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.

 

Egyptian Pyramids packed with seashells

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Egyptian Pyramids packed with seashells


www.abc.net.au

Many of Egypt's most famous monuments, such as the Sphinx and Cheops pyramid at Giza, contain hundreds of thousands of marine fossils, according to a new study.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Seashells in the desert?

This is interesting news for those who believe that the Pyramids are older than commonly believed and for those that believe in a pre-flood building of the pyramids.

www.abc.net.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



That is fascinating information (and BTW, why didn't they notice it before?).

But as I understand it (haven't yet read the articles themselves) it doesn't necessarily follow that the pyramids were under water at any time - just the stone that was quarried for their construction was.




[edit on 28-4-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I heard something somewere before when i was young that the sphinx appeared to have errosion consistant with that of structures that were underwater. Just something i heard but could be true. Anyhow even if the rocks quarried were packed with seashells i wonder why this wasnt seen before. How is it that people argue that the pyramids are packed with gypsum mortar and therefore the egyptians built them but noone saw seashells?

Anyhow i wonder that if the newer pyramid structure were meant to imitate something more advanced, kind of like a tradition that they MUST build a pyramid as did their ancestors.

Also there are proposed projects such as the Ultima tower which looks like the tower of babel. Also i think the Japanese pyramid is a nice find.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 



You were "young" a very few years ago...

Yes, indeed there is a theory (Schoch's, if I am not mistaken) that the erosion of the lower part of the Sphinx was caused by long exposure to water - and it actually makes sense, at least on the face of it.

But the same theory, again if I am not mistaken, also argues that the Sphinx in its turn is older than the pyramids.




Anyhow i wonder that if the newer pyramid structure were meant to imitate something more advanced, kind of like a tradition that they MUST build a pyramid as did their ancestors.


Personally, I think you're right.
Then again, that is true of most cult-related structures throughout history.
Still... there may be something else at play here.








[edit on 28-4-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


I absolutely agree. There is nothing in the story that would suggest the pyramids as they stand were under water only the materials used. Especially since the fossils had been found within the stones.

The argument of carved or cast is a new one to me though. I was always under the impression they were carved. If they were cas though it could explain alot. If the materials were brought in from the sea it would account for the fossils being found inside the stone and the precision placement if they were cast in place. Hmmm. I hate thrads like this, They make me think.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


A few years ago, I lived in Iowa and many of the buildings in the nearby university were built out of limestone quarried from local deposits. Much of the rock in the surrounding countryside is teeming with fossil imprints. . . If you were to look closely at the walls of the university buildings, you would see hundreds of fossils so it doesn't really surprise me that the same would hold true of the pyramids.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


Here's the guy you're after,
www.robertschoch.com...
He did a documentary on his findings.. I've tried searching youtube for it. Havent' found it yet..

But, his theory is very good. Apparently he showed the a picture of only the Sphynx's eroded lower half to a geologist who said that without a doubt it was water erosion, then according to Schoch, Schoch showed the entire picture and the geologist refused to comment any further. It's in the video..if anyone can find it.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Egyptian Pyramids packed with seashells


www.abc.net.au

Many of Egypt's most famous monuments, such as the Sphinx and Cheops pyramid at Giza, contain hundreds of thousands of marine fossils, according to a new study.

(visit the link for the full news article)



This is really interesting news Skyfloating,
strrd and flggd.
Another peace of our history puzzle?
First thought; Floods.
I go find out but that take some time as you know.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
to state the blindingly obvious the pyramids are mostly constructed from limestone blocks

and the sphinx too is carved from limestone bedrock

to further state an obvious fact - limestone is a sedimentrary rock laid down aeons ago

i live surronded by limestone quarries - and climb on them regularly - limestone is peppered with fossils

and to be honest - if the blocks contained no fossilized shels - then that would be strange

but at the moment - i am at a loss to see what is newsworthy about this


as for davidovits - he is to put it bluntly - an idiot his ` geopolymer ` nonsense is UTTER TWADDLE



