Amazing alignments of Europe's ancient sites and the Pyramids of Giza and Saqqara

reply to post by Illustronic


Evidence of ultrasonic engineering on the stonework at Giza's Great Pyramid.

Ra-fu (sorry, Khu-fu) couldn't have had access to a drill that bore into granite 500x faster than technology from the early eighties, could he? I don't think he did, hence there seems to be one piece of evidence for high technology in the masonry itself.. If Tesla tech was involved (wireless power transfer) and a network of only a few hundred 'gods' they could quite conceivably have hidden/ removed all evidence of their presence (apart from 'little' clues here and there, all over the world). Look at the masonry of Puma Punku, near Tiahuanaco in Bolivia, and tell me that clever little generators and communications devices couldn't have been mounted in some of the niches.

We modern folk view stone and wood as 'luxury' materials with which to adorn our (stone-based) homes. How long would it take for a plastic built by a scientifically aware society to decompose after they had finished with it? Why is it even a stretch to say that perhaps they didn't use plastic - simply because they had advanced beyond the need for it?

Our computers would look clunky, and ridiculously over-complicated next to their 'tablet of destinies', 'oracle stones' and power transfer processes...

Anyone who comes on here as an 'expert' and claims they know that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu is talking establishment nonsense.

Herodotus' word is all we have as 'evidence' that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu. Imho the anecdotal evidence and general hyroglyphic references to Khufu developed after he 'adopted' the Great Pyramid as his own, when he realised the 'gods' weren't coming back to claim it any time soon.

The test of the burden of proof is on the establishment here, and so far they've failed to deliver. Despite the obvious errors in the mainstream position, certain key figures have continue to tell us (lying until blue in the face) that Khufu built it.

Z Sitchin debunked the 'cartouche as evidence' claim in 1980. That's one of the key reasons the establishment hated him so much - and chose to ignore his work on this subject.

Kiwifoot: thanks for posting, very interesting topic.

Last couple of weeks my mind and internet surfs turned around this and other lines (and related subjects)
I am seeing now more lines everywhere than al pacino in scarface :-)

The thing is, i have an overload of informations and theories, and i'd like to drill down and come to the core.
I plan to use the days between xmas and new year to make some fact checking and research on the following theories. (Lots of these already discussed here on ats):

- alignments in Egypt (Gizeh, Saqqara, Orion/Gizeh to Milky Way/Nile alignement)
- "world lines" (macchu picchu - nazca - Easter islands - gizeh - sumerian sites - xian pyramids in china)
- theories about building these site (no wheels in these cultures !!! - magnetism/anti-gravitation ? slave work? forgotten technology ? - corall castle in florida - something to do with it ? Pyramids as power plants ???)

- do the 3 biggest pyramids in the world really have the exact same size ?

There are so many questions, and it s interesting to dig and find some answers to these and discusse them here.

Originally posted by gncnew
GUYS! Look on page 3. I've posted a link and screenshot to a KML file I created (that's google earth lines and points btw).

The lines DO NOT hit the targets he mentions.

He's drawing strait lines on a globe. It doesn't work that way.

You have to push the line vectors on their bearing and take into account the curvature of the earth.

The further north and south you go from the pyramids, the more "off" his lines are.

There may be some interesting things that are in the path of the vectors, but NONE of the the things the OP mentions are actually in line with them.

Thanks for your hard work there mate. Cheers for pointing out that it doesn't work!! Hey, I guess sometimes we're wrong!!

I'll check out what you did though and see if there is anything of relevance.

Thanks again, Kiwi

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Do you subscribe to the theory that Khufu built the Great Pyramid?

I subscribe to the theory that it's his pyramid and was designed for him. Now, whether he started the work on it (which is likely, given the pyramid fever his father had (building three of them) or whether he started AND finished it... my mind's open about that. His son might have done it, though given the length of Khufu's reign and the short period of Djedefre's reign, I think it unlikely that it was done by Djedefre (whose pyramid was unfinished.)

Because from what I have understood, that was shown to be a dubious claim in around the early eighties - 'possibly' even based upon a deliberate archaeological fraud? The cartouche above the Queens chamber was scrappy (produced by an unpracticed hand), and inconsistent with the expected style - also the 'spelling' was wrong by a ridiculous margin, as though written by a hieroglyph dyslexic.

There's more than one ancient inscription inside the pyramid -- if memory serves, one was found fairly recently (this page discusses two of them www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk... ) Nearly all Egyptians of that time were illiterate, so someone may have simply been copying what their cousin-the-scribe wrote for them.

I do suspect there's other signs like that on other blocks that make up the pyramid, but you'd have to tear the thing apart to find them... and nobody's going to do that.

Originally posted by svetlana84
- alignments in Egypt (Gizeh, Saqqara, Orion/Gizeh to Milky Way/Nile alignement)

You're going to have a HUGE problem with that. Remember that the Milky Way is our galaxy and every single place on Earth lines up with the Milky Way (because it's very big and we're very very tiny. Ditto Orion.)

- do the 3 biggest pyramids in the world really have the exact same size ?

No. They don't.

When you do your research, don't forget to look at the time lines. Places and people and things known in 5000 BC were forgotten by 1000 AD.

reply to post by Byrd


Wow! You really do seem to have a depth of knowledge about the subject!

Whoever made you a mod made a good decision

Stars all round

Great stuff Kiwi.

I'd be interested to know (unless it's been asked and i missed it) where all the lines converge?

Where do the lines cross or meet each other? If at all.

If they do, the convergence spot may be significant.

reply to post by kiwifoot


Thanks Kiwi, That’s wonderful. Also to help your archaeological research, I connected a path from Makka to forbidden city, then surprisingly I found Persepolis and Burnt City very close to this path!!!

(Plz Check the image in link below)

reply to post by Byrd


Thanks for the reply. Interesting site you linked; I'm reading through it now. Some strange layout choices made by the site's creators, but it's proving interesting nonetheless.

With respect to the precision of your writing style, of course I didn't mean to suggest that Khufu physically picked up the blocks and dropped them in place

Khufu wasn't responsible for the design/ construction of the Great Pyramid. He didn't attribute the pyramid to himself; he himself referred to it as the 'house of Isis' - there's a hieroglyph on the inventory stele suggesting that the pyramids were already standing when he came into power. If a Pharaoh intended to build such an awesome monument to his reign - a legacy that would last through the ages - we'd be forgiven for expecting that they might have made a bit of a song & dance about what he was doing. Considering the technical perfection of the Great Pyramid, it is ridiculous that Khufu gets merely a passing mention in the actual Egyptian records.

No inscriptions or painted hieroglyphs have been found inside the architecture of the pyramid structure announcing Khufu as the builder, apart from the forged 'cartouche' above the King's Chamber. Herodotus was the source of the Khufu attribution. Vyse wanted to 'prove it', but was acting very strangely around the time that his 'discoveries' were made. The whole Vyse situation (clearly and thoroughly addressed by Z Sitchin, 1980) smacks of an attempt to stamp his name in the history books, and to line his pockets for further expeditions (etc). Ad hominem attacks on Sitchin and specific counter-accusations of fraud detract from the actual dispassionate assessment of the evidence that is necessary to properly understand what's happening at Giza...

One of the few other written references to Khufu is contained on the 'inventory stele', discovered at Giza in the 1850s. It commemorates the restoration by Khuf... of a small temple near the Pyramid, and indicates that the Sphinx, the Sphinx Temple, and possibly the Great Pyramid itself, were already in existence in his day. The stele is written in a later style of writing and whereas some Egyptologists regard it as a copy of a 4th dynasty original, others consider it to be an original Saite product. Either way, it contradicts the idea that the sphinx was built by Khafre, who ruled after Khufu.

For the second pyramid (Khafre's), and quoting Petrie - 'The only monumental evidences are the pieces of a bowl and a mace head with his name found in the temple (east) of this pyramid'

And of the third pyramid, again from Fix - 'The third pyramid has been attributed to Menkaura only because Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus attributed it to him and because the name Menkaura was found written in red paint on the ceiling of a chamber of the three subsidiary pyramids south of the Third pyramid. (Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt, p. 120). No such name was found in the third pyramid itself.

Funny how the naming of Menkaura as builder of the third pyramid seems to have been based on exactly the same 'evidence' as that which led to the Great Pyramid being attributed to Khufu; however, for some reason the attribution of the Great Pyramid is left unexplained in the above text.

What 'evidence' told Egyptologists that the Great Pyramid was built/ commissioned by Khufu? The 5th century BC Greek historian, Herodotus gave his word for it. As you know, that doesn't constitute evidence of anything; it merely suggests a line of enquiry to future generations (us). The only physical indication that Khufu had anything to do with the pyramid is the cartouche (imho) convincingly shown to be a fraud. Regardless; cartouches painted or scribed onto blocks don't prove that he had anything to do with constructing the pyramid; only that he was associated with it, as I speculate further below. I don't know much about the other pyramids at Giza, but from memory believe that there are suspect factors in each attribution and the associated 'evidence'. Not least is that there is nothing in either of the other two pyramids at Giza which can be shown to be anything to do with the pharaohs referenced as their builders.

