Lost Ancient High Technology Of Egypt Before The Pharaohs Part 1 - 2 Brien Foerster

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: undo

So? You are comparing apples and oranges. Even so, the size of the Sphinx's head has never been a determining factor in dating it.

it's not apples and oranges. it's a human body with a dog head. in proportion.
or even the jackal anubis statues -- head not smaller nor larger. it was in proportion. ya know, they had a thing about proportions. it's odd that the sphinx is like the one place they didn't stick to it.

I said it was comparing apples to oranges because the Great Sphinx of Giza is the only one of its kind. Smaller sphinx sculptures have been found, some of those show heads much larger in proportion to the body. You can speculate endlessly about what it means, but it won't help you date them. For the Great Sphinx, the nemes headdress stylistically matches Khufu's reign (and only his), while the rest of the head matches Khafre's.

Besides, it's a sculpture, subject to artistic expression of it's maker(s). Your assertion that because the AE made Anubis sculptures with proportional heads then all AE sculptures should be held to the same standards is invalid. We have a multitude of examples of non-proportional depictions of animals/humans/hybrid critters;





I could spend all day showing you examples of AE art with little of the perfect proportions you allude to. It still wouldn't prove anything, for or against, as to the age of the Sphinx. We have plenty of other evidence to base that on. However, the thinking is that Khafre remade the head in his image, after Khufu had done the same. So did that result in it's being smaller than they would have liked? Perhaps. Since it was carved from the living limestone formation, it couldn't be helped.

thank-you for the two posts above....I agree with you and follow Brian on another web site....one that the thread Nazis here hate...and don't participate in....

the authority of those who profess to teach is often a positive hindrance to those who desire to learn.....Cicero.a reply to: mblahnikluver

originally posted by: mblahnikluver

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: mblahnikluver

plus he partnered with the old egyptian fellow from khemitology and his son, who live there and have been studying the ancient information their whole lives. well the old gentleman has since passed away.

Yup I follow him as well, very nice people. I enjoy their website a lot!

oh i didn't think to go to their website. they have their own youtube channel. mwahaha.
treasure trove.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

i haven't personally commented yet on how old it is. but i do tend to agree with schoch so i guess its relevant to address that to me.
you make a good point about examples where the head of the animal or human, isn't in proportion, but it seems odd that their other prominent human headed sphinxes were in proportion. their animal headed human body statues, were in proportion. for such a huge, prominent monument... i dunno

i think the idea they carved it down from a larger head seems possible, but the question still remains WHAT did they carve down. to assume it was his father's head, while possible, doesn't necessarily mean even his father's head was the original. if it's as old as schoch is claiming, it may have been recarved so many times, that by the time it got to its last carving, they realized they couldn't carve it down anymore because it would be hideously out of proportion. this would make sense if it had already been carved down more than once, in their recent memory. happen to know who the pharaoh was directly before khufu? may have been a pharaonic tradition to recarve it, like writing over the hieroglyphs of your predecessor. and it just got too small.

a reply to: undo

Yes, and unlike a painted-over canvas, there is no way of knowing what shape or form an outcropping of stone may have had before it's last sculpting - unless they left a portion of it intact, as is the case with the menes on the Sphinx's head.

There is another piece of evidence tying the Sphinx to Khafre's reign and that is Thutmosis stele made in the 18th dynasty, about 1,000 years after Khufu's/Khafre's reign, where on the 13th line it says "Khaf..." ['Kh' (rising sun) and 'f' (slug)] before it becomes illegible.

Hancock and others have dismissed this connection to Khafre over the missing cartouche surrounding the syllables, indicating the royal name, but since then researchers have gone back to the original stele copy, and not the copies of copies fringe writers were referring to, and they do indeed see the prerequisite cartouche.

See: New information casts doubt on one of alternative Egyptology's boldest claims: that the Sphinx had nothing to do with Khafre.

So here we find an 18th dynasty stele, placed between the paws of the Sphinx and attributing it to Khafre.

