The "Atlantean" Pyramid Cover-Up Exposed

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Ive watched a recent doc online and there is a woman talking about this pyramid , but the one north of it
which isnt filled in !

the difference with that one and the covered one is that it doesnt have that spherical pool in the shaft

what really pisses me off is we can tell you there are stars with earth like planets light years away, we can do all this cool stuff and explain the universe around us but we still cant prove how they built the pyramids

and when you think about it like that , then someone is telling a pack of lies

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Ive watched a recent doc online and there is a woman talking about this pyramid , but the one north of it
which isnt filled in !

the difference with that one and the covered one is that it doesnt have that spherical pool in the shaft

what really pisses me off is we can tell you there are stars with earth like planets light years away, we can do all this cool stuff and explain the universe around us but we still cant prove how they built the pyramids

and when you think about it like that , then someone is telling a pack of lies

What are you talking about they do know how the pyramid was built. The only people that thi k it's a mystery Is the people that go to those alien sites.

a reply to: dragonridr

I thought it was a theory on how they built it and not actually fact ?

you mean an alien site like ATS?

what Im saying is that the commonly accepted theory is that they quarried and moved 80+ tonne blocks and positioned them one every 2 minutes to get it built in the time scale suggested by mainstream archeology!

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: dragonridr

I thought it was a theory on how they built it and not actually fact ?

you mean an alien site like ATS?

what Im saying is that the commonly accepted theory is that they quarried and moved 80+ tonne blocks and positioned them one every 2 minutes to get it built in the time scale suggested by mainstream archeology!

.. the granite slabs of the'kings chamber' weigh bout 60t.. and not 80+ ..
these are the biggest granite slabs, the main volume of the inner core (besides the chambers and pathways ) of the GP consist mostly of small irregular blocks, filler and mortar.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: dragonridr

I thought it was a theory on how they built it and not actually fact ?

you mean an alien site like ATS?

what Im saying is that the commonly accepted theory is that they quarried and moved 80+ tonne blocks and positioned them one every 2 minutes to get it built in the time scale suggested by mainstream archeology!

Short of discovering a contemporary account of the construction (which is only approached in Merer's diary from Wadi al Jarf,) or maybe a time machine, no modern account of how the pyramids were built can be established as a solid fact.

There are several viable approaches to explaining how it was done. There is even an estimate made by an international construction engineering firm. Any of these can stand up to scrutiny.
Of course, nothing can stand up to personal incredulity.

FYI, the stones you can see in the Great Pyramid on the outside weigh in from a ton and a half or so up to 3 or four tons. They get smaller as you go up. Think why that should be.
On the interior (core,) the stones are a jumble of various sizes mortared into a pile.

Harte

Just adding this new vid looking at another place that is interesting

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: dragonridr

I thought it was a theory on how they built it and not actually fact ?

you mean an alien site like ATS?

what Im saying is that the commonly accepted theory is that they quarried and moved 80+ tonne blocks and positioned them one every 2 minutes to get it built in the time scale suggested by mainstream archeology!

Couple of things we learned first the interior is not all blocks it's filler think building an outside wall and filling it with rubble. So estimate's on the number if blocks has been severely reduced when we got the technology to scan the interior. We have hieroglyphs that actually show how they moved large stones. We have found evidence of the ramps they built. We found the areas the workers lived and the tools they used. Their really isn't the big mystery the pyramids were say 20 years ago.

Couple of other myths include the blocks being perfect and match exactly. Theread is no evidence they were used as tombs. We have even dated material in pyramids so have a pretty good idea when they were made. And thanks to Egyptian writing we even know what they ate and expenses to build the pyramid

a reply to: Harte

The diaries from Wadi al-Jarf region told us alot. We have a record of an administrator discussing his job. The only detail I can think of that's missing is the final stage where ramps become impractical. Though there are theories and remember these blocks are much smaller.

Cool thanks for clearing that up

Anyone know why humans suddenly stopped building pyramids the planet over ?
it seemed like most of the cultures at that time were destined to make giant structures

why was this practice stopped

I love reading these threads.....you get a sense of how easily deluded people can be.
Scientific reasons and evidence painstakingly listed and stated....and then someone comes and talks about the conspiracy to keep us in the dark while talking about stuff I read in fantasy novels.

Believing in the possibility of something is fine....but the way some of you prattle on about nonsense is astounding.

Sometimes I think the Harte's and Bryds of the group are creating alternate personas. But I'm old enough to recognize Denial isn't a river in Egypt

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
I love reading these threads.....you get a sense of how easily deluded people can be.
Scientific reasons and evidence painstakingly listed and stated....and then someone comes and talks about the conspiracy to keep us in the dark while talking about stuff I read in fantasy novels.

Believing in the possibility of something is fine....but the way some of you prattle on about nonsense is astounding.

Sometimes I think the Harte's and Bryds of the group are creating alternate personas. But I'm old enough to recognize Denial isn't a river in Egypt

Now that was a little bit funny but having been swimming in the Seine for quite a while I would have to go with the conspiracy crowd on thing's such as the Osirion, it is far older, also having reread something about the ruin's of puma punku and tiwanaku/tiahuanaco over in Bolivia I have to realize that some of the debunking of those also is based on faulty premise because it turn's out that those site's were mostly rebuilt in the 50's by a bunch of archaeologist's and hey there goes the un tampered carbon dating because that mean's they have actually been extensively tampered with and the rebuild may even have incorporated later stone's such as the carved skull's which may be from a later culture and the remain's of later structure built over the larger stone's of the older one but thank's to those same Re-Building Archaeologist's in the 50's they are now rebuilt into the lower and possibly older lower courses as those archaeologists believed they should be, based on there own premise of the time which itself was probably based on the study of unrelated south american cultures and site's and so eternally polluting the site there after.

The same of course goes for the great pyramid's which actually may have been RESTORED by a later pharaoh, they were not above laying claim to the building of there predecessors and even removed previous pharaoh's name's from them replacing them with there own, the so called hieroglyph found in the vault's over the queen's antechamber has error's as well and the British explorer whom DYNAMITED his way into the space there maybe decided to actually put it there himself though here come the argument's claiming it is genuine despite the long running controversy over just that point.

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
I love reading these threads.....you get a sense of how easily deluded people can be.
Scientific reasons and evidence painstakingly listed and stated....and then someone comes and talks about the conspiracy to keep us in the dark while talking about stuff I read in fantasy novels.

It has always been that way. I'm resigned to it after a decade.

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
Sometimes I think the Harte's and Bryds of the group are creating alternate personas. But I'm old enough to recognize Denial isn't a river in Egypt

No, it's true. Both Byrd and I do it all the time.

You see, we crave intelligent conversation.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

No you crave agreement and for the thought's and opinion's of other's to be neatly compartmentalized into what you hold to be accurate, most often you are correct but not always.

I put it to you that original thought is actually intelligent conversation were as spewing textbook data is merely acting like an organic data base and lack's any spark of true intellect.

Memory is not intellect, it is true that a good memory make's thing's far more simply though such as memorizing equation's, monkey see monkey do that kind of thing but it is not true original thought and therefore actually despite academia basing itself around good memory it is I have to tell you quite frankly NOT intelligence.
Interpreting that data IS intelligence and understanding it - truly understanding not merely copying is actually the goal of true education, if a kid learn's to remember but does not understand what have you achieved because all you have done then is program them like they are computers, fill them with data they do not understand and make them regurgitate it on cue, this is great for the drone's that society, industry etc need's but not great for true intelligence of the further advancement of the human race.
You know exactly my point so I shall not elaborate any further, as a teacher you should know far better Harte and once again I find myself surprised by you, when we first butted head's you were absolutely correct and I liked that but in this case, sorry you are not.

The blocks in the faces of the Great Pyramid look a mish-mash of old
and new work. Your mention of a renovation of it at one time makes
sense. Some blocks appear so old as to have either disintegrated or
show rivulets where water ran over them.

There's a good view of the face blocks in this video:

Guy climbs GP of Giza


a reply to: LABTECH767

a reply to: ThatHappened

Not specifically the great pyramid, actually went off piste a little and was talking about some south american ruin's however there was some argument about the Dream Stele which was erected by the sphinx by a pharaoh whom Renovated the plateau.
Thutmose the 4th.

Here is a translation of the inscription on the Dream Stele from the wicki page.
"Now the statue of the very great Khepri [the Great Sphinx ] rested in this place, great of fame, sacred of respect, the shade of Ra resting on him. Memphis and every city on its two sides came to him, their arms in adoration to his face, bearing great offerings for his Ka. One of these days it happened that prince Thutmose came travelling at the time of midday. He rested in the shadow of this great god. [Sleep and] dream [took possession of him] at the moment the sun was at zenith. Then he found the majesty of this noble god speaking from his own mouth like a father speaks to his son, and saying: "Look at me, observe me, my son Thutmose. I am your father Horemakhet-Khepri-Ra-Atum. I shall give to you the kingship [upon the land before the living]....[Behold, my condition is like one in illness], all [my limbs being ruined]. The sand of the desert, upon which I used to be, (now) confronts me; and it is in order to cause that you do what is in my heart that I have waited." "[2]
en.wikipedia.org...

What this points out is that at least the sphinx and most likely the entire Giza Plateau underwent extensive renovation on the orders of this pharaoh and likely this included the Casing stone's of the pyramids and the sphinx itself, it may also be the time that a second sphinx now vanished may have been added on the opposite side of the Nile, one apparently build of small block's unlike the excavation carved sphinx that is therefore far older and also outlasted the other one.

There are two argument's about the bent pyramid, one claiming it is the logical extension of the old flat mastaba tomb's in which Egyptian's were original buried and that some one in Egypt decided to build them on top of one another, each level smaller and this became a pyramid but there is another argument that this is not the whole story and the three great pyramid's are in fact far older though undoubtedly renovated by the later Egyptian culture, likely there outside limestone casing stone's once had inscription's for a time before erosion and later the taking of those very stone to build Cairo by the invading Arab's led to them vanishing, if so then the Mastaba were actually made to look like the Pyramid's not the other way around, hence all the Egyptian pyramid's other than these three eventually wore away due to there inferior craftsmanship, the Egyptian's may even have built larger pyramid's that are now vanished due to this inferior craftsmanship.
www.bbc.co.uk...
news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.ancient-code.com...

And the valley of the king's was later built near to a natural pyramid shaped mountain showing there reverence for them right up to the late dynasty's.

So my own opinion of the Great pyramid is that it is actually original workmanship but it is possible that it could like in south america be a case of one pyramid built around another, this could also explain why the mysterious shaft's do not lead right out into the outside of the pyramid but are blocked possibly by these later courses.

The Egyptian's were still the greatest and longest lasting civilization in classical history, there achievement's are still awe inspiring even if they inherited the site from an earlier culture as many of us believe so this is not to downplay them at all.

I just feel there is a lot more to our history than the current view and am disgusted that so many good scientists have faced academia closing rank's because it does not want to hear there opinion's and it make's me think of this.
mexicounexplained.com...
Anything that does not fit get's attacked or has irrational explanations' thrown at it, called hoax etc.

You know there is a claim that the three pyramid's may once have had solid gold capstones that would catch the first and last light of the sun at morning and dusk and that they once aligned perfectly with the three stars of Orion's belt, a star group the Egyptian's regarded as sacred and the home of Osiris and that also the sphinx itself at this same time faced directly toward the constellation of Leo, problem is that this was 12500 years ago give or take a few and the guy's whom researched this are now hated by academia, Hancock, Bauval etc.

a reply to: LABTECH767

The orion theory is just stupid and here is why. The current location and shape of the stars match orions belt. However 12500 years ago they would have been in different positions. MeanING orions belt would look different oddly almost a straight line at the time.

originally posted by: sapien82
Cool thanks for clearing that up

Anyone know why humans suddenly stopped building pyramids the planet over ?
it seemed like most of the cultures at that time were destined to make giant structures

why was this practice stopped

after the expensive and extensive building projects of the big fourth dynasty pyramids, they went from giza to places like Abusir to build smaller pyramids. During the sixth dynasty the power of pharaoh gradually weakened in favor of powerful nomarchs ( regional governors)..


