Lost Egyptian Pyramid Found

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
Really nice find Mianeye, it is just frustrating that we will have to wait probably years to know much more about them


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.

At least the more they find, the more we can look at their alignments and perhaps get a better understanding of their purpose and who really built the first ones.


how amazing would it be if you could blow all the sand away to uncover everything?!




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
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 And if it is completely out of date we just drop it.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?


The quote provided above pretends that there is some sort of "trend" that we "can't trace back."

In fact, it's not a trend at all.

C14 comes from the atmosphere. It is in large part created by cosmic rays when they strike the atmosphere.

Cosmic ray sources are not succeptible to trend analysis, since the ones that don't come from the Sun come from collapsing or exploding stars, mostly.

So, it's actually quite random, but it happens everywhere on the planet at the same time. That last part means that, if an artifact can have its age confirmed by other means (such as association with written texts, association with another artifact whose date is certain, association with wood that can be dated through Dendrochronology, association with pottery which is part of a known timeline of pottery types, etc.) then the object's C14 date can be discarded due to the vagaries in cosmic reays I mentioned.

If enough artifacts can be found with similar C14 dates and they all (or mostly) can be dated to periods not aligned with their C14 dates, then C14 date calculations for all artifacts are adjusted by scientists. This has happend more times than you might think, resulting in a calibration technique used to discern the actual age range of an artifact by adjusting the C14 date using the previously established calibration methods.


When an artifact dates to a time period in which few other dated artifacts have been found, the C14 age for such an artifact is typically given as "carbon years" in an acknowledgement that the date could be off by a little.

I say "a little" because known increases of cosmic rays, increases we've discovered through secondary dating methods - the Dendrochronology and the pottery system I mentioned, mostly - where the C14 dates didn't match the known (or estimated) ages closely enough, these discovered cosmic ray influxes have never resulted in thousands of years of error. Usually it's around 10 to 20% error.


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

These hieratic glyphs were painted on using red ocher, not carved.

In my argument, the actual date the glyphs were applied to the wall is immaterial. What is important is the locations the glyphs are found it. The locations establish as a fact that the writers of the glyphs wrote them during the construction of the pyramid, not after.

Since the glyphs are Egyptian, and we have traced the development of writing in Egypt, the glyphs were unquestionably written by Egyptians.

Harte



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
this is amazing, i wonder how soon until we see excavation footage



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
-- snipped --

These hieratic glyphs were painted on using red ocher, not carved.

In my argument, the actual date the glyphs were applied to the wall is immaterial. What is important is the locations the glyphs are found it. The locations establish as a fact that the writers of the glyphs wrote them during the construction of the pyramid, not after.

Since the glyphs are Egyptian, and we have traced the development of writing in Egypt, the glyphs were unquestionably written by Egyptians.

Harte


There are no Egyptian hieroglyphics found in the great pyramid at Gizah, except for some at locations that could easily have been reached millenia after construction (upper relief chambers, Chamber of Chaos).

The writing found in the shaft were hieratic numerical signs, indicating relevant measurements by the constructors, whoever they were. Hieratic script was developed long before hieroglyphs came into use and may stem from a more ancient writing system.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Sorry, double post.
edit on 28/8/2012 by RationalDespair because: double post



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair

Originally posted by Harte
-- snipped --

These hieratic glyphs were painted on using red ocher, not carved.

In my argument, the actual date the glyphs were applied to the wall is immaterial. What is important is the locations the glyphs are found it. The locations establish as a fact that the writers of the glyphs wrote them during the construction of the pyramid, not after.

Since the glyphs are Egyptian, and we have traced the development of writing in Egypt, the glyphs were unquestionably written by Egyptians.

Harte


There are no Egyptian hieroglyphics found in the great pyramid at Gizah, except for some at locations that could easily have been reached millenia after construction (upper relief chambers, Chamber of Chaos).

Perhaps you should spend a half hour or so learning about the Great Pyramid before you opine.

It's rather embarassing to see a poster stating such a thing as you do with such assurance when everyone that knows anything at all about the Great Pyramid knows that what you state (that the locations of glyphs found in the GP "could easily have been reached millenia after construction" ) is patently absurd.

For example, who crawled up into the shaft from the Queens Chamber to write those glyphs? A trained cricket? The shaft itself is only 8 inches by about 8.5 inches in cross section (link.) Yet hieratic glyphs were found well inside the shaft, past the turn in it, by the robotic device used to explore in the shaft.


Originally posted by RationalDespair
The writing found in the shaft were hieratic numerical signs, indicating relevant measurements by the constructors, whoever they were. Hieratic script was developed long before hieroglyphs came into use and may stem from a more ancient writing system.

More ignorance on your part. Perhaps, like the great pyramid, you should spend an hour or two learning exactly what is know about hieratic before posting about it.