Bauval made this admission:

Bauval promised to consult the British Museum's copy of Salt's orginial facsimile. On June 6, he broke the news: "I can report that there is little doubt now that Henry Salt had recorded a half-cartouche in 1820 around the two syllab[les] 'Kh' (rising sun) and 'f' (slug) supposedly forming Khafre's royal name."

Bauval says this new finding contradicts his earlier claims but does not alter his view that someone earlier than Khafre built the Sphinx: "It still does not prove or disprove that Khafre actually 'built' the Sphinx, but it does show that Tutmosis IV associated his 'dream' and/or the Sphinx with Khafre."

If Egyptians were an advanced race of ancient aliens, why in the world would they fight with chariots and bow and arrows? To play make believe? I doubt it.

a reply to: nOraKat
Whoa who said anything about aliens?
But Im going to try and asked this one more time sense every one on this thread seems to want to ignore the scientific geological evidence that I have inquired about and go the circumstantial route on dating the sphinx. So a Dr. Of geology has dated the sphinx to pre 7,000 B.C.E. His evidence is based on the weathering of the enclosure that encompasses the sphinx, which shows signs of water erosion. Can any one refute that evidence? Not that something was found that said something or theres a picture of it dated to this time. Can any one refute the geological evidence? If not I think all of us here would have to agree that the sphinx is older than predynastic Egypt.

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: nOraKat
Whoa who said anything about aliens?
But Im going to try and asked this one more time sense every one on this thread seems to want to ignore the scientific geological evidence that I have inquired about and go the circumstantial route on dating the sphinx. So a Dr. Of geology has dated the sphinx to pre 7,000 B.C.E. His evidence is based on the weathering of the enclosure that encompasses the sphinx, which shows signs of water erosion. Can any one refute that evidence? Not that something was found that said something or theres a picture of it dated to this time. Can any one refute the geological evidence? If not I think all of us here would have to agree that the sphinx is older than predynastic Egypt.

And if the Sphinx is that age then so is the Valley Temple next to it as it was constructed from the limestone blocks which were removed when the Sphinx was carved out of the bedrock.

s30.postimg.org...

originally posted by: JamesTB

s30.postimg.org...

oh lookie there. notice the earthquake resistant blocks (interlocking, various sizes and shapes in red granite?) i didn't realize they had done that in the valley temple but it makes sense, as it would then indicate it was olddd like the osirieon (same construction style).

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Harte

Your point about the stones not being perfect is pedantic.

You know exactly what their talking about so please do everyone a favor and stop taking it out of context to support your argument.

I believe I'm fully cognizant of all fringe claims concerning the GP, and I recognize this one.

Communication in our species takes place through the use of language. To communicate an idea, the language must be used in the proper way.

IOW, if you mean "some stones are well shaped and well fitted," don't say there are "millions and millions of massive stone blocks ... all shaped and placed with precision."

I hardly think that I have misunderstood what the poster meant with that statement.

It appears that you simply can't believe someone would be stupid enough to make such a claim in any literal sense. That, to me, is a good sign about you.

However, I've seen exactly that stupid claim at least a hundred times here and elsewhere, so I know it for what it is and I do not misrepresent or mischaracterize it.

My response was not pedantic, however much your faith in humanity leads you to think it was.

Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

But I get tired of constantly relaying the same info over and over so I'll let Hans do it,

Harte

Hey dude I did it last time it's your turn! Seriously it does get boring debunking the same silly fringe claims over and over again.

Okay, let's leave it to Blackmarketeer then to illuminate the explanations for all the fine details the unknowing point to.

Harte

originally posted by: undo
i'm an OLD female

Well, there's your proof right there.

Undo carved the Sphinx.

Broke her glasses before she got to the head and the nearsightedness caused her to carve it too small.

Harte

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: nOraKat
Whoa who said anything about aliens?
But Im going to try and asked this one more time sense every one on this thread seems to want to ignore the scientific geological evidence that I have inquired about and go the circumstantial route on dating the sphinx. So a Dr. Of geology has dated the sphinx to pre 7,000 B.C.E. His evidence is based on the weathering of the enclosure that encompasses the sphinx, which shows signs of water erosion.

