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......sound and water???

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
We use googled links to show that we know the cold hard facts and we're not just making this stuf up.


Originally posted by Pictnation
But enough of that. Back to the pyramids. What we know about the pyramids is taken from people who dig a hole in the ground and try to find something worth money.

Sorry... the information comes from historians, documents, oral histories, and examination of artifacts. While it is true that the first ones into the field were the treasure hunters (with Napoleon...but earlier ones as well), the treasure hunter has had no role in the knowledge that we have from Egypt.

Their methods destory evidence.

So...what we know comes from reading what they said, examining every bit of evidence on the site, checking ancient documents in many languages, and considering the whole picture of the site AND the country AND the times.

Not just one tiny piece of it.


The offical timescales do not match. Between the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Some sources reckon that the Sphinx could predate the Great Pyramid by at least 10,000 years. If this is so who built them and why?


What do you mean by "official timescales do not match"? Whose "official timescales"... and could you give us the dates that you think don't match as well as the evidence that it doesn't match?


2. There are buildings on the Islands of Scotland, which predate the Pyramids and yet show the same accuracy of building. e.g inline with the revolutions of the sun/moon.


Could you point us to a site that shows the same accuracy of architectural building as some of the Egyptian temples of the period?

Did you mean "celestial alignment with moon, sun, and planets"? If so, there are a good dozen or more civilizations that have better records than the ancient Egyptians. They weren't that interested in astronomy and didn't build observatories (unlike the Sumerians and South American cultures... or the Northern European ones, for that matter) and didn't have reliable sky maps until the Greeks showed up and took over the rulership.

BTW, the Egyptian pyramids and temples really didn't match up with any set of stars. And it's very easy to align something east-west... just put a stick in the ground at sunrise (east) and see which way the shadow runs (west.) Draw a line along the shadow and you have a perfect alignment.


3. For the manpower involved to build the pyramids the generally thought of way, we should be able to dig up mass graves with the workers showing spinal deformity, missing limbs and signs of great stress upon thier skeletal structure.

Why? They used oxen to haul a lot of the heavy stuff. They have pictures of this on various temple walls and it's referenced in the manuscripts.


Yes, we can dig up SOME graves, showing these deformities but it only works out about 5% of the calculated numbers thought to be employed. so how come the rest are ok?

Do you have a source for this?


4. Still on the workers, it is known that they were not slaves, but were actually paid to work, so what about the rest of the jobs? Did they bring in imigrant workers from some other place to farm, bake etc?


Okay... as some here are aware, the people of ancient Egypt lived along the Nile. The Nile has seasonal floods when people can't work in the fields. This is when the Pharaohs put them to work on other projects.

They didn't need immigrant labor. They weren't building to American timescales but to Egyptian ones... "it is done when it is done."


5. Today, with modern technology, we could maybe just replicate the precise building of the pyramids using computer programs such as solidworks and 3d building packages. How on earth did the builders manage it using papyrus and ink and quill? Come on folks think about it, this is the serious flaw in the orginal building method.


There's some notes left by Imhotep, the man who designed the first pyramids and a number of them show that the Egyptians experimented with a different forms until they got it right.

Lots of refernces on this.


6. Remember that the pyramids where also covered in a smooth surface, which could be made from marble, granite or some rock thats similar.

Limestone. Very soft, carveable limestone.


Giving that, the building feat is even more remarkable and these where said to interlock giving the impression of being jointless.

Not entirely so, but they did the same thing with statues and temple walls. You should look at some of the other things they did... not just pyramids.


Look at the rough stepped pyramids we have now, and think on how they attached smooth sheets weighing tons to these sides.

Limestone isn't that heavy and the sheets were fairly thin (inches thick.)


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Byrd]




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
9,500-Year-Old City Found
Underwater Off India

Discovery in Bay of Cambay Will Force Western Archaeologists to Rewrite History


According to marine scientists in India, archaeological remains of this lost city have been discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India. And carbon dating says that they are 9,500 years old.

According to the BBC's Tom Housden, reporting on the Cambay find:

The vast city — which is five miles long and two miles wide — is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years. The site was discovered by chance last year by oceanographers from India's National Institute of Ocean Technology, who were conducting a survey of pollution. Using sidescan sonar, which sends a beam of sound waves down to the bottom of the ocean, they identified huge geometrical structures at a depth of 120 feet. Debris recovered from the site — including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture, and human bones and teeth — has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old (BBC article).

Several reports confirm this estimate. Housden added, "The whole model of the origins of civilisation will have to be remade from scratch."


