The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

reply to post by merka

---

Or declared open season however you choose to look at it. =)



[edit on 12-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

This I dont know kerkinana walsky. Hence I open this thread. I only know the official version, the version you defend. Thats all I have been taught.

And I admit I have ZERO evidence to believe otherwise. But the fact that you keep telling me that I have "zero evidence" is beside the point, because this I admit.

The point being that various events in my life and meetings with people involved with the giza area have caused suspicion and the desire to ask more questions and not take the official side FOR GRANTED.

Are you asking me to stop questioning and take orthodox egyptology for granted? That I will only do after gathering enough data (some of which is provided by people here, and also by you).

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

---

On a side note, I understand your antagonism toward people who have no idea what they are talking about, speculating beyond the facts that have been established and apparently fixed. But at the end of the day, idiots like us, asking questions, means that orthodox egyptology hasnt been explained to us in layman terms so that we can make sense of it. And our questions serve egyptologists to strengthen their explanations. And if not all is explained yet (for example why not all glyph translations have been published), then we want to know why.

I don't understand why you think Egyptologists owe you an answer.
thats not their job. I had to do the research for myself to satisfy my original belief that the AE hadn't built Giza. When you do that you soon see that the evidence is overwhelming. What I found is that this belief comes from not understanding how the AE could have done it. what this boils down to is that I could not have done it. But then I can't build a house either.

the main alternate theories are

1) Giza was built by aliens (Zechariah Sitchen)
2) Giza was planned by a lost race but built by Egyptians (Graham Hancock)
3) Giza was built by Atlanteans (everyone else)
4) Giza was built by Hebrew slaves during the captivity
there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny to support any of these ideas

Sitchin is in a world of his own knowingly making money from peoples lack of knowledge and belief in science fiction. His claims don't stand up to scrutiny either as he has Gods from different time periods and civilisations all mixed up together. His most recent claim is that the wooden horse of troy was some sort of alien armoured personnel carrier

Hancock bases his theory on Archaeoastronomy which is a method that requires a belief that the Builders thought like that. In essence it is a self sustaining theory based on the fact that the AE must have thought exactly the same as he does. which i find very unlikely. there is no evidence that the AE were even interested in astronomy at this early period and the Chaldeans were the worlds first real astronomers around 1000bce (1500 years later)

and Atlanteans well, Plato wasn't a historian and there is no mention of Atlanteans building pyramids in any of his dialogues anyway. the only evidence for this comes from Cayce (who was asleep at the time) and Madame Blavatsky(who claims she was told this by ascended masters from Tibet while in a trance). there is no solid evidence anywhere on earth for the existence of Atlantis. bit odd don't you think that not one pot survived the destruction of this global maritime nation.

as for the Biblical version, it doesn't say that in the bible which claims that they were in Egypt as slaves for 400 years and didn't even mention pyramids. Bit odd you'd think being there for four centuries and not knowing of the existence of them. They do claim in early versions of the Bible that they built the city of Heliopolis (which was On) (it was cut from later versions) and Heliopolis was in existence 1000 years before the time of the Jewish captivity so unless they had time travel that doesn't work either. and we know that it wasn't built by slaves.

your claim for insider knowledge seems to me, if true, that you've been taken for a ride. Its certainly more likely than what you're claiming. that there is a huge cover up going on but experts are only telling you the truth
thats quite funny if you think about it


so really, the posters in this thread as you pointed out know so little about Egyptian culture that they are happy to believe one of the above theories, thats if they've even heard of them and aren't aware that people like me who have studied it have examined the alternate theories and found them untenable



[edit on 12-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]

[edit on 12-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]

pretty good post there. I think that sums up the alternative theories on the pyramids. Except my own theory which I believe in: Giza was built by egyptians who knew much more than ancient people are credited for. You will probably have gathered that I also believe in atlantis and aliens, but for me there is only an indirect connection (remnants of memories) inherent in AE.

I thank you for taking the time and effort to bring forward your conclusions and close our little debate by admitting that you are right in saying there is no evidence for my beliefs...

...

...

...yet.

