Some of its coincedence, some of its not. They where very much into lunar readings. Days, years moon cycles ect. And wouldn't be surprised if they incorparated some of it into the pyramids, just as they get the north-south east-west lines to within a degree, and each side is within a mm or 2.. also certain passageways point to certain stars..
The Great Pyramid
- Thread starter Lt. Manlove
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Not sure who did the original research, but Graham Hancock has collated a lot of it in his books.
For a 'primitive' people the Egyptians were extremely advanced. The accuracy of the pyramids is fascinating and second only to their demonstrated knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes - a phenomenon whereby the alignment of the stars appear to move very slightly. They move 1 degree through the sky in approx 72 years.
Whats perhaps even more interesting is that weather erosion on the sphinx suggests that it is a LOT older than the pyramids.
For a 'primitive' people the Egyptians were extremely advanced. The accuracy of the pyramids is fascinating and second only to their demonstrated knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes - a phenomenon whereby the alignment of the stars appear to move very slightly. They move 1 degree through the sky in approx 72 years.
Whats perhaps even more interesting is that weather erosion on the sphinx suggests that it is a LOT older than the pyramids.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Meridian said:
Does this mean anything? Do you only believe the word of people with labels?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 58,049
- Location
- Blurton
Meridian said:
And - your point is?
Graham Hancock is a well travelled and intelligent man.
I once attended a seminar about 5 years ago he gave and he's very impressive.
Most of the time he shows you things and you make your own mind up.
Take the 'underwater structure' of Yonaguni - looks very man made to me but theres still people who think its natural.
To be honest if you haven't seen the pyramids and sphynx up close then you won't realise most of the stuff is a moot point. When you get up close you realise just how BIG it is and just how smooth and accurate the joints, corners and eveything else is. They MUST have been a lot more advanced than we give them credit for. Especially with their astronomical knowledge.
What a load of rubbish, if they were converted from one unit to another then they arent the same, thats like saying my arm is 45.6cm long which is exactly the same as the time it takes to get from A to B in hours when its converted to feet.
What a load of rubbish, if they were converted from one unit to another then they arent the same, thats like saying my arm is 45.6cm long which is exactly the same as the time it takes to get from A to B in hours when its converted to feet.
cleanbluesky said:
I really endorse what CBS has said. Hancock & Bauvall has done a lot of research on the subject and surrounding issues. Whilst it can be levelled that he is not a scholar himself he has certainly studied the subject and brought to the mainstream.
Although some of his work is open to criticism such as the heavens mirror theory, The site of the great pyramids is not an exact mirror of Orions belt. That said he has evidence that the Piri Reis map was not the first readily available map of the world. In fact ancient civilizations had maps of the world long before this. Debunkable or not is books are a fascinating read
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Also, people are literally itching to criticise and denounce Hancock becuase he doesn't follow the rules...
Some of his theories have been debunked (such as the rotation of the Earth's crust) and he doesn't know enough about the Occult to cover certain ideas associated with Egypt (which may be why he makes innapropriate conclusions on aincient art sometimes) but for what he is he is unparalleled as far as original opinion and someone who isn't merely going to follow the herd are concerned...
Some of his theories have been debunked (such as the rotation of the Earth's crust) and he doesn't know enough about the Occult to cover certain ideas associated with Egypt (which may be why he makes innapropriate conclusions on aincient art sometimes) but for what he is he is unparalleled as far as original opinion and someone who isn't merely going to follow the herd are concerned...
Whether Hancocks theories are right or not, his heart is in the right place.
Our explanation of so many things like the pyramids and sphinx are based almost entirely on assumption. They "must" have been built together. Why "Must" they have been built together??
There is no real scientific reason for many of these assumptions and challenging them is the right thing to do.
Our explanation of so many things like the pyramids and sphinx are based almost entirely on assumption. They "must" have been built together. Why "Must" they have been built together??
There is no real scientific reason for many of these assumptions and challenging them is the right thing to do.
His Website
One of the worst offenders for improperly attacking his studies has been the Beeb. Maybe he they are peeved he chose them over C4 in the 90's. Another good read is a book called the Stargate Conspiracy. Along the same lines but not in as much detail as Hancocks works. Draws some interesting conclusions on the Freemasons & Occultism and its role in influencing the decision makers of today and how it relates to ancient Egypt. Ever wondered why when George Bush was innaugurated as President he did not swear his oath on a Bible it was one of the books of te freemasons. It presents an interesting theory
One of the worst offenders for improperly attacking his studies has been the Beeb. Maybe he they are peeved he chose them over C4 in the 90's. Another good read is a book called the Stargate Conspiracy. Along the same lines but not in as much detail as Hancocks works. Draws some interesting conclusions on the Freemasons & Occultism and its role in influencing the decision makers of today and how it relates to ancient Egypt. Ever wondered why when George Bush was innaugurated as President he did not swear his oath on a Bible it was one of the books of te freemasons. It presents an interesting theory
A lot of egyptian history could be wrong or misinturpreted. There was that guy who used the bible to date certain events. He found 2 tombs which archeolgists had dated. Apart from the older one was somehow cut into the new oone. But because he used the bible as a source and they didn't want to change history books, they didn't listen to him.
I think this is it.
http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/echroroh.html
very controvisal. But still adds debate LOL...
I think this is it.
http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/echroroh.html
very controvisal. But still adds debate LOL...
Last edited:
dmpoole said:
If you are going to make important claims about history, archeology and Egyptology, then you need to be an expert in those fields for your opinion to be taken seriously. If you're not an expert then your opinions are worth no more than mine. If someone who'd read a few books on brain surgery decided he knew more than the experts and wrote a book saying he knew more about the working of the brain, would you believe him? Enought to let someone operate on you on the basis of his theories?
He is an amateur. That isn't wrong, but it is an important factor. If he says one thing, and (say) a man with thirty years experience studying Egypt says he is talking rubbish, then my money would never be with Hancock.
M
Loki said:
Yes - they produced a Horizon program that corrected pointed out how much rubbish he talks. He lodged a series of complaints, of which just one was upheld: after someone commented on one particular theory he wasn't given a right of reply.
Come back Erich von Daniken, all is forgiven...
M
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Meridian said:
I haven't seen that in the rulebook...
Depends on how valid they were. Besides, you say Hancock isn't an expert but to say it more accurately he has no formal qualifications in these fields. The educative process teaches and encourages conformity, which is why people like Hancock are so vital to increasing our understanding of subjects - simply because he has no investment in institution so does not need to believe everything it says.
He has over 30 years experience study Egypt, but not formal education. He is also, however, an expert on the underwater Japenese structures by virtue of the amount of time and effort he has put into diving them (trecharous waters)
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 418
Definitely some very interesting information there.
Really makes you think about the past and future, what might have happened etc. Personally I'm not very interested in the 'bog-standard' history, but it is this sort of 'weird and wonderful' history that really intrigues (sp?) me, keep it coming guys!
Really makes you think about the past and future, what might have happened etc. Personally I'm not very interested in the 'bog-standard' history, but it is this sort of 'weird and wonderful' history that really intrigues (sp?) me, keep it coming guys!
Also on his theory regarding the pyramids, he has had geologists who agree with his conclusion re the weathering of the sphinx by water and the dating of this in the past.
He has also been honest enough in the reprint of Fingerprints of the Gods to say some of his assumptions about the great pyramid were indeed wrong re the lack of any writings inside.
As the sea levels rose by a few hundred feet his discoveries of man made structures under the sea are completely plausible. As the sea is one of the last areas of the earth to be fully explored and the research so far has only scratched the surface, so to speak. It just needs archaeologists to be open minded and accept the possibility of older civilisations yet to be discovered and not be so dismissive.
SCM
He has also been honest enough in the reprint of Fingerprints of the Gods to say some of his assumptions about the great pyramid were indeed wrong re the lack of any writings inside.
As the sea levels rose by a few hundred feet his discoveries of man made structures under the sea are completely plausible. As the sea is one of the last areas of the earth to be fully explored and the research so far has only scratched the surface, so to speak. It just needs archaeologists to be open minded and accept the possibility of older civilisations yet to be discovered and not be so dismissive.
SCM
To be honest a lot of history and egyptology is about guesswork, its a dot to do without half the dots. Egyptologist have to make assumptions based on previous knowledge to join the missing dots. This inherently causes conformity as you are working with something that a large number of others are using as fact as well. Even with this if you went to 5 different egyptologists you would get 5 different answers to the same question, some slight different but some completly different.
Hancock as an outsider and journalist may actually be able to get closer to the actual answers by stepping back, listening to all the theorys and fitting it together in an unbias (depending on how good a journalist he is) way. Just becuase he doesnt follow convetion doesnt mean he is wrong, maybe he is, but then they called Galileo mad becuase he wasn't conformist and said the earth went round the sun!
Hancock as an outsider and journalist may actually be able to get closer to the actual answers by stepping back, listening to all the theorys and fitting it together in an unbias (depending on how good a journalist he is) way. Just becuase he doesnt follow convetion doesnt mean he is wrong, maybe he is, but then they called Galileo mad becuase he wasn't conformist and said the earth went round the sun!