Pyramid Building - ever notice the deliberate mistake ?

reply to post by woodwytch



Well met, woodwytch!

Thanks for the info Id like to see what you've got. Well, I dont want to start a war but I am in the US and I was watching a show on ancient rivers on Discovery, it had already begun when I tuned in. Anyway, what caught my attention was the claim made that satellite photos (I think infray red imaging) showed that once the Nile had flowed out toward the Atlantic and emptoed out there and that furthermore the river had flowed in the Sahara. Since then I've checked Discovery's site no info about that there. So if that is true...and I cant find anything on it...then the pyramid builders may not have been building in an area that was entirely desert. Oh sorry, the show gave the timeline of approx 5,000-7,000 years ago. I am highly sceptical, but this phrase of fallen from heaven rings a bell.

Friar

It is most unfortunate 'woodwytch' has been warned off. She has more IQ in her little finger than most of you in your craniums. There is a devious bunch of trolls here that like nothing more to push our red buttons. We know who you are. We know what you like on your salad. Muahaaahhhhaa.
I didn't stutter or mispell this time. Bring it on.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by jpm1602]

Well, we are certain about some facts about pyramids on giza plateau.

All of them were a lot higher back when built, and several meters of each have eroded away of taken away by ancient builders needing shaped rock.

You could call their level of skill going back in time, degenerating to an earlier perioid in time but that is not neccessarily the case. After giza plateau was completed, none of the rulers ever again builded anything as massive. I suppose they got reasonable and thought that workforce would be better of by doing farming and other activities that produce basic supplies any society needs.

Newer pyramids were just smaller, and about the same amount eroded or was taken away from those as well - thus, piles of rubbish.

reply to post by rawsom


That's a good point rawsom and I can take that on board. I'd be interested to know what is your opinion concerning all the decoration (pyramid texts), in the 'subterraneous' chambers of the later pyramids ... (something other than the general explanation eg; times/fashions change maybe)?

And what do you (or anyone else) think about the egyptologists explanation for the Great Pyramid's unfinished, subterraneous chamber that according to them;

'It had originally been planned as the pharaoh's burial chamber ... but they (builders/pharaoh ?), changed their mind and decided to abandon the unfinished chamber (that we see today), and position a new burial chamber at the heart of the pyramid itself'.

You see (and this might surprise some of you), I do not dismiss out of hand, everything that the 'experts' offer up as explanation ... in fact I agree with quite a few of the possibilities put forward by egyptologists.

But when we consider how mathematically accurate and astronomically precise the ancient Egyptians were in all of their design and construction (and I think we might ALL agree on that point, whichever side of the fence we live) ... then how can we seriously believe that the pyramid-builders ...

not only strayed away from the orignal plan (that presumably was not just scribbled down on a scrap of papyrus during a night at the pub - but specifications would have been deliberated over for some considerable time) ...

then on a whim of the pharaoh (possible but highly unlikely), simply picked-up their neolithic tools and started to create a new chamber 'above rather than below' (see what I did there)? lol

and by the time they'd finished they were either too tired ... or couldn't be bothered to fill-in or make good, the unfinished subterraneous chamber.

Nope, sorry I just can't buy with that ... so I'd be really interested to hear what anyone else has. Woodwytch

Oh, don't forget keep it friendly everybody

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


well the emanation of Osiris was the Nile and that phrase was used by Plutarch and he was identiifed by early Roman scholars as a sun God (incorrect) so its from a Roman source and the fire part refers to the sun, I guess the "..." parts are where the rest of the text has been deleted to make it sound sci fi when in fact its just Roman speculation and refers to early Egyptian cosmology, none of which mentions anything falling from the sky

there is an inscription in the temple at Edfu which refers to architectural plans coming from heaven that is often misconstrued as well (deliberately). To understand a lot of this stuff you have to have at least a workable grasp of Egyptian Cosmology because speculation doesn't work


Hi Kerkinana!

Apologies could not respond sooner. I snuck in a response to woodwytch from work and almost got nabbed lol!

Ok, Plutarch, huh...this explains...Roman infestation of things, eh?
I've been looking and looking, thank you so much. Now I'm gonna google this one...a million thanks and my hats off to thee, me lass.

So Kerks, let me ask you...the "falling from heaven" are we like taking "manna" from heaven type of symbology. I am not anywhere near to understanding the vastness of Egyptian Cosmology, other than:

* wasnt the sky seen as the mountains...Nut, Geb and Nut's father??

