Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte

www.skyoye.com...

mysteriesandconspiracies2014galati.blogspot.com...

Unfortunately the hole was covered with mud, and has not yet been recovered.

Amusing eh!



This is the rock in which the hole was found - very important looking piece of architecture - no body in the modern world could make something that looks like that......lol. Its the small black spot on the upper right side.

As you noted somebody was probably using a common drill - and used it multiple times - I wonder how old this particular quarry is?

a reply to: Harte

Yeah i agree it's only my view, i wouldn't claim otherwise without much more evidence. Same with the copper and rock theory, for me to personally believe it i need a bit more evidence, such as what i have been asking for in here. For me the scrape marks left on the Obelisk could have been made much later than when the Obelisk was actually cut out, it's hard to get a definite answer.

Suppose we just have to agree to disagree and await further discoveries


Talking about the unfinished Obelisk, how did the crack happen? If they where only scraping with copper and stone how did they generate enough energy to crack the whole thing?

originally posted by: Xabi87
a reply to: Harte

Yeah i agree it's only my view, i wouldn't claim otherwise without much more evidence. Same with the copper and rock theory, for me to personally believe it i need a bit more evidence, such as what i have been asking for in here.

You should realize that nobody's going to even try to reproduce even a granite sarcophagus by hand, much less the granite box you want made.
In effect, you've demanded yourself into an immovable position.
And while admittedly not exactly the same argument, the outcome of your argument IS exactly the same as if you simply stamped your foot and cried "Nuh uh!"

originally posted by: Xabi87Talking about the unfinished Obelisk, how did the crack happen? If they where only scraping with copper and stone how did they generate enough energy to crack the whole thing?

Cracked under its own weight, mostly. It was the biggest one they ever tried to do.
Granite isn't homogeneous anymore than any other stone is. In a granite bed, you can find variations. Just relieving the pressure from the surrounding granite on this piece could have cause it to expand and weaken. Apply the right force, it will crack.

Personally, I think that the pounding process (quarrying) was aided by the use of small fires. Heat differentials could have cracked the thing if it had a weak vein in it.

Harte

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: surfer_soul

No the only method to work hard stone available would have been the grinding method and without machinery that’s like trying cut and shape stone with sand paper. So there must have been some other as yet unknown method.

It becomes evident when looking at the size, hardness and accuracy of some of these works that the Egyptologists are simply making stuff up. The truth is being kept hidden from us. That becomes evident when you start looking for yourself.

so, 'the Egyptologists' again ..
well thats a quite extraordinairy claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So, please privide something that proves that main parts of the worldwide scientific historical community is involved
in a ' conspiracy' ( what you want to imply).

And then, why? just to 'fit' into your 'ancient hightech idea'?
I mean, they work all day, fieldwork maybe, release papers and held discussions, teach, do university work etc etc ..
remember it's not Indiana Jones.

cheers

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte

You have not explained to me how these are formed. You said they where caused by tubular drilling. Evidently this is not the case.

nobody has to provide anything to you..Dont expect anyone doing your own research.

I' d start with..
First, who is the original poster of these photos. Are they from a reliable source or just youtube?
Second, when this is clear, what date are these? are they modern drill holes?
etc

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Xabi87
a reply to: Harte

Yeah i agree it's only my view, i wouldn't claim otherwise without much more evidence. Same with the copper and rock theory, for me to personally believe it i need a bit more evidence, such as what i have been asking for in here.

You should realize that nobody's going to even try to reproduce even a granite sarcophagus by hand, much less the granite box you want made.
In effect, you've demanded yourself into an immovable position.
And while admittedly not exactly the same argument, the outcome of your argument IS exactly the same as if you simply stamped your foot and cried "Nuh uh!"

originally posted by: Xabi87Talking about the unfinished Obelisk, how did the crack happen? If they where only scraping with copper and stone how did they generate enough energy to crack the whole thing?

Cracked under its own weight, mostly. It was the biggest one they ever tried to do.
Granite isn't homogeneous anymore than any other stone is. In a granite bed, you can find variations. Just relieving the pressure from the surrounding granite on this piece could have cause it to expand and weaken. Apply the right force, it will crack.

Personally, I think that the pounding process (quarrying) was aided by the use of small fires. Heat differentials could have cracked the thing if it had a weak vein in it.

Harte

I know nobody will recreate it because in my opinion it's impossible. So that means that the theory that it was built with those tools is false. For me to believe in very unbelievable theories such as Egyptians building granite works of art by pounding with stones, i need HARD evidence. My argument is exactly like the many arguments you yourself have on here regarding evidence and theories, there is nothing wrong with standing firm in the absence of evidence.


