Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How were the pyramids really built?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


'The old wood problem'? The C14 dating would match perfectly with the theory that certain rooms and areas of the Pyramid could not have been constructed in such a way when going from the bottom up, which means they would have had to build it from the top -> down. You ask how is this done, and my reply is the same: That is the real question, now isn't it? There are explanations, but conventional and mainstream they are not.




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Harte
 


'The old wood problem'? The C14 dating would match perfectly with the theory that certain rooms and areas of the Pyramid could not have been constructed in such a way when going from the bottom up


Except for the fact that no such "certain rooms and areas of the Pyramid" exist.

No structure exists anywhere on Earth that "could not have been constructed ...going from the bottom up "

Harte



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I disagree...Highly. My name is not Google, so I will leave the search up to yourself. I'm out.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Harte
 


I disagree...Highly. My name is not Google, so I will leave the search up to yourself. I'm out.


Well, that was easy.

So we can assume you have no evidence to support the silly claim of building from the top down, and thus we can move on to more serious considerations.

Harte



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I am not acquiescing, I'm saying I don't have the time to argue with you. I must continue studying my Hebrew worksheet that I made so I can study further Kabbalistic texts. I have more pressing matters to attend to than feeding your ego, which I have neither the time nor the inclination for. Enjoy your thread...



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Harte
 


I am not acquiescing, I'm saying I don't have the time to argue with you. I must continue studying my Hebrew worksheet that I made so I can study further Kabbalistic texts. I have more pressing matters to attend to than feeding your ego, which I have neither the time nor the inclination for. Enjoy your thread...


Not my thread, and my ego doesn't enter into it.

You made a claim, then refused to support it.

That's acquiescence in anybody's book except yours (apparently.)

Harte



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Wrong. I'm not here to hold your hand and 'prove' to you something, that I'm not here to do. I came to share my knowledge. Your ego does indeed play a very big part, because are you not here for the purpose of 'debunking' people like me so that you can press your own dogmatic views? Are you not here, running everyone off, and insisting that your views are the only ones that matter? That's called ego, brother, and I can say that if you truly live in TN.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


You can't spell it; how do you expect to define it?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



I've read a lot of ideas on how they were made, most were with very little thought. But no explanations of how they got built all over the globe. You can't tell me that the ones in Mexico were built by the same technology as the ones in Egypt as well as the rest of them. The only way the knowledge could spread is by travel and humans just did not get around then. It seems like there is only one explanation. To some it sounds stupid but to us that are smarter than that know that sometimes you have to go out side the box of thinking. It is a very rational explanation that the knowledge came from above. Why is now the question? Why they were built seems like the question that should be asked. Not how...



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Uneedhlp247
 


I touched on this in another thread, very specifically a type of architectural design that was encoded by all pyramid-building peoples. Which when you look at how some of them were built only a few hundred years to 1300 years after the Great Pyramid; there is noway they could have possible seen the Chinese pyramids, in Guatemala, and vice versa....

Unraveling the key to these peoples mythology and spirituality, will lead you in the correct direction. No, I'm not talking about christianity either



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Harte
 


Wrong. I'm not here to hold your hand and 'prove' to you something, that I'm not here to do. I came to share my knowledge. Your ego does indeed play a very big part, because are you not here for the purpose of 'debunking' people like me so that you can press your own dogmatic views? Are you not here, running everyone off, and insisting that your views are the only ones that matter? That's called ego, brother, and I can say that if you truly live in TN.

No, apparently you're here to make completely mindless claims and then run away when others ask you to provide support for them.


Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Harte
 


You can't spell it; how do you expect to define it?

Do you mean "acquiescence?" Spelling of the word in question

How do you spell it? From the top down?

Harte



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


dictionary.reference.com...




to assent tacitly; submit or comply silently or without protest; agree; consent:



Google concurs




ac·qui·esce verb /ˌakwēˈes/  acquiesced, past participle; acquiesced, past tense; acquiesces, 3rd person singular present; acquiescing, present participle Accept something reluctantly but without protest - Sara acquiesced in his decision


You were saying?