GP building:

here you can see the various stone sizes of the inner core.
There is much mumbo jumbo floating around about that 'millions of stones' and 'precise fit that no razorblade can fit in'..



THE HARBOR OF KHUFU on the Red Sea Coast at Wadi al-Jarf, Egypt
www.antigoegito.org...

www.haaretz.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Actually that is taken into account in the theory, the thought line you have is actually wrong because of procession of the equinox, it can be rolled back, forward etc most good computer simulated sky's and show you how the sky would have looked back then as well as how it would look in say another 10 thousand years, we need a hell of a lot more data to take into account all stella drift as well though because it is not just the cycle of the earth etc but also star's move relative to one another also, over this small time period though the distance to most stars including Orion's belt is so huge it would not be noticeable over that time period that they changed relation to each other very much at all.
grahamhancock.com...
In fact the stars do NOT line up with the pyramid's today but they DID line up perfectly as seen with the human eye back then so you have it the wrong way around, today they do NOT line up but about 12600 years ago they actually did line up and also at that exact time the great sphinx also lined up with the constellation of Leo as it rose on the horizon were as today it no longer does, this is a finger print left by there original builders suggesing that these monument's are in fact that old which is over twice as old as dynastic Egypt.

If you have not researched it I suggest you do so son, it is worth opening your eye's and seeing the idiot' know it all whom deny this for exactly what they are.

a reply to: anti72

Pure speculation, the model is not proven were Giza is concerned and Giza is most likely pre-dynastic Egyptian as indeed is the Osirron which is 50 feet lower than the surrounding SETI the first temple complex, below the water table most of the time and therefore also likely far, far older than the surrounding complex and also therefore rather than it being modeled as supposed by some Egyptologists after tomb's it may actually have been there inspiration so these structures could even related to a former people perhaps one whom inhabited the region in the past prior to the later Egyptians' - though of course they could also be there descendant's.

Of course as a matter of national pride the Egyptian antiquities department hate that idea as indeed does the entrenched Egyptology society's around the world today and so there merit are deliberately ignored.

Those tomb's of Pyramid builders Zahi Hawass was so proud of do NOT prove the egyptian's built the great pyramid's especially given the content of the Dream Stele, they instead show that Builders worked on the site, weather that was renovating or building is another matter, in this case renovating would have been building, over older structure's.

By the way we do not know the Core stone's of the pyramid's, only areas were tunnels were dug into them or blasted into them show any part of the core, the outer coarse of block's while huge have also eroded badly over that time and if they are the same age as the Great Sphinx probably is then take also into account that prior to that renovation of the site the outer stones' of the pyramid's which may then have been covered over by later masonry (Still in incredible feat and achievement considering the site of the job) the original outer layers of stone would have been an a state comparable to the wear and weathering upon the sphinx, especially if the rain water theory has merit and I believe it does indeed have.

That would mean they were probably less spectacular before the Dynastic Egyptian's restored them but still of incredible age defying our current theory's about humanity at the end of the last ice age and what we may have achieved during the ice age before that cataclysmic period of global change took over and drove us nearly to extinction.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: anti72

Pure speculation, the model is not proven were Giza is concerned and Giza is most likely pre-dynastic Egyptian as indeed is the Osirron which is 50 feet lower than the surrounding SETI the first temple complex, below the water table most of the time and therefore also likely far, far older than the surrounding complex and also therefore rather than it being modeled as supposed by some Egyptologists after tomb's it may actually have been there inspiration so these structures could even related to a former people perhaps one whom inhabited the region in the past prior to the later Egyptians' - though of course they could also be there descendant's.

Osireons exist at other sites.
At the site you mention, Seti I's cartouche was found inside more than one of the joints in the stone in the Osireon:

Frankfort found the cartouche of Seti I in a granite dovetail joint. Another tenon bearing the king's cartouche was exposed when part of the sandstone wall blocks broke away (blocks that were once clad in granite), indicating its presence in the original construction.

Source

When you base your suppositions on pure nonsense, you can't rely on any of the conclusions you reach.

Harte