It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pyramid Building - ever notice the deliberate mistake ?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:20 AM
reply to post by kerkinana walsky

You're a real little ray of sunshine aren't you ? After you posted me the other day I confess ... I reacted to your rudeness ... you pressed my buttons ... well done, not many people manage that

Curiosity got the better of me so I checked-out your profile and read through a few posts you'd put on other threads. Oh dear, you do have quite a limited repertoire don't you sweetie.
but don't fret there are many more like you here ... I do find that surprising but I'm always hopeful that one of you might come up with something exciting to say one of these days ... until then I'll keep waiting.

But you know something ... I'm beginning to like your precious princess comments ... they make me smile because they never quite hit the spot ... but bless you for trying
just try to find some new material occasionally so your gig doesn't get too stale.

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by Hanslune

Howdy Hans, ok I've read your comments to sky and myself ... and you intrigue me. I do believe you are the real deal ... unlike some of the less mature snipers here. And although we've locked horns before I'm inclined not to dismiss you out of hand.

Please tell me 'why' you believe so vehemently that there could never possibly be any other explanation for anything the egyptologists / archaeologists come up with and claim it to be 'absolute'?

How can you be so unbendingly certain that heiroglyphs have not been mistranslated ... or translated out of their true context ?

I'm not looking for an argument here I genuinly want to understand how and why you trust these things as solid truth ... because these are the very things that pushed me away from convesional explanations ... how can you / they be so certain about their statements ? Is it simply 'blind
faith' ... or is there more to it ?

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:00 AM
Howdy Woodwytch

Because that is were the evidence is....if the Egyptologists construct was flawed the Egyptologist themselves and other specialist would know about it and the debate would be fierce - there is no such debate, did you look at the list of issues that I provided? The framework of Egyptology is rather firm.

please tell me 'why' you believe so vehemently that there could never possibly be any other explanation for anything the egyptologists / archaeologists come up with and claim it to be 'absolute'?

I'm neither vehement nor do I reject other explanations, nor will you find many people in the know who state that what is known is an "absolute", a great deal is known which precludes other possibilities, and in science the present theory is always subject to change if the evidence warrents it.

How can you be so unbendingly certain that heiroglyphs have not been mistranslated ... or translated out of their true context ?

Learn them yourselfs and see if it has been done. You seem to have forgotten that E & A's publicly put all there data out for everyone to see. If they were trying to hide something they picked the wrong methodology. You also seem to think they all think alike and are some sorta club. They are not, many are out to get fame and fortune, one way to do that is to make a great discovery.

I'm not looking for an argument here I genuinly want to understand how and why you trust these things as solid truth ... because these are the very things that pushed me away from convesional explanations ... how can you / they be so certain about their statements ? Is it simply 'blind

All the evidence is there, nothing is hidden, if you look into it you'll find the answers. Until someone can come up with better answers I'll believe what is known versus what is not backed up by evidence.

I can ask you why you are vehement and unbending in your belief that everything is wrong? Or that (whichever fringe theory you think is best) is true- what is so compelling about the evidence for these contra-beliefs?


posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by titorite

Ok, first things first ... I loved your post and would like to know more about Edward Kunkle (never heard of him, but sounds interesting). But I do like your style.

I have had a strange idea for a long time and it refuses to go away ...

When I first saw the interior of the Great Pyramid, it reminded me of an abandoned warehouse or workshop that had, had all of the machinery dismantled and removed. The only indications remaining are the ruts and furrows in the stonework.

And the Grand Gallery made me instantly think of some sort of decompression devise e.g; The portcullis acting as compartmental, pressure regulators in some way.

(Quick note for 'Telos'), I know you proberly think this has a familiar ring too, I believe something similar has been touched on before maybe in several places ... but the thread is all my own work ... keep reading though because I'm pretty certain you'll find something different here ... if I'm wrong and someone has written about what I'm about to say, please let me know because it would be very encouraging for me to know that other people are actually heading down the same path.

(titorite); I'm in total agreement about other artifacts being brought into context in an effort to develop and highlight the potential uses of the Great Pyramid. I'm not being 'air-brained' when I say that I believe the pyramid was all about multiple types of energy ... and these artifacts might just provide some clues.

