The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Cythraul

 

So while I dont know much on egyptlogy or even archaeology, I do know something about speech patterns, perception and manipulation.

Since many years I have been asking debunkers simple questions like "So...you have a lot of answers there...what are some unanswered questions you still have?". And thats when their mind goes blank. No response.

That is clearly a sign of one of two problems:

a) Either they are so blind that they think everything is already known

or

b) They are disinformation agents deliberately suppressing information.

LOL, repeat, repeat again

Ah so, if someone disagrees with you and shows you are wrong with facts and evidence the only reason they do so is because they are arrogant or "disinformation agents"? How about just answering the question you put to them in regards to ancient civilizations?

Is that what you really believe Skyfloating? Or are you pretending to be paranoid?

Please tell us who would be sending "disinformation agents" to talk to you? Are you dangerous?

I cannot answer for KW but I have asked you questions and found you basically stumbled around and said you knew nothing. What sort of question can you answer then? shall we see

Okay here are some questions for you that I would like answered and those orthodox Egyptologist don't have complete answers for yet.

Compare, contrast and give a conclusion on the Egyptian development of numbers/counting and why this development was different from the Mesopotamian?

What cultural changes occured in the nomadic tribes that during 8000-6000 BC move into the Nile valley from the drying Sahara?

What factors led to the development of a sophicated Egyptian comestic industry? What effect did this have non trade with Dilmun?

What political/ cultural factors influenced the Egyptian relations with the Minoan civilization?

Oh and just for you

Did aliens teach the Egyptians how to make bread - because the bread molds are cone shaped?

You are hilarious SF, LOL

reply to post by Hanslune


Good questions Hanslune. Questions I of course dont have answers to, but KW for sure.

Im delighted to see some questioning than only debunking.


BTW: Nowhere do I say that "whoever disagrees with me is part of a cover-up". All I am saying is that there IS a cover-up.

A cover up of what exactly and by whom?

reply to post by Hanslune


A cover-up of data, material and translations collected in, at and around Giza, by the site authorities, a few scientists, the government and the military.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hi there Sky.
Haven't posted here but have been keeping a close eye on things. At last I come bearing news that adds (albeit indirect) support to your theory that the Egyptian pyramids (Gizeh) could be older than 2600yrs old.

I'm referring to a huge amount of data that's being discussed on another ATS thread, about the discovery of the submerged (200 ft below), city off the coast of India and another off Cuba (2,000 ft below). Strange thing is these 'discoveries were made 5 yrs ago and have been kept very quiet since ... the reason for this could be in the thread title;

'GIANT UNDERWATER CITY COULD RE-WRITE HISTORY'.

My point is ... if we are being kept in the dark about these finds from 5 yrs ago, then it adds strength to the idea that the same thing is/has been happening in Egypt.

This other thread is definately worth a look as I'm sure it will add depth to future posts here (extra info). Oh, did I mention the Indian/Cuban cities are dated around the 10,000bc timeline

There are plenty of photos even video to back it up ... one pic of an underwater cave at the Cuba site shows wall paintings - one that looks very much like the 'Atlantean Cross'.

I know you'll find it interesting Sky, but might I also throw out the invitation to Ms kerkinana walsky and Hanslune ... 'Byrds' over there getting an ass-whoopin ... could do with your support.

One word of warning to you though ... be prepared to step out of them boxes of your ... there are some very strong opinions (with supporting evidence), over there. ...

reply to post by woodwytch


Woodwytch...good idea. I´ll be write over!


Edit: Oooops....just saw that its no longer active. Thanks anyway.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Skyfloating]

A cover-up of data, material and translations collected in, at and around Giza, by the site authorities, a few scientists, the government and the military.

Please explain the extent of this conspiracy

Oh those two sites have been quite because in the case of Indian one it was found to be a misindentification and the Cuban I believe was just bad data...which is why the fringe has kept quite about it.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Please explain the extent of this conspiracy

Well, in the rare cases that I REALLY believe in some conspiracy going on, I dont go around carelessly posting data about it, sorry about that. I will hint at it here and there and thats about it.

I am not sure just what exactly is being covered-up and why.

Would you happen to know the percentage of translations from ancient writing has been published?

Would you happen to know why U.S. Military is stationed in the egyptian desert? Shouldnt it be egyptian military?



[edit on 15-11-2007 by Skyfloating]

Huh?

Skyfloating in the future if you have more secrets - why not keep them to yourself?

1. No idea - is someone hiding something?

2. Are you talking about the SPTBATT located in the heart of the Sinai desert, just west of the Israeli-Egyptian international border.

What would the US military doing support work for the 1979 treaty have to do with your conspiracy?

Oh and the submerged cities thread is a dud, those two "cities" were debunked years ago. There is an extensive thread at Ma'at by the guy who brought out the truth of the Indian 'city'

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


Nevermind Hanslune. Seriously. Stay tuned and good luck to your own research.

Hmmm not able to handle questions eh Skyfoating? Could I ask what I will be waiting for?

While the Older date sounds like a good theory, the evidence to support the 2,600 date is achieved by multiple pieces of data. there are the quarry remains, the mortar Carbon dating as well as the dating of items at the quarry and constructions villages. Plus the evidence in the actual construction techniques of other pyramids show the progression of the knowledge.

There is no evidence of a highly developed civilization in the region prior to Egypt. We would have discovered something by now. The lack of any trace of that supposed civilization is the most compelling piece of evidence, actually a lack of evidence.

It is rather strange that the Pyramids are rather "plain", lacking hardly any inscriptions and such, but you must remember they are missing their limestone outer shell. Why would they decorate the "bones" of the pyramids when the "skin" is probably where all the decoration, ect went.

