The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 

kerkinana walsky I have some questions. I am not an expert and concede that you appear to have conducted far more research into the matter than I have, which is why I think you would be the perfect candidate to debunk or explain the following:

Why do you think that the King and Queen's chamber shafts of the Great Pyramid, and the layout of the Giza Pyramids match so precisely star and constellation positions as they were in 10,500 BC?

they don't match the constellation of Orion unless you turn it upside down and move one of the stars, really if you think about it you can try this experiment for yourself. take three pebbles and drop them on the floor. now find a matching constellation for the pattern that fits if you move one of the pebbles and turn it upside down. this doesn't mean that the pattern that the pebbles fell into was designed in 10,500bce or that there is anything more in the choice of the constellation that the pattern fits than wishful thinking. From the texts of the Egyptians themselves there is no evidence that they were even looking at the stars in this period. the claim for the airshafts is one thats a straw man argument. the date for 10,500 bce was suggested by a lot of people 100 years ago as relevant. this was based on the imaginings of Edgar Cayce and the belief that it was this date that Atlantis was destroyed. so take your air shafts and just for a minute pretend that the date you want to imagine is 9000bce. now find a passing star to fit. you will find quite a few because the earth revolves once a day and every star passes in line with the air shafts. but the air shafts themselves were never used as sight lines for stars because theyre bent. at no time was it possible to look down the shafts from inside the pyramid and see the sky above.



Originally posted by Cythraul
How do you explain the pyramid as a geometrical model of the Earth at an exact scale of 72,000 to 1? (I hope I'm right with that figure)

this claim was first made by John Taylor, author of "The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? & Who Built It?", published in 1859 who on measuring the pyramid used an inch close to the British inch to form their cubit of 25 Pyramid inches. With this in mind, Taylor searched for other related properties. Notably, he found that ten million pyramid cubits approximated the length of the radius of the earth on its polar axis fairly closely. what he didn't know was that he had got his measurement wrong

The earliest attested standard measure was called the Royal Cubit and was 523.5 to 524 mm (20.61 to 20.63 inches) in length, and was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits, giving a 28 part measure in total. Secure evidence for this unit is known from architecture, from at least as early as the construction of the Step Pyramid of Djoser from around 2,700 B.C.

so his claims don't hold water. Piazzi Smythe is the main reason that you have even heard of this theory which was rejected by the Royal Academy 150 years ago. Taylor also believed that the GP was built by Noah but you don't hear many people mentioning that thesedays do you


Originally posted by Cythraul
What are your opinions on the significance of Giza's geographical latitudal and longitudal positioning, and the distances in degrees of longitude between major ancient sites (such as Angkor Wat, Easter Island, Giza)?

Gizas latitude is approx 31 degrees and its longitude is approx 29 degrees.
this is using the system known as Mercator. The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator, in 1569. thats over 4000 years after the pyramid was built so you can bet that the Egyptians didn't know of it. the zero point is based in Greenwich, London and the Egyptians didn't know of that city either because it was founded by Roamsn about 3000 years after the pyramids were built.

the other sites you mentioned are not even related to Giza
have you looked at the timeline
Great pyramid 2500BCE
Ankor watt 1200CE (3700 years later)
Easter Island 1400CE (3900 years later)

theres this thing "common sense"






posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
well this thread is essentially moot due to the fact that, maybe igneous rocks and such are 'undatable' as they are old as the earth, but the contents contained within the walls of that structure are very datable and very preserved for science to know pretty much the exact date....bodily remains, trace residue of mead and wine, precious metals, linens, etc etc...not to mention the paint used to mark the walls...all datable. I feel the date acknowledged by science is pretty correct



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Graham Hancock's Underworlds is fascinating stuff, a great follow-up to Fingerprints of the Gods. He argues that 70% of the planet, including the former coastlines where most people live, remains largely a mystery. There is a Pyramid in the jungle of Costa Rica that is larger than the Great Pyramid.

