Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 35
3
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   


Everyone has an agenda to spread their version of the truth, their understanding of the reality, and so on.

No Beth
thats why your methodology is totally flawed
the truth has to be discovered without an agenda
otherwise you just end up with a point of view
if everything you've learned had an agenda then you haven't learned anything



Ain't a book out there that isn't littered with agenda of some sort

if thats what you think then you need to read a few more books
the second you put your own personal belief into something you nullify it
if you just report the known facts then its nothing but the truth and its up to the reader to interpret it.
thats why you have never written a single true word
because your truth is heavily coloured by your own agenda and point of view
and thats generally known as fiction




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
There is no evidence nor proof that known facts totally explain anything. Why would anybody believe otherwise?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Everyone has an agenda to spread their version of the truth, their understanding of the reality, and so on.

No Beth
thats why your methodology is totally flawed
the truth has to be discovered without an agenda
otherwise you just end up with a point of view
if everything you've learned had an agenda then you haven't learned anything



Working on the assumption that our ancestors were lying because it can't be proven they were telling the truth, is definitely an agenda. It's an agenda that states - we are telling the truth, they were lying. Therefore, we can ignore what they said as being anything but fabrication. How do we know the new guys are telling the truth? How do we know our ancestors were lying? Because the new guys say so, that's how! Come on, you aren't going to tell me that only ancient people are liars, are you? Half the time, the new truth merchants don't even know where the information comes from that they claim to know so well. Somebody teaches it to them, and they follow along, dutifully, never questioning why or how or when or where. Yes, it's a comfortable position. No, it is not science. Science is supposed to be about discovery of the unknown, not refusal to admit the unknown exists. Of course it exists, Doh!

Anyway, the history of ancient Egypt is just not the easily explained away. Their own stories, are not that easily explained away. This is especially evident where things like the Great Pyramid are involved.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
you are clearly blinded by your agenda
show me an orthodox historian or archaeologist who says that our ancestors are lying in their texts
what you do is far worse
you put words and ideas in their mouths by your blatant disregard for the facts
like your Nimrod is enmarkar nonsense which i disproved in five seconds by showing you the facts
or your claim that the chinese were in africa which once again you made up off the top of your head because it suited your purposes

now you claim that ortho people are lying
hmmm where have we heard this before
oh yes
David Htacher Childress who suspends the disbelief of his readers by claiming there is no supporting evidence for his claims because the government has hidden it
or Graham Hancock who claims that a mysterious global conspiracy amongst every archaeologist on earth has hidden the truth from us

if you can't understand the past from the details Beth thats one thing
many people can't because like you they haven't studied it
but blaming your lack on people that do is truly pathetic and marks you out as a very poor scholar indeed and a complete waste of time for anyone who is interested in reading the facts
something you are clearly lacking

for instance
you once claimed that people lived longer in the past because they were genetically engineered by aliens to do so and the dates of the early part of the Sumerian king list reflected this where some kings it claimed reigned for 1200 years
so that would be your answer for this entry into that king list for instance



After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kiš. In Kiš, Ĝušur became king; he ruled for 1200 years

Beth says "oh thats because Ĝušur was an alien human hybrid and had a long lifespan because he had alien genes

heres my answer and the answer of anyone who has actually studied this culture
the sumerians used base 60 for recording their numbers
so therefore 1200 years base 60 is in fact 20 years base 10
so Ĝušur reigned for 20 years

now go and use your occhams razor to see which answer is more likely
and in case you still aren't aware that the sumerians used base 60 in their mathematics perhaps you should go and look at your watch
because its their system of recording time that we still use today
60 seconds = one minute. 60 minutes = one hour
and no
any claims that your watch has alien genes are not valid

now you already know or suspect that the Hebrews plaguiarised the bible from mesopotamian sources. This is why its full of mesopotamian words and stories
so what does this new information tell you about their claim that Methuseleh lived for 969 years(969/base 60 = 16.15 years)
so the oldest man in the bible was just over 16 when he died

and you were trying to tell me what
that orthodox people are saying that our ancestors lied
newsflash for you Beth
plaguiarism isn't lying
its just theft
would you claim that in cinderella anyone who says she had a glass slipper is a liar because in the original story it was made of fur


you just think people are saying its lies because you don't understand its context
much like the Hebrew scribes who compiled it in the first place
and do you know
I don't think you ever will either
because you don't know the true facts of the matter
and the way you are running screaming into denial and sci fi fantasy land you probably never will


by the way calling me a liar is a personal attack
calling anyone else a liar is libel



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
So this proves the mainstream version of how the pyramids were built and when they were built is accurate?