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I have also heard a little of the theory that the building blocks of the pyramids were cast. Seems rational explanation to me. The great wall of china is still standing today, from what Ive read, because of the rice flour mixed in the mortar sets like concrete, and the design of the wall it self is like a giant long pyramid in that the bricks were stepped up and down all the way a long, just like a pyramid.It really is all very interesting, moving a carved rock, wieghing many, many tonnes, or simply pouring the mixture in? they were after all, somehow, placed in position, perfectly, all the way up....
Also, I think limestone shatters really easily, is that true?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
When i went to Luxor I was picking up sea shells on the top of the hills everywhere!



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
To all the posters who say fossil imprints are nothing unusual:

We´re talking about marine fossils here. And that is noteworthy...

...because it points to the whole place having been underwater at one time (as seashells are not only found within the structures but spread across the desert as the poster before me also says).



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
If true, there is going to have to be some serious work done for an accurate representation of the egyptian landscape for the school books.

It always brings a smile to my face when humanity realises it got something wrong.

Interestingly, when i did a bit of research on the topography of the area, a large portion libyan desert seems to be below sea level - perhaps that would mean that a part of the sahara was infact at one point underwater (or perhaps marshland or something).

starred.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyfloatingWe´re talking about marine fossils here. And that is noteworthy...


i do not mean to be rude - but no it bloody is not

as i stated previously - limestone is a sedimentary rock , please read the links - they explain alot

so the absence of fossils would be unusual thier presence is expected -


...because it points to the whole place having been underwater at one time (as seashells are not only found within the structures but spread across the desert as the poster before me also says).


and ?

unless you are claiming that the giza playea was flooded AFTER the building of the pyramids

my answer again - is that the limestone bedrock is a sedimentray rock that must have been formed when the area was under water

so what is your point ??

PS - do you have any idea how much of the world has been under water @ some point ?

the boneville salt flats ?

the himalayas ? - there are MARINE fissils @ altutudes upto 10 thousand feet

the giza plateau having once been under water - is neither note worthy , contrevertial or

as - like stated previously - it must have been to have sedimentary bedrock

so unless you are claiming that it was submerged after the pyramids were built - i do not see your point

PS - the shells are part of the limestone blocks - not loose inside the pyramids


[edit on 29-4-2008 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


It took awhile, but I now understand your point. The stone itself is formed underwater.

But why would it be unusual that the place was flooded after the pyramids were built? (Because thats what I am implying here)



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


it is true - limestone does regularly contain an abundance of fossils

NOTHING in the history books will change - yes egypt was once under water - the presence of sedimentary rocks proves this

it always makes me cringe when people fail to grasp basic science



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
In my last post I was beginning to nod in agreement with you...until I read this sweeping generalization:



Originally posted by ignorant_ape

NOTHING in the history books will change









[edit on 29-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Right-o.

Perhaps instead of history i should have said geology, if i wanted to be all technical about it.

p.s; no need to cringe - it does your neck no good.

Perhaps you failed to notice that i began my post with the word If, which is of course said to be the biggest word in the English language.

Which do you think is more important then, technicalities, or paying attention to what people are saying?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
To all the posters who say fossil imprints are nothing unusual:

We´re talking about marine fossils here. And that is noteworthy...

...because it points to the whole place having been underwater at one time (as seashells are not only found within the structures but spread across the desert as the poster before me also says).



Well of course it was underwater millions of years ago - how else would the limestone which was used to build the pyramids have formed?

The rock from which the Sphinx is carved, and which provided the quarries for the pyramids, dates to the Eocene - around 50 million years ago.

Limestone forms in warm, shallow, seas and is often full of shells and other fossils .....


Edit: the presence of shells and other fossils in the blocks forming the pyramids, and which match those found in the quarries, provides strong evidence against the claims that the pyramid blocks were made from cement
I note also that the original news story does clearly state that these shells are found in the limestone and date to the Eocene.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Essan]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join