Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

Originally posted by cmaracing
Yes the anomaly that exist is a mathematical improbability with out observation from above also there are many stories about the hidden knowledge of the ancients witch where killed or diapered during one of the great floods causing the 2 major pyramids built afterwards as a guide to where to dig.

You might find it interesting to note that the biblical texts actually make reference to God destroying the "images of the Egyptians", which in reality was not the word "images" but "mastabahs"! That's another word for the crypts and burial monuments of the egyptians, which started as a single layer, and grew to be layer on top of layer (pyramids). Actually, the pyramids were called many things in the bible, including "pillars", so a review of the old testament may reveal some of the information he is looking for on this subject. When I realized the word meant mastabahs, I thought... whoa, what if this is evidence for other pyramids, buried in the sand because the upper portions have been wiped out, as indicated in the old testament?!

[edit on 25-9-2006 by undo]

the significance of the image may have been hinted at by psychic Elizabeth Bacon of New York. In a trance reading on the mysterious sphere, she received the message that the object had once belonged to Thoth, the Egyptian god who allegedly buried a secret vault of knowledge near the three great Pyramids of Giza at the beginning of time there is also a correlation with the story of Enoch.

Originally posted by cmaracing
the significance of the image may have been hinted at by psychic Elizabeth Bacon of New York. In a trance reading on the mysterious sphere, she received the message that the object had once belonged to Thoth, the Egyptian god who allegedly buried a secret vault of knowledge near the three great Pyramids of Giza at the beginning of time there is also a correlation with the story of Enoch.

What is the correlation in Enoch and which Enoch, I or II? Sounds like errm, what's that guy's name.... Cayce? Cayce thought there was a library under the sphinx?

There are many questions regarding the idea that there where no advanced civilization in the world at about 10000 to 20000 B.C. considering that civilizations develop at different times if an archeologist was to examine the U.S.A. and then Africa would he consider Africa to be less developed, would that signify that there is no advanced civilizations at any point if the U.S.A was not discovered. I am in reference to the future after a major catastrophe

www.plim.org...

Another link above that askes the same questions as people here.

www.crystalinks.com...

Also again facts and numbers about the pyramid.
I am wondering where this post is leading, there are sites that say this and that already is it not down to what one has read unless you have done the work your self to find out?

One way to sort this is is have an opinion poll. This is where its heading and to add interesting links for and against this notion of the post.

www.prophecyinthenews.com...

Also The Pillar of Enoch (Part 1 and 2) for the people who missed the last link on the page before.


[edit on 25-9-2006 by The time lord]

Have you gone to this website yet?

home.comcast.net...

Originally posted by cmaracing
There are many questions regarding the idea that there where no advanced civilization in the world at about 10000 to 20000 B.C. considering that civilizations develop at different times if an archeologist was to examine the U.S.A. and then Africa would he consider Africa to be less developed, would that signify that there is no advanced civilizations at any point if the U.S.A was not discovered. I am in reference to the future after a major catastrophe

Logical process isn't allowed to be part of the argument unless it supports Darwinism in its purest form. Man is the measure of all things.... period....bar none.

Originally posted by undo
Odium,

Problem is, you're proceeding from the false teachings of the Holy Roman Empire, when they tried to prove the earth was flat and the center of the universe by disavowing all the other ancient texts that suggested otherwise and by flat out denying what it said in the bible regarding the shape of the earth. When the german higher criticism grew to be the new masters of all that is truth, replacing the Vatican, it kept the Vatican's arguments against the other ancient texts! That was a huge mistake, because those arguments were specifically designed to single out catholicism as the only true religion on the planet!

I see you do not address the points I made.

That is what we call an "example". You use it to display something about the topic at hand, without mentioning the topic. When you use an example, the topic used in the example does not become the topic used in the discussion.

You fail at life.

I have yet to see any posts by you which address:
Who built the Pyramids.
When they were built.
How they were built.
Their purpose.

Instead, all I have seen is pointless post after post which seems to be going off on some wild tangent. Do you take medication the debate should be made aware of?

I thought it would be nice to have a real look at the Pyramids we're talking about, taken by our modern satellites. Check out the links I captured on Googlemaps.com. The first four hyperlinks are photographs of the major pyramids in Egypt. All four hyperlinks were captured at the same zoom level, so you'll be able to compare them to the size of the three common pyramids at Giza.



From top to bottom, the pyramids of Giza here are named Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. These pyramids are located in the North.
local.google.com...,31.131542&spn=0.00829,0.019956&t=k&om=1

Heading south...