How do you spell it? From the top down?


I guess my spelling and the Pyramid have something in common. Succinctly, correctly.

This also comes from Google, where I linked you the definition...




(acquiescence) assent: agreement with a statement or proposal to do something; "he gave his assent eagerly"; "a murmur of acquiescence from the assembly"


That's not even the same... One denotes humility or being humbled, while the other refers to somebody who would agree willingly.
edit on 12-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


You have not humbled me, and nor have I submitted to you. In fact, I directly expressed the opposite...I simply know your views, and I won't bother to waste my time; because after all you've seen this whole rigamarole before, have you not? I have better things to do, as for you, continue to enjoy your 'hijacked' thread then.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Harte
 


dictionary.reference.com...




to assent tacitly; submit or comply silently or without protest; agree; consent:



Google concurs




ac·qui·esce verb /ˌakwēˈes/  acquiesced, past participle; acquiesced, past tense; acquiesces, 3rd person singular present; acquiescing, present participle Accept something reluctantly but without protest - Sara acquiesced in his decision


You were saying?



How do you spell it? From the top down?


I guess my spelling and the Pyramid have something in common. Succinctly, correctly.

This also comes from Google, where I linked you the definition...




(acquiescence) assent: agreement with a statement or proposal to do something; "he gave his assent eagerly"; "a murmur of acquiescence from the assembly"


That's not even the same... One denotes humility or being humbled, while the other refers to somebody who would agree willingly.
edit on 12-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


So, in what way did I incorrectly spell the word I chose to use?

I see. Another of your vapid claims goes unsupported.

Harte
edit on 8/12/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


It was not used in the appropriate context. I am not submitting willingly to you; I'm saying I'm not taking your bait. I bid you adieu.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Harte
 


It was not used in the appropriate context. I am not submitting willingly to you; I'm saying I'm not taking your bait. I bid you adieu.


Or copping out again. Totally disingenuous poster that loves to stroke their own ego in public.

But don't worry, i won't waste my time again either.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I wondered all my life how the pyramids were built...then I figured it out.

I realised that we can't work it out because we are asking the WRONG QUESTIONS.

Instead of "How did they move the block to the top of mountanis?", we need to ask "Why did they PREFER to build at the top of mountains?"

Instead of "How did they move such big blocks of stone?", we need to ask "Why did they PREFER to biuld with such big blocks of stone?"

...and we always begin by dismissing the ancient legends of how Stonehenge, the pyramdis and the MOai Stones were constructed, yet these might actually be simply misunderstood utterly accurate accounts of how they were built.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Consider these follwing points...

- Standing stones (like Stonehenge) always occur near horses and saline water sources.
- The God of the Sea in many cultures is also the God of horses.
- Standing Stones are found at the north-east end of the transAtlantic trade winds from the Americas.
- Pyramids of Central America are found at the south-west end of the transAtlantic trade winds from North Africa.
- Pyramids in Egypt, Central America etc are always found in the presence of large populations of pigs and hardwood forests (which wer present in Egypt about 10,000 years ago)
- Leylines not only connect major temple complexes, but also go through high passes through the Alps.
- Pyramids and temples are regularly bult at the tops of mountains.
- When the Mayan temples were constructed, vast amounts of resources were spent putting down hue wide roads in the middle of the temples complexes, eyt barely a footpath exists even just to reach the cities. Why did they not use those paving stones to provide walking access trhought the mountains for travellers on their way to the temples complexes.
-



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Also, consider, salt indicating the production of hydrogen has been found in the Queens chamber in the Great Pyramid.

Also, standing stones often have TWO close circles, a big one and a little one with ductwork running along the ground between them. Some stone circles also have big holes that one can put a fist into cut into them.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chargeit
I'm also curious.

Have any of the ancient astronauts theorist ever spent any time on a construction site?

I know from personal experiences that you can do things you'd never of though possible with ropes, levers, pulleys and a few good men.


And so, what could be done with ropes, levers, pulleys, a few good men plus tens of thousands of slaves working for decades.






top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join