Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Ugly Little Question Orthodox Egyptology Cannot Answer

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder


My theory is no matter what point you choose, it is the center of the landmass of Earth. Even if it is out in the ocean.


[edit on 11-24-2009 by groingrinder]


Unfortunately your theory is wrong based upon the conditions set forth in Scott's argument.

Based upon the observation the following condition must be met:

Start from a point on a land mass and draw a straight line in the four cardinal directions, proceeding around the globe due north and due south. IF there is more earth and less sea in that meridian than in any other meridian all the equator round then your point of origin is at the center of all land mass.

It's simple really... no other spot on the planet meets those conditions.

BTW - Scott Creighton is a well known independant researcher in this field and has published at least one book that I know of; The Giza Oracle I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.






posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Coincidence?



Examinations carried out by NASA showed that the deformation resulted when, for example, a satellite in orbit is located exactly above the Giza Plateau and takes a photo of the Earth from there. NASA took some test pictures using orbiting satellites and their pictures were then compared with the Piri Reis map. It was conculded that the map was exactly worked and there was only a difference of 1°. This difference can be clarified because the map was copied by hand from older sources.

Source: Piri Reis Map



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
What I find intriguing is; how did the old Egyptians know that the British (several thousand years later) would put the meridian through Greenwich Observatory. Thus having the pyramids at Giza at 30 degrees longitude...making a perfect intersection at 30 degrees latitude.

I suspect a masonic-knights Templar-egyptian-babylonic secret society is behind this


It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to take over the world one day...


[edit on 24-11-2009 by Koyaanisqatsi]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
First off, I dont understand how this is the "center of the landmass of earth".
This seems to be a rather arbitrary and perspective related claim. you can't take a tennis ball, point to one part of its surface, and claim its the exact center of it. How does this even make sense? this is all arbitrary perspective.

also, how do we know the Egyptians weren't capable of calculating that "center of the earth"? I think its a rather disrespectful statement to say the people who probably built the pyramids couldn't calculate this.

"In the 200s BC, Eratosthenes figured out a very clever method for measuring the size of the Earth. He heard about a well in Syene (in modern Egypt) where the sunshine reached the bottom only at noon in the summer solstice. So he knew exactly when the sun was directly overhead. Further north in Alexandria he put a stick straight up in the ground and measured the angle of its shadow at that precise moment as 7.2°. It meant that the distance from Syene to Alexandria was 7.2/360 of the Earth's circumfrence. Since he knew this distance, he could compute the circumfrence as 39250km, a diameter of about 12500km.n the 200s BC, Eratosthenes figured out a very clever method for measuring the size of the Earth. He heard about a well in Syene (in modern Egypt) where the sunshine reached the bottom only at noon in the summer solstice. So he knew exactly when the sun was directly overhead. Further north in Alexandria he put a stick straight up in the ground and measured the angle of its shadow at that precise moment as 7.2°. It meant that the distance from Syene to Alexandria was 7.2/360 of the Earth's circumfrence. Since he knew this distance, he could compute the circumference as 39250km, a diameter of about 12500km. "

It seems to me if this could be done in the 200 BC's, identifying the center of the earth wouldn't be all that hard. That is, if anyone can explain to me how an ARBITRARY point of the surface of a sphere is its center.


So if you want to Wow the masses about ancient knowledge, Mr Creighton,
I would much rather recommend bringing up the Piri Reis Map.



For those of you who do not know about this map, it was compiled in 1513 By a Famous ottish/turkish Admiral, Piri Reis, from a batch of confidential military maps already in their posession. The funny thing about this map though is that is shows Antarctica, even though it wouldn't be discovered for another 300 years by the western world. And when I say Antarctica, I mean THE LANDMASS BURIED UNDERNEATH ITS MILE THICK ICE SHEET. Which we didnt even map until back in the 60's with ground penetrating radar.

MR Creighton, why are you trying to hide the Piri Reis map from the masses? What is your ulterior motive?

[edit on 11/24/2009 by VonDoomen]

[edit on 11/24/2009 by VonDoomen]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
For those that don't understand what is meant:

It means that it is the center of all landmass and all oceans if you would try to divide them in 4 equal parts of land- and water mass.
So the North Eastern part has the same amount of land- and water mass as the South Eastern, North Western and South Western parts in percentages.
There is only one spot on this planet where you can lay the center of those four equal parts and that is the Pyramid of Gizeh.