This is the Step Pyramid of Djoser located at Saqqara.
local.google.com...,31.217415&spn=0.008299,0.019956

Heading south...

This is the Red Pyramid of Sneferu located at Dahshur. Sneferu is considered to be Khufu's father.
local.google.com...,31.206708&spn=0.008304,0.019956

Heading a tad bit south...

The is the Bent Pyramid of Sneferu also located at Dahshur.
local.google.com...,31.209047&spn=0.008305,0.019956



This last image is a high altitude snap-shot, with the pyramids of Giza on the top and the pyramids of Dahshur on the bottom. As you can see the pyramids of Dahshur are of considerable size and seem to be forgotten or never mentioned. You'd think the Red Pyramid would hold some real secrets because it was the first perfect pyramid ever built, if you go by the Sneferu/Khufu theory.
local.google.com...,31.216278&spn=0.265521,0.63858&t=k&om=1


Darn! Must been stelar drift that wacked out my centered snap shots. You'll have to drag the images yourself to center the pyramids.






[edit on 25-9-2006 by lostinspace]

[edit on 25-9-2006 by lostinspace]

[edit on 25-9-2006 by lostinspace]

Originally posted by lostinspace
I thought it would be nice to have a real look at the Pyramids we're talking about,

Been there.
Touched them.
Seen the dodgy building work.

Originally posted by Odium


Been there.
Touched them.
Seen the dodgy building work.

It'd help if they still had their limestone facings. Bet they were very pretty at one point.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by undo]

Odium said:

Egyptians built the Pyramids, everyone was fine and happy abotu that. Then a group of people try and claim otherwise [without any evidence except speculation and blind faith]. Then the real scientists [people like Byrd, etc] are forced to constantly correct things.

If you scroll back on this thread, you will see that I have not once said whether I agree or disagree with the original poster. I do know, however, that the stones are so very big, that the concept of people without the wheel, pre-iron age, being able to build these mammoth structures without the help of "advanced" beings, seems nearly incomprehensible. Sit down and try to figure out how much was involved in just the adminstration of such a project as the Great Pyramid. Add to that, the advanced mathematics. The sheer tonnage. It's mind boggling, truly, that human beings who supposedly didn't know the world was a sphere, and who didn't have the wheel, a lathe, electricity or anything harder than copper, advanced chemistry, could not only cut huge mammoth stones but transport thousands of them and stack them on top of each other, etc. It ...well...it bends logic into twisty pretzel shapes to ask me to believe that such a thing was possible

Originally posted by Odium
You fail at life.

That one is just plain rude...

I have yet to see any posts by you which address:
Who built the Pyramids.
When they were built.
How they were built.
Their purpose.

How they were built has been extensively discussed here just go back and read the posts... one side is for ropes and sleds... our side is going with sonic levitation as one option... but it HAS been covered..

Their purpose was as initiation chambers according to Rosicrucian teaching for one "You enter as a man, left reborn as a God"...

When seems to be around or before 10,000 years by our reckoning... and you well know the "official" date

Who we are not yet sure about... that IS what we are researching..

All your points have been repeatedly addressed and more so in the stargate threads

Instead, all I have seen is pointless post after post which seems to be going off on some wild tangent. Do you take medication the debate should be made aware of?

Disagreement is fine... but that comment is both uncalled for and against ATS policy to suggest drug use!

lostinspace,

Hrm, I dunno about the Khufu/Cheops theory, if you mean the theory that states that the GP was the end result of years of pyramid building? It's confusing, to be honest. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense and even seems to uphold the theory that they started with the same principles used in ziggurat building, and advanced from there. But I did a study once on the differences and similarities between the pyramids and other forms of art and architecture in ancient Egypt, and to me it seemed to devolve rather than evolve. The art seemed to get sloppier, less technically advanced, as if the people responsible for the knowledge used, had either died or vanished, and hadn't bequeathed the information to enough people to be of any use for later generations.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by undo]

undo, well done. You've not done a lot of research into this area at a post PHD level have you?

Every comment you have made, has already been address by Civil Engineering magazine June 1999. Including the cutting of the blocks with the tools from the era. [Remember how we can cut and shape diamonds with objects not stronger then them?]

Mark Lehner and Mory Gharib have shown how easy it can be done. Mory Gharib was able to lift a 3000kg obelisk up into the air, in 25seconds in just 25mph winds. Using items the Egyptians had. When they combined the theory, they were easily able to move the average blocks using just Ox. Which also fits the date span, since the oldest known Egyptian cattle [domesticated were in 4500BC.]

The moving and cutting wasn't hard enough.

