Forbidden Egyptology

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Skyfloating, it looks very interesting to me, but can you possebly give me some specific links where to look, because it saves me a lot of time to read it all.

Well, unfortunately there´s no quickie-consume way to go about this.

You realize "whats going on" when you take off religious glasses and take off darwinist/atheist glasses and then start reading the ancient texts (I linked to the Enoch texts for example). Thats the trick. But it takes a lot of study...

...because our religious friends have burned, trashed, suppressed, distorted so much.

In other words...try re-constructing history after its been through the filters of the religious and of the darwinists. Its tough.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by jbmitch


jbmitch,

I'm not familiar with what was done at Coral Gables but I have heard something before about the theory of resonance to move large (and levitate) objects. Not sure if it really works, but it sounds like a cool idea.

Thanks.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You realize "whats going on" when you take off religious glasses and take off darwinist/atheist glasses and then start reading the ancient texts (I linked to the Enoch texts for example). Thats the trick. But it takes a lot of study...

...because our religious friends have burned, trashed, suppressed, distorted so much.

In other words...try re-constructing history after its been through the filters of the religious and of the darwinists. Its tough.

I realize more then enough "whats going on" already, and I can say you this Skyfloating, the rabbit hole is much deeper then most people realize.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Pyramids built before the flood, extraterrestrial presence and their sexual relations with humans, the destruction of mankind as a punishment for interbreeding, radioactive fallout, advanced weaponry, genetic engineering, its all been written down in ancient texts.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Skyfloating, it looks very interesting to me, but can you possebly give me some specific links where to look, because it saves me a lot of time to read it all.

Well, unfortunately there´s no quickie-consume way to go about this.

You realize "whats going on" when you take off religious glasses and take off darwinist/atheist glasses and then start reading the ancient texts (I linked to the Enoch texts for example). Thats the trick. But it takes a lot of study...

...because our religious friends have burned, trashed, suppressed, distorted so much.

In other words...try re-constructing history after its been through the filters of the religious and of the darwinists. Its tough.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

I can agree with Skyfloating...

Except the part about the Flood (never happened), the part about the construction dates of the Pyramids (mid 27th century BC), extraterrestrial influence on humans (no evidence whatsoever, even in so-called "ancient texts"), the part about the destruction of mankind (didn't happen, though there was an evolutionary "bottleneck" around the time of the Mount Toba Super Eruption around 70,000 YBP - though that theory has also been disputed), and except for the parts about radioactive fallout, advanced weaponry and genetic engineering, none of which have an iota of evidence in their favor at all.

But otherwise, yeah, okay, sure, I'm with Skyfloating on this.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Not to repeat a debate we´ve already had on other threads. But consider:

Once the existence of extraterrestrial races or "a universe teeming with life" is discovered...the next logical step will be to realize that these have been active in the universe since millions of years. This will dwarf the isolationist view currently held by the academia which you represent so well.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Once the existence of extraterrestrial races or "a universe teeming with life" is discovered...the next logical step will be to realize that these have been active in the universe since millions of years. This will dwarf the isolationist view currently held by the academia which you represent so well.

Hello Skyfloating, it is not necessary anymore to try do discover them, because they have “discovered” us already and for a very very long time.
There is absolute overwhelming evidence of that reality; witch came to light in the last seven decades.
I know that this is absolute not the right place to discus about such matters, but I can say you this.

I study the UFO phenomenon for more than 36 years now.
After everything I have reed in books and magazines, listen to interviews, where off many on mp3 [many from coast to coast AM], seeing on photo’s, film, video, and surfing on the internet I am truly convinced that there are several extraterrestrial intelligences who are visiting us not only recently and today, but also for a very very long time.
I have seen one [Ufo] myself with my wife and two sons in Dec. 1984.
My grandfather had together with many other witnesses also a Ufo encounter while they where on convoy in WWII.
It happened while they were on the way to Halifax in Canada.
While it was dark and after a fear storm while they try to take the convoy back together comes, strait vertical down from the sky came a giant round object that hovering some moments above the ships.
It litter the whole area in a very, very bright light and the man on several ships take pictures and make drawings of it
After some moments, it goes right strait up again and disappears in the dark sky.
When they come in Halifax and want to make a rapport on it, they where told/ordered not ever talk about it again.

