Giza Pyramid Machines: Their true purpose finally revealed.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Scott


reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Hans: .....because in reality, despite having your own forum to discuss your pyramid ideas you really want to discuss your pyramid ideas - again -

SC: Well actually, that is not in fact the case. A statement was made that the pyramids were tombs. I merely asked for specific, empirical, unequivocal evidence that proves that contention (with particular regard to the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids). I wouldn't have thought that was too much of a problem to those of that particular mindset since the statement that the Great Pyramid was a tomb was so emphatic and left no room for doubt.

Hans: ...on this forum......

SC: Since when did my having my own ATS Forum exclude me from posting in other ATS Forums? Do explain. Or is it just the 'thought police' who would rather I did not ask relevant and pertinent questions in Forums outwith my own?

SC:...that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt ....

Hans: lol

SC: I do not see how your complete failure to provide a single link in response to my very reasonable question should result in a simple "lol". We can all "lol" - 'lolling' is easy - anyone can do it. But it is the presenting of EVIDENCE that unequivocally proves the tomb theory that is being pursued here and, from what I see thus far, a tad more difficult to do. "Lol" is no substitute for evidence.

Hans: ...but please feel free to start up that o'thread if you feel the need to do so

edit on 13/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

SC: A simple link or two of this unequivocal proof will do. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

SC: Well actually, that is not in fact the case. A statement was made that the pyramids were tombs. I merely asked for specific, empirical, unequivocal evidence that proves that contention (with particular regard to the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids). I wouldn't have thought that was too much of a problem to those of that particular mindset since the statement that the Great Pyramid was a tomb was so emphatic and left no room for doubt.

Because one of your 'proofs' will be your own idea about why and how the pyramids came into being. However, please show evidence that 'that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt' that it is pre-fifth dynastic

Since when did my having my own ATS Forum exclude me from posting in other ATS Forums? Do explain. Or is it just the 'thought police' who would rather I did not ask relevant and pertinent questions in Forums outwith my own?

More like the boredom patrol noting your need to constantly bring up your pyramid idea - which you are free to do at anytime and on any forum, we to are allowed our opinions are we not?

SC:...that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt ....

Hans: lol

I do not see how your complete failure to provide a single link in response to my very reasonable question should result in a simple "lol".

Because you are the one who will determine what a 'shadow of a doubt means', which earns a lol; while you are at it please prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that:

That you are Scott Creighton
Unicorns don't exist
Luxembourg didn't secretly started WW1
That drinking water doesn't cause death

We look forward to YOU starting your tread on pyramid age and if I may ask please put in the criteria for 'proving something beyond any shadow of a doubt'. I'm sure if you show Harte and the rest of us evidence (beyond just denying the existing evidence). I'm sure that after you post this evidence the consensus of science on the age of the pyramids will be altered....

Added: Scott could you tell us what Harte SHOULD have written? Write out if you would what the appropriate reply should have been, give us a direct example.

Once in an increasingly unusual blue moon, a thread comes along on ATS that ISN'T the usual, contrived, "new age", incoherent, illegible, undocumented, inane, asinine, pseudo-scientific, matter-of-fact bull# "opinion" that we are subjected to hourly.

This is one of those threads.

S&F


EDIT: At least your presentation of evidence was thorough. You then get into making arguments on the assumption that aliens both exist, and were aware of Earth.

Originally posted by inivux
Once in an increasingly unusual blue moon, a thread comes along on ATS that ISN'T the usual, contrived, "new age", incoherent, illegible, undocumented, inane, asinine, pseudo-scientific, matter-of-fact bull# "opinion" that we are subjected to hourly.

Except for the psuedoscience part, you'd be right.

Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune
Originally posted by Scott Creighton

SC: Well actually, that is not in fact the case. A statement was made that the pyramids were tombs. I merely asked for specific, empirical, unequivocal evidence that proves that contention (with particular regard to the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids). I wouldn't have thought that was too much of a problem to those of that particular mindset since the statement that the Great Pyramid was a tomb was so emphatic and left no room for doubt.

Hans: Because one of your 'proofs' will be your own idea about why and how the pyramids came into being.

SC: But we are not discussing my theories regarding the pyramids. How many times must I say that to you? I shall type this slowly for you - we are discussing the statement Harte made, to wit, "THE GREAT PYRAMID COULDN'T HAVE BEEN A POWER PLANT BECAUSE IT WAS A TOMB." (Underline mine). Note the absence of any qualifier in Harte's statement. He is quite emphatic - "The Great Pyramid ... was a tomb." What evidence is there that allows Harte to be so emphatic and unequivocal in his pronouncement? Please present a link to such unequivocal proof.

