The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

and do not forget, the sphynx was BURIED for a good portion of that time. this would actually preserve the statue. to have eroded tis much, this monument needs to have been exposed to the elements for a longer period of time.

reply to post by bovarcher


Enh, I think I misrepresented myself with some lazy cut-and-paste. You selected probably the only quote in that whole block of text that would support mainstream Egyptological theories-which I think are bunk.

I always thought it interesting that a culture that was absoultely IN LOVE with covering the walls with hieroglyphs didn't do so with structures as big (in size and achievement) as the pyramids.

That and the sphinx's head is too small in perportion (I know I misspelled) to the body for a sphinx.
The sphinx's has extensive water errosion in a very arrid desert.
Etc etc etc etc and so forth.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Actually there's something kind of weird about that. Herodotus wrote that the Great Pyramid was "built of polished stone, and is covered with carvings of animals." Carvings of animals=probably hieroglyphics. Unfortunately, as is the fate of many ancient structures near newer cities, over time the Great Pyramid was heavily cannibalized, and many of those hieroglyphics have probably been incorporated into the older buildings of the city of Cairo.

reply to post by mentalempire

But what about the near complete lack of hieroglyphs inside?

reply to post by WraothAscendant


If there were hieroglyphs on the outside, but not on the inside, there may be a couple of things going on:

1. The pyramid was built over a long period of time and construction began in pre-literate Egypt with pre-literate Egyptians

OR

2. The people who built the pyramid did not use hieroglyphs. The Egyptians played no major role in the pyramid's construction except to embellish it later on.

2. The people who built the pyramid did not use hieroglyphs. The Egyptians played no major role in the pyramid's construction except to embellish it later on.

Im inclined to believe this one. But I could be wrong. No one alive now was there and time travel is still a impossiblity.

I don't go as far as some as some out there (WAY out there IMHO) and say "We been here the whole time." (IE sorry I don't think we could have lived with dinosaurs) but I do believe the current accepted timeline for humanity is wrong in that its too short.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by mentalempire

 

But what about the near complete lack of hieroglyphs inside?

Earlier pyramids don't have hieroglyphs either
later ones do which spell out spells to protect the dead Pharoah in the afterlife and are known as the pyramid texts, they later evolved into the coffin texts and the Egyptian book of the dead
the earliest examples of these are found in the pyramid of Unas 2375 BC and 2345 BC the last king of the fifth dynasty. Thats about 200 years after the Gizamids were built. they weren't written in any earlier monument of any kind because they were invented during the fifth dynasty, not the fourth which created the Gizamids or the third which built the first pyramids. They were only used by the fifth and sixth dynasties. So there is a perfectly valid reason why there are no Hieroglyphs inside.
en.wikipedia.org...

Is someone actually trying to claim here that the super advanced Gizamids don't have hieroglyphs because they were built by an illiterate race ?

thats a bit bizzarre seeing as even the quarry teams were writing on the blocks

Originally posted by mentalempire
reply to post by bovarcher

 

Enh, I think I misrepresented myself with some lazy cut-and-paste. You selected probably the only quote in that whole block of text that would support mainstream Egyptological theories-which I think are bunk.

Don't read too much into my choice of quote where you state the alleged age of the Giza monuments. I didn't see the point of quoting huge chunks of text.

I agree with you about mainstream Egyptological theories. No issue there, my friend.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

That and the sphinx's head is too small in proportion to the body for a sphinx.

One theory is that if The Sphinx is in fact >10,000 years old, and the evidence that it may indeed be this age is fairly strong, it was originally a lion complete with head.

The face it has now is believed to be that of Cheops. Cheops had the lion-head re-fashioned and re-carved to represent himself. This explains why the head is too small and looks a bit odd, like it doesn't belong with the body.

This re-fashioning job would have been done about 5,000 years after the original lion was carved.

(forgive the 'proportion' edit to your quote but you already admitted to noticing the typo)

[edit on 11/11/2007 by bovarcher]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Good point. Usually blocks stone were stamped with their origin. The great pyramid stones had no such quary marks. Except a few which were deemed probable fakes.

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


And we don't use hieroglyphs, are we illiterate?
The Sumerians didn't use hieroglyphs, were they? (used cuniform)

Might want to not dig so deeply in any future attempts to make me look like a fool, by digging into the realm of fantasy and only suceeding in making yourself look like one.

And where in the HECK do you get that I was talking about aliens of any sort? Other than the fantasy you have in your head that is.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by bovarcher


No worries. I have abysmal spelling skills and admit it freely.

But on to the subject.
Yea that was what I was hinting at.

