Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Orions Belt, The Giza Pyramids,Aliens and ESP


Recommended Posts

The pyramids of Ancient Egypt. Huge structures built by man...or martian? Let's look at the Giza pyramids in relation to The River Nile. The aligned in a row, like triplets. Also, theres another pyramid (can't remember it's name) down stream nearer to the River Nile. Also theres one upstream, Zarub-al-Aryan (Or something like that) nearer to the Nile as well. Now let's pretend Teh Nile is the Milky Way. The Giza Pyramids, along with the other two, come to a FRIGHTENING CONCLUSION. In relation to the Nile (or The Milky Way) they are aligned in such a way that they mirror the constellation of Orion, with The Giza Pyramids being Orions belt. I can't find a picture, sorry guys!, imagine a map in your head. The Nile is right at the left of the map. On the top right and bottom right of the nile is a pyramid, and east from the middle of the nile are the giza's pyramid, aligned up in a row. Join these pyramids together, adding in a few more dots, and they make up Orions Constellation.

Now, Osiris, God of the Dead, was supposed to of dwelled among the stars, and (I think), was supposed to dwell specifically among Orion's Constellation. Also, over the course of 70 million years or so, the axis of Earth wobbles, making the stars seem lower (nearer to the horizon) in the sky.When Orions Constellation was at it's lowest point in the sky, it was the year 10,500 BC. And, According to Edgar Cayce, a revered Christian Psychic said that the Great pyramid was built in 10,500 BC BEFORE this fact about Orions Constellation being near to the horizon in 10,500bc was discovered. He also said that under Giza there was a room which he called the Hall of Records, which contained ancient knowledge about the pyramids.

Oh, and did I mention not a single mummy has ever been found in an Egyptian Pyramid?( This can be explained by graverobbery, but some think otherwise...) This makes some people believe that the pyramids weren't built for burial purposes but a huge astronomical monuments to...MARTIANS!? 10,500bc. There wasn't much technology then. So how could a huge pyramid be built then? WIth the help of martians? The reason, if it was built then, was because Orions Constellation, (Osiris' Constellation to the Egyptians) was nearer the Horizon, or, nearer to the Egyptian Peoples.

There are many other things I can tell you but I can't be bothered to write it down.

Tell me ya thoughts wink2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Chauncy

    26

  • aquatus1

    15

  • about

    15

  • Ozmeister

    13

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

That's part of the huge mysterious of ancient times. It really makes one think about why such a thing was built. Inside the pyramid are tunnels and 'vents', some might not even be vents. They were possibly used as for "power" of some sort. To try and imagine how they were built, we need to imagine life as it was so long ago we wouldn't recognise anything. I believe the pyramids were built when that area was green (yes, I mean lush and sub tropical). There is something about the shape and look of those pyramids (the huge ancient ones at Giza) that stirs something whenever I look at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're refering to the work of Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock - the seeming correllation to astronomical constellations with the floor plan of the pyramids and the preciscion of the equinoxes.

And I think this has been covered in another thread somewhere.

It's an interesting idea, but there are holes, if I remember correctly, from reading the books they wrote...

Plus I think that the basic floorplan for Giza was not an Egyptian construction as we know it, but was an earlier template.... ah the mystery deepens.... blink.gif

Edited by Loonboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if it was like a launch pad...imagine if aliens got stranded here, how would they leave? with the potential energy of all those rocks they could (with some apparatus unknown to us since it is buried underneath the pyramids) launch some craft from the top of the pryamid.

I recently made some keen observations about the pyramids, they had these huge blocks of stone, and one of them had a 'vent' straight through it, this vent was a perfect square, 10cmx10cm how in the hell could primitive humans make this hole without modern machinery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if modern man was to make a similar vent through stone, they would do it with pretty much the same tools the Egyptians used.

It is impressive, but not mysterious. Simple mathematics guided them, as it guides our modern day engineers.

I wonder if a person who had never seen a brick house would theorize the weep holes at the bottom are for some mysterious power to pour out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if modern man was to make a similar vent through stone, they would do it with pretty much the same tools the Egyptians used.

It is impressive, but not mysterious. Simple mathematics guided them, as it guides our modern day engineers.

I wonder if a person who had never seen a brick house would theorize the weep holes at the bottom are for some mysterious power to pour out.

The only problem with that is the Egyptians never had the mathematics to create the three great pyramids......and so far as trying to build one today....they tried building a scaled replica of the Great Pyramid about 20 years ago.....and failed.

