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.

 

How they Built the Great Pyramid of Egypt

page: 14
229
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I gotta say that your presentation is awesome...and many thanks for that.

IMHO however, given all the lucid reasoning and drawings you have shared with us on this forum two elements are worth mentioning.

Our machines today, given steam and all manner of hydrollic lifting capacities, even allowing for nuclear tunneling equipment not known in the mainstream NONE could construct the pyramids to their existing sizes and shapes given all the interior chambers and sighting view points astrologically aligned with certain stars and with orion in particular.

And, two, all of this was obviously done by man, or jew slaves or whom ever you wish to point to as the labor points.

Sorry, levitation of the huge blocks of stone from their quarry points is the only solution to 'how' stuff was moved and it most certainly not by man or donkey or camel.

Besides, what was their purpose anyway and why the huge scale to all those statues?

Excellent work OP and I do not want to offend you, just open perhaps another opinion on your conclusions.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The glyphs and reconstruction pictures came from other pyramids, not the Great Pyramid, so can you start over as to how they built the great pyramid; the glyphs and reconstructions didn’t come from the great pyramid, it came from how they built the other pyramids.
‘The great pyramid was the only pyramid with no writing and no glyphs of any sort’




TextThe Egyptians left us some hieroglyphics showing how they moved large objects. With simple manpower and ropes while using some sort of lubrication. It wouldn't be that hard to imagine them using this basic technique on the smaller pyramid stones.


The Great Pyramid of Giza was the only pyramid that was built by mass telekinesis, and the ancients talked only with there mind 'telepathy; it was a period around the world in which all humans possessed this great power of the mind. It was a period of time in which humans around the world had not developed language, writing or drawings, or any of the mortal aspects of intelligence that is seen today. This is why the pyramid of Giza was the only pyramid constructed with no writing any glyphs any drawings inside like the others.



Some ancients used mass telekinesis drilling methods, while some ancients used there gift for lifting very heavy objects.
Stonehenge = mass telekinesis’ of lifting.
Egypt = mass telekinesis of lifting.
Mayans =mass telekinetic drilling and lifting.

Tiahuanaco and puma punka was one of the ancients that used the mass telekinetic drilling method, using diamonds and telekinesis to cut groves and slits in there construction that cant even be duplicated today by machinery.


But after language and writing was embedded in the world, it destroyed the telekinesis and telepathy from the world of humans, this is why every thing was dropped, this is why scientist are baffled at why or what happened to the ancients of life.

The rest of the pyramids was built by hand ,and by hard vicious labor, so much ,that they was all unfinished, and looked very very ugly, it was a time in which they started creating glyphs, and writing, and actually had to use there back for hard labor, dying by the thousands.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Wo, ok wait...

You're telling me that, in the past before our civilisation began to decay to the utter state it is in today, mental methods were used to drill and cut holes?

I've spent years interested in ancient aliens, time travel and basically everything this website stands for, but I have never, ever come across the idea that mass telekinesis was used to move, or do anything, to objects large and small.

I think you should open a new thread on this to introduce the concept to the wider community. I'd love to learn more about it with evidence.

Or, like usual, is it just an idea with absolutely nothing to base it upon?

Interesting.........



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
still doesnt explain how they covered the entire exterior in solid white marble and how the gold capstone was placed.

also i havent personally been there but i hear there are no hieroglyphics in the great pyramid. is it true that all the other pyramids were built as a homage to the great pyramid? just putting it out there.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   




They were not slaves.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by johngtr
 


I watched the video I'll take issues with him. His claim that they only had "Copper Tools" I posted in the OP that they found "Iron" Also he said they didn't have a Pulley. I also showed in the OP that the Antechamber shows evidence of some sort of Pulley system.

So now what?


'Finding a piece of iron' and 'possible evidence for a pulley' does not let you say that they had iron tools and pulleys, that's just not how archeology works sorry.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11118
Finally does it really require more than a hammer and chisel to carve a square stone block? OR some rope to haul it?


At the precision that the pyramids are, yes, you would require more.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by boxturtle
reply to post by johngtr
probably had to use iron chisels for the granite, but think most of the pyramid was made from limestone where cement would be feasible.


