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.

 

Great Pyramid ~ East Wall QC art discovered ?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The second batch is as most posters hear had said already "More controversial than the first." But, in the Ba stet, I see more than just one or two images.
On the point above the image, I see a horses head in a downward position, and I see the entire shape of teh horse, though distorted, it does appear to be what looks like leg's in the center part of the anomaly that does, in my book anyway, look as if there was a rider on this horse I see.

I do , however see teh anomalies that are pointed out as well, but for the most part, the horse and the rider stuck out right away to me, even before the Ba stet conclusions of explanation.

Don't know, very interesting if these were found to be of a "Lost" generation of an even more "Ancient Egypt" than what is currently accepted archaeologically.

"My thoughts!!" IMHO....




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923

Don't know, very interesting if these were found to be of a "Lost" generation of an even more "Ancient Egypt" than what is currently accepted archaeologically.



If these paintings were found to be of a "Lost" generation of even more 'Ancient Egypt" than what is currently accepted archaeologically, what are these paintings doing in a Pyramid of a Lesser Antiquity??



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


My point exactly!!
There has been thoughts of the "Incorrect Dating of the Pyramids" theory for some time, and this would further support the notion.
As for the depictions of their being an earlier , lets say "Egyptian civilization" than what we currently know of, it would be earth shattering to the archaeological community, which would allow the knowledge books of the present to be rewritten into a proper format of how old the Egyptian civilization really are .
IMHO......



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Yes the fringe have maintained that based on what they been told by fringe writers that the pyramids are older than 'we' think. The only problem is they cannot produce evidence of who those builders. As the only evidence of the Ancient Egyptians are found in connection to the pyramids.

The patterns in the granite, if they are found to be artifical would still be part of the pyramid the Egyptians built.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Here's a cool article about prehistoric paintings
farectification.wordpress.com... ke-modern/

more about them here
www.pureinsight.org...



[edit on 13-1-2009 by Hollywood11]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
"No one really knows when the Pyramids were really built OR who built them. The Great Pyramid had been ascribed to Khufu only, because, his name was found in an obscure area of the interior. Otherwise the Pyramids are blank stone. "

-spartanx15

"Considering that history is distorted by those who win wars and rule to fit certain agendas, there is no way of telling when the pyramids were built...as already mentioned here."

-Skyfloating

*These two statements are totally accurate and I concur with both of them. I believe that this new discovery is further substantiation for the hypothesis put forth by these two members - that being the pyramids are older than we thought, or built by an culture that existed in Egypt and with which we are currently unfamiliar.

Imagine if 3000 years from now, 'Americanologists' were ascribing the railways, roads and skyscrapers to the American Indian.... Especially if an Indian's Name is found written on one of those skyscrapers. They'd be wrong to draw such a conclusion wouldn't they?

Of Course they would, but that doesn't seem to matter to mainstream Egyptologists.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Yes that cave had some fairly realistic pictures of people. The ability to do art has existed in mankind for quite some time.


Enhanced line drawing of some of the images from that cave. One question I would have is how the cave was dated. I didn't see any mention of dating in the 2002 study and in the late 30's it would have been guesstimate.













posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923
The second batch is as most posters hear had said already "More controversial than the first." But, in the Ba stet, I see more than just one or two images.
On the point above the image, I see a horses head in a downward position, and I see the entire shape of teh horse, though distorted, it does appear to be what looks like leg's in the center part of the anomaly that does, in my book anyway, look as if there was a rider on this horse I see.


There you hit on another point that I didn't cover in my posts: composition.

They didn't just paint a panel of rock "any old way". For each piece of art there is a theme or composition. Here what's being seen is "oh, there's a horse over there and an elephant over there and a sideways person there and an upside down hippo."

Rock art was always like a cartoon... with meaning and composition. Later artists might overpaint sections and change the composition but each section has its own logic.

If there is a trace of art in the QC, it should be similar to other ancient art: the oldest will be pecked into stone (not likely here, because these rocks were quarried and finished by pounding so any trace of inscribing will be gone on the inner facings.) If it was painted, then it would have been painted once (and not over generations).

It would have been a scene.

Paint has certain qualities, and one of these qualities is that it stains rock very permanently. We should see something other than black -- we should see red, which was popularly used.

Some of those marks may have been made from the lamps and candles of visitors from 1700-1900. The interior has had to have the soot cleaned away, if I recall correctly.

So... I don't see smears of red and I don't see any sign of a composition (I think that they certainly might have drawn on the rock to indicate what needs to be painted where... but the photos shown don't look like any pre-drawing.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


IT'S RIGHT BEFORE YOUR NOSE...

www.dailymotion.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Someone saved the original images in the link of the OP?
I did... but cant find them anymore... *sigh*

Thank you!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lunica
 


Howdy Lunica

Looks like the original poster of the thread at the Hall of Ma'at Pistol may have delete the pictures or their is a temporary disruption. You could go to the Hall of Ma'at and ask Pistol if he has those pictures.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Still no luck. I emailed some around, but never have some sort of reaction.

So again


Who has got copies of the original photos which where presented? Here

Please give me a U2U. Thanks!!

Greetings lunica




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join