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.

 

Men Who Vandalized Great Pyramid To Prove 'Theory' Face Charges

page: 2
73
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I'm not crazy about how they got the samples but hopefully they can shed some light on the age questions.Sometimes it seems the Egyptian government doesn't want to co operate with archaeologists.For example has anyone really explored the Sphinx?Besides Dr.Hawass,who I never liked and don't trust.




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



Why are you trying to interject that crackpot?


You and Sitchin in this case are identical. You are both trying to disprove the age of the GP to fit it into a crackpot theory.

It's a valid comparison.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Yes, most of us already know that. Show us where it states it's large enough to support the idea that it supplied all the stones for the Pyramids. Please.


You say "most of us already know that." No, I don't think you do - the questions you just asked shows you don't know much at all about this quarry. This quarry, immediately adjacent to the GP, supplied stone for that pyramid only. Khafre's pyramid took stone from another quarry, adjacent to his pyramid. No one quarry supplied all the stone for all the pyramids. This quarry was surveyed extensively, they've matched the thicknesses of the bedding planes to the thicknesses in the tiers of the GP, to prove definitively it was THE quarry that supplied the stone for it.

You want to postulate pet theories based on ignorance, that's your business.

As far as the OP, if we let jackasses with a chisel and hammer and a pet theory to prove continue to deface the GP, we won't have much left of it.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Blackmarketeer
Now, you support your pet theory by doubting the GP could be built during the reign of a single Pharaoh. I have to wonder, were you aware of theories that contend Khufu and Khafre were co-regents?



Fair enough.

Let's start by carbon dating both the cartouche in question and the new finds in the shaft.


If they both come in at or around the period of the supposed construction then that proves that Khufu/Cheops was the builder. That would end this debate and I and everybody else would stop questioning the age.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well I was going to post some information on this but when I went to the persons Facebook it is now gone. Robert Bauval has been posting ALL kinds of information and documents about this on his Facebook. I have no idea what happened to his page. IT was just there the other day because I was reading more updates on this case.


I wish I had more to contribute but without those links it's pointless and i don't want to get the information wrong. All I know is it involved Hawass and it wasn't good and it was VERY interesting. I hope his page is re-activated soon and I'll post links to what he has posted or at least copy what he has there.

As for the age of the GP. I am not sure. I think it is possible they are older. I also don't really go with the theory of it being a tomb. I mean look at all other Egyptian tombs, they are heavily decorated with writing yet the GP is not. I am sure this will make me sound nuts but I'm use to it. I tend to think the GP was some form of energy conductor. I think maybe the Pharaoh Kufu used it for his own purposes and maybe added to what was already there. I'm not sure though just a guess.

I'll subscribe to this thread incase Bauval's page comes back.


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Blackmarketeer
You want to postulate pet theories based on ignorance, that's your business.


What was the phrase again...?

Sorry Charlie you can't have it both ways.

On the one hand argue that the cartouche is accurate and then on the other hand say that you can't judge the sites age by it. Seems that some here want to play both sides of that coin while avoiding commitment to either, it's a very simple request to have it's age tested and doesn't seem too unreasonable.

My pet theory is simply asking if it could be older and to have some verification of those two items.

*The resistance to such testing seems a bit odd when one considers that it would finally lay to rest all of these theories once and for all*

For the Record.

I've done my research on the various theories of how the Great Pyramid was built... When it was built?

edit on 21-2-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Firstly can i start off by saying..... Slayer you have done it again, your threads are consistently the most interesting and well layed out on ATS in my opinion.... it's clear to me that you have a firm knowledge of the topics you bring forth and you always participate in the discussion in a polite manner which is becoming all too rare here...


I would also like to address the statements made by Blackmarketeer..... You have made several valid points in this thread based on logic and the information that is widely available however you can't repeatedly claim Slayer is following the path of Sitchin simply because he is open to alternative theories regarding the age of the GP... implying such does more harm to your credibility than it does to Slayers.....