Actually, his date is based entirely on subsurface weathering observed through seismic data collected in the Sphinx enclosure and applies only to the front of the carving:

A reasonable hypothesis is that when Khafre repaired and refurbished the Great Sphinx and its associated temples in ca. 2500 B.C., he had the back (western end) of the colossal sculpture carved out and freed from the cliff (or enclosure wall). It is difficult to argue that the rump of the figure was carved any later than Khafre's time; the base of the rump has, like the rest of the core body of the Sphinx, been weathered and repaired with limestone blocks. Furthermore, one must account for the non-trivial four feet (1.2 meters) of subsurface weathering detected in the area behind the carved figure, between the rump and the enclosure wall. If, for instance, one hypothesized that the rump of the Sphinx had been freed during New Kingdom restoration efforts to the sculpture, how could we account for this deep subsurface weathering, given the prevailing and conditions on the Giza Plateau from New Kingdom times to the present and the historical fact that the Sphinx enclosure has been filled with desert sands for much of the period since the New Kingdom?

As an alternative to the scenario that Khafre had the back of the Sphinx carved free from the bedrock, one could suggest that if the rear portion of the figure already had been freed completely from the adjoining limestone prior to the Old Kingdom, but was separated from the resultant cliff by a very narrow passage, Khafre may have had this passage widened and therefore uncovered the limestone floor that we sampled seismically. (Our seismic line was positioned very close to the western wall of the Sphinx ditch.) Thus, at this time (ca. 2500 B.C.), the limestone floor on the western end of the sculpture began to weather.

Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. 7000 to 5000 B.C. (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago.

Source

Schoch assumes a date for Kahfre completing the rear of the Sphinx at around 2500 BC. He then extrapolates backwards to arrive at his date for the front of the sphinx using only his subsurface weathering results.
Such weathering occurs due to exposure to air only, and Schoch's claim is entirely based on his measurements showing that the subsurface weathering extends quite a bit deeper in the front than it does in the rear.

However, if you read Shcoch's seismic data, you'll see that parts of the front are actually much younger than either the north or south sides (the sphinx faces east,) if what he claims about such weathering is true.
A link to his data: the eighth page of this document
To read it you'll need to zoom in. I reccomend 300%.

Harte

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: onequestion

what got me was dunn's original work on the subject of ancient machining. he had a website on the subject, several years back, in which he showed several bowls and vases in a museum in cairo. one in particular had a fluted neck made of schist (flint like rock). flint chips and splinters. imagine a smooth fluted neck from material like that??? it was a stunning thought. or how about the stone bowl that was perfectly balancing on a bottom no bigger than the size of a tip of a hen's egg, and the stone was perfectly balanced with no variations in density or weight of the material on any side. jaw dropping stuff.

I'm going to have to deal with this comment as people use such arguments to support a general idea that for example, advanced (ie modern, contemporary) machining was used in ancient times.


However, it is built on a series of misconceptions.....

Firstly that Schist is a Flint-like rock - this is hardly accurate as Flint is made of a homogeneous Silica, whereas Schist is a layered mixture of minerals such as talc, feldspar, graphite, quartz and others. The difference between being in a layered construction and homogeneous is considerable and makes significant differences to how it behaves, and how you work it.

Secondly; Flint will break with a Conchoidal Fracture when struck in the correct place and in the correct manner, whereas Schist will not (this is a result of Flint's homogeneous nature and the mineral present in it). This is why you can knap/chip blades from Flint (as well as Obsidian, Agate and others) in the classic stone tool manner, eg Flint knives and axes.

Flint is a hard rock, and in-spite of it's varieties from place to place, it really only varies in colour and slightly in it's granular to glassy nature but is regularly 7 on the Mohs Scale of mineral hardness.
However Schist varies widely in it's hardness depending on the mix of Minerals present and varies from Soapstone which you can easily dent with a fingernail which rates as the lowest strength at 1, to about 6 depending on it's composition.

So Schist is nothing like Flint as i have demonstrated, and folk like Dunn rely on people taking what he says at face value. and not knowing any better, then he'll build another point on top of that misapprehension. Hence his tower of BS. That schist vase may have only been a tad harder that Soapstone, which is easier to carve than many softwoods.

