It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forbidden Egyptology

page: 11
108
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I am for one not sold on what mainstream Egyptology says about the Giza complex. Call me ignorant or what have you, but I am of the belief(based on what I've researched so far) that the evidence that supposedly points to the Ancient Egyptians having built the Giza Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Valley Temple, et al is all circumstantial.

So I'm wondering from those who are against the alternative theories regarding the entire Giza plateau what are the 3 most telling pieces of evidence that say without a doubt the AE's erected these structures?

Is it the graffiti in the Pyramid of Cheops?
Is it the radiocarbon dating of the mortar?
Is it the supposed progression of pyramid building?
Is it their tremendous skill in working stone?

What is it that undeniably says "Yes the Ancient Egyptians did this, and in the time period that has been alleged."

I guess then what I wonder is if the Egyptians did do all of this, which when you look at the precision and accuracy of Giza seems to have just sprung out of nowhere, where then did they get their influence? And please don't take that as I think it came from aliens. But was there another civilization maybe? It seems that maybe there are parallels between the Egyptians and the Sumerians...could it have come from there?


Disclaimer: I'm no expert, as this is only my opinion. I mean no disrespect to the Egyptians either. If they indeed are the ones responsible for constructing the only left standing wonder of the world, then they were truly an advanced civilization beyond comprehension, more so than ours because they did it without the use of heavy machinery(that we know of.)




posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ameneter
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

There is evidence that the Giza pyramids were from the "time of the Gods", but this evidence is often overlooked. Zecharia Sitchen has alluded to this evidence in some of his books but not many people seem to be aware of its significance. Some in this thread have asked why attribute the builders of the Giza pyramids to "Gods" (Extraterrestrials)? That is to say that the ancient Egyptians themselves were capable of this task. When one looks at the complexity of the scientific paradigm underlying these structures then it is natural to doubt the theory that these structures were built by human rulers as tombs. Afterall, the Egyptians themselves held the firm belief that before humans ruled, Egypt was ruled by their GODS! AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE GIZA PYRAMIDS AND SPHINX EXISTED DURING THIS TIME!

I've read the Dogon's say something similar about Egypt being a place of those from Sirius. These people looking different and favoring water. Where as the major buildings where surrounded with pools and there was an interconnecting undergound water way they traveled within to and from these buildings.

I am part way through this thread and this post brought the Dogon's to mind. Do they and thier story play any significance?



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So I'm wondering from those who are against the alternative theories regarding the entire Giza plateau what are the 3 most telling pieces of evidence that say without a doubt the AE's erected these structures?

Is it the graffiti in the Pyramid of Cheops?
Is it the radiocarbon dating of the mortar?
Is it the supposed progression of pyramid building?
Is it their tremendous skill in working stone?

I'm sure an archeologists could go on for hours about that, lol.

For me, its not about hard evidence because I'm not an archeologist (although well clarified evidence doesnt exactly hurt). I judge what is plausible based on the whole ancient Egyptian society and structural design. Even if we where to assume that the Great Pyramid may not be Egyptian, look at other temples and buildings. Is there really anything strange about the Great Pyramid? Not really. It matches known Egyptian design. It doesnt really look odd compared to the Pyramid of Khafre or the Red Pyramid, decay is about the same. The same stone is used, most likely the same method of construction.

Even if we where to assume the Egyptians where a non-descript people that we knew nothing about, the Great Pyramid would STILL match the buildings in Egypt and it would be very reasonable to assume that whoever made the structures around it made it too. Plus, look at the world in general. Is there *any* pyramids that come close to the design of the Egyptian pyramids (and the much smaller Nubian pyramid)? I cant think of any off-hand. Mayan/Aztec/Chinese pyramids are based on the same principle, but they are far from the same. How can it be logicial to say that out of all these pyramids in Egypt, that share the same design which is totally unique, one and just one that look the same as all the rest wouldnt be made by them?

[edit on 14-2-2008 by merka]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka


For me, its not about hard evidence because I'm not an archeologist (although well clarified evidence doesnt exactly hurt). I judge what is plausible based on the whole ancient Egyptian society and structural design.


Elsewhere, in another thread (I forget which one) I commented on coming to different conclusions about a problem or situation, based on the assumptions and preconceptions you bring to it's analysis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the absence of direct evidence you're basing your analysis on what you think is reasonable. The problem is, what you think is reasonable is undoubtedly coloured by your preconceptions.

For example...If person 'A' is open to the possibility that an ancient civilization was much more advanced than is currently thought, or that it may have been started by (or mentored by) an alien presence... well, they are going to look at a problem and factor those things into the possible solutions.

However, Person 'B' might not be so open to the idea of either proposal, so they are going to look for any possible explanation that doesn't include either.