Personally i am of the opinion that the majority of our true history has either been forgotten, lost or hidden from us, i am unsure which, all i really know for sure is that the current accepted model has far too many inconsistencies and the academic community is definitely too quick to vilify those that challenge the accepted model...

I think that if they are correct then what is the harm in dating the samples... even though i disagree with how they were gathered i think charging these guys is a little harsh, yes they should not have done it but curiosity and intellectual growth should never be punished..

PHNX




edit on 21/2/2014 by Ph03n1x because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

SLAYER69

Blackmarketeer
You - and Sitchin - are both doing precisely the same thing - cherry picking evidence to support a pet theory.


Why are you trying to interject that crackpot?

Slayer,
I'm actually surprised but moreso I'm happy to see here that you apparently are unaware that it is Sitchin's claim you are espousing here - Vyse as a forger.

When Vyse first announced his findings, something similar happened to him - some academics thought they knew enough to dispute him.

The argument most of them made was that the glyphs Vyse found were heiratic, and hieratic script was "known" to greatly post-date Khufu. What they didn't know is that a papyrus was already in the possession of a Western "collector" at that time, written during Khufu's reign, in heiratic script.

Also, however, the use of the "sieve" glyph in Khufu's cartouche called Vyse's findings into question since, at that time, it had never been seen in Khufu's name and was therefore assumed to be some sort of an error - even a forgery (some said.)

But other sites confirmed the spelling of Khufu's name.

What that means is that Vyse couldn't have forged the name because there was no way he could have spelled it that way. Because of that, Vyse's find was finally lauded by all.

Many years later, Sitchin dug up these facts, re-arranged them - and then published them as the truth, even going so far as to misrepresent the very glyph that was in question.

In fact, Sitchin himself got the story exactly backwards, claiming the Sun Disk glyph was found by Vyse, even going so far as to provide an image that he claimed came from Vyse's journal showing the Ra disk.
But Vyse's journal has his sketch of the name on that page and clearly shows the sieve glyph - not the Ra disk glyph.


SLAYER69
Fair enough.

Let's start by carbon dating both the cartouche in question and the new finds in the shaft.


If they both come in at or around the period of the supposed construction then that proves that Khufu/Cheops was the builder. That would end this debate and I and everybody else would stop questioning the age.

Again, with Vyse and the two seperate C14 assays of the Great Pyramid, do you expect anyone to "stop questioning the age," once it is for the fourth time established that the GP is a 4th Dynasty structure?

You yourself are right now questioning two different C14 studies, but you say one more C14 survey would do the trick?

Harte



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I appreciate the feedback

Could you please link us to the C-14 dating results of both the cartouch and the new finds in the shaft please.

Thanks again.


edit on 21-2-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Sorry but they went about this all wrong and what they did was amateur and reckless. If every self appointed/self described archeologist pulled these stunts, then the worlds treasures would be ruined. Thumbs down.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Harte

Slayer,
I'm actually surprised but moreso I'm happy to see here that you apparently are unaware that it is Sitchin's claim you are espousing here - Vyse as a forger.


Sitchin around in 1837?



In 1954, Mr Walter Allen of Pittsburgh, PA, was researching his family history with his mother. He discovered that his great grandfather, Humphries Brewer, had spent some time in Egypt in 1837, working for Colonel R.W. Howard-Vyse at the Giza Pyramids. From Walter Allen’s notes it seems that his great grandfather fell out with Howard-Vyse and his team as a result of them painting ‘marks’ into the Great Pyramid. Walter Allen’s record of his discussion with his mother of their family history is reproduced below:



Linky



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Couldn't agree with your position more.

The damage has been done, we may as well make use of what has been obtained...it won't change the damage, but from a scientific point of view provide some value.

There is also some of that red ochre / paint / crushed beetles dye - whatever, on the mating surfaces of the U-blocks that make up the tunnels to the chambers.

It can be seen on some of the images the robot took, where a few of the blocks have come slightly out of alignment exposing the mating / facing edges of the U-block section.