The time approaches, that the finally disclosure about this reality will indeed dwarf the isolationist view currently held by the academia, as well as from so many people in the world, no doubt about that.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Yes. Thanks for sharing the experience. Ive had many similar experiences. Thats why mainstreamers assertion "there is no reason at all to look into this" falls on deaf ears, no matter how often they repeat it.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I'm outside the contientinal united states and my bandwith speed and time on the net is limited.
Both the example of Coral Cables and Tibetian Intonation were found through search engines early as 1999, Coral Cables (now in Homestead FL) was the easist. The Tibeatian Monk statement was found through a "ancient techniques of leviation" search. A British explorer in the late 1800's early 1900's claimed to of wittnessed a regular event of the senior Tibeatian Monks who gathered around a huge stone and leviated and move it to another location.
Ed Skallien claimed to raise and move 12 ton stones from it's quarry to the back of truck and then place it in is his self made stone castle is Coral CAbles,, by himself no help,, the block and tackle equipment was dwarfed by the stones and were never moved from the quarry site.

So if you are looking for an explanation or alternate possibilities ,,they are out there,

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Yes. Thanks for sharing the experience. Ive had many similar experiences. Thats why mainstreamers assertion "there is no reason at all to look into this" falls on deaf ears, no matter how often they repeat it.

I don't know that the above is factual at all.

I've never heard or read of anyone, "mainstream" or otherwise, making a silly statement like the above.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


oh yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees they do. With every piece of daily scoffing and ridicule do they desire that people loose interest.

Why do you think fringe books are more bestselling than mainstream books on the subject? Is it because they are more sensationalist and dreamy? Maybe. But maybe its because they hit an intuitive notch with people, something deep with in the subconscious memory.

Are fringe-researchers really uneducated con-artists? My experience has been that they are more broadly educated than the mainstream researcher, whereas the mainstream scholar is usually educated in detail.

In other words, the fringe-authors Ive met usually know a little bit about everything, wheras the mainstream author knows a lot about one thing.

reply to post by Skyfloating

I follow this point and want to add:
Darwinism, emperism (the basis of our modern scienitific process) and Athesism allows for man to avoid culpabity for the terrible mess he has made of his habitate (earth). Great writers (showing my age here) Taylor Caldwell and C.S Lewis and lately Anne Rice's (Menelock the Devil) pretty much minic the "implied" state of man from the time of temptation (by which ever account you want to go by including the Books of Enoch), and the effect of arcane knowledge (that was once limited to a superior race) who paid the price of learning over time versus knowledge given to homo sapien to remedy his plighted state (as he was created) has brought us to the current "state of man" (FUBAR) in opinion. I see myself as the native finding the coke bottle and looking for God saying "Please take this back, I was better off without it). Which pretty much sums up the moral of the story of Garden of Eden. I realize this is a mouthful but in short some smart ass alien meaning good gave us "the human race" enough rope to hang ourselves. And they now seem to be locked in a debate over whether we are salvagable as a new sentient life form or is it better to just start over. Mind you this has already taken place once (According to many accounts including the Books of Enoch). Like fruit,, take the best of the harvest and burn the rest,,,, makes a lot of sense to me. Sniff it gives me a "burning" sensation just writing about it (since another flood appears to be out of the range of possibilites if you read Enoch and a few other texts.

It would be egotistical in the extreme to think that we, human beings, are the only intelligent beings in the universe.

That being said, it would be just as valid to say that the fringe doesn't believe in a creator. Not believing in a creator and feeling an emptiness in their worldview, compounded by a desire NOT to give humanity credit for its many advancements, they NEED extraterrestrials to fill the void in their belief system. Without ET's, they are incomplete.

cormac

Sorry if I'm off topic.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

oh yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees they do. With every piece of daily scoffing and ridicule do they desire that people loose interest.

If this "scoffing and ridicule" happens daily, perhaps you should post every week a list of that week's "scoffing and ridicule."

Please provide a few examples where "mainstream" people have stated that "there is no reason at all to look into" ufo reports. I mean, you just indicated that it is common knowledge they "they" (whoever that is) do this

Originally posted by SkyfloatingWhy do you think fringe books are more bestselling than mainstream books on the subject? choice oneIs it because they are more sensationalist and dreamy? Maybe. But maybe its choice 2 because they hit an intuitive notch with people, something deep with in the subconscious memory.

I see no real difference between the two choices you have given me here.

Originally posted by SkyfloatingAre fringe-researchers really uneducated con-artists? My experience has been that they are more broadly educated than the mainstream researcher, whereas the mainstream scholar is usually educated in detail.

I'd love to see you support this statement.

BTW, Linus Pauling was a great physicist but he spent the end of his life insisting he'd cured the common cold with megadoses of vitamin C.

He was utterly wrong.

Wrong is wrong. He should have stuck to physics, no?

Harte

In other words, the fringe-authors Ive met usually know a little bit about everything, wheras the mainstream author knows a lot about one thing.

cormac: Yes, that could be argued (except, I do believe in a supreme being AND a universe filled with different races. They dont exclude each other).

Harte: The idea of fringe-researcher being more broadly oriented and the mainstreamer being more detail or depth oriented is a personal experience of mine. Not everything can be explained with google links, some things are experience. But I suspect that if a statistical study were done, it might turn out I was right.

Yes...maybe the guy should have stuck to physics. And maybe you should have stuck to mathematics (which is your expertise) and I should have stuck to foreign languages (which is my expertise).

Is it really done this way?

Materials and workforce needed to build the Great pyramid as said by several experts.

Polish architect Wieslaw Kozinski; 20 men to transport a 1.5-ton stone block from where it was extracted from the ground, to the building site.
Based on this, he estimated the workforce to be 300,000 men on the construction site, with an additional 60,000 off-site.

Egyptologist Miroslav Verner; posited that the labor was organized into a hierarchy, consisting of two gangs of 100,000 men, divided into five zaa or phyle of 20,000 men each, which may have been further divided according to the skills of the workers.

For instance, mathematician Kurt Mendelssohn calculated that the workforce may have been 50,000 men at most, while Ludwig Borchardt and Louis Croon placed the number at 36,000.

According to Verner, a workforce of no more than 30,000 was needed in the Great Pyramid's construction.

A construction management study (testing) carried out by the firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall in association with Mark Lehner and other Egyptologists, estimates that the total project required an average workforce of 14,567 people and a peak workforce of 40,000.

The Egyptologists' calculations suggest the workforce could have sustained a rate of 180 blocks per hour (3 blocks/minute) with ten hour work days for putting each individual block in place.
They derived these estimates from construction projects that did not use modern machinery.

Without the use of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools, they surmise the Great Pyramid was completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then the following.

Pyramid Builders' Village Found in Egypt

Brian Handwerk, new evidence uncovered at Giza is adding to our knowledge of who built the great pyramids, and how they accomplished this timeless feat.

The University of Chicago/Harvard University Giza Plateau Mapping Project, sponsored in part this season by National Geographic and led by archaeologist Mark Lehner, has made several new discoveries in an area lying south of the Sphinx near the workers' cemetery.
The area, often called the "workers' village," is the site of a vast community that thrived some 4,500 years ago on the Giza Plateau. It may have housed as many as 20,000 people.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

When I read all the big different opinions above, I am really more shocked then amazed.
Because how on Earth can it be, that those definitely intelligent mainstream Egyptologists really believe that it must has happened this way?

Just follow the numbers.

Some 20.000 to 40.000 people, needed to build the Great pyramid in about 10 years.
A workforce that have sustained a rate of 180 blocks per hour (3 blocks/minute) with ten hour work days for putting each individual block in place.
Take a real good look at this, 180 blocks per hour (3 blocks per minute) three blocks of 1.5 to 4 tons per minute, for ten ours a day, for week after week and year after year.

Let is sink slowly into your brain, and ask yourself, is this really possible?

With a number of blocks used in construction with an average above 2.3 million as most sources agrees.
With the average weight of core blocks about 1.5 to 4 tons each.
High quality limestone was used for the outer casing, with some of the blocks weighing up to 15 tonnes. This limestone came from Tura, about 14 km away on the other side of the Nile.
Granite quarried nearly 800 km away in Aswan with blocks weighing as much as 60-80 tonnes, was used for the King's Chamber and relieving chambers.
Also don’t forget the amount of work required to cut and fit all these casing stones and then cover the entire pyramid with them up to a height of about 480 feet just boggles the mind.

And try to imagine how they have done that without the use of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools,

Building a masterpiece of architecture, for a Pharaoh of where they know so very little about, because his only surviving statue is, ironically, the smallest piece of Egyptian royal sculpture ever discovered: a 7.5 cm- (3 inch-) high ivory statue found at Abydos.

I definitely can’t in any way accept such an unrealistic way of thinking.
They must know that it is in reality absolute impossible, but they can’t, dare to admit that.

And there comes “forbidden” Egyptology again in the picture.


[edit on 13/3/08 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by jbmitch


I've done a search on the Coral Castle, if that's what you're speaking of and found some sites about an immigrant man who took on this megalithic project all by himself. I haven't gone thru them all as of yet but will in due time.

_______


Spacevisitor,

I'm in your camp on a lot of what you say. The amount of stone blocks used to construct the Great Pyramid is quite impressive to say the least, and a lot of times we forget that there are two other pyramids standing right next to that one which were constructed in the same manner with the same stones. Khafre is almost as big as the Great Pyramid and it stands at the center of the complex, on higher ground.

Hmmm, so if the GP was the first one built then why wasn't it built at the highest point of the plateau? Surely the great Pharaoh would want his, the first and greatest pyramid, to stand taller than the rest. I recently came across a couple of studies that go on to suggest that Khafre is actually older than the GP...I will post these soon.

But I was always also curious about certain characteristics found on the GP and Menkaure which are not found on Khafre: The Concavities. In other words the sides of these pyramids aren't straight, they bend in slightly (and equally) on all sides.

As if building these enormous structures weren't enough to boggle the mind in its feats of engineering and logistics, just to top it off, the sides are equally concave (but only on 2), to supposedly give the pyramid a mirror effect when sunlight (and moonlight) hit it. This is not found on any other pyramid in the world, ever.

What's strange though is that this feature is only found with the GP and Menkaure, or to you conventionalists out there, Pyramid 1 and Pyramid 3. Well why not on Pyramid 2, that of Khafre? Where's the "progression?"

Take a look:
Menkaure:


Great Pyramid:


Where did this idea come from? The major leap in complexity from the step pyramid, bent pyramid, and red pyramid, to the Giza pyramids seems way out of whack. Much of the orthodox argument is that the "Gizamids fit in perfectly with the progression of the pyramids, starting with the step pyramid. Just look and you can see."

Well I am looking and I don't see a logical progression. What I see is a major spike in complexity, accuracy, and precision with Giza from the 'prior' attempts and then a sudden tail off. There is something out of order here....

[edit on 13-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Photon: Yes, Ed Sakllein or something like that.. there is some interesting information and documentation that might make you say "hummmm".
Other interesting things the number of inventors/ physicist and extraordinary people coming out of Croaitia Robert Tesla and others.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


From I understand the math, pertaining to the Giza Pryamid is what makes it unique,,,,The slope of the Giza structure is at a 52o angle, which no other standing structure found since can mimick. And to build a structure wih such angle (according to present math/geometery) the Giza structure would have to been contructed from the inside out,, not from the bottom up.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Well I am looking and I don't see a logical progression. What I see is a major spike in complexity, accuracy, and precision with Giza from the 'prior' attempts and then a sudden tail off. There is something out of order here....

PhotonEffect, you are right, there is something out of order here, because there is no logical progression, I show that earlier in this reply.
reply to post by spacevisitor

I see that one picture is double there.

Then the following, look for instance to the “construction” that Khufus son build.
The son of the Pharaoh, who himself builded the biggest and most complex pyramid of all.
How come?

According to the currently accepted theories of Egyptology, Khufu built the great pyramid. His son, Djedefre, built the structure pictured below. In the background of the second picture, you can see, in the distance, the pyramids of Giza. Was there a bit of a "drop-off" in pyramid building quality from father to son? This scenario is supposed to be logical and based on science.

cycle-of-time.net...

Just as a followup to the brief discussion had regarding the temple of Sacsayhuaman in Peru. I had suggested that the Incas settled the temple and adopted it, just like I feel the AE's did at Giza.

There's an article from BBC today about the discovery of a Sacsayhuaman type temple that could pre-date the Incas. Apparently discovered only mile away from that of Sacsayhuaman, complete with irrigation systems, mummies, and idols.

It's suggested that the Inca moved in and made changes to it.

Taken from this thread..