Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

Originally posted by zorgon
So you are telling me that the Gods were not giants?

Nope. In fact, the gods were terrified of the Stone Boy, who WAS a giant (one of the oldest written myths in existance). Inanna had many human lovers (as did other gods), and there's no mention of them shrinking or making other accomodations for size.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by zorgon
So you are telling me that the Gods were not giants?

Nope. In fact, the gods were terrified of the Stone Boy, who WAS a giant (one of the oldest written myths in existance). Inanna had many human lovers (as did other gods), and there's no mention of them shrinking or making other accomodations for size.

LOL thats a very good point actually

So that means when the sons of God took daughters of men... we are talking all the same species here right?

[edit on 2-10-2006 by zorgon]

Not all the nephillim were "giants." Some were superior in intellectual capacity (not necessarily common sense, but an overabundance of logic - massively left-brained, for example, or exceedingly right-brained and gifted in some fashion, or just very smart overall. I theorize some were either capable of ESP type functions or were using technology which made it appear as if they had extra-senses).

References to the "wooden people" of the ancient americans and the "men made of stone" from the same, suggests artificial life forms. Based on the artforms of the americas of that time frame, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that they were trying to describe some sort of robotic suits, like an environment suit, heavy lifters with humanoid or human drivers, that kinda thing. Something somewhat squared off and lacking the grace of a natural life form.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by undo]

Since the likes of the Pharoah and other ancient Kings were often consider divine, maybe the 'Sons of God' simply means the King's sons ......

And as for giants - well unless there's a team of giants in New York, I'm pretty sure the word has a meaning other than just much larger in physical size.


Sometimes you can translalte stuff too literally


Edit: and as for 'wooden people' maybe they were a more primitive group who used predominantly wooden, instread of bronze, tools? Or maybe a tribe with good woodcraft skills? Or even just a group who weren't very good at acting?

Don't forget, we today refer to ancient people as 'stone' people and 'bronze' people and 'iron' people ......

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Essan]

I agree with undo; I dont think Giants were all literally tall massive guys that crushed. I think Giants were giant-like in some abilities. This would make sense if the human women gave birth to the half-nephilim offspring. The half-nephilim may look human, but may have some kind of uber power as undo said that would cause it to be translated as a "Giant" , when really it was that they had Giant-size ability.

I think its pretty obvious that regardless of their stature, the half-nephilim were quite evil because of all the stipulation around giants, eating raw animals, blood, killing people, being evil, etc.

I guess an 'evil angel' who fell into the physical plane for wanting physicality & lust too much would have evil offspring as well. I look at it like sin of the Earth, of people, sins we commit, if angels were to consider the sins themselves, to sin themselves, it might just weigh them down, and they fall. Not literally "fall" from the sky and weight like grams, but, you have to be above the physical desires, the physical wants and needs, to be above sin, and to be holy.. as an angel. I'd imagine an angel lusting after an earthling would indeed cause that angel to lose status and probably receive the boot.

Next week on stargate SG1 Daniel Jackson realises that not all the nephillim were "giants." Some were superior in intellectual capacity (not necessarily common sense, but an overabundance of logic - massively left-brained, for example, or exceedingly right-brained and gifted in some fashion, or just very smart overall. I theorize some were either capable of ESP type functions or were using technology which made it appear as if they had extra-senses).

Meanwhile colonel o neil finds references to the "wooden people" of the ancient americans and the "men made of stone" from the same, suggests artificial life forms. Based on the artforms of the americas of that time frame, it doesn't surprise him in the least that they were trying to describe some sort of robotic suits, like an environment suit, heavy lifters with humanoid or human drivers, that kinda thing. Something somewhat squared off and lacking the grace of a natural life form and obviously from a g'ould source
and Teook gets a job as a drag entertainer and ifnds that his eyebrows dont even need trimming first


[edit on 2-10-2006 by Marduk]

It seems odd to me that if any anthropologist or archeologist or paleontologist says anything which doesn't agree with the common knowledge or the 'books' regarding the history of egypt or of the egyptian people, that these scientist end up having to defend themselves to one man and one man only.