There looks like there's more of it on these faces than there is on the cartouche and the strange markings beyond the first 'door'. It would probably be best to collect corroborating samples from these misaligned faces, rather than damage the small and delicate writing i reckon.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree. Also any idea that is out of the norm is quickly drowned out. I personally believe the old Egyptian who grew up at the foot of the pyramids who said the great pyramid was never a tomb but an energy machine. There is an old grainy documentary he was a part of and I believe he wrote a book. I am sorry I can't remember his name but his theories were believable.

He grew up there and had the many handed down stories we never get to hear. It is a great theory. Having worked a quarry I can tell you it very difficult for us to move some of these stones today let alone then. It is amazing and also the timing. It would be something to see setting a stone every two minutes.

No matter what it is an amazing accomplishment.

The Bot



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

SLAYER69
reply to post by Harte
 


I appreciate the feedback

Could you please link us to the C-14 dating results of both the cartouch and the new finds in the shaft please.

Thanks again.


Why do you want to know, is the question here.

I already told you the thieves didn't destroy enough of the literally priceless glyphs to conduct A C14 assay.

Plus, even if it was dated, it's only a single sample. Not enough to even speculate about.

Also, you know that the recently found glyphs haven't been (and IMO certainly shouldn't be) sampled.

Are you able to state why it is that you doubt other C14 dates that certainly must indicate the age of the site, yet would settle for the date given by this single sample?

Harte



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Well i would like to know .. what are the result of the Age of rest of the Pryamids in Egypt..

Time for Researching ...

Meanwhile

Something to Read ...


MARK LEHNER, Archaeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, and Harvard Semitic Museum
NOVA: How do we know how old the pyramids are?
www.pbs.org...




New Dates for Egypt's Pharaohs
17 June 2010 2:02 pm
news.sciencemag.org...


(( Conspiracy Realm We go ))

Hmm this is Interesting Theory for Conspiracy theorist !! that is...of the Deluge aka The Great Flood



Underwater Pyramids 5000 Years Older than Egypt

First of all please read the note on the problem with the radiocarbon dating:

Regarding the Problem with the Radiocarbon Dating There is one BIG problem with the radiocarbon dating: It doesn’t work for the time before the global flood mentioned in the Bible. Because before the flood our planet got a kind of shield made of water vapor high above our atmosphere (even above the thermosphere). This water vapor above the “expanse called heaven” protected the earth from radiation from the sun and therefore all attempts to determine the exact age of archaeological findings will result in a exaggerated rating of the age. To claim that some man made structures are older than 6000 years is based on the misinterpretation of the radiocarbon dating of an earth with the same atmospheric conditions as today. But we find everywhere on our planet evidence of a world wide catastrophic event. Also there are more than 150 legends about a global flood in many cultures. Most of the water above the expanse are now in our oceans. Imagine how this water masses could affect measurement if they prevent the radiocarbon from decay.

www.hydrogen2oxygen.net...


Reminds me of what fire and water did to the Shroud of Turin in the late 14th century and contaminated it

yet a few scientist the examined the shroud found extinct plant pollen that only came from the middle east around the time of Jesus ...



How close are those quarry's?? I say i think... don't quote me over 400+ miles any possible way of dating the quarry's ?

what is the oldest human remains discovered in Giza > ? note not saying mummy... as slaves.. possible builders as
there would of been some deaths involved while they were being built ...



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte you and I both know this would be for all the marbles. The painted cartouche, the cedar-like wood and the iron plate all could be tested.

Source

Little known Relics found inside the Great pyramid



Dixon Relics
The shafts in the Queen’s Chamber were first discovered in 1872 by a British engineer named Waynman Dixon. The ancient Egyptians had blocked them with stones, making it appear that the walls of the chamber were completely solid. Dixon, however, decided to probe all the joints in the masonry of the Queen’s Chamber with a wire to see if anything might be hidden behind them. When he discovered a hollow in the southern wall, he chiseled through to reveal the shaft. He realized that there was probably a corresponding shaft in the northern wall, and was indeed able to locate one. In the southern shaft, Dixon and his associate James Grant found a small, bronze hook.