There are still many mysterys surronding the pyramids, maybe someone will find something to blow things out of the water.

The older date doesn't hold up if the "older Sphinx" theory is correct, the rains would have erroded the whole Plateau if there were all built at the same time.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by pavil]

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hmmm not able to handle questions eh Skyfoating? Could I ask what I will be waiting for?

To handle questions sometimes means not answering them.

I dont know what you are waiting for, but I am eagerly looking forward to what will be uncovered in the next 20 years.

reply to post by Hanslune

Hanslune, some very interesting questions. I'd love to learn the answers to them. Actually, if they'd have had anything to do with this discussion I would have a had a go at answering them, or perhaps researched good answers. I'm sorry, I just fail to see how those questions relate to the idea of a lost civilization seeing as they all concern the Egyptians. Of course, the Egyptians thrived at Giza - no-one is disputing that at all. In fact, I tend to share Hancock's belief that the Egyptians were responsible for much of the construction of the pyramids, just that they didn't plan them or conceive of the reasoning for their being built. Furthermore, the Egyptians were a great people capable of great things. For me, the argument doesn't rely on the notion that the Egyptians were incapable of anything at Giza, just that they didn't exist at the same period of time that the geometry at Giza calls attention to.

Originally posted by pavil
There is no evidence of a highly developed civilization in the region prior to Egypt. We would have discovered something by now. The lack of any trace of that supposed civilization is the most compelling piece of evidence, actually a lack of evidence.

You're absolutely correct. No evidence. Almost a blessing, in a way because if there was, we wouldn't be able to have such a fascinating discussion about the possibilities. In my opinion, the fact that there is no irrefutable evidence in Giza of an older civilization is the 'Pro-Orthodoxer's' only real tool in this debate. When you really look at the geometrical and astronomical discoveries made by people like Robert Bauval and Scott Creighton, the only thing well and truly lending doubt to them is the absence of archaeological remains on the Giza plateau to suggest an earlier civilization.

I'd also like to point out that I don't believe there is any big cover-up of information. Or, at least I haven't really considered that idea much up to this point. I feel that the only conspiracy here comes in the form of National pride. People like Zahi Hawass who are immensely proud of their Egyptian heritage (and rightfully so) just don't want to entertain theories that pull the greatness of Giza away from their ancestors. I can understand that. I do feel that if they were that secure and confident that the ancient Egyptians were wholly responsible for Giza, then they would support the exhaustion of all theories.

To handle questions sometimes means not answering them.

Almost zen like but meaningless when applied to a forum where discussion is the point. To be blunt you appear to be making stuff up and when challenged you decline to comment, so be it.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Almost zen like but meaningless when applied to a forum where discussion is the point. To be blunt you appear to be making stuff up and when challenged you decline to comment, so be it.

Well, its predictable that you would say so, and thats ok.

I did like your list of unanswered questions though. Ive been thinking about them. Lets hope KW shows up, maybe she can answer some of them.

reply to post by Hanslune


The thing is again though, I am not in a position to answer a bunch of questions. When talking about a field I dont know much about I am hesitant.

And I wish more people were like that at ATS. It seems that everyone seems to have "the answers" to any topic, which makes for a lot of craziness around here.

I dont have the answers. I just have some suspicions regarding Giza. I have visited the place twice. Ive met with people who research it. Ive met with alternatives and orthodox egyptologists. I dont know why my life always had people show up who are somehow involved with egypt. But thats what got me interested.

From these people I hear many stories and anectodes. I dont know what is true and whats not.

Naming the name of a university professor who told me his radical ideas in confidence will not only endanger his job but also put me out of confidence to learn more.

Ah Skyfloating ...dribbling out some more information huh?

Sorry not going to bite.

Originally posted by Cythraul
reply to post by merka

 

Actually, no! kerkinana walsky, whilst clearly knowledgable, and whilst having provided excellent counter-points to the questions I have asked, is still yet to completely disprove every aspect of the theory. I am waiting for responses to my last post, which I'm certain she will address well, and furthermore, my next move would have been to bring some of Scott Creighton's excellent theories into play. Seeing as Mr Creighton is an actual expert in alternative Egyptology, unlike myself, I am confident kerkinana walsky will have a harder time effectively debunking his work.

bet ?
www.grahamhancock.com...

Originally posted by Cythraul
The fact that the pyramids may have been built in a precise spot (yes I'm aware of corrections to my information and that what I'm saying here is consequently a fairly trivial point) would surely suggest that a great, more global civilization handpicked Giza as a specific location. Then, perhaps a nearby Nomadic tribe called the Egyptians stumbled across this magnificent site and adopted it as their own. There's no luck or coincidence involved. If the "Egyptians" had devloped in Budapest, then some other North African, Middle Eastern, or Mediterranean people would have settled in Giza where pyramids already stood.

This is obviously just speculative. In fact, my motivation here isn't to prove something I'm certain of, because I'm not. But I do believe the whole subject warrants extensive research and discussion.

to arrive at this speculation you have ignored all the facts that prove otherwise. So you don't even have an untested hypothesis you just have imagination. that might be good for pseudo history but its pretty useless when it comes to proving anything

what some others are claiming is that the truth has been hidden from us. and this is the only possibility that makes your claims a reality but this claim doesn't stand up. Teams from many different nationalities have worked at Giza over the last 200 years and not one of them has ever turned up any evidence that points to a lost global civilisation that used the mercator system. So really its just a conspiracy theory
and not a very good one



[edit on 17-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]