The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmmonSeth

Originally posted by Harte

The mortar between the stones contains organic materials as part of it's mix. This mortar has been dated, once several decades ago and again more recently. The age of the mortar corresponds quite well with the estimated date of construction.

Harte



Well then, thank you for reassuring what i said


Ammonseth,

Hey man, when you're right you're right.

I'm no troll. Just a skeptic.

Harte




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Ammonseth,

Hey man, when you're right you're right.

I'm no troll. Just a skeptic.

Harte


I wont say anything as a fact unless i am sure



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 





I know Ms. Walsky personally. She is simply a very knowledgeable person (particularly, but certainly not exclusively, concerning Sumeria) that, like me, started out as you are - a "true believer" - but eventually came to realize, and (like me) resent, that she had been lied to by money grubbing conmen like Graham Hancock, Erich VonDaniken and Zechariah Sitchin.


Oh i don't read those authors. Or any of those who preach. I do however, have common sense and know when something is amiss. Society didn't just go from caves and loincloth to bustling cities and written language overnight, there is a kind of big gap historically on that subject.




It's just that she knows when she's being lied to, she knows when you're being lied to, and it still ticks her off.


So she is forced to viciously attack me and ridicule those involved in the topic of conversation?




Most of the vitriol you'll find in searching for her posts here and elswhere are the result frustration stemming from over a decade of trying to show people how they are being conned.


Conned by whom? Ive spent no money on those individuals books, i come here of my own free will, ive never even read sitchin.

Honestly if she's so passionate about educating others, insinuating that they are stupid is usually not the best way to gain ones attention.




The fact of the matter is that kerkinana dearly loves the idea of an ancient unknown civilization having existed


then whats the problem? Ditch the Sitchin books, stop harassing people, then educate and/or produce your own research.
Look nomatter how i drew my conclusion, enough evidence is there to support the idea. It doesnt have to be aliens that did it, it could be we were just more advanced earlier on and lost it somehow. Who knows. It is sad that con men ruined it all for everyone, the same thing has happened to religion and democracy as well but they are still widely practiced and does not mean it can't work in theory.

If we continuously stonewall new ideas or alternative ways of thinking we can very easily be conned. If one treu belief system is developed, whether or not it is true it will make the people who run that system rich beyond measure. We must always question everything and in regards to history even more so.
History to me is like watching a movie only from the halfway point to the end and then having one of your friends tell you what happened in the 1st half rather than having actually watched it. It will never truely make sense until you watch the first half. But what would be the point though, someone already told you what happened.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AmmonSeth
 





But the simplest purpose is that they were built for the burial of a specific pharoah


HOw do you know they were built in that time period and that the Pharoah's ( being the self centered all knowing people that anyone in charge claims to be ) didn't just take credit for it. Perhaps they already existed and the Pharoahs thought it was their right to be buired in them (not knowing their true purpose)
I believe they are much older.

Let me give you something to think about. Say the world ends tomorrow. Thousands of years from now spear weilding tribespeople will think the figures carved into Mt Rushmore are either their gods or perhaps great ancient leaders. They will create stories about them and rename them. Thousands of years later, when a new society forms and studies them they will say "a few thousand years ago, these were the mythological gods of our ancestors that thrived in this area. Hundreds of slaves spent many years carving the faces into the rock for purposes of worship" THEY WILL KNOW NOTHING except for what they have come to know through their own development. All aspects of our history and purpose will have been wiped clean and anything that the new society can come up with in regards to anything that remained of us would be what they came up during the development of their own society (gods, superstition, mythology). Any history that did survive would only survive by word of mouth and tribal rituals and would become so twisted it would be unrecognizable even to us.
Try to even debunk that, its impossible.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 





The mortar between the stones contains organic materials as part of it's mix. This mortar has been dated, once several decades ago and again more recently. The age of the mortar corresponds quite well with the estimated date of construction.


Ever consider that rather than building them, the pharoahs rebuilt or refurbished what was already there? Kind of like what we do with our historical buildings and sites so that we might preserve them. Hey why do almost 400 year old buildings in St Augustine, Florida which is one of the oldest cities in the US, contain modern day building material? Uh because someone fixed them so we might continue to enjoy them.

Would kinda defeat the purpose of burying an all powerful pharoah in a crumbling ruin which the people know absolutely nothing about. Hey heres an idea, let's fix them, bury our kings in them, and profess to know what they were used for all along and take credit for them.

Inventors take credit for other peoples work all the time by purchasing the patent off of people who don't have the resources to market their idea (example: Edison). Why can't the egyptians take credit for building the pyramyds when they have obviously spent alot of time and effort fixing them, who will know right? Pharoah says its cool so i guess it is.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Not to long ago the idea of troy was just a story based on the story of Homer's Iliad, time does distort history.

Based on the images that i have on my site you start to see that many factors are included in the layout of the Giza area, if you noticed that much of the planing that is in the area of Giza is taken in to consideration of a layout that was intended to tell a story or a signature. KHUFU and his son RADJEDE (DJEDEFRE) had developed a large layout for Giza including much of the introduction of the occult into Egypt as seen at the site attached:

mmothra.blogspot.com

All so if noticed at the site you will see how huge the planing was, check out the pictures at this site:
including many identifiers such as the 3 disks that represent RA,
and all so the road that looks like a snake which is URAEUS both that are symbols of (RA)DJEDE.
On the Giza plateau there are 3 visible pyramid's, the two that are the closest to each other is Khufu pyramid and khafre pyramid the 3rd one is pushed off to far to be any relevance to the other two, but what if the 3rd pyramid which is menkaure pyramid is part of a viewing point. If you see khufu and khafre pyramid's from above you start to see that start to form 2 pyramids that can not be located above the ground ither because they where not constructed or are buried under the sand i have fotos that show that the possibility that 2 extra pyramids ether where planed or are built but are under the sand. when the picture was further examined by me and a Friend we found that it contained a 3D square.
Further more when all for pyramids are introduced the pyramid of Menkaure happens to follow a line that intersects.

home.comcast.net...



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmaracing
Not to long ago the idea of troy was just a story based on the story of Homer's Iliad, time does distort history.

What do you think time distorted in the Iliad, if I may ask?

The Trojan War AFAIK was considered history by the Greeks. The Iliad was probably written like 300-500 years after the war and time didnt distort the history: Homer did. Nothing has really been 'distorted' since. We know the area was populated and we know the Greeks waged war all over the place. That Homer would make up a place instead of taking a real one would be a waste of effort.

Real foundations is a fictional writers best friend


If we would have been talking like... 9000+ years (yeah you know what I'm refering too
) then I can understand why everyone say its "just" a story and with right they should. I'd be quite amazed if information on Ancient Greece is still something that exist 5000 years in the future and that's with thousands upon thousands of books and all internet information, not a couple of scrolls hidden away.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The Trojan War was just a story until the proof of troy was discovered just like many other places like Pompeii where just legends until it was discovered.
history is a very deceiving until you have proof, but others tend to have an open mind and see that legends are based on history and a bit of fantasy.
but this has to do with the pyramids and what some believe and on what others think they know.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000

Oh i don't read those authors. Or any of those who preach. I do however, have common sense and know when something is amiss. Society didn't just go from caves and loincloth to bustling cities and written language overnight, there is a kind of big gap historically on that subject.


I have to say here that what you claim, if it were so, does display common sense. Problem is, it didn't happen that way.

Certainly we don't have in our possession every, single artifact ever left behind by ancient civilizations, but we do have a great many examples of earlier construction in Egypt and examining these shows how the pyramid architecture evolved from earlier forms. Shows it quite easily, in fact.

What we lack regarding the progression in written language applies mostly to Sumer. The progression and evolution of Egyptian Hieroglyphics can be inferred from artifacts we actually possess that date to the predynastic period - particularly wood and ivory tags that have been found that were used to indicate payment of taxes.


Originally posted by metaldemon2000


It's just that she knows when she's being lied to, she knows when you're being lied to, and it still ticks her off.


So she is forced to viciously attack me and ridicule those involved in the topic of conversation?




Most of the vitriol you'll find in searching for her posts here and elswhere are the result frustration stemming from over a decade of trying to show people how they are being conned.


Conned by whom? Ive spent no money on those individuals books, i come here of my own free will, ive never even read sitchin.

Very glad to hear that about Sitchin.

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with her methods, did I?


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Look nomatter how i drew my conclusion, enough evidence is there to support the idea.


You are mistaken about this evidence thing.


Originally posted by metaldemon2000It is sad that con men ruined it all for everyone, the same thing has happened to religion and democracy as well but they are still widely practiced and does not mean it can't work in theory.

I agree that it's unfortunate about all the frauds.


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
reply to post by Harte
 




The mortar between the stones contains organic materials as part of it's mix. This mortar has been dated, once several decades ago and again more recently. The age of the mortar corresponds quite well with the estimated date of construction.


Ever consider that rather than building them, the pharoahs rebuilt or refurbished what was already there?

There is nothing I haven't, or wouldn't, consider.


Originally posted by metaldemon2000 Kind of like what we do with our historical buildings and sites so that we might preserve them. Hey why do almost 400 year old buildings in St Augustine, Florida which is one of the oldest cities in the US, contain modern day building material? Uh because someone fixed them so we might continue to enjoy them.

Samples were taken from all over the pyramid (and not just the Great Pyramid.) Also, don't forget that Khufu's name is found within a sealed chamber in the G.P. as well as Egyptian Hieroglyphs on the surfaces of stones that do not face outward in the accessible parts of the G.P. where the walls are not dressed and finished (IOW, in the areas where you can see into the cracks between stones.)

Harte



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Originally posted by Harte



The mortar between the stones contains organic materials as part of it's mix. This mortar has been dated, once several decades ago and again more recently. The age of the mortar corresponds quite well with the estimated date of construction.


I would disagree with quite well. The results from the radiocarbon dating show that the pyramids are much older than previously accepted by some 400 or so years. The samples taken from the various parts of the Khufu Pyramid alone show a variation of almost 1000 years! How do you explain that?



Samples were taken from all over the pyramid (and not just the Great Pyramid.) Also, don't forget that Khufu's name is found within a sealed chamber in the G.P. as well as Egyptian Hieroglyphs on the surfaces of stones that do not face outward in the accessible parts of the G.P. where the walls are not dressed and finished (IOW, in the areas where you can see into the cracks between stones.)


This doesn't necessarily prove who built it. Khufu's name was written as graffiti in some red pigment, and there's been wide debate about who actually wrote it. Many have speculated forgery by the original discoverer, Col. Howard Vyse. No hard proof of this exists however. And as far as I know, radiocarbon dating of the paint has never been done. Wonder why?

It just seems to me that there are alot of discrepancies in the previous theories of when the Pyramids were built. And there are indications that these structures are much older than previously thought, dating to before the 4th Dynasty; hence before the reign of Khufu and Khafre. So how could they have built them? It makes more sense to me that the Giza Pyramids were claimed by each of these kings. And that the evidence we see of their hands in 'building' was actually evidence of repair and upkeep.

All theoretical of course...

[edit on 15-1-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by Harte



The mortar between the stones contains organic materials as part of it's mix. This mortar has been dated, once several decades ago and again more recently. The age of the mortar corresponds quite well with the estimated date of construction.


I would disagree with quite well. The results from the radiocarbon dating show that the pyramids are much older than previously accepted by some 400 or so years. The samples taken from the various parts of the Khufu Pyramid alone show a variation of almost 1000 years! How do you explain that?


Actually, more recent radiocarbon dating (your dates are from a 1984 study) of various sites in Egypt (including the Great Pyramid) have approximately halved this discrepancy:


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.


Source: Archaeology Magazine - from the Archaeological Institute of America
My emphasis.

That article goes on to state that these discrepancies may be explained by the use of old wood for the fires used to derive the mortar by heating gypsum.

I should also say that there is currently a theory that some of the Old Kingdom dates may be off by as much as a hundred years. This theory is not based on radiocarbon dating.

And another thing, many ancient Mediterranean dates are based on an estimate of the date of the eruption of Thera (Santorini.)
It was recently found that the formerly accepted date for this eruption may have been in error by around a century.

Still, these discrepancies are far short of any truly fantastic antiquity which is often claimed for these pyramids.


Originally posted by PhotonEffect


Samples were taken from all over the pyramid (and not just the Great Pyramid.) Also, don't forget that Khufu's name is found within a sealed chamber in the G.P. as well as Egyptian Hieroglyphs on the surfaces of stones that do not face outward in the accessible parts of the G.P. where the walls are not dressed and finished (IOW, in the areas where you can see into the cracks between stones.)


