Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

Originally posted by Marduk

undo, I am very impressed with your knowledge on the subject and many thanks for the information (links, recommendations of books) you provided. It is a great help for my future research.

see now that was funny,
you haven't noticed that Undo has not posted any links
not recomended any books
and not provided any information that is based on events that happened on this planet
I'd love to know what research you are doing but unless its into abnormal psycology I'm afraid I probably wouldn't be very imprerssed
please try to get a life in future
or at least
read the content of the posts and then respond to them properly without making yourself look uninformed and stupid
thanks

Will you just back off, Marduk. If someone is not reading the posts, you are the one.
Undo posted a link, which contains plenty of links
www.artapprentice.net...
Books were also recommended "The Giza Discovery" as well as work by David Rohl.

How about stopping threating people that they cannot post or that they will be banned? If I recall corectly YOU were the one who were banned from the last forum by the administrator...why because you couldn't stand that someone had a different opinion than you. Would you like me to remind you..???

so Marduk, back off and let me and others concentrate on the topic. I will be ignoring your posts in the future.

Undo and Zorgon the research I am doing involves exactly what this topic is about (or should be about) that the pyramid is much older than orthodox science claims and that it was built by someone else than the Egyptians. I will talk about it later.

Well I want to avoid doing to him what I don't want done to me (you know the old adage, do unto others). So I am resisting marginalizing him, and just focusing on only responding to relevant points (or at the very least, relevant to me?). It's relevant to me that he feels "proven theories" is a real concept, so I'ma gonna respond to that:

That's the problem, Marduk. How can it be a theory and proven at the same time? Is this like proof of evolutionary theory? It's a theory but everyone in the mainstream just accepts it as fact? I can't help but think this is why we are at this particular juncture regarding the GP. It all stems around who's proven theories are the most likely to be correct. On the one side, the only documents used to support the theory are those that support the theory. On the other side, all the ancient documents are employed to uncover the past. I use to be of the same mindset as you, that only the mainstream version was verifiable in anyway. I no longer believe that to be true.

Just hit the ignore button if you don't want to read his bs...I already had to do that with the guy in another thread because he insisted on listing a bunch of his black friends to prove how he wasn't racist.

I'd like to see evidence that the pyramids were in Egypt before the Egyptians...but still have only seen speculation. If "aliens" came down and left the pyramids, then where is the evidence? Groups of people were living on the nile and farming in Egypt since about 10,000bc, maybe earlier. I haven't seen any results from dating the pyramids that would show they are older than that, and it's pretty much established that they're not nearly that old. So did the aliens and/or advanced civilizations disappear without a trace, or did the people forget about it, or what?


[edit on 24-10-2006 by Shoktek]

Just hit the ignore button if you don't want to read his bs...I already had to do that with the guy in another thread because he insisted on listing a bunch of his black friends to prove how he wasn't racist.

way to go slick
I pointed out that I am on first name terms with the most famous afrocentrist currently working on this planet and thats all
which in anyones book means I'm not a racist
you feel the need to exaggerate to make yourself look cool thats ok with me
but everyone who read that thread knows you were talking rubbish and your research was useless
that was proven
if you can't handle it then theres only one thing you can do
research properly
but coming over to another thread and making out your something your not isnt doing your credibility any good at all

Originally posted by Marduk

way to go slick

Way to go slick, eh? and that was after I put a warning into the thread NOT TO GET PERSONAL!!!!

Geez

Next time...bam!!! red flag

Anyways, to get back on topic...

Here's a thought as to the civilization which could have been involved in pyramid building.

The Grooved Ware People.

www.geocities.com...

www.great-britain.co.uk...

www.mythicalireland.com...

They certainly had the wherewithall.

Originally posted by Patrick_D

Undo and Zorgon the research I am doing involves exactly what this topic is about (or should be about) that the pyramid is much older than orthodox science claims and that it was built by someone else than the Egyptians. I will talk about it later.

I will look forward to it Patrick. There is so much to look at so little time

Originally posted by Shoktek
Just hit the ignore button if you don't want to read his bs...I already had to do that with the guy in another thread because he insisted on listing a bunch of his black friends to prove how he wasn't racist.

I'd like to see evidence that the pyramids were in Egypt before the Egyptians...but still have only seen speculation. If "aliens" came down and left the pyramids, then where is the evidence? Groups of people were living on the nile and farming in Egypt since about 10,000bc, maybe earlier. I haven't seen any results from dating the pyramids that would show they are older than that, and it's pretty much established that they're not nearly that old. So did the aliens and/or advanced civilizations disappear without a trace, or did the people forget about it, or what?


