Michael Aquino Pyramidimusings

I watched "The Keep". I wish they'd fleshed out the story a little more. Definitely interesting.

Regarding the Nazis and their huge rallies, I had the exact same thought. It must have been a cluster.

Rychwebo
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

Could you also provide me links to evidence that debunks the ram pump theory? I have not had the pleasure of looking at any such information like you have. I'll look over it though if you'll save me the trouble of digging it up.

I spent some time researching the Pharaoh's Pump theory and it's origins so I could understand the claims being made. Below I'll address some of the principle claims.

1. The Great Pyramid was constructed as a hydraulic ram pump.

- There have been 118 pyramids identified in Egypt. The theory offers an alternative purpose for exactly 1 of them and does not attempt to refute the generally accepted purpose of the other 117.

- The theoretical pump requires a fire at the top of the grand gallery to create vacuum. This would result in a fire that is inaccessible for lighting/maintaining.

- There is no apparatus for containing the fuel to be burned, for replenishing the fuel, and no evidence to support the presence of the requisite fire.

- There's no evidence of a vacuum seal at the top of the grand gallery that could be opened and closed to allow for a periodic inflow of oxygen. Also, the ventilation shafts to the outside of the pyramid are plugged.

- The model of the pump requires at least two other valves. No sign of these valves exists either.

- The only evidence presented for the presence of water in the GP are erosion patterns in the subterranean chamber, no where else.

- There is no opening on the face of the pyramid for the egress of water nor signs that there ever was.

2. This hydraulic ram pump was used to irrigate the lands to the west of the GP.

- As above, no point where the water would have exited the pump.

- Directly west of the pyramid is the western cemetery. There's no evidence of conduits to carry water over/under or around the cemetery.

3. The Great Pyramid predates dynastic Egypt.

In an attempt to salvage the theory, proponents suggest that the Great Pyramid predates dynastic Egypt. Specifically in an attempt to explain away the presence of cemeteries and tombs surrounding the GP and generally the fact that the entire plateau is a necropolis--because even they think it's strange that anyone would build a water pumping station smack in the middle of a graveyard. Explaining why this is wrong would be thread unto itself, but consider just one simple fact:

There are red markings on stones within the relieving chambers made by the builders to identify their placement in the structure and the gang responsible for placing them.

For the record, the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the theory.

reply to post by theantediluvian


A very useful response, thanks much.

KPB

Restricted
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

I don't understand why you insist on squatting in that box.

For every theory substantiated by scientific research there is another theory thoroughly debunked by same. Science is fallible because men are fallible.

Don't be so afraid to stick out your neck. Live a little. Dream big.

I don't suffer from a lack of imagination, a belief in the infallibility of science or man, or a fear of being proven wrong. Look at my name. There's nothing that would be more exciting to me than conclusive proof of a long lost technological civilization but I'm not going to jump at preposterous theories and waste time deluding myself just to preserve a sense of wonder and mystery.

theantediluvian

Restricted
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

I don't understand why you insist on squatting in that box.

For every theory substantiated by scientific research there is another theory thoroughly debunked by same. Science is fallible because men are fallible.

Don't be so afraid to stick out your neck. Live a little. Dream big.

I don't suffer from a lack of imagination, a belief in the infallibility of science or man, or a fear of being proven wrong. Look at my name. There's nothing that would be more exciting to me than conclusive proof of a long lost technological civilization but I'm not going to jump at preposterous theories and waste time deluding myself just to preserve a sense of wonder and mystery.

Wonderful response

reply to post by theantediluvian


Let me preface this by saying my belief in the pump theory is deteriorating.

1. Ram pumps do not require a flame, no extra energy is required to the pump water.

2. The constant opening and closing of valves of a ram pump require replacement because of much wear. This would mean either a replaceable mechanism that is probably of degradable materials, or of high quality materials that me be valuable to someone for repurposing or other reasons. Both of those would give reason as to why there is no evidence of a valve.

3. Water wear would be greatest in the lower area of a ram pump because the water flow is constantly stopping and starting the flow, under pressure. The actual output of a hydraulic ram pump is much less flow and not under pressure, thus wear would be much less, about 90% less. The water input of a ram pump is 90% greater than its output.

reply to post by theantediluvian


Hi AntiD

excellent critique of the RAM pump theories. there are a few points I'd like to make.

first I think you are mixing Kunkel's and Cadman's models together. Kunkel requires the fires to produce steam and the system acts like a geyser. there is no way the fire could have produced the results he suggests. Cadman requires the highly complex valves which as you say are not found and are never likely to be found.

There are some pumps that require no valves and no heat.

As for the evidence of water, you dismiss all but the subteranean water erosion. That should be enough to set off alarms for the tomb paradigm in its self. However there is also the evidence of salt deposits that were cleaned off the walls of the internal structures to deal with. Petrie noted these as do Cadman, Dunn and Kunkel. The inference is that they are deposits left from the presence of water with dissolved minerals in it. These were found extensively in the Queens Chamber and half way up the Grand Gallery. the same deposits can be found in joints in the structure that have not been cleaned out. I'd say reasonable evidence of salty water or at least carbonated water.

