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: 30
3
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Erm, I'm skeptical of the official version. There's several unanswered questions such as:

1. What about the white casting stones? They had to mine for them, quite a ways down in some cases, and transport them from the mines which were not by the GP. They also polished them to a smooth finish and glued them in place over the other blocks, which is gonna take a great deal longer than is being currently allowed for the construction of it.

2. Why is it the last date for the wood was 2800 BC? Did all the wood and charcoal in the thing date 200 + years older than the building and if so, how did the charcoal dated 3800 BC managed to survive nearly 1000 years from the time it died originally? Is it possible the GP is the only monument or artifact of significant size on the planet, that every last piece of carbon in it, is dated wrong? What are the odds? Anything comparative?

3. It has many things in common with the Osirieon in Abydos, including the fact that when it was rediscovered by a pharaoh, he incorporated it, and signed the incorporation. This seems more likely to point to them being built in a similar timeframe but Seti I is not said to be born in the same timeframe as Khufu. The style of the blocks, the size of the blocks, the undecorated appearance of the blocks, and their composition is the same or very close to the same, in both places. Normally having that many things in common would be all the evidence an egyptologist would need to confirm a date - stylistically and otherwise. So who actually built what and who the heck is right?

4. The Nile already has seasonal floods. It's a bit hard to believe it never experienced a massive, civilization busting flood. Every other ancient civ by a body of water has had massive floods, except Egypt?




posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so nobody at any point collected two of every animal on earth


When you start to get your facts right I may listen to you again...

Wasn't two it was 14!!! 7 PAIRS EACH and his MATE Plain English in Genesis...

You DID say you have read the texts? Hmmmm?

:shk:

And now using Lego toy blocks to prove Egyptian pyramid construction??


Sorry I don't usually laugh at the misfortunates... a weak moment

Methinks Marduck is quacking up

[edit on 15-10-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   


And now using Lego toy blocks to prove Egyptian pyramid construction??

I am doing no such thing
I was using Lego and Duplo blocks to disprove pyramid construction
thats completely different



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
denythestatusquo certainly there was a time of a water canopy though I personally believe it was well before humans, in the primordial times.

The 2 larger Giza pyramids, especially the Great Pyramid couldn't be tombs for the lack of the ubiquitous decoration by the builders' full of the propaganda of their lives with prolific art, pictographs and hieroglyphics covering every possible interior surface. They looked more barren than my garage inside.

The theory that ancient grave robbers picked it clean is preposterous since when the first known forced entry was made in the 7th century A.D. by Caliph Abdullah al-Ma’mun, nothing was found inside. Nothing means just that, nothing! No broken funerary debris or any wooden bits and pieces were evident, not even a broken, valueless furniture or pottery fragments. And no sarcophagus was there. No mummy was found in Khafre’s pyramid either. He opted to be entombed elsewhere.

If the GP was robbed in antiquity the thieves didn't take valueless items and leave it bare.

The Egyptian builders didn't begin building with standard-sized limestone blocks untill about 1300 B.C. These were note baked mud bricks since it was obvious that durability was lacking if we look at any pre- 6th dynasty large structure.

Building with huge stones is not easier than with standardized bricks by any stretch of the imagination. Modern concrete block structures can be raised quickly and using far less man and machinepower than moving 10 ton megaliths. Using giants stone construction material does one thing, it almost guarantees longevity of the structure; eternity being something important to the pharaohs.

But no concerted effort to construct using standardized-cut limestone blocks manageable by one man appeared until a couple thousand years later. It is hard to believe that a people as intelligent, with as much savvy about engineering as the Egyptians had never thought of it before about 1,300 B.C.

Middle-ages and older castles in Europe were fortified quite well using managable stones in their construction. They have lasted over 1,200 years without crumbling and there is no reason early Egyptian structures wouldn't have either.

