Amazing alignments of Europe's ancient sites and the Pyramids of Giza and Saqqara, page 6

reply to post by Byrd

---

Busy with Christmas and stuff at the moment, but a couple of things I'll quickly mention - firstly, the Dino-bones scenario you outlined is tantamount to setting up a strawman argument.

What I'm objecting to is nothing like the guy who found 'dino bones' in his back yard. The conspiracy I claim is on a much higher level. Not everyone working for the Air Force has access to Area 51. Not every military policeman in the UK has access to the MI5 records at Thames House. Hopefully my analogies are adequate; I do not intend offence, and I know you are well-experienced in the discipline (certainly in comparison to myself).

However, when the text books are being written, TV programmes aired, and tours commissioned by those who do have the requisite access to the secrets being kept - well, my point is clear. You are a prolific poster, but you adhere to the mainstream without really 'digging' any deeper (pardon the pun), content to lay down the gospel according to Hawass. There is a wealth of information, and a growing wealth of qualified experts who disagree with the mainstream.

Senior levels of governance, directors of the antiquities projects, sites and resources in each applicable country are being leaned on to show preference to a paradigm that encourages disciplinary isolationism and the pre-approved 'acceptable gradient' from undeveloped-developed civilisations.

We're all taught in school that society used to be primitive and became complex. We are not taught that the Mesopotamian studies of the late 19th Century revealed a stunning degree of accuracy in Biblical records. We are not taught about the megalithic architecture right across the world - we are not shown the stunning stonework of Puma Punku. We are not shown the degree to which the Great Pyramid is 'perfect' according to its mysterious technological purposes back in the pre-history of mankind. NB - please don't condescend - we're not talking about the mathematical concept of straight lines, we're talking about the ability to construct the three dimensional internal structures of the Great Pyramid with such phenomenal accuracy, according to a pre-defined plan. That is, unless you also believe that the builders 'changed their minds' partway through - and more than once - about where to put things...

Herodotus was told that the Pyramids were built by Khufu, and almost all efforts in modern Egyptology have sought to establish that as a fact. It is not fact, it's a theory which just about works if enough anomalies are ignored or obfuscated.

When I have the time, I'd like to collate the info that I believe would best exemplify my points and use them to construct a more definite and ordered argument.

PS - I never claimed Chris Dunn to be an archaeologist. He's an engineer, and as such is more qualified than an archaeologist to carry out a forensic analysis of the manufacturing techniques used in the granite-work of the Egyptians. His 1995 analysis uncovered plenty of checkable information lending itself to a conclusion that ultrasonic drilling methods were used to hollow out the granite. I'll cite the details and the references next post. I owe you a reference from the last post too, so will throw that in as well.

PPS - I don't disagree that there is a benefit in getting out on a dig. I don't have the cash to get out to Egypt. The best I could afford right now would probably be Stonehenge locality. And I believe that the main megaliths and whatnot supporting the hypotheses I'm interested in have been dug up already. Having said that, my point is not changed. There are plenty of anomalies, and many examples of willful obfuscation - even fraud - perpetrated by experts in these particular sciences we've been discussing, where 'one great find' can lead to a spin-off career for the lucky 'finder'. This is particularly true in respect of the Great Pyramid, one of the most awesome 'findees' ever known to the mind of Man.

I'm not saying all of the obfuscation is intentional (though some of it certainly is). When the head of a collection refuses to think outside the box, things get mislabelled. The Antikythera device being one such example. It was incorrectly labelled and dated for years, because the finder was a junior archaeologist - the boss decided he couldn't possibly be right about something so 'obviously' out of place in the timeline...

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Byrd

---

Busy with Christmas and stuff at the moment, but a couple of things I'll quickly mention - firstly, the Dino-bones scenario you outlined is tantamount to setting up a strawman argument.

I think you missed my intent.

This man loved dinosaurs. He had pictures of them, he'd loved them since he was a kid. He could identify pictures of many different dinosaurs. I see you as someone who is deeply interested in the mysteries of life and the planet and you've read some material on it.

The dinosaur man had not really looked at dinosaur bones. He'd never dug them up, never held them in his hand, and couldn't tell a peripophysis from a postzygopophysis (these are parts of a dinosaur vertebra -- almost nobody except a paleontologist would know this.) He had no idea of the history of Earth.

As I understand it, you can't read hieroglyphs and aren't familiar with the timeline and the major artifacts of Egypt. I am not sure you'd recognize Khufu's name on an artifact or be able to read the hieroglyphs that follow the name (I just had a look at the Vyse drawing and the photo.) Vyse wasn't very good at copying letters in a language that he didn't recognize... just as European artists of the time were really bad at redrawing things they found in Mayan ruins (they would reinterpret the serpent as a flower, for instance.)

But... I was mentioning dinosaurs and people who love these things.

My point was that you've found some sites that you like (and they all rant against Hawass, I suspect... who is ONLY the director of antiquities and ONLY knows New Kingdom stuff... he relies on other experts for the more ancient material.)

But... you didn't take it further.

What I was encouraging you to do was find a local dig (local anthropological societies have open digs where people come out and help research a site) to get a feel for how evidence is determined.

I was encouraging you to learn hieroglyphics and to look at a number of photographs (not drawings -- photographs) and look at them once you've learned some basic hieroglyphs. When you've learned to read them (it takes only a few days before you start to recognize a lot of the names, a lot of the sounds, and learn certain formulas like "king of upper and lower Egypt", "Great Wife", "Son of", "the beautiful god", and other common things found in hieroglyphs.