Hans: However, please show evidence that 'that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt' that it is pre-fifth dynastic.

SC: See above. We're presently discussing Harte's emphatic statement.

SC: Since when did my having my own ATS Forum exclude me from posting in other ATS Forums? Do explain. Or is it just the 'thought police' who would rather I did not ask relevant and pertinent questions in Forums outwith my own?

Hans: More like the boredom patrol noting your need to constantly bring up your pyramid idea -

SC: Let me repeat once again to you - this is not about my theories. I am seeking unequivocal evidence to support Harte's unequivocal statement that, "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." Please present it.

Hans: ...which you are free to do at anytime and on any forum, we to are allowed our opinions are we not?

SC: Good to see that you see sense at last and recognise my absolute right to post in this Forum as well as any others I choose to.

SC:...that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt ....

Hans: lol

SC: I do not see how your complete failure to provide a single link in response to my very reasonable question should result in a simple "lol".

Hans: Because you are the one who will determine what a 'shadow of a doubt means', which earns a lol;

SC: I think most people understand what the term "shadow of a doubt" means. And in the context of this current discussion, it corresponds to Harte's emphatic, beyond a shadow of a doubt statement, "The Great Pyramid.... was a tomb." What evidence is there that allows Harte to make a statement where there can be no shadow of a doubt in his proclamation?

Hans: while you are at it please prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that:

That you are Scott Creighton
Unicorns don't exist
Luxembourg didn't secretly started WW1
That drinking water doesn't cause death

SC: Evasion. Please answer my question above and in the previous post. Surely it can't be too difficult since the statement made by Harte was so emphatic - "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." No qualifier in there. Such a confident and emphatic statement must surely mean there is evidence aplenty to prove the statement unequivocally. Let's see it.

Hans: We look forward to YOU starting your tread on pyramid age and if I may ask please put in the criteria for 'proving something beyond any shadow of a doubt'. I'm sure if you show Harte and the rest of us evidence (beyond just denying the existing evidence). I'm sure that after you post this evidence the consensus of science on the age of the pyramids will be altered....

SC: Evasion once again. Please answer my question above and in the previous post. Surely it can't be too difficult since the statement made by Harte was so emphatic - "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." No qualifier in there. Such a confident and emphatic statement must surely mean there is evidence aplenty to prove the statement unequivocally. Let's see it.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Howdy Scott

Waiting to see you start your thread which include the criteria for how we determine, 'shadow' although I noted you have changed the word to another - we have side bets on how long it will take you to bring in your pyramid idea.

So why won't you start a thread on this? Do you actually like disrupting other people's threads?

Originally posted by Hanslune

Howdy Scott

Waiting to see you start your thread which include the criteria for how we determine, 'shadow' although I noted you have changed the word to another - we have side bets on how long it will take you to bring in your pyramid idea.

So why won't you start a thread on this? Do you actually like disrupting other people's threads?

Hello Hans,

SC: Evasion once again. But you ought to know me better by now, Hans. I am not so easily distracted by your nonsense.

Now, please answer my question above and in the previous post. Surely it can't be too difficult since the statement made by Harte was so emphatic - "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." No qualifier in there. Such a confident and emphatic statement must surely mean there is evidence aplenty to prove the statement unequivocally. Well, let's see it.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Hanslune
www.abovetopsecret.com...

SC: No evidence then? Why am I unsurprised?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


SC: No evidence then? Why am I unsurprised?

You are not surprized because you refused to set up a thread to discuss it and you set up a unreachable unscientific standard that must be met and refused to provide the criteria how this 'standard' would be met.

Ashamed of yourself ? You should be.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


SC: No evidence then? Why am I unsurprised?

You are not surprized because you refused to set up a thread to discuss it and you set up a unreachable unscientific standard that must be met and refused to provide the criteria how this 'standard' would be met.

Ashamed of yourself ? You should be.

edit on 15/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Hello Hans,

SC: As you well know, here on ATS it is rather frowned upon to start up a new thread on topics that have already been discussed. That is why I asked you - in the first instance - for some links to this evidence that may have already been posted here on ATS that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "the Great Pyramid... was a tomb" as stated by Harte. Are you saying then that no such unequivocal evidence has ever been posted here on ATS that you could point me to? Given Harte's emphatic, unqualified statement, "the Great Pyramid... was a tomb", one would think references to such emphatic evidence would already have been posted here on ATS over the years to which you could post some links to.

Harte made the emphatic, unqualified statement. You seem to back his assertion. I am merely asking (and have for a number of posts now) for some links to the evidence that allows such conviction.

Surely a few links to such emphatic evidence isn't beyond you?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

The reason you don't get a reply, Mr. drama queen is I will not post off topic material in this thread - Period. If you are unwilling to start a new thread - I cannot help you.

From Scott earlier;

Sorry OP - I do not mean to take your thread off-track

.

But you have - repeatedly

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

The reason you don't get a reply, Mr. drama queen is I will not post off topic material in this thread - Period. If you are unwilling to start a new thread - I cannot help you.

edit on 15/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

SC: There's no "drama" at all - just a simple request for you to point me (and any others) to unequivocal evidence that might be elsewhere on ATS. And this request can hardly be considered off-topic since, at its core, Harte's statement asserts that the theory presented in the OP of this thread must be wrong because "...the Great Pyramid... was a tomb." I would rather think that the OPr will also wish to see the evidence that apparently so emphatically debunks his own theory. So, it is perfectly on-topic that you (at least) present links to this unequivocal evidence so that I and all those who have been following the OP's argument can then go and follow the counter-argument, assess the evidence presented to see if it does indeed permit Harte to have made such an emphatic statement.

Don't be so coy. Why are you being so difficult? Why won't you show us this counter evidence? I am only asking for a couple of links. Come on now - that cannot be too difficult for you at all.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Learn to read Mr. Drama Queen and stop disrupting this thread.

I've made my last statement on this matter- the failure is your fault.

If you don't know how to post a thread I'd be glad to provide you a link on how to do it.

lol

END

Hello Hans,

Hans:Learn to read ...

SC: Alas, Hans - insults simply won't crack it.

Hans: Mr. Drama Queen .....

SC: Name-calling won't crack it either.

Hans...and stop disrupting this thread.

SC: My question is not disrupting the thread. That particular door was opened when Harte emphatically claimed "...the Great Pyramid... was a tomb." Since he opened that particular door, others are then allowed in to ask for the emphatic evidence to support the emphatic claim. Saying it is a tomb will not make it a tomb. To do that you require conclusive evidence.

Hans: I've made my last statement on this matter- the failure is your fault.

SC: I am sure in Hans' World you truly believe that. The rest of us, however, can easily see where the disruption to the thread has come from - your continued refusal to post a single link to the emphatic evidence that would prove the emphatic statement made by Harte in THIS thread.

Hans: If you don't know how to post a thread I'd be glad to provide you a link on how to do it.

SC: You can try and pass as many insults as you like - they simply do not crack it. I am way too long in the tooth to be sidetracked by such. Evidence, Hans, evidence! I think in future it might serve you better if you are not prepared to put up then - for your sake and ours - you just shut up. Save us all a lot of bother trying to pull your teeth out in getting a simple answer from you.

Hans: lol

SC: As I told you already - "lol" is no substitute for evidence.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by seattletruth

Tibetan monks knew about acoustic levitation, and they were able to construct a small, simple device capable of levitating objects reliably:

i came here with a totally opening mind,i heard something on tele about a pyramid being able to prolong a fruits life,a number of years later pyramids just popped into my head,so i searched different searches through pyramid,magical powers,pyramids explained and came across this,i read everything from this geezer and if im honest i really didnt expect to see what i read,but theres a lot of people on here start coming out with big words trying to emphasize "ive got a degree","n' im very clever...look at my big words and my terminology"......SO,look...at the end of the day someone has took the time and effort to do a lot of research and time to put his beliefs foward and a lot of you out there dog him,if he believes it then that is his opinion,i actually am backing this bloke up 100%,egyptians probably stuck the kings n stuff in after...way after these where built,if they actually did at all,i dont know if im missing something here or what,but what the heck was a bottomless pit there for if not to pump water through,ive done lots of research on n off over the years n we arent exactly using all our brain are we,wats to say over these centuries we have lost the ability to levitate with our mind,not saying its a fact,just a possibility,my point is there are lots of possibles,how can anyone over-rule anyones ideas,science is built on a single persons ideas n then another and then another and we have to sit back and take in what they have said and believe them,when some scientists where as mad as hatters,not say lots,just few,me...im that mad like others but i can produce a constant supply of electricity,i hardly went to school,never went to college n university,the net n books taught me,n ill be the one that will suss the pyramid thing....mark my words :O)