This is a FACT!


[edit on 24-11-2009 by Regenstorm]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
My thoughts were not of value adding to your quest.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by observe50]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Dear scott,

Great to hear from you, great discussion thread. I remember as a child someone pretending to care about what I thought about that same quote you provided from page 83 at the bottom of your thread. What memories.

My position has always been very simple. In order for anyone to continue with this study it is imperitive to archeologically find anything that would prove existence in north america or sout or central. The problem we are always faced with, for example like the temple mount, things are usually build ontop of anything destroyed or old.

It would be very difficult to go beneath the myan or incan cities archeologically in any form. The only things that anyone has really found in North America have been dinosaurs and prehistoric shark teeth.

To move on though scott, Recently a 10,000 year old weapons factory was found in britain. It went all the back to when britain wasn't in it's current position. Which brings me to my next point, and my position which has always been that maybe in Egypt or where the pyramids are might be a position which hasn't moved all that much at all, unlike britain, which if your go back even further, used to actually be part of new york, usa, or canada america.

My position to your post is simply Egypt hasn't budged much over time. Someone else replied with a good point about underwater topography as well.
The reason I brought it up was because prehistoric shark teeth are found in rock in north dakota or montana? There is a really interesting dvd on the Shark week 20th anniversary collection from the discovery channel series. I dont have a link but I think it's called Prehistoric Sharks.

My position scott, is our planet in like a top, that spins if you would on a point and Egypt has never been submerge in water, and furthermore may have been the first land to be above sea level at all, and has been ever since. It's the exact opposite of our earth's rotation, like every action has a reaction.

Thanx scott
Good luck in 2014




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by observe50
 


Excellent question, Star for you. I didnt even think of this.

You have to wonder how erosion, climate change, and ice ages plays into this math. It is well know that when the earth experiences Ice ages, and then the ice melts. You can get lakes of water trapped far above sea level.

an example of what Im talking about. They are called Glacial Lake Outburst Floods.

"The Missoula Floods (also known as the Spokane Floods or the Bretz Floods) refer to the cataclysmic floods that swept periodically across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Gorge at the end of the last ice age. The glacial flood events have been researched since the 1920s. These glacial lake outburst floods were the result of periodic sudden ruptures of the ice dam on the Clark Fork River that created Glacial Lake Missoula. After each ice dam rupture, the waters of the lake would rush down the Clark Fork and the Columbia River, inundating much of eastern Washington and the Willamette Valley in western Oregon. After the rupture, the ice would reform, recreating Glacial Lake Missoula once again. Geologists estimate that the cycle of flooding and reformation of the lake lasted an average of 55 years and that the floods occurred several times over the 2,000-year period between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago. U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Jim O'Connor and Center of Environmental Studies (in Spain) scientist Gerard Benito have found evidence of at least twenty-five massive floods, the largest discharging ~10 cubic kilometers per hour.[2] Alternate estimates for the peak flow rate of the largest flood include 17 cubic kilometers per hour[3] and range up to 60 cubic kilometers per hour.[4] The maximum flow speed approached 36 meters/second (130 km/h or 80 mph)"


I also watched an interesting History channel documentary about one of the largest glacial lake outburst floods ever discovered. It was in the area of turkey. In the show they were claiming this catastrophic flood, at the end of the ice age, could have been responsible for the "flood myth" as it was centered around the places where civilization started. The lake the burst was the size of multiple COUNTRIES, and was easily capable of affecting most of the known world.


[edit on 11/24/2009 by VonDoomen]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 517.101
Dear scott,

My position scott, is our planet in like a top, that spins if you would on a point and Egypt has never been submerge in water, and furthermore may have been the first land to be above sea level at all, and has been ever since. It's the exact opposite of our earth's rotation, like every action has a reaction.

Thanx scott
Good luck in 2014




More than likely, the least submerged part of earth would be Everest.

Secondly, theres lots of evidence that egypt has been submerged, even slight, a couple times. Just look at all the evidence on the net about flood damage to the sphynx.



reply to post by Anamnesis
 



And still, by stating this, you have shown that it is just an arbitrarily self chosen point.

Its easy to do stuff like this, when you set out arbitrary necessary starting conditions.

[edit on 11/24/2009 by VonDoomen]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
It would be astonishing if they knew this.

However, it is not astonishing because (of course) they didn't.

If they did, why didn't they ever say anything at all about it?

Is it some big secret?

That's an insane idea.