What you claim is exactly the same thing as the claim that cursive writing "developed long before" printed script.

It has been established, whether you care to believe it or not, that these two types of writing developed simultaneously. Of course they did. They're the same glyphs, just like the cursive letter "a" is the same letter as the printed letter "a."

Harte



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Well, I obviously know a lot more about it than you do. But if you wish to keep up your lies, go ahead, you´re not convincing me. I wasn´t attacking you in any way, just disagreeing with some of your statements. There was no need for name calling and attacking me in person. I´m just trying to have an intelligent discussion of the subject matter.

Hieratics are not the same as hieroglyphics. They did develop in parallel during some period, but hieratic script was developed before hieroglyphics were, and they are independent. Your analogy of it being a cursive version of the same thing is blatantly wrong! Do some research on your own part, please.

I never said that I think the hieratics in the shaft were put there after construction. I think they were put there during construction by the builders. Please read my post again.

The hieroglyphics however, are found in locations that are accessible and may have been added at a later period.
edit on 29/8/2012 by RationalDespair because: typos



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
heres an amazing documentary on Egypts lost cities!!

heres a teaser of the full length documentary below



full length


satelite imagery is fantastic for finds
edit on 29-8-2012 by GezinhoKiko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair
Well, I obviously know a lot more about it than you do. But if you wish to keep up your lies, go ahead, you´re not convincing me. I wasn´t attacking you in any way, just disagreeing with some of your statements. There was no need for name calling and attacking me in person. I´m just trying to have an intelligent discussion of the subject matter.

Please note the motto of this forum.
You have already exposed your ignorance here. Claiming at this point that you "know more about it" than anyone on this site is the lie. I've stated nothing but established facts.


Originally posted by RationalDespair
Hieratics are not the same as hieroglyphics. They did develop in parallel during some period, but hieratic script was developed before hieroglyphics were, and they are independent. Your analogy of it being a cursive version of the same thing is blatantly wrong! Do some research on your own part, please.

"Blatantly wrong?"


Hieratic refers to a cursive writing system that was used in the provenance of the pharaohs in Egypt and Nubia that developed alongside the hieroglyphic system,[1]

Source: Wiki
Sorry, but I have been doing research on this for years. Hieratic and "normal" glyphs developed in tandem.

The earliest Egyptian hieroglyphs, sort of a "proto - hieroglyphics," are to be found on wooden and ivory/bone tags, thought to designate the various different populations that had paid tribute or taxes to the early pharoahs. These glyphs were not hieratic.

My analogy is shaky in that hieroglyphic writing is not like ours. Other than that, it is a sound analogy in that hieratic developed as a faster way to write when a more formal script was deemed unnecessary. Many texts are written in hieratic, including some that date to before Khufu, who was pharoah when the Great Pyramid was constructed. The G.P. is Khufu's tomb.


Originally posted by RationalDespair
I never said that I think the hieratics in the shaft were put there after construction. I think they were put there during construction by the builders. Please read my post again.

Not only did I read your post, I quoted it. You likely were unaware of the glyphs found in the "shaft," but that's understandable as it is a fairly recent finding.

So, who else developed these Egyptian glyphs, other than the Egyptians? If some earlier culture did, then why do we see the "proto-hieroglyphs" I mentioned earlier associated with Pre-dynastic Egypt?


Originally posted by RationalDespair
The hieroglyphics however, are found in locations that are accessible and may have been added at a later period

The shaft remains unaccesible to this day, so why are you saying this? You just admitted this fact.

Most telling is your unawareness that to reach the "chambers" (they are only about 3 feet in height so more like crawlspaces) above the King's chamber, it required blasting the stone away with black powder. There is no secret door or unknown entrance to these spaces, and the spaces themselves are simply a relic of the construction method, the result of the way the Egyptians distributed the load that was above the King's Chamber, and never intended for any sort of access.

The writings in those spaces indicate the names of some of the gangs that were involved in the construction, including the "Gang of Khufu." In that particular writing, the spelling used for Khufu was unknown at the time of its discovery by Howard Vyse.
Note:


From hieroglyphic inscriptions and graffiti we infer that skilled builders and craftsmen probably worked year round at the pyramid construction site. Peasant farmers from the surrounding villages and provinces rotated in and out of a labor force organized into competing gangs with names such as "friends of Khufu" and" Drunkards of Menkaure".
Source
Also:


As the chambers were not intended to be seen, they were not finished in any way and a few of the stones still retain mason's marks painted on them. One of the stones in Campbell's Chamber bears a mark, apparently the name of a work gang, which incorporates the only reference in the pyramid to Pharaoh Khufu.[34][35]
Source
More;


Graffiti painted by these teams on the stone slabs of the pyramid were found - with pride they gave themselves names like "friends of Khufu"! [7]
Source

Among hundreds of other sources.
Harte



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by RationalDespair
Well, I obviously know a lot more about it than you do. But if you wish to keep up your lies, go ahead, you´re not convincing me. I wasn´t attacking you in any way, just disagreeing with some of your statements. There was no need for name calling and attacking me in person. I´m just trying to have an intelligent discussion of the subject matter.