As for evidence of water outside of the pyramid, there is plenty. The enclosure wall is fitted with overflow conduits that flow to long dried up canals. Kunkels lock is a fine old example, but Antoine Gigal has done a great job cataloging this evidence the Divine Island takes the idea to another level. Steven Myers has also furthered this evidence and function with his construction model for Cheops. Water is inherently involved.

I agree on the point about these theories only applying to one Pyramid, its dumb. This is probably why the tomb theory still maintains its primary position. Some researchers such as Jordan point to the hundreds of other stepped pyramids and show real functions with real benefits based on real science. I think all the stepped pyramids were used in the way he describes.

Whilst most of the other pyramids do not have the complex internal structures of Cheops, they do seem to have simple water channels FROM the ground to the reservoir walls around them. that would be a great way to store water. Water storage was and is always a vital part of building a settlement or civilizations, just as energy is. Most pyramids do not have water beneath them, but a subset do. Those without water below invariably have water nearby.

As for the irrigation ideas, they are pointless since water was available on the plateau and beyond as evidenced by Gigal and the vast network of canals she has identified. She is a very reserved researcher doing very basic research that the mainstream chooses to ignore in favor of dried up tomb beds.

As for the age of Cheops, one has to be high to think it was built in 20 years. It is repeated so often its 'true'. The reality is probably more of a story of development over centuries like most large pyramids, The last phase being 20 years and that turned the site into a graveyard with a massive cenotaph. The graveyard came AFTER the pyramid ceased to function and hence the graveyard view. Its the only bit recorded.

I do like your approach tho and agree with the overall view, I think it can fit pump to tomb models.

Would you believe a model if it were shown how the structure worked without adding anything to what we see today?

Will

theantediluvian


For the record, the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the theory.

No that isnt true, the burden is for the peers to disprove during their reviews.
Anyone can devise a theory, its only those that stand up to peer scrutiny that become accepted.

OneManArmy

theantediluvian


For the record, the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the theory.

No that isnt true, the burden is for the peers to disprove during their reviews.
Anyone can devise a theory, its only those that stand up to peer scrutiny that become accepted.

Could not agree more, now where are all those bodies found in Cheops

OneManArmy

Scott Creighton

Maghda
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

I doubt carbon dating will be abandoned on the say so of Hawass

edit on 21-10-2013 by Maghda because: (no reason given)

SC: Dr Hawass didn't say the C14 dating technique should be abandoned, just that it is "useless". He has expressed his personal opinion and one has to imagine that his opinion comes from experience of using the technique. He is obviously not impressed by the results. And he is not the only archaeologist or scientist to express such misgivings.

So, who do we believe?

Regards,

SC

I think its impossible to carbon date stone. Carbon dating stone doesnt tell you when the stone was mined or used for construction, it tells you the age of the stone. I may be mistaken, but this is my understanding.

SC: Dating the pyramids using the C14 technique is done by analysis of the small fragments of carbon/charcoal that became trapped in the gypsum mortar that was used to cement the pyramids stones together. When the gypsum was heated, small fragments of charcoal from the fires would become trapped in the mix. We are not talking about dating the actual pyramid blocks since this, as you say, cannot be done with the C14 technique. That beings said, Dr Hawass (and other archaeologists and scientists in other fields) remains highly critical of the technique.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton

OneManArmy

Scott Creighton

Maghda
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

I doubt carbon dating will be abandoned on the say so of Hawass

edit on 21-10-2013 by Maghda because: (no reason given)

SC: Dr Hawass didn't say the C14 dating technique should be abandoned, just that it is "useless". He has expressed his personal opinion and one has to imagine that his opinion comes from experience of using the technique. He is obviously not impressed by the results. And he is not the only archaeologist or scientist to express such misgivings.

So, who do we believe?

Regards,

SC

I think its impossible to carbon date stone. Carbon dating stone doesnt tell you when the stone was mined or used for construction, it tells you the age of the stone. I may be mistaken, but this is my understanding.

SC: Dating the pyramids using the C14 technique is done by analysis of the small fragments of carbon/charcoal that became trapped in the gypsum mortar that was used to cement the pyramids stones together. When the gypsum was heated, small fragments of charcoal from the fires would become trapped in the mix. We are not talking about dating the actual pyramid blocks since this, as you say, cannot be done with the C14 technique. That beings said, Dr Hawass (and other archaeologists and scientists in other fields) remains highly critical of the technique.

Regards,

SC

Thank you for that explanation.

Broom
How many have seen this video:

It seems that if one engineer has a mind to figure out by himself how to move such huge stones, what requires that someone from the past could not have figured out something else?

The pyramids are indeed a mystery though. The broom cannot say with any certainty what was the inspiration behind their building, just like anyone else. Sometimes I speculate though, that perhaps they indeed had demonic inspiration and knowledge built into them.

Yes, I;m assuming most have seen this.

Regardless, of how impressive this feat is, there is no way 2-1/2 MILLION perfectly carved blocks were put in place every 90 seconds for 20 years, using this method.

OneManArmy

theantediluvian


For the record, the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the theory.