That was using modern building technology......given the technology that the Egyptologists and such say they had, it would've been impossible for them to have built those structures in the time that they've supposed to do.

Egyptologists/Archaeologists have made assumptions based on little or no evidence at all, or on a misinterpretation of evidence that they've found. Most of them have little or no understanding of the sciences or other principles that would be needed to be able to construct such a structure. How many are engineers, architects, geologists, astronomers etc. Exceptionally few.....none that I know of. Most are historians by training.

For instance, try marking out, quarrying, shaping and dressing, then transporting 1 2-3 ton block of sandstone.........every 2.5 minutes.......to a site several kilometres away for a full 24/7, 365 days a year, 23 years straight using nothing more than copper tools and diorite pounding stones etc. You can't do it. And what did the Egyptians use to make their diorite pounding stones. They can't get all of them stones lying around the place. Diorite is exceptionally hard, I know from experience (being a geologist), and copper tools just won't even touch it. Not even tempered ones. What tool hollowed out the "sarcophagus crypt" in the King's Chamber of the GP??. Archaeologists will tell you they did it using the copper tools of the time. Yet Flinders Petrie.....the "Father of Egyptology", who had a good knowledge of engineering and geology calculated that the pressure needed to cut the sarcophagus out like it is (you can see groove marks on the stone) was in the order of 2-3 ton per square inch. No amount of chiselling or pounding with copper/diorite (or even iron) tools would produce that. Further studies by later engineers have confirmed this, yet the Archaeologists/Egyptologists have just plainly ignored this in favour of their own "ideas".

No, the assumptions that the Egyptologist want to to believe are fact are nothing more than poor attempts at explaining how it was done, based on little or no knowledge of what it would take to do it. In fact, they don't know how they were built and don't want to admit to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many other things I can tell you but I can't be bothered to write it down.

I can be bothered now original.gif

That's part of the huge mysterious of ancient times. It really makes one think about why such a thing was built. Inside the pyramid are tunnels and 'vents', some might not even be vents. They were possibly used as for "power" of some sort.

Another part of the mystery of Orions Constellation and the pyramids.

When Orion's Constellation was lowest on the horizon, these 'vents' aligned exactlywith the stars in Orions Constellation. The Ancient Egyptian peoples must have take this as a really religious symbol.

And what about The Sphinx? It has a lot of water erosion (the nose was chipped off completely by water erosion!), and the floods of the river nile rarely reached that point. Egyptologists say it was built a long time ago, when EGypt was covered completely in water. But how? A replica of the face of the Sphinx can be found on MArs. DId ancient martians build these? There are similar sphinx-looking animals in Babylon and Assyria. MAybe this is what martians looked like, and they visited earth and passed on this knowledge to early humans. Once again...

Tell me ya thoughts wink2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if modern man was to make a similar vent through stone, they would do it with pretty much the same tools the Egyptians used.

It is impressive, but not mysterious. Simple mathematics guided them, as it guides our modern day engineers.

I wonder if a person who had never seen a brick house would theorize the weep holes at the bottom are for some mysterious power to pour out.

how? what tools, this hole was deep, it was 20 feet I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for the sphinx I think that it was an aliens head and it got chizzled down to a human head after they left in defiance of the brutal alien dictators that forced them to make the pyramids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nose was not chipped off by erosion, it was blown off by the Turks as cannon practice. They not only documented it, they even included a decent sketch of it in their records. Just another of the crazy things that happen in wartime.

As for the faces of the Sphinx looking like others, that's because of the style of art they used. Their perfectionism did not require so much a realistic depiction as it did an idealized version of beauty. The Sphinx looks like king Tut, who looks like many of the other king's depictions found. There where only so many ways of drawing a pretty face in ancient Egypt.

Can't argue with the water erosion, except to say that it isn't on the Sphinx itself, but on the walls of the pit it lies in. Looks like evidence in search of a theory, although I have yet to see the need for extraterrestrial explanation.

The hole is actual 78 feet deep, assuming you are referring to the shaft that lines up with the northernmost star of the Orion costellation. They didn't build the pyramid, then carve the hole; the hole was carved as the blocks where put in place. And it is no more difficult (in practice rather than theory) to carve an pyramid block than the regular marble the modern-day Egyptian mason work on.

