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.

 

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 25
3
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
So the older dates may have been from older lebannon cedar trees? what's the life span on those, btw?

I would suppose that Lebanese Cedar ages & grows much like other trees, but that's not the point. The point is that Egyptians would "recycle" wood through as much use as they could before they would reduce it to charcaol to make mortar.




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by undo
So the older dates may have been from older lebannon cedar trees? what's the life span on those, btw?

I would suppose that Lebanese Cedar ages & grows much like other trees, but that's not the point. The point is that Egyptians would "recycle" wood through as much use as they could before they would reduce it to charcaol to make mortar.


I realize that, but look at the age of some of those pieces. One is dated 3800 BC



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Seems that the Australians have a very new take on hieroglyhs and their true meaning...

www.pphcstudygroup.org.au...



You better take this one sitting down!!



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Seems that the Australians have a very new take on hieroglyhs and their true meaning...

www.pphcstudygroup.org.au...



You better take this one sitting down!!


Hrm, interesting. Is he using as his beginning pyramid text translation, the one that mentions Atlantis, or the mainstream one?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Egyptians never relied entirely of imported wood. Besides, those "burial goods tags" that I posted pictures for earlier in this thread indicates that Egypt was already trading with Mesopotamia as early as 3250 BC (wine jugs buried in Tomb U-J were tagged with Mesopotamia as the point of origin); To even bury those goods, Egypt had to already have a trading route established. Even so, the Nile Valley was growing some trees before Egyptians moved into the area.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Egyptians never relied entirely of imported wood. Besides, those "burial goods tags" that I posted pictures for earlier in this thread indicates that Egypt was already trading with Mesopotamia as early as 3250 BC (wine jugs buried in Tomb U-J were tagged with Mesopotamia as the point of origin); To even bury those goods, Egypt had to already have a trading route established. Even so, the Nile Valley was growing some trees before Egyptians moved into the area.


That's a six hundred year old tree by 3250 BC, if the carbon dating is correct or the website in question is quoting a legitimate source. Where is Tomb U-J? And i missed your pics. By the time I read your long post with pictures, the links to them were already broken.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Donk- Perhaps they were a 100 year public works project.


Undo- the aspects of the project beyond placing blocks was immense as you note. The logistics involved were heavy duty. There's a million details that no one ever delvs into in depth. Past "experts" have been fond of waving those things away with broad hand gestures and minimize them when they are integral to the project as a whole.

The puzzling part of the 144,000 casing stones was the fact that they were finished to 1/100th of an inch fit. This is optical grade tolerance today and was accomplished with copper tools.

No matter how anyone rationalizes the feat or re-assesses the weight of size of the stones only so many bodies can occupy the area surrounding the stone actively being targeted for removal. No more than 6-8 men can efficiently occupy that area. Teams can't work closely adjacent to one another since people can't occupy the same space.

Recent estimates that 1,500 stone cutters produced 100 tons of finished stones per day. This 200,000 pounds of stones from, say, 250 six-man teams. At 2.5 tons per stone that’s just 80 per day, far short of our 273 minimum. Imagine taking five of your friends and recreate cutting a 2.5-ton limestone block from a quarry with the copper tools of the Egyptians. If six fellows could produce one stone a day the 250 teams could make 250 stones. That’s not bad but it does fall short of the minimum needed daily though some more teams could bolster the output.

All of the limestone was not procured from surface quarries. The better quality was removed by tunneling that made for even more difficult working conditions limiting the number of bodies physically able to occupy the available space.

The fact remains, no matter how many "experts" weigh in on the subject is that placing any size of stone had to be done every 2.5 minutes no matter what- 12 hours a day for 23 years. Any interuption in work flow would require a more frenzied pace to catch up.

Guys placing the stones had to have sufficient stones to continually work so quarrymen had to produce them and finish them to a degree of relatively close tolerance though not the polished dressing them as they did the white cover stones.
We must remember that finished blocks had to be precise when roughly dressed out. If six blocks of a row of fifty were just a half-inch too small or too large they would not be acceptable. There was no ball-parking otherwise proper fit could not be achieved. Getting a final proper stone from rough-cut to trim and accurate dress took time. How many bad wedge splits ruined stones?

The fun part of it all illustrates that there is no one who has all the answers. No matter what engineer or egyptoligist conjectures they still had to place a stone of some size in its final position every 2.5 minutes and the quarry had to supply them regardless of broken ropes, accidents, or the diversity of speed and work ethic of the individuals employed. Amazing



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
So the older dates may have been from older lebannon cedar trees? what's the life span on those, btw?