[edit on 24-10-2006 by Shoktek]

Here's a potential candidate for your query. This is a list of items found in the gypsum mortar of the Great Pyramid. They've been carbon dated. The oldest is a piece of charcoal circa 3800 BC. That's nearly one thousand years old by the time the mainstreamers claim it was built (2600 BC)

Sample number
Age BC
Location

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

10B (wood)
3101 +-414
198th course top platform, SW corner

06
3090 +-153
25-26 course West side, NW corner

08
3062 +-157
108-109 course West side, NW corner

10A
3020 +-131
198th course top platform, SW corner

14
2998 +-319
5th course South side, SE corner

13
2975 +-168
5th course, SE corner

04
2971 +-120
2nd course core block North side

11
2950 +-164
Top platform, SW corner

05
2929 +-100
2nd course North side, near NW corner

07
2909 +- 97
65th course West side, NW corner

02
2909 +-104
2nd course North side East face 2nd tier

01
2869 +- 94
2nd course North side East end

13
2864 +-362
5th course SE corner

03
2853 +-104
2nd course North face 2nd tier

=====================================
Mod Edit - added link and 'ex' tags
Is this the right LINK?

[edit on 24-10-2006 by masqua]

[edit on 24-10-2006 by masqua]

Yea, actually I've read of some "mainstreamers" who put the date at around 3500 BC...so that doesn't really surprise me. It's the people saying 10,000BC that's a bit sketchy, although regardless of the date, still no evidence of non-human people, or some ancient civilization that preceeded the Egyptians.

You can't rely on RC dating as your only support; For one thing, earlier in this thread, Byrd posted about the flaws with RC dating. For one flaw, RC dating only works on substances that were once formerly alive; For another, RC dating only gives you a potential point in time when that substance actually died; And for another, RC dating can only give you a range of time, with varying amounts of probable accuracy within that time frame.

As for the wood charcoal that was used in the mortar-mixture, Egyptians had very little wood to work with (they had to import a lot), so whatever wood they used, they were more inclined to use it up; They would only use wood-charcoal when the wood itself had no other practical use. Therefore, it's very likely that the wood used for the mortar was already quite long dead before they burned it for the charcoal.

Therefore, RC dating cannot be used to determine the age of the mortar, only the burned organics that were used in the mortar.

I don't see why I had to repeat this info, since it was already pointed out in this thread...Unless this thread had already gotten too far off-topic for far too long...


[edit on 25-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]

still no evidence of non-human people, or some ancient civilization that preceeded the Egyptians.

www.catalhoyuk.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.ecotao.com...


[edit on 25-10-2006 by Marduk]

Masqua,

You said:
Mod Edit - added link and 'ex' tags
Is this the right LINK?

My response:
Yup.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Patrick_D
undo, I am very impressed with your knowledge on the subject and many thanks for the information (links, recommendations of books) you provided. It is a great help for my future research.
Looking forward to learn more about the alternative approach to this very interesting topic.

Zorgon has a ton of info on his site you might find interesting as well. I agree with him on this, what are you researching, sounds interesting ?

Sorry,I have looked through the thread, but I cannot find a link to Zorgon's site, can you please give it to me and I will gladly look at it. Thanks!

Patrick- landoflegends.us... I'm with you and Undo. Besides being just plain sarcastic always and hateful sometimes the rambling and poorly constructed sentence fragments without proper punctuation also makes me plan to simply scroll past this persona non grata posts.

I believe Midnight D has a valid point about the carbon 14 dating regarding aspects of the pyramid such as the mortar. Yeah it was repeated but I assume the length of this thread makes some forget all the previous comments and newer joiners don't read every post of 34 pages.

There was simply never any organic material that was datable found which was reliably linked to being originally associated with the pyramids.

Shotek I am also unconvinced about any 10,000 year age or more. Midnight D did post some about the pre-Egyptian civilization era on page 21 www.abovetopsecret.com... and it accurately states as far as I agree with too that we're talking a loose collection of river tribes with only a hint of organizational skills in the pre-dynasty era. We'd normally associate that time 8-10,000 years ago with humans just beginning to congregate in small enclaves and pursuing agriculture in place of nomadic lifestyles.

What amazes me is while some contend there is no archeological evidence for a sizeable society sophisticated and rich enough to create the Giza pyramids 10,000 years ago (I agree) there is also nothing to indicate a normal technological growing curve in pre-dyansty nomads who had some unknown stimulus to congregate and begin an alien, urban lifestyle.