And if so, would you say you have great confidence in the mainstream version of the history of the world?

And for the record, can you establish for the readers of this thread, where you disagree with mainstream versions of life, the universe and everything, especially as it relates to ancient Egypt?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I didn't think you'd be able to answer the truth when you heard it





So this proves the mainstream version of how the pyramids were built and when they were built is accurate?

no
that was just answering your claim that orthodox experts were all liars and only you know the truth
personally i didnt see what that had to do with Egypt especially as now you have seen it clearly isn't true




And for the record, can you establish for the readers of this thread, where you disagree with mainstream versions of life, the universe and everything,

no because that would be entirely off topic




especially as it relates to ancient Egypt?

you have to take things in context
that was like the whole point of my previous post
how did you miss that



And if so, would you say you have great confidence in the mainstream version of the history of the world?

compared to who ?
you
yes in that case I have total confidence in people who have actually studied the facts and know what they are talking about
I have no confidence in pseudoarchaeologists or alternative historians because I have studied the facts and know what they say to be the lies you referenced in your previous diatribe
ok ?


[edit on 25-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
You've already established you don't agree with me. I'm trying to establish what it is you actually believe about this topic, not what you believe about what I believe (cause we've already heard that now about 50 times and if I answered all your accusations, the thread would be hopelessly off topic). So let's hear what you believe on the subject of when and who built the great pyramid, and your reasons for believing it and what mainstream issues you don't agree with in regards to ancient Egypt.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
Perhaps the pyramids aren't aligned with Orion's Belt...

they showed the night-sky as it is now, over the three pyramids. Then, they shifted it around... arranged it so that it fit what they think the night-sky looked like, thousands upon thousands of years ago. And according to them, the pyramids WERE aligned with the belt, at one point in history.


What you are referring to is precession, the way stars shift in the sky over great periods of time.

Several "ancient" civilisations were able to deduce this art. This fact and the fact that many of them also built pyramidal structures leads some (often otherwise brilliant) people to climb mountain tops and holler "Atlanteans!"

Relax, people.

Form fits function. Why do Ferraris and Williams(es) look the same? They have different designers, who went to different schools and studied under different teachers, but eventually they all hit on the same ideas as solutions to the same problems, because that's what physics dictates.

To all those who think all pyramids were built by the same culture travelling across the earth, I say this:

Humans are monumentalists (go read Shelly's "Ozymandias") and before the invention of concrete and steel reinforcing rod, physics dictated a simple solution: height at the top = width at the base. There is no escaping it.

The Germans and the Brits invented the aero jet engine at exactly the same time. Were they taught by aliens?

How can multiple "early" civilisations all discover precession? Easy, priests don't generally have to spend time bent over in the fields looking at the mud, they spend their time staring into the sky and thinking deep thoughts about how they can remain in control, eventually they begin to notice what's happening up there, whether they are looking from Thebes or Mexico.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   


You've already established you don't agree with me. I'm trying to establish what it is you actually believe about this topic, not what you believe about what I believe (cause we've already heard that now about 50 times and if I answered all your accusations, the thread would be hopelessly off topic). So let's hear what you believe on the subject of when and who built the great pyramid, and your reasons for believing it and what mainstream issues you don't agree with in regards to ancient Egypt.

if you answered but one of my questions I would be impressed
so far thats been beyond your reach
the Great pyramid was built around 2500bce by Egyptians
how you can think it was anything other than that is laughable
i thought I'd already made that clear
it wasn't done by space aliens and there is no evidence whatsoever that aliens have played any part in our history outside of sci fi literature

the only thing I don't agree with is the supression of the facts by the Egyptian antiquities comission which leads to this kind of nonsense as per the title of this thread in the first place
but hey they got a business to run and if gullible people want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars each year to see the mysterious pyramids thats up to them
the claims for instance that the egyptians would have to lay one block every two minutes for twenty five years to complete it fall apart when you consider that the village that they found of the workers housed up to 30,000 people
but none of you "aliens did it mob" even considered that they may have had anything up to 1000 teams working all at the same time
that would be far too logical
must have been aliens eh



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Logical, albeit in a "gads i'm better than you" way, but logical. That is, if you believe all those other people are wrong, which I don't.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by undo]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
...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.

Oh no? Even though you read my posts on page 21, I had trouble with the text-codes to properly display the pics until page 31. Even in the Pre-Dynastic times, when the seeds of Egyptian Civilization were still nomadic & making seasonal camps out at the playas in the desert (I mentioned Nabta Playa specifically), there was still the beginnings of large-scale stone-working. Even so, the archeological records that I wrote of back on page 21 does show the gradual (though relatively rapid) progression of skills that it would have taken for the Giza Pyramids to be built. There's no indication in the archeological record that indicates that Egyptian culture, skill & sophistication was "given" to them; No indication that the Egyptians acquired these attributes "suddenly".

I also think you're discounting the contributions of Snefru (1st Pharoah, 4th Dynasty), whom I mentioned also...He was the literal "father" of the Giza Pyramids (as well as being the literal father of those three Pharoahs who built the GP's), as it was he & his architech (Imhotep) who worked through the problems of large-scale pyramids. It took Snefru at least three tries (some Egyptologists credit Snefru with five, but real evidence is sketchy about two of those five pyramids) to get it right with the Red Pyramid.

I think you're also discounting the fact that, even though "agriculture" arrived relatively late in Egyptian history, the Nile was so lush & fertile that obtaining food was ridiculously easy...Especially compared to the people living along the Tigris & Euphrates rivers (Mesopotamia). Since the Egyptians had it comparitively easy as far as surving goes, this left Egyptians more "leisure time" to develop sophisication in their culture (as HowlrunnerIV, whom I quote later in this post, pointed out).


Originally posted by Cruizer
Then 26 dynasties along with the more modern Greek and Roman influences followed never having equalled the scale of those monuments.

Quite possibly because the Greeks & especially the Romans were more interested in exploiting the high level of agrarian fertility of the Nile River to feed their armies.

Even so, the Alexander the Great was welcomed more as a liberator than a conqueror; Greeks were traditional allies to the Egyptians at the time. Even after Alexander, during Ptolomy rulership, the Greeks integrated more within "Egyptian culture" than any other Greeks of their time. But then again, even the Greeks used Egypt as their "breadbasket."


Originally posted by Cruizer
Zahi Hawass conceeds that he calculates only 30% of what exists has been unearthed.

I would tend to agree with that statement, in general, but I might consider a slightly higher percentage. Even so, when you look at other ancient documentation (even unrelated to Egypt, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) & realize what lousy condition they were in when found, you have to wonder how much lost historical material can never be found. Time is the real enemy of archeology.


Originally posted by zorgon
I am wondering just how much is still hidden away in deep dark basements of museums, like the Bagdad battery.

...Or even still hidden away by the multi-generational families of tomb robbers...
Tomb security was a high priority on any Pharoah's list!


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
How can multiple "early" civilisations all discover precession? Easy, priests don't generally have to spend time bent over in the fields looking at the mud, they spend their time staring into the sky and thinking deep thoughts about how they can remain in control, eventually they begin to notice what's happening up there, whether they are looking from Thebes or Mexico.

Heh...Especially in Mesopotamia; Ditch-digging (for the irrigation canals) was considered a "holy duty" & the preists were the largest "employers"; They had all kinds of professions working for them...Brewers, potters, even prostitutes (
). The priests drafted anybody they wanted to for the job.
The rise of the "professional class" during Neolithic times allowed people to "specialize"...Of course, the higher the status of your "profession", the more time you have to "sophisticate" your profession even further.

This is also why Pharoah in Egypt was also considered to be a "living incarnation" of the divine...It was his "professional class".
It was the Pharoah who had the chief duty of propogating the gods so that the gods could keep the universe going the way it should. Pharoah's duty was to protect Egypt's borders, perform the religious duties to keep Chaos at bay & even provide for the people in times of famine/disaster (by storing surplus food & distribute it during the "lean times"). Yes, I admit it...Pharonic Egypt was more of a Religious Tyranny than anything else, but with only a few exceptions, Pharoah also had to perform benevolent duties to the prosperity of his people & the nation.


Originally posted by golddragnet
the pyramids were built by my mate Monkey Harris

Where's your evidence? BTW, one-liner posting is highly discouraged on ATS...Posting that does not show any effort to keep in line with any kind of serious scholarship has it's own forums over in BTS. Keep that in mind before you post again.