And the ongoing lack of any evidence of a culture that experienced the normal transitional stages of development make Egypt an enigma. They simply come into being as if by magic in the 4th millenium B.C. from a previous neolithic culture of scattered river tribes. Tools, techniques, art, architecture, engineering , medicine, science, huge cities and the organizational skills to command it all simply appear head and shoulders above contemporeanous civilizations in the Middle East.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
everyone knows that the pyramids were built by parasitic aliens taking humans as hosts and posing as gods to serve as landing pads for interstellar starships

this thread is getting THAT exhausting to me



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   


Tools, techniques, art, architecture, engineering , medicine, science, huge cities and the organizational skills to command it all simply appear head and shoulders above contemporeanous civilizations in the Middle East.

oooh dry that one out and you can fertilise your lawn with it
lets ask an expert
Link


[Mod Edit: Link format - Jak]

[edit on 17/10/06 by JAK]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
everyone knows that the pyramids were built by parasitic aliens taking humans as hosts and posing as gods to serve as landing pads for interstellar starships

this thread is getting THAT exhausting to me


Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps the same thing holds true for those who see alot of unanswered questions which appear to be deliberately ignored by the mainstream? the implications would require rethinking the mainstream theories, and the hive mind resists admitting mistakes - no one wants to be the first to say -- oops, we interpreted that wrong, and as a result, the glaringly obvious holes in their theories are conveniently ignored or assigned flippant hand-waving such as you have just engaged in.

It's human nature to resist being found wrong on a topic, no matter how minute. Imagine how much stronger that impetus is in the upper eschelons of learning where established theory is so heavily engrained that departing from it, even marginally, is viewed as scientific and historical heresy. What's happened is the same thing that happened with the Holy Roman Empire - those who have the power to determine what truth is and isn't, have so completely attached themselves to their version of history and science that no one can tell them differently, no matter how much evidence might be available to argue their position.

For example, NO ONE has explained how the ancient egyptians not only quarried and lugged millions of huge stones and stacked them precisely on top of each other, but also faced them with limestone that was mined elsewhere, polished and then glued into place, all in the course of 2.5 minutes per stone! They ignore this question because it requires reevaluating accepted dogma.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
A 1,000 word website summary is a freaking joke compared to William Petrie's precise measurements and well over 100,000 words on Giza alone.
In terms of mammoth edifices Egypt peaked strangely soon.

The engineering savvy of the Egyptian race is without doubt.
Supposedly every 2.5 minutes one of the 2.3 million stones was moved to its final position.
But if we adhere to the accepted 23 year schedule no matter HOW stones were moved they HAD to fall into final position every 2.5 minutes regardless of logistical problems of any kind. The massively larger stones took longer for sure so unless they could be placed without interfering with the "other" stones' placement the pace had to be sped up!
I'm left with the nagging conclusion that the Giza group was built over a longer period than 67 years. I'm am not convinced that Khufu, Khafra and Mycerinus were more than simply named in passing with terse, scribbles on the structures instead of the normally lavish tributes that every pharaoh covered the walls with bragging it up.
Remnants of any type of unknown revolutionary mechanical aid device haven't been found or described in any papyrus we're left with the fact that people built these structures. I'd guesstimate 100 years as more reasonable

It is nice to see Petrie given his due credit. No credible pyramid researcher can avoid studying his exhaustive work. In reading these threads about Giza, I rarely see anyone that posts here who has had the interest in the subject to read the literature in depth. Of course no one could read all the books on Giza, but I have read a few dozen, over the last 25 years. I have concluded that the Giza pyramid, at least, was likely built much earlier than is thought. Some controversial authors have written similar theories, but I base my view on my own study. Like you say, the logistics, etc. would be daunting today. When you consider copper tools, and Old Kingdom technology, I feel that they can be excluded as probable builders. You have given many of the reasons why that is, and clearly expressed them. Upon reading, 'Cataclism, the day the earth nearly died.' by Allen and Delair I became convinced of a global extinction event about 12 000 years ago. Its my feeling Giza predates this event.
I have also read that recent research has suggested the number of blocks to be 580 000 instead of 2.3 million. That changes nothing as far as how hard to build it was. It must have been a sight to see the 80? plus ton granite block raised 225 feet and placed above the kings chamber. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
The 2 larger Giza pyramids, especially the Great Pyramid couldn't be tombs for the lack of the ubiquitous decoration by the builders' full of the propaganda of their lives with prolific art, pictographs and hieroglyphics covering every possible interior surface. They looked more barren than my garage inside.

