It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


the reason for the pyrimids

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
The bodies were proabably put elsewhere to elude grave robbers. ....the pyramis were probably built for prestige, with the burials actually taking place in a more low key region of the Valley of the Kings that hasnt been found yet.

See, this is what doesn't ring true for me. If they were built for prestige, and the body, and the possessions/treasures were buried elsewhere to 'elude grave robbers', why were the large sarcophagus shaped boxes built into the chambers, why all the precise geometry and shafts and 'vent ways' and such.

I've been reading Graham Hancock's 'Finger Prints Of The Gods lately, I'm about 2/3's of the way through it, and through his pontification, there seems to be many, many unanswered questions about ancient sites and their cultures such as Egypt and the South American civilisations that orthodox history just doesn't answer sufficiently, or at all.

I personally believe the Pyramids had another function, what that is, I'm unsure, but I think the precise measurements and alignments with celestial features aren't by chance or for decoration, I believe they were functional.

I wish I could expound on my ideas, but I admit I am not as learned on the subject as many here. Maybe this is my (and others') downfall in that our lack of knowledge leads us to look for alternate answers to the questions ancient cultures pose, but somehow, I feel our dissatisfaction with the official histories are justified.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:17 AM
Dont trust Graham Hancock.

The Man is liar and a fraud, or he really, really cant do his research properly.

Just look at the claim that the three main pyramids at Giza match up to Orions belt. Yes there is a slight similarity. So long as you turn either the belt of the pyramids upside down!

Would the Egyptians make such basic mistakes?

This is the same Graham Hancock who thinks there are cities on Mars thanks to a few dodgy Nasa photos.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:30 AM
I'd read:

The Orion Mystery, Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids
Published 1994 (c) Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert.

It actually does match up to within an inch of the stars, however a lot of people assume you take the tip of the pyramids to reporsent the stars. Not the corners and the "shafts".

But Joe, what can they be for than? I gave an amazingly well written and researched article pointing out on why it is mistakenly called the King and Queen's chamber as well as how the coffer wasn't placed during the building (in other tombs) and how it couldn't fit in through this pyramid.

So what honestly was it for?

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:15 AM
I've already said what i think the pyramids are, attempts at immortality.

The scale and magnificence of these structures seems to me to be a way of cheating death, not an observatory, not a space ship landing point and not part of a global civilisation. Just an ancient race at the height of its power.

As for the sarcophagus, surely it is easier to move the thing in while the pyramid is under construction? This may not have been common practise, but it is the most sensible answer, just use Occams razor.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:20 AM
But it was not their way?

Why would they change all of a sudden from what they had always done (and as far as I know was part of their Religious belief) and then go back to the way doing it before? Surely they would have just built the passages about 12inches wider?

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:34 AM
Who can say?

Maybe it was just so people would say 'how on earth did you manage that'

A little showmanship never hurts.

Maybe it was carried in in bits, then assembled and melted together with lasers

We can never know, but i think that my version is more likely.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:37 AM
My theory on the Pyramids.

I myself see it as a "Healing" and "Resting" place for a specific God when it would came back to Earth. As far as I am aware, the Egyptians believed their God's would one day return to Earth.

They sealed it up, leaving nothing but a coffer for the God to rest in and then were on their merry way. The outside of the Pyramid was then covered in writting about that God and the God's, which we know was later removed to build the local Mosque's.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:38 AM
And also it would show the other Religions of the region whose God was better/bigger or civilization was better/bigger.

"Look at my God's Temple" sort of thing. I also think it tooks decades, if not a few hundred years to build not 20/30.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:48 AM
Thats an interesting idea, quite possibly true.

Far more imaginative than my story at least!

Though i still think that with the vast labour forces available to the Egyptians the pyramids could have been built in 20 years.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:13 PM
But if you think of it like this;

They must have designed it - size, location, area, etc.
Worked out from there the size of the blocks and amount they would need.
Find them.
Cut them.
Move them there.
Place them all, in the correct positions, etc.

Well working with 10ton+blocks which I doubt a ship could transport and if it could not more than one at a time and there are how many blocks in the pyramid?

And then you have three of them...

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:51 PM
The average block only weights two tons, and some of the ships could carry 50 tonnes. So transport wasnt a problem.

The main problem is, as you say, that they are trying to build three of the damn things, a spynx, and three little ones as well as hundreds of small buildings.

Stil, with a huge labour force you can accomplish alot.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:17 PM
You got any links for that? I couldn't find any on Egyptian boats being able to hold 50tons.

"It's 756 feet long on each side, 450 high and is composed of 2,300,000 blocks of stone, each averaging 2 1/2 tons in weight. "

"At construction (vc) the Great Pyramid was 280 Egyptian Old Royal Cubits tall (146.5 metres or 481 feet), but due to erosion and the theft of its topmost stone (the so-called pyramidion) its current height is approximately 137 m. As has been proven by papyrus documents, each base side measured in Antiquity 440 (20.63-inch) Royal Cubits (RC). Thus, the Great Pyramid originally covered approximately 5.3 hectares (53,158 m²) at its base. (230.5 m). Today each side has a length of approximately 230.36 m. "

5.9 million tonnes if we go by what they say above (the 10 to 15 ton one is from the site quoted earlier, giving a different idea.)

(59000000/50,000)That's 1180 boat trips to bring that much stuff for the largest Pyramid.

Did it not take them weeks if not months to bring the blocks? They would then have to transport them by land to the Pyramids and then cut them into place, etc. Build that many in one guys life time who must have lived for at most.

Then factor in all the other temples, Pyramids we know for sure were built in his life time. Egypt could not have had more than a few million people. You have to factor in food, weather, etc, during the period. As well as building the ships any possible acts of War, internal or external and everything else into that.