As for the actual construction, I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that they did not have access to the mathematics. Are you saying that the Egyptians built nothing of what is in their land? Several palaces are well documented in their construction, and require far more complex mathematics than a simple pyramid. I would like a cite or a link for that claim. I find it hard to believe that a group tried and failed to replicate it, when I can think of several groups that have completed far more elaborate projects with less motivation. Just how much math do you think is involved in making a pyramid anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diorite is exceptionally hard, I know from experience (being a geologist),

Diorite is the type of stone they had used to build the pyramids? If you are a geologist then you should know whether or not it is possible to chizzle through this using iron-based tools. And since you say it isn't. Then the pyramids are still a mystery. Damn Archeologists and their lies! Heretics of Truth! Lead the world to believe that egyptians built the pyarmids using their useless tools. Unless you are fooling us? Are you whistling2.gifblink.gif

Ozmeister, I think you should write an editorial and tell us exactly of your beliefs and studies on this particular matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aquatus1,

You are incorrect when you state that the water erosion is not on the Sphinx itself. As for the head, it has been noted that this looks incorrectly proportioned when compared to the rest of the body, and the implication is that this was added at a much later date (around 2500 B.C....since it is supposed to be the face of Khafre). Therefore, it makes sense to suppose that the original head was in fact that of a lion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athlon64, I was just about to point out that also. tongue.gif

Not only does the pit in which the Sphinx sits show water erosion, but the main body of the Sphinx itself shows erosion from what appears to be prolonged heavy rainfall. There is even evidence that in fairly modern times, some repair work was done on it to restore the original shape, although it was not completed.

Anyone interested in all this should check out the theories proposed in Graham Hancock's book 'Fingerprints Of The Gods'. It's a good work although there are problems with some of the ideas put forward, and the logic is stretched in some sections. wacko.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the actual construction, I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that they did not have access to the mathematics. Are you saying that the Egyptians built nothing of what is in their land? Several palaces are well documented in their construction, and require far more complex mathematics than a simple pyramid. I would like a cite or a link for that claim. I find it hard to believe that a group tried and failed to replicate it, when I can think of several groups that have completed far more elaborate projects with less motivation. Just how much math do you think is involved in making a pyramid anyway?

Well, for instance, the relationship of the height of the pyramid to the area of it's base is pi (3.141592653.........ad infinitum) and pi wasn't supposed to have been known before 600BC (remember, it's a Greek invention) as was the "Golden Angle" (which is the angle of the sides of the pyramid subtend with the base), which was also Greek. The Egyptians also never knew of the wheel before 1450BC, when chariots were introduced in the New Kingdom by the Hittites. The fact that the outer surface of the Great Pyramid is slightly curved......yet the angle of the sides is still exactly the Golden Angle. All those and any one of a number of other precise mathematical figures and formulas are present. You can't just pull them out of thin air, or say that even though they mightn't have known these things, they just went ahead anyway and built them as precise as they have. You NEED that knowledge to be able to incorporate them into the building. Just imagine trying to build a skyscraper without knowing the engineering or maths that is required to create such a structure. You can't. Building temples such as Karnak, Abu Simbel etc don't require anything like the same mathematical precision or complication as what has gone into building the three Giza pyramids (esp' the Great Pyramid). They're essentially boxes, and simple right angles have been known since antiquity. Very simple to create a box like structure and the Egyptians were certainly able to (simple observation would suffice). However, the mathematics and engineering that went into creating the Giza Pyramids was several orders of magnitude beyond that. Just compare them to the other pyramids........the standard of construction is a quantum leap beyond any of them......even the Dashuur and Saquarra complexes. None of the supposedly older or newer pyramids even approach the Giza ones, on any standards or comparisons. Yes, it's most likely that the Egyptians built them......no arguments there. But not the three Giza pyramids.

So far as a group trying and failing to create a scaled copy of the Great Pyramid, that's exactly what happened. I can't give you any URL's for this as I didn't findout off the net ( I imagine it might be there), but I'll see if I can find the references involved and post them here. I can think of many things having been built in modern times that exceed the Giza pyramids in size and such, but the construction methodologies and such were far different. I'll cite an example......Hoover Dam.

BTW.........here's something that'll blow your mind a bit. Saw it on TV a few years back. A Japanese-European-American construction corporation actually have (or had) plans for a pyramid like building (actually more like a cone with slightly concave sides) that stood 4000metres high!!!!! ohmy.gif They estimated it'd take 50-80 years to build and it could hold a million or so people. Basically a city in a building. Can you imagine building something like that, and how heavy it would weigh!!!!.