The northern shaft yielded a granite ball and a piece of cedar-like wood. These objects became known as the Dixon Relics. Both sets of artifacts lay in the rubble at the bottom of the sloping shafts. A report on the discovery of the relics was published in the journal “Nature” on December 26, 1872, including a drawing of the items. In 1993 a search led to the discovery of the ball and hook in the British Museum, where they remain today. The piece of cedar-like wood was missing until 2001, when it was traced to the Marischal Museum in Aberdeen, Scotland.




The Iron Plate in the Great Pyramid




Great Pyramid Iron plate

In 1837, Colonel Howard Vyse, with the assistance of two civil engineers (John Perring and James Mash), investigated the air shafts in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid described by George Sandys more than 200 years earlier. A man in Vyse's team, J.R. Hill, was put in charge of clearing the mouth of the southern shaft. Vyse's methods were not subtle, and the use of explosives was employed resulting in the vertical gash that can still be seen on the south side of the pyramid.

On Friday, 26 May 1837, after a few days of blasting and clearing, Hill discovered a flat iron plate about 26 cm (10.2") long, 8.6 cm (3.4") wide, with a thickness ranging from .4 cm (.2") to nearly zero. The plate weighs about 750g. Vyse proclaimed it to be "the oldest piece of wrought iron known." Hill affirmed that his find was legitimate:

edit on 21-2-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
*Clap* *Clap* *Clap*

They have BALLS!

Good on them.

No guts no glory.

The pyramid has many rooms and areas sealed off to the public.

Secrets are only temporary. Temporary can last minutes like it can last centuries.

Don't let the academics get in the way of your/our education.

Worst case scenario they confirm what is already known. The reaction doesn't support this idea.

To be fair, some scientist like to take their THEORIES as fact and have a hard time accepting that others will refute or challenge them. Not very scientific.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
2 german archeologists.,...

Wake up people. Germanics, Scandinavians that in majority they are A type of blood, believe that they are the true atlantians. What you wanted them to try prove you, that their dna is similar to monkeys? Because monkeys are A type of blood before them?


Thats why they wanted to try prove that.

I tell you this... germanics, type A blood... is a kronian race and their creators are allied with the dragonian forces according to ancient books. There are 2 races on this planet corrupting and destroying and that, is one of them.
During Posidonia existence (atlantis), they ditched them there, to corrupt and implement 1 word order, they failed by us and their pathetic creators destroyed atlantis.

Type A is not only germanics, in ancient years, after the cataclysmic event, greece was united by many tribes, ancient and new ones... Type A the kronian ones (newer) and type O the most ancient ones. Thats how they implemented Kronians, democracy, etc, afterwrds... it was plan B for their goals to be fulfilled. One world order. Now we experience the second attempt.

We call them Kronians, because they were crafted, created, during Kronos rulership in the skies. Type O is known as Ouranus generation. They are called Ouranus because they came from the skies. The only indegenus race on planet earth is true black race, Ouranos and black race made a great alliance in the past and thats the reason they brought some poppulations here. B type is probably Bixi (the 4 celestial jade statues). They were very carefull when they named the bloods with letters.
edit on 21-2-2014 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Ok I found Bauval's blog and the information I wanted to provide that was on his FB page.

Hawass tried to accuse Bauval of hiring these German's to steal a piece of the cartouche which he did not do!! I use to think Hawass was the greatest when i was a kid, until I realized he was a complete jerk to put it nicely. Anyway that is another story.

He totally fabricated a lie about Bauval and for what purposes? I honestly don't know. What i do know is these two don't seem to get along and I know Bauval does not like him. His posts about him on FB were quite comical and honestly I didn't blame. If i had been accused of doing such things I too would be pissed beyond belief.




Dr Zahi Hawass, ex Minister of State for Antiquities, revealed that the robberies of King Khufu’s cartouche was done on behalf of, Robert Bauval, an Egyptian Jew working in Belgium, who has been trying by every means to prove that the pyramid is ‘a Jewish and not Egyptian product’....

You can read the rest here about a quarter of the way down.