Zahi Hawass is a "preserver" of the egyptian legacy as he and his government would like the egyptian people to be known. ( being egyptian himself..) The alternative is accepting that the early egyptians were 'oppertunists' with dillusions of grandure, trying to convince even themselves of their awesome building accomplishments.

When archeologist were literally kicked out of egypt when they began digging under the sphinx toward a possible hidden chamber, I believe Zahi Harwass didn't want anyone to possibly reveal the TRUE origin of the pyramids and the sphinx. It wasn't about keeping the secret of the birth of humanity to himself, it was about preserving the integrity and the "old" stories of ancient egypt alive. With this, a huge tourist industry thrives and everyone revels in the fact that modern egyptians and egypt itself is a place of "mystery" and of "extraordinary human accomplishment"....why change now?...it's working so well....

Originally posted by Essan
Since the likes of the Pharoah and other ancient Kings were often consider divine, maybe the 'Sons of God' simply means the King's sons ......

And as for giants - well unless there's a team of giants in New York, I'm pretty sure the word has a meaning other than just much larger in physical size.


Sometimes you can translalte stuff too literally


Edit: and as for 'wooden people' maybe they were a more primitive group who used predominantly wooden, instread of bronze, tools? Or maybe a tribe with good woodcraft skills? Or even just a group who weren't very good at acting?

Don't forget, we today refer to ancient people as 'stone' people and 'bronze' people and 'iron' people ......

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Essan]

Well, not that this will help the case for the skeptical, but it also says in the old testament that God was going to erase all evidence of the existence of the giants, from the earth. I theorized that perhaps it was to prevent human beings from worshipping their bones or worse yet, trying to clone them back into existence from DNA in their bones, sometime in the future.

The stories from the americas about the wooden and stone people are interesting. Apparently, it says, the first people who inhabited the land, were cruel and heartless. They spread across the land, built structures, abused the animals, forgot their Creators and the laws of their Creators. So the Creators decided to start over. They gave the animals the ability to talk and the thirst for the blood of the wooden people. There was a huge massacre, and as the wooden people were dying, the animals told them why they were being killed.

I found that entire story a real puzzler with an undercurrent of other ancient histories from across the globe. (Realize, that I don't think our ancestors were delusional, so I give alot of credence to their histories and religious texts).

I dunno bout that the delusional bit...

Lots of peyote in America and coc aine in Incan groups... they didn't have laws about "substance abuse" then.



Sowwy couldn't resist

Originally posted by zorgon
I dunno bout that the delusional bit...

Lots of peyote in America and coc aine in Incan groups... they didn't have laws about "substance abuse" then.

Sowwy couldn't resist

lol I guess that explains our current history books.

Originally posted by undo


lol I guess that explains our current history books.

See now that you mention it... I have been watching the history channel and they have been toppling accepted history like dominoes...

OK Corral... didn't happen...

Little Bighorn... wasn't a brave last stand and the Indians had better and more guns...


Most of the popular historical legends are under the gun lately...

Just a couple examples... but it seems they are out to rewrite history...Maybe they will get to Egypt and Mesopotamia soon...

They even tell me that King Arthur is a myth yet Henry V named his son Arthur to be the new King Arthur and England most honorable Order of the Blue Garter is a descendant of that round table...

So to the average person, History is NOT written in stone... and our views of the past are tumbling quickly in the light of new evidence and new ideas...

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by undo


lol I guess that explains our current history books.

See now that you mention it... I have been watching the history channel and they have been toppling accepted history like dominoes...

OK Corral... didn't happen...

Little Bighorn... wasn't a brave last stand and the Indians had better and more guns...


Most of the popular historical legends are under the gun lately...

Just a couple examples... but it seems they are out to rewrite history...Maybe they will get to Egypt and Mesopotamia soon...

They even tell me that King Arthur is a myth yet Henry V named his son Arthur to be the new King Arthur and England most honorable Order of the Blue Garter is a descendant of that round table...

So to the average person, History is NOT written in stone... and our views of the past are tumbling quickly in the light of new evidence and new ideas...

