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: 17
77
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune
 

see above post, you missed it the first time


I see your three and raise 9,000 who say they are wrong

Now are you going to continue to play the 'authority' card are try something different
edit on 16/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


and you aren't playing a "card" with your 9,000? they could be and most likely are wrong


He saw your three and raised you 9,000, which means it is over 9000! regardless of anything you say with your theories based on no evidence, you must be as pissed as Vegeta when he made it over 9000.





posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by deathlord
 

haha, funny. I guess his argument from authority makes him right. buncha sheep around here.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte
 

I disagree with both sides of the "conventional" argument. I bet the blocks were mixed and formed artificially by a machine, spit out like a hay bailer and put in place in no time at all by alien technology with no witnesses. The following Egyptian culture grew up around them and claiming royal lineages connected to the builder(s) of the pyramids, the rulers kept the civilization in control. Anyone who claims they are just a pile of rocks has rocks in their head.


Another argument from ignorance eh? You do realize of course that the Egyptian culture had been there for thousands of year BEFORE they built the pyramids?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

and you aren't playing a "card" with your 9,000? they could be and most likely are wrong


That is a much lower amount of how many experts don't agree with these two gentlemen - why should we believe Davidovits and Barsoum while others do not?

You've seen the evidence, hopefully you were brave enough to look at the images do they look lke preformed concrete blocks?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

I don't doubt they are or even most or some are. I do doubt the people did it of their own accord. I am completely on the alien intervention team. If the blocks were made the way the French guy did in the video they would not have individually smooth sides with a gap or even mortar. Did they "pre-mortar" between the blocks before they poured the next block? Why would they need mortar anyway? Someone said the mixed aggregate is the mortar, so again, how is there a gap between blocks that should have fused together as the mix/mortar was being poured over top and to the side of the previous blocks? There are even blocks in staggered orientation over the blocks below that have gaps between them and corresponding blocks. If the blocks were poured in place they wouldn't look like that.


And someone also mentioned earlier why didn't they just make really big molds instead of relatively small ones that take a lot of assembling and disassembling of the forms?

I love it that the two "conventional" sides are arguing. very dialectic subject right now (thesis/antithesis=synthesis) I'm saying the blocks were made, cured and put into place by a big machine and not some bamboo technology



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
You do realize of course that the Egyptian culture had been there for thousands of year BEFORE they built the pyramids?


no and I don't accept that as truth. explain how they built them in such a short time span.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
That's it.

It certainly cannot be true, if you didn't know it, right?

Harte



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

well where's YOUR proof?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Hanslune
You do realize of course that the Egyptian culture had been there for thousands of year BEFORE they built the pyramids?


no and I don't accept that as truth. explain how they built them in such a short time span.


That time frame is not known with certainty. But your acceptance or non-acceptance of x doesn't somehow, retroactively remove the AE as the builders!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

forget my opinion and pay attention to physical reality



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


....and what reality is that?

The only physical reality we have is that the pyramids were built and that they are there, that I can personally assure you of!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 
well actually the crystalline structure of the limestone is one physical reality you can't ignore and if it indicates they were not cut from solid rock, then the slope starts getting very slippery. if you accept that reality then a whole bunch of other realities start to fall into place.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
It is thought that there was alot more water at the time...like from the water marks on the sphynx etc...
Where I am there are springs that well up a suspended clay/ water mixture that hardens all by itself into limestone...even under water!

I suspect that the locals used this natural clay for pottery...it is almost the perfect consistancy if taken from the right part of the flow...while still maleable just before it kicks into stone.....
edit on 11-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


Is that accurate? Cool. Star for you.

Sounds logically sound. Just need to verify the historical accuracy and that the timeframe and local conditions match up.

I hadn't thought of this solution before. Thanks for the intellectual workout at the very least. And... Maybe a whole new historical outlook.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune
 
well actually the crystalline structure of the limestone is one physical reality you can't ignore and if it indicates they were not cut from solid rock, then the slope starts getting very slippery. if you accept that reality then a whole bunch of other realities start to fall into place.



Which isn't accepted, Davidovits is dead in the water and Barsoum has gotten nowhere either with this idea. The evidence is weak to say the least. Even Barsoum has taken the position that only 10-20% of the block were 'poured'.

We shall see, personally I would like to see Barsoum idea confirmed - it would be another feather in cap for AE technology
edit on 21/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
The evidence is weak to say the least. Even Barsoum has taken the position that only 10-20% of the block were 'poured'.



which evidence specifically and why do you think it is weak? how many blocks have been tested? and were they poured separately?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte
 

well where's YOUR proof?

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
"Radiocarbon Chronologies for Prehistoric Human Occupation and Hydroclimatic Change in Egypt and Northern Sudan," Kathleen Nicoll.


You should read it, but if you're in a hurry, scroll down to page 8 for the chronologies.

