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.

 

Questions about Egyptian pyramids

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I have a few questions for the archeologists amoung us, about the Egyptian pyramids.

I watched many docu's and short movies about them, though some seem to contradict the other.
for ex:
one docu states that it IS known how the pyramids where build, how many people it took and how much time to build, they even show the layout of the workers villages, they know where the stones came from and how they got on top of the pyramids.

another docu states that these things are not at all known, that there is no current modern building that is as accurately build as the pyramids and that it would be impossible to carry those large blocks of stone, let alone for a 'worker' to carry them hours a day.

One docu states that there are 'lists' found, which describes the structure of a working ground around a pyramid, even that they contain names of workers, ranks, etc...

Another docu says that it is completely unknown who build it... no lists.

so which one is it??
All docu's seem convincing.. but then again, even speculation can be convincing


and oh, one more question:
I saw in a Youtube move that one of the above mentioned lists, contains the name of the "architect" of a certain pyramid (not sure which one). This name is said to also appear in the Quoran.
If anyone could tell me that name I would highly appreciate it.

thanks




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Maybe it was Imhotep? He built step pyramide complex. Do not know about Koran.
www.touregypt.net...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Erich von Dänicken sayes no instructions were ever found on who when or why and how they built the piramides.

Thats why scientists have theory's like the cutting of stones with coper tools or the forming of the stones by means of actually making a cement like brew that was pored into forms.

There is no concensus and I believe neither is right, the piramides like many other structures are way to crazy to be carved out by people of such "primitive" nature. Scientists are picky they credit the egyptians for making these huge structures yet when it comes to flying discs and the sons of god they think its a figment of the imagination.

science is very weird in this subject



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I have also seen the documentary where the unpopular Hawaas said he found a settlement near the great pyramid and that it proves that workers built it. There was a lot of evidence in that doc but I don't trust Hawaas (sp).

They do not know but speculate. IMO



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
This is the Lies in our history, you see, it is all wrong.
I think it dont add up at all, and are made to give use a history, after all, what are they to say when a person asks: hey, what did we do 1000 years ago ??
Then they need a story to tell...

In the days of the Pyraminds are supposed to be built, the tools that are said they used doesnt even scratch the stones, how did they cut them out with tools that does not even leave tool marks on them ???

Just pure BS, some one is lying big, and I think they are loosing their grip , it is going to be clear , real soon...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
btw a litle example on how archeologists are, they find some sort of statue thing with a name ingraved on it and say that this name represents the person that wanted the piramides to be built, this "farao" is never talked about anywhere else.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cindymars
I have also seen the documentary where the unpopular Hawaas said he found a settlement near the great pyramid and that it proves that workers built it. There was a lot of evidence in that doc but I don't trust Hawaas (sp).

They do not know but speculate. IMO


Just because they found mass grave sights near the piramides does not mean they were made by people, the only tools they had at the time were made out of coper and scientists claim that they carved the rocks out with coper tools. Scientists also claim that they had perfect geometry and math. you should listen to nasim haramin on this subject. For all the stones to be perfect there was almost no margin for error and you believe that thousands of people worked with large blocks cut with coper tools and to a perfection which we today couldn't do?

I mean these people are sick in the head



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Doesn't scratch the stone, ha? "Bronze age" name is just for fun then. They clearly could not scratch the stone. Chisels from bronze,copper or even harder stones were only for ornamental purposes....
nefertiti.iwebland.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I believe you might enjoy the writings of Christopher Dunn. He's done alot of writing on the pyramids and Giza Complex. He is part of the "new paradigm" of Egyptologists.

There's a huge rift between old school and new evidence people.

John Anthony West, Andrew Collins and Graham Hancock are a few more to read.

New paradigm, but highly respected and their theories are more believeable to my ears. I've been reading about the pyramids for over 30 years...and these guys are good.

Happy reading.

And there are no simple answers to your questions. You need to know some stuff before you decide what to believe.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Doesn't scratch the stone, ha? "Bronze age" name is just for fun then. They clearly could not scratch the stone. Chisels from bronze,copper or even harder stones were only for ornamental purposes....
nefertiti.iwebland.com...


