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: 12
108
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


The mention of hte Eiffel Tower brings to mind...

I've seen people asking what the "purpose" of the pyramids are. There's questions over whether or not they were used as tombs - they don't really resemble tombs. So we get all this stuff about "focusing energies" or something.

Maybe the whole point of the great pyramid and its companions was a tourist attraction. A sort of nationalistic ego flex; "Come to Egypt, and see what the hell WE can do!"

After all... the Eiffel Tower serves no practical purpose at all - the whole point was to build something really, really tall for the World's Fair. Makes you wonder if ancient Gizans grouched as much about the hideous eyesore of the pyramids like the Parisians did about the tower...




posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I find it amazing that some ordinary folks here have the audacity to put forth such puny opinions with regard to the precision engineering of the pyramids.
Ah yes, chipping granite with granite…..by hand with a wooden mallet and getting precision results. What talented and steady hands those men mush have had.

Like wise the attempt to debunk the cone heads with more opinion. Boarding and binding does not increase a skull’s volume.
The most published pictures of the cone heads are of the ones in Peru. They are said by “mainstream” to be 70,000 years old.
They are found all over the world.

ALL OVER THE WORLD
Whenever you read of finds of skulls that are “doliocephalic”, they are referring the coneheads. They do not go into detail that they are abnormally large. Wouldn’t you think that this anomaly deserved more attention? The current World religious control system has much to lose if their story is effectively refuted.

SKULLS

Also the skeletons show that these people were about 6’ tall. They are said to be sturdily built. Those pictures of the Egyptian rulers, however show narrow shouldered, broad hipped and pot bellied people. If their skulls had been boarded and bound they would have stood up instead of bulging in the back.

Look at the skulls of these mummies.
MUMMIES



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


"There is organic material in the mortar the Egyptians used in pyramid construction.

These materials have been dated several times using the C14 method.

The dates found match well with what the "mainstream" Egyptologists are saying.

Harte "

From the sight you linked me to, this page about the Great Pyramid
www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk...

The pyramid itself was built from over 2 million blocks of stone, each weighing more than two tons. These blocks were carved so perfectly that the entire monument was constructed without mortar or cement. You cannot even slip a piece of paper between them.
(italics mine)

So my question now is what mortar did they test?
Thanks, Curiosityrising



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Thanks for the mummies link I was looking for her mummy earlier and not having much luck.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Curiousityrising,

I believe this excerpt will answer your question as to mortar in the pyramid.




Not only are the backing stones irregular, they are also progressively smaller toward the top. Behind the backing stones, the core stones are actually even more irregular. We know this because, in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks.


Taken from:

www.touregypt.net...



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
I find it amazing that some ordinary folks here have the audacity to put forth such puny opinions with regard to the precision engineering of the pyramids.
Ah yes, chipping granite with granite…..by hand with a wooden mallet and getting precision results. What talented and steady hands those men mush have had.


Yes, they did. Masons and stoneworkers can reproduce the same results with the same tools today.

So hey, question. Why is the idea of Egyptians working limestone with skill and precision so offensive to you, but the Greeks working marble (quite a harder stone than limestone) into highly-detailed sculptures with the same technology never questioned?


Like wise the attempt to debunk the cone heads with more opinion. Boarding and binding does not increase a skull’s volume.
The most published pictures of the cone heads are of the ones in Peru. They are said by “mainstream” to be 70,000 years old.
They are found all over the world.

ALL OVER THE WORLD


Pravda?
For the record, it's possible to stimulate bone growth through intentional injury and stimulation.


Whenever you read of finds of skulls that are “doliocephalic”, they are referring the coneheads. They do not go into detail that they are abnormally large. Wouldn’t you think that this anomaly deserved more attention? The current World religious control system has much to lose if their story is effectively refuted.

SKULLS


Then why oh why, if "world religious control" would be harmed... does the link there hearken to the 6th chapter of the Book of Genesis?
Why does every other site about these heads try to "prove" some part of hte bible with htem?


Also the skeletons show that these people were about 6’ tall. They are said to be sturdily built. Those pictures of the Egyptian rulers, however show narrow shouldered, broad hipped and pot bellied people. If their skulls had been boarded and bound they would have stood up instead of bulging in the back.


Depends on the way the heads were boarded. Egyptian art was also highly standardized, at least the tomb art you're drawing from. Do you beleive htey also walked with their torsos twisted sideways and both feet pointing to hte left?


Look at the skulls of these mummies.
MUMMIES

Only hte one in the foreground looks strange to me. And that result - the lowered brow and stretched-back head - can be gained by infant cranial massage. Hell, there are women here in the States who do this to make sure their babies have round rather than tall heads.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiosityrising
The pyramid itself was built from over 2 million blocks of stone, each weighing more than two tons. These blocks were carved so perfectly that the entire monument was constructed without mortar or cement. You cannot even slip a piece of paper between them.
(italics mine)


You know it's funny, that claim that you can't slip a piece of paper between them. Here's an experiment. You'll just need a few things.

1) Two rather heavy, stackable objects (bricks or cinder blocks are ideal, any stones that will stay stable when stacked work, too)
and
2) A sheet of paper

Stack the objects. Now try to slip the paper between them. Unless the objects you selected are superconductive magnets with one levitating, you'll find that the paper won't go through.

