Pyramid = Electric Generator

page: 21
68
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte
 

a ramp out of a three foot wide trench? where's the room to work? why make the surrounding trench so small? If they were going to fill it with sand why is there a big opening on the side? HOW WERE THEY GOING TO LIFT THE STONE TO BUILD A RAMP UNDER IT? if they could lift it to build a ramp under it why would they need a ramp?

The stone is still in the hole, isn't it?

What I mean is, why would you maintain that the working area would only be three feet?

After all, no ramp would have been used if the stone was not going to be lifted out, would it?


Originally posted by bottleslingguy
you guys are living in a fantasy world and you think you know everything and you've shown you will believe anything without proof. probably never lifted a finger in your life except to hold a pencil.


Continuing to ignore the evidence that has been found is a much better definition of someone living in a "fantasy world."

Perhaps you don't realize that personal incredulity is not a logical argument.

Harte




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

I don't deny that there were Diorite tools used to finish the obelisk and I don't deny that they may have had other uses either. I deny that their presence there is evidence that they were the only tools used to create the obelisk. Other tools could have been removed because they were more valuable or harder to make. I'm a builder, I might accidentally leave a tool on the job but if it's expensive or unique I would return for it or make sure I have it before leaving. That's human nature and human nature existed back then also. If I found a tool on side of the road I would also stop and pick it up. If I found old tools in the middle of the woods while hunting or hiking I would not leave them there unless I saw activity around the site or they were on private land. Wouldn't you pick up something of value or something interesting if you stumbled around it on land that had no owner?

I'm only stating that the evidence you are using doesn't portray that only primitive stone tools were used in the construction of things like this. We have become a society where proof is needed and the necessity of proof supersedes common sense. It doesn't exist because there is no proof is a flawed approach. I know it opens the gates to imagination but imagination created the internet and most of the advancement that presently exists.

I cannot tell you what other tools were used because I see no evidence from pictures that they were used but lack of evidence doesn't prove they did not exist. I can only state using rational thinking that there were probably other tools used in the construction of these things. That is all I am stating.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You seem to have common sense on this subject, I'll give you a star for that.

We don't have to have knowledge or evidence to know something else was used, we have to have evidence to prove exactly what was used. I don't know what they did, but since there is evidence of iron tools now going back to many millennium BC in other areas within a thousand or so miles I can only speculate. Trade routes for parts of Asia and Europe are well known to have existed. People don't realize that intelligent man existed for a long time but not all people were interested in owning things they did not need. Not everyone wanted to have to work to acquire things that weren't necessary for survival.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Fire and water would have destroyed the integrity of the rock and would have rendered it useless for it's intended use as an obelisk. Maybe they did use fire and quality control stopped their operation and fired all of them for stupidity
Maybe they were fed to lions. Who knows what really happened at these sites. There just isn't enough evidence to determine anything. Any evidence that was found to be in conflict with peoples train of thought in the past would have also been discounted and possibly destroyed. That still happens to this day under the guise of "discipline of the sciences".
edit on 4-5-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 

I don't deny that there were Diorite tools used to finish the obelisk and I don't deny that they may have had other uses either. I deny that their presence there is evidence that they were the only tools used to create the obelisk. Other tools could have been removed because they were more valuable or harder to make. I'm a builder, I might accidentally leave a tool on the job but if it's expensive or unique I would return for it or make sure I have it before leaving. That's human nature and human nature existed back then also. If I found a tool on side of the road I would also stop and pick it up. If I found old tools in the middle of the woods while hunting or hiking I would not leave them there unless I saw activity around the site or they were on private land. Wouldn't you pick up something of value or something interesting if you stumbled around it on land that had no owner?

No doubt you are correct on this.

For example, there's no question whatsoever that copper saws and drills were used to shape limestone and granite in Ancient Egypt. But no large saws and no tube drills at all have been found (IIRC.)

Obviously, copper is a valuable (and reuseable) resource, right? Any worn out saws or tube drills would have been recast into newer ones.

Later, they were no doubt used to make bronze, hence, there are none (or very few) left.

I've seen copper saws, but they were (probably) medical because they were only slightly larger than our own table ware. IIRC, nobody has ever found a copper tube drill (I could be wrong) but we've found literally hundreds of cores that were obviously cut from stone using tube drills, and there are ancient paintings of Egyptians using tube drills, so the use of copper tube drills is beyond question.