Since the conclusions are little (if nothing) to do with direct evidence, and more to do with what each person finds acceptable, until direct evidence is available I would have thought it was only reasonable to keep the jury out of the room... lol

Just an observation mind you



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mantic
Was not a large partion of the Valley of the Kings released to public domain from US military control for the last 40 50 years or so?


Certainly not. What an absurd statement.

The U.S. military had no presence in Egypt during that span.

Please try to find facts on your own.Will you please attempt to find the dates of excavations that have occurred over the time span you specified (and earlier?)

If you had said the Soviets, that would have made more sense. The Soviets were "allies" with the Egyptians until the Egyptians got smart and gave them the boot (under Nasser, I believe it was.)

But, the vast majority of finds in the Valley of the Kings occurred long before the timespan you mentioned. These finds were published in respected journals at the time. No military presence from any nation was involved.

Harte



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by mantic
Was not a large partion of the Valley of the Kings released to public domain from US military control for the last 40 50 years or so?


Certainly not. What an absurd statement.

The U.S. military had no presence in Egypt during that span.

Please try to find facts on your own.Will you please attempt to find the dates of excavations that have occurred over the time span you specified (and earlier?)

If you had said the Soviets, that would have made more sense. The Soviets were "allies" with the Egyptians until the Egyptians got smart and gave them the boot (under Nasser, I believe it was.)

But, the vast majority of finds in the Valley of the Kings occurred long before the timespan you mentioned. These finds were published in respected journals at the time. No military presence from any nation was involved.

Harte


I am not as learned as you guys in these matters, I am just a "kindergarden" student with a wide open mind, so please excuse any ignorance.

I did not make a statement as to any fact, mearly a question to something I read somewhere. If memory serves right, to what I remember the military control was alleged up until the 90s, secretly by the US. I will try and see if I can find any info relating back to this.

I have gotten to the end of it and all the links and find this whole thread very interesting, informative and civil. Thank you gentlemen.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mantic
 



FYI,

The Russians were closely involved militarily in Egypt until Nasser threw them out. Consiudering how many bogus claims have been made about the "secrets" of the USSR, I would expect such a statement regarding "secret" info fabout Egypt to involve some claim about the USSR, not the USA.

If the USA military had been there, it would have meant war.

Myself, I'm old enough to remember "Duck, and cover."

The Cold War, with it's constant imminent threat of annihilation, is the era I grew up in.

Harte


Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
How can it be logicial to say that out of all these pyramids in Egypt, that share the same design which is totally unique, one and just one that look the same as all the rest wouldnt be made by them?


Those that came later copied the design. That would be an explanation.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mantic

I did not make a statement as to any fact, mearly a question to something I read somewhere. If memory serves right, to what I remember the military control was alleged up until the 90s, secretly by the US. I will try and see if I can find any info relating back to this.


If you can find anything on this, that would be interesting.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

I guess then what I wonder is if the Egyptians did do all of this, which when you look at the precision and accuracy of Giza seems to have just sprung out of nowhere, where then did they get their influence?




Especially considering that chronologically you would expect the greater buildings to be built at later periods, not at the beginning. This oddity is unparelleled in any other civilization (roman, greek, modern) and the best indicator that the 3 Pyramids were already standing when egypt began.

You are also spot on in asking what was it all based on? According to our mainstream textbooks there were only primitives who could barely make a fireplace...and then "suddenly" this huge pyramid is built?



[edit on 14-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Question for Harte; In another thread you posted:



...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.)

Are these "interior surfaces" (the insides of the cracks) dressed? Have these hieroglyphs been translated? Do you have a link to this info?
Thanks, Curiosityrising



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Again, the only field of science that works in absolute "yes or no" constrainst is mathematics. History, geology, biology, all of these fields work on the premise of "more probable or less probable"

So, with htat in mind, apply it to your questions here.

We know that the Egyptians lived there for several thousand years, and we know they started building large monuments there five thousand years ago at the latest. We know they had the capabilities, tools, and knowledge needed to build things like the pyramids. We know hte pyramids are dated from the period of Egyptian construction.

Others claim that the ancient Egyptians were incapable of building the pyramids, even with the tools and knowledge we know they had. These speculators insist that someone else had to have built them. The theories on who built them varies , but there's one constant - we have zero evidence of these "other people." No tools, remains, or anything of the sort. Now, given that we're able to find evidence of pre-clovis cultures in the Americas, and Ice-Age villages in the North Sea, all that stuff, I'd say we're pretty good at finding the most unlikely of things in hte darnedst places.

Both are possibilities.
But which of the two is more probable?
GIven the lack of any evidence supporting the second, and the body of evidence for the first, the first is more likely.
Circumstantial, perhaps (if you say so...), but it's still more evidence than Option B has.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Lets get from general to specific: What is your comment on the "jointed cornerstones" photon effect posted earlier?