Khafra - whom Petrie thought reigned from 3908-3845 BC. - was, like Khufu and Menkaure, also worshipped in later times (Petrie, A History of Egypt, p.53) and there is now no way of telling whether the artefacts and statues bearing his cartouche are products of the pyramid age or a later era'.

Looking at all of the above material (quoted from the website Byrd linked to), I can't see anything which offers any proof that mainstream attribution of the Pyramids to Khufu, Khafre and Menkaura are anything but contrivances seeking to prevent massive embarrassment in the field of study? After all, if the experts have to admit that they've been working according to a false paradigm (built primarily on a foundation of one man's testimony & one man's fraud) - it's quite easy to see that the truth could be a PR disaster of unprecedented magnitude - not to mention the end of several illustrious careers.


An assessment of the evidence by dispassionate, non-stakeholders shows clearly the truth of the matter. By 'stakeholders', of course I refer to academic specialists in the main disciplines concerned with ancient civilisations. Egyptologists dislike the sorts of theories I adhere to - understandable as many aspects of their careers are based either directly or indirectly on the word of Herodotus, and upon Vyse's fraud. Anthropologists don't generally like the theories I adhere to - they'd prefer we steer the focus away from the oddities observed in Egypt and Mesopotamia. It's all about the way certain branches of mainstream academia build their paradigms so quickly, then defend them tooth and nail, even when the reality of Truth is beginning to emerge from the sludgy foundations (poor choices/ inaccuracies/ understandable errors of earlier champions in the field).

I know that there's been some indication that local inhabitants referred to teh Great Pyramid as Khufu's pyramid, but that only serves to confirm the more sensible hypothesis - that Khufu adopted the Great Pyramid as his own. After all, it was the one which all pharaohs since the beginning of human dynastic reign in Egypt had tried to emulate. Khufu wouldn't have done so unless he was convinced that a sufficient time had passed since the 'gods' had been resident in or concerned with the fate of their construction. But who can blame Khufu for his potentially blasphemous self-appropriation? Which of the pharaohs wouldn't want to call the Great Pyramid their own?

The suggestions that the pyramids at Giza are of greater antiquity than traditionally proposed are compelling, once you get into the finer details of engineering precision, erosions and alignments, textual references and acceptable inferences etc.

Imagine what it would have been like to see the Giza complex from afar, sparkling like so many diamonds, sunlight flashing off the polished, smooth, pure white surfaces. The Great Pyramid would doubtless have inspired terror in the heart of man - particularly when the interior was fully kitted out for its intended technical functions, allegedly including power generation, weaponry and tracking/ communications. But that's a topic for another day.

Sadly, the truth of these matters is diametrically opposed to the mainstream point of view in many ways - people/gods in ancient times having access to high technologies, humans being entrusted with a rigorous knowledge of many subjects, a sturdy, pre-formulated, easy-to-operate 'civilisation in a box'; a starting point form which to develop onwards into the realms of science and technology (despite opposition from some quarters of the power-givers by the look of things - the legends of 'gods' that were angry with mankind). That gift of civilisation, given to Sumer, Egypt et al, went into a more or less general decline for thousands of years, until the enlightenment of Copernicus (and contemporaries) when much was rediscovered, and humanity developed to where it is now..

None of that sits well with the mainstream academics, and their discomfort is evident in many disciplines - academia has wanted to build the infallible paradigm, a contrivance of smooth progression from 'uncivilised/ non-technological' to 'civilised/ technologically developing'. The evidence is, however, stacked against the proponents of that 'false, presented as true' history. One day, history books will be rewritten - to reflect the magnitude of obfuscation employed in hiding the reality of the 'origins of civilisation'. Again, sadly, those errors are prevalent, arrogant and unashamed in the pages of current textbooks.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by svetlana84
- alignments in Egypt (Gizeh, Saqqara, Orion/Gizeh to Milky Way/Nile alignement)

You're going to have a HUGE problem with that. Remember that the Milky Way is our galaxy and every single place on Earth lines up with the Milky Way (because it's very big and we're very very tiny. Ditto Orion.)

I believe they are referring to the theory put out by Robert Bauval, and plagarised by Wayne Herschel, that the pyramids at Giza represent Orion's belt, and are oriented such that the Nile is supposed to represent the Milky Way as seen from Earth. Unfortunately for that theory, there are huge, gaping holes in it as well, not the least of which is when one is trying to "pattern match", scale is important both of the patterns must be on the same internal scale for a match to occur - can't have the 'stars' spaced all wrong and out of proportion to the other alleged 'patterns'), and one isn't allowed the luxury of picking only the points one wants to use out of many to 'force' a match.

