Forbidden Egyptology

O.K. After reading all this thread, I have come to what must be the only logical conclusion. The great Pharoah with his lust for power and financial gain caused a bankruptcv of the middle class by outsourcing his food supply and skilled labor to Europe. He then outsourced all his tech to India. [Please see posts concerning high tech ancient India.] He then conspired with the Hebrew Illuminati to build the G.P. much like the TVA was done to provide jobs after the great depression. It is really quite simple when you think about it. This was necessary to maintain the standard of living that his people demanded and kept them from revolt. How they did it I don't know. great post as it has kept me entertained and speculating for days.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Harte,

For the sake of accuracy, one small correction to something you said.

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

Tiahuanaco AKA Tiwanaku is in Bolivia, Teotihuacan is in Mexico. They aren't the same place. They do, however date to roughly the same time, circa 200 BC.

I have to concur with what you said in that same reply, none of those places were ever lost.

cormac

reply to post by cormac mac airt

Technically, if Atlantis existed, it would be defined as lost. Hey, 1 out of 16 aint all bad, no?

merka,

Personally I put Atlantis, as a separate place not based on any other actual locations, in the same category as sentient dinosaurs. Highly unlikely, no evidence of either.

Getting back on topic, have you ever seen this:

www.rense.com...

If this proved true and Imhotep's tomb were actually found, that could potentially put to rest the fringe ideas of how the Great Pyramid was built.

cormac

[edit on 26-2-2008 by cormac mac airt]

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

 

Originally posted by Harte
I assume you mean why do I think they are not lost?

No, you assume wrong, and I see also that you take no serious notice of my reply either.

Originally posted by Harte
First of all, Atlantis never existed, so it cannot be "lost."

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

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

Originally posted by Harte
Lastly, Tiahuanaco and Teotihuacan are the same place - AKA Tiwanaku.

Originally posted by Harte
Now maybe you see why I asked what it was that you meant.

It is absolute not what I meant, but this is what I see very clearly now.
It is very obvious that you don’t take me serious at all, and you really think of yourself that you know it all.
And because I read “Mainstream vs. Fringe” of Skyfloating very good, I don’t bite.
So therefore, I lost absolute my interest in discussing any further with you about such matters here.


[edit on 26/2/08 by spacevisitor]

Harte,

I'd be curious to understand your opinion of Graham Hancock a bit further.

A few pages back you seemingly called him a liar:

....It stems from believing a thing because someone (VonDaniken, Hancock, et al.) stated it and it fit well with my own need to have some of this stuff be real and then later finding out that I was not only wrong, but that I had literally been lied to by the above-named authors (among others.)

But then go on to reference him and use him to back up a claim of yours:

Originally posted by Harte
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.

So what exactly did Hancock lie to you about? And what is your current stance on him?

I've begun reading one of his books and would be curious to know where he was being deliberately untruthful.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
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?

Would it be permissible for me to say that the Emerald City, capitol of Oz, never existed? Or would I have to say that "there is no evidence for the existence of Oz?"

Oz never existed, and neither did Atlantis.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Harte,

For the sake of accuracy, one small correction to something you said.

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

Tiahuanaco AKA Tiwanaku is in Bolivia, Teotihuacan is in Mexico. They aren't the same place. They do, however date to roughly the same time, circa 200 BC.

I have to concur with what you said in that same reply, none of those places were ever lost.

cormac

Thanks Cormac, my mistake.

I guess I was still dizzy over the fact that somebody lost Peru.

Thank God it wasn't my turn to keep an eye on it!

Harte

[edit on 26-2-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

reply to post by Harte


I'm sorry, but you can't pull me up on something, which was an accident on my part, and then do it yourself, and say it's ok for you to say it, that's hippocracy, and the truth is you have no idea whether either atlantis or emerald city didn't exist, it's your opinion, and it'll do you good to remember that, you don't have all the answers, but you do have alot of assumptions.

If you can prove that the Emerald city of Oz didn't exist then thats fair enough, but until then, I'm gonna keep clicking my heels together

P.s can anyone tell me if this has been proven to be fake? because it would shed some light if it isn't on the amount of information we ACTUALLY get from the mainstream acrcheology.

z.about.com...

Thanks. EMM

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte
I defy anyone to show me where any "million pound" stone has been "dragged for miles" over rugged terrain.

I'll give it a go...

Start from 1:00 in.
From about :30 in

These were dragged from a few miles away over mountainous terrain. I think the largest one weighs around 350 tons. Not quite 1million lbs but close enough imo.

The precision of interlocking blocks, the size, the weight...all without iron tools and the wheel.. where have we seen this before?