I know that many who read this will find it 'hysterical' and lol ... that's fine you can stay within your comfort zones ... but I'm more interested in looking beyond what we 'think' we know ... so laugh if you must but hopefully (in the not too distant future), you won't take offence if I say 'I told you so'

I have long believed that there are subterraneous, 'inverted' pyramids at several global locations including ... Antarctica (Queen Maude's Land) ... Yucatan Peninsula (Chichen Itza) ... Egypt (Gizeh Plateau). And I believe they were deliberately installed with their nadir-points resting on the natural electromagnetic energy lines that run through the Earth. Over the millennia that have passed since these inverted pyramids have been installed the strength of this energy has increased significantly.

With reference specifically to Gizeh ... I think the Sphinx serves as the 'marker' for the original access point ... but because of the increased electomagnetics below ground, it would be disastrous to attempt re-entry at this point. Another entry point will be discovered via a linked tunnel system below the 3 pyramids.

And to return to a point I made earlier ... I think this might have something to do with the need for some sort of decompression devise ... that was required when moving from the subterraneous inverted pyramid up to the Great Pyramid.

There I said it ... so let me know what you think.

I have just one request ... can we please have some original feedback rather than getting swamped in the stuff that's been said sooooo many times before

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:55 AM
Howdy Woolwytch

You might find these of use

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Hanslune]

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Hanslune
If you want to build a raised platform, the easiest, less prone to collapse, is a ........wait for it.......a pyramid shape.

A pyramid? As a platform?

About as good a platform as a bike without a seat.

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:41 PM
Howdy Merka

Come now Merka I'm sure you've seen Mesoamerican pyramids before - four sided, stairs up the sides and flat on top with an altar/temple

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:47 PM
they're not platforms
theyre symbolic mountains

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by DIRTMASTER

ok, now I get it. Interesting idea. That would put the building of the pyramids back a bit more than 10 000 years, wouldnt it.

Yes indeed..10 000 is a fairly good number. as pangea slowly split the different sections would have continued to interact for a long period and develop their own unique styles of pyramids and separate cultures. probably eventual wars as well..

many scientists rely solely on the carbon dating system that throws out dates in the millions of years. they also apparently know squat about things radiation. their premise is that carbon 14 found in nearly everything releases at a fairly constant rate. and therefore you can measure the amount in something and compare like a ruler. however there is a minor glitch. like its radiation cousins carbon 14 is subject to cycles.. they are not constant either. If from day one "millions of years ago" carbon 14 started releasing from everything at a constant rate earth would be as devoid of the element and carbon 14 depleted within the first thousand years. as sure as a spent uranium rod from a nuclear plant. but there is always a big but.. as was mentioned even uranium self enriches in cycles.. there are nuclear bombs in nature. In northern Africa evidence has been found of such and uranium deposits that are self enriching due to its environment. everything in science is copying a cycle already found in nature. everything in energy re enriches itself every so many thousand years including carbon 14.. even the sun.. as our local nuclear boss according to omega point theory and alpha theory 10% of all radiation and energy gets refracted off the ort cloud at an angle and eventually gets pumped back through the the sun.

to sum up carbon 14 dating is a waste and produces bad numbers. and switching to some other element won't help either. thats what I think of things measured in millions of years. anything measured outside the thousands range gets increasingly unreliable.

I think that your posts in this forum are using good independent reasoning, and class.

as a splitting Pangean civilization and the shifting of the Atlantic I am currently equating with the time of Atlantis that supposedly was super advanced and disappeared into the ocean. what if it didn't sink into the ocean.. but disappeared with the changing of the ocean, the Atlantic and the piece civilizations lost contact as described by the few ancient sources we have about it.... may not be but its a good a pot shot as any.
atlanteans as the original pyramid builders..

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by DIRTMASTER

Yes, Im familiar with the weaknesses of carbon dating. Good post

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 08:06 PM
Interesting discussion you guys are having here. I'd like to insert a small reminder that it is quite alright to be passionate about contentious issues and to reject the validity of an argument, however it would be best if everyone kept a more or less cordial tone- disagreement does not require that we accuse eachother of being spoon-fed crap, etc.

And please remember, this is a conspiracy site. We're OK with people being out of touch with reality (whether its the skeptics or the believers who are out of touch is an argument I think I'll stay out of, but whoever it is, they're still cool with ATS as long as they draw their conclusions by thinking for themselves.)

Just my couple of hundred lira.

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:43 PM
Howdy Folks

Carbon dating isn't used beyond 50,000 years. The dating of continental drift uses other methods of dating. For dating effectiveness, C-14 when tied to other methodogies has proven to be very effective.

Atlantis advanced? The only source for Atlantis is Plato's T & C - have you actually read them completely? They describe a number of aspects of "Atlantean" technology. They used triremes and fought with sling stones and spears.