Cracking under it's weight is another interesting theory i must admit, honestly never heard of that one. Do granite mountains usually do this or something? What is this theory based on?

I agree with you on the fires, heat could have had something to do with it.

a reply to: anti72

I find it hilarious that in your first post you ask this man/woman for "extraordinary evidence" then in the next say "Nobody has to provide anything to you, don't expect anyone doing your own research"

Are you a troll?

a reply to: anti72

nobody has to provide anything to you..Dont expect anyone doing your own research. I' d start with.. First, who is the original poster of these photos. Are they from a reliable source or just youtube? Second, when this is clear, what date are these? are they modern drill holes?

Whats you beef! Why dont you read the other posts on this issue before passing rash judgement..

a reply to: anti72

so, 'the Egyptologists' again .. well thats a quite extraordinairy claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, please privide something that proves that main parts of the worldwide scientific historical community is involved in a ' conspiracy' ( what you want to imply). And then, why? just to 'fit' into your 'ancient hightech idea'? I mean, they work all day, fieldwork maybe, release papers and held discussions, teach, do university work etc etc .. remember it's not Indiana Jones.

As you said to me go and do your own research. Dont expect me to do it for you. I am not here to change your mind on anything. Thats upto you.

There is plenty of evidence. If you are really interested. I would suggest you start with understanding the numbers of sacred geometry. Then applying these numbers to the megalithic sites. You will see the same numbers repeated again and again. Culture to culture. Then have a look at astrothelogy and you will see the same numbers apply to the sun and moon.
When you have done that to a point you understand it. Come and talk to me and we will be on the same level.

As I said I am not here to educate. Its your life.

a reply to: Harte

Thanks for the link of hexagonal holes. To be honest I still dont understand how they can form like that. I will have a think and get back to you.

a reply to: anti72

well thats a quite extraordinairy claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why dont you go and understand the maths of the Pyramids of Osiris and when you are informed come back again and we can talk. For when you understand that you will be able to see that they are all built by the same hand. The story you are given is simply a farce. Give me some evidence that they are burial chambers. Pharaohs where buried underground thats a fact. Explain to me the links with astro archaeology. Explain why theres common numbers encoded within these buildings that are encoded across all the sacred books worldwide.

See the language of mathematics does not lie. I prefer that to the scant information gleaned by those that translate the hieroglyphs of which they can only read a small percent.

I dont think you are entitled to an opinion on this subject. In order to have a debate with someone that person needs to have a concept of both sides of the issue. Here I surmise you lack.

Prove me wrong.?

originally posted by: Xabi87
I mean it's only fair we ask for these examples to prove your theory, you are always asking for "hard evidence" to prove alternative theories right? Why do you get to be lazy?

These peeps dont do science. Science is repeatable. The best these peeps can do is lump a block of granite and say look we can shape it. Have any of them repeated the level of work that has been carried out. No they have not.

Lots of hot air but no fruits.

originally posted by: Xabi87

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Xabi87
a reply to: Harte

Yeah i agree it's only my view, i wouldn't claim otherwise without much more evidence. Same with the copper and rock theory, for me to personally believe it i need a bit more evidence, such as what i have been asking for in here.

You should realize that nobody's going to even try to reproduce even a granite sarcophagus by hand, much less the granite box you want made.
In effect, you've demanded yourself into an immovable position.
And while admittedly not exactly the same argument, the outcome of your argument IS exactly the same as if you simply stamped your foot and cried "Nuh uh!"

originally posted by: Xabi87Talking about the unfinished Obelisk, how did the crack happen? If they where only scraping with copper and stone how did they generate enough energy to crack the whole thing?

Cracked under its own weight, mostly. It was the biggest one they ever tried to do.
Granite isn't homogeneous anymore than any other stone is. In a granite bed, you can find variations. Just relieving the pressure from the surrounding granite on this piece could have cause it to expand and weaken. Apply the right force, it will crack.

Personally, I think that the pounding process (quarrying) was aided by the use of small fires. Heat differentials could have cracked the thing if it had a weak vein in it.

Harte

I know nobody will recreate it because in my opinion it's impossible. So that means that the theory that it was built with those tools is false.

Here you use your own claim that it's impossible in order to state the theory is false.
That's more like the foot stamping than the demand that someone carve you a granite box by hand.

originally posted by: Xabi87For me to believe in very unbelievable theories such as Egyptians building granite works of art by pounding with stones, i need HARD evidence. My argument is exactly like the many arguments you yourself have on here regarding evidence and theories, there is nothing wrong with standing firm in the absence of evidence.