Undo,

It's amusing to me how many people rant about how RC dating is completely unreliable (not you BTW) while others expect the same method to be precise within a few years. Of course, neither statement is true.

Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that if you were to cut down a 600 year old tree, RC dating would show that tree to be 600 years old. That's not how it works. the "counter" used in RC dating starts at the death of the organic material that is being subjected to the test.

This means, in the case of the Pyramid mortar, that the wood used for making the charcoal was quite old before it was eventually burned. Or, it could also mean that the Egyptians made charcoal in the same firepits for hundreds of years and never bothered to remove all the old leftover charcoal from the pit.

There are several explanations that require no outrageous claims. You know, claims like "the Egyptians built the Pyramids from the top down, jacking the structure up as they added on to the bottom." I'm not attributing this silly idea to you, but I have read this very idea somewhere here at ATS.

Harte



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that if you were to cut down a 600 year old tree, RC dating would show that tree to be 600 years old. That's not how it works. the "counter" used in RC dating starts at the death of the organic material that is being subjected to the test.



So then... if you cut down a tree that IS 600 years old, (easy to prove by ring count) just how old would radio carbon dating make that tree? The fact is the tree IS 600 years old... so you are telling me then that RC dating would NOT show the age to be 600?

If that is true... then we might as well toss out RC data right now becuase if it gave any other date than the 600 actual age of that tree, it would make RC dates absolutly useless...

Which, IMO, they are anyway... RC is a guideline tool that sometimes give usable estimates..



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   


If that is true... then we might as well toss out RC data right now becuase if it gave any other date than the 600 actual age of that tree, it would make RC dates absolutly useless...

Radicarbon dating is done by counting the amount of undecayed carbon left in a sample
carbon decays at a set rate
living things do not start to decay until they are dead
this is so simple that only someone with a clear agenda in pseudoscience would attempt to claim it isn't accurate
if you want to date the age of a tree you use Dendrochronology
www.sonic.net...
if you want to date the age of a substance made from a dead tree you use RC dating
en.wikipedia.org...


i'd like to know how anyone who expects to be credible would make ridiculous claims without actually knowing what they are talking about
quite frankly its something i'd expect to read in a Hancock book



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Marduk,

I think the point he's trying to make is, if it was 600 years old at the time of its "Death" then in 3250 BC it was at least 600 years old, maybe older.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Marduk,

I think the point he's trying to make is, if it was 600 years old at the time of its "Death" then in 3250 BC it was at least 600 years old, maybe older.





Opening quote line of a major RC dating project..

"Everything which has come down to us from heathendom is wrapped in a thick fog; it belongs to a space of time we cannot measure. We know that it is older than Christendom, but whether by a couple of years or a couple of centuries, or even by more than a millenium, we can do no more than guess." [Rasmus Nyerup, (Danish antiquarian), 1802 (in Trigger, 1989:71)

SOURCE

Much better than Wikipedia


You realise of course that the calculations are based on the amount of Carbon 14 having been a CONSTANT throughout history... so that if there WERE a few atomic explosions tossed into the mix just for the heck of it... like say oh Sodom and Gomorra... it might just mess up the results for an entire region...


The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing.


But then since we know there wasn't anything like that back in the region....

:shk:




Voila! No mor Sodomites



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   


I think the point he's trying to make is, if it was 600 years old at the time of its "Death" then in 3250 BC it was at least 600 years old, maybe older.

so you're trying to date a pyramid based on the date that a tree was a sapling 600 years before it found its way into some mortar
and you're telling me thats supposed to make sense
All the experts say around 2550 bce
only the non experts say otherwise
who do you really want to believe and why



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



I think the point he's trying to make is, if it was 600 years old at the time of its "Death" then in 3250 BC it was at least 600 years old, maybe older.

so you're trying to date a pyramid based on the date that a tree was a sapling 600 years before it found its way into some mortar
and you're telling me thats supposed to make sense
All the experts say around 2550 bce
only the non experts say otherwise
who do you really want to believe and why


Well how do you explain carbon - dated charcoal, present in the mortar of the pyramids that was already 600 years old in 3250? I dunno how that happened? You have any ideas?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I don't know how the links for my pics broke, but I contacted the Staff about it. I checked the URL's & filenames, but they're all still correct.

I never said that the mortar (& it's tree-carbon) was used the Pyramids in 3250 BC...The Pyramids were built during the Fourth Dynasty. It was Tomb U-J that was dated at 3250 BC; I also mentioned that Tomb U-J was uncovered near Abydos, which isn't really all that near to the Giza Plateau.