So if emanation from Osiris is the Nile, please explain more..."I want more, please" (okay, pun intended) Because what's got me thinking is that documentary that what "they" (I guess NASA) is seeing from pics taken from outer space is that there was an even more ancient Nile flow...they showed the pic on tv and one could clearly see today's Nile and then below it another flow, going in another direction altogether and it looked as if this did not empty into the Mediterranean but into the Atlantic. Then, they went on to speculate (complete with CGI) what the Nile would have looked like and here one sees flowing water against a backdrop of pyramids. The timeline given is 5,000 to 7,000 years ago. I went to the Discovery website the very next day. Not a thing on this show...I've googled this, nada. I know I saw it..LOL I didn't dream it.

I'm interested is this correlation between "Osiris' emanation" being the Nile and the documentary I saw. It's a bit out there, especially since the actual TV channel stays mum on it.

Thanks for the info...keep it coming, if you don't mind.

BTW...nice to meet you.

Friar

Originally posted by rawsom
Well, we are certain about some facts about pyramids on giza plateau.

All of them were a lot higher back when built, and several meters of each have eroded away of taken away by ancient builders needing shaped rock.

You could call their level of skill going back in time, degenerating to an earlier perioid in time but that is not neccessarily the case. After giza plateau was completed, none of the rulers ever again builded anything as massive. I suppose they got reasonable and thought that workforce would be better of by doing farming and other activities that produce basic supplies any society needs.

Newer pyramids were just smaller, and about the same amount eroded or was taken away from those as well - thus, piles of rubbish.

Hello,

I am wondering and this is a topic some of us at work have discussed. Please note, I am no historian, archaeologist, expert of any kind...so please forgive me in advance if I commit a faux pas...it is completely unintentional.

As regards the pyramids and the supposed "de-evolution" of knowledge. In other words, why the older pyramids are still standing and the newer ones falling to pieces. Your suggestion is valid, very much so and I am already saying "hmmm". Also, isn't there some info where we are told the Great Pyramid (was it the GP?) that was taken apart and re-built...refurbishing the thing?

Aside from that, I have always wondered, and please experts jump in and correct me...the Exodus from Egypt. When the ancient Israelites left Egypt could there not have been a sort of "brain drain"? Didn't some Egyptians also leave with the Israelites? I wonder about this. When I was in school...don't ask me how long ago that was, my brain hurts just to count that much backward...we were taught that the Israelites basically supplied the muscle to build the pyramids. Recent findings indicate that perhaps the Israelites may not have been slaves...and that they may have even been paid laborers. (I am not discussing Biblical archaeology here) I apologize for not producing links to this information since I am going by articles of magazines I've read throughout the years. Why did Pharaoh pursue them so avidly? Brain drain maybe...could it be that many of the people who had knowledge of building these massive edifices left and with it went the knowledge, not felt so immediately but in later/successive generations?

Just a thought....Thanks for reading this far





Friar

Originally posted by woodwytch

and by the time they'd finished they were either too tired ... or couldn't be bothered to fill-in or make good, the unfinished subterraneous chamber.

Nope, sorry I just can't buy with that ... so I'd be really interested to hear what anyone else has. Woodwytch

Oh, don't forget keep it friendly everybody

Yes, I see and understand your point. I too wonder. Yet, didn't the AE also "borrowed" already built pyramids/tombs is the best word and inter themselves there when it had initially been someone else's tomb?? Where did I come across this? Gotta look into that because I do recall reading this and it was in ref to the GP (not Hancock's work) someone else wrote about this. I have a feeling it was Mr. Hawass himself..

Friar

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
You've been reading crap and believing every word.

How would you know what Ive read? How would you know I havent read all the scholary literature on ancient egypt?

Completely baseless.

If you had then you wouldnt be talking so much rubbish would you?


Oh and to add if you had then you wouldnt have opened this thread:
The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.


And to quote you:

I am by no means an expert on the topic and base my claim on intuition.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Fett Pinkus]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Fett Pinkus]

I want to thank those who were here for the initial unpleasantness for coming around and doing it right. Whether I agree with everything that is being posted on the topic aside, I certainly appreciate the topical discussion that is going on.

I'd like to discourage anyone who is just joining in from getting involved in the past animousity though. Join in on a good discussion without calling other people's intelligence into question. Attack the argument, not the intelligence of the person who put it forward.