Pounders in the hundreds have been found in the ancient quarries at Aswan, and they pretty much fit the "scalloping" you see left on the unfinished obelisk (and other places in the quarry as well.)
How "hard" can you expect evidence from over 2,000 years ago to be?
Standing firm in the absence of evidence is the exact position of Egyptology, or any science.
See, the pounders and the marks they leave are evidence. Science goes with the evidence it has.
Also, pecking on stone leaves characteristic marks, and these have been found on the obelisk. Pounding, pecking and smoothing (grinding by rubbing with stone) are all evidenced on the unfinished obelisk.

All of this is evidence. It can't be ignored just so we can say "who knows?" or "Nuh uh!"

originally posted by: Xabi87Cracking under it's weight is another interesting theory i must admit, honestly never heard of that one. Do granite mountains usually do this or something? What is this theory based on?

A granite bed can be under some pressure at the surface because of the way it forms. When you cut a big hole in it, the sides of the hole will expand slightly. It's not much, but enough to cause separation along the feldspar and other mineral) veins, the interstices between the crystals.

In this case, a big hole was cut around a big chunk, so both would have expanded a little.

originally posted by: Xabi87I agree with you on the fires, heat could have had something to do with it.

It's part of the mainstream. Thought by some to have been used on the polished surfaces as well, to cut some of the amazingly precise hieroglyphs you see on them.
The heat expands the quartz crystals (the hard parts of granite) causing them to fracture. That would definitely help with pounding, but some think is was used to get the crisp cuts on those glyphs as well. It would certainly help to make a perfect cut when carving them.

Harte

originally posted by: purplemer

Why dont you go and understand the maths of the Pyramids of Osiris and when you are informed come back again and we can talk.

There are no Pyramids of Osiris, and the "maths" of the pyramids are well understood.

originally posted by: purplemerGive me some evidence that they are burial chambers.

They contain sarcophagi and are accompanied by adjacent funerary temples. And the Ancient Egyptians said they were tombs.

originally posted by: purplemerPharaohs where buried underground thats a fact.

There is an explanation for the "air shafts" in that idea, in the first article in this journal: "Explaining the Shafts in Khufu's Pyramid."

originally posted by: purplemerExplain to me the links with astro archaeology.

Assuming you mean Archaeoastronomy, that "field" is pseudoscientific. Archaeology does have an area for astronomy though - it's called Cultural Astronomy: Link.

originally posted by: purplemerExplain why theres common numbers encoded within these buildings that are encoded across all the sacred books worldwide.

This simply isn't the case.

originally posted by: purplemerProve me wrong.?

You have that backwards. Prove yourself right.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Ah yes the endless repetition of personal incredulity - how many times did we do this 200 times or is more like 250?

The refusal to understand the importance of passed on skill.

Example if you went back to ancient Egypt say 2,500 BC and handed the Pharaoh an American football and told him to form a team and obtain a quarterback- could they then defeat a present day American NFL team? Nope they would be slaughtered. Even before they played some the Egyptians would state with authority that no one could throw a ball - 60 yards - with accuracy because no one could within own people.

They probably couldn't even find a good quarterback - why? No skills, no expert to teach them, no written instructions and a lack of expertise - a master can tell when a novice has latent abilities and can direct his study and development. Now if they practiced after many years perhaps generations they might be able to create a good quarterback who could throw a football 60 yards with pin point accuracy like lots of Americans can. Immediately - never.

How do the Americans do it? They start playing FB very early and have experts to teach them. The fact that present day people think that someone with zero skills with working stone can do so in the same way an expert AE could who was probably the son of a son of a son of a son of stone worker is amusing to say the least disingenuous at best.

When archaeologist started to re-learn how to make stone tools in the early 20th century it took about two generations to gain a skill level equal to ancient men and they had a few living experts to teach them (Like Ishi), modern Egyptologist have no such resource from the AE to help them.

Have fun but it is a hopeless task when people don't understand this. However Harte, I know yah love fruitless never ending arguments!

a reply to: Harte

I thought the sacred geometry of the Great Pyramid was commonly known & accepted? You don't think there was sacred geometry, hidden numbers & measurements etc.?

Such things don't happen for no reason, like a modern skyscraper doesn't get built and then accidentally find out that it has sacred geometry and hidden references to pi, and measurements of the solar system, etc.

Plus the Great Pyramid is built on the specific geographical center of the world's land mass.

You disagree with all such notions?

...

Also I thought it was established that the Egyptian pyramids were NOT tombs.

