It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Pyramid Theory: Khufu's Great Pyramid, its Building Grid, the Number 7 and the 'Diamond Matrix

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by majestic3
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I have always thought the pyramids may have been built to hide some thing under them what better wayto hide something than to pile thousands of stones on top of it (just a thought)


One thing many people forget is that the pyramids where once covered with beryllium. A metal(?) used in space ships(well original capsules and I think the shuttle crafts). You add that on-top of the stone, make one heck of a nice bomb shelter.....




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetsuo
^I'm curious as to the dating as well. I know you know your stuff Byrd, can you at least point us in the direction of whatever studies/researches are considered to be evidence of the dating of the Great Pyramid? I'd like to read the research that is usually cited as being proof/evidence of the currently accepted date. Thanks


There's a rather huge amount of data, and it's not all in one convenient pile, nor was it something that they just tossed in a hat and guessed at. The study of data and debate over meaning of the data has been going on since the early years of Egyptology.

This NOVA interview explains some of it, from the artifacts to radiocarbon dating on the mortar. It's not a very good article because it's very conversational, but does mention the large number of samples and resamples they used in doing radiocarbon dating as well as inscriptions on tombs:
www.pbs.org...
www.pbs.org...

They also discuss (and it's just in brief detail) how the art changed throughout time -- although they're similar there are stylistic differences in the art throughout the centuries as well as changes to writing and spelling (just as our own English language has changed from Chaucer's time to our time.)

This one discusses the problem of wood use (they reused old wood, which threw the dates off considerably.)
www.archaeology.org...

Disintegration of the granite provided some clues (remember that the granite includes objects with inscriptions and names and dates):
www.jstor.org...

The positioning of the tomb of Khufu's mother (a smaller satellite pyramid to the great pyramid)
eric.ed.gov...

Seals in and around the area show the names of the Pharaohs, including Khufu:
celebritysite.110mb.com...

As to ordering the kings' list, yes, that involved several long arguments with scholars (they're still scrapping over dates and times of the Armana period (Ahkenaten, Tutankhamen). There's at least seven kings' lists which were used as starting points:
en.wikipedia.org...

But in addition to that, artifacts were used to enhance and correct the data. So you would have, for instance, a scarab that commemorated an act (such as a marriage) or a stele (commemorating a victory over other people) or a statue (with a prayer for the pharaoh and a listing of their wives and children (this is a very common type of artifact.)) -- the statue that shows the name of a prince who later became king. After a certain point there are also letters (from the pharaohs to other kings and vice-versa) which would have dates on them (in the 10th year of the rule of Nebuchadnezzer (I just made that up, but you get the idea) and those were used to cross check and estimate dates for the reigns of the pharaohs. Newer historical texts (from the ancient Greeks and so forth) were also used as sources.

So it was a heavily contested topic for many decades as new material came in and old material was reexamined. Finds like the worker's village (with the names of the pharaohs found in tombs of the workers (along with titles like "overseer of the quarries of Khufu")) have provided more evidence about dates and lineages.

Anyway, that's sort of a very brief overview. There's a lot of books on this and journal articles that go back to the 1800's where it's been "cussed and discussed" (as we say) at great length by people who can tell a New Kingdom hypostyle from an Old Kingdom hypostyle and know the time frame when the "u" heiroglyph changed from looking like a picture of a chick to the "coiled rope" shape.

I hope this helps.

(edit to add: I can probably find links to papers but you'd need a university account (or be prepared to spend a lot of money to buy a subscription to JSTOR) to access them. But if you've got a university account, you can just crawl to JSTOR and go trawling through archaeology for Giza.)
edit on 24-1-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Byrd: There's a rather huge amount of data, and it's not all in one convenient pile, nor was it something that they just tossed in a hat and guessed at. The study of data and debate over meaning of the data has been going on since the early years of Egyptology.


SC: Yes – there is a ton and more of data. And the argument of what it means has been on-going for years. Fact of the matter is we simply do not have ALL the data and crucial parts of the data that we do have is either ignored or completely misinterpreted by mainstream Egyptology in order to present and maintain a particular view of our ancient history. By ignoring the data that outright contradicts their view these Egyptologists and scholars effectively conspire to deny us the truth of our past. I am not suggesting here that this is a grand, deliberate conspiracy but the end result is the same – we are being denied the truth. Egyptology must take a more radical view in order to reconcile those data that contradicts its own consensus opinion.


