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

a reply to: Harte

I'll do that if you'll replicate this mysterious and invisible previous culture that you think actually was responsible for everything the mainstream attributes to the Ancient Egyptians.

Now then. If you actually knew your history you would be able to do that yourself. It is well documented. You simply do not have the understanding to do.

a reply to: purplemer
I just don't understand academics. I truly believe they think they are fighting the good fight. The fight against ignorance. The fight against false information. But when you are fighting so hard to retain and protect previously memorized information, are you even being honest with yourself anymore?

At which point does memorizing and regurgitating large amounts of information become detrimental to the truth? When does a person become so invested in the time and resources dedicated to that memorization, that they no longer have an open mind? Then you start protecting your paycheck, especially when you are in academia. Peer reviews, always following the 'accepted' documentation and textbooks, it is like the person becomes a slave to the herd. Maybe at that point, the person experiences actual physical pain when trying to contemplate new ways of viewing a subject.

I wonder how a person can research and still maintain an open mind? I wonder how do we identify those who are hopelessly lost in the realm of brainwashing that their opinion should forever be scorned?

It is going to be hard enough to rediscover our true past, harder still to overcome concentrated efforts at all levels to maintain the status quo. I am just starting to fathom the great effort in keeping us blind and misdirected. It even appears to be all tied in together somehow: Morals, 'ISMs', religion, population control, power and greed.

There must be something huge that will change mankind upon its dicovery. I think they know what it is. I think it all ties in together.

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Egyptologists (and other -ologists who study culture) DID consult not only with engineers and architects but sat down with the people and documented how they worked and how they did things. Their records and observations and photographs and films (for more recent stuff) are some of the only documents about this. They do ask other professions about how things are done

That may indeed be the case, however we are still left with questions because the answers (and assumptions) given don’t always add up to the finished result.
No real explanation for the transport of 70 tonne granite blocks 500 miles

I guess I don't know what you mean by "no real explanation." We've got a bill of shipping for stone for the GP (papyrus of Merer). It traveled downstream by boat. We even know how they constructed the boats.

No real explanation for how said blocks were lifted to a fair height inside the Great Pyramid

None that you accept.

We have the remains of ramps that they used (and we know they're ramps because they left several construction ramps in situ at several temples), we know how they dragged large stone objects, we have (still today) the primitive cranes they used back then. We know the size of the workforce and when the workers were there. We know how the teams were divided, we know how much food everyone ate, we have the tools they left behind (and tools they lost), we have names of officials and their duties, we are excavating the docks that they used, we've excavated the villages of the workers, and more.

I honestly think that if we could use a time machine and show film (or even livestream) the build, there would be many people who said it that it was all a bunch of fakery by academics (and would then blame Zahi Hawass for it.)

Forensic Tooling marks relating to certain techniques they supposedly couldn’t perform

Again, none that you accept.

If the answers were satisfactory, we wouldn’t still have experts in various fields proposing alternative and credible methods for these examples.

Please pardon a grumble here... the answer is "of COURSE we would."

You see, the amount of incomplete information lurking around Egypt is vast. Most of the misinformation is repetition of beliefs that we held more than 130 years ago... things that at THAT time were true because the science of excavation was just starting and there hadn't been that much excavated.

So some physicist/architect/whomever hears "mystery of Egypt" (or sees one of those low-information tv shows that are so popular) and thinks "I can solve it!"

..and rather than doing what a good scientist would do as their first steps

• ask the question
  
• get a specialist in the field (if not your field) to recommend some reading
  
• READ the documents
  
• refine your question
  
• ...now that you have good resources, check to see if there's further answers
  
• THEN speculate and research from your own perspective.
  

...they rely on this "we don't know anything" and run off to do their own theory work based on their field. And they have no way of checking their work.

(a sterling example of this is the "Clovis comet" which was decided by astronomers who heard about the Great Extinction. Only if they'd asked paleontologists they would have found out that it wasn't a sudden thing (these creatures died off over a period of about 5,000 years) and it wasn't in one area and the event killed off animals of one species (the short-faced bear, for example) while leaving a similar animal of similar size and similar eating habits (the grizzly bear) completely untouched.)

We would have no ‘fringe’ as it is called, if all the methods decided upon so far were adequate and logical enough to not cause the development of a ‘fringe’ or prick up the ears of experts whose knowledge relates to the above.
If the ‘mainstream ‘ continues to ignore or gloss over, or even refuse to accept that there ARE anomalies, then it’s credibility will continue to dive.

There are those who believe there's a global agenda guiding history. Trust me, there'd still be fringe.

What about those two giant 1000 tonne statues of a seated pharaoh ,
The 1000 tonne unfinished obelisk?
They could clearly move these wieghts, and clearly intended to in the case of the unfinished obelisk in Aswan quarry .
These are anomalies compared to their assumed methods of moving objects.

Why are they anomalies? I don't find them anomalous because I've seen other large stones that they moved (including the pylons at the great temples... and in that case they were hoisting the blocks some 50 feet and more into the air...and then there's the large columns in the temples which are more than 10 feet in diameter) Now, although I myself don't know how they managed to haul those massive stones for the columns into place and fit them so perfectly and make them join so smoothly, they don't represent an anomaly to me. To me, this is in line with the other work they did for the 4,000+ year history of the empire and similar to other building projects elsewhere in the world.