Originally posted by Harte
A flat-out lie. We know for a fact - because the Ancient Egyptians themselves tell us, that they did use copper saws to cut stone. They used sand as an abrasive. This very method has been repeated in modern times, BTW. So much for "we can't do this today," huh?

Well sort of. I'll believe that they used saws made of copper to cut limestone and alabaster. But for granite it's speculative to say they used sand as an abrasive; I'm not sure that we know that for certain. And a test of this method by Denys A Stock took workmen 14 hrs to cut a slit 3 cm deep and 95 cm long into granite. This as you might imagine wore the copper saw down quite a bit. Hardly efficient if you ask me.

Originally posted by Harte
No ramps, eh? Note that the author is quick to discount the use of ramps. I wonder how he would then explain the presence of the remains of these very ramps he scoffs at at several pyramids in Egypt, including the Great Pyramid?

Ok so the extent of the ramps found in Giza ( and not necessarily at the GP) according to Tour Egypt are "two parallel walls that may have formed the retaining framework of a ramp." Highly speculative and circumstantial at best.

The other remnants of so called ramps were supposedly found at Meidum, Dahshur, the Sinki pyramid, and the Sekhemkhet pyramid. But these pyramids are either not standing at all or are in lousy shape at best. Maybe a testament to the ramps usefulness...

Originally posted by Harte one-ton rock is about 3 ft. by 3 ft. by 3 ft. Smaller for dense stone. Hardly monolithic. And actually, most such stones (not "monoliths") were carved, placed, touched up, re-placed, etc. and shaped through trial and error. Some of this sort of work was done by the Native Peoples in South America after the Spaniards came. Witnessed, IOW.

Actually it was done in South America before the Spaniards arrived too. Once again, shots from the fort at Sacsayhuaman and the same sort of stone working-

Key similarities with AE:
Huge stones weighing multiple tons
No knowledge of the wheel or iron tools to move or cut them
Key difference with AE:
No mortar used
More complex cuts of stone

Rock chisels and copper tools did this.


Perfect.


Anyone's guess.

There have been many proposals made on the types of ramps that could've been used to build the pyramids at Giza, but all such theories seem to fail when it comes to amount of additional material which would've been needed, or, as in the case with the spiral ramps, they'd be too narrow to navigate.

The touregypt link I referenced above finds a flaw in just about every ramp theory.



[edit on 27-2-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect


fantastic research, I've never seen those before, but the precision and skill used to work those rocks, IMO, has to be some sort of machine, a copper saw could not do that. They compare to the complexity of the blocks used in the construction of the pyramid and I find it intriguing that on the 'other side' of the world they cut rocks this way also makes me think WHY they all started fashioning this way, unless someone did it for them...

thanks. EMM

Replies/Questions


Concerning "Lost Civilizations": The very term "lost" implies that evidence is scarce. If evidence werent scarce then they couldnt be called "lost".

Concerning "Facts": Todays facts are tommorows follies.

To cormac: Its interesting that a fringe-source (www.rense.com) is used to counter fringe theory. Not invalid, simply interesting.

To Harte: Spacevisitor is Dutch, so excuse ocassional lapses of language.

To Spacevisitor: Your contributions are interesting and welcome.

To Harte: I´d also be interested in a more detailed elaboration of your view on Hancock since you cite him when it fits your opinion and call him a liar when it doesnt.

Electromagnetic-Universe: I dont know if that picture of a Giant is a hoax or not. What is known is that very large human teeth have been found, large enough to have to belong to a giant.

PhotonEffect: Great research work. Thanks.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
To Harte: I´d also be interested in a more detailed elaboration of your view on Hancock since you cite him when it fits your opinion and call him a liar when it doesnt.

I'm a little short of time today, so bear with me here.

I cited Hancock, yes. I did it because even he states that the quoted material is a lie.

I cited Hancock (I believe I said West as well, but it may have been Bauval in the site I linked - no time right now to check) because Hancock has much to gain if the quoted source was factual. The fact that even Hancock disagrees, in fact, denounces, that source is, IMO, quite telling.

Hancock for years played the game of archaeologists "conspiring" to hide the truth from us. Still does, to some extent. Not as much as before, though.

Hancock has in the past made claims about Hawass concerning this, but has backed off them publicly, as was shown in the link I posted.

That's why I cited him.

Turned out that the later post, where I tried to direct the poster to my quote from Hancock, concerned the very issue about which Hancock (and his cohort - whichever guy it was) was writing in the letter I linked to in that earlier post.

When I first posted it, it was to show that the leading pseudoarchaeologists don't buy into this conspiracy idea, at least as far as Hawass is concerned.

The next time it came up in this thread, I only mentioned it because the poster had quoted from the very paper that Hancock's letter was denouncing.

Is that clear? As I said, I'm in kind of a hurry here.

Harte

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

fantastic research, I've never seen those before, but the precision and skill used to work those rocks, IMO, has to be some sort of machine, a copper saw could not do that.

Thanks,
I agree with you EMM. I was actually being a bit sarcastic when I said that copper saws and rock chisels did that. It's too precise, too perfect to be done from crude tools. Some of those stones stand 25 ft tall and are 4 or 5 feet thick.

compare to the complexity of the blocks used in the construction of the pyramid and I find it intriguing that on the 'other side' of the world they cut rocks this way also makes me think WHY they all started fashioning this way, unless someone did it for them...

Yep. And that's what I've been looking into. The stone working techniques were extraordinary in the ancient times. And as I believe with the Egyptians, I do with the Inca, they had to have had some kind of influence from somewhere or someone. Because the skill seems to have just sprung up.

That's why I look to their gods. Many of these different ancient civilizations from around the world that would not have known about each other worshipped the same types of gods. Who were they? Were they ever real, and if so where did they come from.

I believe Thoth is key to all of this.



[edit on 27-2-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Thoth, was he Enki or Enlil in sumerian, I can't remember, EN-LIL was lord Earth and he was 'apparently' a master scientist etc and was in charge originally on earth before Anu (Ra) replaced him with Enki (Osiris i think, not sure though) as he was inefficient. I also believe he wa Prometheus in Greek myth, the one who brought fire (technology) to the greeks, and was shown to be closer than other gods to humans (he apparently had us made for work purposes, but later grew attached). All I can remember now, I'll look up more if I can.

thanks. EMM

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Key similarities with AE:
Huge stones weighing multiple tons
No knowledge of the wheel or iron tools to move or cut them
Key difference with AE:
No mortar used
More complex cuts of stone

AFAIK, the Egyptians was well versed with the wheel. I cant remember if we've found any archeological evidence of it at the time of the Great Pyramid, but I wouldnt find it the least odd if they had it.

And a note on moving them, they had oxen. I dont think they where so totally stupid they couldnt think on using the animals employed for farming to move heavy rocks.

reply to post by Harte


Hi Harte,

Thanks for trying to clarify.

Hancock for years played the game of archaeologists "conspiring" to hide the truth from us. Still does, to some extent. Not as much as before, though.

But if you don't mind, what truth are you speaking of here? Because your truth seems to differ from mine and some others with regards to egyptology and the truth that I feel the orthodox archaeologists (and Hawass) are hiding from us..
______________________________________________________________________



reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


EMM,

You're on the right path. Thoth if I remember correctly was the equivalent of Sumerian Ningishzidda who is Enki's son. Enki was god of water if I recall, not 100% though. So that's definitely one connection. I believe that the Sumerians and the Egyptians were connected at one point in time.

I should also point out that Thoth is also the equivalent of :
Hermes--> Ancient Greek god
Mercury--> Ancient Rome
Quetzalcoatl--> Aztecs
Viracocha-->Inca
Kukulkan--> Maya
Et al..the list goes on. There is a version of Thoth in many ancient myths and religions.

If you read up on some of these gods you'll find a common theme, that the Thoth equivalent came down and gave knowledge to the people after the flood.

It's quite interesting. Of course this has all been written off as myth and legend but I find it curious that the ancients, who were a world apart in some places, worshipped and believed and wrote about the same god.

I've only scratched the surface so anything else that you find would be very welcome.

Good source of info re: Thoth and other gods.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by merka

AFAIK, the Egyptians was well versed with the wheel. I cant remember if we've found anyarcheological evidence of it at the time of the Great Pyramid, but I wouldnt find it the least odd if they had it.

And a note on moving them, they had oxen. I dont think they where so totally stupid they couldnt think on using the animals employed for farming to move heavy rocks.

At the time the giza pyramids were built as far as it known, the wheel wasn't around yet.

And yes, it's safe to say that the AE's built some pretty large structures other than pyramids, and most probably used oxen to do the heavy moving of material. I'm definitely not calling them stupid.

As I read over this post,certant things occured to me.Hess was born in Egypt.It was stated he was a "Watcher".He became one of Hitlers closest cohorts.The library of Alexanderia was in Egypt.That library was fabled to house all the ancient knowledge.(This is supposition on my part)Suppose that some if the library's great texts had been secreted there in Egypt.If Hess had access to this information,that could explain some of the Nazi's technological advancements.What do you think?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
At the time the giza pyramids were built as far as it known, the wheel wasn't around yet.

Yeah, as far as is known.

But common, we're speculating about "forbidden Egyptology" where some even go so far as to claim aliens built the thing.

I'll stick to my theory about them having the wheel earlier than what is known