Harte



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


My simple problem with your idea is that you think they are th centre of the landmass. In ages past they wouldn't have been the centre. Many civilizations existed and it only stands to reason that one of them would have been correct at the time when they existed.

Look the egyptians were amazing for many reasons. They were one of the first civilizations who developed mass production, (for anyone who doesn't know this please review how they developed mass production of beads) but in the end when it comes to the pyramids being quite centered they were merely lucky.

I'm sure they lined things up with stars as they were keen star gazers and despite the greeks being credited with the first accurate measure of the planets circumference i just have this nagging feeling that the egyptians figured it out before hand. I have absolutely no evidence for this but i really believe that the egpytians wouldn't have overlooked this.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


It doesn't matter if Egyptian pyramids are the center of earths land masses, which many calculations say this was no random ground breaking shovel pant. The simple fact is... ancient Egyptians continue to be the "center of attention." The numero uno ancient culture. European scholars and debunkers will be scratching their heads till the cows come home to find out how and why these 10 thousand year + Africans were advanced beyond comprehension.

Egyptian people are a dark emigma of antiquity that continually haunts the concept of "intellectual superiority" on this planet... and some can't stomatch the facts.

S&F to you Sir.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by Level X]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


I'm not an expert on the subject but from what programs I have seen about the pyramids and what I have read no one has ever said that the egyptians meant to build it on the center of landmass. Maybe it just happened to be a coincidence. The odds of this coincidence are extremely unlikely but maybe it just happened to be one.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anamnesis
C'mon guys… read a little more and try to comprehend what is written.



The former Astronomer Royal of Scotland, Piazzi Smyth, in his book Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid (1880) writes that "...proceeding around the globe due north and due south of the Great Pyramid ... there is more earth and less sea in that meridian than in any other meridian all the equator round." (p. 89)

I read this and I understood it. The fact that there is more land mass there may explain why human civilization was concentrated there (more land = more resources; more resources = a better chance for survival). Also, if the human race started in Africa, it would also seem logical that human civilization would be centered near there. This could partly explain why human civilization in general (including the Egyptians) was concentrated in this part of the world.

I still feel (as I said above) they built the Pyramids in Egypt because they lived in Egypt, and they lived in Egypt because of the fertile farm land created by the annual flooding of the Nile River.

The upper Nile and the Tigris & Euphrates rivers were probably among the first places civilization took root (because of the fertileness of the land), so that's why civilization at those places was more advanced. The older the civilization, the more time to develop. There may have been areas just as fertile as the Nile and the "Fertile Crescent" of the Tigris and Euphrates, but those lands were perhaps settled later by the large populations of humans required to run a civilization. Later settlement = newer civilization; newer civilization = less time to advance and develop.

Now, if the case was that the Egyptians deliberately built the Pyramids 1000s of miles from their homes, then you may have the right for wondering why they did so. But they didn't. They built the Pyramids where they happened to be living.

It would be quite a coincidnece if their deliberate choice for "the center of land masses" just happened to be one of the most fertile and hospitable places in and around Africa.


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
This is beginning to frustrate....

I find it interesting that so many responders feel that the location of one of the greatest archetectural wonders that man has ever produced is mere coincidence.

There have been so many studies and peer reviewed papers written about the Pyramid at Giza. The information that Scott provided is not his original discovery, it has been known for several decades now.

It has been shown that the Great Pyramid is in fact a scale representation of the Earth, fom the alignment w/the cardinal directions, the heigth and mass proportionate to the planet. Even the sides are slightly concave to the degree of the circumference of the globe!!

Look it up!! There are volumes of data which support the claims!

...and why do some have trouble understanding that Scott is talking about the center of the Earth's land mass, not including the Ocean floors.

Honestly, I don't know why Scott keeps posting this info, it seems a waste of time as it falls on closed minds, blind eyes, and deaf ears.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anamnesis
...It has been shown that the Great Pyramid is in fact a scale representation of the Earth, fom the alignment w/the cardinal directions, the heigth and mass proportionate to the planet. Even the sides are slightly concave to the degree of the circumference of the globe!! ...


This only indicates that they knew where North, South, East, and West were, which could be found by tracking the Sunrise over 1 year's time,
--and--
that they knew the circumference of the Earth, which could be found by watching the Sun cast a shadow on sticks at different places. An ancient Greek named Eratosthenes figured out how to do this in 250 BC, and I assume the Egyptians could have done the same in 2500 BC. After all, the Egyptians were modern humans just like us, so they had the same brain and the same ability for critical thinking that we had, and that Eratosthenes had.