Byrd:This NOVA interview explains some of it, from the artifacts to radiocarbon dating on the mortar. It's not a very good article because it's very conversational, but does mention the large number of samples and resamples they used in doing radiocarbon dating as well as inscriptions on tombs:


SC: There are artefacts that present drawings of what appear to be the Giza pyramids dated to the Naqada I period (that’s up to 2,000 years BEFORE the Giza pyramids were said by mainstream Egyptology to have been built). There’s the Inventory Stele that tells us the Sphinx existed before Khufu and, indeed, that Khufu repaired it, implying that the Sphinx was of a great age even then. If Khufu repaired the Sphinx then it is impossible that his son and successor, Rachaf (after Radjedef), could have built it which is the claim of mainstream Egyptology. The Inventory Stele presents a number of statements of verifiable historical fact but it is relegated to nothing more that a “pious fake” by virtue of the fact that it describes events of a thousand years or more before. And yet, somewhat remarkably, these same Egyptologists are quite happy to hold up the Dream Stele as unequivocal proof of Rachaf’s hand in creating the Sphinx when we know that this stele was created a thousand or more years after the events IT describes. Cherry-picking at its finest. There is no categorical statement on this Stele that tells us Rachaf actually built the Sphinx. Rachaf, like Tuthmosis IV a thousand or so years later, may simply have recovered the Sphinx from the sands or may even have carved his own image onto the head which, originally, could well have been the head of a lion.

As for the radiocarbon dating – there are numerous scientists who question its usefulness as a dating technique including Dr Zahi Hawass himself:


Hawass: “Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass, Science Magazine, 18 June 2010


Given a science that claims to offer dates of +/- 100 years accuracy, one would have thought that the good Dr would be hailing this science as nothing less than a gift from God, but no, what we have is quite the reverse. But Hawass is not the only scientist to have deep reservations concerning this science, there are countless others.

Assuming the science of C14 dating is not flawed then there are further problems with this dating technique – such as it is – that relate to the fact that it does not directly date the monuments themselves but rather fragments of carbon found in the mortar that was used to bind the stones. If, as some evidence suggests, the Gizamids are considerably older than c2,500 BCE, and fell into ruin (as seems to have been the case with the Sphinx which Khufu apparently had repaired), who is to say that the kings of the period c.2,500 BCE did not actually repair the monuments at that time thus accounting for the C14 dates of this period? And the average date from the two C14 surveys of the monuments gives an AVERAGE C14 date (such as they are) of +400 years older. Some samples tested give 1,200 years older. This reminds me of the case of Dima, a baby mammoth discovered in 1977.


"One part of Dima was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." – Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon, Ages in Error”, (Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981), 9, 29


These tests would have been undertaken in numerous labs i.e. each lab would have been given three samples. So, how old was Dima truly? Take your pick.


Byrd:This one discusses the problem of wood use (they reused old wood, which threw the dates off considerably.)
www.archaeology.org...


SC: This ‘old wood’ solution to the glaring anomaly of C14 dating – such as it is – is nothing more than a sticky plaster fix. The real problem is with C14 dating itself. The old wood ‘solution’ is entirely moot. But allowing it for a moment – the old wood ‘solution’ conspires to show that G2 (the pyramid attributed to Rachaf) was the pyramid that was FIRST built and not Khufu’s pyramid as claimed by Egyptology. Furthermore, the geology of the plateau also indicates that G2 was built first. So how do you reconcile this? Is Egyptology even interested in attempting to resolve such questions? Or must it stick blindly to the web of anomalies into which it has entrapped itself?


Byrd: They also discuss (and it's just in brief detail) how the art changed throughout time -- although they're similar there are stylistic differences in the art throughout the centuries as well as changes to writing and spelling (just as our own English language has changed from Chaucer's time to our time.)


Continued....
edit on 25/1/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix indent.

edit on 25/1/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Typo.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Continued from previous......


Byrd: They also discuss (and it's just in brief detail) how the art changed throughout time -- although they're similar there are stylistic differences in the art throughout the centuries as well as changes to writing and spelling (just as our own English language has changed from Chaucer's time to our time.)


SC: Indeed. And the best examples of this dramatic change are most easily observed from the Old Kingdom into the First Intermediate Periods.


Byrd: Disintegration of the granite provided some clues (remember that the granite includes objects with inscriptions and names and dates):
www.jstor.org...

The positioning of the tomb of Khufu's mother (a smaller satellite pyramid to the great pyramid)
eric.ed.gov...


SC: The evidence that the giant pyramids of the Old Kingdom period were conceived and built as tombs is threadbare in the extreme. Yes, we have found some human remains within a few of them (bones mainly) as well as animal bones. None of these fragmentary remains have ever been shown to be the remains of any Egyptian king and some have in fact been identified as the remains from intrusive burials. Who is to say all such fragmentary remains were not intrusive burials? The giant pyramids attributed by mainstream Egyptology to the Old Kingdom Period may well have been utilised as tombs by later dynasties but this is not, imo, why these structures were originally conceived and built. There is evidence (from a variety of sources) that indicates that Giza (i.e. the three main Gizamids and the two sets of so-called ‘Queens Pyramids) was the result of a preconceived, unified, homogenous plan. The evidence of a pre-planned layout of all these structures is highly compelling and, as such, entirely undermines the view that these structures were designed as tombs. If the evidence of pre-planning is correct then you simply cannot plan these structures as tombs since, for example, how would the designer know 100 years into the future that a king named Menkaure would only require three queens’ pyramids? The designer simply could not know this unless he had a time machine and yet Giza demonstrates a clear unified design. This is not to suggest that the later, smaller pyramids of other dynasties were not tombs – these structures may well have been built as such. But not the giant pyramids.