Wasn't it already pointed out that the "pyramid texts" were not introduced in Egyptian tombs until the last Pharoah of the Fifth Dynasty, Unas? The Giza Pyramids, being built in the Fourth Dynasty obviously wouldn't display such scripts. The "decorations" you mention were mostly the "magical incantations" designed to allow the dead to pass safely through a dangerous underworld (named, "Duat") before the souls could reach the Egyptian "paradise".


Originally posted by Cruizer
The theory that ancient grave robbers picked it clean is preposterous since when the first known forced entry was made in the 7th century A.D. by Caliph Abdullah al-Ma’mun, nothing was found inside.

Entire families have been known to be multi-generational professional tomb robbers. These are the families that were likely to have been the original workers at the construction sites, so they would know all of the deadfalls, false walls & perhaps even robbed the tombs before they were finally sealed up...So how is it "preposterous" to note that there were no visible signs of forced entry when the entry may not have needed forcing? You can bet your sweet bippy that Egyptologists have been asking themselves many of these same questions for years...After all, they've been digging around Egypt for about a hundred years now.


Originally posted by Cruizer
The Egyptian builders didn't begin building with standard-sized limestone blocks untill about 1300 B.C. These were note baked mud bricks since it was obvious that durability was lacking if we look at any pre- 6th dynasty large structure.

I suggest you go back to page 21 of this thread & look at what I wrote about the desert nomads (that moved into the River Valley/Delta & initiated known Egyptian culture)...Specifically refer to the seasonal settlement at Nabta Playa. They were already showing digns of stone-working skills on a large scale even then. Yes, I even included my sources in that post. Even though the picture links are broken, I did ask about getting the links fixed, but have no return answer yet.


Originally posted by Cruizer
Middle-ages and older castles in Europe were fortified quite well using managable stones in their construction. They have lasted over 1,200 years without crumbling and there is no reason early Egyptian structures wouldn't have either.

Wait another 2,000 years or so & see how the longevity of the castles stack up with Egyptian architecture...After all, the Giza Pyramids alone have been standing about that much longer than the medeval castles already. So in another 2,000 years, we'll see if your comparson "stands up" to the test of time.



Originally posted by Cruizer
And the ongoing lack of any evidence of a culture that experienced the normal transitional stages of development make Egypt an enigma. They simply come into being as if by magic in the 4th millenium B.C. from a previous neolithic culture of scattered river tribes. Tools, techniques, art, architecture, engineering , medicine, science, huge cities and the organizational skills to command it all simply appear head and shoulders above contemporeanous civilizations in the Middle East.

Again, go back to my long post on page 21. The archeological record of the historical development of Egyptian culture was laid out there.

Admittedly, Egypt was not "first" in a lot of things: Agriculture, for example, came later than in other ancient civilizations simply because Egypt was so lush & fertile, they didn't need organized agriculture to get plenty of food; Since they never had to work as hard to get food, they had plenty of leisure time to think about cultural & religious development. Egypt was pretty much isolated from other civilizations by geography. Even so, they still had trade links to other nations at least as early as 3250 BC...The first trade route, by archeological indication, was with Mesopotamia. As far as having the Hieroglyphic writing, there haven't been any indications of prior development unearthed as of yet.


Originally posted by Marduk
I was using Lego and Duplo blocks to disprove pyramid construction
thats completely different

Comparing small, light-weight, mostly hollow, plastic blocks to multi-ton solid stone blocks...Heh, heh! Apples & oranges, bub...Apples & oranges...



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Cruizer
The 2 larger Giza pyramids, especially the Great Pyramid couldn't be tombs for the lack of the ubiquitous decoration... They looked more barren than my garage inside.

Wasn't it already pointed out that the "pyramid texts" were not introduced in Egyptian tombs until the last Pharoah of the Fifth Dynasty, Unas? The Giza Pyramids, being built in the Fourth Dynasty obviously wouldn't display such scripts. The "decorations" you mention were mostly the "magical incantations" designed to allow the dead to pass safely through a dangerous underworld (named, "Duat") before the souls could reach the Egyptian "paradise".