Harte



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte
 

well where's YOUR proof?

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
"Radiocarbon Chronologies for Prehistoric Human Occupation and Hydroclimatic Change in Egypt and Northern Sudan," Kathleen Nicoll.


You should read it, but if you're in a hurry, scroll down to page 8 for the chronologies.

Harte


I love how stuff like that only corroborates Sitchin's work! thanks


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

"10,500 B.C.
The descendants of Noah are allotted three regions. Ninurta, Enlil's foremost son, dams the mountains and drains the rivers to make Mesopotamia habitable; Enki reclaims the Nile valley. The Sinai peninsula is retained by the Anunnaki for a post-Diluvial spaceport; a control center is established on Mount Moriah (the future Jerusalem).

9,780 B.C.
Ra/Marduk, Enki's firstborn son, divides dominion over Egypt between Osiris and Seth.

9,330 B.C.
Seth seizes and dismembers Osiris, assumes sole rule over the Nile Valley.

8,970 B.C.
Horus avenges his father Osiris by launching the First Pyramid War. Seth escapes to Asia, seizes the Sinai peninsula and Canaan.

8,670 B.C.
Opposed to the resulting control of all the space facilities by Enki's descendants, the Enlilites launch the Second Pyramid War. The victorious Ninurta empties the Great Pyramid of its equipment.

Ninhursag, half-sister of Enki and Enlil, convenes peace conference. The division of Earth is reaffirmed. Rule over Egypt transferred from the Ra/Marduk dynasty to that of Thoth. Heliopolis built as a substitute Beacon City.

8,500 B.C.
The Anunnaki establish outposts at the gateway to the space facilities; Jericho is one of them.

7,400 B.C.
As the era of peace continues, the Anunnaki grant Mankind new advances; the Neolithic period begins. Demi-gods rule over Egypt.

3,800 B.C.
Urban civilization begins in Sumer as the Anunnaki reestablish there the Olden Cities, beginning with Eridu and Nippur."



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Hanslune
The evidence is weak to say the least. Even Barsoum has taken the position that only 10-20% of the block were 'poured'.



which evidence specifically and why do you think it is weak? how many blocks have been tested? and were they poured separately?


Because it hasn't been accepted -- look at how fast the Denisovan and Hobbit were accepted, 'strong' evidence

I'm using weak and strong in the sense of the full theory not a specific part of it



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

I love how stuff like that only corroborates Sitchin's work! thanks


Unfortunately for the stuff Sitchin made up archaeology doesn't support him

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


"10,500 B.C.
The descendants of Noah are allotted three regions. Ninurta, Enlil's foremost son, dams the mountains and drains the rivers to make Mesopotamia habitable; Enki reclaims the Nile valley. The Sinai peninsula is retained by the Anunnaki for a post-Diluvial spaceport; a control center is established on Mount Moriah (the future Jerusalem).


So where are these dams? The Natufian culture was already there, Jomon in Japan are making pottery in 14,000 BC Gravettian's making ceramics in 30,000 BC


The victorious Ninurta empties the Great Pyramid of its equipment.


Chuckle where did uncle Sitchin come up with this stuff?




8,500 B.C.
The Anunnaki establish outposts at the gateway to the space facilities; Jericho is one of them.


There were earlier sites - but these were found after Sitchin made up his stuff....oops....



3,800 B.C.
Urban civilization begins in Sumer as the Anunnaki reestablish there the Olden Cities, beginning with Eridu and Nippur."


Nope Ubaidians there a 1,000 years before.....the problem in making stuff up is that later research shows up - but in the this case the Ubaidians were known of during Sitchin's time, but hey he was rather limited in his area of knowledge

How do the sites of Catalhuyuk, Gobelki Tepe, Cafer Hoyuk, Nevali, Cayonu, Qaramel, Jerf el Ahmar, Mureybet and Djade it into this wondrous world Sitchin created? lol
edit on 22/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 
this was AFTER the flood and doesn't imply there were no other civilizations. prior to the flood civilizations were spreading all over the place.

"Moreover, even the single sentence in Ashurbanipal's inscription was full of scientific dynamite. He not only confirmed that there had been a Deluge; he stated that his tutoring by the God of Scribes included the understanding of pre-Diluvial inscriptions, "the enigmatic words in the stone carvings from the days before the Deluge." It could only mean that even before the Deluge there had been scribes and stone carvers, languages and writing— that there had been a civilization in the remote days before the Deluge!

It was traumatic enough to have realized that the roots of our modern western civilization go back not to Greece and Judea of the first millennium B.C., and not to Assyria and Babylonia of the second millennium B.C., and not even Egypt of the third millennium B.C. —but to Sumer of the fourth millennium B.C. Now, scientific credibility had to be stretched even farther back, to what even the Sumerians considered "the olden days" —to an enigmatic era "before the Deluge."
"



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join