The leader was required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war-chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots; also two horses and riders for them, and a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman who could fight on foot carrying a small shield, and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships. Such was the military order of the royal city-the order of the other nine governments varied, and it would be wearisome to recount their several differences.

Link to Plato's T & C

Ditto also on what Vagabond said

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Hanslune]

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:19 AM
Not to get too involved in this, but radio-carbon dating seems to be a very poorly understood subject in some circles, so I'd like to offer just a brief explanation of the principle.

New Carbon-14 is created constantly. Earth is a relatively short distance from a very large thermonuclear fireball, and as such there is a steady supply of neutrons to Earth. When one of those neutrons strikes a nitrogen nucleus (something which is relatively abundant in our atmosphere) the nitrogen spits out a proton, reducing its atomic number to 6, making it carbon, while it retains the 7 neutrons found in nitrogen plus the extra neutron that made the nitrogren unstable. The result is 6 protons and 8 neutrons- Carbon-14.

From here, the law of large numbers tells us what we need to know.

The amount of C-14 present on Earth dictates the probability that any given carbon atom incorporated into an organic compound (otherwise known as the building blocks of stuff that is alive) will be a carbon-14 atom.

Therefore based on the carbon mass of any organic remains we find, we know how much carbon 14 should be there.

However, carbon-14 is unstable. There is a 50% probability that a given atom of C-14 will break down over a period of about 5600 years. This is hit and miss for statistically insignificant numbers of atoms, but the law of large numbers says that it will even out when you are dealing with large numbers of atoms- we know that to be true because Las Vegas never goes bankrupt (well, I know it to be true that way- mathmeticians have more elegant proofs, I'm sure).

Therefore, the abundance of C-14 in the remains of something that used to be alive can be used to infer, based on the laws of probability, how long that something has been dead, based on the depletion of C-14.

C-14 can be used out to several 10s of thousands of years (60someodd I think) because up to that point, the halflife of C-14 leaves enough behind that the sample is statistically significant. The smaller the numbers get, the shakier reliance on probability gets. But for tens of thousands of years, there is enough to be reliable.

Carbon 14 works.

But there is one problem with the whole argument. Carbon 14 doesn't work on pyramids, unless those pyramids used to be alive. You get funky dates when you try C-14 on non-living things because inorganic objects do not absorb carbon at a nearly constant rate throughout their lives, as carbon-based organisms do. I understand that young-earth proponents like to use flawed experiments like that to try and throw a wrench in the debate, but (speaking from experience) you can go into a Geology 001 class at your local community college and ask any student who isn't drooling on himself (which in my experience leaves you half the class to choose from), and he will tell you what's wrong with those experiments.

Dating things that have been fashioned from rock can be a little bit of a bugger, because the rock is much older than the created object. My pet rock... well i dont have a pet rock... but if i had a brand new pet rock, it would probably be older than western civilization... even though there has been no such thing as a "pet rock" up until the last century. We've got people who know about how you'd date that sort of thing, but those people aren't me.

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:45 AM
To add a few comments to what Vagabond said

The dating of the pyramids and other Egyptian monuments was done using the gypsum mortar. The manufacturing process for this was a bit sloppy and caused fragments of wood and charcoal to become embedded.
Samples of the mortar with the chunks were found and dated:

Two seperate programs of tests were done

Dating the pyramids

1984 Results. The 1984 radiocarbon dates from monuments spanning Dynasty 3 (Djoser) to late Dynasty 5 (Unas), averaged 374 years older than the Cambridge Ancient History dates of the kings with whom the pyramids are identified. In spite of this discrepancy, the radiocarbon dates confirmed that the Great Pyramid belonged to the historical era studied by Egyptologists. In dealing with the 374-year discrepancy, we had to consider the old wood problem. In 1984 we thought it was unlikely that the pyramid builders consistently used centuries-old Egyptian wood as fuel in preparing mortar. Ancient Egypt's population was compressed in the narrow confines of the Nile Valley with a tree cover, we assumed, that was sparse compared to less arid lands. We expected that by the pyramid age the Egyptians had been intensively exploiting wood for fuel for a long time and that old trees had been harvested long before. The 1984 results left us with too little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was in error by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a possibility. Alternatively, if our radiocarbon age estimations were in error for some reason, we had to assume that many other dates obtained from Egyptian materials were also suspect. This prompted a second, larger study.

