The Pyramid Code

reply to post by Ikema

That said it should be pointed out main stream televison including cable, the "documentary channel" removed, have refused to air. Not a suprise because it dares to think outside the box.

I found this doc through the Doc channel. Just started watching it and realized it was going to actually be good so I thought I would put it up on ATS but alas, beaten to the punch.

The Doc channel also pulled out Waco:Rules of Engagement recently. They do get down and dirty at times. I do think it doesn't much matter in this case as I am probably the only guy watching said channel. I don't think they get too many viewers.

reply to post by Maegnas


Sorry I took so long.
There, to me only, is only one simple way to answer all of your questions. That is:

Whose to say they utilized what what they had around them, the same way we did!
Maybe that is why there is lack of evidence in that area, we are just not looking at this with out the human ego interfering, and in doing this we are assuming that our ancestors thought the exactly same way
Its quite obvious that they were very different people back then in comparison to us today!

reply to post by Byrd


There is a link to the site at the beginning of the post. Have a look there, that is still interesting!

reply to post by Maegnas


I understand and thank you for your input

reply to post by The_Seeker


Then we need a new definition of "technology". One can play words for so long before it is called upon them to define the words used.

So, this time I am asking you since you stepped up and answered my question the way you did.

What exactly do we mean when we say "technology"?

reply to post by Maegnas


The Wiki answer for you:

Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, and crafts, or is systems or methods of organization, or is a material product (such as clothing) of these things. The word technology comes from the Greek technología (τεχνολογία) — téchnē (τέχνη), 'craft' and -logía (-λογία), the study of something, or the branch of knowledge of a discipline.[1] The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include "construction technology", "medical technology", or "state-of-the-art technology".

Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments.

I know that, I speak the language of origin. My question is about the specific use of the word when it comes to human civilizations, especially ancient ones.

When we say an ancient civilization was "technologically advanced", what exactly do we mean? Metal working, flushing toilets, chariots, swords and shields OR electricity, internal combustion, space flight and the likes?

I ask because many people state that so and so civilization was "advanced" and in the end they mean they didn't sleep in caves - yet they make it sound almost as if their electronic devices were better than ours.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Maegnas
I am watching the videos right now, just finished the first episode and 5 minutes in the 2nd episode "Dr" Carmen Boulter "PhD" said it...

"We don't have the technology to build the Pyramids now, not even close. We are not the most evolved we've ever been"

Neither statement is true.

There's the large pyramid hotel in Vegas, constructed of glass and other materials. The Hoover Dam is far larger (in terms of amount of stone and concrete moved.) So is the Great Wall of China. The Dubai towers are more architecturally complex.

If we really wanted to build a pyramid the size of the Giza one (say, Bill Gates wanted it built) it could be up in a matter of 5 years. Quarrying stone goes much faster with modern machines than it does with hand tools, trucks and tractors move faster than a work crew of humans, and cranes can lift large weights hundreds of times faster (and without getting tired) than humans can.

As to "evolved"... someone please define "evolved"? If you mean spiritually, they were far more "superstitious" than we (all you have to do to confirm this is look up the many spells they had.)

Oh Byrd please!

I would say that this time you went a bit over the top to prove your point. Comparing the Luxor Hotel in Vegas (a glass box made of steel and dry walls) and Hoover Dam to pyramids built exclusively of mono-blocks of stone weighting tons ages ago is way too far fetched.

The fact is that we indeed don't have the technology or someone crazy enough today to even try to pull a project like that using the same construction materials they've used in the same specs they've used then today.

Some of the stone blocks in Egypt would required 12 or more of the world's most powerful cranes working in tandem on the most perfect sync just so we could move them a inch. So please cut the non-sense of saying that we could pull something like that in 5 years with no effort. For some stages of a project like that we wouldn't even have the required machinery to get things done because they haven't been invented yet.

Both Luxor Hotel and Hoover Dam were built using todays construction methods that rely on concrete, steel and not mono-blocks of stone larger than a average house with 12+ tons. So stop comparing apples to oranges.

Ask any engineer and they will tell you that anything remotely similar to those pyramids would be way far from a easy task if feasible at all.

you should watch ancient aliens, the series from hh

it gives you another perspective, it can help

Originally posted by Byrd
There's the large pyramid hotel in Vegas, constructed of glass and other materials. The Hoover Dam is far larger (in terms of amount of stone and concrete moved.) So is the Great Wall of China. The Dubai towers are more architecturally complex.

If we really wanted to build a pyramid the size of the Giza one (say, Bill Gates wanted it built) it could be up in a matter of 5 years. Quarrying stone goes much faster with modern machines than it does with hand tools, trucks and tractors move faster than a work crew of humans, and cranes can lift large weights hundreds of times faster (and without getting tired) than humans can.

As to "evolved"... someone please define "evolved"? If you mean spiritually, they were far more "superstitious" than we (all you have to do to confirm this is look up the many spells they had.)