It would of course be difficult to hide a Great Pyramid on the ocean floor, but then again there must be contemporary activity all over the planet from when the Great Pyramid was active, and possibly much easier to carbon date, especially semi-synthetic materials made from organic matter.

Carbon dating relies on half-lives of isotopes, so the further back you go the less precise you become. And carbon dating granite would bring you all the way back to the rock's birth 4billion years ago, you're really looking for rubble lying around the object, as has been mentioned in this thread in various ways. Underwater evidence is easier to carbon date because there is virtually no oxidization in salt water - and hardly any sunlight - compared to being exposed outside.

Start looking underwater!

Sitchin's theories are fascinating and thought provoking but of course difficult to prove.

Cayce mentioned the pyramids in asides while giving readings, groupmemory says they're pre-flood but not as old as the Sphynx.

Carbon dating is good up to a point, but you'd have to study equal measures Joseph Campbell and mythology and aeteology to get a good handle on pre"history"

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Brock Gel]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Things aren't explained as easily as you would like kerkinan walsky for example this orion theory is a bit more complicated then what you posted here....


Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
they don't match the constellation of Orion unless you turn it upside down and move one of the stars, really if you think about it you can try this experiment for yourself. take three pebbles and drop them on the floor. now find a matching constellation for the pattern


The random, pointless experiment you suggested here doesn't prove this theory is incorrect far from it. In fact I don't think you understand this theory at all.
The alignment of the orion constellation in 10,500bc far more complex then just dropping stones and matching it with constellations as you put it... please read this and try again.

doernenburg.alien.de...






[edit on 14-11-2007 by XNeMeSis21]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
the link you posted actually debunks the orion correlation theory
I suggest you read it and try again



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
the link you posted actually debunks the orion correlation theory
I suggest you read it and try again



Did you even read it? And by the way I'm not suggesting that this theory is correct or incorrect just pointing out that your simplistic way of explaining things is flawed that is all.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Thank you for your response. I'll try to ignore the condescending clap at the end of your post, or at least hope that you meant it in good humour.


Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
they don't match the constellation of Orion unless you turn it upside down and move one of the stars

This I'll give you, but would mention, in passing, the positional correlation between the milky way and Orion's belt. If the layout of the pyramids only vaguely resembles Orion's belt to the point where it could easily be a coincidence, perhaps the milky way lends credence to the possibility of intentional representation.


Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
this claim was first made by John Taylor, author of "The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? & Who Built It?", published in 1859 who on measuring the pyramid used an inch close to the British inch to form their cubit of 25 Pyramid inches. With this in mind, Taylor searched for other related properties. Notably, he found that ten million pyramid cubits approximated the length of the radius of the earth on its polar axis fairly closely. what he didn't know was that he had got his measurement wrong

Again, you know your stuff and I won't try to argue, but that I know some researchers have arrived at a 72000 to 1 scale rather than 100,000 to 1. 72 obviously being a number linked to precession as I'm sure you're aware. I don't know if this changes the ability to debunk or not - probably not, but I just wanted to be clear that the significant scale is 72,000 to 1 rather than 100,000 to 1.


Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
Gizas latitude is approx 31 degrees and its longitude is approx 29 degrees.
this is using the system known as Mercator. The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator, in 1569. thats over 4000 years after the pyramid was built so you can bet that the Egyptians didn't know of it. the zero point is based in Greenwich, London and the Egyptians didn't know of that city either because it was founded by Roamsn about 3000 years after the pyramids were built.

Of course. You may like to assume I'm stupid enough to relate Giza's positioning using modern references but I'm not. The point I was trying to convey was this: The two lines of latitude and longitude which pass through more land and less water than any others intersect only at Giza and on the other side of the planet in water. Giza is at the precise centre of the earth's land mass. Coincidence?


Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
the other sites you mentioned are not even related to Giza

In my opinion they are. A debate about the age of the pyramids invariably postulates the existence of an advanced lost civilization. If we were to open our minds far enough to accept this possibility, we would be naive to think it was confined to Egypt. The fact that these sites around the world are academically accepted as being seperate in the timeline doesn't disprove their relationship to each other geographically - which is that they are supposedly seperated, in degrees, by numbers such as 54, 72 and 108 (three numbers particularly important in the precession of the Equinox).