I'm only stating that the evidence you are using doesn't portray that only primitive stone tools were used in the construction of things like this. We have become a society where proof is needed and the necessity of proof supersedes common sense. It doesn't exist because there is no proof is a flawed approach. I know it opens the gates to imagination but imagination created the internet and most of the advancement that presently exists.

I cannot tell you what other tools were used because I see no evidence from pictures that they were used but lack of evidence doesn't prove they did not exist. I can only state using rational thinking that there were probably other tools used in the construction of these things. That is all I am stating.


I think it's very likely that bronze was used on obelisks, since they date to much later periods in Egyptian history. I think the use of bronze chisels on obelisks has been established, but AFAIK not to quarry them (but to carve the glyphs on them.)

The use of pounding stones is likely for earlier granite work, along with (possible) use of copper tools for shaping and certainly rubbing stones for smoothing (when necessary.)

Same for South America. The use of pounders has been pretty much established for stones at Tiahuanaco/PumaPunku, due to tell-tale marks left by percussion.

Obviously, that doesn't mean every manufacturing step was accomplished with pounding stones.

My examples in my previous post were in answer to specific questions. I find it highly unlikely that the AE's (for example) would have some unknown, advanced (for them) tech for quarrying granite, and then leave pounding stones behind in the quarry. Don't you?

I maintain that the entire process can certainly be done with stones. That doesn't mean that it was done that way, however. What it does mean is that there's no need to posit some anachronistic method.

Harte



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 


Fire and water would have destroyed the integrity of the rock and would have rendered it useless for it's intended use as an obelisk.

I only read about this the other day. Can't find it now but it's a relatively new finding.

I suppose it could be explained in another way. Small fires on the granite face (withoput the water quench) would soften the surface enough to account for the incredibly detailed and precise glyphs carved on these obelisks.

On the other hand, it's known that at least some of these obelisks were broken away from the bedrock using wood, which was inserted into pounded out areas and then wetted to induce swelling (we also know that this was how their other stones were usually quarried - such as the limestone used in pyramids.)



The carving was done on granite directly on the surface of the stone at the ground, by cutting four sides. It is now known that the tools employed for carving the granite were small balls of diorite. Once the sides were cut off, the stone piece had to be separated from the ground. A series of perforations were made, again using diorite tools. Obelisks made out of softer rock other than granite (i.e. sandstone) were carved with wooden spikes. These perforations were then filled with wood and these wood pieces were water saturated. The small pieces of wood expanded with the humidity breaking the separations between successive perforations and then effectively separating the carved piece from its bed. Many residues left at the rock beds and measuring nearly the size of many famous obelisks (for example the Cleopatra's Needles) are now known to exist at the Unfinished Obelisk open air museum.

Source: wiki


Maybe they did use fire and quality control stopped their operation and fired all of them for stupidity
Maybe they were fed to lions. Who knows what really happened at these sites. There just isn't enough evidence to determine anything. Any evidence that was found to be in conflict with peoples train of thought in the past would have also been discounted and possibly destroyed. That still happens to this day under the guise of "discipline of the sciences".

You have to admit that there would be a lot of information available at an ancient stone quarry concerning the methods used to remove the stone, right?

We know where a great many of these quarries are. Have you tried to find out what is actually known about them?

I think you'll be surprised to find that nobody is hiding any of this information from you.

It wasn't that long ago that nobody had any idea what the answers to these questions are. Today we do. Are you saying that the answers people have sweated out over the last hundred years are all lies and hoaxes?

Did you know there's no money to be made in Egyptology unless you're a grave robber? Exactly what would be the motivation for concealing anything?

Harte



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


No, I am not saying that all of the theories are lies or hoaxes. I am only saying that there is a lot more to learn and that trying to hold on to misconceptions because they were created by someone with credentials in the past is not always the right answer. I have learned that I most times have not learned the truth but thought I knew the truth. I still don't know the whole truth and never will. My only advancement is that I have learned that there are many people out there that have said they know the whole truth when in essence they have been misconceived by their own knowledge. That is all I am trying to share. I'm sure a lot of what has been figured out is true, but much of it is only true if you discount facts that you think are pertinent and toss aside common sense and human nature. Some of these misconceptions were formed so long ago that the truth is hard to find.

You notice I use the word misconceptions because the intent is not usually to knowingly deceive others or to down right lie. It many times is not even done for personal gain. It's human nature to be proud of what we know and I do not see that as bad. It's also one of our flaws. We are not evolved enough to comprehend the power that exists. We would make weapons of things and hasten our worlds destruction. We would tax the magnetic field of all it's power and soon the protection it gives us would be lost. That's what I see of the structure of this reality. I know I know only a little of what some other people know but I can see the whole picture because I am a jack of all trades.

There is no right or wrong as far as I am concerned of limited perception. A person has the choice in this world to see things as he desires. My perception would be considered abnormal by most because I try to see things from many different angles at the same time. I hate narrow mindedness in myself but I do not condone it of others as it is their choice. I don't especially like others saying that what I perceive is wrong but I know also that my knowledge is based on others research and always investigate if my knowledge needs adjusting by reading and trying to understand what others see. I see a lot of criticism as constructive criticism which makes me desire to learn more.

If you notice I usually never say absolutely that I am right or others or wrong. I do question others perceptions a lot. I put conclusions that I have made out there and read everyone's comments after my posts. I understand that my perception, as is everyone's, is based on the knowledge I possess. There are always conditions to be applied to all research. These conditions are sometimes unrealistic and are not the same as conditions in real life. I study alternate applications of other people's research and study their limited parameters to learn what I can. The limitations imposed on the research is really the brunt of my research, this tells me under what conditions the research can be applied. Where the knowledge originated in the first place is another study of mine. Very time consuming but the internet with multiple windows makes an array pattern of research possible, comparing the knowledge of many kinds of people and many different sciences. I know it may seem boring to you but I think having free knowledge available is great. I don't desire to Facebook even though I have hundreds of old friends that do. Strange new word they invented, "Facebook" doesn't sound real to me.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 


No, I am not saying that all of the theories are lies or hoaxes. I am only saying that there is a lot more to learn and that trying to hold on to misconceptions because they were created by someone with credentials in the past is not always the right answer. I have learned that I most times have not learned the truth but thought I knew the truth. I still don't know the whole truth and never will. My only advancement is that I have learned that there are many people out there that have said they know the whole truth when in essence they have been misconceived by their own knowledge.


I would agree with the above, if it is limited to describing what some laymen claim.

However, in science, professionals don't claim to know "the truth." They state the facts that are known (the data) and draw conclusions from those facts.

New data almost invariably lead to new (or at least altered) conclusions.

For example, if you read any Egyptological papers dating to around the time of Petrie, you'll soon find that, back then, they thought the Ancient Egyptian civilization was around a thousand (or more) years older than we today believe it was. The modern conclusions about the age of the Egyptian civilization are based on data that was uncovered in the time period between then and now.

If you look back then, and look now, you will find not a single real Egyptologist stating any conclusion as if it were absolute truth. On the other hand, they do state the data their conclusions are based on as absolute truth, because it is.

Harte



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


your quote: "Did you know there's no money to be made in Egyptology unless you're a grave robber? Exactly what would be the motivation for concealing anything?"

It's not always about money it's about others respecting the integrity of their profession. Protecting our heritage and ancient burial sites is necessary so future generations can understand what their ancestors were like. Not all deceit is bad, sometimes it's good.

Other motives....How much do archeologists and anthropologists make? What does their training cost to get certified and how do they recoup this cost? How many people make money Guarding, preserving, and digging these artifacts? What is the impact on the economy of the local area because these sites? What would happen to the economy of these areas if all of a sudden other sites were verified as real? What would the impact of the present value of the existing artifacts in possession of the Elite, regular guy, and government if all of a sudden a bunch more artifacts showed up and were proven real? How many people make their living off of this sort of stuff? Should I go on and on with examples that show economic impact and our societies dependance on keeping things the same. As long as I have food on my table and am warm in the winter I don't really care. I try to see all sides but sometimes am coerced to take sides by defending or reinforcing someones perception.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 


your quote: "Did you know there's no money to be made in Egyptology unless you're a grave robber? Exactly what would be the motivation for concealing anything?"

It's not always about money it's about others respecting the integrity of their profession. Protecting our heritage and ancient burial sites is necessary so future generations can understand what their ancestors were like. Not all deceit is bad, sometimes it's good.

Other motives....How much do archeologists and anthropologists make? What does their training cost to get certified and how do they recoup this cost? How many people make money Guarding, preserving, and digging these artifacts? What is the impact on the economy of the local area because these sites? What would happen to the economy of these areas if all of a sudden other sites were verified as real?

Moreover, what would be the economic impact on any archeologist who found evidence of some previously unknown and astounding thing, and publuished it?

Trust me, the impact would be enormous.

As opposed to what? Sitting on the discovery out of deference to some long-dead theorist that is mentioned in one's archaeology textbook?

I don't think so.

Einstein didn't hold back when he turned physics on its ear, did he? Why not?

Harte



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Breaking a stone monolith out of a cliff face is not only dangerous, it's far more difficult to do (suspend workers in air while they pound diorite stones against a granite cliff.) Not only that, but there's also the problem of ensuring the stone doesn't fall and break.

Much easier to do all of the above on the ground.

To take the stone out, they filled under it with sand (probably the sand and rubble making up one end of the hole) to create a ramp they could drag it up.



as far as being easier to take it out of a trench instead of a cliff. this is assuming you start cutting from the top edge of the cliff so you would only have to cut out one side, the bottom and the ends, otherwise you are not doing it the easiest way.

1: build a scaffold (it is not unreasonable to think they had scaffolding back then) up against the cliff.
2: start pounding away with your round stones (for about a hundred years:lol

3. get the bottom side done and then support it with wood planks (very big wood planks)
4: pound out the top and ends and then the back side
5: now it is free from the cliff and all you have to do then is get something to slide it or push it out onto a really big forklift


sorry I can't stay serious replying to your craziness

and then you say it is easier to do this ON the ground and that's not accurate. It is IN the ground surrounded by a three foot wide trench and you say they were going to start pounding under the stone and then pour sand under it to make a ramp and then pull it out of the trench. But you leave out so many logistical details of how they did what you say they did that it shows your ignorance in this field. It's so far from anything to do with reality it's actually quite funny.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Harte
Breaking a stone monolith out of a cliff face is not only dangerous, it's far more difficult to do (suspend workers in air while they pound diorite stones against a granite cliff.) Not only that, but there's also the problem of ensuring the stone doesn't fall and break.

Much easier to do all of the above on the ground.

To take the stone out, they filled under it with sand (probably the sand and rubble making up one end of the hole) to create a ramp they could drag it up.



as far as being easier to take it out of a trench instead of a cliff. this is assuming you start cutting from the top edge of the cliff so you would only have to cut out one side, the bottom and the ends, otherwise you are not doing it the easiest way.

1: build a scaffold (it is not unreasonable to think they had scaffolding back then) up against the cliff.
2: start pounding away with your round stones (for about a hundred years:lol

3. get the bottom side done and then support it with wood planks (very big wood planks)
4: pound out the top and ends and then the back side
5: now it is free from the cliff and all you have to do then is get something to slide it or push it out onto a really big forklift


sorry I can't stay serious replying to your craziness

and then you say it is easier to do this ON the ground and that's not accurate. It is IN the ground surrounded by a three foot wide trench and you say they were going to start pounding under the stone and then pour sand under it to make a ramp and then pull it out of the trench. But you leave out so many logistical details of how they did what you say they did that it shows your ignorance in this field. It's so far from anything to do with reality it's actually quite funny.

In fact, everything I've said is backed up by evidence found in the field,.

Since you didn't already know this verifiable fact, then it is obviously you that are ignorant of the field.

Obviously, they broke the granite out of the ground, not off a cliff face. Why, if a cliff is the best way to do this, did they not use a cliff, and how did that "three foot trench" get there?

Do you believe they dug it out with steel tools, only to hop down in the trench and commence pounding with diorite pounding stones?

Harte



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 02bmw76
 



LoL...I must say I love your intelligence...but your wit is what sold me! Ty.... Tf

To the topic....reading replies....can I take a stab at what I think? Maybe it was a power generator...ect...they made the pyramids for not only productivity...power, but because of the energy .... And their stories told on the walls...the sheer power, and how it also is connected w/ the stars...maybe that's why they buried their kings and queens there....so they could be a part of the power...they believed they were energy...power...and that they would live on...whether they call it heaven I don't know. I guess what I'm trying to say is...couldn't the pyramids have been built for many many reasons .....all those reasons connect and point towards one thing....power, life, religion,stars..ect?

Before anyone yells at me...I don't know much about the pyramids...but watch docs on them when I can...I'm just throwing the simplest of ideas out...

Great thread, very interesting



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
So, what were the ancient names for the Pyramids anyway, does anyone know? I haven't run into what they used to call them in my research. We call them Pyramids but I don't suspect the ancient people called them pyramids.

I suppose people walked five hundred miles to see them in ancient times. Maybe they were an Economy generator not an electric generator. Maybe they were built as a tourist attraction. Instead of "paper or plasticr" it was "metals or gems"



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I'm talking about the obelisk. Nothing you said is proof of anything nor does it make sense



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
So, what were the ancient names for the Pyramids anyway, does anyone know? I haven't run into what they used to call them in my research. We call them Pyramids but I don't suspect the ancient people called them pyramids.

I suppose people walked five hundred miles to see them in ancient times. Maybe they were an Economy generator not an electric generator. Maybe they were built as a tourist attraction. Instead of "paper or plasticr" it was "metals or gems"


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

"The inevitable conclusion, then, is that the Great Pyramid was known in Mesopotamia, if for no other reason than because it was built by the same Anunnaki who had built the original Ekur in Nippur, and likewise and quite logically, it, too, was called by them E.KUR - "House Which is Like a Mountain." Like its predecessor, the Great Pyramid of Giza was built with mysterious dark chambers and was equipped with instruments for guiding the shuttlecraft to the post-Diluvial Spaceport in the Sinai. And, to assure its neutrality, the Pyramid was put under the patronage of Ninharsag.

"Our solution gives meaning to an otherwise enigmatic poem exalting Ninharsag as mistress of the "House With a Pointed Peak" - a pyramid:

House bright and dark of Heaven and Earth,
for the rocketships put together;
E.KUR, House of the Gods with pointed peak;
For Heaven-to-Earth it is greatly equipped.
House whose interior glows with a reddish Light of Heaven,
pulsating a beam which reaches far and wide;
Its awesomeness touches the flesh.
Awesome ziggurat, lofty mountain of mountains -
Thy creation is great and lofty,
men cannot understand it.

"The function of this "House of the Gods with Pointed Peak" is then made clear: it was a "House of Equipment" serving to "bring down to rest" the astronauts "who see and orbit," a "great landmark for the lofty Shems" (the "sky chambers"):

House of Equipment, lofty house of Eternity:
Its foundation are stones [which reach] the water;
Its great circumference is set in the clay.
House whose parts are skilfully woven together;
House, the rightness of whose howling
The Great-Ones-Who-See-and-Orbit brings down the rest . . .
Mountain by which Utu ascends.
[House] whose deep insides men cannot penetrate . . .
Anu has magnified it.

edit on 4-5-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


there were no kings or queens found in any of the pyramids they are buried in the Valley of the Kings

www.touregypt.net...



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The stone is still in the hole, isn't it?

What I mean is, why would you maintain that the working area would only be three feet?



look at the picture, is there a trench around the unfinished obelisk? it looks as though it averages about one meter in width around it. Do you think they were going to make it wider? do you realize how much more work that would be? again it would be less work (still not easy per se) to take it from the side of a hill or a cliff. this one is down below ground level and it has long gouge marks at the peak. What do you think caused that? Round stones?




Originally posted by bottleslingguy
you guys are living in a fantasy world and you think you know everything and you've shown you will believe anything without proof. probably never lifted a finger in your life except to hold a pencil.


Originally posted by Harte
Continuing to ignore the evidence that has been found is a much better definition of someone living in a "fantasy world."

Perhaps you don't realize that personal incredulity is not a logical argument.

Harte


your logic is that because people have theories contradictory to the AA theory they are correct. Internal ramps in no way solves this problem of how they actually cut, perfectly shaped, moved and installed stones at the scales we find. Your logic is not a logic that matches with physical reality.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
your logic is that because people have theories contradictory to the AA theory they are correct. Internal ramps in no way solves this problem of how they actually cut, perfectly shaped, moved and installed stones at the scales we find. Your logic is not a logic that matches with physical reality.


Hmmm.

Lets see. Diorite pounders found alongside the cracked obelisk.

Pounding stone marks found on the cracked obelisk, next to where they found diorite pounding stones.

Not a shred of evidence for anything but pounding stones, including the stones themselves and the marks they left behind on the obelisk (and the walls of the trench around it.)

Yep. It's totally illogical to think they used diorite pounding stones on the cracked obelisk.

Not only that, but there's obviously no evidence whatsoever for the use of diorite pounding stones on the obelisk (other than the pounding stones found there and the matching marks found on the obelisk.)

Obviously, it was either aliens or some unknown, unguessed-at and unevidenced ancient technology and not diorite pounding stones, which probably were accidentally thrown into the trench (before the sand filled it) by wayward diorite pounding stone salsemen.

Harte



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

what makes you think the pounding stones didn't arrive after the obelisk had been sitting there for a thousand years? who's to say the locals didn't try to work on the existing unfinished obelisk that their ancestors always talked about and after pounding away with little result they said "to hell with this!" and dropped the stones where they're found today? I see no connection between the stones and the obelisk. You don't seem to want to talk much about how you release the stone from the bottom and raise it out of a ditch. That's a very important element and probably one you'd like to ignore.





new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join