The last paragraph is the one I like the most.


Now you might ask me; why did you write here something that is so off topic. My point is that whatever we know today is not perfeclty defined and proven (as per scientific prove) therefore there is always a possibility to change the old theories and create the new ones. In other words since egyptology exclude it self from being part of the exact sciences (i.e. math, physics, chemistry etc) and aknowledges it self the right to speculate not based in scientific data this means that the conclusions reached thru the years are subject of change.

1000 years ago we thought the yearth was flat, 5000 ago we thought the sun rotates toward the earth and 5 n\minutes ago you thought that Sumer was the oldest civilisation in the world...imagine what we will know tomorrow




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   
dude this story was completely debunked over 4 years ago
it turned out to have been a scam pulled by Murli Manohar Joshi, the Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Science and Technology, who also holds additional charge of the Department of Ocean Development
in other words hes a goverment minister in charge of marine tourism



Prominent members of the archaeological community have since debunked the Ministry's claim. While not disputing the possible existence of underwater structures in the Gulf of Khambat, they argue that the evidence found so far is far too flimsy to support the grand claims that are being made. Their contention is that the government should hand over the excavation work to qualified marine archaeologists. It is a well established that civilisation began around 3500 B.C. in the Sumer valley (now in southern Iraq), and around 2500 B.C. in the Indian subcontinent with the Indus Valley civilisation. In archaeological methodology, the records generated from fieldwork have primacy in establishing the value of an excavation and the conclusions that are drawn. "It is highly unorthodox to go public so soon after a discovery and without first presenting the findings to one's peers," Jaya Menon, a lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University, Baroda, told Frontline. "I don't see how claims were made without the involvement of marine archaeologists."

www.hinduonnet.com...
now generally as a rule any news report you read that mentioned Graham Hancock by name should make you immediately suspicious
as for your Sig



1000 years ago we thought the yearth was flat, 5000 ago we thought the sun rotates toward the earth and 5 n\minutes ago you thought that Sumer was the oldest civilisation in the world...imagine what we will know tomorrow

the idea that the earth was flat is actually a modern misconception and was never a widespread belief outside of some cranky religious movements
nobody thought that the sun rotated towards the earth 5000 years ago
because at that point people thought the sun was a god so thats out too
and finally
fyi CatalHoyuk is currently regarded as the oldest civilisation on earth
its been that way for some time now

perhaps you should shorten your sig to just say



what we will know tomorrow will be built on facts and empirical evidence and not on peoples imaginations


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Still watching this thread. I continue to be impressed by the encyclopaedic knowledge of Byrd and Marduk. Their very different styles of presentation (I see Marduk's has earned him a little red flag) add variety, colour and vigour to the thread.

Pity they have no worthier opponents. Is there someone among the opposition who can actually post sources of verification for their claims? From the point of view of a spectator at a tennis match, it's rather obvious who's getting the better of this match. But then, knowledge and commonsense whack fancy and the need to believe every time. Or so it has proved in my experience.

Thanks again, Byrd and Marduk, for teaching me a great deal about a fascinating subject.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Telos
9,500-Year-Old City Found
Underwater Off India

As Marduk said, it was a fraud. The "research team" only seems to have spoken to Graham Hancock and there were no papers published (as would have happened if it was real) and no announcements in the science journals. The story died in embarrassed silence.


In other words since egyptology exclude it self from being part of the exact sciences (i.e. math, physics, chemistry etc)


Erm... it doesn't.

YOU might think it's speculative. It's not. Archaeology is a very exacting science (I know, because I took the courses and had to suffer through the prof's pounding it into our heads that THIS is what we do and THIS is good evidence and if we tried to speculate... we flunked!)


... this means that the conclusions reached thru the years are subject of change.

This is true of any science. As we get better info, we constantly rewrite knowledge.


1000 years ago we thought the yearth was flat, 5000 ago we thought the sun rotates toward the earth and 5 n\minutes ago you thought that Sumer was the oldest civilisation in the world...imagine what we will know tomorrow

Actually, Sumer isn't the oldest civilization in the world or even in the Mediterranean area. The Harappan is older still, and there are Levant culture centers that are quite ancient.

...and so on and so forth.

So the world is far more wonderful and interesting IF you go see what the scholars and scientists are saying. I know the speculators (who have examined one object or one small set of objects and then write books with their speculations) keep denouncing scientists -- the truth is that they don't want you examining the whole body of information.

So they tell you "scientists think this" and "scientists think that" and you wander off without ever finding out what scientists really think.

And you miss so much.