And as yet another reminder, specifically to Undo...Stop cluttering up this thread. If you want to step into the "boxing ring" (ATS Chat) with Marduk, then hammer out your differences there. I believe the Mods are getting pretty tired of repeating their warnings about this thread-derailment. BTW Marduk...By even offering any answers to Undo's off-topic diatribes, just remember that you're only encouraging the problem.


[edit on 26-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   


That is, if you believe all those other people are wrong, which I don't.

well thats just it isn't it
you believe
you don't find out
personal belief is a real killer when it comes to science Beth



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Undo for Chrissake please stop feeding him by responding. You aren't contributing meaningfully by defending every sentence you write.

Midnight D- I mean in "relative" terms it was rapid. 500+- years is pretty fast. And I mean even in the 1st Dynasty they were erecting some stunningly complex stone works. Even before they were "organized" they were still way ahead of their neighbors. I'm sorry if I find it amazing but they did stand out. It was once they began working with stone on a large scale regardless of their previous building knowledge they excelled exponetially. And the fact that no one in the world at that time was even on par much less excelled says something. And as I've said it wasn't simply the singluar structures in any context by themselves, it was the sudden decision to congregate in gigantic urban centers. That's alien in itself. This proto-society didn't write yet but somehow once they incorporated, as it were, they were on board with not just medicine, art, general architecture, and other sciences but with sophisticated understanding and interpretation of these subjects that blossomed. They were able to organize all the previous cultural verbally passed down knowledge and organize it in a meaningful way once wriring was invented. That is astounding. The GP is just the icing on the cake.

I sadly agree that much evidence of history has been lost or is mislabeled or is hidden away in private collections having been stolen. The fires at the libraries in Alexandria sure did little to help un-muddy things.

So far all the modern societies we know covering that past 1,200 years or so have progressively built their structures larger and with more complexity as time passed and experience grew. The Egyptians peaked real early. It would be like the Pilgrims building the high rises of NY City and progressively go simplier till we today only build 7-11s and single story homes.

Howlrunner- I agree in that science and technology often times reaches a pinnacle at which contemporary thought is similar even though it comes from different regions without contact. WW 2 aircraft design is an example of that to a limited extent. You had a cadre of learned engineers all taught by relatively the same people before them from the same basic set of aeronynamic rules. All that was learned up to that point accumulatively in the world of aircraft design was accessable through publications and common scientific channels to a point at least.

Some were conceiving similar theories but others were turning those into tangible aircraft. Upon learning of the real thing those others were vindicated in their conceptual approach at least. This is where I must diverge on my rationale of "like minds think alike."

In our more modern history, say the last 500 years there has been communication and interchnge of ideas along with trading of goods 1st in the European world and climaxing in the whole world. The ancient world had no connections such as these and the fact that each civilization actually began many of their now lost civilizations with megalithic constructions to be scaled down in later times does nothing to deny or confirm collusion. Even without a specific echange of ideas there needed to be a general exchange of culture. We can't explain microwaves to a Bushman without him being educated at least to some reasonable level of scientific competence.

The pyramidal structure use is curious because they do not appear in the same general timeline which would confirm the universal think alike theory. Societies were at different levels of diffusion when they each began pyramid construction. And why did some pre-Incan societies not integrate pyramids into their building reprtoire at all yet later Incas did? Why did some obviously build more crude pyramids seemingly early in their histories? In short there is no formula that says a culture will discover the pyramid after being cohesive for 500 or 1,000 years and not before or after, logic of shape notwithstanding. On the other hand geometric shapes are probably universal in humans' brains without direct exposure to them so they had some idea already of course.

Beyond the pyramid it is still confounding why so many civilizations chose to build things on a massive scale with stone age tools. Too many made things very difficult on themselves when they didn't have to.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
once again Cruizer your understanding of Egyptian and even world history is staggeringly small
there were quite a few pyramids built before the Gizamids
and in egypt very few afterwards
so there was no sudden amazing technology that sprung out of nowhere
and there was no decline in splendour
the gizamids if anything were very very bare
later pyramids were far more intricate and better designed
you seem to think you understand this subject but in reality you seem lost in the mystery of Egypt
which in reality is no mystery at all
your claim for instance that they had no writing when they were understanding sciences is blatantly wrong
Hieroglyphic script has now been dated back to around 3300bce
thats before a single brick was laid at Giza
almost a thousand years before
compare our modern world with the world in 1200ACE and you'll see what a bad comparison you are making
it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny
so I wonder why you bother




Undo for Chrissake please stop feeding him by responding. You aren't contributing meaningfully by defending every sentence you write.