Also, the Pyramids are not as well constructed as you think. Gilles Dormion and Jean Patrice Goidin found that 10-15% of the pyramid is not solid. It is filed with rubble due to how badly shaped many of the blocks are. If you've been there, if you've seen them you'd know the blocks have just been hacked clean. They did not need tools to easily cut through the blocks, they hacked them clean and then fixed the edges. The South American Pyramids were harder to build and a cleaner cut.

The hardest bit of the Pyramids was levelling the ground. Odd how nobody brings that up, but then these fantastic space creatures really don't factor into the discussion then. Maybe the space ship hopped around levelling the ground each time it landed? :|

How come we over-look the pots, records, etc, found around the pyramids? Including a building ramp [two walls filled with compacted sand.] etc, etc.

Just so you know, they had not just copper saws. The Cairo Museum also has bronze ones from the period.

Also Bronocice pot, a ca. 4000 BC found in Poland showed wheels.

Khufu reigned [2589 BC to 2566 BC.] They've found Potter's Wheels from 2400 BC. In fact, there are many of them in Museum's. I have no idea where you get these ideas from but most people accept they probably had wheels back then.

Originally posted by zorgon
That one is just plain rude...

Yes, yes it was.

Who we are not yet sure about... that IS what we are researching..

Maybe it's about time certain people who disagree it was Khufu come up with some names. Imaginary aliens just doesn't cut it. [Get the pun?]

Disagreement is fine... but that comment is both uncalled for and against ATS policy to suggest drug use!

So report me for it?

You will find it is:

2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of any illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia, hacking, etc. are strictly forbidden.

Illegal activities. If he has been placed on medication, then it becomes legal.

I'll wait for some names of who built it, with the evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by Odium

I'll wait for some names of who built it, with the evidence to back it up.

Odium,

Don't hold your breath, pal!

Harte

A machinist has a look at the "stones" of ancient egyptian art and architecture:

The Great Pyramid leads a long list of artifacts that have been incredibly misunderstood and misinterpreted by Egyptologists. They have postulated theories and methods based on a collection of tools that are, at best, questionable. For the most part, primitive tools that have been uncovered would be considered contemporaneous with the artifacts of the same period. This period in Egyptian history, however, resulted in artifacts being produced in prolific number with no tools surviving to explain their creation. The ancient Egyptians left artifacts behind that are unexplainable in simple terms. The tools that have been uncovered do not fully represent the "state-of-the-art" that is physically evident in these artifacts. There are some intriguing objects surviving this civilization which, despite its most visible and impressive monuments, has left us with only a sketchy understanding of its full experience on planet Earth.''

We would be hard pressed to produce many of these artifacts today, even using our advanced methods of manufacturing. The tools displayed as instruments for the creation of these incredible artifacts are physically incapable of reproducing many of the artifacts in question. Along with the enormous task of quarrying, cutting and erecting the Great Pyramid and its neighbors, thousands of tons of hard igneous rock, such as granite and diorite, were carved with extreme proficiency and accuracy. After standing in awe before these engineering marvels and then being shown a paltry collection of copper implements in the tool case at the Cairo Museum, one comes away with a sense of frustration, futility and wonder.

The first British Egyptologist, Sir. William Flinders Petrie, recognized that these tools were insufficient. He admitted it in his book "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh", and expressed amazement regarding the methods the ancient Egyptians were using to cut hard igneous rocks, crediting them with methods that "......we are only now coming to understand." So why do modern Egyptologists identify this work with a few primitive copper instruments?

[...]

Undoubtedly, some of the artifacts that Petrie was studying were produced using lathes. There is evidence, too, in the Cairo Museum of clearly defined lathe tool marks on some "sarcophagi" lids. The Cairo Museum contains enough evidence that, when properly analyzed, will prove beyond all shadow of doubt that the ancient Egyptians used highly sophisticated manufacturing methods. For generations the focus has centered on the nature of the cutting tools that the ancient Egyptians used. While in Egypt in February 1995, I uncovered evidence that clearly moves us beyond that question to ask "what guided the cutting tool?"

Although the ancient Egyptians are not given credit for having a simple wheel, the evidence proves they had a more sophisticated use for the wheel. The evidence of lathe work is markedly distinct on some artifacts that are housed in the Cairo Museum and also those that were studied by Petrie. Two pieces of diorite in Petrie’s collection were identified by him to be the result of true turning on a lathe.

It is true that intricate objects can be created without the aid of machinery, simply by rubbing the material with an abrasive, such as sand, using a piece of bone or wood to apply pressure. The relics Petrie was looking at, however, in his words "could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface."

