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.
Originally posted by rickymouse
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
they have found a name carved into the great pyramid. it was khufu
Khufu's name could have been carved into the great pyramid ten thousand years after it was built. That is not real evidence. I can go carve my name into an area where ancient carvings are and a thousand years from now they will say I carved it all.
If all the pyramids of Egypt are not antediluvian, the three pyramids on the Giza plateau undoubtedly are, as the pyramids of Dahshur. There would be therefore more than 12,000 years old. In this case, they were not built by the Pharaohs whose names they have.
These princes have appropriated already existing monuments, as it was the use at those days. Originally, these monuments were not designed as tombs. As Pharaohs always did, the restorer became the builder, and the Temple became his tomb.
Did they testify that this pyramid was indeed the work of Cheops? It would prove nothing. Napoleon has carved his figure on the monuments of the countries he conquered. Signing is not building. And the real builders, moreover, have not signed anything. Neither the Cities of the Andes, nor Mycenae, nor the giant Olmec Heads, nor the statues of Easter Island, nor the Celt dolmens. None of the cyclopean monuments has any inscription. No manual either. The Megalithic people did not care. They did not have our worship of ego.
The architectures that survived the great flood do not look like the others. They have at least two characteristics that differentiate them from all other human constructions. They are megalithic, ie made of enormous blocks, either cut or not. They are bare, ie without any ornament or inscription. These two signs, giant blocks, no decoration, prove that the great pyramid was built before the flood: there is neither painting, nor sculpture, nor hieroglyphic in the great pyramid.
eden-saga.com...
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
that's confirmation bias. you don't want ti to be factual, so you deny it
Originally posted by Murgatroid
These two signs, giant blocks, no decoration, prove that the great pyramid was built before the flood: there is neither painting, nor sculpture, nor hieroglyphic in the great pyramid.
Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
reply to post by 123143
What is that is more "fluff" and of course
what would you like proved..?
Originally posted by JayinAR
What medium. As in, "are these prints on a USB flash drive? Were they drawn on paper? Carved into stone? Painted on a 15th century easel?"
And yes, where were they found?
Originally posted by 123143
Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
reply to post by 123143
What is that is more "fluff" and of course
what would you like proved..?
Post something here that proves your assertions. A document, a photograph. SOMEthing.
Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
reply to post by TheKeyMaster
They were etched into the stone and yes, the casings were stripped
to build the Taj Mahal and other buildings.
That is history.
I'm not making anything up!
It's KNOWN history.