In other words, in a pattern matching exercise, the patterns ought logically to actually be present, recognizable (stand out from irrelevant 'points' and have the right pattern shape), and MATCH.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Byrd

 

Khufu wasn't responsible for the design/ construction of the Great Pyramid. He didn't attribute the pyramid to himself; he himself referred to it as the 'house of Isis' -

Got a reference for that? All my references say its name is Khufu's Ahket, which roughly translates to "horizon"
www.encyclo.co.uk...

there's a hieroglyph on the inventory stele suggesting that the pyramids were already standing when he came into power.

The Inventory Stele was created some 1200 years after his death. It mentions a temple to Isis next to the pyramid but does not call the pyramid the house of Isis. That's the (attributed by this stele only) pyramid of his (attributed by this stele only) daughter named Isis. However, there is no listed daughter (in the tombs around the Great Pyramid) named Isis -- although other relatives and members of his court are buried there.

The earliest mention of the name, Isis, is 5th dynasty, at least 200 years after his death:
en.wikipedia.org...

Considering the technical perfection of the Great Pyramid, it is ridiculous that Khufu gets merely a passing mention in the actual Egyptian records.

A lot of this has to do with the culture. Temples were repurposed by their successors (the son would take the favorite temple that his dad or granddad made and recave things with his own name (see the "helicopter hieroglyphs" which were actually ol' Ramses plastering over and recarving his dad's monuments.)) But the Egyptians didn't see it as a huge technical perfection and certainly the other pyramids were equal to it.

You are probably thinking of these as isolated structures. They were huge temple compounds, with the pyramid as the focus of the whole thing, surrounded by high walls and containing buildings where offerings were given to the pharaoh as god. This practice of Khufu as god at that particular pyramid apparently continued from the time of his death (2400 BC) to around 600 BC -- almost 2,000 years. In the mean time they went on to create even more technically perfect things like the huge temple of Hatshepsut or the one done by Ramses II. Culture and creation didn't stop with one pyramid.

The "friends of Khufu" inscription is genuine, and they've found similar inscriptions in the other pyramids ("drunkards of Menukare" is one):
ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

For the second pyramid (Khafre's), and quoting Petrie - 'The only monumental evidences are the pieces of a bowl and a mace head with his name found in the temple (east) of this pyramid'

Uhm... work on the pyramids and surrounding area didn't quit with Petrie. Other things have been found since then.

Funny how the naming of Menkaura as builder of the third pyramid seems to have been based on exactly the same 'evidence' as that which led to the Great Pyramid being attributed to Khufu; however, for some reason the attribution of the Great Pyramid is left unexplained in the above text.

Again, your sources quote material from the early 1900's. Work didn't stop there once Petrie died.

An assessment of the evidence by dispassionate, non-stakeholders shows clearly the truth of the matter.

Have the stakeholders been keeping up with the digs and the finds in the workers' graveyards and the new tomb of father and son found in the area (we discussed this recently) and so on? There has been so much done and found there in the past 40 years -- were your sources aware of all the work and all the ostrika and other material that's been found?

Originally posted by nenothtu

I believe they are referring to the theory put out by Robert Bauval, and plagarised by Wayne Herschel, that the pyramids at Giza represent Orion's belt, and are oriented such that the Nile is supposed to represent the Milky Way as seen from Earth. Unfortunately for that theory, there are huge, gaping holes in it as well, not the least of which is when one is trying to "pattern match", scale is important both of the patterns must be on the same internal scale for a match to occur - can't have the 'stars' spaced all wrong and out of proportion to the other alleged 'patterns'), and one isn't allowed the luxury of picking only the points one wants to use out of many to 'force' a match.

In other words, in a pattern matching exercise, the patterns ought logically to actually be present, recognizable (stand out from irrelevant 'points' and have the right pattern shape), and MATCH.

Yup. That's what I assumed was the reference point. Both Bauval and Herschel seemed to be unaware that you get the same view of the Milky Way no matter where you stand on our planet and glossed over some other things. I have read their material and was not impressed with their knowledge of current Egyptological finds (among other things.)

Originally posted by svetlana84

I am seeing now more lines everywhere than al pacino in scarface :-)

The kind of lines in scarface would be found everywhere at that time. Ever hear of the coc aine mummies? As much as Id like to believe the pyramids were built by aliens, I cant help but imagine an ancient egypt full of geeked out slaves working 24 hours straight 7 days a week on those pyramids lol They even had the tobacco to go with it!

Originally posted by spikey
Great stuff Kiwi.

I'd be interested to know (unless it's been asked and i missed it) where all the lines converge?

Where do the lines cross or meet each other? If at all.

If they do, the convergence spot may be significant.