I agree with thomas on this one Bryd. Are you seriously comparing modern construction made with wood, steel, glass and concrete with the Great Pyramids of Giza? What a joke!

Then you made the comment that "Bill Gates" can build a pyramid in 5 years. How embarrassing! 5 years you say?
This shows a complete lack of understanding of moving heavy loads and construction. I am surprised you made such claims and without even watching the videos none-the-less. I realize not everyone has the time to sit and watch these documentaries but why, then, do you even comment?

Anyone can easily make claims that we can build such monuments today but the fact remains that we have not done so. The closest comparisons are with modern hydro-electric dams but even these use concrete and steel utilizing modern equipment none of which the ancients were supposed to posses. I do, however, find it interesting that we compare the pyramid constructions with modern dam constructions. Maybe these two are similar in more ways than this.

As for your comment on "evolved", what does spirituality have to do with superstition? I think you are confusing an understanding of the spirit of man with uncontrolled fear which happened to be an underlining premise of these video series. Today most of us are blinded with fear so this makes us superstitious not spiritual. I suppose that none of this even matters if you believe that knowledge is a linear progression and therefore cannot be cyclical.

reply to post by The_Seeker

There were many things presented in these videos that have been shown here on ATS to be ambiguous at best (like the Baghdad battery) yet there are many more that no one seems to what to debate like why the pyramids were built. The theory that they (Giza pyramids) were tombs for the Pharaohs is nonsense. This obfuscation of the truth seems to be a matter of ego in my opinion. These monuments have an obvious connection with the stars that Egyptologists and Archaeologists alike do not care to discuss and this is a true shame.

I am intrigued by the understanding of different levels of human consciousness and the precession of the equinoxes. How does the precession cycle of the great year effect the culture of these civilizations and, more importantly, how has it effected us?

In my study of astronomy I often end up reading about ancient astrology and mythology. The understanding of knowledge as a cycle that is linked to the motion of our planet and the stars as caught my attention to put it mildly.

reply to post by Maegnas


LOL sorry couldnt help myself

I understand what you saying, but ultimately everyone, as you said, has a differing view on Technology.

I would say that the way they used what they had around them, as in resources, was more advanced, it seemed a lot cleaner.
I honestly dont think its about computers or Ipods or the like when we talk technology with regards to the Ancients.

deleted post

[edit on 21-6-2010 by The_Seeker]

reply to post by Devino


I absolutely agree with regards to the Theory on the Pyramids being a tomb. As you so rightly pointed out why deny a connection with the stars when its so blatantly obvious.

The precession of the Equinox and its affects are fascinating. If I can recall correctly I think it was David Wilcock that explained it best.

Do you understand the way the cycles work at all?

The pyramids are probably older than accepted.

That's highly unlikely. We know who the pyramids were built by. The workers left graffiti inside of the pyramids. There are records of the construction.

The individual blocks were probably poured with a concrete rather than carved from stone.

This is one of the simplest tests that can be made. The blocks came from a quarry. That quarry has been identified. The stones are soft and crumble just like the actual stone from the quarry. The blocks show tool marks. An inspection of the stones reveals they are stones and not concrete.

There is a correlation between the positions of the pyramids and celestial events.

Is it correlation or coincidence? There is so little data to go on and a lot of shoehorning.

Originally posted by stereologist

The pyramids are probably older than accepted.

That's highly unlikely. We know who the pyramids were built by. The workers left graffiti inside of the pyramids. There are records of the construction.

Sorry but have to disagree with that.

The Great Pyramid for example:

Who Built Great Pyramid - Hall of Gods

Snippet from source:

THE WORKMEN'S GRAFFITI

The most solid piece of evidence supporting the premise that the Great Pyramid, and by inference the other Giza monuments, originated in the 4th dynasty is the ‘workmen’s graffiti’. This graffiti was discovered by an English adventurer, Colonel Howard Vyse in 1837. It was found inside sealed chambers (the ‘relieving chambers’ above the King’s Chamber) and contained references to Khufu. Thus, on this basis, it was concluded that Khufu had indeed built the pyramid.

The authenticity of the workmen's graffiti in the Great Pyramid is questionable. Alsford and many other authors claim that the graffiti could have been faked. It was known at the time that Colonel Vyse had expended many years and a great deal of money on expeditions to Egypt, but had failed to unearth anything of major significance until his 'amazing' discovery in the Great Pyramid. The Graffiti could have easily been fabricated by copying inscriptions which had already been discovered on other structures and in the quarries nearby. Interestingly, the graffiti was only found in the chambers broken into by the Colonel. The so called Davidson chamber, lying below the other chambers and discovered by an earlier explorer, had no such graffiti. Indeed the rest of the pyramid is strangely devoid of markings of any kind. In the absence of any attempt to radiocarbon date the ‘red ochre’ paint which was used to daub the graffiti onto the massive granite blocks in the relieving chambers, debate as to the authenticity of the graffiti will continue.