Interesting thread, tying psychology into pyramid building. I don't think I can agree w/ the thread's premise though, just a few facts leads to believe in sound worksmanship of mind:

The Pyramid's features are so large they can be seen from the Moon. Its base covers 13.6 acres. (equal to seven midtown Manhattan city blocks)

If the circumference of the Pyramid is divided by twice its height, the result is 3.14159, which just happens to be Pi. Incredibly, this calculation is accurate to six digits. So the Pyramid is a square circle, and thus Pi was designed into it 4,600 years ago.

The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth... the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion.

The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid.

As measured by today's laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth!

They were able to construct something that we still cannot construct today, and they were able to tie all these things together in this single structure. Were they extraterrestrial?

www.europa.com...

I think on either page 2 or 3 in this thread, there was a sweet post, w/ graphics, about the connection to the Mars pyramids and the Orion galaxy. I really don't doubt an ET hand in their construction, to use Pi in that time seems unheard of, plus, th e Mayan ones, over a thousand years later also use Pi.



[edit on 10-11-2007 by anhinga]

Just wanted throw this in and see what you think, maybe relevant, may not be, very interesting nonetheless, we’ll see lol

All of the follow is taken from the book John Anthony West's - Serpent in the Sky - The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (1993)

Colin Ronan Lost Discoveries MacDonald, 1973, p. 95

How did the Egyptians build an immense structure like this [the pyramids]? We do not know all the details even now. It is clear from what remains that they used huge limestone blocks, but there are still problems over how they managed to slide one block across another, and of the way in which the walls and ceiling of the inner chamber are supported. Obviously they used a block and tackle to lift the blocks, but even so the precise method of getting objects so large and heavy up hundreds of feet without a tall crane to help them is uncertain, while their technique of supporting the internal blocks is completely unknown.

J.P. Lauer Le Probleme des Pyramides d'Egypte Payot, 1952, pp.186 and 190

From the astronomical point of view, the single unarguable fact is the extreme care taken in the orientation. The most extraordinary result is found at the pyramid of Cheops, but the precision is scarcely less with Chephren and Mycerinus. Such close approximations repeated by many buildings cannot be accidental, and bear witness to certain astronomical knowledge. From the mathematical point of view, the study of the pyramids, and especially the great pyramid reveals very remarkable geometrical properties as well as numerical rapports that deserve attention. But the whole problem that this poses is to establish the extent to which the builders were aware of these properties.

At the same time, it is difficult to understand the manner in which these scholars came to many of their conclusions, given the nature of the material at their disposal. A statement made by Ludwig Borchardt, one of the most industrious and prolific of Egyptologists, captures the situation in a single sentence. In 1922, having proved that the pyramids of Egypt were oriented to the cardinal points and sited and levelled with a precision that could not be surpassed today, Borchardt concluded that Egyptian science at the time of the building of the pyramids was still in its infancy.

Ancient sources reported that the pyramids, and the Great Pyramid of Cheops in particular, were built to embody in their dimensions and proportions a wealth of astronomical, mathematical, geographic and geodesic data. (Geodesy: the branch of applied mathematics which determines the figures and areas of the earth's surface.) One of Napoleon's scholars, Edme François Jomard, was particularly intrigued by this theory. But while certain of his calculations seemed to bear out the idea, others did not jibe. Accurate measuring of the pyramid overall was then impossible due to the sand and debris around the base, and as is generally the case in science those data that supported prevailing orthodox theory were retained, while those that were embarrassing were ignored.

In England, however, Jomard's ideas were taken up by an amateur astronomer, mathematician and religious zealot, John Taylor, who found many astonishing coincidences between the measurements and proportions of the pyramids and the then but recently verified modern measurements of the earth. He could not attribute this to chance. As a fundamentalist, however, Taylor believed in the literal truth of the Bible, and could not bring himself to attribute such knowledge to the ancient Egyptians a race much abused in the Old Testament (though Moses learned his wisdom at the court of the pharaoh by Biblica l account). Given his fundamentalism, Taylor had no choice but to call in direct divine intervention, and the pseudoscience of 'pyramidology' was born.

Peter Tompkins Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids Harper 8c Row, 1976, p.256

As the numbers 1296 and 864 were the key to unravelling the astronomical and geodetic secrets of the Great Pyramid, they may in due course resolve the mysteries of the Mesoamerican pyramids. Is it a coincidence that a circle of 1,296,000 units has a radius of 206,265 units and that 20,6264 is the length of both an English and an Egyptian cubit, that the Hebrew shekel weighs 129.6 grams, and the English guine a 129.6 grains, and the measure of the Most Holy in Solomon's Temple is 1296 inches? Not only was the number 1,296,000 the numerical basis for astronomical measurements as far back as the records are traceable, it was also the favorite number in Plato's mystic symbolism.

