Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pyramid = Electric Generator

page: 22
68
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
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.


You don't want to see any connection, then.

Hundreds of diorite balls found there. Every side of the cracked obelisk covered with gouges matching these stones.

Here: Link

Botton of page four, on to page five.

That is, when you decide to open your mind a little and take off the blinders.

Similar findings have been made in Incan quarries, by the way.

You might be interested to know that softer stone, such as limestone, was broken out in a manner similar to what was mentioned earlier, along a cliff or bluff face.

Of course, not all limestone was quarried this way. After all, the quarry at Giza is right there in front of the pyramids. Not much cliff face there.


Harte




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
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.


You don't want to see any connection, then.

Hundreds of diorite balls found there. Every side of the cracked obelisk covered with gouges matching these stones.

Here: Link

Botton of page four, on to page five.

That is, when you decide to open your mind a little and take off the blinders.

Similar findings have been made in Incan quarries, by the way.

You might be interested to know that softer stone, such as limestone, was broken out in a manner similar to what was mentioned earlier, along a cliff or bluff face.

Of course, not all limestone was quarried this way. After all, the quarry at Giza is right there in front of the pyramids. Not much cliff face there.


Harte


10 points for an archeological fact. non-disputable.
There are still mysteries for the saw kerfs in some of the stone, not completely figured out yet, but perhaps sand impregnated string or another abrasive technique that pits hardness of mineral against the stone. The granite done this way is still a problem with me, since it is pretty much like cutting quartz with glass, but I am sure that a reasonable technology, that has nothing to do with technology they could not have access to, will be uncovered.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
10 points for an archeological fact. non-disputable.

Yes. Or so one would think.

However, someone's still disputing it.

Odd.

Harte



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by charlyv
10 points for an archeological fact. non-disputable.

Yes. Or so one would think.

However, someone's still disputing it.

Odd.

Harte


Yea, irregardless of the fact that I believe that we are not alone in this universe , this part of our history I truly believe we did on our own. For some, you cannot take the 'alien' out of 'alien technology' We did not get here by sitting back and puffin a few, and watching something else do what we could not figure out.
edit on 7-5-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


that link is just a bunch of words and never describes HOW anything was actually done. It even defeats your own purpose when it says "Eypytologists have recently cast doubt on this technique" etc. It just shows they really don't know wtf they're talking about and neither do you so stop acting like you are an authority on cutting and moving large stones and obelisks.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 

nothing in that article explains what has been found... if you read it, it is all speculation.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Right, two weeks and you couldn't come up with even a guess? Or did you just never actually look at the images and try? Too bad...I thought it would amuse you at least. And would have been fun to see if I was able to properly get my message across in that way.

As for the depth--or lack thereof--of my knowledge on this subject, I would say it is deeper than most, tho not near so deep as a few. And while we're handing out summary judgements, I should say you have far too many suppositions filed in your 'facts' folder, at least on this topic. A human failing, all too common.

Cheers.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


the people who talk as though we know how this was done in ancient times are living in a fantasy world. It doesn't matter what Gilligan's Island type of engineering they tried with ropes and sand you can not cut a block of granite ten by ten by twenty at precise angles and have them fit together. Even today with high tech engineering mistakes are made. How long would it take to cut such a stone and then find out you made a mistake and have to start over? Are these guys crazy? Sure water can erode rocks after millions of years but the Giza pyramids don't have the luxury of time it would take to saw through such stones time after time after time millions of times without thousands of mistakes and where are all the mistakes?

Tangible evidence such as the physics involved in cutting, shaping and moving large stones proves to me without a doubt that either A: the ancient Egyptians (and many others) had some incredible technology that got misplaced and forgotten about (or else why stop making pyramids?) or B: the people who had this ability left the planet (otherwise where are they?). There are a number of stones in the pyramids that were supposedly quarried and assembled with a high degree of accuracy, all done in a limited amount of time of twenty years each give or take. Cutting stones the size we see here would probably take twenty years each to cut perfectly. It's interesting to see how magical the debunkers here become when trying to solve this problem. They love to speculate when it's convenient and man are they speculating.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

So, you deny, then, the existence of the diorite hammerstones (and hammerstone marks on the obelisk) that were found alongside the cracked obelisk?

That's a sure way to maintain an ignorant view - completely ignore any evidence that's been found which would contradict your sparkley vision of Man's ancient past.

Harte



maybe one of you guys could take one of those round type stones and recreate some of the interior right angle cuts we see? I haven't seen anything in all the links provided that can do this, On one hand they say "oh they used sand and string" and then on the other they say "they used copper saws" and then on another they say " it was all these round stones we find lying around the quarries", but they never show haw that actually works in real life. They complain, "well no one has the will to do that much work anymore" and that is just a load of crap.

