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.

 

Pyramids of Giza- coverup

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





It is also twisting.


I assume by that you mean rotating, either clockwise or counterclockwise. Did anyone from the other site mention by how much?

cormac




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Its flexing as far as anyone can tell Cormac

But of course as I read more into this, i find no one is agreeing, it appears to be pivoting away from its collision point with the plate to the NE.

It is also thought that parts of Egypt are uplifting while others, are being trust down.

It would seem this is yet another area of discussion amongst geologists.

However the amount of movement in 4,500 years may mean a movement of only 58 arc seconds - while one site says 58 arc minutes (which is probably a mistake).

I think the bottom line is. Trying to line up to the north, is pointless and the only actual way to achieve such accuracy (if you really need it) is to use a movable base - which is our modern solution.

Lets not even BEGIN to get into limestone compressibility and expansive qualities.....(just kiding folks)



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Hi Hans,

This is why I am interested in the rotation of the African Plate. Many people tend to believe that the pyramids were constructed on a perfect north/south alignment. We know that the African plate is moving northeast at 2.15 cm/yr, however there are two other items to take into account.

1. How much of a rotation, clockwise or counterclockwise, does the African plate have?

2. Where was the magnetic North Pole, which is always moving, around 2500 BC?

Without an answer to these two questions, showing an exact match in conditions 4500 years ago, any "alignment" is just an interesting coincidence.

cormac



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I think the Egyptian did try to align the pyramids using basic tools to geographic north pole or more correctly to what they saw as the point at which the stars seemed to turn around.

They probably did pretty well the size of the error is about the size of a thick string held out at arms lenght - probably what they used to do the measuring. (1/20 of avg human finger held at arms lenght).

The question is of what value to them? Probably to allow future pyramids to be built facing in the same direction?

It was also probably used to coordinate the leveling, which was far more important and far more difficult.

So yeah, the Egyptians had no idea the continents were moving, IMHO, considering they didn't know what a continent was or that the earth was a spinning planet!



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
It may not be a cover up, the experts might just be that blind. If the Giza pyramid, earths most enduring, puzzling, and difficult to duplicate monument, points at north that precisely today, I imagine that means that this is what was planned to happen, for whatever reason. Once one delves deeply into the details of the pyramids features, it becomes clear that the builders incorporated details throughout it which are very precise, and also very complex. This fact is hard to explain. They chose to make it 200 times more precisely square than the average modern building, when that would be much harder, and invisible to the naked eye. The tier heights vary in a pattern which looks random, but is not so at all, and makes the pyramid far more quake prook than modern buildings using all blocks of the same size. It is not a tomb, and though we may be able to exactly replicate it today, I dont believe that we could do so using the same tools they were said to have used.
It is my feeling that it is millenia older than is claimed, and while humans built it, they were as advanced as us, if not more so, though in different ways.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Howdy BG13




It is not a tomb,


Why do you think that?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
The accuracy of AE in simple alignment can be explained, what is more challenging is to figure out how they levelled the sites so well?



Interesting discussion so far.


Wasn't the leveling accomplished by referring to and measuring from a small moat/ditch full of water parallel to the pyramids sides?

Still a viable option today.
I ended up leveling a site for a carport I'm building by digging a small ditch next to the foundation, filling with water and measuring from that.
Worked very well.


Granted, only a carport and nothing on the scale of the pyramids . . . then again, you can't park your car in the pyramids....




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Exactly right

It was a bit more difficult for the Egyptians as they had to level rock on a large site, one of which had to be cut down and at one or two others they had to build up one or two corners. I believe there accuracy was 2.1 cm. Which is excellent but then again some shifting may have occurred in the last 4.5k years.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Seems like there was some mention of smaller cross-site ditches full of water that were used to get the base proper level across the width and breadth.


A lot of the ancient weight moving devices and methods are still in use today.

More than a few times I watched crews bring in large electrical power station transformers by utilizing rollers (rounded log hardwood) to move it and block and tackle to help turn corners.

Amazing to watch what a half dozen guys could do with pinch-bars, pulleys ropes, rollers and other leverage methods.


