10148 replies to this topic

[bmk1245]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

[...]
You don't have any idea what you're on about, i blame modern education for your ignorance. You do not have the faintest idea what super-conciousness or GOD-HEAD means. You are not an adept on occult matters, therefore you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the ancient occult or the "Great Pyramid"  
[...]

One hooked on woo-woo-f@®ts calls others ignorant.

Hysterical!

[LRW]

DBunker, on 05 December 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

I thought the pyramides was a toomb, built by man?

Not a *insert favorite sci-fi fantasy* built by ET.....

Says who? Egyptologists? why should anyone listen to them and their unproven theories? Their unproven theory is only as good as the next unproven theory. They are only shills adhering to a doctrine, they are like the fanatics who push their religon on others.  

A suit and tie and a piece of paper given to them by institutions promoting dogma that says they are experts on the topic, does not make them experts on the topic, most of them do not even know what the shape of a human chakra is for gods sake. A tomb they say? thats the easy thing to say, but its much more complex. To say it was a tomb is the easy way out.  .

There was never any mummies found in the Great Pyramid, it was not a tomb, it was an energy centre for ceremonial and ritual purposes, thats the only logical explanation, given the fact that no mummies were found in there.  Egyptologists hate the idea of the great pyramid not being a tomb, because it opens up the idea of how smart the builders were really were.

Edited by LRW, 05 December 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[LRW]

bmk1245, on 05 December 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

One hooked on woo-woo-f@®ts calls others ignorant.

Hysterical!

Yes, i think you are ignorant. What have you contributed to the thread? Only snidey comments.


Sheepy sheepy sheepy, likes to laugh. Keep laughing though, i like sheep.  

.

.

[zoser]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

They are not experts. They are not sages.




Who cares? those ramps might have been used by later inabitants of the region for other purposes.  Egyptologists theory is still unconvincing, anybody could have put those ramps there, it does necessarily mean they were used to construct the "Great Pyramid"

Egyptologists ideas are founded on unproven theories. And no, the Great Pyramid was not a tomb.


No, only your ignorance to it. I believe i am correct, i would not say it otherwise.



And who is to say that planets are not living beings with souls? the earth has a bioshpere with its own eco system, who is to say that other planets and constellations are not living beings that also harbour other forms of life as humans harbour germs, just because they are invisible to the limited capability of the human eye, does not mean other life-forms do not exist.
  


You obviously have never studied human chakras or their shape, you're also ignorant and intolerant towards the meaning and significance of the pyramid shape.

Say hello to your master.

You don't have any idea what you're on about, i blame modern education for your ignorance. You do not have the faintest idea what super-conciousness or GOD-HEAD means. You are not an adept on occult matters, therefore you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the ancient occult or the "Great Pyramid"  

I have said the same thing many times to psyche and others on this forum.  It's not a personal problem it's a cultural one.  The modern culture enforces a 2 dimensional sterile rote education on people that few ever escape from.

Those trapped in it are unable to comprehend why anyone would challenge either the status quo or orthodox explanations etched into Victorian history books by academic theorists with little or no wider appreciation.

Times are changing though I sense.

[Somethings Not Right]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Says who? Egyptologists? why should anyone listen to them and their unproven theories? Their unproven theory is only as good as the next unproven theory. They are only shills adhering to a doctrine, they are like the fanatics who push their religon on others.  

A suit and tie and a piece of paper given to them by institutions promoting dogma that says they are experts on the topic, does not make them experts on the topic, most of them do not even what the shape of a human chakra is for gods sake. A tomb they say? thats the easy thing to say, but its much more complex. To say it was a tomb is the easy way out.  .

There was never any mummies found in the Great Pyramid, it was not a tomb, it was an energy centre for ceremonial and ritual purposes, thats the only logical explanation, given the fact that no mummies were found in there.  Egyptologists hate the idea of the great pyramid not being a tomb, because it opens up the idea of how smart the builders were really were.

I make you right! Egyptologists know what they think they know today but you know that in 20yrs they'll be discredited like the ones before them. And then again 20yrs after that.. & so on.. That bloke on AA is the closest.. a huge resonator!!!

[zoser]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

The original exterior might have been quite possibly covered in limestone and shone in the sun. It must have been a very impressive sight. Throughout the centuries though the limestone was chipped away perhaps by thieves.  As for the contents in the pyramids, crystals might have been used to shine a beam of light up into into the sky.

Also do not forget that the measurements of the pyramid align on a grid of ley lines and magnetic fields of the earth. It was not just a stack of rocks, it was a symbol that whoever built it, knew their stuff when it came to spirituality and the cosmos.

I agree totally.   The NESW alignment is eerily perfect; the mathematical dimensions in it's construction are baffling, and it's overall purpose is a total enigma to orthodox archaeology.

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 05 December 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

You didn't notice that in all those example the rims of the holes were rough and uneven, or that at least two of them were practically oblong?

Did you notice that in the majority of those and the other photos, the rock has been leveled and more often then not polished, unlike the inexperienced modern recreation you've been attempting to shoot down?

The holes I've seen are immaculate.  It's those I'm arguing about.

No need for more images; I've posted them already.

Oh go on here they are again:

http://www.gizapyram...new article.htm

[zoser]

Somethings Not Right, on 05 December 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

I make you right! Egyptologists know what they think they know today but you know that in 20yrs they'll be discredited like the ones before them. And then again 20yrs after that.. & so on.. That bloke on AA is the closest.. a huge resonator!!!

You mean Chris Dunn.  He's well and truly destroyed orthodox archaeology.

Edited by zoser, 05 December 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[JGirl]

Somethings Not Right, on 05 December 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

I was stating that when people are skint they will reuse or melt down reusable resources for their own gains which means that anything dug up, unearthed or foraged would probably no longer be available today, thousands if not tens of thousands of years later.. I mean, materials from 18th, 19th & 20th centry that are made from gold & silver that are worth less as an item than their weight in gold are sold as people are in need of money & not something that's just cool or an antique.
It's a shame but a reality... you do watch the tv don't you?
dickenson's real deal is a prime example.. I see it again & again, the dealers will buy a gold chain just to scrap it!
I think you should understand now I've explained it

no i do not watch tv. what a brain rot it is.
yes i can understand how people might melt down or trade in their precious metals for cash, but i do not see a connection with regard to this topic. there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest that this is the case at all.
are you implying that people have indeed dug up alien metals that prove the theory but melted them down or reused them because they were broke or just plain needed the materials?
uh, that is a ridiculous reach in my opinion.

[Somethings Not Right]

zoser, on 05 December 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

You mean Chris Dunn.  He's well and truly destroyed orthodox archaeology.

Yes, Cheers mate Thats the bloke.. I don't totally agree with all the theories on AA but it's better than the idea that they built the pyramid as a tomb. Besides Chris dunn is probably way way smarter than anyone on any of these forums & I bet 99.9% of these fools who mock have'nt even been outside of their own back yards, let alone Egypt!

[zoser]

Cuzco

A short fascinating clip comparing directly 3 types of construction: Colonial mud rendering, Inca boulders and adobe mud, and then the megalithic precision architecture by unknown builders.

The comparison can be seen in the first minute.  It's awe inspiring.

[LRW]

zoser, on 05 December 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

The holes I've seen are immaculate.  It's those I'm arguing about.

No need for more images; I've posted them already.

Oh go on here they are again:

http://www.gizapyram...new article.htm

I like this part of your link.

Other evidence we have studied over the years include the famous stone box found in the King’s Chamber (sic) of the Great Pyramid.  Erroneously labeled as a “sarcophagus,” although no body or evidence of burial has ever been found in the chamber, the box is made of Aswan rose quartz granite and features perfect right angles and highly polished smooth sides.

The egyptologists say it was a tomb, yet no mummy was found in the box. Seems their little Khufu fiction went AWOL. It does not have to be viewed as a sarcophagus, who knows what that box might have been originally contained or was built for.  


The box may have been used to store a powerful and important artifact. In the above picture, sometimes the ancients stored artifacts in similar box structures. It is not a huge stretch to suggest that the box in the great pyramid was used for something similar.

There is no physical evidence to support the khufu tomb theory. none! the only so called evidence they have is dodgy hieroglyphic inscriptions, that look fake! a bit of graffiti painted in recent times to support an unproven theory that the pyramids were built with primitive tools, ramps and pulleys and a bit of man power for a so called king called khufu who went AWOL.

Khufu in there? no.

New theory please. Egyptologists are spewing garbage.          

[Quaentum]

zoser, on 05 December 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Finding the remains of a ramp is not evidence of how it was originally built.  There is good evidence that the pyramid was repaired some time in antiquity.  The ramp could well have been to do with that for example.  There's nothing that I have read that remotely ties a ramp to the construction of the GP.  The logistics just do not work.

Since the discovered ramp is in line with the quarry south of the great pyramid it is not difficult to envision that it was used in the construction of the pyramid.

There is no text that ties ramps to the construction of the Great Pyramid just as there is no text that ties Aliens into it's construction but at least we have the physical evidence of a ramp.

[LRW]

Quaentum, on 05 December 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Since the discovered ramp is in line with the quarry south of the great pyramid it is not difficult to envision that it was used in the construction of the pyramid.

Replicate the pyramids with the methods described and we will take you seriously.

Until then all you have is an unproven theory, speculation etc, no more different than our mysterious theories.

The egyptologists are only fueling other arguments, because they are lieing. And people can feel those lies.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 05 December 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

The holes I've seen are immaculate.  It's those I'm arguing about.

No need for more images; I've posted them already.

Oh go on here they are again:

http://www.gizapyram...new article.htm

Again, all of which have been dressed. And I want to point out too that three of them are in alabaster, as well as the altar CD was oooing and ahhing over. Alabaster is soft enough to be turned on an ordinary wood lathe.