Check my post on page 3 mate, I did the leg work here already.

byrd and nenothtu: thanks for your useful inputs, i see you are in the subject.

as byrd mentionend: i had in mind that the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacán and the cheops pyramids have the same dimensions. they have roughly the same base-length, but difference in height is huge.

the lines: also the theory that 16 of these "old world wonders" (nazca, macchu picchu, easter island gizeh, sumerian sites, etc) are on one straight line fails looking at it in google earth.
You could say there is a "world-wonder-belt" around the planet, but if you ask somebody to draw the region of best/easiest living conditions (temperature, vegetation, water sources, etc) you ll get the same belt.

still the questions: where did this amazing knowledge in astronomy, engineering and buildin came from ?
And why was it lost for a long time, or even parts still lost ?

I ll get back to you when i find more.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Byrd

 

Khufu wasn't responsible for the design/ construction of the Great Pyramid. He didn't attribute the pyramid to himself; he himself referred to it as the 'house of Isis' -

Got a reference for that? All my references say its name is Khufu's Ahket, which roughly translates to "horizon"
www.encyclo.co.uk...

Yes, will add it into this post later.

FLY - there's a hieroglyph on the inventory stele suggesting that the pyramids were already standing when he came into power.

BYRD - The Inventory Stele was created some 1200 years after his death.

Will look into that - I'm not an expert so may be getting my dates mixed up. However, one thing I have gathered from general observations is that disciplinary paradigms are built upon a supporting 'timeline of best fit' (I mentioned the preferred uncivilised-civilised gradient in my previous post). Archaeological/ anthropological finds are then slotted into an appropriate place on the timeline, depending on how that piece of evidence can be used to support the paradigm. What I'm saying is that some artifacts (which cannot always be precisely dated) can be fudged in order to make the accepted timeline seem more 'solid'.

FLY - Considering the technical perfection of the Great Pyramid, it is ridiculous that Khufu gets merely a passing mention in the actual Egyptian records.

BYRD - A lot of this has to do with the culture. Temples were repurposed by their successors (the son would take the favorite temple that his dad or granddad made and recave things with his own name (see the "helicopter hieroglyphs" which were actually ol' Ramses plastering over and recarving his dad's monuments.)) But the Egyptians didn't see it as a huge technical perfection and certainly the other pyramids were equal to it.

It certainly was an exceptional piece of engineering perfection, and don't try to deny it. Many features remain 'perfect' even by today's standards. In addition, I like the way you tried a 'debunk two for the price of one' in that section for your reply. A couple of examples re: technical precision of the engineering at Giza follow:

- Deviation of 1/50th inch along the whole masonry part of the descending passage. (150 feet)

(a fiftieth part of an inch is about twice the width of a 'full stop' in size 10 font - NB - narrower than two 'full stops' side by side in size 10 font .. )


- Joints of 1/50th inch between all six sides of the polished white casing stones (up to 15 tons each, fitted together with cement to make the pyramid watertight.


- Features of trepanned (hollowed-out) granite artifacts (discovered by Petrie, further examined by Chris Dunn) suggested sonic engineering techniques were used.

To clarify, I don't expect to 'win' this discussion Byrd, but I do want to make damn sure that people who look in as outsiders don't simply take the 'party line' and believe everything they're told about the pyramids by the 'experts'.

Anyway -

BYRD - You are probably thinking of these [Pyramids] as isolated structures.

[my clarification]

No, I'm thinking of them as the original model predating the pharaonic dynasties, constructed by the 'gods' (Nefilim/ Watchers/ AN.UNNA etc) and used as a power generation/ communications/ tracking/ radar beacon/ atmospheric manipulation device of some sort.. which the Pharaohs tried to emulate with varying degrees of success. (and by 'success' I mean in terms of actually building a pyramid that stands up without falling in on itself, or without crappy mud bricks painted white to resemble the polished limestone of the Great Pyramid)

BYRD - The "friends of Khufu" inscription is genuine,

No, it isn't. Sitchin firmly kicked that one into touch thirty years ago. If they were his friends, they wouldn't have gotten his name wrong. Or committed blasphemy above his 'tomb', perhaps inviting the wrath of Ra down upon their dead King/ friend? Unless they were drunk too, like the others you mention:

BYRD - and they've found similar inscriptions in the other pyramids ("drunkards of Menukare" is one)

Yes - it's strange how that cartouche has been attributed to semi-literate, work-gang drunkards instead of fraudsters unfamiliar with writing hieroglyphics.

For the second pyramid (Khafre's), and quoting Petrie - 'The only monumental evidences are the pieces of a bowl and a mace head with his name found in the temple (east) of this pyramid'

BYRD - Uhm... work on the pyramids and surrounding area didn't quit with Petrie. Other things have been found since then.