Start reading about what we really DO know! It's endlessly interesting!

Start here!
www.archaeology.org...



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Still watching this thread. I continue to be impressed by the encyclopaedic knowledge of Byrd and Marduk. Their very different styles of presentation (I see Marduk's has earned him a little red flag) add variety, colour and vigour to the thread.

Pity they have no worthier opponents. Is there someone among the opposition who can actually post sources of verification for their claims? From the point of view of a spectator at a tennis match, it's rather obvious who's getting the better of this match. But then, knowledge and commonsense whack fancy and the need to believe every time. Or so it has proved in my experience.

Thanks again, Byrd and Marduk, for teaching me a great deal about a fascinating subject.


It appears we now need an instigator gang, Astyanax thinks we are at war when in fact we havel u2u'd one another about the differences......Hmmmm Astyanax, there are plenty of educated discussions all over the board that are going on, I suggest you start one on instigation if you cannot contribute in any other way to the existing thread.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this already volatile subject in the past does not need any more disruption than it once received, please try to stay on topic. Until then, we may all review your current posts and add our own ideas as to who is, "winning". If you do feel the need to give kudos to anybody, it may just be better via a u2u for the time being is all.
Thanks for the addition, this is not intended to start yet another arguement, just to stay focused is all..........peace, Mondo



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
There's a reason why Byrd and Marduk and all other Anthros and Archos STILL dig, research and ponder—because they know things change. If they really thought all the answers have been found, there would be alot of shovels and brushes hanging in peoples garages.

It's called Ego. Overinflated, by remarks such as yours. It is very telling, IMO, of character, when someone continually uses "we" know this, "we" know that, and "we" yada, yada.

Furthermore, here is the opening post again, so you don't have to go back.



I am wondering if anybody here has any thoughts as to the construction of the pyramids by the aid of sound and water??? I know that the histoical timeline of human civilizations only goes back so far according to most people, but I beg to differ with that thought. Without going into too much detail.....I am of the thought process that humans have been around much longer than previously thought and that maybe some sort of cataclysmic (sp?) event happened to wipe out most people in the past, making it start over again. With that in mind, I tend to believe that the ancient Egyptians may have been MUCH more advanced than we thought...and may have had techniques using water and sound to aid in the construction of the pyramids.

P.S. Just so you do not think I am uninformed,
I do have a degree in Anthropology with specifics
in Egyptology...just trying to think outside the box.


The last line there, see it? "just trying to think outside the box". He never said the textbook theories were wrong, just he may believe otherwise, and asked for some imput. Immediately he was attacked, because he didn't subscribe fully to the textbook theories.

The disgrace of this thread is not the lack of opposition, whom can regurgitate a knowledge of Egyptian history, the disgrace is the egotistical refusal to believe one may be wrong.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Do you think it is possibly that the egyptians could have possibly Submerged the pyramids and were able to work underwater building them as it would be much much easier to care the hard stone rocks underwater ... ???



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Hmmm, Deus! that's one that i have never heard, but hey.....until it is looked into, who knows for sure. It seems from a cursory look at it that it would be among the difficult of ways to accomplish the feat but do you have any other ideas or details about this thought???



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Hmmm, Deus! that's one that i have never heard, but hey.....until it is looked into, who knows for sure. It seems from a cursory look at it that it would be among the difficult of ways to accomplish the feat but do you have any other ideas or details about this thought???


I am not sure I just know that whenever I was little and was learning about cultivation and the Egyptians pretty much had all that stuff mastered I mean there were Hundreds of thousands of these people that had to be fed ... And this was so intriguing to me ... I wonder how much techonology that they had and we do not know ... such as little things that intrigue people such as Indians finding water with sticks and such ....



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Exactly Dues. Just because it hasn't been found to be drawn on any walls, or written in any manuscripts, doesn't mean it's not there.

The one thing that we know for sure, (justed wanted to use the word we
) is that we will never know the minds of Egyptians. Who knows what they thought would be important to write down. Perhaps some of their knowledge was so basic to them, they didn't feel the need to lay it out. Perhaps the drawings and writings were meant to be viewed by Egyptians of the day. Not, a historical accounting for future peoples. Given that case, they didn't need to draw or write everything, because they all knew.

:edit to add: The only 'facts' in Egyptology, are the drawings, the writings, the relics, and other factual stuff. Conclusions made from those facts, are not facts. They are conclusions. Conclusions under the scrutiny of the scientific method become Theorys. Still not a fact.


[edit on 18-1-2007 by nextguyinline]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Hey Marduk, Byrd, this isn't a peer-reviewed journal, it's a conspiracy/paranormal board.