No that isnt true, the burden is for the peers to disprove during their reviews.
Anyone can devise a theory, its only those that stand up to peer scrutiny that become accepted.

With all due respect, this is not true. In a reasoned argument, the onus probandi (burden of proof) lies with the claimant. Shifting the burden of proof is a type of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

en.wikipedia.org...
scienceornot.net...
www.qcc.cuny.edu...
rationalwiki.org...

Restricted
I've always had the impression that, based on the interior design, the GP was designed to keep something in as opposed to keeping others out.

Granite plug, three doors, and the counterweight (leaf) left in place. They wanted access to the contents of the King's Chamber but they didn't want it to have the ability to get out. They even plugged the airshafts with slabs.

We should be asking ourselves what they wanted to lock up so badly.

I read this and was in awe. I recently had a dream about exactly that. That the pyramid was a time lock that kept an entity at bay. In my dream, it was a specific celestial event that allowed one single ray of light into a shaft and that it bounced and vibrated through to a lock under the great pyramid. I dreamed that there was an upside down pyramid under the GP and it had it's top. It was covered in giant shards of crystal and encased within was a very dark entity. The light makes it through to a certain place using vibrations or sound waves. And the entity within had been waiting there for a very long time. The crystal prison opens up and the entity is released.

It leaves the pyramid after what was a certain amount of time because in my dream after the creature was released, it caused a series of events to take place in the pyramids. Like in the movie Alien -vs- Predator.

I watched from a distance, in my dream, this entire sequence of events. The entity then left and went to a body of water somewhere and went into it. He unlocked another prison that was in a body of water. He then left and went to a mountain and did the same. Unlocked another prisoner.

So...interesting to say the least.

reply to post by cloudwatcher


Wow you have a vivid dream there. Write it up as a screenplay; the PTB would pay a lot for it if it was done well.

KPB

reply to post by Rychwebo

Let me preface this by saying my belief in the pump theory is deteriorating.

1. Ram pumps do not require a flame, no extra energy is required to the pump water.

While I can readily concede your point, I am not a mechanical engineer. From what I was able to gather in my limited research, the vacuum created by the fire would necessary for operation as outlined by Mr. Kunkel.

2. The constant opening and closing of valves of a ram pump require replacement because of much wear. This would mean either a replaceable mechanism that is probably of degradable materials, or of high quality materials that me be valuable to someone for repurposing or other reasons. Both of those would give reason as to why there is no evidence of a valve.

The pyramids were certainly subjected to looting and material like wood and reed would have long since deteriorated so either of these scenarios could be possible, but I think there would still be some evidence of attachment in the form of holes or grooves?

3. Water wear would be greatest in the lower area of a ram pump because the water flow is constantly stopping and starting the flow, under pressure. The actual output of a hydraulic ram pump is much less flow and not under pressure, thus wear would be much less, about 90% less. The water input of a ram pump is 90% greater than its output.

Fair enough. While I still believe that after any considerable length of operation, there should be some sort of detectable erosion, shouldn't there also be some other evidence? I'm thinking mineral deposits primarily.

reply to post by cloudwatcher


You should go to page 2 of this thread and watch "The Keep". Dr. Aquino posted the video.

It's kind of corny, but fun.

reply to post by Restricted


It was an interesting viewing...

theantediluvian

OneManArmy

theantediluvian


For the record, the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the theory.

No that isnt true, the burden is for the peers to disprove during their reviews.
Anyone can devise a theory, its only those that stand up to peer scrutiny that become accepted.

With all due respect, this is not true. In a reasoned argument, the onus probandi (burden of proof) lies with the claimant. Shifting the burden of proof is a type of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

en.wikipedia.org...
scienceornot.net...
www.qcc.cuny.edu...
rationalwiki.org...

You can save the latin for someone that has a clue what it is you are talking about.
Speaking an old language in an effort to make yourself look intelligent is wasted on me.

This isnt a court case where the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Im talking about peer reviewed science.
Einstein didnt have the proof when he devised the THEORY(unproven hypothesis) of relativity.
And neither did Darwin when he devised the Origin of Species and the theory of evolution.
Every theoretical thinker creates his theories based on the sum of his "learning" and sometimes through meditation. Theories come from hunches based on circumstantial evidence that suggests something may be true, its through testing of the theories that they become accepted or disproved. Thats peer reviewed science, I know it doesnt actually work like that, but thats how its supposed to work when powerful interests dont try to steer the results for political gain, or the "establishment" scientists financially and reputationally invested in what could be proven false. Flat earth anyone, being the center of the universe, the universe revolving around the earth, atoms being made of much smaller "stuff".
A theory doesnt have proof, thats what makes it a theory, it has circumstantial evidence, proof comes later, or not, whatever the case may be.

reply to post by theantediluvian

While I can readily concede your point, I am not a mechanical engineer. From what I was able to gather in my limited research, the vacuum created by the fire would necessary for operation as outlined by Mr. Kunkel.

I would look for plans on how to make a hydrolic ram pump, I think that would explain how it works better than I can muster right now. It doesn't work using a basic understanding of engineering, it's quite interesting and shows an unconventional means of mechanics most would be perplexed by. Or maybe that's just me.