Yes, Hatshepsut's obelisks are among the heaviest objects moved at that time, but they clearly had a long history of being able to move huge things and therefore knew how to organize resources and people to get it done. So I don't see what's so anomalous (though I would, as I said, call it anomalous if they had never done any stonework or moved huge objects and suddenly this massive one-piece obelisk shows up 500 miles from its quarry.)

a reply to: ClovenSky

There must be something huge that will change mankind upon its dicovery. I think they know what it is. I think it all ties in together.

I think I know what this is. Will have a thread up about it very soon. Power and money are controlled by an elite few. Information about our history is no different. If you dont know your history you dont know who you are. We are being kept in the dark.

I will send u a PM when i make my thread if you like.

a reply to: Byrd

Please pardon a grumble here... the answer is "of COURSE we would."

No you choice to listen to particular experts. Ones that back up your status quo. Like the geologists that say the Sphinx is a lot older than is presently prescribed. You going to listen to them?

Or the astroarchaeologists who say your interpretation is wrong. You going to listen to them.

Or the ancient Arab writers that prescribe a different builder to the Pyramids. Are you going to listen to them.

Some Indian texts document history going back a million + years.. Scientists, who thought Troy was a myth and discount the history India documented, are finding out there is truth to whats documented.

When science stops questioning things is when we have a problem.

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Although I'm not a machinist, I can think of a way to do this that doesn't involve a lathe but does involve a milling (I hope I'm using the term correctly) process. If you set a post in the depression there at the center and then had an "arm" with an abrasive (or just put sand there) and then pushed the tip of the arm around and around in the track. You'd get a similar effect.

There's probably several other ways of doing it. You could make something like the needle and an arm on a record player and put grit under that. Yes, it'd take a very long time... BUT... that's actually what made these things valuable. In an era where there was no money (but systems of barter were used) the most valuable things are those that take the longest to make or take the most resources.

So... wood was expensive because there's not a lot of wood (and not a lot of good wood) in Egypt. Pottery was cheap because everyone could make it. Stonework was expensive because not everyone could cut stone and shape it. Scribal work was extremely expensive (though it didn't take that long to do) because of the years of training it took... and because fewer than 5% of the population could actually read. Men started their tombs as soon as they left their homes because something like a nice wood coffin could take weeks to make and a stone sarcophagus would be a huge investment.

In any case, while we could speculate on everything from "trained sandworms" to whatever... it's not going to be accepted until you show tools or other evidence that this was how things were done.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Some Indian texts document history going back a million + years..

Except it doesn't match with what we've found in the archaeological history.

Scientists, who thought Troy was a myth and discount the history India documented, are finding out there is truth to whats documented.

You've gotten a few things mixed up, I think. Scientists didn't have an opinion on Troy... that would be historians and there'd always been a debate about Troy. India didn't document Troy.... that's Greece.

When science stops questioning things is when we have a problem.

Actually, we have a huge problem with people running on incomplete information.

a reply to: Byrd

Wait a second, are you saying the dirt ramps they 'discovered' in Oct of 2018 proves the entire mainstream pyramid building theories are fact?

This discovery:



This 4,500-Year-Old Ramp Contraption May Have Been Used to Build Egypt's Great Pyramid

They believe the inclusion of the steps and the postholes either side of a rampway suggests the builders were able to haul from both directions, rather than simply dragging a block behind them. The team believes those below the block would have used the posts to create a pulley system while those above it pulled simultaneously.

New discovery throws light on mystery of pyramids' construction


I love how they are able to just date these ramps to 2500bc. There isn't any disclaimers on how poor and faulty our dating systems actually are.

a reply to: Byrd

Except it doesn't match with what we've found in the archaeological history.

That is because you do not understand what you are reading.

When science stops questioning things is when we have a problem.

Exactly what you are doing right now. You dont know what you are talking about. The Yugas in the Vedics are very real. The same knowledge is found worldwide in ancient culture. It is us that is the anomololy in this respect. Heck its even in wesern culuture when you no where to look.

The story of daniel

The king saw a gigantic statue made of four metals, from its gold head to its feet of mingled iron and clay; as he watched, a stone "not cut by human hands"

The greeks had the same story too along with the Sumerians and many many more.

What do you think Hamlets Mill is. It turned gold to start with and ending up turning detritus at the bottom of the ocean.

These are the ages of man and if you dont understand this really you dont know history.

a reply to: Byrd

Except it doesn't match with what we've found in the archaeological history.

Apart from all the Ooparts which you have negated to mention. Objects that refuse to fit in to the present timeline

Its all about selection to some

a reply to: purplemer

Except it doesn't match with what we've found in the archaeological history.