Yes, you see that's what I meant when I said that some of the layout of the site you chose to link to was unusual. The point you have just 'debunked' came directly, unabridged, from the site you linked. Not my words or beliefs necessarily.

FLY - Funny how the naming of Menkaura as builder of the third pyramid seems to have been based on exactly the same 'evidence' as that which led to the Great Pyramid being attributed to Khufu; however, for some reason the attribution of the Great Pyramid is left unexplained in the above text.

BYRD - Again, your sources quote material from the early 1900's. Work didn't stop there once Petrie died.

Again, I was referring to your source, not mine. The words 'above text' was in reference to the external content I'd quoted from your linked site.

The basic point I was making was that the Egyptologists are using poor 'evidence' to define the ownership of a pyramid complex. The 'evidence' would not normally be considered acceptable as a definitive proof in the context of the argument (who built the pyramids).

Herodotus' word for it, and a forged cartouche - these are the key items of evidence linking Khufu to the Great Pyramid, and Menkaure to 'his' pyramid. Your source claimed those as evidence of ownership in each case respectively. The second sentence was referring to a quirk of the website's presentation of the details.

FLY - An assessment of the evidence by dispassionate, non-stakeholders shows clearly the truth of the matter.

BYRD - Have the stakeholders been keeping up with the digs and the finds in the workers' graveyards and the new tomb of father and son found in the area (we discussed this recently) and so on? There has been so much done and found there in the past 40 years -- were your sources aware of all the work and all the ostrika and other material that's been found?

The stakeholders are the mainstream Egyptologists under the cudgel of Hawass and his minions. Therefore I guess they've been keeping up with developments. Hawass has had that place locked down tight for over a decade - deception becomes more complex and easier to manifest after a century of practice, with the right level of control over the target area.

NB - pottery fragments don't count as a form of evidence for anything other than association.

It understandably took the Egyptologists some time to build a suitable defence against the onslaught from Sitchin and his contemporaries in the seventies/eighties. Disinfo was spawned and became prevalent in the late eighties - into the nineties it just got worse. The torch was entrusted to PR guy Hawass for the final leg of the show-run (to deflect the world's attention from the reality of our origins). He has the world all but convinced that Giza is no longer a mystery to be in awe of; strangely, this seems counter-productive to his role, and to the Egyptian tourist industry in general - but there we go.

Our text books require a massive overhaul of false paradigms concerning ancient cultures the world over - a fresh and honest approach to understanding our origins is well overdue; however, corruption and vested interests will probably ensure that the truth won't ever come out 'officially', unless as part of a psy-op.

Over a hundred and fifty years after Vyse committed fraud, the Pyramid Paradigm is built - and it will be defended until the death. I don't buy the 'party line', which is all about proving the superiority of modern man in comparison to his ancestors - nothing to see here, move right along...

One final note on the way in which the experts can pick and choose which bits of the evidence they want to fit onto their framework. The Manethos' King's lists. The mainstream uses Menes as a start-point for Egyptian history in 3100BC, but ignores the tens of thousands of years described by Manetho as the 'rule of the gods' beforehand. Picking and choosing.

The 'gods' were responsible for the Great Pyramid, but the PTB have carefully constructed an academic paradigm and a media/ social environment that does not allow for that reality to become evident to most of the world's populace. The attacks on Sitchin by the academic community; the general ridicule faced by people who seek to discover the truth - de facto evidence that the establishment becomes very uncomfortable when there is talk of 'the rule of gods on earth' at the dawn of civilisation.

Originally posted by svetlana84
the lines: also the theory that 16 of these "old world wonders" (nazca, macchu picchu, easter island gizeh, sumerian sites, etc) are on one straight line fails looking at it in google earth.
You could say there is a "world-wonder-belt" around the planet, but if you ask somebody to draw the region of best/easiest living conditions (temperature, vegetation, water sources, etc) you ll get the same belt.

Exactly. People build where people live, and people live where the living is easiest. More problematic in the case of some of the megalithic structures is why they would import material from fairly great distances, as in the case of the Stonehenge Bluestones, which came from the Preselli Hills in Wales. I would guess that in the case of the Bluestones, people then, as some people now, believed the Bluestone to have some special powers or qualities that made it worth the effort to import them. The power of belief is a powerful motivator. I would also think that the particular situation of a monument is more coincidental than planned, and probably building began where the people were - the site then gaining a special significance, creating an aversion to building locally in Wales, at a distance from the building population, and of course the site already established as sacred.

Rather than taking Mohammed to the mountain, they brought the mountain to Mohammed.

still the questions: where did this amazing knowledge in astronomy, engineering and buildin came from ?
And why was it lost for a long time, or even parts still lost ?