Edited by Ozmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diorite is exceptionally hard, I know from experience (being a geologist),

Diorite is the type of stone they had used to build the pyramids? If you are a geologist then you should know whether or not it is possible to chizzle through this using iron-based tools. And since you say it isn't. Then the pyramids are still a mystery. Damn Archeologists and their lies! Heretics of Truth! Lead the world to believe that egyptians built the pyarmids using their useless tools. Unless you are fooling us? Are you whistling2.gifblink.gif

Ozmeister, I think you should write an editorial and tell us exactly of your beliefs and studies on this particular matter.

They used diorite pounding stones to remove and shape rocks cut from the quarries. It's one of the tools and methods they supposedly used to chisel obelisks out of the quarries. Mind you, these are red granite (more precisely a red plagioclase granodiorite/granite porphyry) which can also be very hard, especially on weathered surfaces.

You can chisel diorite with iron tools (more specifically steel tools), but it's a damn hard job. Cast iron is no good...too much carbon in the metal makes it too brittle and the edges wear very quickly. Now if the Egyptians could make something like Damascus or Japanese steel (alloys of iron and other metals such as copper, tin and molybdenum) they'd have a good chance of cutting diorite or chipping it at least. However, the Egyptians had no knowledge of iron (except if you consider the benben......the sacred pyramid shaped (iron??) meteorite that the Egyptians reveered). Although, that's only according to the Egyptologists/Archaeologists..... however the Pyramid Texts of the 5-6th Dynasties is replete with references to iron.....strange.

Anyway "pure" iron tools are not hard enough to do the job. Even a geologists pick, like an Estwing (the best you can get grin2.gif ), chips and sparks like mad when you hit anything like diorite or many granites....and they're steel hammers. Especially ones that have been metamorphosed, like the diorite they used in Egypt. It's what they call a hornfels.....been heated to the point that it forms not only a steel hard rind on the surface, but they can be recrystallised in further metamorphism into an extremely hard rock. I've had many a metal shard hit my shins trying to get samples of such rock grin2.gif Constant pounding of another hard rock, over a very long time, will round such a rock, but it'd be an exercise in futility.

Most of the Giza Pyramids were built out of sandstone and limestone......far easier to work (cast iron will works these rocks), but copper tools don't even cut it there. They're too soft. Even tempered copper, which is quite a bit harder (makes great springs BTW), wears too easily to have been of real use on a large project such as Giza. It's a matter of the availabilty of resources and manpower to provide those resources.....all the while maintaining the required workforce to do the job at hand.

Whatever tools the used to build the three Giza pyramids, they certainly weren't copper or cast iron tools. They may have had steel tools, but that is only provided the "experts" are wrong and the Egyptians did know of iron and steels and had the technology to smelt and form iron and steel. So far, apart from Pyramid Texts (and how you translate them), there's scant evidence of that.

Edited by Ozmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are incorrect when you state that the water erosion is not on the Sphinx itself. As for the head, it has been noted that this looks incorrectly proportioned when compared to the rest of the body, and the implication is that this was added at a much later date (around 2500 B.C....since it is supposed to be the face of Khafre). Therefore, it makes sense to suppose that the original head was in fact that of a lion.

The erosion on the Sphinx has been hotly contested for some time. The killer blow came a few years ago during the current renovation when they found a shaft directly behind the hindquarters of the Sphinx, exposed due to the erosion. The flat stone used as a cover was removed and the shaft explored, but it was found to be a twenty foot hole leading to nowhere. Despite this disappointment, it was accepted that if water erosion had cause the Sphinx marks, then water would have seeped into the shaft and left traces of itself (it wasn't watertight). Lacking any evidence of water in the shaft, the evidence tilts in favor of wind erosion causing the marks on the Sphinx. The walls of the enclosure, much like the middle part of the Sphinx, was a much softer type of limestone, which did indeed become eroded due to water runoff from a rainier time (although simple plains weather would be sufficient; no need to turn Egypt into a rainforest to see these effects).

Yes. the head is definitely incorrectly proportioned. It is entirely likely that the new head was recarved (and I can think of no one who believes the human head is the original one) during a time when the body of the Sphinx was buried under the sand. While I have heard that it used to be that of a lion, I am not entirely sure why you believe it would make sense to suppose this. What led you to that conclusion?