Howdy Skyfloating

You appear to not have anything really to say but I have made a few comments.

None. Thats why I opened this thread. To gather such evidence, should it even exist. My suspicions arose in conversations with egyptologists who tell me something different than they publicly state.

Hans: Oh my, the old, “ I was told all the secrets by a secret person” dodge– sorry guy completely unreliable and unbelievable. So other than your tuition and a made up story of you (I’ve been involved in the world of Archaeology for 35+ years) being told all the secrets - you actually don't have any evidence?

I am not saying that the Pyramids were built by "The Gods" or aliens, if thats what you are hinting at here. But that raises the question: What DID the Egyptians say about who built them?

Hans: The workers at the workers village seem to think they and their children did but they were obviously delusional

You are saying there is documentation on how the pyramids were built?

Hans: You keep asking that same question, you know the answer. Do you have any proof or evidence of it being built before 2600 BC? Anything at all?

I dont know. Neither does it tell us anything about the age.

Hans: Incorrect it tells us the Egyptian built a tomb for x, y, and z and associated mortuary temples. From other sources we can approximate when that person lived. We can then verify by carbon dating the approximate build date. In case you were not aware reusing a tomb was considered poor taste - especially for a Pharoah - hey why did your fictional advanced civilization build a tomb inside a pyramid? As a matter of fact why is it they only built three things on this planet?

They were wiped out or they left, or, should they be extraterrestrial, they never settled on earth.

Hans: Sorry an unacceptable answer, may I kindly suggest you go read a basic book on archaeology and find out what traces humans leave behind? I feel I'm trying to show a book to someone who is illiterate. As I stated before there is no evidence of anyone except the Egyptians on the Giza plateau or the Nile Valley. So who built them if not the Egyptians – we awaiting your evidence.

Hans: Support? Tools? The Egyptians hammered out limestone blocks using levers and stone hand hammers – not very advanced tools eh? So evidence of this support you suggest?

WHY ARE THE OLDER PYRAMIDS MORE ADVANCED THAN NEWER ONES.

Hans: They aren’t, again read a basic book about the pyramids , I’d recommend Lehner’s “The complete pyramids".

If you don’t have any evidence of an earlier construction date for the pyramids – why are you wasting our time?

reply to post by Hanslune


My aren't you in high and mighty mode.

Originally posted by Hanslune
If you don’t have any evidence of an earlier construction date for the pyramids – why are you wasting our time?

Not a waste of time for me. This thread has attracted posters who HAVE provided hints to earlier dates.

But if you feel you are wasting your time and talking to an illiterate, feel free not to respond.

Also I disagree with you that there is no secret history and "privileged knowledge" and history-cover-up. This is what my entire suspicion about the Pyramids are based on in the first place.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And we don't use hieroglyphs, are we illiterate?
The Sumerians didn't use hieroglyphs, were they? (used cuniform)

you asked a question and you got a perfectly reasonable explanation, the Egyptians were using Hieroglyphs from 500 years before the Gizamids were built, they didn't start inscribing pyramids with them until 200 years after the Gizamids were built. You obviously had problems with my answer because it is backed by the known facts. what do the Sumerians have to do with illiteracy, they didn't build pyramids or inscribe their tombs EVER and they had cuneiform from 3500bce thats 1000 years before the Gizamids were built

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Might want to not dig so deeply in any future attempts to make me look like a fool, by digging into the realm of fantasy and only suceeding in making yourself look like one.

I wasn't digging. I was simply answering your question, there was no ridicule anywhere in my post. You are the only person here who can make yourself look a fool. Keep up the good work

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And where in the HECK do you get that I was talking about aliens of any sort? Other than the fantasy you have in your head that is.

at what point did I even mention Aliens in response to your post. Are we both on the same page here ?

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


If I want the official version all I have to do is google it up or start at wikipedia. I come here because I dont believe the official version for one second, and am looking for other hints.

I look forward to posts telling me something I CANT read in any book on history.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If I want the official version all I have to do is google it up or start at wikipedia.

There is a whole section on wiki devoted to alternate theories under Great Pyramid of Giza.

You will find ALL the different theories if you google it up, not just the "official" version. Most of them are regurgitating the same weak evidence that originate in unreliable data and/or people that desperately seek advanced civilizations just to prove their are right and everyone else is wrong.

reply to post by merka


What I am saying is: In the past 3 years on ATS there were actually instances I gained new "insider information" I had not found with google or even at the alternatives section. I always open threads with the intent to learn something new. If nothing new comes up then I will gladly accept the "official version".

The thing with "alternative theories" is that I personally know and respect some of the people promoting them and am not entirely ready to label them as frauds or lunatics.