The astronomical knowledge likely came from observations. You'd be amazed what you can see away from modern city lights, which were entirely absent back then, For example, you can see the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye away from city lights, even now. I don't know of any particular monuments that would preclude arrangement from just naked eye observations, various modern "interpretations" notwithstanding.

Engineering and building? Never underestimate the power of human genius. You'd be amazed at what can be done with enough manpower, rope, levers (as Archimedes observed), and strategically placed piles of dirt in getting rocks into place, even huge ones. Heck, I still look at medieval domes and arches, and ask myself "how'd they do THAT back then, without modern machinery?". Just because I may not know HOW it was done means little, it obviously WAS done all the same, and no "magic" or "intervention" was required or claimed to get it done. It's likely the same with more ancient marvels.

I'm not saying there WASN'T anything of the sort involved, only that it's not NECESSARY as an explanation, as some would have us believe.

Originally posted by svetlana84
byrd and nenothtu: thanks for your useful inputs, i see you are in the subject.

as byrd mentionend: i had in mind that the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacán and the cheops pyramids have the same dimensions. they have roughly the same base-length, but difference in height is huge.

I don't think that's surprising. If you look at something simpler (like houses) you will see that many cultures have houses of roughly the same base length but other differences are huge.

Time frame and usage are quite different. Pyramid of the Sun was built for human sacrifice and built over 3,000 years after Giza.

the lines: also the theory that 16 of these "old world wonders" (nazca, macchu picchu, easter island gizeh, sumerian sites, etc) are on one straight line fails looking at it in google earth.
You could say there is a "world-wonder-belt" around the planet, but if you ask somebody to draw the region of best/easiest living conditions (temperature, vegetation, water sources, etc) you ll get the same belt.

That's kind of a biased list, but you do have the basic idea -- there were more resources in the equatorial regions of the Earth. It took less energy to stay warm and there was a lot of food. There's a greater ancient population in the areas 20 degrees north to 20 degrees south (and it covers a lot of our planet surface.) I would be totally surprised if there were NO massive important monuments and ancient structures in this region.

Also... the "wonder belt" is composed of structures built over a 4,000 year period (Macchu Piccu is fairly recent, the Moai of Easter Island were built after 1100 AD.)

still the questions: where did this amazing knowledge in astronomy, engineering and buildin came from ?

Well... depends on what you call "amazing." The Babylonians were better astronomers than the Egyptians (they were contemporaries) and were succeeded by the Greeks who took that knowledge -- which was then appropriated by the Romans. At each stage, more instruments were developed and the knowledge became more extensive. Science from the Islamic world (kept alive during the Dark Ages) and the Byzantine empire (all in that same area of the world, so we have an active knowledge exchange) became the astronomy of Galileo and Kepler and Newton and Brahe. Their knowledge of the skies would have stunned the ancients.

The Mayans were good but never reached the level of Copernicus (who was their European contemporary.)
www.starteachastronomy.com...

Building and engineering? Again, if you look around the world you see how newer cultures learned from older cultures in their area. Some of the most difficult feats of Engineering took place in Europe (the long arched aqueducts (the arch was difficult to make work properly and many ancient civilizations never mastered it), cathedrals with flying buttresses (most old civilizations did the basic "let's stack up rocks") -- but the other area with spectacular stonework (some influence exchange with Europe) was Asia/India/China.

A lot of it is dictated by local materials. Egyptians couldn't do elaborate temple roofs (as in India) because they were working with copper tools (and so on and so forth.)

And why was it lost for a long time, or even parts still lost ?

It wasn't -- or, rather, it was continually improved and the old ways discarded.

BYRD - The Inventory Stele was created some 1200 years after his death.

Will look into that - I'm not an expert so may be getting my dates mixed up. However, one thing I have gathered from general observations is that disciplinary paradigms are built upon a supporting 'timeline of best fit' (I mentioned the preferred uncivilised-civilised gradient in my previous post). Archaeological/ anthropological finds are then slotted into an appropriate place on the timeline, depending on how that piece of evidence can be used to support the paradigm.

Pardon my skepticism, here, but my Masters' is in anthropology and I've been on several field digs and have worked at a museum. The minute someone tried that, someone else would be jumping up and down on top of them at the next conference, insisting that they show the evidence to support that.

What I'm saying is that some artifacts (which cannot always be precisely dated) can be fudged in order to make the accepted timeline seem more 'solid'.