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
[repeated post]

[edit on 14-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Science can not give you truth, all science can offer is internal self consistency. The trouble is that unless historians are willing to get rid of a lot of traditional assumptions in history, we're never going to find out the truth. Currently these ideas lie outside of what would be considered consistant with previous historical accounts, and so few historians are willing to accept them.

The working hypothesis for historians for hundreds of years has been that Humans are the most advanced race in the universe, we are at the peak, the pinnacle of our existance, there are no superior Aliens from outer space, no life at all from space, and they certainly have not interacted with us. Until those assumptions are thrown out we'll never get at the truth of the matter.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiosityrising
Question for Harte; In another thread you posted:



...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.)

Are these "interior surfaces" (the insides of the cracks) dressed? Have these hieroglyphs been translated? Do you have a link to this info?
Thanks, Curiosityrising


Most surfaces of the stones comprising the Great pyramid are not dressed.

The markings I mentioned were found to be painted on both dressed and undressed surfaces as instruction - quarry marks - to ensure the stones were taken by the proper work crew to the proper place during the construction of the Great Pyramid.

This is from Hawass' book "The Treasures of the Pyramids." It is a description of what can be seen on the videotape that was recorded using that robot that was used to explore the small shafts in the G.P. You probably have heard of these shafts. Many people here claim they are aligned with this or that star or constellation. Note that no human can even fit inside these small shafts so there can be no doubt that these quarry markls were there when the thing was built.


The corridor ends in front of a white limestone block. On its smooth surface, the traces of two copper fittings of the same kind as those on the southern blocking or porticullis stone are visible. These are surely not handles, but magic hieroglyphic signs for the soul of the king. On the surface, faint traces of quarry marks are detectable, the sign of the work-gang wadi ('the green ones'). and probably the hieroglyph prjj, 'to come out' (of the tomb). One can be absolutely sure that these corridors served only the ascent of the soul of the dead king to the northern and southern sky and that there were definitely no hidden chambers behind these blocks."

Source - TourEgypt.net

BTW, that's really a great site if you want to know about ancient Egypt.

Here's a site with some pics of the interior of the shaft Hawas is talking about (scroll down to where it says "secret doors.")

Anyway, the ones that can be fully read have been translated. They say things similar to what the quarry marks on the stones in the relief chamber over the King's Chamber say - what work gang, what area, etc.

I want to mention that (if I remember correctly) it was these marks that led to Graham Hancock (and Rober Bauval) admitting that the Giza Pyramids were built sometime around the time the Egyptologists tell us and resulted in their "fallback" position that the Giza Complex was designed to recall "Zep Tepi" (first Time) which was supposedly the "Age of the Gods" in Egypt (according to Hancock and Bauval around 10,500 BC.)

Had there been any doubt in either's mind concerning the actual construction date, you can bet they would still be clamoring to show that the Great Pyramid dates to that ancient era. Both agree that the Egyptologists have the date approximately correct.

Harte



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I fail to see how it's mysterious. There are a number of different ways to create a right-angle cut in a stone. For instance, you can, you know... cut it. With a saw. Which the Egyptians had. Another alternative is to chisel out a groove, and then use a wedge to split away the stone behind and level with that groove. Or alternately, you can just cut away the stone one groove at a time and polish away the lines. A more complicated way of doing this would be to drill out the stone, bit by bit, and then break the resulting honeycomb away and polish away what's left with a finishing chisel.

One benefit of the copper chisels the Egyptians used is that their softness led to less flaws in the stone. A steel chisel can bruise, chip, and dent the stone by accident, while a copper chisel will give a more reliably smooth finish

[edit on 14-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Thanks for taking the time to place a commentary.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
ive read some interesting books on alternative histiry theories by authrs such as, adrian gilbert, robert brouval and maurice cotterell.
some people might not like their ideas but its interesting to read the different theories.
hope that helps



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar
For example...If person 'A' is open to the possibility that an ancient civilization was much more advanced than is currently thought, or that it may have been started by (or mentored by) an alien presence... well, they are going to look at a problem and factor those things into the possible solutions.

Then do just that!

Lets assume the Great Pyramid is built by another civilization than the Egyptians. Lets also assume that it would be much older than thought.

However, you need more than assumptions to prove something to yourself, just assuming without being able to say why is rather bad. You need to make a strong case to yourself, easiest done in the form of questions:

What's so advanced about it compared to the pyramid standing next to it?
What are the possible alien influences in comparison to how the Egyptians built things?
What's the given indication that its so much older?

Can I answer them? No I really cant. Can you answer them? I hope so if you believe it wasnt built by the Egyptians.

In the end, I'm not a scientists or archeologist. I dont like to pretend I am either. Still I will say what I believe... And I'm actually open to quite alot. If the Great Pyramid had been say encased in an intricate metal mesh that's harder than diamonds with an antenna the size of the Eiffel tower sticking out the top, I would say this:

"Now that is strange!"

[edit on 14-2-2008 by merka]



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join