I thought there was never a legit tomb or mummy found in any of the pyramids, right? Adjoined temples and structures don't count lol.

a reply to: Hanslune

Interesting post, I'm not quite sure what the main point was, but surely you don't think that modern people have the same capabilities as those who built the pyramids?

(We don't.)

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: Harte

I thought the sacred geometry of the Great Pyramid was commonly known & accepted? You don't think there was sacred geometry, hidden numbers & measurements etc.?

Nope. Not any.

originally posted by: peacefulpeteSuch things don't happen for no reason, like a modern skyscraper doesn't get built and then accidentally find out that it has sacred geometry and hidden references to pi, and measurements of the solar system, etc.

Perhaps. But such things DIDN"T happen with any pyramids.
There is no "reference to pi" in any Egyptian pyramid. There is a mathturbation version that actually comes from 22/7, through the manipulation of the base and the height, that actually stems ENTIRELY from the angle decided on for the sides by the architect (the seked.) I've shown this provable fact several times here and on other forums.
Here's an example:

The final example is a variation on the preceding example. Let's assume that the architect decides to specify the angle by the inverse of its slope and also decides to represent that inverse-slope by a fraction with a denominator which divides 28. Let's continue to assume that the architect wants the angle to be between 43o and 55o. The smallest possible value for that inverse-slope would then be 20/28=5/7. That corresponds to the angle ARCTAN(7/5)=54o27'44". The largest possible value for the inverse-slope is 30/28=15/14, corresponding to the angle ARCTAN(14/15)=43o01'30". Thus, under the above assumptions, the inverse-slope would be chosen as one of the fractions 20/28, 21/28, ..., 30/28. There are 11 possible choices. Let's assume that the architect is equally likely to choose any of these possibilities. Thus, with a probability of 1/11, the architect might choose 22/28=11/14 as the inverse-slope. The faces of the resulting pyramid built with that specification would have a slope of 14/11. This turns out to be extremely close to 4/&pi. In fact, 4/&pi=1.273239... and 14/11=1.272727... and the approximation of 4/&pi by 14/11 is accurate to within .04%. Under this scenario, which might seem rather strange at first, the probability that the architect's pyramid would have a slope of 4/&pi with the same accuracy as that exhibited by the Great Pyramid of Khufu is 1/11. The probability is even higher if one assumes that the architect wants to make the angle rather steep. That would correspond to choosing a smaller value for the inverse-slope and therefore make 22/28 a more likely choice.

Source
The author above says "inverse slope." This is precisely how AEs measured angles - the seked is expresed as the inverse of what we would call slope.

You can read more about this here: link

originally posted by: peacefulpetePlus the Great Pyramid is built on the specific geographical center of the world's land mass.

You disagree with all such notions?

Of course, because it doesn't.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Also I thought it was established that the Egyptian pyramids were NOT tombs.

Quite the opposite. Egyptian pyramids have been established to be tombs.

originally posted by: peacefulpeteI thought there was never a legit tomb or mummy found in any of the pyramids, right? Adjoined temples and structures don't count lol.

Funerary temples don't count? LOL
The Great Pyramid stood open to anyone that knew how to get in - including (it appears) the Greeks and Romans - through the hidden swiveling stone opening. Not to mention that it was opened for anyone that has eyeballs by the Arabs a few centuries later.

There are also accounts of tomb robbing even in ancient Egyptian texts, and it's a certainty that many pharaohs were removed from their tombs and entombed together in other spots because of this. Such "communal" tombs have been found, after all. There is also some evidence that some of the tomb robbing was done by the ancient Egyptian priests themselves.

Harte

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: Hanslune

Interesting post, I'm not quite sure what the main point was, but surely you don't think that modern people have the same capabilities as those who built the pyramids?

(We don't.)

Please elucidate for us exactly why you believe this.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: Hanslune

Interesting post, I'm not quite sure what the main point was, but surely you don't think that modern people have the same capabilities as those who built the pyramids?

(We don't.)

Please elucidate for us exactly why you believe this.

Harte

Well the sacred geometry and hidden references to pi and solar system lol. But you said u don’t believe any of that.

I’m not going to argue these things but I am surprised u disbelieve everything about that.

Plus modern day we don’t build pyramids and we dont build with stone...

Plus it’s been widely acknowledged and accepted that we can’t even understand how the pyramids were built, let alone being able to do the same thing, lol. Including lifting giant stones hundreds of feet that we can’t do with our modern machinery.

But like I said if u disbelieve all of these very common acknowledged ideas, then I’m surprised and I’m not going to argue each point with u..,