TBC

West - Serpent in the Sky - The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (1993)

Looking for phi Ancient sources claimed Egypt as the original home of geometry. Though biographies of Pythagoras were all fragmentary, secondhand and therefore unreliable, all agreed upon this point: that Pythagoras had acquired much of his learning in the East.[Note, wiki confirms Pythagoras was advised to head to Memphis in Egypt and study with the priests there who were renowned for their wisdom. en.wikipedia.org...]

Arguments had long ranged over whether the proportions of the Great Pyramid were deliberate or purely fortuitous. The pyramid's height stands in a precise pi relationship to the perimeter of the base. Pi (3.1416) is the transcendental that defines the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. At the same time, pi is related to another, more interesting, irrational, phi, the socalled Golden Section. It had been observed and ignored by Egyptologists that not only the Great Pyramid but the other pyramids as well made use of different phi relationships in their construction.

Schwaller de Lubicz therefore set out to discover whether or not phi relationships were built into the Temple of Luxor. If this could be proven beyond doubt, it would corroborate these fragmentary ancient sources and force a reconsideration of the extent of ancient knowledge.

If it could be shown that the Egyptians possessed advanced mathematical and scientific knowledge, it would not only prove as many suspected that the famous Greek intellectual flowering was but a pale and degenerate shadow of what had been known previously; it might also help substantiate the legend persisting throughout history, and widespread among the people of the world, that great civilisations had existed in the distant past even before Egypt. In seeing the Temple of Luxor as an Egyptian Parthenon, Schwaller de Lubicz was seeing more than an exercise in harmony and proportion for its own sake. Aesthetics played a secondary role in the sacred architecture of the past.

The Greek Parthenon was built to the virgin Athena (parthenos means virgin in Greek). The symbolism of the virgin is widespread and extremely complex, and it operates upon many levels. But its fundamental metaphysical significance is the creation exnihilo the universe created out of nothing, out of the void .

Form is intimately related to junction. The octahedron or double pyramid is the most compressed or densest form. It occupies the smallest percentage of the volume that encloses it, while the sphere occupies the greatest. So the densest forms of matter, minerals and crystals, tend to octahedral or related forms; volatiles and gases expand to fill a sphere.

The octahedron is the imprisoned fire of the 'seed', the materialized aspect of the sphere, which is symbolically spirit. Among their many functions, the great pyramids of Egypt served as models of the northern hemisphere, and the choice of the pyramid shape was based upon symbolic as well as geodesic and architectural considerations.
i123.photobucket.com...

The tetractys:-
1 + 2 + 3 + 4= 10
The tetractys , regarded as sacred by the Pythagoreans, contains within itself the keys to harmony , which in turn govern creation.
4:3 = the Fourth
3:2 = the Fifth
2:1 = the Octave
And the double octave in quadruple ratio: 4:1 Though the tetractys as a symbol seems peculiar to the Pythagoreans , the same Number symbolism is widespread. Hindu mythology speaks of the 'Nine Cobras of Brahma', a parallel to the Grand Ennead arranged around Atum. The Cabbala refers to the Nine Legions of Angels about the throne of the hidden God, 'He whose name is hidden' . The tetractys represents metaphysical reality, Plato's 'ideal world', complete within the framework of a fourterm system. Creation requires five terms. The pentactys represents the manifested tetractys. en.wikipedia.org...

BTW, -The book ‘Serpent in the Sky’ is 281 pages of truly fascinating information, calculations and pictures covering all that is famous about ancient Egypt. I would recommend purchasing it =]

Also, check out Graham Hancock’s website www.grahamhancock.com... I personally follow Hancock’s theory of a lost civilisation, I know some have tried to ‘debunk’ his work but he has me hooked lol


EDIT: i'd also like to draw your attention to this thread Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed www.abovetopsecret.com... Enjoy =]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by rapturas]

reply to post by anhinga


Hi again I'm glad you decided to take a look. Thanks for taking the time to post the info. The one that always sticks out for me is the central position of the Great Pyramid, definately the odds are too long for it to be mere coincidence ... at least in my opinion ... but always open to suggestions.

As for the later build with refrence to the Mayan pyramids ... I personally go with the idea that these had been built on top of older pyramids (more than once, over a period of time), and that the originals are likely to be from the same epoch as the Gizeh Pyramids, considering some of the astronomical alignments that crop-up there too ... which if we go with Graham Hancock's calculations were set in circa 10,500bc.

Graham's a great guy (met him a few years ago), like his way of thinking ... but get the impression that he probably doesn't always disclose everything, for fear of falling on his face. I on the other hand have no pedestal from which to fall ... and a lot of folks already think I'm crazy so hey ... what have I got to lose.

So going back to your interest in the Mayan Pyramids, I'd be interested to hear your theories on the original purpose of the Mica Temple at Teotihaucan. Considering the discovery of the 2 x 90ft sq sheets of brazilian mica laid beneath the stone floor of the temple ?

Now, whilst I have studied Natural Earth Sciences (with both the Open University and Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh), I am by no means an expert in the field, so this is the flimsiest of hypothses ... but still I think it's worth consideration ... if only for it to be blasted out of the water with a chorus of from everyone who reads it.

When I read in Graham Hancock's 'Fingerprints of the Gods' that the mica in question was the type used in the cooling systems of nuclear reactor because of its natural dielectrics, it set me thinking.

What if ... the Mica Temple had been exactly that ... 'a nuclear reactor'

Ok ! Ok ! Stop laughing for a minute and let me explain.

Let's just say, for the helluvit that the Mayans (and other ancient civilizations), were indeed taught the skills of pyramid building by a highly advanced race ... for argument sake hey, let's call them 'Aliens'!

Now imagine that this advanced race needed nuclear power to run their crafts / tools (all manner of equipment), so of course they would need a reactor to produce such power (the Mica Temple).

And if you think about this from the ancient native's perspective, a temple would be a fitting place to house an unseen God who was all powerful ... so powerful in fact that the natives felt obliged to make regular sacrifices to this almighty power, in an effort to prevent feeling his wrath.

This might also explain why even the Mayan/Aztec Royals, took part in the blood-letting rituals to appease their Gods ... especially if you consider the terrifying sights and sounds (to them), that might have eminated from the 'temple'.

So there you have it my flimsy hypothosis ... am I on my own on this one ? I'm braced and ready let me have it

(quote) 'The sealed thing ... with fire all about it ... the emination of Orsirus ... it was hidden since it fell from him ... onto the desert floor' (end quote)

Thanks kerkinana and woodwytch for pointing me in the direction of the resources and refs for this statement.

Kerkinana: I did find an online reference (by Plutarch) to the emination of Osiris being identified with the Nile: (ref Pierre-Henri Larcher - 1829 - p 377)



and also


(ref Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge - 1973 - p 389)


(ref by Henri Édouard Schedel - 1858- p 177)

The sources cite an "emanation" of a divine or heavenly source. Something coming out of the sky. I don't like the Plutarch refs, the Romans had too many notions of "things" falling out of the sky...stones, thunderbolts, fire, blood, etc. His biographies usually have something falling out of the sky. I recall one had an entire Vestal Virgin falling out of the heavens. To me he is suspect.

===========================

Hi, woodwytch!

you wrote:
When you break this text down it has the potential for something quite amazing (I think).

1. The sealed thing = a sealed capsule

2. With fire all about it = a capsule/craft entering the Earths atmosphere has fire all about it.

3. The emination of Orsirus = the event took place at night because Orsirus is linked to the Moon.

4.It was hidden since it fell from him = internment of the capsule into the inverted pyramid.

5. Onto the desert sands = Sphin(X) marks the spot.

Well I did say it might sound a bit crazy ... but I think it's plausible "

May I add to this:

1) the sealed thing = a capsule entering the earth's surface

2) with fire all about = just as you said, the entry into Earth's atmosphere (does it have to be Earth necessarily?)

3) the emanation of Osiris = in the link above to Budge, pgs 389-390, we are told that the emanation of Osiris vivifes men, animals and even insects (all things that creep)and in his season he comes out of his "cavern"...

4) it was hidden since it fell from him = could this be a reference to "a time"? What was actually hidden, the emanation and the sealed thing are two separate objects. What was hidden? I don't think the emanation was hidden, I think it was the sealed thing. It was hidden since it fell "from" (read it as 'since it fell [away] from him'

Think of our own space shuttles...the rocket which carries the payload...it is full of fire (with fire all about it) and then two two "beings" separate, the rocket falling back and away while the shuttle continues on with its flight.

5) It fell onto the desert sands and was hidden. The sealed thing was hidden.

