Lost Egyptian Pyramid Found

page: 3
47
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Picollo30


it's only a geological formation, a laccolith


en.wikipedia.org...


People see what they want to see. You want a pyramid, you see a pyramid, that's called pareidolia.

Sorry to burst your bubble guys nothing to see here. Next!

Please be more specific on how can you tell the from one ariel photo that the formation is a laccolith.
Has it been identified as one by a geologist?

M


edit on 11-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by morefiber
 


I hate mornings!

Please be specific one why you can tell from an ariel photo that the structure is a laccolith.
Has it been previously identified as one by a geologist?

M



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by morefiber
reply to post by morefiber
 


I hate mornings!

Please be specific one why you can tell from an ariel photo that the structure is a laccolith.
Has it been previously identified as one by a geologist?

M


morefiber this is just like the bosnian pyramids, they are not pyramids at all, just geological formations. if this was on mars people would start believing it was just rocks but instead it's in egypt, so pyramid is the most logical explanation. maybe it's an alien base who knows



take this photo as an example

it's an aerial view of what looks like a pyramidal formation

ikon.altervista.org...
edit on 11-8-2012 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Picollo30
 


Good morning Picollo,

It could very well be a laccolith, or some other natural formation like a typical mesa of the SW USA, which form from erosion of a plateau. My point is that just like people should not assume it is man made because it has a few somewhat straight and squarish sides, you should not assume it is a laccolith based on one photo.
I did not follow the Bosnian pyramid thread, but I know what you are talking about in terms of people taking a premise or an assumption and strapping a jet pack to it.

Your photo does not look like a pyramid to me at all, but it could be many different natural features. A dike, part of extinct volcano, part of a laccolith or batholith that has been eroded and exposed, a sedimentary deposit that has been folded, lifted and tilted, etc, etc. Many geological formations can look the same, many can look man made, and after time, man made structures can look like a natural formation. Until you look at the rocks and dig, just can't tell.

The OPs photo looks interesting, but if I had to bet, I would say it is natural, just because thats what the odds favor. Still it's worth looking into and hopefully someone checks it out on the ground.

You made a good point, I just have to question any spot geological analysis based on one photo.

Best wishes, and have a good weekend

M



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


Great stuff!! Thanks!



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
To the above poster's.

Nobody say's they are, they only suggest they could be, and need investigation.

Also there was a question mark in the headline, but after a Mod edit, the mark mysteriously dissappeard, and my OP says it could be nothing.

So everything was covered the right way.

I will follow this story to see if it's anything of value, in some cases the historie behind it, is better than the find.
edit on 11-8-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-8-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-8-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-8-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Ironic how it's like "oh we may have found more pyramids! Let's investigate," but when structures that look far more like true pyramids than these do are found on Mars, it's like "you're nuts!"



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


I wonder what that Sawi d-bag thinks about it. Or didn't he get ran off?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


Those look more like Myan temples than anything else. Perhaps earlier Egyptian pyramids of a different design? You have to admit that we have very little in the way of evolution in design at Giza. I wouldn't get my hopes up though. Those almost look like holes, not mounds.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
I believe that the pyramids (at Giza) are much older than current doctrine dictates, maybe as much 8000 years older, from a time when Egypt was temperate and sub tropical rather than desert, and if I am right then there could be hundreds if not thousands of ancient monuments buried under the sand.


Then you'll need to have an explanation for the C14 dates arrived at from carbon-containing samples of mortar taken from the Great Pyramid (and other sites at Giza) which puts it at about 2600 BC or so.

You'll also need to explain the indisputably Egyptian glyphs found in sealed areas of the Great Pyramid (and other pyramids) as well as the glyphs found by the robot exploring in the shafts that end in the Queen's Chamber. These are far enough up into the shaft that nobody could have painted them on except if it was done during construction.

Egyptian glyphs = Egyptian Civilization. There's no evidence for any earlier civilization there, and we do have evidence indicating that hieroglyphics were invented by the Egyptians, and not learned from some earlier culture.

Harte


c14 dating can be misleading in the true age of something, just like all other forms of carbon dating. It's one of the favorite arguements for the young Earth supporters.


Carbon 14 (C-14) dating was considered to be a tremendous breakthrough in science when Willard Libby devised it in 1946. But subsequent investigations have revealed it to be wholly inadequate for accurate dating of ancient materials.


source

Glyphs, and where they were invented have absolutely nothing to do with age or time.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


Why are these satellite photos accepted as possible evidence of pyramid/structure but photos of what similarly looks like buried structures on Mars are just geological anomalies?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The muslim leaders of egypt are gonna need a lot more wax than they thought



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aemie2012
reply to post by Mianeye
 


Why are these satellite photos accepted as possible evidence of pyramid/structure but photos of what similarly looks like buried structures on Mars are just geological anomalies?
Could it be that hundreds of pyramid's have been found and escavated in Egypt, and non on Mars.

Just because something looks like a pyramide, it dosn't mean it is, but this is the land of pyramids, so obviusly they say posible pyramid.

Until they find out, they are nothing but anomalies, both in Egypt and on Mars.
edit on 11-8-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
c14 dating can be misleading in the true age of something, just like all other forms of carbon dating. It's one of the favorite arguements for the young Earth supporters.


Carbon 14 (C-14) dating was considered to be a tremendous breakthrough in science when Willard Libby devised it in 1946. But subsequent investigations have revealed it to be wholly inadequate for accurate dating of ancient materials.


source

However, they still require explanation, do they not?

And if one proposes that the C14 dates are thousands of years off, how does one then explain other C14 dates from ancient Egypt that more or less conform with known ages of artifacts?

Also, if the C14 dates are wrong, how then does this lead to a date like 8,000 years earlier than we thought, as the poster suggested?


Originally posted by AnarchysAngelGlyphs, and where they were invented have absolutely nothing to do with age or time.


Did you miss the part about them being found in unreachable places? The first ones seen were discovered after black powder was used to blow open areas of the GP that had been inaccessible since it was erected, not to mention far up in the shafts from the Queen's chamber - shafts that are only a few inches in width and height.

How do you supposed Egyptian writing got into these spots if Egyptians did not put them there?

Harte



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aemie2012
reply to post by Mianeye
 


Why are these satellite photos accepted as possible evidence of pyramid/structure but photos of what similarly looks like buried structures on Mars are just geological anomalies?


Because they've only been accepted as evidence by the same people (here) that believe the Mars pics show structures.

Well, there's also the fact that we know that a pyramid-building culture lived in the area.

We don't have information like that about Mars.

Harte



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


You're right Harte. Here's a link to that data www.pbs.org...
edit on 11-8-2012 by Adapa because: misspelled



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Great find, thanks for sharing



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."



"At 600 B.C., the C-14 activity level is about:10%. Before this, the atmospheric activity is observed to decrease in such a way that, by about 2000 B.C., it is of the order of +50%. Clearly, the trend for older samples to have progressively lower delta % levels is observed. In other words, the whole picture is now consistent with the non-equilibrium model. Before 2160 B.C., there are no suitable [historically dateable] materials for calibration purposes, and so it is not possible to trace the curve back further in time . .

source

Not understanding how c14 dating can be accurate?

Who carved the glyphs? When? Nothing about how or where those glyphs are carved can tell you anything about when they were carved.

Personally, I only carve glyphs on the even years and usually at the turn of the millenium. Then I wait a thousand years and do it again! Oh wait....



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


How in tarnation can a pyramid get lost in a big flat desert?




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Sand dunes. I live on one big enough to cover several pyramids. nice pic though
edit on 12-8-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
47
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def