I want to begin by stating that I am by no means an expert or scientist, and anything I say is my personal idea, and only a theory. So please don't bite my head off if you disagree. I have spent a lot of time thinking about what function the pyramids may have served. I think it is a absolutely certainty that the great pyramid served some kind of functional purpose. For a project of this magnitude and that required this kind of work force, I think everyone involved stood to gain something. Why go to such great measures just to build a giant tomb? Then never put the body in? I don't buy it. For thousands of laborors to stay commited to finishing the pyramid over many years and not lose interest or go on strike, I think they must have stood to gain something from the completed pyramid, other than just food or wages. Something very interesting that Ive read is the ancient Greek word for pyramid, pyramidos, actually was defined as "fire from within". If the first Greeks to see the pyramid, sometime in prehistory, saw a functioning machine with sometype of reaction taking place inside, this would explain the roots of the word, from a time long before Herodatus and the other Greek historians came and documented Egypt. If the pyramid created some form of power, clean water, or anything similar, it would make sense as to why so much time and effort went into building it. It would be something that the whole community could benefit from for hundreds maybe even thousands of years. This would also explain why it was built to last. The builders probably thought it would last forever, supporting descendants for years to come. The lack of heiroglyphics inside the pyramid is one of the main reasons (other than no body), that I am positive it was not a tomb. What kind of tomb doesnt have any writing about the person(s) buried inside? Quite the contrary, I feel like a royal tomb would be as decadent as it gets, with jewelry and writing about the pharoah everywhere. The jewelry may have been looted, but the writing would still be there. It's not, because it was never there. Would we decorate the interior of a huge power plant today? I think not, as there would be no need to do such for a structure designed only to give us electricity. Who cares what the inside looks like? It's not like anyone is going to be buried inside. The same applies to the Great Pyramid. If it was some kind of masssive machine, people would rarely, if ever, enter the pyramid, as it would most likely be very dangerous. If you think of huge structures today that take huge work forces and several years to complete, it is almost always to serve some kind of functional purpose. An example would be the southwest US, such as Las Vegas. Normally a desert unable to support large numbers of humans living in the area; the Hoover Dam provides enough water to a support a huge population in Nevada, Arizona, and California (I think). Would we waste time and resources on building the dam if we had nothing to gain other than aestethics? I doubt it. What makes us think that ancient Egyptians were any different? When I look at diagrams of the interior structure of the GP, almost every part seems to have been designed very simply and plain, only to serve a purpose, one of which being to withstand great pressure. For instance take the King's Chamber for example. The relieving compartments above the chamber provide stability from the immense weight of the pyramid pushing down on the chamber, yet also may have added support from pressure coming from inside the King's chamber as well. Between the relieving chambers and the air passages going out from the chamber, the King's Chamber could withstand great amounts of pressure from inside as well as from gravity. If the sarcophagus housed some kind of chemical reaction, the gas from the reaction could build and exit through the air chambers, while any runoff could flow into the pit under the pyramid via the Grand Gallery and Well Shaft. I believe the Queens's Chamber was a trial and error mistake. While the pyramid was being constructed, the engineers may have realized that without relieving chambers, the great pressure inside the Queen's chamber may have caused the structure to collapse from within. Therefore they abandoned the Queen's chamber and began building the improved King's chamber, adding the Grand Gallery as well, likely serving some functional purpose the engineers realized was needed after the Queen's Chamber wouldn't function properly. When I look at pictures of the interior of the pyramid, it looks to me like a machine or ancient factory, built with hard granite to withstand great pressure and/or heat. It also doesn't look like the builders intended humans to be inside, as some passages are only 3 feet tall, too short for even the smallest humans. Thats because the GP was built SOLELY TO SERVE A PURPOSE, we just dont know what this purpose is yet. Feel free to respond!

We use nuclear power today, but that takes lots of refining of uranium, lots of metal, etc. My bet is that they were actually more advanced than us today, and were using water from the Nile to generate power, with no radioactive byproducts.

To go along with your theory, maybe they had the mind-set of 'if it has negative side-effects, never do it'. For example, nuclear power. Big negative on the environment. So they decided against using them.

Hi Scott, Hans, Max, Jim, Quinn and others.

Nice read, I hope we can gain more insight into the technology of The Great Pyramid by allowing real conjecture based on real science. I have a current blog on this particular subject and many more to follow.

Here is my main diagram:



Here is my Blog:

artojh.wordpress.com...

Regards Arto