I think this refers to something momentuous falling to the Giza plateau. Far back in time. I think in this instance Osiris may not have been a man or a god, but a thing, which was best described with the name osiris, since perhaps there was no word for this object in the ancient Egyptian language. Its emanation was something that vivified men, cattle and even creeping things...this I need to consider because it could be water, a sickness...werent there reports of an asteroid or something falling to Peru about a month ago and people who got too close fell ill (no deaths reported). What if something like this happened back then? People became ill from, let's say radioactivity, became ill and the were reanimated? Just a thought there.

Dunno...what if it was part of a machine?

I know it sounds crazy, my two cents.

Regards
Friar

reply to post by rapturas


Thank you so much for all that info, I have no idea how to do it myself. If you've read my last post you'll know that I'm hooked on these guy's as well and I just love taking their stuff that extra mile. Good to meet you.

love & light my friend. from the woodwytch

Originally posted by woodwytch

So going back to your interest in the Mayan Pyramids, I'd be interested to hear your theories on the original purpose of the Mica Temple at Teotihaucan. Considering the discovery of the 2 x 90ft sq sheets of brazilian mica laid beneath the stone floor of the temple ?

When I read in Graham Hancock's 'Fingerprints of the Gods' that the mica in question was the type used in the cooling systems of nuclear reactor because of its natural dielectrics, it set me thinking.

well you said let you have it

the claim that it was 2 large blocks once again came from your old friend mr Sitchin
The factis that it isn't a single piece of
mica, but in fact composed of blocks of
mica cut and fitted together is noted by
both FOG (fingerprints of the Gods) and Thompkins (1976). The
reference for Thompkins (1976) is:

Thompkins, Peters, 1976, Mysteries of
the Mexican Pyramids. Harper and Row
Publishers, New York.

FOG and Thompkins note that it is composed of
individual pieces

What FOG presumed is that the mica layer was
covered immediately after construction by
a layer of cut "heavy stone" and, thus was
never used as a floor and never viewable as
an ornamental feature. However, conventional
archaeologists would argue that the mica
layer was built and used as a floor and
viewable as an ornamental feature. It was
only later during later renovations that it
was covered over with a heavy stone layer
for some reason like either the mica proved
unsuitable for use a floor, the official living
there at the time simply didn't like it, and
so forth.

it also was claimed that the Mica was bought from Brazil but studies proved it was mined locally,

A few kilometeres northeast of Mexico City stands the ancient site of Teotihuacan. The most striking visual and striking structure of Teotihuacan is the towering pyramid of the sun. The pyramid contained considerable locally mined mica in layers up to one foot thick

so there goes your theory of advanced technology because the Mica was lots of little pieces fitted together and not two large blocks

well you did say let you have it, instead I have let you have the truth

reply to post by woodwytch


No problem. i think you already know my take on modern mans attempts in trying to build a small (in comparison) pyramid. And to think, some people will have you believe these people were superstitious numb nuts (and not to forget the slavery abuse lol)

Let the light shine bright for all to see, be it sooner or later, but finally!

reply to post by friarblue


No crazier than my own speculations, I like it. This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to get out of this thread. Thank-you very much for your input and feel free to add more.

I'm so happy that this thread has managed to recover from yesterdays bleep and I appologize sincerely to everyone who witnessed it

There is some very thought provoking stuff coming through now and that's what it's all about. Thanks everyone just keep it coming

reply to post by woodwytch


according to the book i read years ago -----the ark of noah by david fasold------shem noahs son was the architect of the great pyramid and the purpose for which it was constructed was for to inter the remains of the first man adam-----when nimrod the black hitler of his day found out what shem was up he was going to remove adams body and make a religious display of it---(we have a church in our age that would do the same with apostles bones)so the pyramid was sealed up minus adam and possibly eves remains as well.shem was not stupid-- anyone that had the brains to build a concrete ship 538 ft long by 138 ft wide back in 2451 bce was not stupid--------even if G-D gave them the instructions on how to build it G-D doesnt usually work thru dummies-----although once Yahvah G-D used a donkey to talk to balaam----the pope of his time.numbers 22:28

heres a picture of the belt of orion alignment if anyone is interested =]



also another cool thing:-
EDIT: below image taken from "navigating the afterlife" (Magical Egypt)
hieroglyphs and images presented in the tomb of Seti I and Tuthmosis III in the Valley of the Kings


Below images taken from Lubicz - Symbol and the Symbolic - Ancient Egypt, Science, and the Evolution of Consciousness (1978)
Notice that Lubicz has the image slightly wrong ie the figures arent pointing to their forehead. wonder why that is?

below image is to the leftof the above =]


[edit on 10-11-2007 by rapturas]