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: 6
108
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
From the egyptian museum in cairo. Egyptologists "explain" this to be a "vase"...but its got a hole going through the middle.







posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
We have the ability to drill through basalt/granite since about 100 years. How then, did the ancient egyptians do it?





More Information



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Notice the head of the little child on the left.






[edit on 9-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I'm sorry, but I highly doubt the 3 pyramids at Giza were built in this crude way,


Crude? Are you sure you even understand what I'm talking about here? First you build one platform. Then you build a ramp along one of its sides to bring materials up to start building the second platform. You repeat this process at each "layer", setting and constructing the inner portions as you go. When it's done, you fill in the gaps between hte layers leading up to the entrances to create a last ramp by which you haul up materials for whatever's going on the inside. When you're done with that, you start from the ground up again, applying the polished face-stones that are still present on all but one of the pyramids, filling in the areas between ramps and layers and covering them with the finished stone.

Now maybe it's crude from the perspective of cranes, mechanized elevators, and the like, but it's still a damn good systemof building one of these things.


from all the 'flooding' and the general age of the monuments, it is absurd to suggest a piece of the limestone woudlnt have broken off or eroded away to reveal (in earlier cases) mud bricks that were the bulk of the so called 'original' pyramids, and even some dated after the Giza pyramids.


It would in fact be pretty absurd to suggest this, which is why nobody is suggesting it. The Giza pyramids are heavily eroded and stained. When they were new, they would have been smooth-faced and a creamy beige color rather than the rough-surfaced yellowed face we see now. Also remember that these things were at least partially covered in sand for a while, and that the "flood" damage could simply be the effect of moisture seeping through the sand and being absorbed by the porous limestone, to create a pretty humid environment, at least in places.



If they had perfected the technique on the Giza pyramids, why spend the next couple of centuries using dated design? why not use the tried and approved method they supposedly used? because they were merely emulating the original standing pyramids.


Same reason we, with our extensive knowledge of construction materials, carpentry and masonry, still build most of our homes out of plywood, sheetrock, and a few beams, rather than brick and solid stone - Because it's cheaper and just as good for our needs.

Know how much it would have cost to cut all that limestone from the quarry? Then to transport it? Then to shape it? Then to move it and place it? It would have been an immense and expensive undertaking, and while the Egyptian kings were pretty rich by standards of the time, that's still a hell of a cost. In the environment of Egypt, mud brick lasts a good long time (obviously, as we've found all those mud-brick pyramids from that time, right?) and is far, far cheaper.


This took them a while to perfect, BUT IN THE END they did do this, including the 53 degree, but they still didn't know about the ascending passage, which has yet to be discovered in any other pyramid except the Giza pyramid.

thanks. EMM


I'm sure they knew about it. What's to say that they thought it was a good idea after seeing it in place? It's perfectly plausible that the ascending passage is to Egyptian construction what the Edsel or Delorean is to car manufacturing, for reasons just as arcane to us as the failure of those cars - "We just didn't like it"

[edit on 9-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

[edit on 9-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



Who really cares about how a house was constructed anyway? Now a huge Pyramid(s)....I'm all ears.


I for one find architecture interesting and am pretty interested in how housing is built. Ever seen the complexes at Mohenjo-Daro? You're telling me that housing is uninteresting and that hte pyramids boggle you, so I'm guessing you haven't


Skyfalling,

Does this look like a human and a great dane to you?


I've never seen a human who looks like that, much less a great dane (or any dog, truthfully) resembling that... thing. Clearly these are depictions of ancient alien races.

...Or it could be artistic stylizations meant to convey something other than a photographic replica.

As for that skull? That's the result of binding a developing child's skull with cord and splints. Show me a skull with massive facial differences from humans, and you might start getting somewhere on that route. Different dentition, perhaps extra-large eyesockets and nearly no nasal opening...



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Up to now no scholary debunking of several points Ive made on this thread. Once you´re done scoffing, provide some factual counter-argumentation if you like.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Up to now no scholary debunking of several points Ive made on this thread. Once you´re done scoffing, provide some factual counter-argumentation if you like.


Well honestly, you're not being very scholastic with your claims. You're presenting pictures and opinions, with no data pertaining to either. That vase you're speaking of could be a patio umbrella stand from your nearest Home Depot's lawn and garden area, for all the data you gave about it.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



Who really cares about how a house was constructed anyway? Now a huge Pyramid(s)....I'm all ears.


I for one find architecture interesting and am pretty interested in how housing is built. Ever seen the complexes at Mohenjo-Daro?


I find architecture pretty fascinating too. So at least we can agree on that.


With that said, I am familiar with the ancient city of Mohenjo-Daro. And again this can not compare to the Pyramids in Giza.

One main reason, the complexes in Mohenjo-Daro were constructed mostly of fired brick, mud brick and timbers; these are much easier to carry, place, and construct with. They are hardly the huge stones carved out of limestone, alabaster, and granite weighing upto 75 tons a piece that were used at Giza.
Source




You're telling me that housing is uninteresting and that hte pyramids boggle you, so I'm guessing you haven't



I'm not saying that housing in uninteresting, but in terms of the Giza complex, there's no comparison. When looking at a housing complex, even the ones at Mohenjo-Daro, it would be easier to understand how they were constructed given the techniques and tools that we know were available to the ancients at that time. With the Pyramids, not so much...

Look at this comparison:
This is the Pyramid of Khafre (the 2nd one) which is smaller than the Great Pyramid. Notice the man standing at the lower left, near the base... itty bitty



Now pictures from Mohenjo-Daro, one with people for scale...





You see what I mean.

So yes the Pyramids boggle my mind.

Here's a site that gives a general analysis of what it would take to build just the Great Pyramid with modern day resources(money, material, equipment, and labor).
Read it here.

Now answer me this, how did the Egyptians do it with copper tools, wooden sledges, and boats?

[edit on 9-2-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Notice the head of the little child on the left.






[edit on 9-2-2008 by Skyfloating]


Neither one of those children look human. They both have oversized heads.

This is a great thread. I have starred and flagged.

You state that you believe the Giza monuments to predate the flood. My two questions for you are:

1. why do you believe that "the flood" was not "a flood"?

2. Do you have any specific information (does it all relate to the water wear evidence presented a few years ago)?



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Howdy Skyfloating

You' ve made the following claim


Originally posted by Skyfloating
We have the ability to drill through basalt/granite since about 100 years. How then, did the ancient egyptians do it?





More Information



Do I understand you correctly, you are claiming that ancient Egyptians could work granite but that NO ONE else has been able to do so until 1907?

Is this correct?



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


The Egyptians truly were an amazing tribe. Its too bad they were essentially wiped out by the Romans and Greeks.

I am intrigued by the children and their skull features.

A recent discover of a 'star child' skull (oversized cranium) looks strikingly similar to this one. I wonder if they're the same.

www.starchildproject.com...






It looks a little different...

Interesting nonetheless.



Here is another one that looks very similar to the hieroglyph:


www.burlingtonnews.net...





posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


What I find especially interesting about this tablet is the "rays" coming down from the "sun", and what is at the ends of some of them. Notice the similarity to the symbol coming out of the center of the cross in my avatar.

Here is another example I am more familiar with as I have it hanging in my home.



Some of the literature I have read suggests the rays are hands reaching down from the sun. I am wondering if what she is holding up may be something similar to the urim and thummim. I have even heard it suggested that the stone tablets containing the commandments that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai were actually an urim and thummim.


[edit on 10-2-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

You state that you believe the Giza monuments to predate the flood. My two questions for you are:

1. why do you believe that "the flood" was not "a flood"?

2. Do you have any specific information (does it all relate to the water wear evidence presented a few years ago)?


Its reasonable to assume there´s been more than one flood in the history of mankind.

But its also reasonable to assume that there was that one big massive wipe-out flood. I have come to believe this (and not the academic establishments opinion) because our ancestors say so. Ancient literature makes it pretty clear that a single massive deluge was burnt into the collective memory of our race.

This is an opinion arrived at after reading the ancient texts such as the Enoch texts (posted earlier), sumerian mythology, celtic mythology...instead of reading my schoolbooks. In other words, rather than reading a modern-day interpretation of ancient text, one goes straight to the source. Otherwise the waters are muddied by a every joe and his brother adding some distortion.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Do I understand you correctly, you are claiming that ancient Egyptians could work granite but that NO ONE else has been able to do so until 1907?

Is this correct?


I will play it safe and say that others may have been able to work granite as well. But I dont know about them.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


We have a user here named Tommychaos that had a thread where he reconstructed the starchild skull.

The pictures are not linked anymore from him, but he has a website that you could likely contact him through if you are interested..

Regardless, one of our members snagged and hosted this image, which is the same one that TommyChaos created:





Note how low the ears are on the skull. This child must have had horrible hearing, and even worse ear infections. This may explain why he/she died so young.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I am wondering if there is evidence of this flood happening worldwide.

I don't ask from teh view of skepticism (if i am skeptical, i don't normally bother posting), but rather to see if you have some input that might help a related concept i am tooling around with right now.

It relates to S. America and the Peruvian Andes.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
one more thing relating to starchild. so i don't derail this thread, see the pictures on this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Well, tell me what you´re tooling around with and I´ll do my best to compile some information on THE flood.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


For starters,

this is a good compilation of "the basics" on the great flood:

Deluge

You´ll notice the many different sources of the story on both sides of the ocean.

Mainstream says that they are referring to many different floods while we tend to say "yes, there were many floods, but also one really big one that destroyed an entire civilization".

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Very good, thank you sir.

it will take me awhile to compile my thoughts into something that you would be able to read. when i do, i will U2U you, so as to keep this thread intact.



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join