Forbidden Egyptology

I find it rather telling that on the one hand you like to go on about the AE's not being able to build the pyramids around 2600 BC, yet here you are suggesting that objects now underwater from a time period of around 10,000 years are artificial. Where is the architectural basis for these formations. They are not sufficiently offshore to preclude other examples on shore of the same type architecture. Or were these one-off examples?

Also interesting that Robert Schoch, who came up with the theory that the Sphinx was thousands of years older due to water damage, also believes that the Yonaguni structures are natural formations. Is the fringe slipping?

cormac

[edit on 17-3-2008 by cormac mac airt]

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
However, many like to put it with the alleged earlier date of the Sphinx due to "water erosion" and say it's all done at the same time. Personally, I don't see it.

Yes many do. And I'm open to the idea. But what is it that you don't see? The very apparent water erosion around the Sphinx?

I think C14 dating in this case should be thrown out.

I agree.

Everything else, including workers marks on the interior, unfinished sides of many blocks would appear to indicate that it was built during the time of Khufu.

You look at the evidence and see built, I look at it and see refurbished.

reply to post by Hanslune

Originally posted by Hanslune
It was used in architecture to remove the perception that a line that was actually straight - looked curved. The Greeks and Romans later used the
the application of a convex curve to a surface for aesthetic purposes.

I was unaware of that actually. Maybe they got it from the builders of the Giza pyramids...

However like so many things it depends on how it was applied and in what "moderation".

I'm more of a "why?" guy.

As you rightly said the Egyptians may have been experimenting -or perhaps over the extimated 70 years of construction "a new guy" decided to try something different based on previous experience.

Sure why not. Since such a major feature on 2 of the 3 pyramids go completely unexplained then we're all free to speculate on what the purpose of those concavities are. I'm no expert in architectural integrity of pyramids but the fact that this feature is found on G1 and G3 but not on G2 precludes me from agreeing with your theory



reply to post by Hanslune

Originally posted by Hanslune
The radiocarbon dates are just one set of data. In all 270 samples were taken from not only the Giza pyramids but other sites previously associated with OK sites

[img][/img]

Carbon 14 study

Where are the anomalous dates/results on that chart?

Comparison 1984/1995

The number of dates from the two projects was only large enough to allow for statistical comparisons for the pyramids of Djoser, Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure.
There are two striking results.
First, there are significant discrepancies between the 1984 and 1995 dates for Khufu and Khafre, but not for Djoser and Menkaure.
Second, the 1995 dates vary widely even for a single monument. For Khufu’s Great Pyramid, they scatter over a range of about 400 years.

Bold mine.
Taken from www.aeraweb.org...

The highlighted portions struck me and I think its plain to see why. First if there are in fact agreements between the 2 sets of dates for the same monuments then maybe the 1984 results shouldn't be written off as incorrect data.

Second, even the "more accurate" results from 1995 show a wide range for Khufu.

Point is (and has already been made), the C14/radiocarbon portion shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Also interesting that Robert Schoch, who came up with the theory that the Sphinx was thousands of years older due to water damage, also believes that the Yonaguni structures are natural formations.

He just calls it as he sees it.

Is the fringe slipping?

Just getting started actually.

Yes many do. And I'm open to the idea. But what is it that you don't see? The very apparent water erosion around the Sphinx?

The only thing to me that is apparent is that there was erosion. Also, Egypt was wetter circa the third millenium BC as well as the Sphinx was buried many times in the past up to the neck in sand. Even the underlayers of sand shift. Add to this that the layers of the Sphinx vary in hardness, even the abrasiveness of sand can erode stone quite well.

You look at the evidence and see built, I look at it and see refurbished.

Going back to my last post, if the Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids in the first place, then they also couldn't have refurbished it to the levels necessary to leave workmens marks on the inner unfinished sides as well.

Also, unless one puts mythical peoples or ET's into the equation, there is no evidence for anyone other than the ancient egyptians to have built them.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

The oldest known Homo Sapiens remains are 195,000 years old. Most of that time was covered by glaciers. Not much has been found so far to suggest anything else but hunter-gatherers until after the Ice Age.

Then lets talk about how things are lost overtime. Underground, underwater, eroded away, decayed away. I think people underestimate what a huge difference there is between 3000 B.C. and 10 000 B.C. Thats 7000 years difference and a lot can happen in 7000 years.

Artifical structures off the coast of Japan/Taiwan, Cuba, Bimini, Cyprus, Ireland, India...theyve ALL been labelled "natural formations"...

...for no other reason than "they cant be artificial because when these places were above water, there were only hunter-gatherers around that couldnt build stuff like that". Id love for anyone to point out where else in nature straight lines, stairs, rectangles, perfect circles and speheres can be found. But superficial examination doesnt even go as far as to asking those questions.