Where did the tecnhology come to smelt Tutankhamun's meteoric iron dagger. How did they understand the complex alloy mix used within and have the ability to smelt it. I always wondered about that. Lovely dagget

A series of succeedingly larger tube saws creates the same effect. You know, the saws that the AE's depicted in their artwork, the saw Stocks used to core some granite. Are you of the opinion that this can't be done for some reason? It is practically the equivalent of working on the face of a piece with a lathe, only the tool is turned instead of the piece.

Are you SERIOUS?
We all know that the tube drill Stocks used made a very uneven hole, and you can say too that the AE tube drill holes are not perfect circles like you get when a lathe is involved.

Ah, but if you wanted to make a perfectly circular tube drill, you would need a perfectly circular length of wood to ‘form ‘ your copper sheet around, wouldn’t you?
And to make a perfectly circular length of wood , you would need a lathe, wouldn’t you?

If you are suggesting that this ‘plate’ with the circular walls was made by a series of rough tube drills, done vertically , by chaps with rock wieghts on top of a rod with a rough tube drill on it, without breaking any of the walls, centring it perfectly, and ‘adding’ a depression just for fun in the dead centre of the workpiece , then you are simply making a fool of yourself in the face of the evidence presented.

The FINESSE seen on this ‘plate’ is pure Lathework and looks nothing like ANY core drill samples.
Sorry Harte, but it was simply not done in the way you suggest.
But , you know what? There’s nothing wrong with being wrong. You are right a lot of the time on here, but this time, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. And I’m nearly of the opinion that you’re barking up it just for the sheer hell of it.

The perfect circles, the perfect centre, the striations, the delicacy and finesse were achieved by a master lathesman of his time on a primitive , but rigid lathe.
My ‘expert’ opinion, if you like, as a machinist, carries no wieght with you, but you want us to believe for instance, that Stocks’ work is enough of a ‘proof of concept’ to rely on, when I have pretty much replicated that ‘plate’ on a smaller scale.
If I had a primitive, perhaps hand cranked rigid lathe, I could make that plate in stone. And so could the chaps back then.
And being a Mechanical Engineer, you should know better, mate.
a reply to: Harte

Although I'm not a machinist, I can think of a way to do this that doesn't involve a lathe but does involve a milling (I hope I'm using the term correctly) process. If you set a post in the depression there at the center and then had an "arm" with an abrasive (or just put sand there) and then pushed the tip of the arm around and around in the track. You'd get a similar effect.

Hi Byrd,im impressed that you are taking the time to think about this object in a different way, in fact, trying to find as many different ways as possible is a real machinists mindset, so 10 points to you!!!
Weirdly enough I did actually consider this method when looking at this object, but in the end the lathe won out, due to the forces being applied more accurately and consistently when the ‘plate’ itself is spinning.
I have spoken a lot about ‘forensics’ when it comes to this proposed AE lathework, and everything we see on here has a forensic match to Lathework.
You could see on my version of the plate the consistency of the micro circular striations that you cannot avoid with Lathework .
You know how in crime scenarios the ‘forensic’ team have to match knife blades, tyre marks, wounds to particular weapons and so forth, well my knowledge of Lathework and tooling leads me to this conclusion as I see these type of striations every day.

The central section which includes a curved depression and the centre hole is actually a classic ‘bowl’ turning, have a look on YouTube for , say, wooden bowls turned on lathes and you’ll see what I mean.
That central hole can often be another part to a lathe set up called, funnily enough, the “centre” which is brought into contact with the workpiece (often heavy materials) to ensure the workpiece is both held nicely and turning on centre.

I know you state there is no evidence of lathes or lathe tools found, but is there any evidence of tooling regarding the method you propose, which, in truth, is more credible as an idea than anything Harte has suggested, and he was a Mechanical Engineer.
There is a real delicacy, a finesse about this piece that calls to me as a machinist, it just strikes a chord that the piece itself was turning, not the tool.
a reply to: Byrd

a reply to: purplemer

What makes you think smelting was involved?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Some Indian texts document history going back a million + years..

Except it doesn't match with what we've found in the archaeological history.

Scientists, who thought Troy was a myth and discount the history India documented, are finding out there is truth to whats documented.

You've gotten a few things mixed up, I think. Scientists didn't have an opinion on Troy... that would be historians and there'd always been a debate about Troy. India didn't document Troy.... that's Greece.

I'd also point out that the excavations at the supposed site of Troy have yet to discover evidence of Homer's war.

Homer's Troy has yet to be found there.

Harte

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: purplemer

What makes you think smelting was involved?

Because purplemer doesn't know what smelting means.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Indeed. Schliemann's findings (his gold and silver) have now actually been dated to around a thousand years before the setting for the Trojan Way of Homer fame.

Troy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: purplemer

What makes you think smelting was involved?

What makes you think your worthy of a reply.

You have added zero to this thread and last time I sent you replies on the moon maths thread. You went AWOL. Leaving only the sweet smell of roasted coffee..

a reply to: Xcathdra

When science stops questioning things is when we have a problem.

Over simpification on your part there. There are entire areas that are out of touch to this philosophy. Fir example. s cientists cannot be blamed for lacking emotional or mental sense. But one is justified in demanding that they should not categorically deny the existence of things concerning which they have no logical right to express opinions.