But wait! There is more. Flint does not only splinter and chip as you said - it can be ground in to shape - you have seen Polished Flint Axe Heads from the Neolithic no doubt. Ever wondered how they were made? They were ground - a knapped blank would be rubbed against a typically softer rock with a slurry on it, and modern recreators can grind one smooth like the ones i linked in a few hours and this is widely filmed and documented. They would be further polished with sand or rock dust in a piece of leather.

You can drill in to the very hard flint to with nothing more than a river cane and a small pile of dust using a hand/bow/pump drill - again, primitive technologists do this when making replica axe heads and the net is full of examples (i'm a primitive technology enthusiast).

So everything in that statement relating to the Schist Vase is build on misconceptions and a lack of understanding of ancient methods of crafting. And this is what "got you", but it's highly innacurate.

Did you ever see any of the amazing Flint Mace Heads (Check the two tone example from Knowth on the first row)? These where finished/shaped/decorated with friction/grinding, and the amazing hole by drilling in the manner i described.

So it's a long answer i know, but Dunn and others build careers on folk not knowing this kind of stuff.





And yes i am well known amongst my friends for having a Flint fetish

Thanks to the Op, I have now watched several of Brien's videos.

This guy is BENT on believing in the possibility of the Pyramids being energy generators. Yes, there are resonance acoustics in the buildings granted, and the work of Chris Dunn not withstanding BUT, he really doesn't show any real evidence of this, he keeps repeating the same things throughout videos 1 and 2.

Yes there are black discolorations in the walls that is unaccounted for but no samples have been studied yet as to what or how this discoloration could have been made. He wants to believe so badly - nothing wrong with that but all the facts are Not in.

Then i saw This video and it's really disheartening. Ancient acoustic generator is the title BUT his opening screen says, " Massive Acoustic Energy Generator" See, again he really wants to believe so much so to the point he kinda stretches the observable facts and mixes them with untested theories.

It is painfully obvious to me this place is nothing more than an amphitheater like the Romans used. It's designed to carry voices not for any other purpose we can gleam from the available information.



And then there is THIS, www.abovetopsecret.com... The idea that the pyramids can be simply used as a water pump to pump water from the Nile river. This guy actually built a scale model of this and IT WORKS as a Hydraulic Ram Pump - because this DOES WORK these guys including Chris Dunn needs to take this into consideration.

a reply to: Harte

Thanks Harte. As always you help me ensure my own understanding.

Seriously though mate, these boards are going to give you a heart attack from stress lol.

You're not going to be able to single handedly out do the work of years worth of conspiracies, misinformation, cleverly edited videos, cleverly presented photos and so on. I admire your determination however.

Down to business though. You're right, I meant limestone not granite but my point isn't lost. I didn't see that the OP claimed '1 million perfect rocks' to be honest. Still, the outer stones were relatively perfect for that age. I find it impressive. The workers were skilled evidently.

It is possible the mummies were looted. It's just a point thrown out to fit the paradigm of a tomb though. But possible, yes. As for the dating, do you know for which blocks the charcoal was actually withdrawn from? Also, the last time I checked the dates were at least 200 years off and at most 1400 years off.

Was there a test that placed it bang on the 2500~ ish range and on what was it conducted? I'll research this later.

What about the Sphinx weather erosion? I'm curious to your explaination of that? Once again, I'm not suggesting any answers or alternatives. I've just never seen you talk regarding the Sphinx. Do you have a special interest in the Great Pyramid,0 out of curiosity?

I have a problem with that 15 years figure. I really need to go and read their full report alongside the assumptions made. I've done various calculations myself ranging from realistic to super generous to completely implausible and 15 years is possibly the BEST TIME achievable, given the circumstances, but most likely wasn't the case - in my opinion.

I'll check it out later. Who commissioned that estimation?

As for the Khufu hidden chamber... Where are you getting some of this info from? Nothing was 'blown' up, a robot was used to explore one of the shafts (20x20cm - 40 degree incline - extruded not moulded) which led to what we've only been told is a 'door' and a small chamber with some graffiti.

There's no confirmation or official source I'm aware of that claims the chamber could only have been made by forming a mould. There are plenty of extruded features so why couldn't this have been one, sealed and then recased? There's nothing to say that isn't possible.

But that's not even the point. It probably was designed as an inherent feature. The 'graffiti' found in there was indecipherable and was not dated - as far as I'm aware. The main hint from that is that it appears to be the same red paint as that of the King/Queen Cartouches.

But here's the thing...where 'Khufu' appears, 'Knum-Khufu' appears as a seperate cartouche. The actual cartouche of 'Khufu' doesn't match up with his common or royal Cartouche lol. The queen's one makes no sense. Then there's the whole Chambers/Vyse scandal.

One way or another, there's a great chance those accessible cartouches have been vandalised to suit selfish motives.

It's really sketchy to base ALL of our understanding about the Great Pyramid on this one cartouche that doesn't even add up with the rest of the facts (the one in Campbell's Chamber).

Seriously... That's the ONLY 'evidence' linking this building to '2500 BC' and it hasn't been dated, doesn't make sense, and doesn't add up with the rest of the facts. I'm just pointing out the truth.

Although, in all fairness that chamber makes no sense from either perspective, especially since its linked to the Queens chamber. What was the purpose of the shaft ways? It's all so bizarre.

I can accept many things about it, yet other questions continue to ponder me.

WHY didn't they document this? I've NEVER seen a convincing answer to this. I've heard of inventory lists and apparent 'engineers drawings' but I've never seen one or heard much more detail than that.

For a civilisation that literally painted every wall with what it did, believed and knew - it is remarkably strange that they do not have one public depiction or description regarding what was evidently the most remarkable man-made structure of the time.

It is all very well possible it is just a tomb for Khufu and it was built around 2500BC and all those weird things are trivial. But the mysteries of it are ultimately inherent and will never be answered with nothing short of a real recording of what actually happened.

a reply to: skalla

well those are amazing axe heads!

this is the vase i was referring to. the neck is fluted and paper thin.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

and also how that resonance would effect water, would be an interesting area to explore for those who understand underwater sonics

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: JohnPhoenix

and also how that resonance would effect water, would be an interesting area to explore for those who understand underwater sonics

What an interesting thought you've had.

Ya know, sound in itself is a form of energy and has the ability to do work, to effect things in a variety of ways, be it by moving objects or even changing the properties of an object.

One thing I did get out of these videos is the great difference between the types of structures the pre-dynastic peoples built compared to the much inferior work of the dynastic period's builders - couple that with the inability for modern Egyptian Egyptologist to believe all the work had to be done by the peoples of the Dynastic period and it makes one wonder if they know something they are not willing to share or if they are simply pigheaded.

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: JamesTB

''Contrary to the thoughts of most historians and egyptologists, mounting evidence from engineers, geologists and other scientific minds are revealing imagining the concept that the Sphinx, Great Pyramid and other famous Egyptian works were created 12,000 plus years ago, and that the Dynastic Pharaohs simply inherited them...''

*Fixed* ^^

The guy is promoting these ideas so people will want to go on his tours to S. America. In that light, the videos are very much commercials for his tour businesses.

As business models go, it's not a bad idea. The mainstream tour market is occupied by much larger outfits so Brien and his team have gone out to create a niche market with a few books here and few free videos there.

Is there anything substantial behind the '12, 000 plus years ago?' No, there isn't.

I disagree. I think Brien has a genuine interest in this subject and uses his tours to fund his research. To dismiss him as simply a tour operator is disrespectful. How many other people are doing what he does? He's there in the field recording and analyzing then passing the information on freely. He works with many scholars and experts who have immense knowledge in this subject. I'm with him all the way I simply don't believe that the Pyramids were built to be tombs, to me that ludicrous.

I totally agree with everything you are saying here.
I've been following Brien for a few years now and there's no one out there bringing what he does.
I find it strange another moderator dismissing him.
I opened a thread on him last year about his theories on the elongated skulls and a moderator closed the thread down after four or five replies.
When I messaged him asking why he closed my thread. He told me that there was no proof of what Foerster was saying and that he was advertising his site so that's why the thread was shut down.