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.

 

Pyramid warning?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Here's an article I first read about 1997. I think there is a lot of truth in it.
Many researchers claim there is a city under the Giza plateau.

www.bethcoleman.net...

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Sargoth]




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sargoth
 


Hans: you might find it instructive to look up the water level at the Giza plateau



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Come on Hans. Have you looked at all the sites? Elaborate as best you can. I respect your opinions. I know I won't agree with many of them but I still want to hear what you think.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Sargoth]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Sargoth]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Sargoth
 


Howdy Sargoth

Traveling now and with limited time. If you check you'd find that the water table is rather high there. If there were tunnels there they are flooded.

I've seen similar websites before and I remember the name Hurtak.

At this time to much BS to wade thru to find any pearls. Cormac and Harte are the guys to ask and Byrd. See ya in two weeks



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Well I dont know about all that math, but my kids and I all got the same idea at the same time to build pyramids for our garden this year, we have one up already and plan to make several more.

i want to take copper and crystals to hang from the centers to help the plants grow better as well as ground the earths energy right now which is what I suspect the pyramids are all about anyway.

Plants and animals are much more sensitive to the subtle energies of the world we live in, take for example all of the beachings and strandings of the oceanic creatures since shortly before 911. I do not believe it is going to get better in the near future and this is just my little experiment to see if we can find a balance of harmony for this spot on the planet.

if there are extremes in temperature I can help the plants by wrapping plastic or material for heat, drought or even sun spot activity which may begin to spark up this summer. they are very very sturdy and withstood high winds with no problems already and are moveable.

There is something to the shape of the pyramid, it resonates with a higher vibrational frequency and I believe creates a direct connection from the higher dimensions and aids in bringing them into this earthly plain.

Interesting thing, the pryamid shape when you start working with it in a fundamental everyday way, I reccomend it.

We plan to build a really big one somewhere on the property to just go hang out in and for meditation.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

Hello Harte,


SC:
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harte: The Egyptians had two measures, hands (or fingers) and cubits, that they used to measure angles. Angles were measured similar to the way we measure slopes today. The Egyptians built the Great Pyramid at an angle of 22 hands up for every cubit in. A cubit to them equaled 28 hands. They always measured angles as number of hands up versus one cubit in.

Every single pyramid that remains together enough to measure has been shown to measure at a slope that is a whole number of hands up per 28 hands (one cubit) in.

SC: The AE had a number of intermediary measures from their base unit of digits and palms, to wit:

4 digits equaled a palm, 5 digits a hand.

12 digits, or three palms, equaled a small span.

14 digits, or one-half a cubit, equaled a large span.

16 digits, or 4 palms, made 1 t'ser.

24 digits, or 6 palms, were a small cubit.

28 digits made a Royal Cubit.



Harte: Thanks for correcting my misplaced nomenclature.

Please allow me to point out that, since the royal cubit was used, my argument of ratios still stands.


SC: No it doesn't. You are arguing that a whole number was used. Seked 5.5. is NOT a whole number of palms. A whole number of palms (4 digits) would give multiples of 4,8,12,16,20, 24,28 digits: 1 cubit. The Great Pyramid, for example uses seked 5.5 i.e. 5 palms and 2 digits. I don't see what is "whole" about 1 royal cubit rise to 5 palms and 2 digits run. Why the odd 2 digits? Why not just a nice round 5 palms run (or 6 palms)? There is no practical reason for such an unusual selection of seked which has brought a number of commentators to consider that the angle of slope of 51.84* was the underlying design imperative. The desired angle of slope resulted in the "odd" (as opposed to "whole") seked number that was used i.e. 5.5.

The height can be derived from the chosen base, angle of slope and Phi (1.618) thus:

Solve for G1 (Khufu)

Side 1 = 440 cubits (base)

Side 2 = Slope (Hyotenuse) = 440/2 = 220 * 1.618 = 355.96 cubits.

To solve now for G1 height (i.e. side 3) as follows:

Side 3 = Square Root of (355.96² - 220²)
Side 3 = Square Root of (126707.52 - 48400)
Side 3 = Square Root of (78307.52)
Side 3 = 279.83 cubits (i.e. the height of G1).

Regards,

Scott Creighton

PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

[edit on 9/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



[edit on 9/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Good thread, lots of information here! Some I haven't read. One thing hasn't been mentioned. This is a theory of mine only, and keep in mind I am no math whiz. It is known that the Earth is slightly off balance, and "wobbles" in it's axis. I think that in ancient times, such as when the first space explorers came here, the Earth was really in a wobble, and difficult to live on, so, here is the theory; The Pyramids were built and placed to balance out the wobble. This makes sense to me, with the placement all over the planet. I also tend to think the Giza Pyramid doubled as an artificial mountain, and was part of a landing corridor for incoming spacecraft.
There is an old saying..."All things fear time, but Time fears the Pyramids."



