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: 48
108
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Archaeology by its nature is destructive of the item being studied.

A few dozen groups of fringe believers (with contradicting theories) would cause immense damage. The ground beneath the Sphinx is limestone - so are they going to cut into that?

Whom in those conflicting groups gets to drill or dynamite there way thru the pyramids?

One reason fringe groups are not allowed on most archaeological sites is there terribly poor history of publication*. They virtually never produce negative reports.

* the mainstream record ain't to great either I might add




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


fair enough

however, the ground penetrating radar did find a possible chamber (didnt it, going from memory here). I dont care which careful group digs down to it, just that it happens. Even just a narrow (inches) drilled shaft and a small camera on a long stick (lol) would answer a lot of questions...



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
This was done over thirty years ago

Geophysical Studies around the Sphinx (1978)

With permission from the Giza Inspectorate we drilled a total of 5 four-inch drill holes on each the significant resistivity/seismic anomalies. Three holes were in the temple area below the sphinx and two were in the platform (bedrock floor) around the sphinx itself. We originally had hoped to drill at least six more holes around the Sphinx, but this was not not done because of the limited time and budget as well as because of the concerns of the A.O. that we might in some way damage the Sphinx.

In theory we had permission to drill holes wherever we wished and the five hole drilled were on the largest seismic and resistivity anomalies. We could have drilled to depths of 100 feet if we had chosen to, but in cooperation with Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner we agreed that we should not drill more holes than we really needed to, and to refrain from drilling to great depths well below the water table. As soon as a hole was drilled, it was inspected with the downhole television camera. In each case the anomalies on borehole television were seen to be only minor natural cracks in the bedrock. It quickly became clear that both the resistivity and seismic sounder were unusually sensitive and that all the anomalies seen with either of these instruments were indeed minor. We concluded that there were no major rooms, cavities or voids, or even filled cavities under the Sphinx, under the Sphinx Platform or under the Sphinx Temple.

........

In conclusion, only natural anomalies, flaws, and cavities were found under the Sphinx and under the Sphinx Temple. To this day I remain skeptical about the existence of any rooms, cavities, tunnels or voids under the Sphinx.

July 21, 1999

GPR survey

I know, I know, we need to keep doing it over and over again until we find what we want to find!



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
[mo
-Who did this work, who reocrded it and published the results.
- Was their work subjected to peer review
-Do you think there might be significant advances in siezmic and optic technology in the last 30 years.
-Could information that could change a country, a world and how it views its origins possibly be suppressed? By a loyal Egyptian who has remains the "protector of Modern Egyptian Archealogy" Hiawassi.
-Could Egypt have anything to loose if alternate Archealogoy came to light regarding the fore bears of the Egyptian Pharonic Line.. say the Sumerians, or the Atlanteans,,,oh now,, no national pride issues there,,,and of course proving that indigenous inhabitants of the Nile River Basin having little to do with the edifaces attributed to their culture would never sway the ethics of Hawassi,,, Please,,,,
Thats "Osterich Archealogy"
-



[edit on 12-4-2008 by jbmitch]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


"Archaeology by its nature is destructive of the item being studied."
-Meaning what,? we shouldnt be using trial and error archealogy

"A few dozen groups of fringe believers (with contradicting theories) would cause immense damage. The ground beneath the Sphinx is limestone - so are they going to cut into that?"
-Yeah, they could cause immense damage to the Egyptian Antiquity League of SuperHero's chaired by Hiawassi himself if the real progenitors of the Culture around the Pharonic Line is truely discovered.

Whom in those conflicting groups gets to drill or dynamite there way thru the pyramids?
-WE obviously capbable of better than that ,,,,30 years ago..

One reason fringe groups are not allowed on most archaeological sites is there terribly poor history of publication*. They virtually never produce negative reports.

-How often were fringe archealogy groups found "repressing" discoveries?

* the mainstream record ain't to great either I might add
**Mainstream Accepted academics in all fields have had to "eat crow" as technology has brought to light a better or more inclusive theory.
These break throughs have almost been uniquely accomplished by "fringe" scientists who have throughout history paved the way from our dark ages to present day,,physics,,,,



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 

"Heinrich Schliemann's methods of excavation were unscientific to say the least. Basically, tear through the site like a bat out of hell and damn the consequences, destroying many layers of history in the process."

However, it it wasnt for Schliemann, the reminants of Troy would what still remain a mystery, and under how much dirt.
This is prefaced by the point that you accept Schliemanns theory that he found Troy



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


actually no, that sounds fairly conclusive...
ah well. guess thats it for that one. (unless we come up with more accurate GPR methods or something, or someone comes out to say they were lying)



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Papyrus 1115 an ancient egyptian tale also known as The Land of Enchantment or The Shipwrecked Sailior has some passages of interest to the alternative egyptologists and atlantologists:

To make a point of "just taking texts as they are without distortion" I will not comment on them at all.


I was going to the mines of Pharaoh, and I went down on the sea in a ship of one hundred and fifty cubits long and forty cubits wide, with one hundred and fifty sailors of the best of Egypt



But as we approached the land, the wind arose, and threw up waves eight cubits high. As for me, I seized a piece of wood; but those who were in the vessel perished, without one remaining. A wave threw me on an island, after that I had been three days alone, without a companion beside my own heart



I found there figs and grain, melons of all kinds, fishes, and birds. Nothing was lacking



"Suddenly I heard a noise as of thunder, which I thought to be that of a wave of the sea. The trees shook, and the earth was moved. I uncovered my face, and I saw that a serpent drew near



He was thirty cubits long, and his beard greater than two cubits; his body was as overlaid with gold, and his color as that of true lazuli. He coiled himself before me. Then he opened his mouth, while that I lay on my face before him, and he said to me, 'What has brought you, what has brought you, little one, what has brought you? If you say not speedily what has brought you to this isle, I will make you know yourself; as a flame you shall vanish



"Then he took me in his mouth and carried me to his resting-place, and laid me down without any hurt. I was whole and sound, and nothing was gone from me. Then he opened his mouth against me, while that I lay on my face before him,



For it is He who has brought you to this isle of the blest, where nothing is lacking, and which is filled with all good things



I am here with my brethren and my children around me; we are seventy-five serpents, children, and kindred; without naming a young girl who was brought unto me by chance, and on whom the fire of heaven fell, and burned her to ashes.



and I shall bring for you ships full of all kinds of the treasures of Egypt, as is comely to do unto a god, a friend of men in a far country, of which men know not.'



But, when you shall depart from this place, you shall never more see this isle; it shall be changed into waves.'



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



Originally posted by PhotonEffect



Exerting a tremendous effort, the men drag the stone a mere 20 feet.

to get the 30 or so men to pull this stone only 20 feet.

Also there are a couple of details missing which have not been provided by the NOVA team:
-They didn't mention how many men were actually used.
-They don't mention how long it actually took to move that stone.
-Although they mention they barely moved it 20 feet, they don't say if that was the total distance that was attempted...


Hi PhotonEffect, interesting post with in my opinion a bit comic pictures.
and strrd.
These people done their utmost best of course, but to me it is and always was crystal clear that it absolute cannot happened that way.
Very obvious we Humans are capable of doing amazing things indeed, but there are limits of course.


Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Now multiply that one stone by a few million. 2, 5, 10, 25, 75 ,100 tons....whatever


And as claimed by Mark Lehner and other Egyptologists in association with a construction management study (testing) I really wonder how they tested that?
carried out by the firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall, with the astounding rate of 3 blocks/minute, of where the limestone blocks of 1.5 to 4 tons each from Tura, about 14 km away on the other side of the Nile.
Then the granite blocks, nearly 800 km away in Aswan with blocks weighing as much as 60-80 tonnes.
And knowing that they must have dragged those blocks also dozens and dozens meters up.
Is that really humanly possible?

Why can’t the mainstream Egyptologists accept that is humanly impossible to do such things with the tools they had then?
I really don’t understand that.



[edit on 12/4/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Why can’t the mainstream Egyptologists accept that is humanly impossible to do such things with the tools they had then?
I really don’t understand that.

Quite possibly because mainstream Egyptologists has already accepted that it IS humanly possible to move such things with the tools they had?

Of course its hard to do, I dont think anyone would claim it to be easy. If you consider such a feat of moving a heavy stone within Egypt humanly impossible, then how did the Romans steal them using little more advanced tools?

I'd advice you to go to Saint Peters Square, stand in front of the 300+ ton obelisk and see for yourself that its "humanly impossible".



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Serpents who begat childern, that talked to man,,appearantly there were more than one,, tempter,,in the Garden,,,humm



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Why can’t the mainstream Egyptologists accept that is humanly impossible to do such things with the tools they had then?
I really don’t understand that.

Quite possibly because mainstream Egyptologists has already accepted that it IS humanly possible to move such things with the tools they had?


Yes I know that they have already accepted that, but do they really know HOW they done it with the tools they had in that timeframe?
And I think they don’t know that, and therefore ignore it.


Originally posted by merka
Of course its hard to do, I dont think anyone would claim it to be easy. If you consider such a feat of moving a heavy stone within Egypt humanly impossible, then how did the Romans steal them using little more advanced tools?


I find this really a very interesting question and I tried to find out how they did that but so far I have found no good info.
Perhaps you or someone else has some links.
Perhaps the difference is that the Romans transported blocks and columns weighing many tonnes on land on ox-carts or rolled along with the simplest of engineering tools including pulleys, ropes and levers. The AE had none of these at their exposal if I am correct.


Originally posted by merka
I'd advice you to go to Saint Peters Square, stand in front of the 300+ ton obelisk and see for yourself that its "humanly impossible".

Good example indeed, but see how they did it then and what tools, human and horsepower they used.
For instance to re-erecting the obelisk.
in 1585, Pope Sixtus asked Domenico Fontana to move the 330-ton Aswan granite the quarter mile or so to St. Peter's Square. The operation was carried out using hemp ropes and iron bars weighing 40,000 pounds, plus 900 men and 72 horses, and took about 5 months to complete.

pruned.blogspot.com...

Or

Giant Ramses statue gets new home

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 12/4/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Very interesting find Skyfloating.

Especially these remarks sound very familiar to me personally.



"Suddenly I heard a noise as of thunder, which I thought to be that of a wave of the sea. The trees shook, and the earth was moved. I uncovered my face and I saw that a serpent drew near"



"He was thirty cubits long, and his beard greater than two cubits; his body was as overlaid with gold, and his color as that of true lazuli. He coiled himself before me. Then he opened his mouth, while that I lay on my face before him, and he said to me, 'What has brought you, what has brought you, little one, what has brought you? If you say not speedily what has brought you to this isle, I will make you know yourself; as a flame you shall vanish"



"Then he took me in his mouth and carried me to his resting-place, and laid me down without any hurt. I was whole and sound, and nothing was gone from me. Then he opened his mouth against me, while that I lay on my face before him"



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I find this really a very interesting question and I tried to find out how they did that but so far I have found no good info.
Perhaps you or someone else has some links.
Perhaps the difference is that the Romans transported blocks and columns weighing many tonnes on land on ox-carts or rolled along with the simplest of engineering tools including pulleys, ropes and levers. The AE had none of these at their exposal if I am correct.

The Ancient Egyptians most certainly had oxes and they obviously had a great deal of engineering skills. It wouldnt suprise me the slightest if they had pulleys, ropes and levers.