Originally posted by Cruizer
The theory that ancient grave robbers picked it clean is preposterous since when the first known forced entry was made in the 7th century A.D. by Caliph Abdullah al-Ma’mun, nothing was found inside.

Entire families have been known to be multi-generational professional tomb robbers. These are the families that were likely to have been the original workers at the construction sites, so they would know all of the deadfalls, false walls & perhaps even robbed the tombs before they were finally sealed up...So how is it "preposterous" to note that there were no visible signs of forced entry when the entry may not have needed forcing? You can bet your sweet bippy that Egyptologists have been asking themselves many of these same questions for years...After all, they've been digging around Egypt for about a hundred years now.


Originally posted by Cruizer
The Egyptian builders didn't begin building with standard-sized limestone blocks untill about 1300 B.C. These were note baked mud bricks since it was obvious that durability was lacking if we look at any pre- 6th dynasty large structure.

I suggest you go back to page 21 of this thread & look at what I wrote about the desert nomads (that moved into the River Valley/Delta & initiated known Egyptian culture)...Specifically refer to the seasonal settlement at Nabta Playa. They were already showing digns of stone-working skills on a large scale even then. Yes, I even included my sources in that post. Even though the picture links are broken, I did ask about getting the links fixed, but have no return answer yet.


Originally posted by Cruizer
Middle-ages and older castles in Europe were fortified quite well using managable stones in their construction. They have lasted over 1,200 years without crumbling and there is no reason early Egyptian structures wouldn't have either.

Wait another 2,000 years or so & see how the longevity of the castles stack up with Egyptian architecture...After all, the Giza Pyramids alone have been standing about that much longer than the medeval castles already. So in another 2,000 years, we'll see if your comparson "stands up" to the test of time.



Originally posted by Cruizer
And the ongoing lack of any evidence of a culture that experienced the normal transitional stages of development make Egypt an enigma. They simply come into being as if by magic in the 4th millenium B.C. from a previous neolithic culture of scattered river tribes. Tools, techniques, art, architecture, engineering , medicine, science, huge cities and the organizational skills to command it all simply appear head and shoulders above contemporeanous civilizations in the Middle East.

Again, go back to my long post on page 21. The archeological record of the historical development of Egyptian culture was laid out there.

Admittedly, Egypt was not "first" in a lot of things: Agriculture, for example, came later than in other ancient civilizations simply because Egypt was so lush & fertile, they didn't need organized agriculture to get plenty of food; Since they never had to work as hard to get food, they had plenty of leisure time to think about cultural & religious development. Egypt was pretty much isolated from other civilizations by geography. Even so, they still had trade links to other nations at least as early as 3250 BC...The first trade route, by archeological indication, was with Mesopotamia. As far as having the Hieroglyphic writing, there haven't been any indications of prior development unearthed as of yet.


I tend to favour cruizers conclusions. Tombrobbers don't sweep up after themselves, as he said, the great pyramid was cleaner than his garage. Moreover, the fact the great pyramid was built using blocks of varying widths, and tiers of different heights makes the structure very quake resistant. It breaks up the waves, because there is no pattern like in a red brick wall built now has. The waves find the pattern and the walls come down... but not the pyramid. Pretty smart stuff. And as for the claim of possible pre 7th century entry into the great pyramid, I find that doubtful unless the Caliph lied about having to tunnel around the plug blocks to reach the upper chambers. The tomb robbers could not have removed and replaced those blocks, imo.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Oh Undo- the white limestome casing stomes were not a veneer applied but rather triangular fillers that would fill the stepped space between concourses.

They weighed between 15 and 20 tons each. They were fited to within 1/100th of an inch to one another in optical grade precision. Later the tiny seams were filled with mortar and each stone was smoothed to a polished finish so that every one was the same height. When complete the appearance was that of the pyramid looking as though it was carved out of one solid white stone. This type of precision fitting and dressing was time consuming.