Somewhere along the line I moved a medium size metal lathe into my shop by myself utilizing 1 1/2" hardwood dowels for rollers, a crowbar and the old mainsheet block and tackle from my sailboat.


I've found a Spanish Windlass valuable in some building situations as well.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I once had to move a four ton rectangular block about a 100 meters and I had a work force of grad students. We managed to do it but we took a lot of personal damage!



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy BG13




It is not a tomb,


Why do you think that?

I work in security, and generally speaking robbers do not sweep up after they are done. The first recorded entry past the blocks plugging the ascending passage claimed the upper area was totally clean. I do not like the theory that it is a decoy tomb. The best reason for the great pyramids creation, in my opinion, is as a monument to a great civilization which incorporated within it all of their knowledge and ability. Perhaps they saw the extinction level event approaching and wanted to leave a calling card in case they were wiped out.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   


The first recorded entry past the blocks plugging the ascending passage claimed the upper area was totally clean. I do not like the theory that it is a decoy tomb. The best reason for the great pyramids creation, in my opinion, is as a monument to a great civilization which incorporated within it all of their knowledge and ability. Perhaps they saw the extinction level event approaching and wanted to leave a calling card in case they were wiped out.


Howdy BG13

Ah you may have forgotten that in ancient times the pyramids were open and Mansun missed the old swiveling door which had jammed. The pyramid's original entry way was probably useable for thousands of years and the interior shows the traces of the tunnels dug to by pass the security plugs.

Extinction level event? I'm guessing but I don't recall mankind being wiped out in 2,500 BC. Could you clarify?

In AE, religion was key and life after death was the tune. Tomb were the thing they spent much of their time and effort on. Beside temples to the gods....and of coure irrigation channels.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I meant the 9500 BC cataclysm which Allen and Delair studied, which would mean the pyramids are far older than is claimed.

I agree with you on the main entrance, but I cannot see the tomb robbers cleaning up...



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I meant the 9500 BC cataclysm which Allen and Delair studied, which would mean the pyramids are far older than is claimed.

I agree with you on the main entrance, but I cannot see the tomb robbers cleaning up...


The 9,500 date appears to have effected NA only so I'm not sure why the Egyptians would have considered it. Of course in 9500 there were no Egyptians.

The neolithic farmers in the Nile valley show no sign of the type of organization you'd need to build a pyramid.

The robbers probably came in during one of the breakdowns of Egyptian society. When peace as restored the priests re took control and did what they could to resantify the robbed tomb.

Between construction in 2,500 and Herodotus visit is about 2,000 years so a lot could have happened in that time.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Video from FirstScience.tv, Ancient Egyptian electricity?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
...

...


Let me get this straight. In 30 hours of cutting, they managed to get 75 cm down? That's almost 30 inches, or 1 inch an hour. Assuming the blocks were 3 foot by 3 foot, that is 6 sides that have to be cut, for a total of 216 inches. At 1 inch an hour, that's 216 hours. That's 9 days per block. Estimates I have seen say that there are approximately 2 million of those blocks in the Great Pyramid.

That would be 18 million man-days (432 million man-hours) to create those blocks. I'll leave it to you to work out how many workers it would have taken JUST SAWING BLOCKS to do it in a "reasonable" amount of time.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]

[edit on 2-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Howdy sir chancealot

This isn't cutting limestone but one of the hardest granites.

The vast majority of stone used was soft limestone with some granite being used in the interior.

Think - lots of manpower and wet sand



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy sir chancealot

This isn't cutting limestone but one of the hardest granites.

The vast majority of stone used was soft limestone with some granite being used in the interior.

Think - lots of manpower and wet sand


Sorry, I had to edit my post. Please view the revised post.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Howdy Sir

ah you change the numbers. Please note that the diagram shows cutting into rose granite and not the limestone used for 99+% of the pyramids.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Sir

ah you change the numbers. Please note that the diagram shows cutting into rose granite and not the limestone used for 99+% of the pyramids.


Yes, I mistakenly thought they said 4 cm, instead of the correct amount.

Still, where are the experiments for cutting limestone rocks with copper and sand?

Another thought.... if this hypothesis is true, SOMEWHERE there is going to be an area with a LOT of copper content from the copper blades being worn out.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join