This doesn't necessarily prove who built it. Khufu's name was written as graffiti in some red pigment, and there's been wide debate about who actually wrote it. Many have speculated forgery by the original discoverer, Col. Howard Vyse. No hard proof of this exists however. And as far as I know, radiocarbon dating of the paint has never been done. Wonder why?

Many have speculated that Vyse forged it based on a lie originally told by Zecharia Sitchin.

The actual fact is Vyse could not have possibly forged it because the glyphs are in a style that was unknown in his time. Only years later were similarly styled glyphs found in a different location (not in the pyramid)- a location that Vyse had never visited.

Also, you ignore the glyphs found much more recently between some stones - on faces of stone that haven't been accessible since the pyramid was built.

These were found fairly recently through the use of an endoscope.

Why was the paint not carbon dated? I don't know but it might be that the paint is red ochre and thus not organic in the sense that it doesn't contain organics that were once alive - like charcoal, reeds, etc.

You know (but others may not) that the only things subject to C14 dating are things that once were alive and have subsequently died.

Red ochre gets it's color from rusted iron, if I recall correctly. It was (and still is, in some places) a common coloring agent dating from the earliest examples of artificial coloration we have found (Neandertal, I believe.)


Originally posted by PhotonEffect
It just seems to me that there are alot of discrepancies in the previous theories of when the Pyramids were built. And there are indications that these structures are much older than previously thought, dating to before the 4th Dynasty; hence before the reign of Khufu and Khafre. So how could they have built them? It makes more sense to me that the Giza Pyramids were claimed by each of these kings. And that the evidence we see of their hands in 'building' was actually evidence of repair and upkeep.

All theoretical of course...


You're welcome to your opinion. The truth is that nothing is absolutely certain in any field of science. Only in math (which is not science, of course.)

You should consider that we know which kings came before Khufu and that Egyptian history does not begin with Khufu or even Djoser. We are aware of Egyptian history dating to well earlier than a few centuries before the currently accepted dates for the construction of the Great Pyramid.

At any rate, at least you had the 1984 dates right. You must have done some research. Good on you.

Harte



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Hey I'm not sure if anyone has said this already, but I believe that the pyramids were probably built at around 10,000 BC. I believe this based on several reasons.

1) The heavy water erosion on the sphinx body and pyramid. The head of the sphinx does not have the water erosion. You can see this for yourself

www.wata.net...

Even in that picture, you can see how the head of the sphinx is smooth compared to its body and the pyramids. The only time that that location would have the heavy rains needed to cause such heavy erosion would have been at least prior to 4000 BC, meaning that the pyramids and the sphinx (at least the body) would have to have been built prior to at least 7000 BC to endure enough rain to cause such erosion. In fact, the head of the sphinx should be MORE weathered than the body as it was the only part of the sphinx above ground and exposed to the elements prior to the 20th century.

upload.wikimedia.org...

2) The proportions of the sphinx head is too small for its body. They could build the pyramids with such precision, why would they make a weird looking sphinx? Perhaps the sphinx at one time had a lion's body as well as a lions head. Perhaps the Egyptians merely inherited the Pyramids. Perhaps Cheops merely modified the sphinx's head to resemble himself which would explain the lack of erosion on its head, and why it is smaller.

3) The sphinx stares at the location of the sunrise on the spring equinox. If the sphinx did indeed originally have a lion's head, it would have been a lion staring at the spring equinox. The phenomenon known as the Precession of the Equinoxes was incredibly important to the ancients. During 10,000 BC would have been the Age of Leo, the lion, and every spring equinox, the Lion (sphinx) would stare at the Sun rising in front of the constellation Leo (the lion).

www.crystalinks.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
1) The heavy water erosion on the sphinx body and pyramid. The head of the sphinx does not have the water erosion. You can see this for yourself

www.wata.net...

Even in that picture, you can see how the head of the sphinx is smooth compared to its body and the pyramids. The only time that that location would have the heavy rains needed to cause such heavy erosion would have been at least prior to 4000 BC, meaning that the pyramids and the sphinx (at least the body) would have to have been built prior to at least 7000 BC to endure enough rain to cause such erosion. In fact, the head of the sphinx should be MORE weathered than the body as it was the only part of the sphinx above ground and exposed to the elements prior to the 20th century.

Can you further you argument on this? I'm not sure what you are getting at... That the head of the Sphinx has been "revised" from an earlier more eroded version?

Plus, AFAIK the sphinx have never been proven to have water erosion and I dont think I've even read about the pyramids having water erosion.

Not to mention the idea that the pyramids would be water eroded isnt even valid: the cap stones should be the ones that's eroded... But they arent there now (except at the top). I fail to see how stones on the interior of the pyramid could be water eroded, unless you're suggesting that the pyramids exterior stones was taken before the rains.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   

THE MYSTERY OF THE SPHINX SPECIAL also presented recent findings which indicate that the Sphinx itself is at least twice as old as modern Egyptologists presently believe. Modern Egyptologists presently believe the Sphinx was built approximately 4,600 years ago, but new geological discoveries indicate the Sphinx is at least 9,000 years old, and probably older! This new evidence is based on evidence that most of the erosion the Sphinx has suffered is WATER erosion (specifically rain water erosion), rather than erosion due to wind and sand. Simply put, this means the Sphinx was built over 9,000 years ago when the Egyptian climate was a much wetter than it is was 4,600 years ago. If this is true, it means the Sphinx was NOT built by the pharaohs of ancient Eygpt. Furthermore, it also means the entire history of ancient Egypt may have to be rewritten.

When author and self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West first realized that the erosion on the Sphinx might be due to water erosion, he contacted Dr. Robert Schoch, a respected geologist from Boston University. Together they traveled to Egypt to study the Sphinx first hand and immediately drew fire from both Hawass and renowned American Egyptologist, Mark Lehner. Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx, went so far as to publicly declare that both West and Schoch were "ignorant and insensitive." Although taken aback by the uproar their research evoked from the world's leading Egyptologists, West and Schoch continued their work and later presented their findings to an annual gathering of the Geological Society of America. Not only did the convention of geologists find their work faultless, but some 275 of their colleagues offered to help them in their research.


www.nhne.com...

I mean water erosion on the outside. And yes, I do mean that the Sphinx may have been a statue of a lion at one time, until later on the lion's head was carved into a pharaoh's head.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I think it is fairly obvious to everyone who views the Sphinx that the head is not in proportion. Can we as least agree on that?

Ancient Egyptians builders were pretty obsessive in regards to symmetry and proportion and things like that. To think that a Pharaoh God King would have said "No, it's ok that you have to the sculpture of my head smaller' on a structure he had just had built is kinda crazy IMO. He would have just ordered it scrapped and a new one built.

The size of the head as well as the fairly evident signs of water erosion casts doubt on the "official history" to me.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
He would have just ordered it scrapped and a new one built.

The sphinx is carved out of the rock where it stands. It would have been impossible to "scrap" it.

And that water erosion quote only talks about the sphinx. You where making claims about the pyramids, italkyoulisten. Just because the remote possibility exists that yes, the sphinx is actually older than believed doesnt automatically mean the pyramids is.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by merka]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


the pyramids have the same type of erosion. Look it up. Google "water erosion pyramids" or something, without the quotes.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Yes but the Sphinx is realtively small compared to the Pyramids. An egotiscal leader like all the Pharohs had to be, would have thought nothing of making another one. Granted they would have had to come up with some other building technique for the Sphinx but I think they would have come up with something.

Your response still doesn't answer the question of why is the head so out of proportion? Do you think it was an accident that caused it to be that way or a reshaping of a previous head?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

The head my be out of proportions simply because it wasnt possible to make it proportional. You cant magically slap on rock onto a cliff, only cut it away. Well, unless the Egyptians invented super glue or something.

But granted, that apply regardless of it being the head of a lion at first or if the current face is the original carving.

And I did do a google search on "water erosion pyramids". Guess what comes up? The same regurgitation about water erosion on the sphinx, not on the pyramids. Its clearly IMPOSSIBLE to argue water erosion on the sphinx without mentioning the word "pyramid" at least once. Even I cant do that


I'd like to ask one question though to those in the know: Have we found a sphinx with the head of a lion?

[edit on 28-1-2008 by merka]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


alright fine, i swear I thought I read about water erosion on the pyramids somewhere. Oh well, but still, even if the sphinx showed water erosion the implications are huge. the sphinx has a lion's body and the head of a man. If it had a lion's head as well, then it would just be a statue of a lion.






top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join