How imagine these objects are two tons each, and with the weight of far, far more two-ton blocks upon them. Now give about six thousand years of erosion causing grit and natural concrete (from the roded limestone) to fill in gaps and cracks.

The "You can't even slip a paper between them!" claim is hyperbolic and misleading.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Thank you. This is all very interesting and informative.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   


The most published pictures of the cone heads are of the ones in Peru. They are said by “mainstream” to be 70,000 years old.

There have never been any remains found anywhere in the Americas that are this old.

Harte

[edit on 2/15/2008 by Harte]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Never mind those who´d do anything to twist and distort reality in order to fit to the extremely narrow template called "mainstream archaeology".



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
wow. this is BY FAR the best thread i have EVER read!!!



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by OhZone
 


Never mind those who´d do anything to twist and distort reality in order to fit to the extremely narrow template called "mainstream archaeology".


Also, never mind those that ignore facts to further their pet ideas.

Harte



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
... 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


On the contrary. It's paralleled very well in modern Europe. Not only were the biggest, most grandiose cathedrals built 800 years ago but we couldn't even replicate such feats today ..... Modern cathedrals are tin shacks in comparison with the likes of Chartres or Westminster.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Was that an intentionally ironic statement?


I find theories with evidence more believable than speculation with no evidence. If I buy into the "super advanced culture built the pyramids, not the Egyptians," then I might as well start accepting that a full third of the Romanian population are vampires or something.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



Originally posted by OhZone
The most published pictures of the cone heads are of the ones in Peru. They are said by “mainstream” to be 70,000 years old.


Hi OhZone,
I am glad you mentioned this, and it is very interesting to, because I have some striking remarks about the timeframe The Great Pyramids are possible built in Egypt, China, and South America.
And it fits almost exactly the time frame you mentioned, 70,000 years from now.
But be aware, it is an Extraterrestrial point of view, and I can’t in any way proof if it is the truth.
But it is my strong personal opinion that it can be true.
But I also realise that this option is absolute a bridge to far and only a very few can/will except it as a real possibility.
But again maybe time will tell if it is the truth.


[edit on 15/2/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 15/2/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Maxpageant
 


I dont quite understand the physics involved (it goes over my head), but I´ll try to read and re-read your posts and sites you linked to. U2U me your website if you can.



I think it's something like this.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte


The most published pictures of the cone heads are of the ones in Peru. They are said by “mainstream” to be 70,000 years old.

There have never been any remains found anywhere in the Americas that are this old.

Harte

[edit on 2/15/2008 by Harte]


There is an excellent article on the coneheads of Peru here

www.biped.info...

It touches on a few of the other places that similar skulls have been discovered and makes for a very good and informative read.

Two things... as you pointed out there's no mention (at least on there) of any of the skulls being anywhere near 70,000 years old... I gathered from briefly skimming over the article they are talking more like 1 to 5 thousand years ago.

The bit towards the end of the article that caught my eye and made me smile were these three paragraphs, dealing with 'Censorship By Omission'


The political climate of 21st Century academia is in this way constrained by ideologies of politically correct interpretations. Summarizing briefly, the effects of this constraint is known as "the double-bind." The double-bind is where people aspire to careers which demand commitment to ideologies of conventional wisdom. And as a result of their co-dependency with the prevailing worldview of their career relationship - the people become incapable of being able to accurately describe their own system. This loss of perspective has led to censorship by omission. It is why revisionism is valid and necessary.

As erudite and eloquent as academic scholars are, in their limit-set of ancient historical perceptions, they remain hopelessly at odds with their explanatory reasoning; their explanatory model: on one hand, they give archaic peoples the benefit of presumptive doubt, i.e., monumental short term leaps in expertise produced incomparable achievements (e.g., pyramid complexes in Peru, Central America, Mexico, Egypt, even China). On the other hand - when faced with traditional native accounts of who and how native funds of knowledge were provided to them - the rational moderns dismiss symbolic historicity of traditions as a primitive Mythos. Archaic peoples possessed very symbolic worldviews of perception. Moderns have digressively become alienated from perceptual symbology, in the occult sense.

If no other system is more universally constant among the ancients, worldwide, it is the symbology of their worldviews. And for all practical purposes, today, modern sensibility does not identify with a personal symbolic connectedness. As Marshall McLuhan has so rigorously shown, the moderns or postmoderns of today advocate a worldview whose universal constant is social-fragmentation! As this management force of fragmentation has spread, the modern system undermined the sanctity of old percepts. Long ago, then, the value-set of symbols passed into the limbo of the forgotten lost..





posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Double Post.
[edit on 15-2-2008 by Skyfloating]

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
On the contrary. It's paralleled very well in modern Europe. Not only were the biggest, most grandiose cathedrals built 800 years ago but we couldn't even replicate such feats today ..... Modern cathedrals are tin shacks in comparison with the likes of Chartres or Westminster.



Now thats what I call a good counter-argument. Thanks for the reminder to think before I post.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Dagar
 


And thats what I call a good article.




top topics



 
108
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join