We have a Neolithic culture of nomadic hunters, fishermen and gathering peoples using stone tools that rather quickly settled into small kingdoms with domesticated animals able to manufacture of daily functional goods and jewelery while the rest of the world was more primative. This culture then lept into gigantic, complex urban settings relative to anything previously experienced.

Thereafter at about the 4th millenium BC we see a rapid cohesion of loser aggregated fifedoms into big cities with an advanced knowledge of tools, engineering, architecture, building, science, art and medicine without substantial evidence of transitional stages. Yet this was a time when the north and south of Egypt were segregated still to be unified under Menes. The 1st Dynasty king was responsible for Memphis which quickly became the largest city in the world with 70,000 inhabitants and all the aforementioned tech accelerated still more. I am impressed by this.

But just 500 years later the Great Pyramid was built with another nearly as grand on its heels during the beginning of the 4th Dynasty. Then 26 dynasties along with the more modern Greek and Roman influences followed never having equalled the scale of those monuments.

So was it a resource wasteful phase they went through and nothing more? If a pre-Egyptian culture is responsible for the Giza giants longer ago that 10,000 years no trace has yet been uncovered. Zahi Hawass conceeds that he calculates only 30% of what exists has been unearthed.

I am wondering just how much is still hidden away in deep dark basements of museums, like the Bagdad battery. Has anyone ever looked into what percenatge of old finds are actually available for study? Don't know if we would find anything new... but I would like to look in those cellars

the pyramids were built by my mate Monkey Harris

Zorgon,

Have you checked into the Ooparts website? s8int.com...

surely you mean the fundie christian website determined to prove the truth of Noah

"View:We have a Biblical viewpoint on the world. Ooparts are evidence, we think, that the Flood actually happened. News items or magazine articles that report them may not have the same perspective that Christians do. When we read for instance, a scientific article that puzzles over our lack of genetic variability, we think of the Flood of Noah. We would include that article here, without editing because we expect Christians to use their filters on that article. That does not mean that we agree with the evolutionary timeframe given in said article.

We think it’s more interesting when general newspaper articles or science articles observe data that they might see one way, but that Christians might see another way given our own knowledge about God, creation and the flood. It’s more interesting to quote Stephen Jay Gould saying that “the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology”, than it might be to hear another Christian say it.

So, no we don’t believe the universe is millions or billions of years old. We don’t know how old it is—we just know who created it and how long it took Him. We do not believe in pre-Adamic races, though we do believe that there were “civilizations” prior to the Flood. We don’t believe in space aliens or cooties. We expect you to use your own knowledge filter on this site. "

its next to worthless
unless you're a fundie in which case its a pillar of your faith

The issue is Ooparts, and there's a website that collects oopart info. In solving the puzzle of history, every little bit of info helps, no matter who is saying it and certainly no matter how much you might disagree with the rest of their info. You need to loosen up a bit. You're wound tight and you can't learn anything new while wound so tightly.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by undo]

You're wound tight and you can't learn anything new while wound so tightly.

au contraire
you can't learn anything if you do all your research at sites with an agenda
and you can't learn anything from pseudoarchaeology sites because they have the biggest agenda of all

everything you posted in this thread that I destroyed I did so with verified orthodox information
you might want to think about that
and look up the word verified while your at it
I've known you about a year now and you're still posting the same stuff you were when I first met you
so you've learned nothing this year
My own research has moved on a great distance in that time and not only is it all verified and easily checkable information but its now in book format for which publishers are currently offering me 40% because it has academic and popular author support
so
carry on the way youre going Beth and I need never worry about the competition.

in fact the competition won't be around much longer anyway because in case you hadn't noticed the made up truth isn't as good as the real truth and with recent methods and advances finally the real truth is actually known

Originally posted by Marduk

You're wound tight and you can't learn anything new while wound so tightly.

au contraire
you can't learn anything if you do all your research at sites with an agenda

Everyone has an agenda to spread their version of the truth, their understanding of the reality, and so on. Ain't a book out there that isn't littered with agenda of some sort. Science books are today's version of yesterday's books of spiritual and religious truth. The only difference is they run tests to see if its true or not. If they can't test it, they assume it isn't true. Which is about the same thing as "if it ain't in the holy (insert applicable text) book, it isn't true". The upside is, we learned a great deal more about what we can see.

So how this relates to the GP is, the kind of mindset gets in the way of discovery. You can't discover if you already know it all. Same concept.