Rest assured though, that new data on our history is being uncovered on a daily basis.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

You shouldn't give up so easily. Due to carbon dating, it is not beyond dispute that 2600 B.C. was the date when the Great Pyramid was built, and due to common sense, the construction methods used to build it are not beyond dispute. Mainstream Egyptology wants you to think that the issue is settled, but reality paints a quite different picture.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by mentalempire]

reply to post by mentalempire

---

Im not giving up on the idea that the Pyramids are older. Most certainly not. I am giving up fighting what seems to be an egyptologist in our midst.

Bring it on mentalempire!

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Indeed, on that note she needs to be informed that she's just as entitled to her opinion as we are ours, though, I will ask the following:

"Who would've ever thought that someone could get so indignant about the pyramids?"

reply to post by mentalempire

---

Good one!

No worries, I still have some cards up my sleeve which I will submit piece by piece to ATS-Premium. If they dont publish it, I will post it for all to see. But its looking at the whole matter from another side. When it comes to technicalities and facts Im a complete dunce at egyptology. But when it comes to secrets held by certain big names in egyptology I am pretty good and can evidence some stuff. Check out "recent threads I tagged" in my profile to see what I submitted to ATS.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Unfortunately I'm getting a "file not found" error for what I think you're referencing-a Zahi Hawass (sp?) story. I can't tell if it's just me, do you care to take a peek?

[edit on 12-11-2007 by mentalempire]

[edit on 12-11-2007 by mentalempire]

reply to post by mentalempire

---

file not found because it hasnt been published yet, only submitted. Only to show that Im not done with egypt yet.

theres plenty of real things that still wait to be discovered, problem is that you are wasting so much of your time on things that have never existed that you'll never get round to finding them.
Thats the real tragedy here and its one that you hear again and again from real archaeologists.
"not enough time and not enough manpower and not enough people thinking about it. "

If you want to waste your time and your valuable imaginations on these pseudo theories thats up to you but then you are handing the real discoveries on a platter to be made by people like Zahi who will twist them into whatever he deems fit at the time.

sometimes pseudo believers use examples like Heinrich Schlieman as proof that lateral thinking gets results, but he never thought laterally about Aliens or Atlantis, if he has he would never have left Mecklenburg and discovered Troy (not that he actually did that anyway he was just a better self promoter than Frank Calvert)
en.wikipedia.org...
so by believing in Atlantis and Aliens you are playing right into the hands of the people you seem to despise the most.

I myself believe in the existence of Aliens but I don't believe they ever came here. Would you ?

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

---

How can you be so confident none of this stuff ever existed? What about the sunken Black Sea civilization? What about the newly discovered sunken cities off the coast of India?

have you actually researched either of them yourself ?

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

---

On a superficial level. I would like to go deeper, but such a study appears to demand time that I simply do not have.

Exactly. Time. I cant do 5 jobs at once, which is why I will have to rely on reports from people who HAVE invested the time. Kerkinana Walsky seems to have invested some of that time. But so has Hancock.

Exactly. Time. I cant do 5 jobs at once, which is why I will have to rely on reports from people who HAVE invested the time. Kerkinana Walsky seems to have invested some of that time. But so has Hancock.

I realise this is slightly off topic but you guy's were discussing it at some point.

Another entirely plausible european/mid east culture that may have reached the new world from the old long before Columbus would be the Phoenicians.

Tenuous links at best but if any sea going culture would have been capable of such a journey it would have been them imo.

Try our good friend google, you'd be surprised what you may find if your able to piece together tidbits of information.

On a personal note, and back on topic, i'm afraid i have to agree with the mainstream view regarding the age of the pyramids, evidence is evidence, even if it comes from sources you'd prefer to disbelieve.

mojo

long before the Phonecians were the Native Americans Mojo
i think officially they found it first.
thats why they are known as an Aboriginal people
Aboriginal is latin and derived from "ab origine", meaning "from the origin or beginning"
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

---

My post was in response to the discussion you were having with skyfloating. You mentioned Columbus was the first western navigator to discover America.
I thought id throw up the Phoenicians as the first western navigators to discover the New World as a theory. I didnt state that they were the first people to discover America.

Thanks anyway but i do know what aboriginal means, i lived with Australian aborigines for many years.



I shouldnt have bothered cause its off topic anyway. Carry on.

mojo