As for interior decoration even tombs from the 1st dynasty had some wall inscriptions and decor. Even it it was less ostentatious that the much later dynasties of covering every inch it existed. I find it very strange that a pharaoh, being egotistical at the very least, would not have his name inscribed somewhere in the greatest building ever constructed whether it was to be his tomb or not.

Caliph Abdullah al-Ma’mun's intrusion was the first since there was no other forced entry found. Whatever entry previous plunderers might have known that was not forceable they would not steal a wooden chair. Even if they broke it up, the Caliphs guys found no trace of anything. The place naked as we see it today.??

Perhaps I shouldn't be impressed by the rapid rise of the Egyptian civilization but it seems so accelerated that by 3,100 B.C. Memphis was "boom" the biggest city in the world where there was none before and the peoples of the region had lived an uncomplicated agrarian life in smaller settlements. What besides Menes was the driving force that compelled the populace to abandon their previous philosophy of the pursuit of life and become inhabitants in something as alien as a huge city? And how did this conglomeration of humanity suddenly, in relative terms, propagate medicine, engineering, art and all the rest? What was the catalyst that actied like cultural fertilizer?

If early and old kingdom rulers wanted to construct megalithic edifices there is no reason why standardized limestone blocks the size of today cinder blocks couldn't have been used. Certainly logic dictated that huge boulders last the ages but it is not the next logical step to leap at that buildings should be built with them. Since there were no ancient buildings to assess, built from small, standard-sized bricks, no one had any way of projecting that a big building built 20th century style would not last.

They certainly knew that once baked mud bricks were easy to handle. It is reasonable to project that stone bricks manageable by a man would be handy. After all, other structures were constructed from assorted-sized stones and were reasonable durable. If like 50 million easily handled 10-lb. limestone blocks could have done the job why use 2.3 million 2.5-80 tonners? We know today that over 4,500 years that they probably wouldn't have lasted but why did they surmise that then with no example to draw from?

But marduk, dude, what the hell is the matter with you anyway? All you do is mock people with sarcasm and snipe. If you can't be civil and don't like the thread don't participate.

Anyhow it is fun pondering the possibilities and the mysteries.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
everyone knows that the pyramids were built by parasitic aliens taking humans as hosts and posing as gods to serve as landing pads for interstellar starships


Your right actually, but that topic is in the Stargate Thread



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   


But marduk, dude, what the hell is the matter with you anyway? All you do is mock people with sarcasm and snipe. If you can't be civil and don't like the thread don't participate.

I mock the badly thought up science fiction with sarcasmn and snipe
thats what bafly though up science fiction is for
claiming what you just did however is called libel
thats actually illegal

once again though you just proved yourself incapable of answering any of my points by personally attacking me
you got a severe case of transference there, [(ME) my friend]


[edit on 17-10-2006 by Marduk]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ME (Mod Edit) replaced disagreeable term with one of endearment


[edit on 17-10-2006 by masqua]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Marduk. Read this thread please.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We will not have any mocking or ridicule. Period.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
don't you get my humour either
i'm English you know
think Monty Python rather than Benny Hill

of course if you'd like to point out where I mocked someone that would be good because I had a look and I don't see as how Duplo Blocks or lego bricks are particularly against any terms and conditions in this forum
but as a moderator you should be used to people making fraudulent claims about someones character (i.e. me) in an attempt to discredit what they have posted because they can't discredit the information
Also as a moderator shouldn't you actually take this sort of thing up with me by PM before making a public statement to the effect that the admin at ATS who you represent agrees with the poster who says I was mocking
surely you can see you just got played dude

and where I come from calling someone Boy isn't mockery so I don't see why you had that Knee jerk reaction and changed that
its a figure of speech
ref : Foghorn Leghorn

oh by the way
your link is to
"These are the most recent threads (max 500) authored by TheBandit795"
and no
I'm not going to bother reading it
I don't see how it is relevant


[edit on 17-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
"Admittedly, Egypt was not "first" in a lot of things" Right Midnight, that says it all- they simply had all of the things together at a high level of development at the same time which contributed to make their society excell and that's what set them apart.