I look forward to another educated response.

I'd really love a bit of input from Scott Creighton in this thread. I wonder if anyone can make that happen? It's a fascinating discussion.


[edit on 14/11/2007 by Cythraul]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Currently, this annual motion is about 50.3 seconds of arc per year or 1 degree every 71.6 years.

en.wikipedia.org...
72 is another pseudo historic idea
it isn't a reality




The two lines of latitude and longitude which pass through more land and less water than any others intersect only at Giza and on the other side of the planet in water. Giza is at the precise centre of the earth's land mass. Coincidence?

well its a coincedence that there was a nice flat plateau to build on. If you check the data for yourself you'll find that your latitude and longitude claims are not correct as they are also based on Mercator projections which do not project an accurate view of a three dimensional planet on a two dimensional map.

If you think about and assume just for a minute that its true then how lucky it was that the Egyptians just happened to be in that spot to built the pyramids at that location. Would have been totally messed up if they evolved to their level of civilisation in Budapest wouldn't it



[edit on 14-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


Thanks for helping out. In retrospect I wish I would have opened this in Scotts Forum.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


present time and past time are not the same -------what we see now in the sky does not take into account the earths poles/axis being shifted from their past alignment by supernatural/catastrophic intervention.there are records cut in clay tablets and stone that the ancients left behind that state we used to have a year comprising 290 days later a year of 360 days and a month of 30 days.and radio carbon dating is also messed up by past catastrophes that have devastated this planet.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by yahn goodey
.there are records cut in clay tablets and stone that the ancients left behind that state we used to have a year comprising 290 days later a year of 360 days and a month of 30 days.

then you will be able to link to a site that claims that won't you

Originally posted by yahn goodey
and radio carbon dating is also messed up by past catastrophes that have devastated this planet.

no it isn't, pseudo historians just need you to believe it is otherwise their theories appear for what they are. Rubbish



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


Having read the works of kerkinana walsky for the past few weeks, I ask myself: Who is the author of these works? Is she an egyptologist or archaeologist? If so, what are some egyptlogoy questions that remain unanswered for her? (as she seems to have good answers for everything...what is unanswered for her?).



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
One comment:




The point I was trying to convey was this: The two lines of latitude and longitude which pass through more land and less water than any others intersect only at Giza and on the other side of the planet in water. Giza is at the precise centre of the earth's land mass. Coincidence?


Actually they don't, that point would some where near Kiev - I humbly suggest you dig out an atlas or globe and take a look.

Skyfloating you asked about my motivation: I like the idea of undiscovered or lost civilizations and therefor I look for information or ideas on the concept. I also have an interest in Archaeology so I go thru websites looking for information.

Last year during a discussion on another board, a thread on Sumerian origins pointed out a lack of information on skeletal remains. From that I contacted some associates and in September a German Grad student is now compiling the first register/database of all existing Sumerian skeletal material. After that it will be tested (which had not been done in the 1850-1920) when it was recovered. They will be looking at DNA and where the bones originated from (study of trace elements)

Unfortunately I spend a great deal of time stomping out incorrect information, usually material debunked decades ago that "people with open minds" cannot understand are not valid, and not germane to finding ancient lost civilizations (Piri Reis comes to mind LOL)



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Thanks again kerkinana walsky.


Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

Currently, this annual motion is about 50.3 seconds of arc per year or 1 degree every 71.6 years.

en.wikipedia.org...
72 is another pseudo historic idea
it isn't a reality


Ok, fair point. But if were to assume that any significance in the use of the number 72 and derivatives of it was in order to convey important astronomical knowledge down through the ages, perhaps about the importance of tracking precessional ages so as to avoid foreseeable future events - then perhaps it would have made sense for the ancients to settle for a whole number? The use of numbers related to precession through the world's religion and mythology (the importance of 108 in Buddhism, use of the figure 72,000 in the Bible, the 54 gods and 54 demons of Angkor Wat) obviously requires a whole figure. After all, you can't have 71.6 sacred statues in a temple, can we? Obviously, perversion of the accurate 71.6 years figure isn't ideal, but I'd say it's close enough. The discrepancy can be justified by the need for a rounded number.


Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
If you think about and assume just for a minute that its true then how lucky it was that the Egyptians just happened to be in that spot to built the pyramids at that location. Would have been totally messed up if they evolved to their level of civilisation in Budapest wouldn't it

But that's just the point, isn't it! If we were to believe that the Egyptians planned and built everything at Giza, then of course, they would build wherever their civilization happened to spring up. That could have been anywhere really, couldn't it? The fact that the pyramids may have been built in a precise spot (yes I'm aware of corrections to my information and that what I'm saying here is consequently a fairly trivial point) would surely suggest that a great, more global civilization handpicked Giza as a specific location. Then, perhaps a nearby Nomadic tribe called the Egyptians stumbled across this magnificent site and adopted it as their own. There's no luck or coincidence involved. If the "Egyptians" had devloped in Budapest, then some other North African, Middle Eastern, or Mediterranean people would have settled in Giza where pyramids already stood.

This is obviously just speculative. In fact, my motivation here isn't to prove something I'm certain of, because I'm not. But I do believe the whole subject warrants extensive research and discussion.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

No problem. I'm obviously no expert, but like you, I want to see the subject discussed, with equal proponents on either side. It seems we are yet to find a match for kerkinana walsky. Until then, I'll do my bit.

To be totally honest, I just have a gut feeling. When I read anything about the Pyramids - accepted or alternative, I can't help but feel we really do not have the full picture. Even when I was young and unaware of any alternative theories, I found the "history" difficult to believe.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
To be totally honest, I just have a gut feeling. When I read anything about the Pyramids - accepted or alternative, I can't help but feel we really do not have the full picture.

Hence why the discussion is futile...

People like kerkiana can make post after post after post with archeological and historical evidence, fact and proof as found/dug up/explored/whatever by the thousands of scientists in the world.

Then of course, the counter arguments comes in:

- I think...
- But maybe...
- I dont believe that...
- It would be cool if...
- I feel...
- In my opinion...
etc

Futile indeed.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by merka]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 

Actually, no! kerkinana walsky, whilst clearly knowledgable, and whilst having provided excellent counter-points to the questions I have asked, is still yet to completely disprove every aspect of the theory. I am waiting for responses to my last post, which I'm certain she will address well, and furthermore, my next move would have been to bring some of Scott Creighton's excellent theories into play. Seeing as Mr Creighton is an actual expert in alternative Egyptology, unlike myself, I am confident kerkinana walsky will have a harder time effectively debunking his work.

I am a rational person merka. I like to really learn about both sides of any debate no matter which side I pitch my own tent on. You clearly recognise a battle of faith vs science here. The same debate is perpetuated daily here on ATS and throughout the world - Spirituality vs science is a classic example. While you are entitled to your views, please don't begin suggesting that to deny ignorance is to deny faith. Faith and science are not enemies. While I may rely partially on faith, some, like Scott Creighton have some real physical evidence to back it up.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 



I know from personal experiences that the players involved in Giza and Egyptology have a lot to hide and are hiding a lot.

I am glad that we have some experts from the orthodox side here. The only thing I find a bit odd is that I have yet to see some of them a) post on other threads or topics and b) contribute some unanswered questions to these threads. When someone keeps only providing ANSWERS and never QUESTIONS, you can be sure there`s something amiss. That goes for any subject matter.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


So while I dont know much on egyptlogy or even archaeology, I do know something about speech patterns, perception and manipulation.

Since many years I have been asking debunkers simple questions like "So...you have a lot of answers there...what are some unanswered questions you still have?". And thats when their mind goes blank. No response.

That is clearly a sign of one of two problems:

a) Either they are so blind that they think everything is already known

or

b) They are disinformation agents deliberately suppressing information.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join