The 1995 Project. During 1995 samples were collected from the Dynasty 1 tombs at Saqqara to the Djoser pyramid, the Giza Pyramids, and a selection of Dynasty 5 and 6 and Middle Kingdom pyramids. Samples were also taken from our excavations at Giza where two largely intact bakeries were discovered in 1991. The calibrated dates from the 1995 Old Kingdom pyramid samples tended to be 100 to 200 years older than the historical dates for the respective kings and about 200 years younger than our 1984 dates. The number of dates from both 1984 and 1995 was only large enough to allow for statistical comparisons for the pyramids of Djoser, Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure. There are two striking results. First, there are significant discrepancies between 1984 and 1995 dates for Khufu and Khafre, but not for Djoser and Menkaure. Second, the 1995 dates are scattered, varying widely even for a single monument. For Khufu, they scatter over a range of about 400 years. By contrast, we have fair agreement between our historical dates, previous radiocarbon dates, and our radiocarbon dates on reed for the Dynasty 1 tombs at North Saqqara. We also have fair agreement between our radiocarbon dates and historical dates for the Middle Kingdom. Eight calibrated dates on straw from the pyramid of Senwosret II ranged from 103 years older to 78 years younger than the historical dates for his reign, with four dates off by only 30, 24, 14, and three years. Significantly, the older date was on charcoal.

Another discussion of dates in regards to Egyptian

Absolute Dating from Egyptian Records and Comparison with Carbon-14 Dating

And finally the actual report of the dating


[edit on 9-11-2007 by Hanslune]

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:35 AM
There has been some amazing info posted on the thread and it's certainly raised the temperature a tad
at cetain points

Thank-you 'VAGABOND' ... for bringing in a bit of mediation (to the thread) in an effort to calm us all down ... 'thinking for themselves' being the key point
I think the 'spoon-fed crap' comment was a valid reaction to the blantant insults and derogative remarks made by one particular person who has responded on this thread and several others with undiluted bile
to anyone that has opinions that differ from her own (without exception) ... I'm a very placid person by nature and even I rose to the baiting.

I'm not saying it's right ... but it is understandable when you take everything else into consideration ... just pointing out that there were extenuating circumstances for why it reached a flash-point.

I enjoyed your comments on carbon-dating ... never been a fan myself ... the plus/minus is usually too variable. Give my regards to your pet rock ... if you decide to get one - there are many out there looking for good homes

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:59 AM
its very possible that the 6th nynasty peramids were built to by inteligent people who just wanted to improve on an old idea by constructing it diferently, but failing.

kind of like Jaguar in the 1980's they knew how to mak it good but they chose to do it a new way, that worked well... until it fell apart

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by captainslowTG

Hey there captain ... or should I say ahoy there
I can go with the point you make here, I was just throwing a different perspective into the pot that makes for stretching the old grey cells a bit.

Think both are good candidates for consideration. I was working on the premise of how things in ancient times were elaborated on and explained via symbolic methology (not always literal data). A bit like that 'metallic plate thingy' ... that was sent off into space some time back, to tell any aliens that came upon it, about Earth

It was sent with the intention of providing information ... but I'm sure if an intelligent, alien life-form did find it, they wouldn't automatically 'know' what all the symbols meant (it would be arrogant to assume otherwise) ... I'm sure it could be seen in a multitude of ways ... other than the one that was intended.

This is the point I was trying to make when I said in an earlier post, that the assumptions of egyptologists and archaeologists might not ALL be correct ... some of their translations could quite easily be the result of misconstruction

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by woodwytch
There has been some amazing info posted on the thread

which, unfortunately didnt have much to do with your opening post...partially my fault.

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 10:19 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Hey there, ner sorry can't agree with that ... definately was not your fault. You just said what many others were thinking

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:01 AM
Ok so lets see if I can summarize what you've worked out so far

the Atlanteans who were living on Pangea 250 million years ago about 240 million years before Hominids first evolved were so advanced that they built pyramids out of big stone blocks (like duplo lego) just to pretend that they weren't and then when the continents split up the pyramids slowly took up their position around the globe. In the same time that mountain ranges were forming the pyramids which secretly were super advanced didn't age a day. Then at some point new civilisations took over the pyramids carefully disguising them so that they all looked different and replacing all the organic material so that it gave a false carbon reading for their age or Radio carbon dating was somehow affected which mans that science is totally wrong and the pyramids are all actually 250 million years old. after 250 million years of existence the pyramids suddenly started to fall to pieces about 4000 years ago because the guarantee had expired
is that right so far ?

I have two questions

1) when is this movie coming out
2) where do the zeta reticulans fit into all this

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in