Unfortunetly, I cant provide much links, if any. The simple answer is, we dont know exactly how they did it. Its all speculation, mostly built on later technologies. We dont know how exactly the Greeks built temples and statues of monumental proportions, we dont know how exactly the Romans built their cities and we most certainly dont know how exactly the Egyptians built their pyramids and temples.

Personally I find it disappointing that the "Forbidden Egyptology" is apparently limited to amazing, awesome, extravagant or downright alien. But something as simple as "ancient techniques and engineering technology we dont know about that was specifically designed for megalithic construction", nooooo... Its humanly impossible!



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbmitch
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 

"Heinrich Schliemann's methods of excavation were unscientific to say the least. Basically, tear through the site like a bat out of hell and damn the consequences, destroying many layers of history in the process."

However, it it wasnt for Schliemann, the reminants of Troy would what still remain a mystery, and under how much dirt.
This is prefaced by the point that you accept Schliemanns theory that he found Troy



He didn't Frank Calvert did, S just took the credit - plus the site we THINK is Troy has not been convincingly ID (recently a new piece of information from a Hittite source as given another piece of important evidence)



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The construction techniques of the Egyptians are not completely understood. However the Egyptians didn't seem to think anything odd was going on about them - they just did it.



A great deal of research was done in the early part of 20th century on possible Egyptian techniques, this exploration continues. The problem is the specialize skills required to do a lot of this is lost.

Its a human technology that has been lost.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
-Who did this work, who reocrded it and published the results.
- Was their work subjected to peer review

>>>The original link was in the post above yours, the main contributor was Kent Wakefield. Another source. The report was published but I do not know by who. If interested you can probably look that up in print sources. Or you could ask the knowledgeable people at The Hall of Ma'at

PDF look at the last two pages

-Do you think there might be significant advances in siezmic and optic technology in the last 30 years.

>>There may have been, another item for you to research.

-Could information that could change a country, a world and how it views its origins possibly be suppressed? By a loyal Egyptian who has remains the "protector of Modern Egyptian Archealogy" Hiawassi.

>>> Probably not

-Could Egypt have anything to loose if alternate Archealogoy came to light regarding the fore bears of the Egyptian Pharonic Line.. say the Sumerians, or the Atlanteans,,,oh now,, no national pride issues there,,,and of course proving that indigenous inhabitants of the Nile River Basin having little to do with the edifaces attributed to their culture would never sway the ethics of Hawassi,,, Please,,,,
Thats "Osterich Archealogy"

>>> all known evidence points right at the Egyptians themselves - oddly they too thought they did all the work themselves - with help from the the gods.
-



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Why do you stick up for Hawass, Hanslune?

Whats the evidence that points to the Egyptians without a shadow of a doubt?

I'll ask it again for the umpteenth time in this thread....What is it? I have yet to get a straight answer to any of my questions regarding this.

Please, as a scholar, answer me these questions!



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
This stands for certain:

We still don't know how the Giza pyramids were built.
We still don't know who is responsible for building them.
We still don't know when they were built.
We still don't know why/what they were built for.

Challenge it. Don't ignore it.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   


Why do you stick up for Hawass, Hanslune?


Someone has too! I understand what he is trying to do and applaude his efforts. However he is a media hound and a bit of schmuck but then so many people are. But his professional stands I can agree with. I actually met him in in either 82/83 at a conference on Cypriote bronze age pottery.



Whats the evidence that points to the Egyptians without a shadow of a doubt?


Because all the evidence gathered in the last two-hundred years all points to the Egyptians doing it all. There is not one single piece of evidence for aliens or advanced humans doing the work for them. Besides finding some evidence to support the idea that someone else did it you then have to discredit/disprove all the evidence that Egyptians did do it. That might be tough. You have a better chance in trying to prove the Germans weren't actually in WWI



I'll ask it again for the umpteenth time in this thread....What is it? I have yet to get a straight answer to any of my questions regarding this.


You want a short answers for a massive question? See the answer above



Please, as a scholar, answer me these questions!


Answered but I assume you won't like them.




top topics



 
108
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join