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargoth
Here's an article I first read about 1997. I think there is a lot of truth in it.
Many researchers claim there is a city under the Giza plateau.
www.bethcoleman.net...
[edit on 7-4-2009 by Sargoth]


So what happened to those excavations, i havent found anything on the web related to the below statement, there is a reference to Dr. Hurtak making a movie but he is a "social scientist, comparative religionist" according to wikipedia and not an archaeologist. I tend to look a lot at Zahi Hawass site for updates on the egyptian pyramids (www.drhawass.com...), anywhere else you can recommend ?


In similar fashion, the SIRA radar was deployed in Egypt as early as 1978, mapping an extraordinary subterranean complex beneath the Egyptian pyramids. Arrangements made with President Sadat of Egypt, resulted in three decades of top secret excavations to penetrate the system.


Regards,



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Err, Scott...


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: No it doesn't. You are arguing that a whole number was used. Seked 5.5. is NOT a whole number of palms. A whole number of palms (4 digits) would give multiples of 4,8,12,16,20, 24,28 digits: 1 cubit. The Great Pyramid, for example uses seked 5.5 i.e. 5 palms and 2 digits. I don't see what is "whole" about 1 royal cubit rise to 5 palms and 2 digits run. Why the odd 2 digits? Why not just a nice round 5 palms run (or 6 palms)? There is no practical reason for such an unusual selection of seked which has brought a number of commentators to consider that the angle of slope of 51.84* was the underlying design imperative. The desired angle of slope resulted in the "odd" (as opposed to "whole") seked number that was used i.e. 5.5.


May I gently remind you that you're doing all this math on a pyramid whose outer casting was planned AND has been stripped away? We don't know the exact-to-the-inch finished dimensions.


The height can be derived from the chosen base, angle of slope and Phi (1.618) thus:


Which is not a number that the Egyptians could derive, if you remember. No decimal points.



Solve for G1 (Khufu)

Side 1 = 440 cubits (base)

Side 2 = Slope (Hyotenuse) = 440/2 = 220 * 1.618 = 355.96 cubits.


And there's actually (in the cubit system) no way of measuring .04 cubits. So it's not convincing until you can show the math in cubits and palms and fingers and so forth.



PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:


I'll bite. Show me how they did the inverse of a function using palms, cubits, fingers and so forth.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Thanks you for your reply.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton

SC: No it doesn't. You are arguing that a whole number was used. Seked 5.5. is NOT a whole number of palms. A whole number of palms (4 digits) would give multiples of 4,8,12,16,20, 24,28 digits: 1 cubit. The Great Pyramid, for example uses seked 5.5 i.e. 5 palms and 2 digits. I don't see what is "whole" about 1 royal cubit rise to 5 palms and 2 digits run. Why the odd 2 digits? Why not just a nice round 5 palms run (or 6 palms)? There is no practical reason for such an unusual selection of seked which has brought a number of commentators to consider that the angle of slope of 51.84* was the underlying design imperative. The desired angle of slope resulted in the "odd" (as opposed to "whole") seked number that was used i.e. 5.5.

Byrd: May I gently remind you that you're doing allthis math on a pyramid whose outer casting was planned AND has been stripped away? We don't know the exact-to-the-inch finished dimensions.


SC: You can be as gentle as you wish, Byrd. It does not alter one iota the fact that with casing or without casing, the angle of inclination of the pyramid remains the same. The height is easily determined from the angle of inclination and the base.


SC: The height can be derived from the chosen base, angle of slope and Phi (1.618) thus:

Byrd: Which is not a number that the Egyptians could derive, if you remember. No decimal points.


SC: You miss the point, Byrd. Let me make it clearer – we are discussing RATIOS, PROPORTIONS. I use our number notation system in order that readers here at ATS can easily understand what I am saying since it is a number system they are familiar with. If I had expressed these values in the number notation of the AE, very few on this board would have understood the significance of what was being presented. It matters not what number system we work with, the RATIOS are exactly the same.


SC: Solve for G1 (Khufu)

Side 1 = 440 cubits (base)

Side 2 = Slope (Hyotenuse) = 440/2 = 220 * 1.618 = 355.96 cubits.

Byrd: And there's actually (in the cubit system) no way of measuring .04 cubits. So it's not convincing until you can show the math in cubits and palms and fingers and so forth.


SC: Byrd – a base to height ratio of 440:280 (AE cubits) will create a fractional hypotenuse value as a natural consequence of the height to base ratio involved, entirely irrespective of the measurement system in use.


SC: PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:

Byrd: I'll bite. Show me how they did the inverse of a function using palms, cubits, fingers and so forth.


SC: Using a set-square.



(Mod Note: Image from my own web site.)

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 10/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   


SC: You miss the point, Byrd. Let me make it clearer – we are discussing RATIOS, PROPORTIONS.


Oh no. I got that just fine. My question is, what's the command given to the quarrymen and stone dressers and so forth that tells them whether they're on track? And how do you know that they were trying for this ratio instead of nice round numbers?

How would they measure something that was .04 off of a full cubit when that point was hundreds of feet above their heads? They didn't have trigonometry and didn't use sextants.


SC: Byrd – a base to height ratio of 440:280 (AE cubits) will create a fractional hypotenuse value as a natural consequence of the height to base ratio involved, entirely irrespective of the measurement system in use.


Yes. I have enough math that I know this.


SC: PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:


Byrd: I'll bite. Show me how they did the inverse of a function using palms, cubits, fingers and so forth.


SC: Using a set-square.



Uhm... Scott, your drawings are creative and filled with symbols, but that's not what a set square looks like. This is what one looks like:
www.touregypt.net...

It's used to find a true perpendicular.

Assume I'm a very dimwitted foreman who must find the "Inverse of the Queen's chamber shafts". I would dearly love to know how you propose that I use that tool to find an "inverse."



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by reugen
So what happened to those excavations, i havent found anything on the web related to the below statement, there is a reference to Dr. Hurtak making a movie but he is a "social scientist, comparative religionist" according to wikipedia and not an archaeologist. I tend to look a lot at Zahi Hawass site for updates on the egyptian pyramids (www.drhawass.com...), anywhere else you can recommend ?


Probably nothing has come of it. There are chambers and so forth, but the limestone wouldn't support an entire city under the place. It's too fragile... we'd have had the whole thing crashed into a pit by this time.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


SC: You miss the point, Byrd. Let me make it clearer – we are discussing RATIOS, PROPORTIONS.

Byrd: . My question is, what's the command given to the quarrymen and stone dressers and so forth that tells them whether they're on track?


SC: Give the site foreman one of these (below) and tell him/her to follow the red line. Simple.




Byrd: And how do you know that they were trying for this ratio instead of nice round numbers?


SC: Em - this was my original point. Why choose a seked such as 1 cubit rise to 5 palms and 2 digits run? Why work with part palm ratios? Why not 1 cubit rise to 5 or 6 palms run? This is what I am asking - it makes little practical sense from a building point of view. As David Furlong points out:


Whilst the use of the seked, as indicated in RMP, can be clearly perceived in the design of a number of pyramids it cannot be conclusively shown to have been used in all. It is most likely that variations were used for specific reasons. With very few exceptions the ratios do not fit with basic building practice which would normally prefer to work with primary palm ratios such as 7 to 5. Instead we find the use of part palm ratios in almost all known pyramids. The only conclusion is that the symbolism of the ratio was more important than the ease of building practice. As has been demonstrated sekeds of 5.25 and 5.5 incorporate the 3 : 4 : 5 triangle and a relationship to circle respectively. It is therefore likely that it was these symbolic or cultic aspects that were deemed to be important in the design of the pyramids. - David Furlong

Source: www.kch42.dial.pipex.com...


Byrd: How would they measure something that was .04 off of a full cubit when that point was hundreds of feet above their heads? They didn't have trigonometry and didn't use sextants.


SC: You're right - no trig, no sextants. So tell me - how did they measure the angles of inclination for the pyramid shafts? Get these wrong and poor old Khufu is off to the dark side of the moon instead of the Duat. Figure this out and you'll have your answer.


SC: PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:

Byrd: I'll bite. Show me how they did the inverse of a function using palms, cubits, fingers and so forth.

SC: Using a set-square.

Byrd: Uhm... Scott, your drawings are creative and filled with symbols, but that's not what a set square looks like. This is what one looks like:

www.touregypt.net...

It's used to find a true perpendicular.


SC: That's right. Now go use it.


Byrd: Assume I'm a very dimwitted foreman who must find the "Inverse of the Queen's chamber shafts". I would dearly love to know how you propose that I use that tool to find an "inverse


SC: Dimwitted? I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 10/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Many credit Sir Isaac Newton with discovering (or rediscovering) the unit of measure that many refer to as the “pyramid cubit”. Others attribute the discovery (or rediscovery) of the unit many call the “pyramid inch” or true earth inch to John Taylor and others attribute this to John Herschel. Regardless, all three came to almost the same conclusions through their own separate studies.

gp.reslight.net...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join