Please show source for 'most of the pyramid was made from limestone'. The outside of it was limestone yes, but the rest of the solid structure is granite, and considering we have no way to make liquid granite today with all our great science, how did they ?

Please they have done chemical dating and can tell the rocks are from the quarry over the mountains. Why cut out PERFECT blocks from the quarry, then somehow melt them and move that ? It sounds like rubbish to me sorry.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Like i have said in all my other posts there was "No Way" that the Egyptians built it on there own ,they couldn't of did it in the time it took however ...

That telekinesis theory/ideas are pretty intriguing, What if maybe it was fitted together with telekinesis but it wasnt the humans who had the powers,and lost them. Maybe it was the " visitors" who did it. ( their "Sun Gods" )
with telekinesis/telepathic powers.


Just another idea to throw out there - it is one of the few theories that would actually fit the time frame needed to give a convincing argument against traditional ideas. Imo

Peace




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Good thread slayer, however, I am not convinced that at least the Great Pyramid was built with rustic tools and just basic math. Today it is nearly impossible to build the pyramid, there are blocks which weight several tons and would have been impossible to set by hand even with pulleys, wheels and ropes.

IMHO Khufu found the pyramid already built, and decided to claim he built it. The Great sphynx of Giza is a clear example of an ancient relic which was found by a Pharaoh who decided to put his face instead of allowing the old lion face to remain.

The small human head, compared to the size of the body is a tell-tale sign that it had a bigger head, most probably a lion, or could even have been an statue of the cat goddess Bastet, or the lion-headed goddess Mafdet.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


They may be referring to the stone of Baalbek. Some also marvel at it's size and weight or the fact that it was moved. However, it is a perfect example of ancient monument builders Failing to accomplish the task. The most likely scenario for it's present day situation is that they probably bit off more than they could chew. Dragged the stone, it got stuck in a rut and it being too big and heavy they couldn't get it moving again and so they had to abandon it in place.

Epic Fail Had there been any Alien intervention we wouldn't be having this conversation. They would have anti-gravity ray gunned it successfully into place


edit on 21-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
They were built with Tesla type anti gravity. We weren't the only cycle with technology.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
maybe they quarried the granite, chopped it into powder, put forms in place, and then poured the powder in with sand and water and hardened it in place like cement

we know its possible and likely was done with the limestone blocks so why not granite ? think about how incredibly much easier it would be. it would explain how ancient cultures all over the world had moved such massive stones. they didnt

cmon look at all these ridiculous speculations, leviatations, complex pulley systems, hippos, its pretty laughable to be honest.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
maybe they quarried the granite, chopped it into powder, put forms in place, and then poured the powder in with sand and water and hardened it in place like cement

cmon look at all these ridiculous speculations, leviatations, complex pulley systems, hippos, its pretty laughable to be honest.


You call others who speculate on real possibilities ridiculous yet you put forth some odd ball theory about "Granite Cement" which has never been proven or even done?

The problem with Perfectly cut stones either artificial "Granite Cement" or "perfect Alien cut" is that the only real perfectly smooth side is inside the Kings chamber. This shows they had rough cut and then transported the stone to the site then later finished only the side they needed to. Remember the rest are still very rough. If they had been formed in some sort of Mold then 5 of the 6 facing sides would be smooth from the mold. The sixth side not being smooth is a gimmie.

We don't see that. What we find above the Kings chamber are all rough cut Granite slabs on all sides, which were never to see the light of day ever. However, during construction some of the slabs cracked. The engineer had to make sure it wouldn't collapse so they tunneled back up to view the potential damage from the pyramid settling. If they had not done that we wouldn't have their remaining passage to view the still very rough hand chiseled granite slabs.






posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tim3lord
still doesnt explain how they covered the entire exterior in solid white marble and how the gold capstone was placed.


There is no evidence that there ever was a gold capstone or that the pyramid was covered in marble...

But, for argument sake if it were covered in marble why would it be so hard to move marble into place? It's a stone and would have been carved and placed just as easily as the Granite or the white limestone.

