Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

Voltaire

Well Marduk that's the 1st time I ever heard of anyone preferring an online reference over 2 of the most reputable Egyptolgist's manuscripts. So if any yahoo who can register a domain name puts something contrary to Petrie or Edwards who spent myriad time there, you'd believe them? I haven't got the slight idea who crystalinks or Laird Scranton are and am puzzled why a minor well-known and accepted (I thought) point is being dismissed as bogus.

William Petries' work was originally published in 1883 long before any wacky internet insinuation existed about aliens or populist dogma so I don't understand why men who actually poured over the structures personally and carefully took measurments should be discounted. Unless measurments have changed there's no sense to claiming their work is out of date.

Don't misunderstand, the Bent Pyramid is not used as an example of great design or even longevity. The point is that in parts of it the casing stones ARE still in perfect shape relative to how they were originally intended to be seen. They were in great condition in 1974 when I was there.

Khafre's pyramid also still has casing stones in place. These are what casing stones are. They finished the structure. Each course of stone had them placed there to fill the 90 degree gap made from one row to the next highest. They are triangular in form and finished to the 1/100th of an inch mentioned. Also the face of each stone is equalized with the adjacent on. You don't find the next one 1/8th of an inch higher than the other.

Each of the 144,000 casing stones weighed on the order of 15-20 tons each and dressed out to the high degree mentioned. After precise placement mortar was applied as bondo is applied to an auto body to fill in all the joints to produce a stunning look as if the pyramid was one giant, white carved stone.

To appreciate these fantastic monuments we must understand the mechanics of their construction before we can conjecture on how anything was accomplished. None of the learned men who authored the following books I have ever speculated as to how exactly the construction was accomplished and neither do I. They were content to marvel at the precise products of skilled labor and chronicle the dimensional details.

A few more of my dusty old egyptology books that confirm these measurments and much more are:

Lucas, A.
Ancient Egyptian Materials & Industries 3rd edition 1948

Dunham, D.
Building An Egyptian Pyramid Archeology Vol. 9 1956

Mercer, S.A.B.
The Pyramid Texts in Translation & Commentary 1952

Smith, E.
Egyptian Architecture as a Cultural Exporession 1958

Reisner, G.A. & Smith W.S.
A History of the Giza Necropolis 1955

Reisner, G.A.
Mycerinus- The Temples of the 3rd Pyramid at Giza 1951

Reisner, G.A.
The Development of the Egyptian Tomb Down to the Ascension of Cheops 1955

Fakhry, A.
The Monuments of Senefru, Vol. 1- The Bent Pyramid 1959

Edwards, I.E.S.
The Early Dynastic Period in Egypt 1964

you started off by claiming that the casing stones were 1/100 accurate
then they moved to the bent pyramid which you claimed still had its because they were so expertly cut
then as it turns out the reason that they are still there because a special foundation was laid due to the fact that the architect had made a pigs ear of the pyramid in the first place
now you are saying that links to credible websites are not allowed because anyone could have written them

so perhaps you can tell me
just where in any of the two books you mentioned does it say that the casing stones on the GP were accurate to 1/100th
because clearly from what I can see your inability to provide any online reference for your claims proves your talking out of the wrong hole
of course you could now prove me wrong by posting a link to a credible (i,e .gov or .edu) website that backs just one of the things you've stated as fact

because the only two websites that I could find were crystal links which is well know for talking crap and a bible ufo site which is also well known for doing the same
www.crystalinks.com...
www.bibleufo.com...
this is a very credible site
i think you should read it really
skepdic.com...

Each of the 144,000 casing stones weighed on the order of 15-20 tons each

so someone was counting them and weighing them in the 13th century when they were salvaged to rebuild Cairo were they ?
roflmao

Wikipedia, Precision White Casing Stones

The first precision measurements of the pyramid were done by Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880–82 and published as "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh".[12] Almost all reports are based on his measurements.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]

I've been studying aspects of Egypt and the pyramids since the 1950s when I began obtaining books on the subject. Simply because you have no library on the subject and depend on the web for your information I fail to see why I am required to furnish you search engine information or page numbers of books you don't have.

The Bent Pyramid also has lots of casing stones still nicely in place to illustrate how the ones on the 2 larger Giza pyramids looked irrgardless of the foundation. That has nothing to do with using it to illustrate how the casing stones were applied.

It takes only a little math knowledge to calculate volume which will tell weight from the missing concourses of casing stones. Besides they still exist in Khafre’s pyramid next door! It's an easy matter to calculate the number by simple multiplication per the number per each concourse.

