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: 31
3
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

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]


Well the first contention is that the pharaohs and their ruling families were not exactly human. They were hybrids. So the gods didn't need to descend on a regular basis, since their progeny were already in Egypt. This is forecasted in the sumerian, akkadian and babylonian histories, and even in the ancient chinese and hindu histories. If the text spoke of a god engaged in egyptian activity, that's pretty much the same thing as saying an alien engaged in egyptian activity, because they were only partially indigenous to this planet. They were hyper-human, being either incredibly smart, strong or otherwise advanced to the average homo sapians. Literally. When it says "the gods", it means these were not humans. If you disagree, then disagree with them, not me. Not my fault that's what the ancient texts of nearly every ancient civ keeps repeating.





[edit on 18-10-2006 by undo]




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   


Not my fault that's what the ancient texts of nearly every ancient civ keeps repeating.

nope thats just the way you are deliberately misreading peoples views of God
isn't our God apparently omniprescent and omnicogniscent and apparently not a spaceman
apart from that when is this film coming out Beth ?
I bet it goes straight to rental



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Not my fault that's what the ancient texts of nearly every ancient civ keeps repeating.

nope thats just the way you are deliberately misreading peoples views of God
isn't our God apparently omniprescent and omnicogniscent and apparently not a spaceman
apart from that when is this film coming out Beth ?
I bet it goes straight to rental


What film?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Well, I still can't get the pics from my posting on page 21 to work right. I tried again here & finally got it to work, thanks to jsobecky. His help was only paritally correct, but it got me on the track to solve the entire problem.


Egyptian Stonehenge

Early Stoneworking

First Temple, Hierakonpolois

Tomb U-J & Tomb U-J Labels

Tomb of Den & Tomb of Den, Reconstruction

Tomb Floorplan

Helwan Dam & Helwan Dam, Construction


These pics are displayed in the order that I listed them in the original post (linked above).

[edit on 19-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   


What film?

the sci fi film that you've been getting all your research from

www.stonelockpictures.com...
you'll like this movie trailer
see if you can spot the deliberate visual mistake near the end

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


What film?

the sci fi film that you've been getting all your research from

www.stonelockpictures.com...
you'll like this movie trailer
see if you can spot the deliberate visual mistake near the end

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Marduk]


I got my research from the bible and the sumerian, akkadian and babylonian texts, initially. my research site is: artapprentice.net... check out the menu on the left and notice how it's nothing but links to sites about ancient civilizations, their languages, artifacts and so on. this is where i got my research from. the fact 2 egyptologists reached a similar conclusion is something I wasn't even aware of at the time.

eh, what the heck. just say what you want about me. i'm tired of defending myself.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Nice images MidnightD, thanks!

Pondering the question of race we find the Egyptians of course being Africans but not pure Negroid. They are a curious mix of Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid.

Certainly the all mighty pharaohs pretty much commanded what they wished and everyone obeyed but Khufu and his son of pyramid #2 fame, Khafre, were not highly popular with the people. Did the labor force work under duress?

The fact the in chapter 17 of his book The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh Wm. Petrie discusses the fact that there are many other "sound alike" names that use the same hieroglyph prefixes so it could be alluding to another king of the period who used "Khufu" in his name. The controversy is fairly convoluted so as to create a doubt as to just who the heck "Khufu" was and exactly when he reigned. And was there a primary Khufu and exactly how many other "Khufus" there were and when? Perhaps the lifespan of just one "Khufu" was not sufficient time but the span of several reigns was.

The astronomical cost of construction is of concern. Earlier Senefru nearly bankrupted the country with his pyramid escapades. The logistics of a works project like the 1st Giza pyramid were monumental as well. The cost associated with it definitely drained the coffers to the straining point. But as seen in more modern dictators we are familiar with perpetration of the same crime on their citizens of using the peoples' money to make themselves rich and constructing monuments of propaganda favorable to themselves.

For whatever reason we do have the pharaohs and the citizens believing that they were descended from divinity. As you mentioned Undo, many civilizations propagated the same belief. A widespread popular theme of the ancient world or bound in some fact?

As we make the circle once more I still find myself dissecting modern construction methods that ultimately create a large build from very miniscule parts and materials. WE don't build using materials that are difficult to manage today. We use standardized, pre-fabricated items that are manageable. If we attempted to construct similarly, costs would escalate steeply due to the need for precise mechanical handling and manipulation of large pieces. Time, which is money, would expand for completion time since even today a careful, measured work plan would be required to manipulate very heavy building materials safely.