I'd love to read about the gold capstone.
Could you please provide us a link?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Draken


Originally posted by 11118
Finally does it really require more than a hammer and chisel to carve a square stone block? OR some rope to haul it?


At the precision that the pyramids are, yes, you would require more.



How so?
Please explain how that isn't enough. I've provided in the OP evidence that they had the math, There was evidence of Iron [much better at chiseling limestone etc] they had ropes and they have left us glyphs showing them hauling on sleds much larger and potentially heavier objects. Now are we to simply ignore all of that because a few deem it impossible?

Simply objecting and offering no other realistic theory isn't a very effective or persuasive way of convincing others. I'm sorry but unless it can be shown to be impossible with the remaining items they left behind I think it's very possible.

Let's be reasonable here it just takes time and effort and maybe those who disagree are simply an example of modern man with his TV, Internet and cell phones who have grown way too impatient and cannot fathom an effort that would take decades which required complete devotion to their living God...> Alien or Human

edit on 21-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444like i said before, most times the most easiest solution is the likely one. so whats more likely, that a thousand slaves pulled massive stones for miles with no wheel and few trees for 30 years... or that they simply used some technique we dont understand today to pour rocks in place like a cement


The "Simplistic" solution would be to cut and place the stones.

We even know where they quarried them...




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

How so?
Please explain how that isn't enough. I've provided in the OP evidence that they had the math, There was evidence of Iron [much better at chiseling limestone etc] they had ropes and they have left us glyphs showing them hauling on sleds much larger and potentially heavier objects. Now are we to simply ignore all of that because a few deem it impossible?

Simply objecting and offering no other realistic theory isn't a very effective or persuasive way of convincing others. I'm sorry but unless it can be shown to be impossible with the remaining items they left behind I think it's very possible.

Let's be reasonable here it just takes time and effort and maybe those who disagree are simply an example of modern man with his TV, Internet and cell phones who have grown way too impatient and cannot fathom an effort that would take decades which required complete devotion to their living God...> Alien or Human

edit on 21-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



Thats doesnt explain how they knew so much about the stars that they could of lined them up almost perfectly, they have left us glyphs showing them hauling on sleds much larger and potentially heavier objects. Now are we to simply ignore all of that because a few deem it impossible?

Also " they have left us glyphs showing them hauling on sleds much larger and potentially heavier objects. Now are we to simply ignore all of that because a few deem it impossible? "

Not few deem it impossible - many deem it practically " impossible" not few.

And if we are to take the glyph's serious, they have glyphs showing half man half animals, fair point?

There was also no glyphs showing them actualls constructing the pyrimids,
why would they not bother showing how they managed to build such massive monuments that would of taken a lifetime ?
After all we have got in the way of "evidence" you would expect a fair portion of the hieroglyphs to actually show them in the process of constructing them as we can all agree they took at the very, very least 20 years.

edit on 21-3-2011 by johngtr because: quote



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


This is a great topic here Slayer. It has always baffled me. I find it intriguing and maddening at the same time because I for one cannot figure out how in the world they did it. I know some claim that it took twenty years and I've heard that debunked using simple mathematics.

2.5 million stones in the great pyramid.

20 years equates to roughly 10.5 million minutes

20 years x 365 = 7,300 days

7,300 days x 24 hours = 175,200 hours

175,200 hours x 60 minutes = 10,512,000 minutes =

1 stone every 4.2 minutes ...24/7/365 for 20 years straight non stop.

Now either it took much longer than twenty years or they had some magnificent way of quarrying and placing the stones extremely quickly. The man power and coordination would have to be phenomenal. If that little bit of information has been posted, I apologize I couldn't go through the whole thread!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


You know whats funny?

Is that the 20 year claim comes to us from an ancient Greek from around 200 BC that's over 2,300 + or - years after it was built...

Who says we are tied to that 20 year figure?
It could have taken 25 or 30 or more years.

He could have gotten the 20 years figure wrong from the Egyptians of his era 2,300 years or more after the fact.



edit on 21-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
229
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join