I'm curious. Does anyone know if there was any representation of a pharaoh being "gigantic" in comparison to his subjects, who's mummy was also found and wasn't gigantic? That'd kinda support the concept that they weren't actually gigantic in size, but it doesn't necessarily cement it firmly, since there's always a margin for error. For example, mainstream historians/egyptologists/archaeologists believe that they were depicted as giants because of their egos. But what if the tradition of building everything on a huge scale, such as giant statues, was moreso based originally, on the presence of gigantic rulers who had been wiped out in the long ago past?

For one thing, this would not only suggest an ancient timeline for some of the megalithic structures (afterall, they would need to have some evidence of the past in order to copy it), it would also explain stories such as those in which the peoples of the americas claimed the wooden or stone people lived there first.

Of course, the wooden or stone people could be a reference to finding the statues and perhaps even totem poles left behind by the prior cultures, but this would be a very old culture indeed and would suggest some rather confusing things about the timeline of the north american natives (indians, that is, the red man).

There's some evidence of the antiquity of the native americans in the art of ancient Egypt, such as a painting in which a group of men or gods are shown with two feathers on their heads (which indian tribe employed two feathers, btw?).

Originally posted by Scolecite
The Great Pyramid is unique, not only was it encased in limestone but:

1. Its the only pyramid to be built with concave sides, the curvature of which matches the radius of the earth.
2. Its the only pyramid to have chambers above ground.
3. Of all the pyramids only the Great Pyramid has "air shafts"
4. There is no writings or hieroglyphics in or on the Great Pyramid. (At least not in the way the other pyramids are decorated, Im taking the handful writings that were found with a grain of salt)
5. The 3 major pyramids are aligned with orions belt.
6. The Great Pyramid is the most accuratly aligned structure in existence.
7. The Great Pyramid is at the center of the land mass of the earth.

Clearly the Egyptians found this great site and settled there. They tried building other pyramids in the image of the Great Pyramid. This explains why mines are found in egypt. Well this pretty much expains EVERYTHING!Egyptologist ALWAYS want to proove the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid by showing that rocks were mined nearby.

Im sure this has been studied before, who else here shares these thoughts, and where can I do more research on this subject?

then how/why did the builders/slaves engrave the word khafre INSIDE the great pyramid

was it the alien reptoids from uranus ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
then how/why did the builders/slaves engrave the word khafre INSIDE the great pyramid

Those are pretty much accepted as fakes. It's believed when the British/English guy was looking around it, people were not interested due to hieroglyphics being found by a French guy at the same period. The writings were more interesting than the building and due to this nobody paid him attention.

Those are pretty much accepted as fakes. It's believed when the British/English guy was looking around it, people were not interested due to hieroglyphics being found by a French guy at the same period. The writings were more interesting than the building and due to this nobody paid him attention.

I'm afraid its not accepted that they are fakes at all
that theory was put forward by Zechariah Sitchin (nutter) in an attempt to claim that the pyramids were built by alien Gods from Nibiru (nuts)
it is widely accepted anywhere that people don't bother to do their research properly
but it is not acccepted in orthodoxy
Graham, Hancock popularised that idea of sitchins a lot though but then he also has an agenda to prove the pyramids older than they actually are
so hes talking pseudoscience as per usual and also has no claims whatsoever accepted by orthodoxy
especially when he starts waffling about pole shifts and flash frozen mammoths



[edit on 3-10-2006 by Marduk]

Before there was an Egyptian antiquities department or Zahi Hawass was even born the workmens' quarters were discovered. The grafitti found inside the Great Pyramid was certainly left by a gang of workers contemporary to the construction. What is questionable is the way the culture of Egypt burst upon the scene almost already at a zenith of knowlwdge of architecture, medicine, government organization and more. Most of the limestone for the Giza group came from nearby but not the huge, heavy granite used on interior segments.

The assigned reign of Kyufu is 23 years and it is supposedly within that time, we are told, the Great Pyramid was constructed. Most pharohs began plans for their entombment as soon as they rose to power so we have to assume that in 23 years the whole thing was planned, the site chosen and made ready, workers organized, stones cut and everything readied in a staging area.

Yeah the Egyptians built the pyramid allright but not in the timespan popularly alotted. After long and careful estimation I believe it was a much longer project than has been acknowledged.