Modern machinery could only move so fast in lifting and moving heavy stone blocks around a work site and assembling them. Mechanization of this labor has it limits as well since we can't choke the work area with machines and expect to orchestrate a smooth operation.

We keep hearing that the Egyptians had all this experience with pyramid building and knew how to organize a work force etc. The fact is that from one project to the next a whole new generation turned over. By the alleged time of the Great Pyramid's construction there was no one alive with any previous construction experience on pyramids. All they'd have had were perhaps some old plans and historical administrative data. Was there really a step by step guide to build a pyramid? Even if there was the GP was unlike anything previous. As any engineer will tell you it is impossible to simply scale up building plans without major strength and safety issues.

The fact is that the Giza structures are not the sole examples of cyclopean building on the planet. Almost every ancient builder across the globe found it preferable to use massively heavy and large stones to complete their structure in place of easy to handle materials that could be manupulated by any worker.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
misreading peoples views of God
isn't our God apparently omniprescent and omnicogniscent and apparently not a spaceman


If God is Omipotent and All Powerfull.... can he make a stone bigger than he can lift"

And God is irrefutably an Alien ET... it says so in the Bible
ET - Not of this Earth - No interpretation - Its in black and white - to deny that fact would mean denying the truth of the Bible
The "Fallen Ones" are landed immigrants




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

What film?


Maybe he means 1ANUNNAKI




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
yayayay and the prize goes to..........



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
yayayay and the prize goes to..........


Tis come upon me that mayhaps a title be due for thine diligence and jesting abilities... methinks such talent deserves reward...

I dub thee Sir Quackalot: P


Hey Undo... I need a writer... not really a ghost writer... just someone who can put it all together.... cut you in fer say 20 percent?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


Hey Undo... I need a writer... not really a ghost writer... just someone who can put it all together.... cut you in fer say 20 percent?


Oh? Writing what? PM me the answer. Or email me.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Nice images MidnightD, thanks!

Pondering the question of race we find the Egyptians of course being Africans but not pure Negroid. They are a curious mix of Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid.

According to the archeological evidience that I posted about way back on page 21 of this thread, you're pretty much right...The people who actually started Egyptian civilization were nomad tribes of the western desert, known today as the Sahara. When they migrated into the River Valley/Delta areas, they were already more organized & accustomed to obeying the leader than the people who were already living there. According to the leftover evidence, the Egyptians are likely to have been darker-skinned than the Mesopotamians, but lighter than the Negroids further south in Nubia.

The people who were already in Egypt at that time...It's more conjecture, but they seem to have come from the eastern desert people because of the link between pottery styles unearthed in Buto. The reason that they didn't need to develop skills (like archetecture, writing & agriculture) is because the fertility of the Nile region was so abundant that they had no problem maintaining their "hunter/gatherer" traditions.

This seems to be the reason it was so easy for the western nomads to dominate the Nile Regions...Tough desert nomads, already organized for survival & with a keen sense of ingenuity must have found survival to be quite easy. This gave them extra leisure time to develop the civilization & culture that we know of today.

That post back on page 21 in this thread is what Egyptologists figured out of the history of the people & how they gradually developed the skills & organization that would have been needed to build something on the scale of the Giza Pyramids.


[edit on 21-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
The Sphinx was likely just a lion figure originally, since the human head carved into it is out of proportion and is smaller, and its lack of weathering suggests it was carved later. Still, the broad flat nose, large lips, and nappy hair lead some people, myself included, to see him as a black man. Maybe you are right and blacks didn't build them. But maybe they did. There were many different skin colours in the frescoes, so likely they were built by people with various shades of black. There have been mummies of different types found.
Regarding the source of the great old kingdom works, there is evidence they were Sumerian.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The Sphinx was likely just a lion figure originally, since the human head carved into it is out of proportion and is smaller, and its lack of weathering suggests it was carved later.

As for the uneven weathering showing on the Sphinx, it's basic structure is layered...That is, the stone in the lower portions of the Sphinx are much lower-quality stone than in the upper areas of the head. It's all made from the same geological formation, but the head is of much higher quality for carving.

BTW, as a side-note, the Sphinx temple & the Pyramid Temple next to it were made of the same low-quality stone that was excavated from the Sphinx Enclosure...The temples used that low-quality stone for the core structure but were later encased with higher quality stone.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
There were many different skin colours in the frescoes, so likely they were built by people with various shades of black. There have been mummies of different types found.

The Egyptians painted their artworks with different skin colors to make it absolutely clear that they considered themselves different from the other cultures around them. It does not equate to the idea that they really had so much difference in skin color though. Egytians were differnt in skin color, but the amount of difference was exagerated in their painting.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Regarding the source of the great old kingdom works, there is evidence they were Sumerian.