If Eratosthenes could figure it out, so could the Egyptians 2250 years before him.

As for the "proportionality of the mass to the earth's mass" -- that calculation mixes arbitrary human-created units (cubits and tonnes), thus is meaningless (just a coincidence).

That's just like the "cosmic coincidence" that some people have claimed that the perimeter of the Great Pyramid measured in inches (36,524 inches) is exactly a factor of 100 away from the length of a year measured in days (365.24 days). The "inch" is an arbitrary length made up by humans long after the Pyramids were built, and has no basis in nature. Therefore the relationship is pure coincidental...
...and even that isn't a great coincidence, because the TRUE mathematical perimeter of the pyramids is NOT 35,524 inches, but rather 36,279 inches. This takes into account the true mathematical design as intended by the architect (believed to be a man named "Hemiunu"), not the perimeter as it measures today. The people who claim that it measures 36,524 inches were probably "cutting some corners" (literally).

It's true that there ARE IN FACT real mathematical proportions in the design of the Pyramids -- but that's the nature of math. If the planners of the Pyramids used circles to inscribe or circumscribe the pyramid's shape (like designers/engineers often have in the past -- because the circle is an aesthetically pleasing shape to humans), then the size would naturally be proportional to a circle, without needing the knowledge of the value of "Pi". Pi is a real number, but you don't need to know it for its value to be included your design -- you just need to start with a circle (any circle). Any design that uses a circle to start with will have a relationship to Pi.
It's not a mystery -- "Pi" is a natural proportion, not a human construct.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Pyramids on the Giza Plateau were well-planned, especially after the hundreds of years of practice -- and some failures, such as the Bent Pyramid. The fact that they deliberately incorporated their knowledge of the Earth and Nature into these great buildings does not surprise me in the least.

However, that does not mean they had detailed knowledge of all of the land masses on Earth. I'll say it again because it is very important,:
they built the Pyramids along the Nile in Egypt because they lived along the Nile in Egypt.

That's a logical enough reason.


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
According to Thiaoouba, The Maya-Atlanteans had anti gravity techonology that is how they lifted the stones that build the pyramids. They cut them with Sonographic Technology. The pyramid was a giant tool that harnessed the earth and cosmic forces to broadcast the thought of the King and other initiates that would meditate in the highest antechamber. In meditation he could gather clouds to irrigate the entire land. The pyramid needed to be in the center of all the land masses in order be effective to capture cosmic rays. Terra forming was there objective. They made "The Garden of Eden" with this ability to control the weather with their mind. As you know our mind creates our reality.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
would the center be the same on this map:



Maps are after all subjective representations of the Earth. The center of a map tends to be the product of the cultural heritage of the persona making he map. For instance there is no reason for North to bu up, or for the the Western world to be the apparent center of the map.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 


The idea that the Egyptians lacked the ability to build the Pyramids is a myth. It has been shown that a large enough workforce could build the Pyramids by moving and placing the stones using pulleys and ropes. Archeologists have even found the holes where the pulleys were attached and the grooves caused by the ropes.

Plus, it doesn't take great technology to make a stone block with smooth sides and right angles -- it just takes time and simple equipment.

And they did have the manpower. The Pyramids were probably a "public works" project that gave the large population of Egyptians jobs during the non-growing season.

It may have been a hard job, but it was a doable job. Don't forget, Egyptians are modern humans with the same brain and the same critical thinking skills that we have. There are still a few mysteries, but archeologists have a pretty good idea how the pyramids could have been built by ancient Egyptians using ancient techniques.

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

Another thing -- there is a definite progression of Pyramid designs over hundreds of years starting with simple earthen mounds, which evolved to mastabas, which then evolved into stacked mastabas, which evolved into small and modest pyramid designs (including some failed designs) and culminating hundreds of years later with the Giza Pyramids...

...one would think that if aliens deigned and built the pyramids, there would not be this logical progression from "mound" to "mastaba" to "stacked mastaba" to "small pyramid" (with some failed designs) to "big pyramid". They aliens would have just started with the big pyramid.


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The landmass center is merely a convention, one could unwrap the world map as he wishes and have the center at any place desired.

I do agree that ancient civilizations were smarter than what most think but I don't think this is the question that should make everyone scratch their heads.






new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join