The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I open this thread to challenge the widely held notion that the Pyramids were built around 2600 B.C. I am by no means an expert on the topic and base my claim on intuition. This may sound silly, but if and as discussion progresses I intend to ask those who believe in the consensus view of egyptology some tough questions to which we (humanity), dont have sufficient answers yet. If discussion requests, I vow to gather evidence that point to the pyramids being older. In having a tough discussion, I also invite other people on the side of the alternative-viewpoint to help me in providing data that points to older Pyramids.

Thank you.




posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Well obviously we're gonna request evidence so you might as well start gathering.

Problem is, unless you got a lab capable of comprehensive carbon dating up your sleeve you wont get anymore than the current theories.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
The problem is, you can't carbon date rocks, they're as old as the earth is.

The pyramids on the giza plateau could just as easily be ten thousand years old and only restored during the timeline we think they were built.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
No one really knows when the Pyramids were really built OR who built them. The Great Pyramid had been ascribed to Khufu only, because, his name was found in an obscure area of the interior. Otherwise the Pyramids are blank stone.

There have been requests by geologists to date the works by geological methods; those requests have been denied.

Traditionally, the evidence for dating the Great Pyramid by Egyptologists has been based primarily on fragmented summaries of early Christian writings gleaned from the work of the Hellinistic Period Egyptian priest Manethô who compiled the now lost revisionist Egyptian history Aegyptika.

In his book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders, Boston University geology professor Robert Schoch details key anomalies in both radiocarbon studies; most notably that samples taken in 1984 from the upper courses of the Great Pyramid gave upper dates of 3809 BC (± 160yrs), nearly 1400yrs before the time of Khufu, while the lower courses provided dates ranging from 3090-2723 B.C (± 100-400yrs) which correspond much more closely to the time Khufu is believed to have reigned

You might wish to start here - en.wikipedia.org... - on your search. Much of the information is accurate.

You can email myself also since I have been studying this subject for 40 years now.

Travis Hess - travis@travishess.com



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartanx15
Otherwise the Pyramids are blank stone.

Not if you look at them as a whole. One can always average the carbon dating: do it on pyramids you suspect is older (bent pyramid, step pyramid) and do it on pyramids that you suspect is younger (the other pyramids around the Great Pyramid). If there is Great Pyramid carbon datings between this, chances are its correct.

If the pyramids you suspect is older consistently carbon date AFTER the Great Pyramid dates (keeping in mind that extremes may be wrong one way or another) and of course the younger ones even further after, then you got a problem.

I dont really know if the oldest pyramids are carbon dated and how old.

[edit on 9-11-2007 by merka]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Well obviously we're gonna request evidence so you might as well start gathering.


Likewise I cant make sense of the evidence presented showing me the pyramids were built 2600 B.C.

Considering that history is distored by those who win wars and rule to fit certain agendas, there is no way of telling when the pyramids were built...as already mentioned here.

Or is there?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartanx15
No one really knows when the Pyramids were really built OR who built them. The Great Pyramid had been ascribed to Khufu only, because, his name was found in an obscure area of the interior. Otherwise the Pyramids are blank stone.


So while no one really knows, school continues to teach us 2600 BC as a fact?




There have been requests by geologists to date the works by geological methods; those requests have been denied.



Research denied? Interesting. More info please.


I opened this thread to attract people who know their stuff (because I dont). Thanks for posting.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   
My earlier post on this subject

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.



Absolute dating from Egyptian Records and comparison and Carbon-14 dating

Radiocarbon dates of old and middle kingdom monuments in egypt

So what evidence do you have of an age older than 2600 BC?

Some questions to ponder, world-wide outsiders moving into an area with existing structures - always give them names and status as "from the early one or the gods, the Egyptians didn't do this, why?

Why did the people in the workers village feel they were making pyramids?

Why did the Egyptians build large mortuary temples based around these (and all other pyramids)?