I'm rather puzzled by your confrontational tone about a relatively minor point of knowledge that everyone acknowledges as a common fact. I can't fathom why you hold more faith in websites over published works by the giants of egyptology. Check out your local library.

Originally posted by Cruizer
I've been studying aspects of Egypt and the pyramids since the 1950s when I began obtaining books on the subject. Simply because you have no library on the subject and depend on the web for your information I fail to see why I am required to furnish you search engine information or page numbers of books you don't have.

The Bent Pyramid also has lots of casing stones still nicely in place to illustrate how the ones on the 2 larger Giza pyramids looked irrgardless of the foundation. That has nothing to do with using it to illustrate how the casing stones were applied.

It takes only a little math knowledge to calculate volume which will tell weight from the missing concourses of casing stones. Besides they still exist in Khafre’s pyramid next door! It's an easy matter to calculate the number by simple multiplication per the number per each concourse.

I'm rather puzzled by your confrontational tone about a relatively minor point of knowledge that everyone acknowledges as a common fact. I can't fathom why you hold more faith in websites over published works by the giants of egyptology. Check out your local library.

Been observing him for awhile. He denies anything that suggests the fantastic because he believes all of ancient history is a lie based on a true story of real men who came down from a city called heaven, that was in the mountains of ...erm... well the mountains between russia and the middle east. of course, he has no proof that there was ever a city in the literal mountains called heaven. it's his theory. he uses akkadian artifacts of the anunnaki (think enki, enlil, etc), to prove the sumerian anunnaki were just men. of course, by the time of akkadia, the original "gods" had vacated the premises and all that remained to prove their existence are the sumerian artifacts and the ruling hybrid offspring of the anunnaki, who've been battling each other for prominence, ever since.

Thats the second time you've made that claim about what I believe Beth
its so far from the truth its laughable
like most of your research funnily enough
you should do comedy instead
youre far better suited to it

like for instance this
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
they don't actually exist
try this instead
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
shows the limits of your research doesn't it Beth
they don't show up in the list of accepted nouns either
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
so basically your work is a bunch of sci fi crap cobbled together from the works of Z.Sitchin (who coined the term anunnaki in 1976) and the Stargate Tv show
"I'm laughing at your superior intellect" (James T. Kirk)


if you knew anything at all about genetics you'd have traced 85% of humanity back to the Caucasus mountains by now
where they were all living when it was hit by a salt water flood around 9500bce causing mass migrations in all directions which explains the similarities across cultures.
but hey don't worry about me being able to prove it using orthodox information
carry on writing bedtime stories for children and cranks using your personal belief that the human race was too stupid to get where we are today without help from spacemen
it seems to be your forte



[edit on 11-10-2006 by Marduk]

Anu and Ki (the sky/the heavens and the earth) . That's what it means.

So I won't call them Anunnaki for your sake. I'll just call them the Sumerian gods. Same same. The Anunna are different, btw (not much but enough to refer to them as placed lower in the hierarchy than Enki and Enlil.

It's an interesting tactic to insist the egyptian pharaohs with their weird shaped heads, actually existed because artifacts have been found, but to refuse to admit Enki and Enlil were real or to insist they were normal guys who just happened to be in power.

Honestly, if you can, will you see if you can find an artifact from Sumer (not akkadia, not babylon), particularly from Eridu of sumerian timeframe, that depicts Enki? I'm being sincere. I need to know if this statue (see my avatar) is really Enki

[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]

Not to change the subject, but does anyone besides me think it's odd that Akhenaton decided to worship the "disk" at the same time that the exaggeratedly long-shaped skulls were in style in egyptian art? Prior and after that, the pharaohs hats and headpieces covered their skulls. But during the "Amarna Period", it was all the rage to show off the elongated skull.

Does anyone besides me think Akhenaton was worshipping saucer UFOs in the guise of the "Sun Disks"? In other words, had he identified the vehicle and associated it with the gods? They had a tendency to associate the pilot and the vehicle as a single entity back then, such as Hathor in the Legend of Re and Hathor, who becomes a weapon known as the Eye of Ra (which we are supposed to believe is a sun disk, but which, if I'm right on this theory, represents the same thing as Akhenaton's UFOs and Hathor was just piloting this particular Eye of Ra (which according to the story is the most powerful Eye on the planet).

[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]

The Anunna are different, btw (not much but enough to refer to them as placed lower in the hierarchy than Enki and Enlil.