Egyptologists normally rely on calculating the dates that Egyptians wrote about to figure out chronology. They use RC dating only to give them an indication if their own calculations are in the right "ballpark" time period.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer


I never said that the mortar (& it's tree-carbon) was used the Pyramids in 3250 BC...The Pyramids were built during the Fourth Dynasty. It was Tomb U-J that was dated at 3250 BC; I also mentioned that Tomb U-J was uncovered near Abydos, which isn't really all that near to the Giza Plateau.

Egyptologists normally rely on calculating the dates that Egyptians wrote about to figure out chronology. They use RC dating only to give them an indication if their own calculations are in the right "ballpark" time period.



I know. What you said was that the site that you claim predated the GP, was 3250 BC. I said that by 3250 BC, the item in the GP mortar, described as:

10B (charcoal)
3809 +-160
198th course top platform, SW corner

Was already 600 years old.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Seems that the Australians have a very new take on hieroglyhs and their true meaning...

www.pphcstudygroup.org.au...



You better take this one sitting down!!


The problem is that the interpretation doesn't hold up.

It does for things that they carefully select. But it doesn't hold up for the Rosetta Stone (as an example) or other things like correspondance between rulers (there's a lot of this) or poetry or stories (there's a number of these) and it doesn't match the information in scenes.

The ancients would put information about a piece of artwork on the art itself. Furthermore, those same symbols show up in names (such as the names of the Pharoahs.) These same names are recorded in other languages, and in many other manuscripts, including the Bible.

The "Compact disk" is actually the symbol for the sun god, Re/Ra... as well as a part of a lot of names.

Ancient Egyptians did not worship the CD. Trust me on this one.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
The puzzling part of the 144,000 casing stones was the fact that they were finished to 1/100th of an inch fit.


I dunno. Take a CLOSE look at the pyramid and the inner chambers sometime. I see a lot of cracks, and if it was engineered to 1/100th of an inch fit, then the cracks shouldn't be there, and you shouldn't be able to see the joints between the blocks.

The stones fit well, but take a close look at them (including the ones inside that wouldn't have been weathered) and see if you can find any that are so closely fitted that you have to get within inches of the stone to see the shape of the blocks.


No matter how anyone rationalizes the feat or re-assesses the weight of size of the stones only so many bodies can occupy the area surrounding the stone actively being targeted for removal. No more than 6-8 men can efficiently occupy that area. Teams can't work closely adjacent to one another since people can't occupy the same space.


For one stone, yes... but have you seen pictures of modern folk hand-working quarries with hand tools? Quarries are huge... there's plenty of room for a lot of people there.


If six fellows could produce one stone a day the 250 teams could make 250 stones. That’s not bad but it does fall short of the minimum needed daily though some more teams could bolster the output.


Remember that they were cutting stone all the time (for temples and building projects) and probably had finished stones lying around the quarry when they started. So it probably wasn't a "produce as it's needed" (most manufacturing isn't) but a "use this up while more is being made."


The fact remains, no matter how many "experts" weigh in on the subject is that placing any size of stone had to be done every 2.5 minutes no matter what- 12 hours a day for 23 years. Any interuption in work flow would require a more frenzied pace to catch up.


Remember that they were working several sides at once... and that the number of years in the construction comes from something the Egyptians told Heroditus. By the time he visisted the pyramids, they were several hundred years old and the guide who told him this could have been mistaken.

In fact, Egyptologists are pretty sure it wasn't built in 20 years... that 40 years is more likely and perhaps a bit longer.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You realise of course that the calculations are based on the amount of Carbon 14 having been a CONSTANT throughout history.


Actually, it isn't, and formulas for adjusting for this are known.
cat.inist.fr...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

(etc, etc, etc.)



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   


the number of years in the construction comes from something the Egyptians told Heroditus. By the time he visisted the pyramids, they were several hundred years old and the guide who told him this could have been mistaken.

by the time herodotus visited the pyramids they were over two millenia old
in addition Herodotus is known as the "father of lies" for his habit of making up the details where none were available
for instance he claimed that the walls of Babylon were 56 miles in length when in fact they were only 10 miles long
this actually proves that Herodotus never actually visited Babylon as he claimed he had and probably filled in the details from listening to travellers tales in taverns
while he was more than likely drunk

Strabo (a real geographer is much more reliable)
he covers Egypt in chapter 17 of his geography
penelope.uchicago.edu...




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join