The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mentalempire
 


No, I thought that you thought this is Scotts Forum. You said you have a question to Scott, but I dont know if Scott reads threads outside of his forum.




posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
OK, firstly, this is a question for Scott Creighton. That being said, I will do my damnest to debunk the "Khufu built it theory".

1. It has already been established that carbon dating pretty much buries the Khufu theory.

2. We now must look at what evidence we supposedly DO have for construction by Khufu.

Basically-it's just ONE thing-dubious "workmen's graffiti", supposedly containing Khufu's name, which was probably faked.

www.eridu.co.uk...


did you miss the morturary temple right at the front of the pyramid with Khufus name all over it then ?

or how about what the AE called the Pyramid "Akhet Khufu" (the horizon of Khufu)

actually carbon dating corroborates the Khufu theory
www.archaeology.org...
remember that the organic material in the mortar that was tested is always going to be older than the construction date depending on its source

also your evidence about the quarry marks in the relieving chamber comes from Zechariah sitchen while he was telling everyone that the Pyramid was built to hold the space alien God Bel Marduk. this claim was at first accepted by alternative historians as credible, they have long since rejected it so it made me laugh hearing it bought up again.

Graham Hanock"For the record I believe that Khufu did build the Great Pyramid - or anyway most of it


problem with that
Marduk was a babylonian god and didn't exist at the time
linking to Alan Alfords site is no help either as he completely decanted his earlier belief in the works of sitchen at which point sitchin threatened to sue him for $50 million dollars for defamation of character

I said it already but I'll say it again
always consider the source



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
MODS: error. Remove Post.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Agreed. Some fun little quotes for you:

In contrast, a Great Pyramid feasibility study relating to the quarrying of the stone was performed in 1978 by Technical Director Merle Booker of the Indiana Limestone Institute of America. Consisting of 33 quarries, the Institute is considered by many architects to be one of the world’s leading authorities on limestone. Using modern equipment, the study concludes:

“Utilizing the entire Indiana Limestone industry’s facilities as they now stand [for 33 quarries], and figuring on tripling present average production, it would take approximately 27 years to quarry, fabricate and ship the total requirements.”

Booker points out the time study assumes sufficient quantities of railroad cars would be available without delay or downtime during this 27 year period and does not factor in the increasing costs of completing the work.[8]

The entire Giza Plateau is believed to have been constructed over the reign of five pharaohs in less than a hundred years. In the hundred years prior to Giza, beginning with Djoser who ruled from 2687-2667 BC, three other massive pyramids were built - the Step pyramid of Saqqara (believed to be the first Egyptian pyramid), the Bent Pyramid, and the Red Pyramid. Also during this period (between 2686 and 2498 BC) the Wadi Al-Garawi dam which used an estimated 100,000 cubic meters of rock and rubble was built.[9]

The accepted values by Egyptologists bear out the following result: 2,400,000 stones used ÷ 20 years ÷ 365 days per year ÷ 10 work hours per day ÷ 60 minutes per hour = 0.55 stones laid per minute.

Thus no matter how many workers were used or in what configuration, 1.1 blocks on average would have to be put in place every 2 minutes, ten hours a day, 365 days a year for twenty years to complete the Great Pyramid within this time frame. This equation, however, does not take into account among other things the designing, planning, surveying, and leveling the 13 acre site the Great Pyramid sits on."

en.wikipedia.org...

Executive summary: it's totally disingenuous to assume the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid with Bronze Age Technology.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by blackthorne
 


my thoughts exactly. Which is why I doubt the "official story".



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


You were reading my post wrong. I'm suggesting that YOU ask Scott Creighton for more evidence of the Great Pyramid predating 2600 B.C.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire

Executive summary: it's totally disingenuous to assume the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid with Bronze Age Technology.


Good one



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


You were reading my post wrong. I'm suggesting that YOU ask Scott Creighton for more evidence of the Great Pyramid predating 2600 B.C.


Oh, i see. misunderstanding.

Yeah....I had the thought today "Why didnt I post this at Scotts?". I will ask him.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


From the wiki article, again:

"In his book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders,[25] 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. Given that the data imply the pyramid was built (impossibly) from the top down, Dr. Schoch argues that if the information provided by the study is correct, it makes sense if it is assumed the pyramid was built and rebuilt in several stages suggesting later Pharaohs such as Khufu were only inheritors of an existing monument, not the original builders, and merely rebuilt or repaired previously constructed sections."

I would like to read some more on that mortuary temple, I've seen it on maps but I'm not finding much on the internet about it.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
Thus no matter how many workers were used or in what configuration, 1.1 blocks on average would have to be put in place every 2 minutes, ten hours a day, 365 days a year for twenty years to complete the Great Pyramid within this time frame. This equation, however, does not take into account among other things the designing, planning, surveying, and leveling the 13 acre site the Great Pyramid sits on."

en.wikipedia.org...

Executive summary: it's totally disingenuous to assume the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid with Bronze Age Technology.


ok so lets just imagine for a minute that they have more than one team laying blocks
lol
1 team = 1.1 blocks on average would have to be put in place every 2 minutes
2 teams = .55 blocks on average every 2 minutes

how about they had a hundred teams laying blocks ?

100 teams = .0011 blocks need to be placed every two minutes

i think this says a lot more about the Indiana quarry workers than the egyptians
especially when you consider that the sources for the Limestone are well known and very close to the construction site along a river and excavations have uncovered half finished blocks with bronze and copper tools laying around them which date from the time of construction.

and besides your indiana quarrymen have been misquoted
all the details can be found here
www.philipcoppens.com...