Please note the motto of this forum.
You have already exposed your ignorance here. Claiming at this point that you "know more about it" than anyone on this site is the lie. I've stated nothing but established facts.


Where did I claim I know more about it then everyone else on the site? I said "I obviously know more about it than you." That´s something entirely different.


Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by RationalDespair
Hieratics are not the same as hieroglyphics. They did develop in parallel during some period, but hieratic script was developed before hieroglyphics were, and they are independent. Your analogy of it being a cursive version of the same thing is blatantly wrong! Do some research on your own part, please.


"Blatantly wrong?"


Hieratic refers to a cursive writing system that was used in the provenance of the pharaohs in Egypt and Nubia that developed alongside the hieroglyphic system,[1]

Source: Wiki
Sorry, but I have been doing research on this for years. Hieratic and "normal" glyphs developed in tandem.


Well, you just proved me right. You agree that hieratic is not the same as hieroglyphics and that hieratic is not a cursive way to write hieroglyphics. They indeed developed in tandem, but hieratic script was founded earlier than hieroglyphics. You are contradicting your own analogy with your own explanation, thanks.


Originally posted by Harte
The earliest Egyptian hieroglyphs, sort of a "proto - hieroglyphics," are to be found on wooden and ivory/bone tags, thought to designate the various different populations that had paid tribute or taxes to the early pharoahs. These glyphs were not hieratic.

My analogy is shaky in that hieroglyphic writing is not like ours. Other than that, it is a sound analogy in that hieratic developed as a faster way to write when a more formal script was deemed unnecessary. Many texts are written in hieratic, including some that date to before Khufu, who was pharoah when the Great Pyramid was constructed. The G.P. is Khufu's tomb.


I agree with you on the use of hieratic script, but again is was not shorthand of hieroglyphics.

Saying that the GP was the tomb of Khufu is very risky at this point, especially since you are claiming to have researched the topic for years. No trace of the king´s body, or any body, has ever been found inside the pyramid.


Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by RationalDespair
I never said that I think the hieratics in the shaft were put there after construction. I think they were put there during construction by the builders. Please read my post again.


Not only did I read your post, I quoted it. You likely were unaware of the glyphs found in the "shaft," but that's understandable as it is a fairly recent finding.

So, who else developed these Egyptian glyphs, other than the Egyptians? If some earlier culture did, then why do we see the "proto-hieroglyphs" I mentioned earlier associated with Pre-dynastic Egypt?


What we see in the shaft are hieratic signs of measurements, not hieroglyphics.


Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by RationalDespair
The hieroglyphics however, are found in locations that are accessible and may have been added at a later period

The shaft remains unaccesible to this day, so why are you saying this? You just admitted this fact.


I´m not talking about the shaft here. There are no hieroglyphics in the shaft.


Originally posted by Harte
Most telling is your unawareness that to reach the "chambers" (they are only about 3 feet in height so more like crawlspaces) above the King's chamber, it required blasting the stone away with black powder. There is no secret door or unknown entrance to these spaces, and the spaces themselves are simply a relic of the construction method, the result of the way the Egyptians distributed the load that was above the King's Chamber, and never intended for any sort of access.


I am aware of this, but this is controversial and I´m not talking about a supposed forgery by Vyse. My understanding is that there were unreachable markings (not hierglyphics) found behind the wall that are proven to be from the time of construction, but that the "graffiti" in hieroglyphics was found in plain sight.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by RationalDespair
Well, I obviously know a lot more about it than you do. But if you wish to keep up your lies, go ahead, you´re not convincing me. I wasn´t attacking you in any way, just disagreeing with some of your statements. There was no need for name calling and attacking me in person. I´m just trying to have an intelligent discussion of the subject matter.


Please note the motto of this forum.
You have already exposed your ignorance here. Claiming at this point that you "know more about it" than anyone on this site is the lie. I've stated nothing but established facts.


Where did I claim I know more about it then everyone else on the site? I said "I obviously know more about it than you." That´s something entirely different.

My point was that you have shown that you can't even claim to know more about this than anyone on this site, much less me. That is because you have stated that these glyphs could have been painted on long after the pyramid was erected, which is certainly not the case.

You seemed to think that the "chambers" above the King's chamber were just more chambers in the pyramid. I told you that they were not.

It was you that stated that the glyphs found in the G.P. were in places that were reachable for millenia, wasn't it? It was I that pointed out that the writing was found in places that were unreachable until black powder was used to blow them open.