Heh heh heh......

Years ago, I inherited a temple flame. A torch like flame holder that was filled with scented oils and sacrificial items were burned in. It was recovered off the ocean floor in Bimini back in the early part of the last century when diving helmets and lead boots were the underwater attire. I ran it by Christies and Butters and Butters but they didn't have a clue, or anyone who could even identify it. It is constructed of brass castings with evidence of lathe turning and finishing as well as very advanced sweat fitting, and brasing. It was dipped in gold and has a thin layer underneath a thin green ocean encrustation on the surface.
The design work is very similar to Chinese design with an almost Toltec form. It can't be placed with any known civilization. Some nut had drilled and tapped the bottom of the oil pot to make it into a lamp at one time. It was in the museum in K.C. in the basement for a couple decades but never identified.

Age? one could only guess older than the Egyptian civilization. Older than that but newer than 17,000 bc. What was going on 10-12K years ago?

Who knows if no one can identify it. Could be fairly modern, except for the encrustation that had to take centuries to accumulate.

I would be certain there are many items that are mis-identified that are still around. Most however were recycled in that time for metal content, which is what we do with things today.

Originally posted by Skyfloating


...for no other reason than "they cant be artificial because when these places were above water, there were only hunter-gatherers around that couldnt build stuff like that". Id love for anyone to point out where else in nature straight lines, stairs, rectangles, perfect circles and speheres can be found. But superficial examination doesnt even go as far as to asking those questions.

That's an argument that mainstreamers (I prefer calling them 'The ABS', short for Association of Blinkered Scoffers) seem to use a lot. It can be summed up as 'It can't be, so it isn't' ...

Personally I find that to be the perfect example of circular reasoning


Great thread Skyfloating ... A superb read

reply to post by Skyfloating

...for no other reason than "they cant be artificial because when these places were above water, there were only hunter-gatherers around that couldnt build stuff like that". Id love for anyone to point out where else in nature straight lines, stairs, rectangles, perfect circles and speheres can be found. But superficial examination doesnt even go as far as to asking those questions.

Ever heard of tessellated pavement or checked out the geological origins of the Giants Causeway? Entirely natural. Also, I come from the Appalachian Mts. Slate deposits can be quite thick, stairstep and break off at right angles. Isn't nature grand!!

cormac



[edit on 17-3-2008 by cormac mac airt]

The pyramids in Egypt are not Egyptian, nor any of the other pyramids in Asia or the Americas, this also includes all the so-called earth-built "Indian" burial mounds. Don't leave just yet, all these pyramids and earthen burial mounds have pictures on them. Guess what? They are not pictures of humans. There is strong evidence that Thutmoses I, II, III and Hatsheput all suffered from Morgellon's, the alien infestation that passes as a skin disease. Hawass tries to pass it off as a genetic skin condition. I have Morgellons myself, it is a consequence of close alien interaction. The aliens actually reside inside the human host and generally speaking they are benign. These aliens offer a type of immortality, they alter you with themselves (they seem to be immortal) When kv-63 was opened there was still a living presence in the tomb. All those pictures painted on the inner walls have secret hidden pictures in them. I will be happy to share them with anyone who is interested. By the way, the face of the Sphinx is accurate and is not that of a human nor is it a misjudgement in carving. I make a lot of claims but i have a lot of proof. I don't really care about the ancient egyptians, they were a subject people and did as they were told. The alien being ruled the world at that time and provided the power and the transportation between the continents and brought coc aine to Egypt.

thats a bold statement.

why do people attribute attribute's they don't possess to people they never knew.

to "undermine" the ancients beings of this planets creations and bring forth claims of fantasy to fit your misconception is just crazy.

Response to illahee, Around twelve thousand years ago their was an intergalactic war between aliens that had staked out portions of the Earth as their own. The chief protaganists were the holders of the Indian sub-continent and the island nation of Atlantis. Battles in Space and on the Moon were recorded in the hindu Vedas. The seven Rishi cities were destroyed by atomic weapons and the island of Atlantis was struck "with a spear of iron" that unleashed the power of God. These legends are documented as being in existence for thousands of years, seriously predating our present knowledge.

to Ausar, i don't know what your knowledge base is so pick a point that you are comfortable with and go from there. The more specific you are the better i can respond.

well im not in an argumentative mood but you place your observations and personal facts about a truth percieved in your own mind as truth.

for one the locality in space time you refer to egypt does or does not exist as your thoughts move?

reply to post by debris765nju


I agree.Not only did they stake out parts of this planet and the moon,but also mars and a planet on the far side orbit of mars(it was destroyed and is now an astroid belt) That neuclar war that you speak of was not just limited to earth,it encompassed the entire solar system.The astroid belt is some proof as it's radiation is stronger than normal space radiation.

yea im familiar with the unofficial history version of what yall speak but you place in physicality as you see physicality now events which occured in a different locality by beings who were conscious and human.