I'm encouraging you to look at the WHOLE artifact; not just a piece of it (many of these sites show you just one tiny piece. In the case of the "Mayan astronaut" the reason for showing you just one piece is that if you recognize other symbols as letters (they are) you might suspect that someone is using a lot of imagination and doesn't know anything about what's really there.)

You are a prolific poster, but you adhere to the mainstream without really 'digging' any deeper (pardon the pun), content to lay down the gospel according to Hawass. There is a wealth of information, and a growing wealth of qualified experts who disagree with the mainstream.

You might be surprised at what I read. When answering posters here, I usually go look at the source page and then look up the source page's sources and see who's quoting them. I do a lot of diligent research (and some really sloppy research -- let's be honest) and sometimes I'm very surprised and sometimes I'm wrong.

I learn lots.

But if you're going to say a "growing wealth of qualified experts" you should really say what they're expert in, what their background is, and who some of these new experts are (in the case of Egypt, it would be Egyptologists. Egyptologists squabble all the time, so it would be of value to see who they are and what digs they went on that they're using in this nice little academic brawl. But if your expert is a journalist then you really can't say they're an expert on Egypt, any more than dino-guy is (in his defense, dino-guy is an expert on computers. He's not stupid, but he doesn't know about dinosaurs in any depth.)

PS - I never claimed Chris Dunn to be an archaeologist. He's an engineer, and as such is more qualified than an archaeologist to carry out a forensic analysis of the manufacturing techniques used in the granite-work of the Egyptians.

Dunn actually isn't an engineer (engineering degree). He's a master craftsman (apparently) and did hold the title of systems engineer, but there's no record that he went to school and suffered through all the theory and math an engineer needs : en.wikipedia.org...

Let me contrast that with an engineer, Sprague de Camp, who wrote a book on ancient engineering. Sprague, in addition to being a science fiction writer, was an engineer (Master of Science in Engineering and holder of a number of patents. en.wikipedia.org...) He knew about the history of engineering and indeed wrote a book about it (which I recommend to folks so they can see how clever and sophisticated ancient engineers were, as told by an appreciative modern engineer.) As far as I know, Dunn isn't familiar with ancient engineering (or wasn't at the time of his book) and the biography doesn't point to his having done a lot of in-depth research on materials and techniques of ancient times.

So they're really not the same.

I could be wrong.

But my point is still the same -- no matter which side of the fence you sit on, demand to see the original evidence and learn enough about whatever it is (human anatomy if you're looking at forensic evidence, local history, timelines, art, artifact collections, etc etc) -- and read viewpoints on BOTH sides. Then decide for yourself.



==============================
For anyone interested, Gutenberg has some free ebooks I have read and I recommend: Maspero's works on Egypt (BADLY outdated, but the drawings and information about some of the amazing architecture -- moving 65 ton stones and lifting them to the top of a temple, types or mortar used, construction of city walls (40 feet high, 15 feet thick or more) may have you rethinking about the Egyptians in ways that Egyptologists and historians think about them.
www.gutenberg.org...
www.gutenberg.org... (one I read recently)

Quibell
www.gutenberg.org... (somewhat "touristy" and not scholarly but a good description of the area)

Hall
www.gutenberg.org... (rather outdated but gives a sense of where our understanding was in the 1800's)

Petrie's translation of Egyptian papyri stories
www.gutenberg.org... (this one includes a famous tale of Khufu, very "Arabian Nights" in flavor)

Weigall (he rambles. Horribly. But some interesting bits)
www.gutenberg.org...

After you get through those, look for more modern things and for corrections to them, but those are free and accessible -- and over a century old. I hope you'll be curious enough to forget Hawass, start reading the background, and learn some hieroglyphic phrases... and THEN go looking around. You'll see things very differently.

So i am back in this thread.
As I said, i did some research,
I I ve many Theories, some of them very wild, but i think one question is answered:

HOW did "they" build the Pyramids with these massive Limestone Blocks, with such neat edges, that you cannot push a razorblade in between ?

Imagine you can "produce" Limestone like concrete. You need 4 planks, put the concrete in, let it dry - Voilà a huge geopolymer block, that looks like limestone.

You 'll need: Limestone (crushed) Water and a binder like cement.
Binder: Lime, fly-ash and Natron.

So you can create Limestones with the material they had: limestone, Water, Ash (every one visiting the priests had to bring them their ashes..) and Natron, found for instance in the Wadi Natrun (natrun/natron)

these guys from the "Geopolymer Institue" proofed it:


YouTube Link


MIT re did the proof: "gathering concrete evidence": web.mit.edu... gathering concrete evidence web.mit.edu...

For me the best theory so far about building the Pyramids.
What you think about it ?

Amazing, X-Ray probe of Antikythera Mechanism (Video)
  Posted 18 days ago with 58 member flags

Eye of Horus is actually an early math system?
  Posted 15 days ago with 45 member flags

Pi, Golden Ratio and Speed of Light encoded into Great Pyramid
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags

Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?
  Posted 13 days ago with 26 member flags

Unknown ancient language found on unearthed Assyrian tablets
  Posted 17 days ago with 21 member flags

"The Venus Blueprint"
  Posted 12 days ago with 16 member flags

The Lost City of Vilcabamba
  Posted 10 days ago with 14 member flags

The Istanbul Shem rocket-ship
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags