A new idea on how the pyramids were constructed

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
very interesting stuff. seems like a little bit of ship jumping going on by someone, won't say who.

hans do the workers camps mention cheops anywhere or is this strictly a howard vyse phenomenon?

i think the construction of the pyramids is important but not so much as the attitude of the leaders at the time. i'd hate to think they sucked as bad as today's leadership. but enough pie in the sky,




posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
1.So your proofs are biblical then? No hard evidence at all. Sad

2.No Flood-we’ve known that for 150 years Ivan a bit backward are we?

3.You do know Ivan that the outer layer of the pyramids were removed, it is not known if the small concavity (which is missing on one side) was reflected in the outer mantle

4.The earth’s orbit hasn’t increased by 5.25 days in 1,300 years Ivan. At that rate it would spin off into space.....oh no, don’t tell me your a YEC’er?

5.Eusibius quotes an Egyptian historian named Manetheo who attributes construction to the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings who came from Arabia. Wow, I love to see the quote of that from the primary source....do you do cites Ivan?

6.A generation later the Egyptians reverted to paganism......evidence?



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by IvanZana
 



You seem to have developed the 'I know everything disease'. So how do you account for the C-14 dates - let me guess you dismiss them with the Ivan intellect?



Are you really that dim? c-14 tests?


One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis).
en.wikipedia.org...


Your fuzzy logic would make sense if the pyramids were built from plants and we know they are not HAN.


If I find an ancient burried structure and i droppped my leather wallet or another organic material and then died. 2000 years in the future when they find that old structure and my wallet, is the structure as old as my wallet? c-14 says so.

Research, research han.





[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mozzy
very interesting stuff. seems like a little bit of ship jumping going on by someone, won't say who.

hans do the workers camps mention cheops anywhere or is this strictly a howard vyse phenomenon?

i think the construction of the pyramids is important but not so much as the attitude of the leaders at the time. i'd hate to think they sucked as bad as today's leadership. but enough pie in the sky,


Menkaure is mentioned, some of the gangs named themselves after him, one group called themselves "drunkards of Menkaure"

No the workers marks are original, Sitchin attempt to discredit them was dismissed decades ago.

Oh you mean Ivan? Mr. No evidence? Yes he's the cost of doing discussions in an open forum. The old, I have no evidence so I'll try to cover it up by denying everything technique.....it is hilarious.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
you should appreciate hole punchers. at the least it'll give you something to do.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   


If I find an ancient burried structure and i droppped my leather wallet or another organic material and then died. 2000 years in the future when they find that old structure and my wallet, is the structure as old as my wallet? c-14 says so.


No you'd have to burn it, mix it with gypsum mortar, place it into places that were covered by other stones. Then people would have to come thousands of years later and pry it out.

Your explanation of why the C-14 dates from numerous sites around and on the Giza pyramids point to the Egyptians making them? That and all the pottery shards and everything else....so where is the evidence for these other guys?


Do you have any evidence at all or is it all denial and bluster? LOL



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Originally posted by Mozzy

Oh you mean Ivan? Mr. No evidence? Yes he's the cost of doing discussions in an open forum. The old, I have no evidence so I'll try to cover it up by denying everything technique.....it is hilarious.



The only thing hillarious is your logic and lack of understanding in science, nature, archaeolgy, history and most of all common sense all while trying to pass yourself off as knowledgable.
Can you say pseudo-intellect?

I dont claim to know it all. I just have an intelligent open mind.

You flat-earthers are still breeding? jk, lighten up





[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


Yes it's fun the first 243 times.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   


The only thing hillarious is your logic and lack of understanding in science, nature, archaeolgy, history and most of all common sense all while trying to pass yourself off as one.


Hans: Really? Then how come I can post evidence and all you can do is weakly deny it? Still waiting for you post actual hard evidence. Do you want some help?



Can you say pseudo-intellect?


Hans: Yes you do seem to be one –if you minus the second word, but why admit it? Why don't you try calm rational discussion??



I dont claim to know it all.


Hans: Then how do you reject everything without actually reading or understanding it? Are you guessing.



I just have an intelligent open mind.


Hans: No I'm afraid not Ivan you are showing an extremely closed mind, sad



You flat-earthers are still breeding?


Hans: I only see one guy here who is not considering evidence, that’s you Ivan. How long do you think this aggressive bluster will get you? Tie down the ego and try posting constructive messages



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
is now a good time for topic change?

what about the grand gallery? are those "burn" marks in there or what?



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


Can you post an image of what you mean Mozzy? If you mean the soot marks they come from the various torches and fires that were lite in post AE days (Afaik)



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mozzy
is now a good time for topic change?

what about the grand gallery? are those "burn" marks in there or what?


There has been some stories claiming the grand gallery was covered in some reflective surface? Stories claim the great pyramid was bright inside.

The THEORY that the pyramid was built as a resting place for a dead guy doesnt hold much water.

The only inscription from the claimed pyramid builders are a series of hand written graphitti above the kings chamber. No hieroglyphs. Mabey there were hieroglyphs in the main gallery or elsewhere but could of been looted and stripped. Who knows.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Here is the grand gallery.

As you can see on the left along the wall there is holes where something could of been propped up like decorative walls or reflective surface.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Ah Ivan



The only inscription from the claimed pyramid builders are a series of hand written graphitti above the kings chamber. No hieroglyphs.


You forgot that its a plural, there are inscriptions. No hieroglyphs?? Then how are they written? Egyptians developed a cursive, looser form in which to write more casually, the graffiti was still hieroglyphs just a modified version.

What contra-evidence do you have that the pyramids were built not as a Tomb - anything at all?



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   


this is one, just pulled off the top of the list at google. i've seen others that had burns on the sides if i remember right. at work so not much time.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


In some of the rooms there is evidence that the wooden panels there were removed - which accounts for no decorations or carvings in those rooms. As to what those might be in the grand galley, I've never seen any definite association of them. It (afaik) not clear when they were made.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I go with the Shem idea personally and it is interesting tat the Great Pyramid is NOT a burial chamber and never had a capstone... This would line up with the Bible saying Jesus was the Cornerstone (capstone) and would explain why it was left off.

On another point I think this could be, (MIND YOU I SAID COULD BE) an example of the Eternal city that Christ will bring down when he splits the Mount of Olives. The description fits two objects and two objects only... Square or Pyramid, see if you agree

The eternal city will be as described in the KJV of the Bible as "as long as it is high as it is wide".

I see this as only a Square or a Pyramid to fit those dimensions and I believe Shem built this for that reason and left the capstone for Christ.

Just my opinion, but I most closely agree with IvanZana and think the posts are worth some thought... Star for you IvanZana!



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
it jsut goes to show there's never a time like now to drag jesus into the middled of something. way to go.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


One can drag in other religions at any time. But when dealing with the AE you have to deal with their religion which was the center point of their lives.

No ancient author has noted that the pyramids weren't completed (no top) one can assign X-tian symbolism to AE but you always have to remember that the AE weren't aware of those concepts. The one Roman copy was completed with an apex-as were the Nubian ones.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Ah Ivan



The only inscription from the claimed pyramid builders are a series of hand written graphitti above the kings chamber. No hieroglyphs.


You forgot that its a plural, there are inscriptions. No hieroglyphs?? Then how are they written?


I forgot that you were here han, I have to break it down a little bit for you to comprehend.

What I meant by hieroglyphs is the carved permenant variety found around egypt and not the magic marker variety found above the kings chamber. I was going more for •The Egyptian picture language. From the Greek word meaning "sacred carving".




This picture is of the only hieroglyphs found at the great pyramid. Too bad its only on the outside.

As far as the 'hieroglyphs' above the kings chamber was written in ink or something. Like a magic marker.



Within its walls no hieroglyph proclaims the name of the architect and no cartouche celebrates the life of the pharoah for whom it was built. When the caliph Mamum forced his way in over a thousand years ago, he found no record of who had built the massive structure. Not in the Subterranean Chamber, nor the so-called Queen's Chamber or even in the much-vaunted King's Chamber. Not until 1837 did any marking or identifier turn up within the pyramid's walls, and only then deep inside the secret relieving chambers which keep the pyramid's bulk from crushing the flat roof of the King's Chamber. Many alternative researchers believe that these marks were faked to bolster the traditional identification of Khufu with the Great Pyramid. The first relieving chamber came to light in the 18th century, as Martin Stower says in Forging the Pharoah's Name
jcolavito.tripod.com...

The four remaining compartments were discovered by Colonel Howard Vyse, and his assistants, in 1837; ... they had been sealed since the pyramid was built, and were reached only by tunnelling; this was done by hired quarrymen, using gunpowder."

Some scholars and intellects argues that they were forged by Vyse and his assistants in the hope of gaining fame and fortune. He claims that the hieroglyphs are ungrammatical and misspelt (with the sign for 'ra', the supreme god of Egypt, being written instead of 'kh'), that the cursive script in which they were written dates from a later era, and that they were copied (complete with mistakes) from standard contemporary works on hieroglyphics. This argument has been repeated by several other writers, including Graham Hancock (though he has since rejected the forgery theory), Eric von Däniken, and Colin Wilson."
jcolavito.tripod.com...

And to han. I didnt not live in those time and neither did you so of course alot of this discussion is speculation built on evidence that we have at this time. Dont let your hatred for Jesus or a greater power cloud your sense of reason and intellect.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join