What evidence? Where? Egypt was the first to organize as a single geo-political unit...Mespotamia (indeed, most or all other ancient civilizations) never got past the "independant City-States" stage until Classical Greece emerged from their own Dark Ages (After the fall of their Heroic Age). By that time, Egypt was already ancient...During their Middle Kingdom.

When you're referring to the Sumerians, you should remember that Sumer was like the rest of Mesopotamia...An individual city-state, just like the rest of Mesopotamia.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyerThat is, the stone in the lower portions of the Sphinx are much lower-quality stone than in the upper areas of the head. It's all made from the same geological formation, but the head is of much higher quality for carving.
'Regarding the source of the great old kingdom works, there is evidence they were Sumerian.'BG13

What evidence? Where?

First of all, you missed my point about the head being too small. The Sphinx is also listed in the Inventory Stelae, which predates Khafre. As are the temples you mention, which the stelae says were to be repaired. But the evidence showing the Sphinx is older than Khafre is not my key point in my thread. It is that the Sphix is black African in his facial features. If it is not an African face, then the artists who carved it coincidentally gave it facial features that are African by mistake...
Source: Rohl, 'Legend', & 'A Test Of Time'



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I dunno if the Sphinx is purely black african in features. He looks like a combo of chinese and black african.

The chin is the first clue:





Compare it to this statue of a black african:




The second clue is the roundness of the face of the sphinx. Check this one out of "Mao":



To be fair, some black men have rounder faces as seen in the following image:




but notice they have substantial chins, and the sphinx is pretty much short in that department. Also, the majority of the black men in that picture are south african, which may have some chinese ancestory due to its location on the cape where chinese boats may have sailed and landed on occassion.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   


Mespotamia (indeed, most or all other ancient civilizations) never got past the "independant City-States" stage until Classical Greece emerged from their own Dark Ages (After the fall of their Heroic Age). By that time, Egypt was already ancient...During their Middle Kingdom.

sometimes you come out with some good information
other times, most often when you mention Mesopotamia you don't

this seems to be an extract from the "egypt first" handbook
I don't even know where to begin to explain how wrong it is
Compared to Mesopotamia egypt was very second rate
go compare the antiquities in any museum or read any book by someone who excavated in both places rather than what you have heard from nationalistic egyptologists




but notice they have substantial chins, and the sphinx is pretty much short in that department. Also, the majority of the black men in that picture are south african, which may have some chinese ancestory due to its location on the cape where chinese boats may have sailed and landed on occassion.

you're making this up as you go along aren't you
what trade route took chinese ships to africa early enough to have escaped anyones notice
and you should realise that particlular facial characteristics like big chins or round faces are found in EVERY racial group
comparing the sphinx facial features with a picture you found on the internet in 30 seconds because there is a passing resemblance is not good science Beth
its not even good pseudo science
this method of identifying someones race by their facial features was practiced by the Nazis to identify people of Jewish descent
it didn't work then and it doesn't work now
every race has people with large or short chins, fat or thin faces
racial characteristics are able to be determined by bone density and by skeletal length differences
but thats about as close as you can get
clearly from their remains the Pharoahs of egypt were from many different races
ipso facto
until you can come up with a set of skeletal limb lengths for the sphinx or a measuring of its bone density I'd give up on this line of enquiry if I were you.

clearly it is modelled on a Pharoah and there is no record thats credible enough to determine who, and thats also dependant on the skill of the sculptor and the Pharoahs vanity and also the style of art that was in vogue at the time
claiming its one or the other is pointless





[edit on 22-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Well that's not the first example either. And I've found some indication that the akkadians had major interaction with both egypt and china, the same ones that were also part of the falcon tribe, if the current info is correct. So early pharaoh, early monument, correct timeframe, historical evidence, visual confirmation, 2+2=4



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   


And I've found some indication that the akkadians had major interaction with both egypt and china,

Akkadian Cuneiform was the diplomatic language in egypt for centuries
did you figure that out all on your own you genius
you may have heard of the Armana tablets
By the time of Egyptian Akhenaton, the Akkadian language, had become the international diplomatic language of Great Kings from Egypt and Babylon to Assyria, Palestine and Hittite Anatolia.

lol
and they did kind of leave some blatant evidence that they were in Africa anyway

you know and other things that prove the Sumerians were there before them
stuff like Ivory inlays on a certain famous Lyre you may have heard of

and I'd love to see your chinese evidence
is it based on a statue with funny shaped eyes or something else just as credible like a statue with a round face ?




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join