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: 21
108
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Some interesting information on Baalbek, the original structure has said to have been used from the Sumerians (and before
) right the way up to the Romans, each one building on the foundation of the last, and dedicating the site to there respective gods (Anu, Zeus, Jupiter). Great info, but you'll have to go down about 2/3 of the page to find the info. Poorly designed website I know, but we have to start somewhere.


sitchin.com...

(It is said that the Sumerians weren't allowed into Baalbek when there god's were here, it was forbidden territory, but I can assume once the god's had left, the Sumerians revered this place, and adorned it with temples etc)

[edit on 24-2-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]




posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Whats more: How many buildings that stable and massive to we build nowdays?

Our most impressive and expensive buildings fall with the crash of an airplane. I dont know if 9/11 wouldnt have destroyed those huge blocks of stone.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


You think the buildings in NYC (such as WTC) are similarily stable to this?



Originally posted by Skyfloating
The issue is: Buildings are not as massive nowdays. In comparison they are weak.


Well, I obviously misunderstood you clearly, so when I read that again, you mean by NYC if I am correct now, New York Centre right, I don’t recognise that shortening the first time I read it.
But for what I new of the twin towers, their construction where extremely solid, with a massive almost indestructible steel construction in the middle.
So, your assumption is right of course, we don’t build nowadays that stable and massive anymore.
I suspect, that some of those very special buildings from the past, such as the Great Pyramid, where possible build for a very special reason, and surely to endure thousands and thousands of years.
But the million dollar question is, for what?
In my opinion definitely not for the pleasure of pharaoh Khufu.
But as a message somehow, or to store some very important knowledge for people in the future, for us?
It still is very intriguing.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
In my opinion definitely not for the pleasure of pharaoh Khufu.

Look around. The grand constructions of the world are often built on the whim of just the few, the powerful.

If you havent lived with despotism/absolute monarchy its hard to understand, I know. I know I havent. Few countries still left today with such leaders.

Point is, Khufu could build anything for his pleasure.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by spacevisitor
In my opinion definitely not for the pleasure of pharaoh Khufu.


Look around. The grand constructions of the world are often built on the whim of just the few, the powerful.

If you havent lived with despotism/absolute monarchy its hard to understand, I know. I know I havent. Few countries still left today with such leaders.

Point is, Khufu could build anything for his pleasure.


He good indeed, but can you answer the following question?
If it was really build on the command of Khufu, one of the few, the powerful, in a time as you said of despotism/absolute monarchy, for his pleasure and definitely to honour himself with this greatest pyramids of all, then would he not order his builders to decorate every inch of every wall, every ceiling, in all the chambers and the immense grand gallery with all his great and good deeds and magnificent hero acts?
Do you really think that he only let it by some graffiti — believed to have been made by the workers on the stones before they were assembled?
I really don’t understand how such an extremely important aspect, especially for the great Egyptian pharaohs, can be ignored by so many.



The Great Pyramid differs in its internal arrangement from the other pyramids in the area. The greater number of passages and chambers, the high finish of parts of the work, and the accuracy of construction all distinguish it. The walls throughout the pyramid are totally bare and uninscribed, but there are inscriptions — or to be more precise, graffiti — believed to have been made by the workers on the stones before they were assembled.


Source; en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 25/2/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
reply to post by Harte
 


Hi Harte, I see your a maths teacher, knew you reminded me of someone


I'd like to hear your thoughts on Egyptian 'math'. I say Egyptian, but i doubt it.


Though it was sophisticated (most math is,) I would hesitate to call it "Pythagorean."


Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I can in a way even believe that these massive blocks where cut out by the people in that timeframe, but it is impossible for me to accept that these people where also capable of "dragging them for miles" with whatever human tool they had in that timeframe over rugged terrain, and put them together as shown in the pictures.

Timeframe being the keyword.

I've searched on Baalbek and nowhere do I see a timeframe for the temple construction (except that the Roman temples was built over a period of 200 years).

The site has been completely excavated - even to areas under the bottom stones that people claim are ancient.

What was found under this "oldest part?" Roman artifacts.

The Romans built the entire thing. No reason to believe otherwise.

The quarry these stones came from is a few hundred feet away. And it's uphill from the site.