No the Anuna are the older gods of the Sumerian Pantheon
such as Iskur Inanna and An himself
the Igigi of which Enki and Enlil are members are the lesser gods
there are plenty of references in Sumero-Akkadian texts where kings are in one sentence referred to by their real names and in then next their fathers are named as Enlil which is merely an epithet such as Ishme-Dagan and Enlil's chariot
their actual fathers are listed on the king list as ordinary human kings
Enlil is even used connected to kings names in the same list
It means lord of the winds.as you would say King John Smith lord of the Sea
Its just an epithet used traditionally through the ages

But you in your infinite wisdom have chosen to ignore this
it has the same usage as Horus had in Egypt
you're not claiming that the Horus kings of Egypt are Aliens are you
or that any of the deified kings in Mesopotamian history are Aliens are you
what about Enlil Bani
he started off as a gardener
funny position for someone who according to you came from the stars

Basically Beth you have allowed your personal belief to cloud what little judgement you had to start with
you have then gone through as many texts as possible to cherry pick evidence that if twisted and taken out of context at first look appears to support your hypothesis
but as I said
Science fiction doesn't play a part at all in the early stages of human civilisation
this map for instance based on mtdna data collected by National Geographic is better proof than anything you've ever come out with that Aliens played no part in anything

but you probably don't even understand its significance do you
you should do
its whats called PROOF

now perhaps you can tell me why you won't find a single representative image of anyone using the epithet ENKI anywhere in sumerian art
he was Enlils son after all
not his brother
and Enlil wasn't an individual either

you know Beth i see your progress in this discipline as a monumental waste
the passion is there which is so rare and very important but its so misguided that youre just wasting everyones time
your own included
You could be finding out the real truth
but instead you are just building on the works of Zechariah Sitchin
who has already been proved wrong on more occaisons than can be counted
its a pity
a real shame
ce la vie


[edit on 11-10-2006 by Marduk]

Originally posted by undo
Does anyone besides me think Akhenaton was worshipping saucer UFOs in the guise of the "Sun Disks"? In other words, had he identified the vehicle and associated it with the gods? They had a tendency to associate the pilot and the vehicle as a single entity back then, such as Hathor in the Legend of Re and Hathor, who becomes a weapon known as the Eye of Ra (which we are supposed to believe is a sun disk, but which, if I'm right on this theory, represents the same thing as Akhenaton's UFOs and Hathor was just piloting this particular Eye of Ra (which according to the story is the most powerful Eye on the planet).
[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]

I have to agree with you. I think the sun god thing only has merit to the point that a sun is a star portal but ancient people probably were not aware of that. So the disk worship was likely worship of an ufo as time went by and humans interacted with aliens. The statues look like the lizards who may have walked amongst humans for a time for reasons of colonization or control and then left the world. I'm also assuming that a human brotherhood of the snake was setup to rule over humanity in place of the lizards/reptillians until their return (which could be around the corner too?).

The assumption by archeologists and academics is that ancient people were not practical in their belief systems but wildly exaggerated and made mythic their religious beliefs. The same mentality ascribed to building pyramids for example where simple people were supposed to build complex and immensely challenging buildings literally for the sake of doing it. A pyramid would bankrupt Egypt due to the overwhelming costs yet modern scientists cannot see this, and still justify it as an elaborate gravestone. It is like China building the great wall but only as a decoration...

The assumption by archeologists and academics is that ancient people were not practical in their belief systems but wildly exaggerated and made mythic their religious beliefs

in any event it has to be better than your personal belief that the ancients were so stupid that they couldn't put one block on top of another without the help from Alien architects
Notably the same aliens were completely absent when we were building Gothic cathedrals during the middle ages which represent a much more advanced form of building
so why didn't the Aliens teach us all to build perspex condos
surely that would have been far better
and easier
Oh yes
of course i forgot
the Aliens who must have flown here in ships made of advanced alloys only knew how to work in easily cut limestone peppered here and there with some granite for the fiddly bits
doh

Please point me to a sumerian text that mentions Inanna (Inana). I need that for verification on the timeframe of Isis. How long she lived, that sorta thing. My original assumption was that she was a nephilim hybrid of the mid to late Akkadian period.

I did a study on the sumerian pantheon a couple of years ago. Every other expert on the subject (mainstream, that is), had a different pantheon.

One chose An as the head of it. Another chose Enlil. Another chose Enki. Another chose Tiamat. And another, Nammu. And yet another, Abzu! And so on. And every version had at least 4 or so variations on who fell beneath the head position of the pantheon. here's some of the research I did on it:

"An" was a male "god" and "Ki" was his female "goddess" consort. However, in other texts, "Ki"'s role is frequently absorbed by the male water god, "Enki", an Annunaki found at some other point in the timeline (whether or not he predates "Ki" is not known to this author). Many (not all) modern day hierarchies omit "Ki" as the matriarch of the Annunaki, altogether, sometimes replacing her with "Enki" or removing both "An" and "Ki" and replacing them both with "Enki" (En + Ki/An + Ki = Enki) (see Figure 1 and 2 below).

Figure 1

Figure 2

In addition, another prominent hierarchy includes both "An" and "Ki" but describes them as the offspring of Tiamat, Nammu, or Abzu, depending on how late in the timeline you look (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3

In yet another version (see Figure 4 below), Nammu creates An, Ki and Enki, and Abzu is not mentioned at all in the hierarchy. Rather, Abzu is referred to as the watery abyss, and Enki is placed as the god of this abyss. If Enki was the god of the abyss, he could not also be the son of it (Nammu/Abzu), so there's also the problem of interpretation. Are these figurative or literal "gods" and at what point does the pantheon change from literal to figurative interpretation or vice-a-versa?. Or, as is the case in most literature, are figurative and literal passages mixed in together and only defined locally as the result of "initiation" or "common knowledge?" In addition, "Ki" is said to be "Ninhursag" in this version of the pantheon. In Figure 1, Ninhursag is a child of "An," (rather than his wife) and in Figure 4, she is "Ki" (his sister/wife)! That amazing Ki was An's wife, his sister and his daughter, if we are to believe all these hierarchies are accurate! Around and around we go and where it stops, nobody knows! Too many questions, not enough answers.

Figure 4

These versions appear to be based on the work of Assyriologist, Samuel Noah Kramer in 1961, which I believe are incorrect due to the fact none of the current hierarchies agree with each other - a sure sign it's a timeline problem and the result of historical revisionism (both past and present). In Figure 3 above you can see yet another example where the original translations left alot to be desired, as "An" is depicted as being created by Abzu rather than Nammu, and he is Nammu's mate instead.

These mistakes are likely the result of revisions/absorptions made to the original pantheon in the texts as time advanced: Sumer was absorbed by Akkadia. Babylon had stages of absorption and development such as Amorite, Kassite, Chaldean and Assyria, and Assyria was absorbed by Persia. Similarly, experts on the cuneiform texts, culture and religions of Mesopatamia have learned to decipher the texts in incremental stages, some prefering to stop at or draw from that passage in time where the pantheon best supports their current worldview and religious/non-religious leaning. The differences between the 4 images above are a perfect example of this type of historical revisionism.

----

so don't tell me I haven't done any research. What I did do, however, is to start reading the translated texts for myself!

What I did do, however, is to start reading the translated texts for myself!

thats the problem
when you read the translated text you are reading one scholars interpretation of it
that in most cases is a scholar who has the belief that what he is reading is mythology and also a scholar who has been bought up with a belief in Judao-christian philosophy, so he'd be quite happy to translate a passage that states
"on the mountain side the lions and the large snakes hide in the long grass"
to
"in Eden the lion and the dragon lay down together"
better to read the transliterated text to see what the scribe actually wrote

its akin to reading the king james bible rather than the Hebrew one and then claiming that God was an astronaut because the original Hebrew text says mountain where the King james version says Heaven
might make you happy if your'e a fundie sci fi fanatic but to anyone else who can read Hebrew its complete and utter bollox

Originally posted by Marduk

What I did do, however, is to start reading the translated texts for myself!

thats the problem
when you read the translated text you are reading one scholars interpretation of it
that in most cases is a scholar who has the belief that what he is reading is mythology and also a scholar who has been bought up with a belief in Judao-christian philosophy, so he'd be quite happy to translate a passage that states
"on the mountain side the lions and the large snakes hide in the long grass"
to
"in Eden the lion and the dragon lay down together"
better to read the transliterated text to see what the scribe actually wrote

its akin to reading the king james bible rather than the Hebrew one and then claiming that God was an astronaut because the original Hebrew text says mountain where the King james version says Heaven
might make you happy if your'e a fundie sci fi fanatic but to anyone else who can read Hebrew its complete and utter bollox

You've conveniently left out that a mountain in sumerian, akkadian and babylonian texts, was interchangeable with a ziggurat. And you prefer to call it a mountain, ignoring the reference to a ziggurat, because that way, you can call the whole thing a fairy tale, even though the archaeological evidence is there. The hebrew word for mountain was also the same word for hill, valley and mount, which is obviously not the same things. It's all about context, my friend. As I mentioned before, Enlil was called the Great Mountain. Does that mean he was a mountain? Or was it like Hathor in the Legend of Re and Hathor, where Hathor was both an individual and deployable as the weapon called the "Eye of Ra?"

You also omitted the part where the word E.DIN was already present. Are you saying it isn't spelled E.DIN?

[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]