Without conjecture of how stones were moved, raised and assembled by unknown means mechanical or otherwise I am confounded by the part that none of the experts ever mention- how long did it take to produce the ready-to-install stones?

Originally posted by Cruizer
What is questionable is the way the culture of Egypt burst upon the scene almost already at a zenith of knowlwdge of architecture, medicine, government organization and more.

Good point, Cruizer. From the sublime artistry and pottery making of the Old Kingdom, through the Middle and into the time of the pharoahs, what little I do know about it seems to indicate a slow decline and a tempting hint that the OP has good reason to suggest;

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

Sticking to that general idea is the main objective of this thread.

From where did the Egyptians gain such knowledge and why does it suggest that perhaps their greatest accomplishments were built in a distant antiquity? Can anyone disprove that the monuments on the Giza plateau are a lot older that contemporary archaeology suggests? There has been much speculation either way, but no solid proof that I've seen.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by undo
I'm curious. Does anyone know if there was any representation of a pharaoh being "gigantic" in comparison to his subjects, who's mummy was also found and wasn't gigantic?

Every single one of them.

Tutankhamen (look at size of him and chariot and his army (small black figures at the bottom left))
www.bbc.co.uk...

Ramses (small figure he's attacking is about half his height)
www.nationalgeographic.com...

Maihirpre (look at his size compared to cattle in 3rd image down)
www.geocities.com...

Thutmose IV (click on the drawing of the chariot)
www.osirisnet.net...


..and on and on. There are 35 relatively intact mummies of pharaohs ( www.mummytombs.com... ) and mummies of other nobles and officials that also show the same thing (the deceased and family are always shown in gigantic stature and everyone else as being tiny.

There's some evidence of the antiquity of the native americans in the art of ancient Egypt, such as a painting in which a group of men or gods are shown with two feathers on their heads (which indian tribe employed two feathers, btw?).

No tribe employed "two feathers." Feathers were symbolic, and were often depticed in rock art of the Native Americans, but not as a consistant symbol. The "gods or men with two feathers" is could be any number of Egyptian deities, including pharoahs wearing the Osiris-Andjety "atef crown." It was used for ceremonies.
www.crystalinks.com...

Masqua I didn't want to steer the topic off course just to affirm that I believe that humans built the Giza pyramids. Thing is, yes, when and with what means that we don't understand or recognize? I was illustrating that the reign of Kyufu of 23 years is riciculously short so I can't go with that.

If there is serious doubt about the Sphinx's age and THAT gets some accredation then the Giza trio should be reassessed in age. Everything I've ever looked at in the sciences was part of some experts' niche thinking on which many a career was built and they can't afford to have that questioned!

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by undo
I'm curious. Does anyone know if there was any representation of a pharaoh being "gigantic" in comparison to his subjects, who's mummy was also found and wasn't gigantic?

Every single one of them.

Tutankhamen (look at size of him and chariot and his army (small black figures at the bottom left))
www.bbc.co.uk...

Ramses (small figure he's attacking is about half his height)
www.nationalgeographic.com...

Maihirpre (look at his size compared to cattle in 3rd image down)
www.geocities.com...

Thutmose IV (click on the drawing of the chariot)
www.osirisnet.net...


..and on and on. There are 35 relatively intact mummies of pharaohs ( www.mummytombs.com... ) and mummies of other nobles and officials that also show the same thing (the deceased and family are always shown in gigantic stature and everyone else as being tiny.

There's some evidence of the antiquity of the native americans in the art of ancient Egypt, such as a painting in which a group of men or gods are shown with two feathers on their heads (which indian tribe employed two feathers, btw?).

No tribe employed "two feathers." Feathers were symbolic, and were often depticed in rock art of the Native Americans, but not as a consistant symbol. The "gods or men with two feathers" is could be any number of Egyptian deities, including pharoahs wearing the Osiris-Andjety "atef crown." It was used for ceremonies.
www.crystalinks.com...

Thanks Byrd! I wonder where the tradition of the two feathered headdress began and why it looks entirely different in some paintings? For example, in some it appears as two straight feathers, side by side. In others, it appears as floppy feathers, such as you would expect them to appear were you to tie two feathers to the back of your head.