So much for "dragging million pound stones for miles over rough terrain."

Harte

[edit on 2/25/2008 by Harte]



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ST SIR 86
Sky if this hasnt been posted in the past 20 pages please read, it make good reading about our good friend the caretaker of Egyptian antiquities in Ciro

www.lyghtforce.com...

From your source:



Dr. Bakr fired the Chief Inspector of the Giza Pyramid Plateau, Dr. Zahi Hawass, although the official reason given was that a valuable ancient 'statue' under the custody of Hawass was stolen from Giza. Three months later, in June 1993, Dr. Bakr himself was fired and replaced by Dr. Nur El Din. Amid accusations of malpractice and fraud, Dr. Bakr spoke of a "Mafia" which had been involved with the Pyramids for the "last twenty years". Refusing to give names, Dr. Bakr said, "I wanted the whole matter investigated by the prosecution authorities, but my request was refused."

The bolded portion is a lie. A lie that has even been called a lie by Graham Hancock and John Anthony West in a letter that I posted a link to in this very thread.

Harte



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The site has been completely excavated - even to areas under the bottom stones that people claim are ancient.

What was found under this "oldest part?" Roman artifacts.

The Romans built the entire thing. No reason to believe otherwise.

The quarry these stones came from is a few hundred feet away. And it's uphill from the site.

So much for "dragging million pound stones for miles over rough terrain."

Well I never doubted they could do it or that the stones where dragged very far


Didnt know that it has turned out to be all Roman though. I thought it was an older temple that was the base.

Sidenote about the graphics in the GP: Someone else will have to answer that, because I dont know the details on why its not there. Personally I would speculate that if no one was fully buried there, the final art was never added. I remember something about the art inside pyramids changing with time too. Bleh my mind is so garbled nowadays.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by spacevisitor
In my opinion definitely not for the pleasure of pharaoh Khufu.

Look around. The grand constructions of the world are often built on the whim of just the few, the powerful.

If you havent lived with despotism/absolute monarchy its hard to understand, I know. I know I havent. Few countries still left today with such leaders.

Point is, Khufu could build anything for his pleasure.


reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Hi merka, you probably missed my answer and my question on your reply in relation of pharaoh Khufu and the great pyramid?
I really looking forward to your personal opinion on that?
Thanks.


[edit on 25/2/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
What was found under this "oldest part?" Roman artifacts.
The Romans built the entire thing. No reason to believe otherwise.
The quarry these stones came from is a few hundred feet away. And it's uphill from the site.
So much for "dragging million pound stones for miles over rough terrain."


Well, a third of a mile is also not next-door, look if you want for instance what Alan F. Alford is saying about Baalbek, and I am really interested in your view on that.

www.world-mysteries.com...

By Alan F. Alford
Some quotes out his article, how was Baalbek built?


So, how was the job done? How were three 800-ton stones cut, moved and erected in the Baalbek acropolis?
This is a question which must be tackled with great caution, for it is not at all clear who the builders of Baalbek actually were.

Archaeologists typically overlook the fact that experiments with stones much lighter than 800 tons have crushed the wooden rollers. And even if such a method was feasible, it would, by one estimate, have required the combined pulling power of 40,000 men to move the Stone of the South.[5] Incredible indeed.

Is there any evidence that the Romans built the platform of Baalbek as well as the temples upon it? One text book assures us that: 'Part of a [Roman] drum or column similar to those found in the Temple of Jupiter was used as a block in the foundation under the Trilithon'.[6] But where is the evidence for this Roman drum? I myself have been to Baalbek and I can show you dozens of photographs of the foundation walls, but I cannot show you the alleged Roman drum. It seems to have vanished into thin air.

In the absence of any proof as to who built the platform of Baalbek, it becomes very difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the construction methods used. What we can do, however, is demonstrate the scale of the job by explaining how the Trilithon would be erected using today's technology.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by Harte
The site has been completely excavated - even to areas under the bottom stones that people claim are ancient.

What was found under this "oldest part?" Roman artifacts.

The Romans built the entire thing. No reason to believe otherwise.

The quarry these stones came from is a few hundred feet away. And it's uphill from the site.

