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.

 

Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

page: 15
77
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Well, we gotta find some logical excuse why they built all those pyramids around the world. I doubt if the people would have kept building them without some evidence that they did something. Using the satellites to do some sort of imaging they say that there are quite a few of them buried in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Africa. They are in areas of north America too.




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, we gotta find some logical excuse why they built all those pyramids around the world. I doubt if the people would have kept building them without some evidence that they did something. Using the satellites to do some sort of imaging they say that there are quite a few of them buried in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Africa. They are in areas of north America too.


Well for Egypt they were tombs, for Mesoamerica they were temples and occassionally also used as tombs, in Mesopotamia they were just temples, etc. You seem to be focusing on a general structural shape instead of the function - why did people build cathedrals? Pantheon? Mausoleum of Hadrian?...answer temple, temple, tomb

If you want to build something higher up so people can see you (in the case of temples) you are left with two choices; a mound or somekind of pyramid, you need some sorta slope or the people cannot see the top (obviously) where most religious activities take place.

When people developed arches and other more sophicated architecture - they moved the temple inside the structure, ie cathedrals



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
How did this happen if they were poured one on top of the other?



Occam's Razor, they were cast independently of one another in a machine by aliens. Very simple. You guys don't need to be having this argument. The blocks were made independent of one another yet mixed from aggregate scooped up into a big machine that formed and put them in place. Why don't the AEs have any depictions of themselves doing the work? How could they forget that?

The crystalline structure is clear proof they were not cut from quarries and by the gaps between them it's clear they weren't pured one next to the others, so where does that take us????? obviously someplace a lot of people around here are just not willing to go. it's stubbornly willful ignorance that is being embraced and not denied.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
This make way more sense than anything else been suggested.

Applicable demotivator poster



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I want to believe....but!!

Havent we always been told that we know where the blocks came from ? Havent we been shown the quarries?

I want PROOF before I give up my belief that they built these from solid stone.

Are we sure this isnt some kind of debunking trick?


So if you wanted to cast a limestone block, where would you get the limestone, a quarry perhaps?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Not only that, we don't know that the 'ancient Egyptians' were actually the builders in the first place, despite Giza being located in Egypt.

We know that politicians lie their faces off any chance they get, claim credit for good things, deny the bad things...i seriously doubt Egyptian rulers of a few thousand years or so ago were any different...probably worse in fact.

Who's to say a succession of Pharaohs didn't simply claim the already ancient pyramids at Giza as their own and woe to anyone who said otherwise?

Some theories date the Pyramids well beyond the 4,000 - 5,000 year dating taught...well beyond it.

The people and rulers of recorded Egypt were probably just as much in awe and wonder at them as we are today...if i were a Pharaoh, it's easy to say they're mine and i built them if i have absolute power of your life or death isn't it!



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I want to believe....but!!

Havent we always been told that we know where the blocks came from ? Havent we been shown the quarries?

I want PROOF before I give up my belief that they built these from solid stone.

Are we sure this isnt some kind of debunking trick?


So if you wanted to cast a limestone block, where would you get the limestone, a quarry perhaps?


Yes, lime for the recipe would have had to have been gotten somewhere, but also we have to remember that later monuments built after the Pyramids were built of actual quarried stone, and the casing stones were actual solid blocks, as there is evidence remaining of square blocks having been taken out of the nearby quarry(s).

Limestone for a type of concrete recipe would have been crushed into small chips and flakes, and then burnt and further crushed until more or less powdered.

But just because limestone blocks were quarried at some point, it doesn't mean they were taken at the time the pyramids were built, it's just as possible the evidence left of quarried blocks, were quarried much later for shoring up purposes or building new temples etc.

I know...i said quarried way too much didn't i.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
So if you wanted to cast a limestone block, where would you get the limestone, a quarry perhaps?


Yes thats probably true, buts its not proof of any kind is it.

Why am I skeptical?
Because of the amazing work done by people such as Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval etc the egyptologists are looking a little silly. So much so that the corrupt BBC invited Hancock and Bauval onto a BBC program called Horizon. The program was a stitch up, its purpose was to mock and discredit Hancock and Bauval and was shown on behalf of the egyptologists.
Hancock and Bauval made complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Commision and the BBC were found to have been unfair to both Hancock and Bauval.