Let's not mix up these two facts, lest I have to waste time quoting you.

The fact that you are unaware of the solid evidence that the Egyptians constructed the Great Pyramid, and the time frame in which it was constructed, is an indication that you know far less about this than almost anyone on this forum (by this forum, I mean the Ancient Civ. forum.)

Hence, my statement that you "know more about this" than me (or anyone here) is simply a lie.

As far as name calling, perhaps you don't know the definition of "ignorance" which, as far as I can tell, is the "name calling" you referred to in an early response to me. It is you that is doing the name-calling - blatantly saying that I am lying, and not even bothering to point out where I have lied.

As I said, I've stated nothing at all but provable, established facts here. That you can't handle these facts is not of concern to me.

Lastly, if you examine Hieratic script, especially the older varieties, you will see several of the formal glyphs are represented in hieratic, in exactly the same way that several of the more formal, printed, Roman letters are represented in cursive English writing. You are welcome to your opinion that Hieratic contains none of the characters of Hieroglyphics, but experts recognize that opinion as incorrect. Here:


Hieratic, on its part, did not replace hieroglyphic either. From its beginnings it was hieroglyphic, but more cursive, and written by a speedier hand than hieroglyphic. As the two writings evolved, practicality caused hieratic to be used when a text need not be written in the slow but detailed hieroglyphic signs. Therefore hieratic was used in such contexts as administrative texts; texts that were not to be inscribed on monuments or funerary objects and texts that mattered for their contents only.
Source

Depending on who has written it, some hieratic resembles nothing more than quickly scrawled hieroglyphs. This is true of the hieratic found in the relieving chambers, if you bother to look at it.

Harte



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
hey guys,
am new to ATS and can't start a new thread but found some interesting stuff on Googleearth I need to share with you. It is far more interesting then the Topic and far better formations. I need someone to get Information on this one or knows what it is. PLS CHECK IT OUT: 26.581888,30.656097 and 26.590101,30.656104.
There is more to it, check the second coords, it is quite far in the desert of Egypt!
edit on 1-9-2012 by Loki420th because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-9-2012 by Loki420th because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
formationguys have you found this one yet???
look it up at: 26.581888,30.656097.
What do you think? This "thing" is enormous!
uhh sry for double post^^
edit on 4-9-2012 by Loki420th because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
There hiding something in Egypt if they wasn't there would be a lot more arch digs going on.Its getting harder for then now though because of the terrain in Egypt even the like of me the average joe can spot anomalies on google earth.Ive found the face of an alien grey on a mountain next to the valley of the kings I'll be posting a thread as soon as I can.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Loki420th
 


I don't get it.
The first is very close to a road and looks like a water tank or an oil well ( since no other oil structures near by, it could as well be an water tank.) in the middle east, tank are constructed and covered with soil to maintain the temperatures. sometimes, on this soil on top of the tank, grass is planted, trees are planted and want not.

On an off note, ...damn..its a star-gate..lol

The second looks to me like a sandstone quarry site or some kind of quarry site.

I don't see anything mysterious in the locations indicated by the coordinates.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


I can clearly see what looks like stone sculptures of modern aeroplanes, all enclosed in perfect circles. There´s a lot of activity in the area just by looking at the tyre tracks in the surroundings.

By the way, it´s not a road that you see there, it´s an ancient aquaduct that runs a loooong way through the entire desert. Just follow it to see a lot more interesting things along it...



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by coredrill
 


I can clearly see what looks like stone sculptures of modern aeroplanes, all enclosed in perfect circles. There´s a lot of activity in the area just by looking at the tyre tracks in the surroundings.

By the way, it´s not a road that you see there, it´s an ancient aquaduct that runs a loooong way through the entire desert. Just follow it to see a lot more interesting things along it...


Stone Sculptures of Aeroplanes? how many circles are there?
I cant see them. I am using the Google maps to view the coordinates. if you can get a screen cap with huigher resolution please post it.

It is indeed a road and if you pan the map to the right, you can see it joining with the road that passes besides the red soil quarry.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Can´t post a screenshot right now, I´m at work, but go to Google Maps and go to these coordinates (they are different than the ones above):

26.589842, 30.655466

(just paste it in the search box and you´ll be taken there)

Zoom all the way in. Voilá! Aeroplanes. Look around the area a bit to reveal more of them.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Formation click!
26.590101,30.656104
26.581888,30.656097

You really think this might be just a water tank?

Actualy I think there is something big behind this stuff, we should open up a new thread just or this mystery. I can't, am still climbing up to 20 posts
edit on 7-9-2012 by Loki420th because: photo added



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


Hey RationalDespair, please go ahead and open a new thread, can't reply to your pm yet. Thanks for that, i can provide further information.





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum