Posted by red pill junkie on 11 Jan 2010 at about 15:15.
I voted other because I think there's reason to suspect the great Pyramid is far older than the other two, and was built for other reasons than containing the Pharaoh Khufu's mummy.
—
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
I voted that the egyptians built the pyramids willingly. But I have one exception. The Great Pyramid is so much better constructed than the others. It's almost as if the others were later copies,never living up to the original. Contrary to what Egyptologists tell us there is no proof that anyone was ever entombed there. Due to several attempts at repair of the pyramid by later pharoahs the "proofs" that it was built by any named pharoah is left into question. The marks may have been by the pharoah's repair group. No one can satisfactorily explain how the Great Pyramid could have been built at a time when tools would have been copper. There are tool marks at the rock quarry that indicate far more techological tools were employed at cutting those stones. Mark Lerner was going to show the world how to build a pyramid and he failed miserably even when he employed modern heavy equipment.The Great Pyramid was probably built by ancestors of the ancient Egyptians who lived in a more advanced civilization prior to the Great Flood of Noah. It and the Great Sphinx appear to be much older than other structures at Giza. No one in scientific circles wants to think there was a worldwide cataclysm that sent mankind back to the stoneage but there are anomalies out there that defy explaination. Dry unproven theories just don't cut it.
Posted by earthling on 11 Jan 2010 at about 21:02.
How about this for the Great Pyramid:
perhaps it was the last one built. With all the experience of
the other pyramids, and with some more advanced tools, they managed to build a bigger and better pyramid.
However it took too long for the intended occupant to move in. Perhaps he was out of favour by the time the burial site was to be constructed.
In any case, having achieved all there was to achieve in the area of pyramid building, they developed a new fashion in monumental architecture.
—
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
Posted by SpeakerofTruth on 12 Jan 2010 at about 06:38.
It's all well and good that some of you think that the Egyptians were capable of this. However, there is a big problem. Many of the stones, which weigh hundreds of tons, aren't even indigenous to Egypt!! How did they transport them. Are you telling me that they were able to gain enough man power to haul the stones over hundreds and hundreds of miles across a desert!!?? I don't thinks so.
Why do people keep propagating refuted legends like non-indigenous stone? From further up the Nile, yes, thus transported via the Nile.
Doesn't mean there wasn't some long forgotten techniques being used, but the Egyptians didn't need aliens telling them what to do. The Neter told them ;-)
Cryptic jokes aside, there are a lot of pyramids. The big three really are just big examples of a very long term style of Pharaonic "tomb" making. We call them tombs, but I suspect the Egyptians saw them more as portals to the realm of the Neter.
—
The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.
Posted by thefloppy1 on 12 Jan 2010 at about 12:18.
funny how all the other pyramids are in some what sorry state. Also interesting is the design and construction of pyramids other then the GP and other Giza pyramids are very different. Also funny how the "other" pyramids have some form of indentification and an actual mummy inside.
Also their size are very different. When you look at "ALL" the evidence, one must ask the question, Why are these so different and lacking any inscriptions and their construction is very precise in many ways.Where the others are not. The GP is deffinatly different then any other pyramid in the world.
So I would ask why would all this trouble of building this enormous pile of rocks in such a precise way and not use it for what it surpposibly was built for. And then not even put some kind of inscription on it.
You know, all the other pyramids could be a very poor copy of the GP. Maybe thats why their all falling apart or have turned into a rubble heap.
—
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
It's sad that folks think humans are unable to do great things by Will power,sweat,blood and tears. That Humans are to stupid to build great monuments, that some bug from outer space had to help them.
I won't even get started on the myth of Noah......
Posted by Indrid Cold on 12 Jan 2010 at about 18:22.
I think that it was willing teams or companies, sub-contractors, if you will allow me the luxury of so stretching a comparison, who may or may have not used conscripted/slave labourers. So a mixture of A and B.
I just want to point out that I am NOT saying there is NO WAY another civilization might be responsible for constructing it, but the preponderance of evidence accepted as fact today does not yet support the alternative view.
[Although REALLY, we all know Nyarlthotep built it!]
imagine an emoticon for a "wink" here. [Sorry! I refuse to form them myself!]
Posted by Future Fossil on 12 Jan 2010 at about 21:55.
Being the most advanced in design and construction, the Great Pyramids were clearly not built by the later Egyptians. As several researchers have shown, the stone cutting techniques, design/tolerances used are indicative of advanced understanding of lapidary machining etc. Chris Dunn has done several studies on the milling/core drilling of several coffers-showing round milling marks- and granite core artifacts (from core drilling with some type of "hole saw"). The spiral grooves are too wide apart to be done with traditional modern methods. The artifacts do not sync with the theory that the Egyptians only had copper, gold and other soft metals. In addition they have found a stone ball and iron hook and float block of wood in one of the "air" shafts inside the "queens" chamber; the air holes don't even go to the outside from that chamber.
On another note, the Osirion which was mostly buried, uses similar stone construction/techniques that can be found in various sites around the world; Tiahuanaco, Ollantaytombo, Angkor Watt and more. The similarities being:
1. Knobby protuberances; requiring facing the entire stone to leave the knob behind.
2. Diversity/non-modularity. Most likely to dissipate energies like earthquakes. Also may have other energetic qualities.
3. Multisided (i.e.-13 sides). Stones with differing X, Y and Z surfaces. I have never, ever seen this in modern construction. It is near impossible to create.
4. Granite, Basalt or other hard stone (piezo-electric potential)usually quarried from many many miles away.
5. Stone blocks carved to wrap around inside corners. Very complex way to make a stone.
6. Keystone cuts and metal ties to connect stones. All sites have examples of these artifacts.
7. Many times constructions are buried under 30 feet or more of dirt/mud. Could be indicative of mythical flood that covered the prehistoric advanced global population.
8. Razor thin connections. No spaces or voids between stones.
I think it is more necessary to realize that the world has been more cyclical than linear. In fact all of nature/universe IS except our view of Darwinian linear evolution (Big Bang/ Adam and Eve). Once we realize we have been here for much longer, we can understand why we are here.
Posted by Future Fossil on 12 Jan 2010 at about 22:13.
Other empirical evidence shows that many of the structures are older than 10,000 BCE due to the water erosion and how deep it was buried under the earth. There were even megalithic stone structures at the bottom of Lake Titicaca. Graham Hancock's Underworld is pretty explicit about all of the different sites underwater around the world.
The recent unearthing of Göbekli Tepe, possible Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun are all much older than previous discoveries; 9000-10,000 BCE.
Another paradigm buster is the Antikythera Mechanism clocking in at around 2000 years old; a celestial computer operated by differential gears, 1 knob and operating 3 separate dials on front and back.
I personally believe the Sphinx and megalithic temples predate the pyramids and perhaps serve as an outlying remnant of civilization centered in the current Mediterranean basin. The Atlantic breached the natural dam at Gibraltar and flooded the basin leaving only a few isolated examples of that civilization, like the Sphinx and structures at Malta.
The Great Pyramid, to me, came next at the peak of Egyptian development. I still hold that it was prepared for the Pharoah of the book of Exodus, reputed to have drowned in the Red Sea. Thus, there was no body to inter in the GP. With Egypt devastated, the quality of subsequent pyramids declined and the practice was then discontinued. In this scenario, I suggest Israel was used for manual labor on less important projects like common buildings and roads. The Bible associates their servitude with making mud brick. Only skilled Egyptians would be employed on a royal and religious project like a pyramid.
We know the Egyptians would excise unpleasant people and events from their record to the maximum extent possible. They probably closed up the GP still unfinished and tried to pretend nothing happened. Then the shortage of labor, skilled and unskilled, plus instability ended the pyramid age.
Posted by Future Fossil on 13 Jan 2010 at about 00:35.
Traces are left in myth and stone. Where history fades, myth takes over. Preserving data over vast expanses of time is made even harder due to shifting minds, languages and cultures. It is scientific fact that the only manufactured thing that will survive over 10,000+ years is stone. I have seen cars erode to dust in less than 50 years. CD,s will dissolve, Paper will rot, vellum will dissolve... And when language is recorded, it is many times unknown and new to us. Only oral tradition, stone and fossil can survive those large periods of time. Myth can at least encapsulate some type of important ideas from the past.
We can also assume that our current mindset will project our ideas of technology and progress upon the previous cultures expecting them to have computers and shopping malls; examples of our externalized form of development-materialism.
Look at the Olmec, for example. They are arguably recent culture and we know almost nothing about them. Where did those massive heads come from.
Linear evolution based upon theory is our base programming, hence we will expect the past to adhere to our "correct" view of the past.
I still do wonder if anything else, as you say, is left behind. Something complex in build and very ancient. So far the only thing I have seen is this aforementioned Antikythera Mechanism which is shown reconstructed from xray scans. Still it is pretty shocking to prove that we had advanced gear mechanisms 2000 years ago. We have believed that the late 1500s was the advent of the horological revolution.
Posted by thefloppy1 on 13 Jan 2010 at about 00:04.
an insription on the GP. Over the "so called main entrance", but as yet not been deciphered. I'm not sure about this entrance cause it's a fair height of the ground. Could of had a timber ramp to it which has long since perished. Or an elaberate stone ramp which was dis-assembled for building products 4500 years ago.
—
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
OK, this is all purely speculative on my part, but--
isn't it interesting that several months ago in a public speaking engagement, the famous US astronaut Buzz Aldrin mentioned a "monolith" (*his* word!) on the Martian moon Phobos...
Some reporter wrote an article on his talk. Reportedly, a straight-faced Buzz Aldrin said he thought that aliens built the so-called (by him!) "monolith" on Phobos, before they came here & built the pyramids! The reporter wrote it off as a joke on Aldrin's part, because the audience laughed---but it the reporter didn't mention how Aldrin reacted to the audience, e.g., whether he started smiling, or laughed when they did, or WHAT he said next...
But aren't those tantalizing words from a man so incensed by conspiracy theories that he punched that Bart Siebrel guy in the face over one (being accused of never walking on the moon)?! Would Aldrin be so quick to joke about such things? Would he use the word "monolith" lightly, just to endorse/encourage trips to Mars? Or could this be a message intended purely for posterity, a sort of wink to future generations regarding some secrets he's aware of...?
Could the Cydonia region of Mars include real pyramids? Could it be, along with the Face on Mars, that our planets histories are interconnected...? One thing's for sure--NASA wouldn't just come out and tell the world if they did find something like that...
Regarding the Great Pyramid, though---all the DVDs & shows I've seen on its construction are SORELY lacking, and leave me with more questions than answers. Are the claims true that the alignment of the blocks is perfect, positioned so accurately that you couldn't fit a piece of paper between the blocks, etc? Is it true that people have recently tried to construct one, and failed?
If humans can't do it now, than I don't see how we could have back then...
An intriguing topic which I've looked into a bit, but don't know which info to trust... It's fun to imagine the strange possibilities, though...
Posted by red pill junkie on 13 Jan 2010 at about 15:46.
I saw the video on Youtube. Aldrin didn't say aliens put the monolith on Phobos. He said "God did".
(Or perhaps you're referring to another public presentation by Aldrin. In which case I apologize, and would request if you could provide a link for it —I sure would like to see/read it.)
And I definitely want to see more research on the Mars pyramids. NASA thought everybody would shut up after showing hi-res pics of the famous 'Face', but like you said, there's more to it than that in Cydonia —although not as much as Hoagland imagines.
—
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
I've seen the C-Span clip too, but this was from a speech in front of an audience----he's given several lately, one aboard a battleship or something, and one in an auditorium. I forget if it was one or both, but he mentioned the "monolith" on Mars's moon to an audience, and a reporter wrote an article in the paper about it.
So he's been bringing up this "monolith" word lately, knowing fully-well what connotations it has in light of _2001: A Space Odyssey_ (I just read Arthur C. Clarke say in the prologue to 2010 that the astronauts were shown the film before they went)!!
He knows "monolith" would have to mean "alien artifact," and yet he's repeatedly saying it! So would this 80-year old man (on Jan. 20th, that is), feel such a need to be a cheerleader for Mars missions that he would stoop to such hyperbole if he didn't in fact *believe* it?
I think it's more likely that this sort of thing is at least partially meant as a message to posterity---perhaps there's information that astronauts have been forced to keep top-secret, and they've been depressed/reclusive/alienated/frustrated because of this kind of cognitive dissonance with society....And maybe that's why we hear "monolith" comments from Buzz and "Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech" (at the White House on the 25th anniversary of the moon landing, YouTube it)...
Maybe they're frustrated at having surprising knowledge they like to share, and facts that they'd probably like to get credit for discovering! But their pensions (& maybe even their safety?) require them to keep quiet---yet they want the future generations who look back on them to know that they weren't total liars, and that the secrecy wasn't their idea---so they gave little clues & winks so they wouldn't retroactively look like complete liars when the truth comes out.
Even silly things, like that episode of 'Frasier' with John Glenn as a guest---he goes on Frasier's show, telling a story about seeing something weird on the moon, but Frasier is too busy arguing in the adjacent room to hear what Glenn is saying!!! (I Netflix'ed that disc just to watch that specific episode! :) The most interesting part, though, is that apparently Glenn went to *THEM* (the makers of 'Frasier') with the plot concept, and they took him up on it!! Hoagland quotes one of the show's producers (or someone like that) on that fact in _Dark Mission_...
Posted by red pill junkie on 16 Jan 2010 at about 01:06.
Indeed it's interesting that Aldrin is making all these speeches with the 'monolyth' issue brought everytime. And yes, I agree the term is charged with suggestive (but ambiguous/deniable) connotations.
Recently I wrote a comment over at the Gralien Report re. Aldrin's statement that they saw a UFO during the moon trip, but decided to keep quiet about it.
Aldrin’s declaration has always struck me as a bit odd. It could be debated whether the Apollo 11 crew acted irresponsibly with their ‘over-cautiousness’ to report the anomalous object, or not. Because even though they were aware millions of people would get to hear whatever words they would say, the fact is that they didn’t *know* what the object was, and if said object could prove to be a hazard to the mission —what if it was a Russian automatic vessel programmed to ram against Apollo?
One would think the astronatus had the duty to inform Houston of any anomalous incident they were facing, no matter how strange or seemingly trivial.
So maybe we haven’t heard the whole story yet. Maybe they were debriefed on the possibility of a UFO encounter during the trip to the Moon prior launch.
So, at least we can conclude there's an obvious change in Aldrin's public stance. Maybe it's the age factor, like you suggest. Or something else. It remains something incredibly interesting to ponder upon.
PS: That story about Glenn in Frasier is fabulous! I'm no fan of the show, but I did see that clip, and it was hilarious.
—
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Posted by red pill junkie on 16 Jan 2010 at about 02:19.
That's very likely. If I'm a man so devoted to a field that has been neglected for so many years, I would get desperate too, specially at the dusk of my life.
But maybe there's something more to it.
—
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Good point---but what I really wonder is, would a Mars mission be so urgent as to need prodding if there was NOT anything weird there? Would an 80-year old guy like Buzz Aldrin feel the need to cheer-lead for his buddies in the space industry, just to possibly help their careers at some future date (which Aldrin probably wouldn't even be around to see) by making outrageously tantalizing statements?
Would Aldrin say to himself, "Well, that structure on Phobos is probably a natural formation, but if I hype it up a bit, that'll get people enthused to go there..."? Would he put his reputation on the line for business interests that wouldn't even personally benefit him?
It seems to me that there'd have to be something weird there for him to bother prodding people into going----why would this national hero, in the later years of his life, decide to suddenly associate his name with weird ideas like Martian artifacts?! He punched Bart Siebrel in the face for accusing Aldrin of lying about walking on the moon, so it seems Buzz is touchy about wild claims being thrown around!
Personally, I am convinced that UFOs are real, and best explained as alien technology---and it's this idea that makes me speculate (sometimes wildly! :) on what implications this could have for NASA's outlook & behavior.
When you start from the assumption that UFOs are alien technology, it gets you wondering what the astronauts might have truly seen & experienced on the moon or in space in general. And that line of questioning makes certain details stand out to you as peculiar, or a bit suspicious---like Buzz Aldrin's admission that during a public speech (forget the year), an audience member asked him, "What was it like to be on the moon?" Aldrin later reported that as he tried to start answering this question, he could feel a panic-attack start to kick in! (quoted in Hoagland's _Dark Mission_, I believe).
It's a strange situation---just enough info to make you suspect something weird might be going on, but not enough info to really make the speculations credible. But I do think it's a bit more likely that Aldrin knows something regarding aliens/UFOs, and he's prodding people into going there because he wants the truth to come out, and wants credit & respect for possibly discovering some of it.
Imagine how frustrating it would be to be regarded as a national hero, but having to lie to your nation about the full extent of your heroic adventure?! It could drive you nuts.
Recall Neil Armstrong's brief, cryptic speech (given at the White House on the 25th anniversary of his moon landing), where he says, "There are great ideas undiscovered; breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."
"Truth's protective layers"?! Who's protecting the Truth, and what is that truth?! Strange remarks like these make me think the astronauts know at least a bit more than they've been allowed to tell the public!
Posted by Future Fossil on 13 Jan 2010 at about 03:59.
As many researchers have pointed out in recent years, one could consider that the megalithic, precision-cut, stones (like the Osirion, Khufu Pyramid, Ollantaytombo) were remnants left behind from the previous world civilization after the last deluge that devastated the entire planet. The new re-seeding found the architecture and tried to replicate it or build off of it. This is why you see a mixture of highly complex older architecture with rubble built around it in succeeding years. David Hatcher Childress does a good job showing some of the structures like Ollantaytombo as example. The Great Pyramids appear to be the left-over structures from the previous age with other structures built up around them later; 2 different eras.
In situ excavations of Tiahuanco and Puma Punka show massives blocks that are lying tossed around like toys. They were obviously impacted by a massive wall of mud which covered them by about 30 feet in areas. This mud cover was due to the last ancient deluge. This dates the structures, still in excavation, to being pre-Inca. So evidence is building that there were pre-historic advanced civilizations.
It seems that if you want to understand the sources/origins of these structures, one needs to look at as many of them around the world as you can or you succumb to tunnel vision and really build up a theory in a vacuum.
Posted by alevangel on 13 Jan 2010 at about 04:31.
When we discuss the concept of "slavery", we use a modern idea -- most often associated with the Civil War and people of African Origin. At that time, slaves were like cattle (in terms of ownership), and their ideas or choices were not necessarily considered by their owners.
In ancient times, when slavery was routine, the concept was not the same. A person could be born into slavery -- but not based on skin color. Slavery was an ECONOMIC condition, more akin to being born into a working class poor family today.
Aren't people who cannot survive without their jobs -- those who would lose their homes and all prospects for a normal life if they stopped the daily grind -- aren't those people slaves, too? They may not be owned by an individual...but they may "owe their soul to the company store", in that all their life's possessions and good comes from laboring in some one else's vineyard.
Were the men who built Hoover Dam willing workers -- or were they slaves who took on that dangerous job in exchange for a home, car, and spending money? How would that materially differ from being a useful "Egyptian slave" who built the pyramids -- and got a home, food, and time off every now and then?
History isn't as either-or as we are led to believe.
Posted by red pill junkie on 13 Jan 2010 at about 15:53.
Very very nice comment there. Indeed, we're projecting our social values to a society that lived thousands of years ago. The concept of the individual was completely different back then.
Zahi posits that the study of the recent human remains shows these men (who he says built the pyramids) were fed meat regularly and showed no sign of mistreatment. Not physical mistreatment anyway.
But, does that show building a pyramid was the Egyptian equivalent of a corner office?
—
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Posted by earthling on 13 Jan 2010 at about 16:20.
The traditional concept of slavery was not race based, nor based on religion, skin color, or anything like that. That's quite true.
But it was not purely economical, like the lack of freedom of poor people today.
Today, if a poor worker acquires enough money they can quit their lousy job and do something else. Nobody can prevent them from doing that.
In traditional slavery, a slave might (in some societies) become quite wealthy, but this would not give them personal liberty. They would remain the property of their owner, unless that owner would would agree to terminate the slavery
condition.
In some places today, particularly North America, your freedom is indeed largely based on how much money you have. If you have enough, nobody even thinks about restricting your rights.
In other places this is not the case. In some countries a person is (at least philosophically) property of the state, no matter how rich they are. Sure you might bribe your way out of some things, but then you are breaking principles. Communist countries used to be like that, a principle they got from the old absolute monarchies. Who got it from slavery-based societies.
So I don't think we can use the evidence that the workers were well treated and well nourished, and conclude much about their legal status as slaves of freemen.
—
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
Posted by earthling on 13 Jan 2010 at about 19:14.
Sometimes it is also the lack of ideas, or imagination. Having good ideas is much easier said than done of course.
For people who lived all their lives in one place, with limited information about anything else, it is hard to imagine that their life could be different.
But if there is information that their life doesn't have to be the way it is, and nobody acts on it, who's fault is it?
I'm not blaming anyone. But take an example some of the First Nation Indians in Canada and the US. A lot of them live on reservations, and unless they have gambling income, life is typically poor and boring. Their old traditions are barely kept alive, their ancient way of life is gone forever. It sucks.
But. Nobody is keeping them there. They can go where they want. Again that is easier said than done, but they are kept in their bad life as much by lack of ideas as by lack of opportunity.
—
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
Posted by red pill junkie on 13 Jan 2010 at about 22:17.
We're —as usual— getting side-tracked here with these arguments. Maybe we shoould start another thread so we can discuss this more thoroughl, because no doubt a few interesting things could be argued whether the First Nation members are fools, for trying to remain in the land they have such a strong connection with, or not.
—
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Posted by LightImage on 13 Jan 2010 at about 05:15.
Simple men using muscle alone could not do that. Men using mechanics, rope and muscle did not do that. Men with design plans and borrowed instrumentality did that. And when the wonders of the ancients were completed all around the planet, the instrumentality was removed from mens memory and the records of how it occured, to bewilder later generations of why, when and how.
Posted by Isis-de-Philae on 27 Jan 2010 at about 22:13.
I guess nobody has read Wesley H. Bateman's book "Through Alien Eyes". Wes passed over last year and his book may now be out of print. Wes was a "Federation Telepath" and indicated in his book that the Gracians (Gracyea the 4th planet of the star Druma) built the pyramids at Giza, Teotihuacan and Mars for the Maldecians ( from the planet Maldec, the 5th planet originally orbiting our sun, destroyed millions of years ago when the Maldecians attempted to steal Earth's Vril or psychic energy, causing their planet to explode and resulting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.) I just finished re-reading this book that I first purchased in 2003 and find it extremely synchronistic that this survey appears on the day after I finishing re-reading this book. I challenge everyone to meditate on this from their molar to their micro level of consciousness and open their psyche to the forces of Light who will help you overcome the effects of the frequency barrier and those of the forces of darkness. Perhaps there are some out there who are awakening and remember a prior life on earth when these things happened. May the Peace and Light be with you always.
I am Isis de Philae, a current Reiki Master and Teacher.
Posted by Legatarius on 28 Jan 2010 at about 20:37.
Pyramids two great one small , the first had lots of resources around a vast jungle, then they used the trees to build the first pyramid and they made it but the resources became scarce(less resources)
, with the other resources they built the second pyramid more clumsy , the third was to small because there were no trees ,that made the third pyramid small and clumsy ,thats why today we have a desert in egypt they needed the logs to move stone and other stuff.
The 'Pyramid age' is the Old Kingdom, and we know they could build pyramids in a fast and efficient way.
Just look at the dozens of smaller pyramids and the stone Mausoleums that surround the Great pyrammid and its two 'brother' pyramids. Most, if not all, of these are still standing so we know they could build them on a small scale using very high precision construction skills, so why not on a larger scale.
I also remember a documentary i watched on the History channel about how an engineer/professor/archeologist had found out how they had built the pyramids using ramps, hardwood pulleys, loads of men (most of them egyptian) and strong reed ropes half a foot thick.
Everthing he said matched evidence on the pyramids, and we know the egyptians were planning on using the pyramids because of the hyroglyphs on the inside.
This doesnt mean i dont think there was some outside 'help' guiding us and teaching us these skills for use in the future.
I'd like to know how the egyptins cut the stone using only bronze tools, and i would also love to know whats behind those small doors they found!
Finally, the pyramids are an oddity, unlike the Great Wall, the Collosium, the Colossus of Rhodes, The Pharos Lighthouse, the temple of Artemis and the Helicarnassus Mausoleum (which were all feasible, and in tune with the abilities of the constructors and at times when they had strong tools like iron and steel), the pyramids are a bit early. However, this doesnt mean that it WASN'T built by humans, i saying we might have had a little ET help.
Had to go "Other (explain)", for the reasons mentioned in many of the earlier replies. My current reality tunnel says "The Law of One"-material is too coherent to be dismissed outright. Their explanation is fantastic to say the least, but taking all the details concerning the GP into account, it currently doesn't seem to have "serious" contenders.
I'd be grateful for any constructive criticism on the Law of One-material if you are familiar with it.
—
---
The flap of a butterfly's wings in the Atlantic may cause it to fly.
Posted by bluepikee on 19 Feb 2010 at about 23:38.
you need to read your bible!
there were NO Jews at this point, only Israelites(Hebrews)!
the 12 tribes.
the tribe of Judah became the Jews after Babylon captivity
the rest of the tribes had been taken by the Assyrian empire
after king Solomon died
Comments
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
I voted other because I think there's reason to suspect the great Pyramid is far older than the other two, and was built for other reasons than containing the Pharaoh Khufu's mummy.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
18 hours 16 min
I voted that the egyptians built the pyramids willingly. But I have one exception. The Great Pyramid is so much better constructed than the others. It's almost as if the others were later copies,never living up to the original. Contrary to what Egyptologists tell us there is no proof that anyone was ever entombed there. Due to several attempts at repair of the pyramid by later pharoahs the "proofs" that it was built by any named pharoah is left into question. The marks may have been by the pharoah's repair group. No one can satisfactorily explain how the Great Pyramid could have been built at a time when tools would have been copper. There are tool marks at the rock quarry that indicate far more techological tools were employed at cutting those stones. Mark Lerner was going to show the world how to build a pyramid and he failed miserably even when he employed modern heavy equipment.The Great Pyramid was probably built by ancestors of the ancient Egyptians who lived in a more advanced civilization prior to the Great Flood of Noah. It and the Great Sphinx appear to be much older than other structures at Giza. No one in scientific circles wants to think there was a worldwide cataclysm that sent mankind back to the stoneage but there are anomalies out there that defy explaination. Dry unproven theories just don't cut it.
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
How about this for the Great Pyramid:
perhaps it was the last one built. With all the experience of
the other pyramids, and with some more advanced tools, they managed to build a bigger and better pyramid.
However it took too long for the intended occupant to move in. Perhaps he was out of favour by the time the burial site was to be constructed.
In any case, having achieved all there was to achieve in the area of pyramid building, they developed a new fashion in monumental architecture.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
31 December 2009
5 days 14 hours
It's all well and good that some of you think that the Egyptians were capable of this. However, there is a big problem. Many of the stones, which weigh hundreds of tons, aren't even indigenous to Egypt!! How did they transport them. Are you telling me that they were able to gain enough man power to haul the stones over hundreds and hundreds of miles across a desert!!?? I don't thinks so.
I think. Therefore, I am dangerous.
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
I thought the foreign stones were from up the river some distance. So they would have needed just enough power to get them to and from boats.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
21 February 2006
3 weeks 5 days
Why do people keep propagating refuted legends like non-indigenous stone? From further up the Nile, yes, thus transported via the Nile.
Doesn't mean there wasn't some long forgotten techniques being used, but the Egyptians didn't need aliens telling them what to do. The Neter told them ;-)
Cryptic jokes aside, there are a lot of pyramids. The big three really are just big examples of a very long term style of Pharaonic "tomb" making. We call them tombs, but I suspect the Egyptians saw them more as portals to the realm of the Neter.
The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.
1 May 2004
3 hours 29 min
funny how all the other pyramids are in some what sorry state. Also interesting is the design and construction of pyramids other then the GP and other Giza pyramids are very different. Also funny how the "other" pyramids have some form of indentification and an actual mummy inside.
Also their size are very different. When you look at "ALL" the evidence, one must ask the question, Why are these so different and lacking any inscriptions and their construction is very precise in many ways.Where the others are not. The GP is deffinatly different then any other pyramid in the world.
So I would ask why would all this trouble of building this enormous pile of rocks in such a precise way and not use it for what it surpposibly was built for. And then not even put some kind of inscription on it.
You know, all the other pyramids could be a very poor copy of the GP. Maybe thats why their all falling apart or have turned into a rubble heap.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
30 April 2004
1 day 32 min
It's sad that folks think humans are unable to do great things by Will power,sweat,blood and tears. That Humans are to stupid to build great monuments, that some bug from outer space had to help them.
I won't even get started on the myth of Noah......
6 September 2009
16 hours 28 min
I think that it was willing teams or companies, sub-contractors, if you will allow me the luxury of so stretching a comparison, who may or may have not used conscripted/slave labourers. So a mixture of A and B.
I just want to point out that I am NOT saying there is NO WAY another civilization might be responsible for constructing it, but the preponderance of evidence accepted as fact today does not yet support the alternative view.
[Although REALLY, we all know Nyarlthotep built it!]
imagine an emoticon for a "wink" here. [Sorry! I refuse to form them myself!]
30 April 2004
1 day 32 min
I am way open to earlier civilization(s) having built part of the Giza complex.
But I think your right, Nyarlthotep did build it.
1 December 2009
9 weeks 20 hours
Being the most advanced in design and construction, the Great Pyramids were clearly not built by the later Egyptians. As several researchers have shown, the stone cutting techniques, design/tolerances used are indicative of advanced understanding of lapidary machining etc. Chris Dunn has done several studies on the milling/core drilling of several coffers-showing round milling marks- and granite core artifacts (from core drilling with some type of "hole saw"). The spiral grooves are too wide apart to be done with traditional modern methods. The artifacts do not sync with the theory that the Egyptians only had copper, gold and other soft metals. In addition they have found a stone ball and iron hook and float block of wood in one of the "air" shafts inside the "queens" chamber; the air holes don't even go to the outside from that chamber.
On another note, the Osirion which was mostly buried, uses similar stone construction/techniques that can be found in various sites around the world; Tiahuanaco, Ollantaytombo, Angkor Watt and more. The similarities being:
1. Knobby protuberances; requiring facing the entire stone to leave the knob behind.
2. Diversity/non-modularity. Most likely to dissipate energies like earthquakes. Also may have other energetic qualities.
3. Multisided (i.e.-13 sides). Stones with differing X, Y and Z surfaces. I have never, ever seen this in modern construction. It is near impossible to create.
4. Granite, Basalt or other hard stone (piezo-electric potential)usually quarried from many many miles away.
5. Stone blocks carved to wrap around inside corners. Very complex way to make a stone.
6. Keystone cuts and metal ties to connect stones. All sites have examples of these artifacts.
7. Many times constructions are buried under 30 feet or more of dirt/mud. Could be indicative of mythical flood that covered the prehistoric advanced global population.
8. Razor thin connections. No spaces or voids between stones.
I think it is more necessary to realize that the world has been more cyclical than linear. In fact all of nature/universe IS except our view of Darwinian linear evolution (Big Bang/ Adam and Eve). Once we realize we have been here for much longer, we can understand why we are here.
1 December 2009
9 weeks 20 hours
Other empirical evidence shows that many of the structures are older than 10,000 BCE due to the water erosion and how deep it was buried under the earth. There were even megalithic stone structures at the bottom of Lake Titicaca. Graham Hancock's Underworld is pretty explicit about all of the different sites underwater around the world.
The recent unearthing of Göbekli Tepe, possible Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun are all much older than previous discoveries; 9000-10,000 BCE.
Another paradigm buster is the Antikythera Mechanism clocking in at around 2000 years old; a celestial computer operated by differential gears, 1 knob and operating 3 separate dials on front and back.
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
Another thing in common between the Osirion and the GP: the strange & controversial lack of hyerogliphs.
I also share the suspicion that these two structures were made by a previous culture.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
A previous culture built two monumental structures and left no other traces whatsoever? No legends even?
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
The Osirion got its name because the legend said the god Osiris himself built it. Osiris was considered to be the first king of Egypt.
It's quite possible that the Egyptian myths and religions are distortions & exaggerations of actual events —like all religions, of course.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
Well, it's quite likely that Osiris just took credit for other people's work, with nobody around to contradict him.
Like Gilgamesh built the walls of Uruk.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
1 May 2004
6 min 51 sec
I personally believe the Sphinx and megalithic temples predate the pyramids and perhaps serve as an outlying remnant of civilization centered in the current Mediterranean basin. The Atlantic breached the natural dam at Gibraltar and flooded the basin leaving only a few isolated examples of that civilization, like the Sphinx and structures at Malta.
The Great Pyramid, to me, came next at the peak of Egyptian development. I still hold that it was prepared for the Pharoah of the book of Exodus, reputed to have drowned in the Red Sea. Thus, there was no body to inter in the GP. With Egypt devastated, the quality of subsequent pyramids declined and the practice was then discontinued. In this scenario, I suggest Israel was used for manual labor on less important projects like common buildings and roads. The Bible associates their servitude with making mud brick. Only skilled Egyptians would be employed on a royal and religious project like a pyramid.
We know the Egyptians would excise unpleasant people and events from their record to the maximum extent possible. They probably closed up the GP still unfinished and tried to pretend nothing happened. Then the shortage of labor, skilled and unskilled, plus instability ended the pyramid age.
1 December 2009
9 weeks 20 hours
Traces are left in myth and stone. Where history fades, myth takes over. Preserving data over vast expanses of time is made even harder due to shifting minds, languages and cultures. It is scientific fact that the only manufactured thing that will survive over 10,000+ years is stone. I have seen cars erode to dust in less than 50 years. CD,s will dissolve, Paper will rot, vellum will dissolve... And when language is recorded, it is many times unknown and new to us. Only oral tradition, stone and fossil can survive those large periods of time. Myth can at least encapsulate some type of important ideas from the past.
We can also assume that our current mindset will project our ideas of technology and progress upon the previous cultures expecting them to have computers and shopping malls; examples of our externalized form of development-materialism.
Look at the Olmec, for example. They are arguably recent culture and we know almost nothing about them. Where did those massive heads come from.
Linear evolution based upon theory is our base programming, hence we will expect the past to adhere to our "correct" view of the past.
I still do wonder if anything else, as you say, is left behind. Something complex in build and very ancient. So far the only thing I have seen is this aforementioned Antikythera Mechanism which is shown reconstructed from xray scans. Still it is pretty shocking to prove that we had advanced gear mechanisms 2000 years ago. We have believed that the late 1500s was the advent of the horological revolution.
1 December 2009
9 weeks 20 hours
Chris Dunn-Giza Power Plant Dry and then some, BUT good info on structural building. His book was better, but get a feel here.
David Hatcher Childress-Megalithomania 2008 Links stonework between various archeological sites.
Tiahuanco. Great 20 minute video with music- no commentary. Amazing straight edges on stones.
Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun-Megalithomania 2008. New massive pyramid complex? Pretty convincing material.
Stephen Mehler-Land of Osiris Interesting POV from Mehler & oral traditionalist on Egypt.
Graham Hancock - Underworld (Part 1 of 2)
Graham Hancock - Underworld (Part 2 of 2)
1 May 2004
3 hours 29 min
an insription on the GP. Over the "so called main entrance", but as yet not been deciphered. I'm not sure about this entrance cause it's a fair height of the ground. Could of had a timber ramp to it which has long since perished. Or an elaberate stone ramp which was dis-assembled for building products 4500 years ago.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
7 March 2009
6 weeks 2 days
OK, this is all purely speculative on my part, but--
isn't it interesting that several months ago in a public speaking engagement, the famous US astronaut Buzz Aldrin mentioned a "monolith" (*his* word!) on the Martian moon Phobos...
Some reporter wrote an article on his talk. Reportedly, a straight-faced Buzz Aldrin said he thought that aliens built the so-called (by him!) "monolith" on Phobos, before they came here & built the pyramids! The reporter wrote it off as a joke on Aldrin's part, because the audience laughed---but it the reporter didn't mention how Aldrin reacted to the audience, e.g., whether he started smiling, or laughed when they did, or WHAT he said next...
But aren't those tantalizing words from a man so incensed by conspiracy theories that he punched that Bart Siebrel guy in the face over one (being accused of never walking on the moon)?! Would Aldrin be so quick to joke about such things? Would he use the word "monolith" lightly, just to endorse/encourage trips to Mars? Or could this be a message intended purely for posterity, a sort of wink to future generations regarding some secrets he's aware of...?
Could the Cydonia region of Mars include real pyramids? Could it be, along with the Face on Mars, that our planets histories are interconnected...? One thing's for sure--NASA wouldn't just come out and tell the world if they did find something like that...
Regarding the Great Pyramid, though---all the DVDs & shows I've seen on its construction are SORELY lacking, and leave me with more questions than answers. Are the claims true that the alignment of the blocks is perfect, positioned so accurately that you couldn't fit a piece of paper between the blocks, etc? Is it true that people have recently tried to construct one, and failed?
If humans can't do it now, than I don't see how we could have back then...
An intriguing topic which I've looked into a bit, but don't know which info to trust... It's fun to imagine the strange possibilities, though...
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
I saw the video on Youtube. Aldrin didn't say aliens put the monolith on Phobos. He said "God did".
(Or perhaps you're referring to another public presentation by Aldrin. In which case I apologize, and would request if you could provide a link for it —I sure would like to see/read it.)
And I definitely want to see more research on the Mars pyramids. NASA thought everybody would shut up after showing hi-res pics of the famous 'Face', but like you said, there's more to it than that in Cydonia —although not as much as Hoagland imagines.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
7 March 2009
6 weeks 2 days
I've seen the C-Span clip too, but this was from a speech in front of an audience----he's given several lately, one aboard a battleship or something, and one in an auditorium. I forget if it was one or both, but he mentioned the "monolith" on Mars's moon to an audience, and a reporter wrote an article in the paper about it.
So he's been bringing up this "monolith" word lately, knowing fully-well what connotations it has in light of _2001: A Space Odyssey_ (I just read Arthur C. Clarke say in the prologue to 2010 that the astronauts were shown the film before they went)!!
He knows "monolith" would have to mean "alien artifact," and yet he's repeatedly saying it! So would this 80-year old man (on Jan. 20th, that is), feel such a need to be a cheerleader for Mars missions that he would stoop to such hyperbole if he didn't in fact *believe* it?
I think it's more likely that this sort of thing is at least partially meant as a message to posterity---perhaps there's information that astronauts have been forced to keep top-secret, and they've been depressed/reclusive/alienated/frustrated because of this kind of cognitive dissonance with society....And maybe that's why we hear "monolith" comments from Buzz and "Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech" (at the White House on the 25th anniversary of the moon landing, YouTube it)...
Maybe they're frustrated at having surprising knowledge they like to share, and facts that they'd probably like to get credit for discovering! But their pensions (& maybe even their safety?) require them to keep quiet---yet they want the future generations who look back on them to know that they weren't total liars, and that the secrecy wasn't their idea---so they gave little clues & winks so they wouldn't retroactively look like complete liars when the truth comes out.
Even silly things, like that episode of 'Frasier' with John Glenn as a guest---he goes on Frasier's show, telling a story about seeing something weird on the moon, but Frasier is too busy arguing in the adjacent room to hear what Glenn is saying!!! (I Netflix'ed that disc just to watch that specific episode! :) The most interesting part, though, is that apparently Glenn went to *THEM* (the makers of 'Frasier') with the plot concept, and they took him up on it!! Hoagland quotes one of the show's producers (or someone like that) on that fact in _Dark Mission_...
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
Indeed it's interesting that Aldrin is making all these speeches with the 'monolyth' issue brought everytime. And yes, I agree the term is charged with suggestive (but ambiguous/deniable) connotations.
Recently I wrote a comment over at the Gralien Report re. Aldrin's statement that they saw a UFO during the moon trip, but decided to keep quiet about it.
So, at least we can conclude there's an obvious change in Aldrin's public stance. Maybe it's the age factor, like you suggest. Or something else. It remains something incredibly interesting to ponder upon.
PS: That story about Glenn in Frasier is fabulous! I'm no fan of the show, but I did see that clip, and it was hilarious.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
Maybe Aldrin wants to provoke thought, to prod people into doing something useful. He seems the impatient type.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
That's very likely. If I'm a man so devoted to a field that has been neglected for so many years, I would get desperate too, specially at the dusk of my life.
But maybe there's something more to it.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
7 March 2009
6 weeks 2 days
Good point---but what I really wonder is, would a Mars mission be so urgent as to need prodding if there was NOT anything weird there? Would an 80-year old guy like Buzz Aldrin feel the need to cheer-lead for his buddies in the space industry, just to possibly help their careers at some future date (which Aldrin probably wouldn't even be around to see) by making outrageously tantalizing statements?
Would Aldrin say to himself, "Well, that structure on Phobos is probably a natural formation, but if I hype it up a bit, that'll get people enthused to go there..."? Would he put his reputation on the line for business interests that wouldn't even personally benefit him?
It seems to me that there'd have to be something weird there for him to bother prodding people into going----why would this national hero, in the later years of his life, decide to suddenly associate his name with weird ideas like Martian artifacts?! He punched Bart Siebrel in the face for accusing Aldrin of lying about walking on the moon, so it seems Buzz is touchy about wild claims being thrown around!
Personally, I am convinced that UFOs are real, and best explained as alien technology---and it's this idea that makes me speculate (sometimes wildly! :) on what implications this could have for NASA's outlook & behavior.
When you start from the assumption that UFOs are alien technology, it gets you wondering what the astronauts might have truly seen & experienced on the moon or in space in general. And that line of questioning makes certain details stand out to you as peculiar, or a bit suspicious---like Buzz Aldrin's admission that during a public speech (forget the year), an audience member asked him, "What was it like to be on the moon?" Aldrin later reported that as he tried to start answering this question, he could feel a panic-attack start to kick in! (quoted in Hoagland's _Dark Mission_, I believe).
It's a strange situation---just enough info to make you suspect something weird might be going on, but not enough info to really make the speculations credible. But I do think it's a bit more likely that Aldrin knows something regarding aliens/UFOs, and he's prodding people into going there because he wants the truth to come out, and wants credit & respect for possibly discovering some of it.
Imagine how frustrating it would be to be regarded as a national hero, but having to lie to your nation about the full extent of your heroic adventure?! It could drive you nuts.
Recall Neil Armstrong's brief, cryptic speech (given at the White House on the 25th anniversary of his moon landing), where he says, "There are great ideas undiscovered; breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."
"Truth's protective layers"?! Who's protecting the Truth, and what is that truth?! Strange remarks like these make me think the astronauts know at least a bit more than they've been allowed to tell the public!
1 December 2009
9 weeks 20 hours
As many researchers have pointed out in recent years, one could consider that the megalithic, precision-cut, stones (like the Osirion, Khufu Pyramid, Ollantaytombo) were remnants left behind from the previous world civilization after the last deluge that devastated the entire planet. The new re-seeding found the architecture and tried to replicate it or build off of it. This is why you see a mixture of highly complex older architecture with rubble built around it in succeeding years. David Hatcher Childress does a good job showing some of the structures like Ollantaytombo as example. The Great Pyramids appear to be the left-over structures from the previous age with other structures built up around them later; 2 different eras.
In situ excavations of Tiahuanco and Puma Punka show massives blocks that are lying tossed around like toys. They were obviously impacted by a massive wall of mud which covered them by about 30 feet in areas. This mud cover was due to the last ancient deluge. This dates the structures, still in excavation, to being pre-Inca. So evidence is building that there were pre-historic advanced civilizations.
It seems that if you want to understand the sources/origins of these structures, one needs to look at as many of them around the world as you can or you succumb to tunnel vision and really build up a theory in a vacuum.
1 May 2004
6 weeks 18 hours
When we discuss the concept of "slavery", we use a modern idea -- most often associated with the Civil War and people of African Origin. At that time, slaves were like cattle (in terms of ownership), and their ideas or choices were not necessarily considered by their owners.
In ancient times, when slavery was routine, the concept was not the same. A person could be born into slavery -- but not based on skin color. Slavery was an ECONOMIC condition, more akin to being born into a working class poor family today.
Aren't people who cannot survive without their jobs -- those who would lose their homes and all prospects for a normal life if they stopped the daily grind -- aren't those people slaves, too? They may not be owned by an individual...but they may "owe their soul to the company store", in that all their life's possessions and good comes from laboring in some one else's vineyard.
Were the men who built Hoover Dam willing workers -- or were they slaves who took on that dangerous job in exchange for a home, car, and spending money? How would that materially differ from being a useful "Egyptian slave" who built the pyramids -- and got a home, food, and time off every now and then?
History isn't as either-or as we are led to believe.
alevangel
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
Very very nice comment there. Indeed, we're projecting our social values to a society that lived thousands of years ago. The concept of the individual was completely different back then.
Zahi posits that the study of the recent human remains shows these men (who he says built the pyramids) were fed meat regularly and showed no sign of mistreatment. Not physical mistreatment anyway.
But, does that show building a pyramid was the Egyptian equivalent of a corner office?
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
The traditional concept of slavery was not race based, nor based on religion, skin color, or anything like that. That's quite true.
But it was not purely economical, like the lack of freedom of poor people today.
Today, if a poor worker acquires enough money they can quit their lousy job and do something else. Nobody can prevent them from doing that.
In traditional slavery, a slave might (in some societies) become quite wealthy, but this would not give them personal liberty. They would remain the property of their owner, unless that owner would would agree to terminate the slavery
condition.
In some places today, particularly North America, your freedom is indeed largely based on how much money you have. If you have enough, nobody even thinks about restricting your rights.
In other places this is not the case. In some countries a person is (at least philosophically) property of the state, no matter how rich they are. Sure you might bribe your way out of some things, but then you are breaking principles. Communist countries used to be like that, a principle they got from the old absolute monarchies. Who got it from slavery-based societies.
So I don't think we can use the evidence that the workers were well treated and well nourished, and conclude much about their legal status as slaves of freemen.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
Yeah. Nothing but the lack of opportunities; their lack of education...
Ooops! There I go again. Mil disculpas ;)
But of course I agree with your point. It's difficult to extrapolate the legal and social status of these people based solely on their remains.
Roman gladiators were also well nourished and treated.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
Sometimes it is also the lack of ideas, or imagination. Having good ideas is much easier said than done of course.
For people who lived all their lives in one place, with limited information about anything else, it is hard to imagine that their life could be different.
But if there is information that their life doesn't have to be the way it is, and nobody acts on it, who's fault is it?
I'm not blaming anyone. But take an example some of the First Nation Indians in Canada and the US. A lot of them live on reservations, and unless they have gambling income, life is typically poor and boring. Their old traditions are barely kept alive, their ancient way of life is gone forever. It sucks.
But. Nobody is keeping them there. They can go where they want. Again that is easier said than done, but they are kept in their bad life as much by lack of ideas as by lack of opportunity.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
12 April 2007
9 min 23 sec
We're —as usual— getting side-tracked here with these arguments. Maybe we shoould start another thread so we can discuss this more thoroughl, because no doubt a few interesting things could be argued whether the First Nation members are fools, for trying to remain in the land they have such a strong connection with, or not.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
4 days 11 hours
If I knew a real good place where they could go, I would say so.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
16 August 2007
1 week 5 days
Simple men using muscle alone could not do that. Men using mechanics, rope and muscle did not do that. Men with design plans and borrowed instrumentality did that. And when the wonders of the ancients were completed all around the planet, the instrumentality was removed from mens memory and the records of how it occured, to bewilder later generations of why, when and how.
27 January 2010
6 weeks 6 days
I guess nobody has read Wesley H. Bateman's book "Through Alien Eyes". Wes passed over last year and his book may now be out of print. Wes was a "Federation Telepath" and indicated in his book that the Gracians (Gracyea the 4th planet of the star Druma) built the pyramids at Giza, Teotihuacan and Mars for the Maldecians ( from the planet Maldec, the 5th planet originally orbiting our sun, destroyed millions of years ago when the Maldecians attempted to steal Earth's Vril or psychic energy, causing their planet to explode and resulting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.) I just finished re-reading this book that I first purchased in 2003 and find it extremely synchronistic that this survey appears on the day after I finishing re-reading this book. I challenge everyone to meditate on this from their molar to their micro level of consciousness and open their psyche to the forces of Light who will help you overcome the effects of the frequency barrier and those of the forces of darkness. Perhaps there are some out there who are awakening and remember a prior life on earth when these things happened. May the Peace and Light be with you always.
I am Isis de Philae, a current Reiki Master and Teacher.
14 July 2005
7 weeks 1 hour
Pyramids two great one small , the first had lots of resources around a vast jungle, then they used the trees to build the first pyramid and they made it but the resources became scarce(less resources)
, with the other resources they built the second pyramid more clumsy , the third was to small because there were no trees ,that made the third pyramid small and clumsy ,thats why today we have a desert in egypt they needed the logs to move stone and other stuff.
Welcome to egypt gnosis
The Juridic sky craft
2 February 2010
6 weeks 3 days
The 'Pyramid age' is the Old Kingdom, and we know they could build pyramids in a fast and efficient way.
Just look at the dozens of smaller pyramids and the stone Mausoleums that surround the Great pyrammid and its two 'brother' pyramids. Most, if not all, of these are still standing so we know they could build them on a small scale using very high precision construction skills, so why not on a larger scale.
I also remember a documentary i watched on the History channel about how an engineer/professor/archeologist had found out how they had built the pyramids using ramps, hardwood pulleys, loads of men (most of them egyptian) and strong reed ropes half a foot thick.
Everthing he said matched evidence on the pyramids, and we know the egyptians were planning on using the pyramids because of the hyroglyphs on the inside.
This doesnt mean i dont think there was some outside 'help' guiding us and teaching us these skills for use in the future.
I'd like to know how the egyptins cut the stone using only bronze tools, and i would also love to know whats behind those small doors they found!
Finally, the pyramids are an oddity, unlike the Great Wall, the Collosium, the Colossus of Rhodes, The Pharos Lighthouse, the temple of Artemis and the Helicarnassus Mausoleum (which were all feasible, and in tune with the abilities of the constructors and at times when they had strong tools like iron and steel), the pyramids are a bit early. However, this doesnt mean that it WASN'T built by humans, i saying we might have had a little ET help.
3 March 2008
1 week 5 days
Had to go "Other (explain)", for the reasons mentioned in many of the earlier replies. My current reality tunnel says "The Law of One"-material is too coherent to be dismissed outright. Their explanation is fantastic to say the least, but taking all the details concerning the GP into account, it currently doesn't seem to have "serious" contenders.
I'd be grateful for any constructive criticism on the Law of One-material if you are familiar with it.
---
The flap of a butterfly's wings in the Atlantic may cause it to fly.
25 March 2007
4 days 18 hours
http://www.mysterious-america.net/egypt2...
19 February 2010
3 weeks 6 days
you need to read your bible!
there were NO Jews at this point, only Israelites(Hebrews)!
the 12 tribes.
the tribe of Judah became the Jews after Babylon captivity
the rest of the tribes had been taken by the Assyrian empire
after king Solomon died
6 September 2009
16 hours 28 min
Why not a book on Semitic history, or a book on the Nile river valley cultures?
Why must it always fall back on the KJV of the Bible?