Also think he must have became King in his 20's, so he could have only ruled for at most 30 (to 50 years)....

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:30 PM
Im afraid i dont have a link for the boats, that came from a book i read a while back, and it may well be wrong.

The labour force was partly a ful time body of professionals who worked in the quarrys carving stones for the pyramids. These stones were then transported down the river to the construction site, building up a stockpile.

When the Nile flooded and farming became impossible huge numbers of workers became availiable, who would be used to place the stockpiled stones into position. The shipping of stone stopped during the floods because the river became unavigable.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:14 PM
well there are smaller ones and bigger ones, did they have a go at building them resulting in the smaller ones, then increased the size as they got more experienced possibly?

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by AdamJ
well there are smaller ones and bigger ones, did they have a go at building them resulting in the smaller ones, then increased the size as they got more experienced possibly?

Of course, but the smaller ones were made with enough room to transport the coffer. It is just the "Great Pyramid" that isn't.

This again causes problem for me.

Ramesses (also commonly spelled "Ramses" or "Rameses") is the name conventionally given in English transliteration to eleven Egyptian pharaohs of the later New Kingdom period:

19th Dynasty
The 50-ton boats were from the Ramessid period. ( )

Khufu was the Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom. He reigned from around 2589 BC to 2566 BC. He was the second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty.

"Some scholars believe that he was not a pharaoh, instead Khufu was a sign of the God of All Gods, or "the sun", so the Ancient Egyptians built the great pyramid in Giza to keep the worship to their god forever. However, since his full name is Chnum-Khufu, which means Chnum is protector, it seems as if he chose to use a theophoric name referring to a more supreme god Chnum, who protected him, so it is more likely that Khufu was simply human."

But what if it should translate "Protector of the God's"?

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:10 PM

Originally posted by tiddly54
i found out the true reason for the prymids while i was thinking about them the other day, and the sphinx. well i figured that prehaps the ancient egyptians just wanted to build something really big.
thinking of the eiffle tower kinda. no real purpose, just built to show off.
maybe they might bury someone famous under there one day?
and when i think about it i find a lot of stupid structures around, serving no reall purpose than to loook at.
for instance in my town of melbourne, beside the free way, there are 6 huge yellow sicks pointing out of the ground at 45 degrees, rising maybe 30 metres in the air, and maybe 70 metres long.
prehaps all the ancient monuments or most of the, are there purly for looks, and hold about as much signifigance as our modern day things

You know, you bring up a very good point! Isn't it at all possible that these monuments were NOT built as monuments at all? Looking at the surrounding area, I would guess that the pyramids were built to mimic a mountain range.

Isn't it possible that early Egyptians traveled to distant countries, and out of shear JEALOSY, built their own mountain range to make up for what they thought nature cheated them out of?

Works for me! Of course, it's not as fun as making mystical theories and what-not guesses.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:08 PM
Remember, you can't carbon date stone.

The Pyramids weren't tombs.

Also, to edit, Mr. Hancock is not the only one to have discovered the Pyramid sky connection. He's not a liar. Robert Buvaul discovered aspects of this too, maybe even before Mr. Hancock. Quite a few others have too.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Kilik11]

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:53 PM
I personally think we'll never know for sure, but I think they were built before the flood. Maybe a clue can be found in one of the area's not made public.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 05:47 PM
(sigh) People, the ancients left a lot of writing.

They left writing on the chapels in front of the pyramids, that said what the pyramids were for, what their beliefs are, who built what.

It's a shame to see speculation based on the writings of someone who didn't bother to read that material in the first place. Hancock is a reporter, and a rather poor researcher. He makes it appear as though we know nothing about ancient Egypt.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hancock and others ignore what the ancient Egyptians wrote and pretend we know nothing about them in order to sell their books.

This is like walking up to the Lincoln Monument, looking at the pretty writing, and deciding that Lincoln is actually Zeus dressed in modern clothing and that the direction of his gaze shows the planned expansion of the United States and that the whole dome is actually a cloaked Ferengi spaceship.

If you're going to debate the Egyptians, then please read what the ancient Egyptians said and not what Hancock says they said.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Byrd]

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 05:54 PM
Well, of course kings of certian periods would claim the pyramids as their own. MAybe put up some graffiti, and write thousands of texts on it. But it was the texts of the regular egyptians, who well in all likelyhood, invented a lot.

Archaeologist dismiss many, many, many oral traditions and writings from ancient cultures as myth. Even traditions that would still actually contain real knowledge, such as tales of a "great flood". But certainly modern scholors , let alone ancient "scholors" of the king, can't have any way to possibly know these things.
Should we then , believe Thoth to be an actual God? No, he was an atlantean.

THe father of modern philosophy connected Egypt to Atlantis in a very famous writing. It also coincides perfectly with the end of the ice age, and over 500 other supposed "myths" worldwide. So when you look beyond just Egypt, it becomes more clear. BUt Mr. Graham Hancock has studied Egypt a lot anyways. John Anthony West is an Egyptologist.

Status-Quo oriented scientist( vast majority), however, often date a site that is not carbon datable, based on a single poterry shard or peice of bone found next too it.

Another example, Malta. Archaeologist are not interested in underwater finds in Malta at all. BUt they exist and have been found independantly and documented, as well as teeth from before 10,000 years ago in a nearby cave. That can be discarded though by archaologists apparently though? The underwater sites at Malta should call in question the age of the above water sites. BUt scientists will not do that, regardless of what the facts show.

The attacks on Graham Hancock just show the depths the Established scientists will stoop to, and that they will say absolutely anything.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Kilik11]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in