Hanslune keeps telling me I am simply saying "no it can't" and actually he'she's right, I'm saying that because it is the truth. No one has recreated these kinds of cuts (not to mention moving them) in anything close to scale. Every joint is perfect and it is just impossible to do this with such crude tools. It's like saying you can do micro surgery with carpentry tools. It is a fantasy.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
.

This is the most accurate depiction of a working pyramid ....

It is not a goddess... It indicates key chambers ..and functional parts and the relative fields they generate .


This is the view of the internal parts that were critical key components


You have the Ark depicted ..voltage generator .. the djed ..voltage modifier ...the crystal ,eye or solar orb which was the key component .. it was energized by the Arks both of them . this generated the necessary field to create the desired effect .

READ your ancient accounts of Sumeria and Egypt to get a better idea of what a tower or a pyramid was because most of you are ignoring this key info .

Don't bother me with you inane demands of proof either...I will not respond .do your home work if you want to understand.


.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I've followed elements of this conversation within my mind and web searches after seeing the tesla video via facebook. What conclusion I've come to is it surely can't hurt to reinterpret the brilliance of past civillisations with the evolving knowledge of our modern world. To accept that scientific knowledge of past civillisations in some areas exceed our present wisdom yet may have been lost, suppressed or abandonned...sure, it does rain on our parade a little but considering our world views have changed a great deal in the past centuries it makes little sense to confine research to preconceptions we formed generations ago.

Personally I do not have an education in mathematics, geology or any sciences that would make understanding the viability of the pyramids as a generator easy...but nor do I have an understanding of stone masonary or archaeology for that matter.

A friend of mine said when you find out more let me know, it seems we all do a whole lot of that including myself for my lack of time and not knowing where to begin. As an adult perhaps it is a responsibility to myself and my children to familiarise myself with the mathematics and sciences of so called primitive civillisations. I am far more primitive and I can already accept they knew far more of the commonly acknowledged paradigms of maths and science than I will possibly ever know. That realisation, now being my premise.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
This video made me think of Stonehenge;




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I did not went through all the posts but I wish to share some informations that I managed to found while reading some pyramids patents on google patents.
The one that caught my eyes is the patent 6974110:"Method and apparatus for converting electrostatic potential energy" from Peter Grandics.

His electric converter is a pyramids which convert electrostatic from the atmosphere to usable AC electricity.
In order to work correctly, he needs to put a load of 30KV on the top of the pyramids which simulate the earth strosphere, ionosphere.
He calculated that if we want to use it without an artificial load of 30 kv he had to raise a giant pyramid.

This is where he caught my attention.

I'm quoting him:" The earth's voltage field creates a potential difference of about 400,000 V (Feynman, R. P. Lectures on Physics(Addison Wesley, Inc., Palo Alto, Calif., 1964) v.2, Chapter 9), with a voltage gradient of about 200-300V/m around the surface of Earth...."
...
"Given this voltage drop of 200-300 V/m, the desired 30 kV potential can be obtained at a dpyramid height of about 100-150m"

So I went through wikipedia to check the height of the Great Pyramid of Giza an it says:"Initially at 146,5 meters, thethe Gret Pyramid was the tallest man made structure in the world..."

So, I went back to the patent and read: "A production pyramid with a projected 40,000 meters square base surface area, a height of 150 m, and a metallic composition would provide a far more effective charge sink than the surronding ground surface. As current always flows in the direction of least resistance, this would lead to a concentrated flow of current from the thunderclouds into the pyramid. As a result, a column of air above the surface of the pyramid, would become highly ionized and much more conductive than the air in the surrounding area. Therefore, the current flowing into the pyramid would likely be very strong...."

Well, according to wikipedia, each base side lenght is about 230.4 meters so the square base is 230.4x230.4=53084.16 meters square which is oversized but who knows?

Here's the google patent link
www.google.com...

and here's the wikipedia page
en.wikipedia.org...

The patent is worth a look, though.
edit on 12-7-2012 by atomik22 because: Doing my best to write in English but still make some typos errors



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Here's some links that back up the the idea of a lake/reservoir/water pump being beneath the pyramids:

Indeed Herodotus talks about the burial place of Khufu *below* the pyramid, on an island under the earth, with two rivers flowing around it. Such reports could have inspired the idea of water flowing below and generating energy (at a burial place?), but why then the big pyramids above the generators? Aren't they needless, then?





new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join