Let me counter with something I have seen MANY times over the years working at the museum:
common scenario: someone comes in with "dinosaur bones I found in my yard. They're stegosaurus and t rex." We look at them and say, "no, that's not bone. That's actually sandstone nodules. Here's some bone. Here's what it looks like -- and there's 100 million years difference between t rex and stetosaurus. The sandstone formation is much younger than that." And they walk off saying "It's a conspiracy! Science is trying to hide the truth!" They have no idea what rock layers the bones are found in, what the bones REALLY look like, and so on and so forth. They just know that when we correct them, that we are wrong and we're hiding the truth.

(the Great Pyramid) certainly was an exceptional piece of engineering perfection, and don't try to deny it.

But not out of line with other structures of the day... such as the temples.

- Deviation of 1/50th inch along the whole masonry part of the descending passage. (150 feet)

I'm not following you here. They knew how to make flat surfaces and were doing it in temples and other structures. Flat angled structures and straight walls aren't some marvel that they suddenly invented. Are you talking about the stonework on the floor? Photos of the passage don't show it as a slick, smooth surface:
www.pbs.org...

- Features of trepanned (hollowed-out) granite artifacts (discovered by Petrie, further examined by Chris Dunn) suggested sonic engineering techniques were used.

I don't think Chris is an archaeologist. He seems very unfamiliar with the fact that the ancient Egyptians were carving granite regularly and that (like other civilizations around the world) they use sand as an abrasive for carving.

No, I'm thinking of them as the original model predating the pharaonic dynasties, constructed by the 'gods' (Nefilim/ Watchers/ AN.UNNA etc) and used as a power generation/ communications/ tracking/ radar beacon/ atmospheric manipulation device of some sort.. which the Pharaohs tried to emulate with varying degrees of success. (and by 'success' I mean in terms of actually building a pyramid that stands up without falling in on itself, or without crappy mud bricks painted white to resemble the polished limestone of the Great Pyramid)

And your evidence for this technology is...?

(by the way, pyramids aren't that hard to emulate, and if they'd had a model, Imhotep and the architects before him would have been building flat sided pyramids in both small scale and large scale. They could measure angles and it's no great trick to make something to measure angles to ensure the slope is right.)

BYRD - The "friends of Khufu" inscription is genuine,

No, it isn't. Sitchin firmly kicked that one into touch thirty years ago. If they were his friends, they wouldn't have gotten his name wrong. Or committed blasphemy above his 'tomb', perhaps inviting the wrath of Ra down upon their dead King/ friend? Unless they were drunk too, like the others you mention:

Sitchin couldn't read the inscription and knew little of the culture and less of what was found there. "Friends of Khufu" is the name of a work team (like... err.. the "Dallas Cowboys" who come from Dallas but aren't cowboys by any stretch of the imagination.) They had as much interaction with Khufu as I have with the Queen of England. The builders apparently had competition for who could do different tasks and they had names for their teams.

BYRD - and they've found similar inscriptions in the other pyramids ("drunkards of Menukare" is one)

Yes - it's strange how that cartouche has been attributed to semi-literate, work-gang drunkards instead of fraudsters unfamiliar with writing hieroglyphics.

Fraudsters typically don't know the nuances... like the difference between Old Kingdom hieroglyphs and the more commonly taught Middle Kingdom ones. I do, because I took the trouble to learn. Instead of relying on Sitchin, I would encourage you to start learning how to read inscriptions in Babylonian (this is difficult and I haven't studied it well) and Greek (I can "sort of" do it...enough to tell if the text is right) and Latin (I'm a little more confident with Latin) and Egyptian hieroglyphs (still need help with this, but can stumble through about as much Egyptian as I can Greek.)

Read what they wrote. That's what I try to do. I encourage you to do it as well.

Yes, you see that's what I meant when I said that some of the layout of the site you chose to link to was unusual. The point you have just 'debunked' came directly, unabridged, from the site you linked. Not my words or beliefs necessarily.

..."Monumental evidence" means "things inscribed on the monuments. There's other material there, including material on the tombs surrounding the pyramid.

The basic point I was making was that the Egyptologists are using poor 'evidence' to define the ownership of a pyramid complex. The 'evidence' would not normally be considered acceptable as a definitive proof in the context of the argument (who built the pyramids).

I don't think you've actually examined all the evidence. I would encourage you to look further at the digs going on in the workers area, in the boat pits, and many other sections out there. I hate to point to the National Geographic/PBS sites because they're so lightweight (and the Tour Egypt site got "dumbed down" awhile ago) but you might start with those if you were interested and then continue to the journals and start reading the details of the dig reports.

Or not. They're dull, unless you're interested in a lot of heavy description of artifacts and bodies. I'm one of those geeks who loves stuff like that.

And I always encourage people to go on public archaeological digs, to find out how digs are conducted and how they put together what they find.

edit on 26-12-2010 by Byrd because: (no reason given)