Why is there no trace of a large advanced civilization on the Giza Plateau- except the Egyptians? Why is there no evidence of an advanced civilization anywhere in the Nile valley? Why is there no evidence of an advance civilization anywhere else in the world?

Why did the Egyptians tell the Greeks they build the pyramids? Why not say the gods made it as a gift for us?

Why is the rubble from limestone quarring mixed with cultural debris from the associated Egyptian culture-and no other?

Why is the limestone at the top of the pyramids similar in structure to the limestone from the bottom (the last cut) quarries [the limestone comes in bands of various quality and is easy to ID, you can see this banding quite clearly on the Sphinx].

How did the writing inside the pyramids come to be there, if not from the orginal builders?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Why does it matter when they were built? I mean no disrespect, but I believe that their significance is not held in their origin, but rather in their purpose.

Constructing those massive structures so perfectly out of stone just as a tomb would be like constructing the Hoover Dam just for the purpose of using it as a bridge.

You will understand soon that they are gateways to other worlds... How you will find out is the other mystery.

To ease your mind a bit as to when they were built, consider that civilization on Mars was wiped out some time ago, yet pyramids remain there.













posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Howdy Anubis Kanubis

You do realize that pyramid shaped hills are naturally occuring? I also think your post is a tad off topic.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
Constructing those massive structures so perfectly out of stone just as a tomb would be like constructing the Hoover Dam just for the purpose of using it as a bridge.

That doesnt even make sense. The Egyptians *had to* build the pyramids like they did or they would collapse, plain and simple.

They had complex knowledge of mathematics, but werent exactly skilled enough to built the pyramids out of concrete and metal supports (that didnt happen until the Romans came, heh).

If you cant relate to the size of the pyramids, look at other later examples. Just like pyramids where made from the strength of the current Pharaoh which is reflected in their grand size, cathedrals where made from the strength of the current Church, which is also reflected in their grand size.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by merka]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


What I realize could be a serious threat to the very foundation of your theorized existence. Pyramids are of little consequence... I simply share what I believe may help you all understand, but there is little time anyhow.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Howdy Anubis Kanubis

It looks like you have something to say. May I suggest you start another thread on whatever subject it is so we can keep this one on topic?

If its outside of the Ancient & Lost Civilizations post us a link.

Thanks

To add to what Merka said, to understand the Pyramids you need to understand the Egyptians view of life, death and their religion. Looking at the pyramids in isolation of its/there cultural context will lead to incorrect assumptions and conclusions.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
video.google.co.uk...

Atlantis Uncovered documentary, which contains all the evidence that could prove Atlantis real



can someone show me how to embed these please



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
video.google.co.uk...

Atlantis Uncovered documentary, which contains all the evidence that could prove Atlantis real

"It was Plato, who first wrote about a super civilization" (emphasis mine)

The foundation of the video fail miserably, the whole video fail miserably. Plato never said anything about a super civilization.


[edit on 10-11-2007 by merka]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
perhaps you should actually watch the video before you pass comment on it Merka



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Lol you're right. I had only watched up to that point when posting.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

"It was Plato, who first wrote about a super civilization" (emphasis mine)

[edit on 10-11-2007 by merka]


Wrong. While everyone says it was first plato who mentioned Atlantis, the truth is that older civilizations make mention of a sunken land in the Atlantic. There is evidence that the people of the canary islands, the basques ("Atlaintika"), the Celts, the Galicians, and the native Americans all had their own tales of the sunken place. It is my view that Plato only copied from older legends.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
Why does it matter when they were built? I mean no disrespect, but I believe that their significance is not held in their origin, but rather in their purpose.



Thanks for your contribution. The reason the date matters is because conventional egyptology is on Base 1, and thats where some researchers on alternative-topics have to start if they want to get to Base 2. What you are doing is starting out at Base 9, ancient civilizations on Mars. While Im really into that and love it, thats not gonna convince people on Base 1. First things first.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hanslune, thanks for the detail and also the questions posed. Give me some time to reflect on them before I respond.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join