Erosion on the Sphinx

the relationship of the height of the pyramid to the area of it's base is pi (3.141592653.........ad infinitum) and pi wasn't supposed to have been known before 600BC (remember, it's a Greek invention) as was the "Golden Angle" (which is the angle of the sides of the pyramid subtend with the base), which was also Greek. The Egyptians also never knew of the wheel before 1450BC, when chariots were introduced in the New Kingdom by the Hittites. The fact that the outer surface of the Great Pyramid is slightly curved......yet the angle of the sides is still exactly the Golden Angle. All those and any one of a number of other precise mathematical figures and formulas are present. You can't just pull them out of thin air, or say that even though they mightn't have known these things, they just went ahead anyway and built them as precise as they have. You NEED that knowledge to be able to incorporate them into the building.

More accurately, you need to be able to use the knowledge. Whether or not you know what the knowledge implies is irrelevant. You can get a consistent measurement of Pi through the simple use of a drum measurement. Using a drum as a measuring tool would have been far easier and more accurate than some kind of tape measure, and is still done in many underdeveloped nations today (it's a favorite trick of Peace Corp engineers). The Golden Angle flows logically from the use of this tool. The Egyptians did indeed know about the wheel (we see it in their records), they simply didn't use it like we do (for transport), much like the Inca. Wheels in soft sand don't work very well. No mystery about the curved side. The began building it, using the correct angle, accidentaly overbuilt it (again, by using but not understanding the implications of Pi), and rescued it by a minor change in angle. This seems to have been a recurring problem with them as it happend on other pyramids as well, most notably on the Curved Pyramid from the 3rd dynasty. Again, with what I know of mathematics, I could build a fairly decent shelter, but since I don't understand the finer intricacies of it, it would have many (like the Pyramid) inconsistencies and errors.

Building temples such as Karnak, Abu Simbel etc don't require anything like the same mathematical precision or complication as what has gone into building the three Giza pyramids (esp' the Great Pyramid). They're essentially boxes, and simple right angles have been known since antiquity. Very simple to create a box like structure and the Egyptians were certainly able to (simple observation would suffice). However, the mathematics and engineering that went into creating the Giza Pyramids was several orders of magnitude beyond that. Just compare them to the other pyramids........the standard of construction is a quantum leap beyond any of them......even the Dashuur and Saquarra complexes. None of the supposedly older or newer pyramids even approach the Giza ones, on any standards or comparisons. Yes, it's most likely that the Egyptians built them......no arguments there. But not the three Giza pyramids.

You think a box is easier to build than a pyramid? A box is just begging to fall down. Build the sides with just a minor deviation and suddenly the entire structure is unable to support the weight of the roof. Tolerances are much, much lower, due to the low base width to height width ratio. Heck, there are a few ancient temples which are suspected of having collapsed due to the wind load! Yes, of course they knew about right angles (although whether or not they understood Pythagorean theorum is questionable), and they used them, but this in no way makes a pyramid more complex that a box, particularly in engineering and architecture. The pyramid is quite possible the single most stable simple form in existence. Why wouldn't they choose it to make their most long term projects. As for your several orders of magnitude argument...we're talking about two thousand years between the first pyramids at the 3rd century and the Great Pyramids. In two thousand years, you would actually expect far more perfection than you actually see. The same basic mistakes that come from a limited understanding reappear continously. In fact, the only thing that is different about the Giza Pyramid then any other is the 'vents' within it. Other than that, everything else was precedented and followed within other constructions.

UPUHAUT Project

So far as a group trying and failing to create a scaled copy of the Great Pyramid, that's exactly what happened. I can't give you any URL's for this as I didn't findout off the net ( I imagine it might be there), but I'll see if I can find the references involved and post them here.

Well, since you can't seem to find it, let me give you an example. Easter Island, carving giant idols out of blocks weighing, on average, three times as much as the average Egyptian block, were carved, transported over land, and muscled into place through the simple use of manpower. Several hundred times. Heck, it was even replicated by Thor Hendersal. No Aliens, or mysterious knowledge, or anti-gravity, just simple determination. The main blocks for the pyramid where carved straight from the Giza Plateau, a much shorter distance than Easter Island. The dressing blocks were a soft limestone, easily transported from across the river by boat. All blocks were taken up to the pyramid on sleds running on slick clay kept wet by people with water jars (a method clearly documented on the walls).

Most of the Giza Pyramids were built out of sandstone and limestone......far easier to work (cast iron will works these rocks), but copper tools don't even cut it there. They're too soft. Even tempered copper, which is quite a bit harder (makes great springs BTW), wears too easily to have been of real use on a large project such as Giza.

We have plenty of evidence that their copper tool were used in the construction of the pyramids. Heck, we even have copper residue on the cut edges of rock and cut lines on the bases showing how the stones were dressed in place (see the sources above). Copper will cut limestone, and even granite, although granite is much easier to dress with other methods (cast iron will shatter). Is it a lot of work? Most certainly, but then, you knew that going in to work on the Great Pyramid. After all, when your God commands you to do something, you do it, even if you do have to keep making and resharpening your tools.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How nice. My head is about to explode wacko.gif

But what about Edgar Cayce, and his prediction of the Giza Pyramids being built in 10,500bc? Surely they didn't have enough technology to build it then. And what about Edgar Cayces prediction of a secret chamber UNDER the Giza Pyramid, containing ancient manuscripts of how the pyramids were built? Egyptologists are looking for this chamber, but they haven't finished yet.

This theory depends completely if you believe in Extra Sensory Persception

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The erosion on the Sphinx has been hotly contested for some time. The killer blow came a few years ago during the current renovation when they found a shaft directly behind the hindquarters of the Sphinx, exposed due to the erosion. The flat stone used as a cover was removed and the shaft explored, but it was found to be a twenty foot hole leading to nowhere. Despite this disappointment, it was accepted that if water erosion had cause the Sphinx marks, then water would have seeped into the shaft and left traces of itself (it wasn't watertight). Lacking any evidence of water in the shaft, the evidence tilts in favor of wind erosion causing the marks on the Sphinx. The walls of the enclosure, much like the middle part of the Sphinx, was a much softer type of limestone, which did indeed become eroded due to water runoff from a rainier time (although simple plains weather would be sufficient; no need to turn Egypt into a rainforest to see these effects).

Completely a moot point, as it has more to do with when the shaft was dug than with any seepage of water into the shaft. As for the majority of the weathering features being caused by wind erosion, I think you need to have another look at it. The weathering features (other than those that have impinged upon the Sphinx since Egyptian times and later) are typical of the type one finds on limestone rocks in seasonal wet/dry tropical climates. Karst topography. Sure, there is no need for "rainforest" type downpours, but that was never suggested. Only that the rain regime was a good deal more substantial than what it has been in the last 7000 years. Two periods of the type of seasonal downpours that would be required are present in the climatic record of Egypt (and the Sahara in general). One between 9000BCE and 7000BCE.....and an earlier one before 9800BCE (going back to about another 7000-8000 years). Either one could've produced the weathering that is present on the body of the Sphinx and the enclosure. Which one it was, who's to say.

More accurately, you need to be able to use the knowledge. Whether or not you know what the knowledge implies is irrelevant. You can get a consistent measurement of Pi through the simple use of a drum measurement. Using a drum as a measuring tool would have been far easier and more accurate than some kind of tape measure, and is still done in many underdeveloped nations today (it's a favorite trick of Peace Corp engineers). The Golden Angle flows logically from the use of this tool. The Egyptians did indeed know about the wheel (we see it in their records), they simply didn't use it like we do (for transport), much like the Inca. Wheels in soft sand don't work very well. No mystery about the curved side. The began building it, using the correct angle, accidentaly overbuilt it (again, by using but not understanding the implications of Pi), and rescued it by a minor change in angle. This seems to have been a recurring problem with them as it happend on other pyramids as well, most notably on the Curved Pyramid from the 3rd dynasty. Again, with what I know of mathematics, I could build a fairly decent shelter, but since I don't understand the finer intricacies of it, it would have many (like the Pyramid) inconsistencies and errors.

That's what I said.......you need to know what you're doing to incorporate it into the building.

The curved face of the pyramid was no construction accident........given that it incorporates the Golden Angle throughout, it's most likely a deliberately engineered feature of the structure, not a correction to a mistake (like the Bent Pyramid.....hmmmm....talk about overcorrection!!! grin2.gif ). The curve on the pyramid's faces run the full length of the faces. It's a subtle effect.....you can only see it if you're at height above the plateau, next to the pyramid.

You don't have to use a tape measure to figure out the pi relationship in the Great Pyramid. You could use a drum, but that drum would have to be of a known size such that you would know how many rolls of the drum would cover the length of the base of the pyramid. Plus the drum would have to be very smooth and near perfectly round. Much easier to incorporate pi into the plans of the building to begin with.....so they would've had to know what the ratio was, and be able to draw accurate schematics of the pyramid.

You think a box is easier to build than a pyramid? A box is just begging to fall down. Build the sides with just a minor deviation and suddenly the entire structure is unable to support the weight of the roof. Tolerances are much, much lower, due to the low base width to height width ratio. Heck, there are a few ancient temples which are suspected of having collapsed due to the wind load! Yes, of course they knew about right angles (although whether or not they understood Pythagorean theorum is questionable), and they used them, but this in no way makes a pyramid more complex that a box, particularly in engineering and architecture. The pyramid is quite possible the single most stable simple form in existence. Why wouldn't they choose it to make their most long term projects. As for your several orders of magnitude argument...we're talking about two thousand years between the first pyramids at the 3rd century and the Great Pyramids. In two thousand years, you would actually expect far more perfection than you actually see. The same basic mistakes that come from a limited understanding reappear continously. In fact, the only thing that is different about the Giza Pyramid then any other is the 'vents' within it. Other than that, everything else was precedented and followed within other constructions.

Actually, a sphere is the most stable structure. What makes a pyramid so good is it's ability to distribute the weight of itself evenly over the base area of its construction. If it didn't, then the builders would be faced with a great pile of rubble, especially if it wasn't built properly to begin with. There's a few examples of those in Egypt. A well constructed pyramid will last a very long time (unless of course you get idiots using dynamite to get into one.....won't mention any names).

2000 years between the first pyramids and th Giza complex??.....I think you better get your Egyptian chronology right. From the begin of the unification of Egypt to the building of the Giza complex is about 600 years (3100BCE to 2500BCE). Remember, the Upper and Lower Kingdoms were united by king Narmer (Menes) just before he founded the 1st Dynasty in 3100BCE. The Giza Complex was supposedly built during the 3rd Dynasty, over a period of about 100 years in the mid 2500-late 2400's BCE. And lets look at the construction outcomes of all the pyramids. "Before" the Giza complex, they were a mixture of standards. Some alright, some pretty woefull. Then 3 absolutely fantastic buildings are erected, that STILL stand pretty much intact. Then afterwards the builders return to a mix of OK and hopelessly shoddy work. Where's the sense in that. You would at least expect that the technical skills of the architects and builders to advance over time. Seems they didn't.

Now about box shaped structures. Why do you suppose just about everyone.....including ourselves, builds structures with box cross-sections. Because they're easier to construct and cheaper. Sure, there were mistakes in the construction of some temples, but there were a lot more that were constructed well. Square enclosures also give the the greatest amount of interior space for the least amount of materials used in construction. Plus, if you're going to build a large temple, you don't go making it without some form of support in its structure. That's why temple such as Karnak have both interior and exterior columns. It's a different style and method of construction to building a pyramid. There's little real comparison.

Well, since you can't seem to find it, let me give you an example. Easter Island, carving giant idols out of blocks weighing, on average, three times as much as the average Egyptian block, were carved, transported over land, and muscled into place through the simple use of manpower. Several hundred times. Heck, it was even replicated by Thor Hendersal. No Aliens, or mysterious knowledge, or anti-gravity, just simple determination. The main blocks for the pyramid where carved straight from the Giza Plateau, a much shorter distance than Easter Island. The dressing blocks were a soft limestone, easily transported from across the river by boat. All blocks were taken up to the pyramid on sleds running on slick clay kept wet by people with water jars (a method clearly documented on the walls).

Yes, Thor Heydahl did do that, but his Moai was considerably smaller than the average Moai that were constructed on the island. Even then, they had a lot of difficulty erecting the stone. Still what they believed the construction method to have been is just pure conjecture. They don't really know at all. All they've summised is one possible method (and one that's very much open to question).

True, the main limestone quarries for the GP are only 400 metres away from the structure at the most. But that still doesn't make up for the fact that they had to quarry, cut and dress, transport and lift into place at the accuracies they achieved, one 2-3 ton block every 2.5 minutes 24/7, 365 days a year for the supposed 23 years of construction time. All this using, at the latest estimates, 35-40,000 workers. All this, using nothing more than simple wood sleds, papyrus rope, copper tools and musclepower. Blow it out the other ear!!!! Apart from the length of time it'd take to quarry 6 million tons of rock and then cut and dress it, the transport logistics would tax even us today. It's an enormous amount of rock to shift. Then to lift it into place, via cranes, to 1/50th of an inch tolerance between block and with an accuracy of 3 arc seconds to the cardinal points of the compass would be, and is, impossible. You cannot lift, shift and place rocks to that accuracy in 2.5 minutes. Just to appreciate this, go and visit any construction site and watch cranes at work lifting large weights. To expect people with just "sheer determination" "the fear of God" and muscle power to do it using what they had stretches the bounds of credulity to beyond its limits.

We have plenty of evidence that their copper tool were used in the construction of the pyramids. Heck, we even have copper residue on the cut edges of rock and cut lines on the bases showing how the stones were dressed in place (see the sources above). Copper will cut limestone, and even granite, although granite is much easier to dress with other methods (cast iron will shatter). Is it a lot of work? Most certainly, but then, you knew that going in to work on the Great Pyramid. After all, when your God commands you to do something, you do it, even if you do have to keep making and resharpening your tools.

Copper will cut limestone, if it's tempered. Untempered copper is as soft as soap almost. 2.5 on the Mohr scale.....you can scratch it with your fingernail!!!. Great for digging holes and chopping wood but even here it looses it's edge quickly. You try it on granite though and see what happens. I've used case hardened steel geology picks on granite and splintered pieces off the picks. A copper tool would last, at most, one or two hits. For all practical purposes it's a waste of time and effort using copper for all but the basic chores. Cutting and shaping rocks isn't one of them. A good bit of the same rock you're trying to cut would make a better tool. But then you face the problems of how competent the rock is (will it shatter or split when used to chip/hit the other rock), is it hard enough, do you have enough rocks of the right shape to do the job, if not do you know how to make the right stone tools and about a hundred other considerations. You also said about making and reshaping your tools. If they used copper tools, regardless of reshaping them, where's all the copper they would've needed to create the number of tools it'd require for the workers to do their job. There'd be tons of copper laying about, in any number of forms. Whether it'd be as tools or as reworked tools made into something else. They've never found that much of it lying about. It's highly unlikely that Egyptian smelting technology at the time progressed much beyond the Neolithic methods of doing so. And to say everyone made their own tools in bunkum. Not everyone would've had access to the raw materials or methods used to create them There would've been central tool manufacturing areas (and were), where workers could pickup new tools and get old worn ones repaired.

In the final analysis, all the so called "expert" (by this I mean Egyptologists/Archaeologists) testimony as to how things were done is nothing more than dubious conjecture based on circumstantial evidence at best. Much of it based on a poor, and in some cases completely ignorant, understanding of the principles behind areas of study such as construction engineering, geology, astronomy and others. IF the Egyptians did indeed build the three pyramids at Giza, all I can say is they'd laugh at the Egyptologists. Because they seem to have known things which the "experts" haven't even given them credit for nor considered them to have had knowledge of.

In my opinion, whoever built the Giza pyramids knew more about a great many things than the Egyptologist know themselves. It wasn't the Egyptians of classical archaeology.......it may have been some earlier civilisation that had greater knowledge and technical ability. But it wasn't necessarily aliens. You don't need them to explain how they were built.

Edited by Ozmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see this program but on the Discovery channel a week ago, they have a show where this team of scientist were testing the theories that the Egyptians used wind power to built their temples, raise their obelisks, and perhaps built the pyramids. They attached "sails" to whatever they want to move and let the wind blow it into position or something like that. They did demonstrated convincingly how this was applied into raising an obelisk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, that would be interesting to see.

Although I can see some pitfalls to this method........what if the wind won't blow.

I can just see it now...Pharoah wants his obelisk raised and there's been no wind for days, so he orders all the workers to blow into the sail tongue.gifgrin2.gif

OR

Get some old windbag of a priest to flap his gums........most priest are good at spouting "hot air" tongue.gifgrin2.gif

Seriously though, it would be interesting to see such a method tried out. Start of with small weights and then progress right up into the big ones. See if it works.

Edited by Ozmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the obelisk, they built a scaffold around the obelisk and then let the wind do the work, and the obelisk actually moving into position. You have to see it to believe it, hard to describe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok,

Why do you find these assumtions in a terryfing way?

Who says the ancient Egyptions are terryfying?

Thats to the original poster.

As for the nosev being chipped off the Sphinx.

That was definitly NAPOLEAN BONAPARTE.

That is well documated!

ph34r.gif

Pet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry whats your point?

Osiris exsists or Where not alone?

And I saw something about this as well.

Apprently The sky has moved over thousands of years and It proves that Egypt is far older than we realise.

Egypt has alot of hidden crap in it like "The Vault of Knowledge" but China also has alot of interesting stuff. But well done for bring this to our attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.