Your "cold hard facts" might make you feel safe, and they might sound impressive to your pedant buddies, but this is the fricking Internet, all right?
Quashing unconventional ideas isn't the way to go about things here. If you disagree with the premise of the thread, say so, and move on. If you're so incensed by the idea that you want to post ten times about how wrong it is, don't even read any further. There are any number of buttons on your screen that will take you away from this page. The OP isn't trying to convince anyone of his theory, he's trying to discuss it, and so are several other people.





On topic.


Edward Leedskalnin. Fascinating figure. I don't buy the block and tackle story, and I don't buy the heavy metaphysics angle either. I think he was good at math, in a holistic sort of way.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by The Parallelogram]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Edward may have had an integral knowledge of Sacred Geometry.

The fact that he was abel to carve and hoist a 50 ton block of coral straight up with a block and tackle set-up, is not the curiosity. He came from a Latvian stone mason family, so it's acceptable he had great skill.

The curiosity, is how did one man, suffering from tuberculosis, middle age, and barely 100 lbs., move those 50 ton blocks from the top of the hoist, to their position in the castle.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   


Nor does it take into account, placement errors, math errors, weather, and any thing else that may chip into that time.


I also does not take into account the transportation of the stone blocks.
In other-words the 1.1 blocks every two minutes presupposes that all the blocks are there to be laid when in fact some blocks came from over 500 miles away.

So for the 1.1 blocks every 2 minutes theory... they would have to be cut then transported 500 miles and laid in place in 2 minutes for the conventional egyptologist theory to hold up.

Moving 20 ton blocks 500 miles in 2 minutes on wooden sleds or boats is just as impossible today as it was when the pyramids were built

So in reality who has the pseudoscience theory the conventional egyptologist whose theory espouse the 1.1 blocks every 2 minutes from 500 miles away which defies all known laws of physics? Or the out of the box leading edge thinking egyptologist who are trying to come up with a theory that does not rely on moving 20 plus ton blocks 500 miles in 2 minutes?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
we dealt with that 1.1 minutes crap already buddy
that is pseudoscience not orthodox thought
read back a few pages




The Harappan is older still

Byrd
I'm sure this will make everyone happy
especially Astyanax
but I'd love to see your evidence that the harappan culture is older than the Sumerian one
that is blatantly untrue
the Harappan culture dates from at the very earliest 3000bce
whereas the sumerian dates from at the earliest 5500bce
by the time the first stone was laid at Harappa the sumerian had already invented writing
so please
remarkable statements require remarkable evidence
I'd like to see yours for this claim
anytime you're ready




Hey Marduk, Byrd, this isn't a peer-reviewed journal, it's a conspiracy/paranormal board.

errr ok
perhaps you should read the motto in that case
this is not a pseudoscience forum
this is the Ancient & Lost Civilizations forum
if you want pseudoscience i suggest you go elswhere
people here no matter what their opinion all agree that they want the truth
and like the guy said
the people espousing pseudoscience never have any



[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Where did I say I wanted pseudoscience? What I'm after is an open forum for the exchange of ideas. If you want rigorous scientific exactitude, I suggest you find a message board with a more conventional underlying ideology than that espoused by the ATS population at large.

I just don't get why this one thread deserves so much of your energy. There are dozens in the Paranormal and UFO forums that are ripe for open lambasting, positing theories that have no connection whatsoever with reality. Yet here you are, and have been since the first page of the thread, two days ago. You've made more than fifteen posts (count 'em) and you STILL insist on visiting this thread every few hours.

Can you explain what it is about this particular discussion that has caused such a focusing of your skeptical ire? It fascinates me. Things like this are the real reason I visit ATS; it provides such an interesting sociological microcosm.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   


Can you explain what it is about this particular discussion that has caused such a focusing of your skeptical ire?

I am not a sceptic
I just believe that everyone is entitled to a free education

as it stands most of beliefs that people have about pyramids have not come from science
they have come from peoples imaginations usually based on whatever popular novel is out at the time
e.g. how many people did you hear talking about stargates before that movie
or how many people thought aliens were present in our history before Von Daniken
fact of the matter is that the most famous people espousing these notions usually have no qualifications in the field whatsoever
i.e. Hancock is a journalist he knows what people want to read
Sitchin is an economist, he knows what people will buy
David Hatcher Childress is both a journalist and an economist (see above)
etc
etc
If in future people were made to list just what books they'd got their information from before making a post filled with pseudoscientific ideas you'd soon see a pattern


btw i think if you check you'll find that ideas unsupported by any evidence with no basis in actual science are pseudoscience
and the claim that you are denying it is also a very normal pseudoscientic method
and where do you get off questioning my motives anyway
your last two posts were nothing more than a personal attack
you're a bit sad really arent you



[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Still watching this thread. I continue to be impressed by the encyclopaedic knowledge of Byrd and Marduk. Their very different styles of presentation (I see Marduk's has earned him a little red flag) add variety, colour and vigour to the thread.