Sounds good this, but the Docu I saw, there were like 4 people trying to make marks on the stones at baalbek, they made none, maybe the video lied and not this link .. ?? Im just asking !



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Off course video ,hmmm, did not show the truth. Water eats through stone. You think that skilled Egyptian stone workers could not cut stone using bronze tools? Especially considering that for as least early pyramids limestone was used? I leave in area with lot of limestone , and you can break it with another stone without any real effort. Cutting it with appropriate tools is not hard. Greeks/Romans cut marble. Or those statues are also fake?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Oh my a lot of woo in all of that

What we do know

The Pyramids (all of the ones in Egypt) were built by the Egyptians. Where there is not full concensus is the method.

Some notes:

Limestone is easily cut by copper tools, for those who like to read books here is a cite. There is complete concensus on this except by fringe believer who refuse to take a copper tool and try it on limestone. Its an easy experiment. Now harder stone can only be shaped by a harder stone.

Comments on stone cutting

The workers village was found and uncovered int he 1990s, it was the place the workers lived while building the pyramids-you can find mention of it by people other than Hawass. Plus such villages have been found for other pyramids besides the Giza. Deir el-Medina was the name

Workers village

Deir_el-Medina

It is interesting to note the use of pyramid shaped tombs by the elite of the workers

What we don't know:

How long exactly it took
How many people were involved - but the worker villages give a clue
Or how exactly they moved all the stone or organized the work.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The enduring question of the pyramids, particularly the "Great Pyramid" is not what stands before us to this day. It's what isn't there.

Kufu had this monument built, using thousands of people, spending vast amounts from the treasuries. A tomb to carry him into the afterlife, one of the most important, if not the most important, act one could do in this world.
Yet, his name appears only once, scrawled in a remote area, in the writing of a common worker. What?????

No paintings, statues or chiseled reliefs. Not even a cap to the stone sacoficus.

Surely all this would have been started as soon as that part of the chamber was available to work on. And this being a work of great passion, it would have been glorious.

How many times do we actually ponder, not on what is there, but what is not that should be?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Another thing to consider.

Most if not all pharaohs had a treasure/positions room. In the great pyramid is this suppose to be the "queens" chamber? If not then we haven't found it yet.





posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Howdy



The enduring question of the pyramids, particularly the "Great Pyramid" is not what stands before us to this day. It's what isn't there.


Hans: It was subjected to over 4,500 years of looting and souvenior collecting-we're lucky the Romans and Arab didn't completely disassemble it like they did the pyramid at Abu Roosh. There is evidence that there were wooden panels in the interior areas, which accounts for their rough state and of course most of the outer layer was removed - that which remains on the other pyramids is sans writing however.



The enduring question of the pyramids, particularly the "Great Pyramid" is not what stands before us to this day. It's what isn't there.


There were multiple mentions of his name amongst the graffiti of the work gangs. Not just one name, to include hieroglyphs that are 'cut-off' by being placed behind other rocks. These survived because they were found in modern times- yet the modern discovery still left the newly found area covered in Victorian grafitti



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I'm not saying that something does remain, however, so much does not make sense in that only a tiny portion of a percent remains inside. Those things that looters and collectors would have ignored are missing.
Europeans "stole" whatever they could and Museums around the world are full of it. Where is one little piece in a museum somewhere?

Not even a broken beer jar? How about roman graffiti? It's all over Roman controlled areas. They loved putting their names on stuff to leave behind the tales of their presence.

I'm not arguing that aliens built this place, or that some unknown peoples had something to do with it. What I am saying is that if a crime scene investigator was to sit down and go over all the evidence and history, they would be scratching their heads.

Somewhere, in Egypt or elsewhere in the world, something is waiting to point towards a hint to the answer.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Howdy

The tomb could be entered in ancient times and was robbed probably during one of the Egyptian break-down of authority/civil wars - if not by authority itself. The known entrance was jammed at some point after Herodotus visited in 450 BC during the domination of Egypt by the Persians. The Arabs bored in and re-opened the pyramid again in or around 820 AD.

Sites that have been open for thousands of years tend to be picked clean-but there were a few things found in the odd shafts and holes within the various pyramids.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
There's a lot of evidence around there, including some very ancient evidence. The pyramids have names and are referred to in inscriptions (the Great Pyramid is "Khufu's Horizon" (this is a rough translation -- it refers to the legend of the god Horus flying (as a falcon) to the horizon and suggests that Khufu is a god (this is a very very condensed version of a fairly complicated thing.))

By the time of Herodotus (2,000 years later) Khufu was a legend. It was Herodotus who identified the pyramid as Khufu's (according to the people of Cairo). His three wives were buried in the small pyramids next to it. One of his queen's sarcophagi was found in there, and another's mortuary temple is still there (she's referred to as Khufu's wife) : www.egyptvoyager.com...

So there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence (nobody else would have Khufu's wives buried around their own monument -- their wives would have had a royal fit or three) that balances out the Herodotus account as well as the graffiti and the titles of the people buried in the graveyards.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Tinman67
 

Hello Tinman,


Tinman: How many times do we actually ponder, not on what is there, but what is not that should be?


SC: You raise a very important issue here - let me throw in my tuppenceworth.

Consider the map of Giza below from the Giza Plateau Mapping Project:




Notice the 2 sets of 3 so-called 'Queens Pyramids' adjacent to G1 (Khufu's pyramid) and G3 (Menkaure's Pyramid). These structures were supposedly constructed as tombs for the various Queens of the King (including the Queen mom). Now, constructing pyramids for Queens was NOT the norm in Ancient Egypt - certainly buried in a mastaba tomb close to the King but NOT a pyramid. Khufu and Menkaure - for some reason - went against the norm. Why?

Now Khafre (centre pyramid, G2) had more Queens than any of the other Giza kings - 5 Queens in all, vis-a-vis:

Meresankh III
Khamernebti I
Personet
Heknuhezet
Hetepheres II (also married to Kawab, and Djedfre).

Now ask yourself the question - given the apparent custom (at Giza anyway) of constructing PYRAMID structures for the various Queens, does it make sense that Khafre should opt out of such a custom? Does it makes sense that Khafre would not honour his 5 Queens (and mom) in the same manner as was shown by his predecessor and his successor? Five Queens of Khafre and not ONE Queens Pyramid. Why?

The answer is very simple.

Whilst these structures may well have been 'appropriated' as Queens Pyramids by Khufu and Menkaure, their function is actually to present something much more important and significant - the 2 precessional culminations of Orion's Belt.

These culminations of Orion's belt are the pivotal moments in the 26,000 year cycle when the belt stars seem to slow in their long drift around the horizon, stop, change direction and drift around the horizon in the OPPOSITE direction. A very unique and significant moment indeed!

The culmination of the belt stars are essentially analoguous to the sun reaching its highest point in the sky - a unique moment when the sun is neither going up up nor going down - its zenith. The sun is climbing in the sky, stops, changes direction and then begins to descend. This is similar to the culmination of the belt stars and - incrdeibly - these 2 pivotal moments in this 26,000 year cycle of Orion's belt is presented to us by the placement of the 2 sets of Queens pyramids, thus:



You can see a Flash version here: The Precession of Orions Queens.

Now, since there are only TWO pivotal culminations of the Belt Stars (analoguous to Mid-day & midnight), this explains why there are no Queens pyramids at Khafre's pyramid - there are ONLY TWO culminations of the belt stars and so ONLY TWO sets of three Queens can be placed in the blueprint (and eventually built by the 4th Dyansty AEs) that correspond with these two very unique and pivotal moments.

And if anyone should at all doubt the Orion connection with the structures at Giza then they should also consider this:

The Giza-Orion Blueprint.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 27/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
just wanna say a quick thanks for all the information posted here , it'll keep me reading for a while



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join