Link: www.hallofthegods.org...

Originally posted by The_Seeker
reply to post by Devino

 

Do you understand the way the cycles work at all?

Quick answer is no, but I have read about the precession of the equinoxes from several different sources and from this I have a pretty good idea on how it physically works. The part I do not understand is how these cycles effect the people inhabiting this planet. Nor do I know if this happens on other planets in our solar system like Mars which has a similar degree of axial tilt and length of day as Earth.

The Yuga cycles, as explained in Hindu cosmology, are very interesting. There is a nice explanation of this in one of the series in your linked videos. I couldn't even begin to speculate on how all of this fits in. As for the Yuga cycles that relate to the precession cycle, the Great Year, there is a book written about this, "The Holy Science", by -Sri Yukteswar Giri (1894). There is some controversy over Sri Yukteswar's work, he has the cycle at 24,000 years rather than around 25,900 as it is measured today.

My best guess is that we have been in the bronze age for some time and are close to the astrological age of Aquarius. Some estimates have the middle of the iron age, the lowest point on the precession clock, at around the birth of Jesus and others have it at around 500 AD. Either way this means that the last few thousand years have been at the lowest point in our evolutionary consciousness as per this cycle of ages.

reply to post by The_Seeker


Richard William Howard Vyse was found to be a fraud when it came to other claims pertaining to the Giza pyramids and I see this as quite likely another lame attempt for the same reason, fame and money. I think it is also important to point out how, when and where this "graffiti" was found by Vyse. Using gunpowder to blast his way in to the small areas above the King's chamber he claims to have found the only evidence of ownership for this pyramid, i.e. graffiti, and he alone found these markings.

Originally posted by stereologist

The pyramids are probably older than accepted.

That's highly unlikely. We know who the pyramids were built by. The workers left graffiti inside of the pyramids. There are records of the construction.

As far as I know there are no records on the original construction of the Giza pyramids. Can you link any sources of records for the construction of these pyramids?

reply to post by The_Seeker


The pyramids of Giza appear to come after the pyramids of Saqqara such as the step pyramid of Djoser. Then there is the bent pyramid of Snefru. The Great pyramid would appear after these earlier pyramids. There are lots of worker burials in the area and those have shown an age to agree with the time of Khufu. The evidence fits with a time of Khufu, not against it.

reply to post by Devino


Who Built the pyramids?

Graffiti indicates that at least some of these workers took pride in their work, calling their teams "Friends of Khufu," "Drunkards of Menkaure," and so on—names indicating allegiances to pharaohs.

The people that built the pyramids lived at the job site. Their bodies indicate that they worked heavy stone. The bodies found there tell the story of having been a part of the process.

reply to post by stereologist

When I first read about the original expedition into the great pyramid, Khufu or Cheops as it has been called, that found nothing inside I could hardly believe it. No artifacts, no artwork, no gold, no writing of any kind and most importantly no mummy. Nothing but small passageways, stone plugs blocking the way and a stone tub that resembles a sarcophagus. The explanations given for why it was empty are ridiculous to say the least.

• Grave robbers broke in without a trace and took everything and then very carefully sealed it back up.
  
• The Arab expedition stole everything including the mummy and recorded all of this as a lie, as being empty.
  
• The priests of the time buried Khufu in a different location out of fear of grave robbers.
  

As it stands there is no logical explanation other than they were left empty by the original builders and the purpose for these monuments was something other than tombs for the Pharaohs. Again I found this difficult to believe yet to my amazement I could not find any supporting evidence to refute this. How is it that the so called experts for so long have called these monuments tombs without any evidence in favor of this claim? Perhaps it is from the "graffiti" that Vyse found. This by itself is highly suspect as being a fraud.

The people that built the pyramids lived at the job site. Their bodies indicate that they worked heavy stone. The bodies found there tell the story of having been a part of the process.

How is this evidence? Because people that worked stone and lived in that area around an appropriate time means they built the pyramids? There were numerous stone temples and structures in that area, not to mention the stone robbers that used the pyramid casing stones to build Mosque's. Could these workers have been apart of building something other than the great pyramids of Giza? Or maybe even involved in restoration work? The Egyptians kept meticulous records of their endeavors and they did record the building and moving of huge statues. They recorded the building of numerous temples and for what purpose these temples served yet no mention of the Great Pyramids? Did they simply forget to mention the building of the greatest monuments that exist on this Earth?

If this is true that these monuments were in fact not tombs and never were intended as tombs then what does this say about Egyptology in general? Are they perpetuating a lie using false, unrelated and fraudulent evidence for the purpose of saving their ego? It is from this very real discrepancy that alternate theories come to life and the question still remains, "What were the Great Pyramids of Giza built for?".