Of course i speak as if it were a truth, there is no other place except my mind, it is the place my reality is created and i interact with others. I am not the argumentative sort either, if i know it to be true, i say it. If i am unsure, i keep my opinions to myself. This world is too big a plum to give up, and they didn't. They are still here and still in control and the war rages on. I knew they were here and i figured out how to find them and to make them visible. They caught me catching them and they made me visible, sort of like putting a bell on a cat. Actually, more like a sacred cow, someone who gets in the way and craps all over the place. The good thing is they can't eat me. Seriously, they cannot hide from me, they set my pineal gland to vibrating when they are near. near being a relative term. My point is this, they leave there signature everywhere they go and i don't think they are aware of it. To them, it is an accepted and natural thing to do. They mark ownership of goods and chattel with their chosen likeness of their appearance. Languages come and go but your identity is yours forever (immortal souls)

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

Also interesting that Robert Schoch, who came up with the theory that the Sphinx was thousands of years older due to water damage, also believes that the Yonaguni structures are natural formations. Is the fringe slipping?

Uhm...there is a vast diversity of opinion among investigators. Surprised?


The Yonaguni structures (the stairs look artificial) are not the only eroded underwater structures found. Here are two of many more existing examples:

Helike (Greece): Archaeologists claimed, for the longest time, that it didnt exist. Even after extensive sea floor imaging they concluded that "there is no lost and sunken city here". This was eventually refuted when holes were drilled a bit more inland.

Tamil Homeland: According to the Tamil of South India and Sri Lanka, they came from a "homeland" which is now submerged under the ocean. Mainstream archeaologists have, again,, for the longest time, claimed that the Tamil came from somewhere else (from lands north), ignoring the ancient texts as "legend and myth". As more and more underwater ruins are found off the coasts of India, this will have to be revised.

The point I am making is:

Just because a majority says something doesnt exist, does not mean something really doesnt exist.

Originally posted by Illahee
Years ago, I inherited a temple flame. A torch like flame holder that was filled with scented oils and sacrificial items were burned in. It was recovered off the ocean floor in Bimini back in the early part of the last century

If you ever get the chance, do upload a photo of this object. I think it would be of interest to all.

I thought it was in storage but spotted it yesterday in the rafters of the garage. Will fish out a ladder and snap pics soon.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Hanslune
It was used in architecture to remove the perception that a line that was actually straight - looked curved. The Greeks and Romans later used the
the application of a convex curve to a surface for aesthetic purposes.

I was unaware of that actually. Maybe they got it from the builders of the Giza pyramids...

It's not easy to say because the technique was used elsewhere (so we don't know who started it.) The Romans and Greeks made far more sophisticated use of it and had some interesting methods (recently discovered) for cutting columns with this same curve in it (an *extremely* difficult thing to do and get precise.)

Sure why not. Since such a major feature on 2 of the 3 pyramids go completely unexplained then we're all free to speculate on what the purpose of those concavities are. I'm no expert in architectural integrity of pyramids but the fact that this feature is found on G1 and G3 but not on G2 precludes me from agreeing with your theory

Actually, we can't say about the other pyramids. Many of them are in a state of great disrepair and we don't know what their casings looked like. Of the 10 or so smaller pyramids there around the foot of the other pyramids, there aren't any such features... but they're in a very ruined state.

The highlighted portions struck me and I think its plain to see why. First if there are in fact agreements between the 2 sets of dates for the same monuments then maybe the 1984 results shouldn't be written off as incorrect data.

Second, even the "more accurate" results from 1995 show a wide range for Khufu.

Point is (and has already been made), the C14/radiocarbon portion shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Actually, the problem (as is explained further down in the article) is that resources were scarce in the Old Kingdom and they didn't have as extensive a trade network, hence they reused material. If a temple or house or something else was falling down, rather than get new wood (extremely scarce) or cut new stone, they would use the material to repair other structures or build new ones.

In modern times, we tear things down and rebuild from new. This was not true until fairly recently... and in fact, parts of the pyramids on Giza can be found all over the modern city of Cairo, recut and reused in many houses and other buildings. The limestone casing (because it was softer and workable) was one of the first things to go.

(so if you dated something built 800 years ago, it might be built from many older things and you'd get a date of 800 years from one part of the structure and 2000 years from another part of the structure and so on and so forth. That's why dating things from the structure is less useful than dating things that they find IN the structure (like loaves of bread. They don't reuse bread.))