To the inexperienced eye, the object Petrie was studying would hardly be considered remarkable. It was a simple bowl, made out of simple rock. Studying the bowl closely, however, Petrie found that the spherical concave radius, forming the dish, had an unusual feel to it. Closer examination revealed a sharp cusp where two radii intersected. This indicates that the radii were cut on two separate axes of rotation.

Having worked on lathes, I have witnessed the same condition when a component has been removed from the lathe and then worked on again without being recentered properly.

On examining other pieces from Giza, Petrie found another bowl shard which had the marks of true lathe-turning. This time, though, instead of shifting the workpiece’s axis of rotation, a second radius was cut by shifting the pivot point of the tool. With this radius they machined just short of the perimeter of the dish, leaving a small lip. Again, a sharp cusp defined the intersection of the two radii.

While browsing through the Cairo Museum, I found evidence of lathe turning on a large scale. A sarcophagus lid had distinctive marks of lathe turning.


The radius of the lid terminated with a blend radius at shoulders on both ends. The tool marks near these corner radii are the same as those I have witnessed when turning an object with an intermittent cut. The tool is deflected under pressure from the cut. It then relaxes when the section of cut is finished. When the workpiece comes round again to the tool, the initial pressure causes the tool to dig in. As the cut progresses, the amount of "dig in" is diminished.

On the sarcophagus lid in the Cairo Museum, tool marks indicating these conditions are exactly where one would expect to find them!

Petrie also studied the sawing methods of the pyramid builders. He concluded that their saws must have been at least 9 feet long. Again, there are indications of modern methods of sawing on the artifacts Petrie was studying. The sarcophagus in the King’s Chamber inside the Great Pyramid has saw marks on the north end that are identical to saw marks I have seen on granite surface plates.

Today, these saw marks would reflect either the differences in the aggregate dimensions of a wire band-saw with the abrasive the wire entraps to do the cutting, or the side-to-side movement of the wire or the wheels that drive the wire. The result of either of these conditions is a series of slight grooves. The distance between the grooves is determined by the feed-rate and either the distance between the variation in diameter of the saw, or the diameter of the wheels. The distance between the grooves on the coffer inside the King’s Chamber is approximately .050 inch.

Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are the most clearly astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to identify the knowledge and technology existing in pre-history. The ancient pyramid builders used a technique for drilling holes that is commonly known as "trepanning." This technique leaves a central core and is an efficient means of hole making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through the material, they reached a desired depth and then broke the core out of the hole. It was not only evident in the holes that Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by the masons who had done the trepanning. Regarding tool marks which left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote:

"The spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."

After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feed-rate for drilling into any material, let alone granite. I was completely confounded as to how a drill could achieve this feedrate. Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he attempted to explain them at three different points in one chapter. To an engineer in the 1880’s, what Petrie was looking at was an anomaly. The characteristics of the holes, the cores that came out of them, and the tool marks indicated an impossibility. Three distinct characteristics of the hole and core make the artifacts extremely remarkable. They are...

www.theglobaleducationproject.org...
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

[edit on 26-9-2006 by undo]

Originally posted by Odium

I'll wait for some names of who built it, with the evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by Harte
Odium,

Don't hold your breath, pal!

Harte

lol...

He had to post again. Here we go.

Undo.

Firstly, are you aware who this man is? Christopher P. Dunn has a degree in botany. Just so you're aware, botany is the scientific study of plantlife. Not structural engineering, etc.

Secondly, after the mistakes in the first paragraph I stopped caring. But I'll just correct that bit:

The great pyramid is 483 feet high and houses 70 ton pieces of granite lifted to a level of 175 feet. Theorists have struggled with stones weighing up to 2 tons to a height of a few feet.

Actually, 3000kg is over 2tons. As I've already mentioned Mory Gharib was able to using technology that the Egyptians had. From the start he is wrong, paragraph after paragraph he is wrong. I just can't be arsed to copy and paste it all and explain.

Maybe this simple diagram will help?

Mory Gharib > Christopher P. Dunn
Professor of Aeronautics > Botany Degree.

Wait. You think because someone else has the same name, that it is the same person? Christopher is a common name. Tell you what, take a name like oh, "Michael Heiser". There's two on the internet, (probably more) and "Heiser" certainly is a less common name than "Dunn. " If you read the rest of his research, you would see he is intimately familar with machining, not botany. Not only that, quoting him out of context is not helping your argument, nor did you take the time to read the material I had excerpted from his rather long article so that the relevant points would be presented in a readable fashion.

You know, I'm also a female. So much for your "stereotyping".