As some other posters said this is not a competition or who's better and smarter. Is an open discusion and if there is something to be learned is even better. Both Marduk and Byrd come from a scientific point of view (especialy Byrd) and without a constructive opposition the thread would have been boring and futile.



Pity they have no worthier opponents. Is there someone among the opposition who can actually post sources of verification for their claims?


Many mainstream scientists these days believe that science has essentially reached 'the end of the road', that everything that can be understood has been understood, and that therefore claims to genuinely revolutionary discoveries must necessarily be erroneous or fraudulent. Examples are to many but I'm mentioning one of them, Immanuel Velikovsky. Run a search in google and you'll see what a giant in science I'm talking about for. (of course if you check wiki you'll find alot of bashing but try to check deeper) And cases like Velikovksy are countles in all the fields. Especialy archaeology like in the case of Virginia Steen-Mclntyre (I think Byrd knows very well who I'm talking about for).
Establishment science has thus gotten into the habit of ignoring, burying or suppressing what has now become astonishing amounts of anomalous evidence. Some of this evidence challenges the very foundations of the accepted scientific worldview, and none of it is taught in universities or covered by textbooks. Mention any of it to a mainstream scientist, and odds are you will be dismissed as a crank, or worse, a crackpot. The conclusion is sobering: some of what passes for "scientific fact" these days is little more than a social construct. What is true and what is not is determined by the scientific prestige of the claimant, the predilections of journal editors and referees, and by economic interests. A scientist who challenges the status quo becomes a persona non grata - banned from publication in journals and speaking on conferences, defunded, marginalized.

So now I hope you understand what i mean Astyanax. That's why there is no point and especialy no need to debate where marduk and Byrd come from. Has been done for many years and times in the past. Has been done from really talented scientiest, phd, doctors and so on... the result? Read my post carefully and you'll find the answer.

And to finish my post I want to quote something from Oppenheimer:



"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."






[edit on 18-1-2007 by Telos]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Marduk, you're one to speak of personal attacks... I was questioning you, trying to figure out why you're so up in arms about this thread.

I don't think this is the right environment for you to dispense free education, at least not of the sort you have been.

The dogmas of history and physics are every bit as onerous as those of religion and superstition. They have been proven wrong and rewritten as often, and they are as subject to the vagaries of human consciousness. To suggest that we fully understand and appreciate a civilization that died out thousands of years ago is a demonstration of great hubris.

I'm not going to throw you any more trolling material, but I think I've made clear my opinion regarding your little one-man quest to rid the web of creative thought. If there's any sadness between the two of us it's in the flat, grey little world you and the rest of the hardcore materialists have made for yourselves.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
The last line there, see it? "just trying to think outside the box". He never said the textbook theories were wrong, just he may believe otherwise, and asked for some imput. Immediately he was attacked, because he didn't subscribe fully to the textbook theories.


Nope.

The reason he was challenged is that he made statements, indicated expertise, and then did nothing to back it up. He didn't say "I was led to believe this after studying papers on the temples at Abu Simdal and examining more closely the texts on the Temple of Hathor where (yaddayada.)" Nor did he say "I'm examining this because of the evidence in KVIX and the texts found at Hieropolis where..."

When asked further, he never says what led him to examine this and if he disagreed with the architectural evolution of pyramids (and which structures and why he thought they weren't relevant) and seems unfamilar with other structures with equally huge blocks that should have either been part of his argument or explained.

This section tends to focus on well rounded arguments from evidence.

Arguments from the "let's do a thought experiment" are shuffled off to Skunk Works. We don't discourage these, but this section is for discussing known history (and therefore the links.)

I can, of course, move it to Skunk Works (where I actually do NOT participate) and folks can theorize without being bothered by historical evidence to their hearts' content.

Just like the Science forum, this is the section for discusssing evidence and not speculation. We have the same rules over there, too.


So........ What's the call, folks?

Do you want to discuss evidence here in the Ancient Civ culture (which means you have to post links and discuss evidence) or do you want me to move it to Skunk Works so that you can discuss speculation?

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Byrd]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join