Further down in his blog he states that Hawass was asked about these allegations and again he lied. He then stated that he had no proof of such claims yet he is the one who made them. I don't trust him as far as I could toss him honestly.




Meanwhile I have been informed by a friend in Cairo that on the 21st December 2013 Zahi Hawass gave a talk at the Journalists Syndicate of Egypt. When asked why he made those accusations against me he replied straight-faced that he had “no proof that I was involved in the crime committed by the Germans”. On that same day he was interviewed by a the Swiss journalist, who also asked him why he said that I had paid the Germans to steal the cartouche of Khufu. Hawass replied by e-mail: “I do not have any evidence that Bauval was involved in this crime.”

The above is from the same page as the link for the previous quote, just scroll down towards the bottom.


They claimed they did damage yet the damage was there already! Here is the proof.
Keep in mind this quote is Bauval talking on his blog. I will post the pics next.


I suddenly recalled that my friend Dr. Robert Schoch of Boston University had visited the Relief Chambers twice: once in 2003 and another time in 2006. I immediately contact Schoch who very kindly sent me high-definition digital images of the Cartouche taken at those dates. It was beyond any shadow of a doubt that in the 2003 photograph the Cartouche was NOT damaged but in the 2006 photograph the exact same damage i.e. the white spots, was clearly there! Gorlitz had been telling the truth. The question nonetheless remained of who had caused this damage to the Cartouche, and when? The photographs that Schoch had sent me proved beyond any doubt that the damage had occurred between 2003 and 2006. I knew that Hawass had authorized dozens of visitors, many of them students, regular tourists and even television crews, mostly from America and Europe, to visit the Relief Chambers. Any of these people could have caused the damage between 2003 and 2006. I decided to do a thorough research to see if we could not narrow down the dates. What I discovered was even more shocking!


Here is the picture provided by Robert Schoch

This was on Dominique Gorlitz FB page accompanying the picture.



To whom it may concern,

Regarding to the very nasty and false accusations in the newest article of the LiveScience Magazin from New York I have to state following:

It is categorically proven that I did not damage the “Khufu-Cartouche” in April 2013. It is proven by pictures, video streams and professional reports that those damages happened in the time between 2005 and 2006. At this time I was not in Egypt!

Whoever still blames me on these wrong accusations I consider this as an act of defamation!

Accordingly, I warn everybody who persists in this defamation after I present this statement here today I will take legal action to defend myself! I am not guilty for these damages which were detected by the Egyptian authorities in December 2013. The report (below) made by Prof. Dr. Robert Schoch cannot be longer ignored as a proof for the truth.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dominique Görlitz
February 20th, 2014

Here is a link to his FB page directly. I know not everyone has FB but for those who do it is a public page and I think even if you don't have one you can view it because it's public.

I also have a video interview with Bauval on the subject and he is rightfully upset. I honestly would be do if someone accused me of such things. Hawass imo is an idiot to put it nicely and to stay within T&C. I remember years ago I did a paper on the Sphinx and possible water erosion and I emailed him and Robert Schoch for information. You know who responded? Schoch! He sent me information for my paper and everything. I got an A of course but was disappointed in Hawass because at the time to me he was the know all of Ancient Egyptian things but apparently he didn't like this theory which I learned later on once I was able to have access to the internet. I will always remember how Schoch sent me information for my paper. I was shocked he even responded but happy.


Anyway. I could post all night on this but my son is ready to eat and I have some cooking and cleaning to do once he goes to bed. I have been following this via Robert Bauval's FB page. He was a friend on my page and recently his page has disappeared. I don't know why because it was just there the other day! Now it says it's been removed.


You can read all kinds of information on this story on Bauval's blog and even on Dominique Gorlitz FB page. They did not do the damage they are accused of. They did take a small sample but next to the cartouche, they openly admit that but the accusations they damaged it are wrong.

Dominique Gorlitz FB page
Robert Bauval Blog
Photo credit goes to Robert Schoch



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Oh crap Slayer! I have things to do tonight and you post this!


I've never seen this before. I'll save it for tomorrow when I have time to read it and research it.

Interesting piece!



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join