Bandit795- I for one am tired of the veiled threats and having one individual go from thread to thread on this site childishly targeting people he feels are inferior to his graniose intellect via leering diatribes. Everyone else here seems to possess respect for one another's opinions, theories and ideas. Thanks for intervening, but I see you got put in your place as to how to moderate!



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
I mock ....


Well put! LOL

But hey, Herr Marduck provides entertaining comic relief...
And has little disrupting effect on my theories at least


The legos had me really rolling... talk about your serious debunking



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I don't see why people can't finally accept that Africans (black people!) yes, did build the pyramids including the great pyramid. All of these other theories were originally propagated by european scholars and archeologists who couldn't accept Africans built the pyramids (oh, the Arabs, Israelis, etc).

It's really not that hard to believe...Egypt was an incredibly prosperous civilization, they had all of their farming along the Nile figured out since almost 10,000BC in the area...they weren't subject to or concerned with any foreign attacks for hundreds of years. What better way to devote their great time and resources to celebrating Khufu with a great pyramid? Considering the enormous force of peasants they had to carry the stones, it's not all that unbelievable. They even had a specific "village" built for the skilled stone masons of about 1500 people who were held in very high regard and taken well care of while they shaped the stones and planned the whole thing.

But of course, it's a lot more likely that Aliens came down from outer space and suddenly erected the whole thing in one instant before zipping off to space again, right? And the whole thing about it being "aligned" with the cosmos is not widely accepted, as the stars wouldn't have lined up during the period they were planning the pyramid or when it was built most likely. We aren't even quite sure when the pyramid was built, although likely 4500-5000bp, and of course if we don't know that, we can't know if it was "lined up". You could pick any building in the world and somehow line it up to stars using math that fits...

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
I don't see why people can't finally accept that Africans (black people!) yes, did build the pyramids including the great pyramid. All of these other theories were originally propagated by european scholars and archeologists who couldn't accept Africans built the pyramids (oh, the Arabs, Israelis, etc).

It's really not that hard to believe...Egypt was an incredibly prosperous civilization, they had all of their farming along the Nile figured out since almost 10,000BC in the area...they weren't subject to or concerned with any foreign attacks for hundreds of years. What better way to devote their great time and resources to celebrating Khufu with a great pyramid? Considering the enormous force of peasants they had to carry the stones, it's not all that unbelievable. They even had a specific "village" built for the skilled stone masons of about 1500 people who were held in very high regard and taken well care of while they shaped the stones and planned the whole thing.

But of course, it's a lot more likely that Aliens came down from outer space and suddenly erected the whole thing in one instant before zipping off to space again, right? And the whole thing about it being "aligned" with the cosmos is not widely accepted, as the stars wouldn't have lined up during the period they were planning the pyramid or when it was built most likely. We aren't even quite sure when the pyramid was built, although likely 4500-5000bp, and of course if we don't know that, we can't know if it was "lined up". You could pick any building in the world and somehow line it up to stars using math that fits...

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Shoktek]


Actually, it's more likely that aliens came down than ANY human race or color, created it, single-handedly. The idea that any humans were capable of such feats of engineering and administration before we could do anything else meaningful, is downright preposterous.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Actually, it's more likely that aliens came down than ANY human race or color, created it, single-handedly. The idea that any humans were capable of such feats of engineering and administration before we could do anything else meaningful, is downright preposterous.


Right...we've been investigating Egypt for years, documenting and excavating sites, decoding heiroglyphics, and yet nowhere have we found any evidence of aliens. Nowhere on the earth do we have any real hard evidence of aliens coming down, at least that we know of. Yet we know that Egypt was one of the first and longest, most prosperous civilizations in history, and they had an enormous workforce of people, plenty of resources, and plenty of peaceful time in order to build their pyramids. Why don't you just accept that humans are capable of such an incredible thing, and stop looking for blue men from mars. There are other pyramids all over Africa...were those created by aliens too, or are they just human-made copies of the one great pyramid, and the aliens showed us how to build them before taking off and never returning?


[edit on 18-10-2006 by Shoktek]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join