can only see a very small part of it. So nobody knows exactly how many stones were used, and nobody ever will unless they break that core apart and count those stones.


Harte



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Do you think its possible that the kings chamber is part of an older structure and the actual pyramid itself was built at a later date?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Harte

Do you think its possible that the kings chamber is part of an older structure and the actual pyramid itself was built at a later date?


idiotic idea.
simple as that.

study the architecture. the grand gallery will answer many quaestions.
but you wont.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: anti72

you are pompous and arrogant and offer nothing of substance



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Harte

Do you think its possible that the kings chamber is part of an older structure and the actual pyramid itself was built at a later date?


That's exactly what I think happened. Only I think the original structure also included the Queen's chamber, lower chamber, the grand gallery and all 4 air vents. It might have originally had a functional purpose such as being a ram pump for drawing water up from the river, if the river had been closer in prehistory. (or an offshoot of it flowed underground near the surface.)



originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

You don't think those people could have built the inner structure? They were probably doing what lots of other migrating hunter/gatherers and herdspeople have done through the ages. Setting up a crop that will grow on its own while they leave to their next destination, and be ready when they get back.

Given sufficient time, nearly anyone could have built it.


Its possible but not plausible or probable and again you try to avoid the flopping great blue whale that is the simple fact that while AE remains lay all over the place there is not a single shred of anything associated with 'x' culture. At the same time if you go back in history other cultures show up the Harifian, Faiyum A, El Omari, Maadi, etc., etc., all these left traces interestingly enough there is a period of reduced evidenced for anyone from 9000-6000 BC. Yet traces remain. They built with mud brick and palm fronts not rocks. No sign of a stone working culture 'x'.

Have you examined the quarries?

www.eeescience.utoledo.edu...

This covers some of the most important quarries in the Eastern Med - again lots of evidence for the Egyptians and later use by Romans, etc.,




That is a good idea. I decided to do some searching to see if there is any actual evidence of the AE doing work in a granite quarry, and..... really didn't find much. There is evidence someone did, but I couldn't find any that strongly suggested it was the AE and not somebody else.


Then I was looking through a report written, apparently by a mainstream archaeologist (operating under the theory of AE doing the quarrying, and he happens to say something very interesting:

"Stone form the Nile Valley was quarried by those living in Egypt at least as early as 40,000 years ago, when the Middle Palaeolithic inhabitants of Middle Egypt were quarrying and working cobbles of chert along the limestone terraces on either side of the Nile. These earliest of Palaeolithic chert quarries consisted of pits and trenches for surface extraction, but there are Upper Palaeolithic quarries at nazlet khater 4, on the western bank of the Nile about midway between Asyut and Sohag, that include vertical shafts and subterranean galleries, which in fact foreshadow quarrying methods during the pharaonic period. When the Nazlet Khater 4 site was excavated there, a number of tools were unearthed. These included hammerstones used for the roughest stages of quarrying as well as several picks used for finer work. The picks were carved from the horns of gazelles and hartebeest."

Huh. How about that?

So an earlier culture (or cultures) capable of quarrying stone does exist?

Well... unfortunately I looked further and it appears they weren't actually cutting stone at the site, but rather digging to get small pieces of Chert so they could flake it into tools.


Then I dug further and discovered that Chert is a 7 on the Moh's scale, while granite is more of a 6.5

geology.com...

And it occurred to me that it would be a show of power/skill in that age for someone to demonstrate they could carve granite. (Meaning a structure that incorporates it would be all the more impressive.)

But the AE had no reason to care about or prefer granite over any of the other softer stones available in the area, because they were past the stone age, and most observers wouldn't pay much attention to the composition, rather than just the size and grandeur. (Although granite's strength does allow you to cut bigger blocks of it.)



and oddly no sign of culture 'x'.



There's no evidence of the exact type of habitation you're fixated on. Broaden the search to include traveling herdsmen or hunters, or other less "civilized" civilizations and you've got more options.

Gobekli Tepe wasn't built by agriculturalists. But it was still built. (And yes I know it also has a lot more trash.)

One possibility would be a small enclave of priests having sway with a number of herdsman groups passing through the area. So the herdsmen come and give offerings as they come through. Sometimes offers of food. Sometimes labor. Maybe sometimes materials. The priests might mediate disputes (which would be common among people who are claiming lands they don't occupy year round) and keep histories (let the children gather around a camp fire and entertain them by telling stories.)

So you've got a fairly large labor force that doesn't live there. Really doesn't live there at all. Just stops by to add their part to the project. Each hoping to gain a smidgeon of immortality by setting a few stones with their mark on them.



All through the hunter gatherer era there are examples of large stone works, mostly consisting of just 3 or 4 stones set to mark a grave or something. It should be no suprise if somewhere we should find that someone decided to take that further, using the same infrastructure.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   
It would be nice if we could come across some evidence that the AE *could* work in granite? There are artifacts found, but they could be from any time.

Granite things apparently have a really long shelf life. 13 of the Obelisks found in Egypt were later stolen by the Romans.

mymodernmet.com...




Just what are obelisks? These four-sided, tapered monuments were called tekhenu by the Ancient Egyptians, but we now know them as obelisks—taken from the Greek word obeliskos. Typically placed at the entrances of temples, they are the hallmark of Ancient Egyptian ingenuity and engineering. So beloved by successive civilizations, more than half of the remaining ancient obelisks actually reside outside of Egypt, having been especially prized by the Romans. In fact, 13 are located in Italy.



If the Romans could reappropriate them from the Egyptians, there is no reason the AE could not reappropriate them from someone earlier.


I think this is where the question really can find its answer. People in the late stone age really knew their stone. They focused a lot of attention on it. If you built something out of stone, every passing tribe who saw it was going to know what stone that was.

Furthermore, a Chert flaked stone blade might very well be more effective at carving/cutting/boring into granite than a copper or iron one. (After which, wood would be inserted and heated/cooled to make it expand so as to break off some stone.)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

Whatever, i still think your incapable of seeing outside the box.

Just the type of personality the oppressors rely on to keep the truth hidden from us.

Anyway keep chasing that carrot on a stick.

The GP is a machine and no longer will i go round in circles with you. So check this out once and for all ---www.ancientcode...>thegreat
Under section scan pyramids 11/11/15


edit on 31-10-2018 by ALSTA because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-10-2018 by ALSTA because: (no reason given)







 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join