I'm sure Beth knows more about all of these subjects than you do
shes quite capable of making up her own mind who she chooses to respond to
at least she responds to my posts with some intelligence
whereas most of your posts are simply bitter like you lost something
its probably just your credibility you dropped somewhere


[edit on 27-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Beyond the pyramid it is still confounding why so many civilizations chose to build things on a massive scale with stone age tools. Too many made things very difficult on themselves when they didn't have to.


That is actually a very good point... just exactly what drove the need for such huge structures. And going by the quantity of sites around the world, in many cultures, the need must have been great



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   


just exactly what drove the need for such huge structures

It was the God- King who was giving the orders Z
you see how people run when the pres says to do something
multiply that by about a million




posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Undo for Chrissake please stop feeding him by responding. You aren't contributing meaningfully by defending every sentence you write.

On the other hand geometric shapes are probably universal in humans' brains without direct exposure to them so they had some idea already of course.

Beyond the pyramid it is still confounding why so many civilizations chose to build things on a massive scale with stone age tools. Too many made things very difficult on themselves when they didn't have to.


good advice, pitbulls don't like to let go..

I posit that pyramids (I am only replying what others say..), are functional devices and they are a technology that is not understood yet by modern man.

if that theory is correct then it would explain two things you and others mention here: the variety of styles and locations of pyramids and secondly the enduring aspect of the design.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mardukthe Great pyramid was built around 2500bce by Egyptians
how you can think it was anything other than that is laughable
i thought I'd already made that clear

Laughable, to you, certainly, and to the majority of people you might ask. But not to me. I don't see how you can be so confidant in your 2500 bc date when, from what I have read, there is no plausible theory yet presented that comes near to explaining 'how' they did it. The possibility exists, yes, but without an explanation of how they could have, that can withstand scrutiny, which no theory has been able to do, then it is far from proven that they built it. Not that they couldn't have, but just pointing out that in the 200 years since Napoleans scientists had a look at it, no one has succeeded in doing so. I wonder why that is. I mean, other than the reason being that it is extremely hard to do so.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
show me an orthodox historian or archaeologist who says that our ancestors are lying in their texts
David Htacher Childress who suspends the disbelief of his readers by claiming there is no supporting evidence for his claims because the government has hidden it
or Graham Hancock who claims that a mysterious global conspiracy amongst every archaeologist on earth has hidden the truth from us

The more common claim is that our ancestors were just wrong, or were not serious when they told their stories. I would rather show you qualified scientific researchers whose evidence supports that the ancients were telling the truth for the most part. And I have read just that, and found it far more satisfying than when the accepted theories defy the ancients, as well as the physical evidence. To my mind, some of the accepted theories do just that. As for Childress, I thank him for making me aware of a lost city in the deserts of Oman decades before the shuttle crew 'discovered' it. The readers digest bit on this newly found mystery city was quite amusing to me, a nobody, who already knew about it thanks to Mr. Childress.
And as for archeologists being muzzled, and discredited, or even totally destroyed academically, after they found ooparts.... it happens. It is not necessarily common, but it does happen, to prominent researchers, in recent years, here in the west.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
once again Cruizer your understanding of Egyptian and even world history is staggeringly small
there were quite a few pyramids built before the Gizamids
and in egypt very few afterwards
so there was no sudden amazing technology that sprung out of nowhere
and there was no decline in splendour
the gizamids if anything were very very bare
later pyramids were far more intricate and better designed
you seem to think you understand this subject but in reality you seem lost in the mystery of Egypt
which in reality is no mystery at all
[edit on 27-10-2006 by Marduk]

Marduk, I disagree. In particular, with your claim that later pyramids were far more intricate and better designed.
In my studies, I must have missed those ones. Which ones were they? It would be quite a surprise to me to see even one example of a later, more intricate, better designed pyramid than the great one at giza. You say there are more than one. If you could show me just one, and show why you think it is more intricate and better designed, I would be grateful. I am very skeptical that there is such a pyramid. As for 'no mystery'... well I wish I had all the answers that you seem to possess regarding the great pyramid. In 25 years of reading, I have found few answers, and a number of questions that no one has yet to answer beyond question. It is still odd to me that the best ones were built quite early on, the 4th dynasty, and later ones are grossly inferior. Usually, the best ones are later on.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join