I suggest you follow the link I've posted below to see just how far they are prepared to go to discredit their work. That is why I view the idea that they created the block from crushed limestone with a skeptical eye. They need an explantion that fits with THEIR view that it was all done by slaves and it only took 20 years.

The link will take you to Graham Hancocks site where you can view all the correspondents between Hancock and the BBC and the Broadcasting Commision.

It's quite an eye opener. Note that when your reading the transcript ONLY that which is in bold type was actualy included in the program. There is so little in bold type that I thought at first Graham had forgoten to apply bold text.

The BBC transcript

When you see how far they are prepared to go I think you'll understand why I am skeptical. Somewhere on the site there is a vid where Gaham tells you he was warned prior to the filming that it was a stich up on behalf of the egytologist.








edit on 15-6-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Harte
 


Good questions.

Here's more.

Actually? No... not at all.


1) If the pyramid stones were poured in place, how'd they get the mortar between them?


They didn't have mortar between them, because the blocks were *MADE* from mortar.

They DO have mortar between them:



Only an idiot wouldn't have known this established and easily verifiable fact.

While we're on it, do the stones in that pic actually look like they were poured in forms to any sane person with eyeballs?

You'd do better to actually make some small effort to try and understand at least a modicum of what is factually known about this sort of thing prior to pontificating on it.

Or, you could just take my word for it.


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


2) If the pyramid stones were poured in place, how'd they get the bottom of the form out from under each block?


Sigh... the Top of the one you are building on, is the bottom of the one you are pouring.

Thus, there is no need to remove the "Bottom of the Mould" because it is one of the construction blocks.

Your method creates a wall, not a stack of stone. The Great Pyramid's surfaces are obviously made of separate stones. With no form in between (but mortar, and in some cases plenty of it as you can see in the pic I linked.)

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

3) If the pyramid stones were poured in place, why are they all different sizes?


Because you can pour a viscous liquid into different sized......

So, they made a new, individualized form for every single stone?


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGiaSeriously?

Did you *SERIOUSLY* just ask that last question?

I mean... dude... what the [snip]?


Obviously, my statements cannot help a person who is purposefully ignorant, and who is willing to work very hard at remaining so.

Harte



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

To become an Egyptologist you have to sign an agreement saying that you will not rock the boat. I cant remember right at this moment where I got that info but I'll post it as soon as I remember.


Complete and utter nonsense, I know several, and nearly married an Egyptologist - please go over to the Hall of Ma'at and tell'm that one to them, I'm sure the howls of laughter will be heard from here, lol



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Not only that, we don't know that the 'ancient Egyptians' were actually the builders in the first place, despite Giza being located in Egypt.


Actually we do and even more damning is an utter lack of any evidence for anyone else being there.....


Who's to say a succession of Pharaohs didn't simply claim the already ancient pyramids at Giza as their own and woe to anyone who said otherwise?


You can say that but it goes against the evidence


Some theories date the Pyramids well beyond the 4,000 - 5,000 year dating taught...well beyond it.
they are wrong, anyone can say anything, it best to go with the evidence, and the evidence says Egyptians around 4,500 years ago



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by VoidHawk

To become an Egyptologist you have to sign an agreement saying that you will not rock the boat. I cant remember right at this moment where I got that info but I'll post it as soon as I remember.


Complete and utter nonsense, I know several, and nearly married an Egyptologist - please go over to the Hall of Ma'at and tell'm that one to them, I'm sure the howls of laughter will be heard from here, lol



Removed that part of my post. If I remember where I got it from I WILL repost it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
they are wrong, anyone can say anything, it best to go with the evidence, and the evidence says Egyptians around 4,500 years ago


And your evidence is??

Whats your view on the fact that carbon dating (organic material in the morter) shows the morter at the top of the pyramids to be older than the morter at the bottom?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
argh

edit on 15-6-2012 by deathlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Whats your view on the fact that carbon dating (organic material in the morter) shows the morter at the top of the pyramids to be older than the morter at the bottom?

The "Old Wood" problem.

It's not just an Ancient Egyptian problem

But, yes, it IS a problem in Egyptology

Harte



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I used to have respect for the former antiquities minister of Egypt, Dr Zahi Hawass. But even before he was fired I completely lost all respect for the man. Especially after he closed off the Great Pyramid

I'm glad he was fired. I think they have been covering up evidence for a very long time. Unfortunately that probably won't change.



www.nekhebet.com...

The Pyramids of Giza have been the objects of many conspiracies over the years. Many people believe that the Pyramids are a link to an ancient lost civilization, and may still contain evidence to prove it. Many conspiracy theories regarding secret chambers and passageways within the pyramids exist to this day.

These conspiracy theories became even more widespread in 1993, when Dr. Zahi Hawass announced that the Great Pyramid of Khufu was to be closed to the public for a year. The reason given for the closure was to facilitate cleaning, conservation and restoration of the interior chambers in the Great Pyramid.

However, conspiracy theorists believe that the Egyptian authorities had uncovered evidence of a lost civilization in the Pyramid, and were secretly excavating it to reveal more information.




Source

CAIRO -- Egypt's antiquities minister, whose trademark Indiana Jones hat made him one the country's best known figures around the world, was fired Sunday after months of pressure from critics who attacked his credibility and accused him of having been too close to the regime of ousted President Hosni Mubarak.

Zahi Hawass, long chided as publicity loving and short on scientific knowledge, lost his job along with about a dozen other ministers in a Cabinet reshuffle meant to ease pressure from protesters seeking to purge remnants of Mubarak's regime.

"He was the Mubarak of antiquities," said Nora Shalaby, an activist and archaeologist. "He acted as if he owned Egypt's antiquities, and not that they belonged to the people of Egypt."


The Secret Doors Inside the Great Pyramid


edit on 6/15/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Still further evidence that the dynastic Egyptians did not construct the Great Pyramid of Giza may be found in sediments surrounding the base of the monument, in legends regarding watermarks on the stones halfway up its sides, and in salt incrustations found within. Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be nearly twelve thousand years old. These sediments could have been deposited in such great quantities only by major sea flooding

sacredsites.com...

besides the radiocarbon date, the facts are concrete, the Great Pyramid was once covered by sea water, many qualified to do so have reported this concerning the sphynx - formally a Lion and the GP

Isaiah 19:19

The Great Pyramid was built by Enoch before the flood of Noah

The Christ Triangle inside the GP reveals the birth of YESHUA , His Death and Resurrection,

the stone the builders rejected has become Head of the corner

IT is YAH's Witness that is why the powers of darkness try to subvert the truth about IT, just like they do the Shroud of Turin

The coralized Chariots and wheels, bones of animals and humans at the bottom of the reed sea

The Altar at Sinai in Arabia

One path leads to life, every other single path leads to death

YESHUA haMashiyach, Shabbat Shalom



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by deathlord
 

can't argue with Occam's Razor



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

They DO have mortar between them:



Only an idiot wouldn't have known this established and easily verifiable fact.



from this article
www.nytimes.com...

"Any synthetic material showing up in tests - as it has occasionally, even in work not trying to prove a concrete connection - is probably just slop from "modern" repairs done over the centuries, they say."

and I have a problem with this guy's theory where he says:

"Such blocks, Davidovits said, would have been poured in place by workers hustling sacks of wet cement up the pyramids -"

"wet cement up the pyramids"???? wouldn't it have been better to have the water at the pouring site? carry the dry aggregate and water up individually or otherwise you will have different curing times and issues with that. it's a very important detail or maybe they devised a pump system sorta like on Gilligan's Island?


Bamboo Technology "named for the unlikely devices that the Professor came up with on Gilligan's Island, is the use of mechanisms with a level of technology closer to the Stone Age to achieve feats usually achieved with Industrial or even Modern Age technology. In general they are not necessarily made of bamboo — the ones on The Flintstones were often made out of wood, stone and dinosaurs. What characterizes all of them is the self-evident unlikelihood that they actually work. Most likely to be seen in the more farcical sitcoms. "
tvtropes.org...


edit on 16-6-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
"wet cement up the pyramids"???? wouldn't it have been better to have the water at the pouring site? carry the dry aggregate and water up individually or otherwise you will have different curing times and issues with that. it's a very important detail or maybe they devised a pump system sorta like on Gilligan's Island?



I would have said that the pre-mixed concrete was transported not by people but by people with winches and cranes. Curing time would not be an issue as it would go from ground to the working level and moulds well before it would start to harden.

Perhaps



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join