Egyptologist Mark Lehner has asked the firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall to carry out a study; they estimated that the project required an average workforce of 14,567 people and a peak workforce of 40,000. They argued that the project, from start to finish, would last approximately 10 years. The study has been criticized, if only for only using 2 million, rather than the 2.5 million stones that are believed to have gone into the Great Pyramid.

and as we now know that there were less than 1 million blocks in the great pyramid what do you think that does for the estimate ?
even Crystalinks got that right

The exact number of stones was orginally estimated at 2,300,000 stone blocks weighing from 2-30 tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons. Computer calculations indicate 590,712 stone blocks were used in its construction. It area covers 13.6 acres with each side greater than 5 acres in area.



so sorry your math doesn't add up



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


I'm sorry, but if 33 quarries using MODERN equipment at TRIPLE production take nearly thirty years to produce five times what we now believe is in that pyramid, there's no way bronze age technology could've hacked it.

33 quarries!

Modern equipment!

Railcars!



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


From the wiki article, again:

"In his book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders,[25] 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. Given that the data imply the pyramid was built (impossibly) from the top down, Dr. Schoch argues that if the information provided by the study is correct, it makes sense if it is assumed the pyramid was built and rebuilt in several stages suggesting later Pharaohs such as Khufu were only inheritors of an existing monument, not the original builders, and merely rebuilt or repaired previously constructed sections."

I would like to read some more on that mortuary temple, I've seen it on maps but I'm not finding much on the internet about it.


I've read it, its the same book that Robert claims that there was a lost race of travelling stonemasons living on sundaland. Its completely unfounded and reads like a book on ancient history written only like a Geologist could (i.e. written by someone who doesn't know much about it)
the book wasn't actually written by Dr Schoch, it was ghost written by Robert Aquinas Macnally


i found this review of it at amazon the most helpful

It seems a little demoralizing to once again be beating up on the "pyramidiots," but they keep writing nonesense and people keep buying it.
Yes, there are large mounds (what pyramids really are) found all over the earth, but we actually know a lot about the reasons different civilizations built them (some for burial, some to reach the skies, etc.). It is only by completing ignoring the evidence that you can come to the conclusions that Schoch reaches, or even feel the need to explain their "mystery." There is also the disturbing (even racist) implications of this theory that the poor ignorant folks in Egypt or Mexico could not have possibly come up with the skill to independently create these designs, it must be that there was a master race from "Sundaland." Hey folks, there is not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this civilization, which would have been one of the most important in history, ever existed.

Why can't we give credit where credit is due, to the very creative people around the world who wanted to create these articifial mountains?
.


[edit on 10-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


Attack the theory, don't attack the theorist.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


I'm sorry, but if 33 quarries using MODERN equipment at TRIPLE production take nearly thirty years to produce five times what we now believe is in that pyramid, there's no way bronze age technology could've hacked it.

33 quarries!

Modern equipment!

Railcars!

ah I can see that you didn't actually read my previous thread or follow the links
had you done so then your last post wouldn't have seemed so uninformed
perhaps you would like to go back and see what you missed



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


Again the question: How is it you know so much about how to debunk alternative-researchers and have ready-made info at hand within seconds?

Secondly: Your last post did not refer to the Info, but to "what else" Schoch wrote. What ELSE he wrote is irrelevant to the info that was quoted.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Because these threads come and go and probably because KW is the "artist formerly known as Marduk".



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I recall driving through Cairo and saying to a friend: Look at those Pyramids. They look more advanced than modern day Cairo! They`re huge!

And indeed, I didnt see any building in Cairo more impressive than the Pyramids.

This was the moment I realized that either our ancestors werent that primitive afterall, or they had help from somewhere or someone else.

The AGE question is important because putting it too far back would endager our view of anything prior to 4000 B.C. being barely descendent from apes.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Age is important, but I still think the methodology of construction is the more important.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mentalempire
 


not unless he's suddenly grown breasts,

though I will admit that I have found a lot of good information in his past posts on this subject with the search function.


his sources are better than mine, why isn't he answering this stuff anyway ?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
reply to post by blackthorne

The entire Giza Plateau is believed to have been constructed over the reign of five pharaohs in less than a hundred years.



A debate has been running for a number of years about the age of the Sphinx. It seems the mighty lion may be far older than originally thought - perhaps 10,000 years old.

The principle evidence for this rethink is the presence of substantial rainfall-water-weathering on the sandstone, only possible in a time when Egypt had a wet climate:

query.nytimes.com...

dspace.dial.pipex.com...


I don't know if any of you who have visited The Sphinx and inspected it closely have noticed, but the sandstone surface is quite different from most of the other monuments on the Giza plateau. It just looks older, and smoother, and is a darker color. And it's at a lower level than the desert. It has been 'dug out' and were it not for the huge trench around it, it would be virtually covered by the desert by now.

The pyramids - who knows. They have probably been dated accurately. It may be possible that a huge renovation project was undertaken in the time of Cheops/Kefren to enlarge/improve on/change existing earlier structures, which may have been subsumed by said renovation.

And yes, there do seem to be similarly designed structures on Mars. We'll have to wait to be sure about this. If they were abandoned millenia ago, they're probably not going to be too distinct from space, with all the wind and weathering of Mars's atmosphere, even with very high-def photo imaging. The stories, and the pictures, and the speculation persist.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join