Byrd: Seals in and around the area show the names of the Pharaohs, including Khufu:
celebritysite.110mb.com...


SC: Seals also show that the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was NOT Khufu but rather a lesser known king by the name of Raufu. Whilst it seems fairly certain that Khufu had the Great Pyramid built (as indicated by the Inventory Stele and the cartouche of his name found by Howard-Vyse in Campbell’s Chamber), Raufu may have appropriated Khufu’s Great Pyramid as his own tomb c.2,500 BCE, perhaps adding temples, causeways and ordering the construction of the Eastern and Western cemeteries for his family and other nobles. There is strong evidence to suggest that Khufu and Raufu were two distinct kings. Of course, since it is Raufu’s name that appears in the King List (and NOT Khufu’s) we have to then ask the question – who was Khufu and to what time does he belong? This further implies that the Great Pyramid built by Khufu does not then belong to the period of c.2,500 BCE as maintained by mainstream Egyptology.


Byrd: As to ordering the kings' list, yes, that involved several long arguments with scholars (they're still scrapping over dates and times of the Armana period (Ahkenaten, Tutankhamen). There's at least seven kings' lists which were used as starting points:
en.wikipedia.org...


SC: Manetho’s Aegytiaca suggests there may be as much as 123 missing mortal kings from what we presently know. That’s a LOT of lost history and totally undermines the method of constructing a chronology based on the King Lists. In attempting to construct a chronology using incomplete data and ignoring data that contradicts the chronology renders such a chronology completely meaningless and irrelevant.


Byrd: But in addition to that, artifacts were used to enhance and correct the data.


SC: Except where those artifacts contradict the paradigm Egyptologists have built for themselves, such correction of the data is to be ignored.


Byrd: So it was a heavily contested topic for many decades…


SC: It is still being contested.


Byrd: Finds like the worker's village (with the names of the pharaohs found in tombs of the workers (along with titles like "overseer of the quarries of Khufu")) have provided more evidence about dates and lineages.


SC: Would that be the original quarries of Khufu or those of Raufu you are referring to?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

edit on 25/1/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix indent.

edit on 25/1/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Typo



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

There is an ever increasing group of scientists who believe the pyramid is 7 to 12 thousand years old, not the 3 thousand that puts it in the age of pharoahs. There have been recent discoveries of aquatic fossils in the upper stones and evidence of sea water erosion on stone faces indicating the pyramid was under water for a very long time.
IMO the Egyptians did not build the pyramid nor was it intended for burial, the lack of hyroglyphics within the structure (unlike every other Egyptian monument) indicates this is so. In addition the recent comment by an Egyptian professor that "there is something not of this world" within the pyramid hints at it's real purpose.
I think the time has come to unwrap this "gift" and see what is inside, to dismantle it from the top down (keeping careful records for possible reconstruction) and see what it contains.



I think taking the pyramids apart would be a very bad idea! It would ruin it and it would never get put back together! Ever! The Great Pyramid is one of the great treasures of our history of Earth. It must have been fabulous with the limestone and the gold capstone (conductor) on the top! These pyramids can be seen from space.
I have seen stone Henge and the Irish ring forts which are built in the same stlye of rock stacking. those
constructions are 6,000 years old, and they also were taken apart and ruined by peoples with no appreciation for the constructions or respect for someone else's labors.
Since my father and brother were both Electrical Engineers from Purdue University, we decided it was an electrical power plant. The types of stones installed in the interior when filled with sea water will emitt an electrical charge. In the King's chambers the roof had charred bugs like they were zapped by electricity at the top. I can remember reading and hearing about on the Ancient Aliens show about the salt being on the interior walls, and someone mentioned electrical rods being lined up in the walls of the Grand Gallery. The whole builing just looks like a factory machine. I believe the Egyptians were inspired by these Pyramids, and since the river was there, they built their civilization around it. I believe from the scientist who studied the rock erosion on the sphinx that it is even older, and it was also defaced and carved over on it's face by one of the pharohs. What is it with the human race that they have to tear down and ruin things? Even the library of Alexandria was ruined, and all the stautues made out of marble that had the privates hacdked away and fig leaves glued on. People are doing this to the planet, it has got to stop. Twelve thousand years ago, before the end of the last ice age seems to be the magical number of alot of achelogical sites. Something special must have happened.
edit on 25-1-2011 by frugal because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Someone long ago told me the pyramids were built to anchor the lay (sp?) lines. They were meant to anchor the earth's energies. I know of one natural pyramid formation built by the elements in North America. It is considered sacred ground on a Paiute Indian Reservation in Nevada. They are also a phallic representation like modern day skyscrapers. Pyramids represent power.



new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join