So much for "dragging million pound stones for miles over rough terrain."

Well I never doubted they could do it or that the stones where dragged very far


Didnt know that it has turned out to be all Roman though. I thought it was an older temple that was the base.

Merka,

I didn't mean to imply that you might think otherwise. It's just that your post seemed the best one for me to quote in addressing the issue.

Regarding the Roman artifacts:


I don't know what your sources are, but they are crap. This time, your Baalbek-claims.

First: The three blocks used weight about 800 tons each, the heavy, unmoved block weights about 1200 tons.

Second: The quarry for the blocks lies higher then the temple, about 15 meters. Distance to the platform: about 600 meters, but to get round a ditch the way had to be about 1100 meters long.

Third: A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.

Fourth: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.

Read some real literature about the things you are phantasizing about.

And


And a more recent post:
This is no flame but a rational post to explain some things to you :-)

It would be nice if you would read just some of the basic stuff about antique transporting techniques before arguing about "I don't know how to do it, and therefore anciens certainly didn't know it". From Roman times, and the trilithon was built in Roman times, we have full documentations about the methods they used. For example, the transport of a 900 t block at the time of Thedosius (compareable to the Bal Bekaa blocks) was accomplished with 12 winches manned with 24 men each - or only 264 men!!!
The romans developed a system of continous winch movement, called in German a "Göpelwinde". With this system, winches are placed on poles dugged into the ground besides the transport way. In the example listed above 2 parallel rows with 6 winches on each side, between them the weight was moved. Each winch had a distance of about 5 m to the next. All 6 winches on each side had a different repe angle to the weight to pull. The lower, the smaller the transport force afflicted to the block. When the angle ot the two winches most behind got unpracticable, the winches were removed from the pole and moved to the frontmost position and the ropes got new connected. And so on. The blocks were transported on sleds. The transport of the Byzanz-Obelisk eg. took about 2 weeks for 3 kilometers from waterfront to 300 m height. The Trilithon-blocks were transported only 600 meters to a lower position!!
When the work was finished, the poles were pulled out and the holes filled.

Next point: How were the blocks in Bal Bekaa lifted? Answer: They werent lifted. The quarry was slightly higher than the platform of the forum, so the Romans only had to fill a small trench with rubble to bull the blocks horizontally to their places.

Next point: Why do I write Bal Bekaa instead of Baalbek? Because this is the original name of the settlement after roman times: Bal Bekaa means "Valley of the Bekaa" and has nothing to do with the old god Baal (you notice the similarity between "Valley of Bekaa" and the famous "Bekaa-plateau" in Lebanon??? Yeah, right, they both mean the same location.) . "Bal Bekaa" was the official name up to the 19th century, and the French use this writing (or the shortened form Bal Bek) until today.
In fact, the whole settlement is of Roman origin, first mentioned in about 20 AD as "Colonia Iulia Felix Helipolitania", named not after the Greek sun god Helios (as Sitchin proposes), but after a local Roman hero, Iuppiter Heliopolitanus. The city lay in the center of several trade routes and therefore flourished after it had to be abandoned because of the onrush of the Arabs.


From: Two newsgroup posts written by Frank Doernenburg

The above page can be found through a link provided at that most excellent of websites, Doug's Archaeology Site, which is run by Doug Weller, Mod at the Hall of Ma'at and member here at ATS.

Everyone would do well to browse Doug's most informative website.


Originally posted by merka
Sidenote about the graphics in the GP: Someone else will have to answer that, because I dont know the details on why its not there. Personally I would speculate that if no one was fully buried there, the final art was never added. I remember something about the art inside pyramids changing with time too. Bleh my mind is so garbled nowadays.


Absence of artwork and hieroglyphics in these older pyramids should be considered in context. Meaning that during that time, none of the Egyptians other buildings were decorated in that manner either.

It could be as simple as to say that interior artwork and writing on walls was jusrt not in "vogue" in that particular era.

Later constructions are where these sorts of things are to be found.

Harte



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Again, I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but your 'poking' holes into our argument, not picking at holes that are already there. The source u cited, fair enough a different angle, and I will accept it, as it helps me and my views to form, and as of yet, no comment, apart from the 3 trillithons weigh around 1,000t+ and not 800 (from what I've read). The temple of Jupiter that was built there WAS built by the Romans, and the foundations there in, they pretty much revamped the entire site, as did the Greeks, Assyrians and Babylonians before them. The actual plateau, I believe was built much earlier, and in time will be shown.

Some questions, how do you know that the Romans didn't get this 'honeycombed' idea off an earlier design? just because they used it, doesn't mean they came up with it, they may have seen it while 'revamping' and then thought, 'hey, thats a great idea'.

In relation to the pyramids, I'm asking this question again, but it hasn't been answered yet, why adorn earlier and later (fair enough, not all were adorned highly, but im sure, although, not certain, that they have an inscription of the Pharoah it was built for) pyramids, when the biggest and grandest of them all is just left bare, yet a smaller pyramid attached to the 'great pyramid' is dedicated to Khufu, and is adorned with his 'story'. why build a massive pyramid and not dedicate it and adorn it, only to attach a smaller one, and dedicate this one to yourself, don't make sense, it's like planting a gravestone with no information on!! (and then planting a smaller gravestone, away from your grave, with your information on
)

thanks. EMM



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
The temple of Jupiter that was built there WAS built by the Romans, and the foundations there in, they pretty much revamped the entire site, as did the Greeks, Assyrians and Babylonians before them.

Source? Pardon me for not taking your word for this.

After all, Doernenburg, in his posts, gave you all the info you need to look into this yourself. Including sources and dates.


Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic MultiversThe actual plateau, I believe was built much earlier, and in time will be shown.

You can "believe" whatever you want. But when you post your "beliefs" as if they were fact-based, you should be prepared for others to dispute them.


Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic MultiversSome questions, how do you know that the Romans didn't get this 'honeycombed' idea off an earlier design? just because they used it, doesn't mean they came up with it, they may have seen it while 'revamping' and then thought, 'hey, thats a great idea'.

Possibly. I'm no expert on Roman architectural practices. Again, though, I'll defer to Doernenburg. He doesn't couch his statements in "maybes" or "could haves."


Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic MultiversIn relation to the pyramids, I'm asking this question again, but it hasn't been answered yet, why adorn earlier and later (fair enough, not all were adorned highly, but im sure, although, not certain, that they have an inscription of the Pharoah it was built for) pyramids, when the biggest and grandest of them all is just left bare, yet a smaller pyramid attached to the 'great pyramid' is dedicated to Khufu, and is adorned with his 'story'.


Please provide some evidence that any of this is factual if you want an explanation of it.

There is no smaller pyramid "attached to" the Great Pyramid.

Harte



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Mainstream vs. Fringe


One thing Ive enjoyed about this thread is that it didnt fall into the usual mainstreamer vs. fringe clash that happens in nearly every thread of this Forum.

Instead both sides presented data & speculation to consider and think about...with care. The tone was respectful and not condescending.

However, the last few pages show hints of this thread becoming just like all the others in the "Ancient Civilizations Forum". It hasnt happened yet, but it could easily slip into that habitual direction.

As the thread-opener I´d like to remind everyone that we wanna make this thread different. The purpose of the thread is to present mystery and speculation and a behind-the-scenes focus on ancient egypt, the pyramids, the sphinx and the authorities involved (hawass, fringe-book-authors, spooks, egyptologists).

This will continue to work perfectly when mainstreamers stop secretly seeing the fringe-poster as an idiot and fringe-posters stop secretly seeing the mainstreamer as idiots.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As the thread-opener I´d like to remind everyone that we wanna make this thread different. The purpose of the thread is to present mystery and speculation and a behind-the-scenes focus on ancient egypt, the pyramids, the sphinx and the authorities involved (hawass, fringe-book-authors, spooks, egyptologists).

This will continue to work perfectly when mainstreamers stop secretly seeing the fringe-poster as an idiot and fringe-posters stop secretly seeing the mainstreamer as idiots.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Skyfloating]


Secretly?


Harte



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


You are absolute right Skyfloating,
and strrd, so I will take personally more care.

But with ancient sites and megaliths of the lost civilizations like those,
Baalbek, Atlantis, Maya, Aztec, Nazca, Giza Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island, Palenque, Peru, Sphinx, Machu Picchu, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo, Tiahuanaco, Teotihuacan, and more, there will be so far always big differences of opinions.
And the reason for that is in my personal opinion, the absence of fully 100% evidence of why, how, and by whom they where build.
There are of course certain theories about that all, but in my personal opinion not 100% proven without any doubt.
So, the only way to have a good and interesting discussion about such intriguing wonders, is by fully respect each others opinion.


[edit on 26/2/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
[edit on 26-2-2008 by Skyfloating]
You are absolute right Skyfloating,
and strrd, so I will take personally more care.

But with ancient sites and megaliths of the lost civilizations like those,
Baalbek, Atlantis, Maya, Aztec, Nazca, Giza Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island, Palenque, Peru, Sphinx, Machu Picchu, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo, Tiahuanaco, Teotihuacan, and more, there will be so far always big differences of opinions.

I'd be interested to see exactly why you believe the civilizations listed above to be lost.


Originally posted by spacevisitor
And the reason for that is in my personal opinion, the absence of fully 100% evidence of why, how, and by whom they where build.
There are of course certain theories about that all, but in my personal opinion not 100% proven without any doubt.
So, the only way to have a good and interesting discussion about such intriguing wonders, is by fully respect each others opinion.


There can never be any theory outside of mathematics that can be 100% proven. To expect such is folly.

However, there are theories and then there are theories.

As Richard Dawkins says, the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto is a theory the same as the theory that there is not a teapot in orbit around Pluto. However, the fact that these are both theories in no way constrains us to place both theories on the same level of likelihood.

There is a difference between "could be, you can't prove otherwise" type speculations, and scientific theories that are based on all the available evidence.

With that in mind, I agree with what you say - to the extent that we should provide a reason to believe what we claim, or at least a reason to entertain the notions that we post.

Harte

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Harte]

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Harte]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by spacevisitor
[edit on 26-2-2008 by Skyfloating]


You are absolute right Skyfloating,
and strrd, so I will take personally more care.

But with ancient sites and megaliths of the lost civilizations like those,
Baalbek, Atlantis, Maya, Aztec, Nazca, Giza Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island, Palenque, Peru, Sphinx, Machu Picchu, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo, Tiahuanaco, Teotihuacan, and more, there will be so far always big differences of opinions.



I'd be interested to see exactly why you believe the civilizations listed above to be lost.
Harte


One step at the time Harte, but you owe me your answer on this one first I think?

reply to post by spacevisitor
 



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by spacevisitor
[edit on 26-2-2008 by Skyfloating]


You are absolute right Skyfloating,
and strrd, so I will take personally more care.

But with ancient sites and megaliths of the lost civilizations like those,
Baalbek, Atlantis, Maya, Aztec, Nazca, Giza Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island, Palenque, Peru, Sphinx, Machu Picchu, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo, Tiahuanaco, Teotihuacan, and more, there will be so far always big differences of opinions.



I'd be interested to see exactly why you believe the civilizations listed above to be lost.
Harte


One step at the time Harte, but you owe me your answer on this one first I think?

reply to post by spacevisitor
 


I assume you mean why do I think they are not lost?

First of all, Atlantis never existed, so it cannot be "lost."

Of the other civilizations you list, they were in existence within recorded history so how can those be "lost?"

Also, when did "Peru" get lost? Last I checked it's still there!


Lastly, Tiahuanaco and Teotihuacan are the same place - AKA Tiwanaku.

Now maybe you see why I asked what it was that you meant.

Harte



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Sorry, I noticed I did state those as fact, and it's something i try to avoid, as it is the very thing I loathe as nothing we know is fact, our perspective is ever changing and so is the world we live in aswell as it's history, but don't you think Harte, that the mainstream should use more 'maybes' and 'could haves', as what they know is just a theory also? Giving the example of knowing all is not setting a very good example, and may well be inhibiting the advancement of all of us.

P.s. could anyone tell me if the pic i linked a few pages back is a hoax or not? because if not, this shows how little we are told about recent discoveries.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


"First of all, Atlantis never existed, so it cannot be "lost"."

Can you provide proof for that factual statement


sorry off topic, but I just wanted to show you that accidents happen, unless you meant to say this?



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join