The Great Pyramid

Arcade Fire · 19 Mar 2006 at 00:32

Amp34 said:
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!

Most of Galileo's contemporaries who were also astronomers believed in the heliocentric model, which had been about for some 60 odd years in its Copernican form, and many hundreds of years prior to that as well. It was, by and large, only people ignorant of astronomy who still believed in the Ptolemic model (cf. journalists

).

Amp34 · 19 Mar 2006 at 00:58

Well ok maybe not the best example then but you get what i'm aiming at hopefully.

Treefrog · 19 Mar 2006 at 04:34

cleanbluesky said:
Whats perhaps even more interesting is that weather erosion on the sphinx suggests that it is a LOT older than the pyramids.

SCM said:
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.

I remember seeing something about this years ago - the weathering of the limestone outer of the Sphinx was compared to various other eroded limestone including the Burren on the West Coast of Ireland, and the erosion was so similar as to be very unlikely to be anything other than water. Which means that Egypt had a much wetter climate around and after the time the Sphinx was built. By whatever method they used they came up with the conclusion that the Sphinx was about 2-4,000 years older than the pyramids.

I suppose it's natural to assume that two great stone works would have been built more or less simultaneously, but the weathering implies that they weren't.

Hannibal recruited his elephants for the march on Rome from what is now Morocco, showing that, at that time, the Northern African landscape was much better watered than it is at present. So by going back another couple of thousand years it's very possible that what is now the Sahara could well have been grassland, with a consequent increase in rainfall and a wetter climate further East in Egypt. Which backs up the idea of water erosion on the Sphinx.

I think it's definitely worth the status of a working hypothesis until it is either proven or disproven though. And there's enough unexpected discoveries in this area in terms of heights, lengths, weights, etc, to make it worth keeping an open mind on these subjects.

Meridian · 19 Mar 2006 at 06:28

cleanbluesky said:
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)

That would make him an expert on what they look like, not who/what made them. To be an expert on what made them he would need to be either a) a geologist (most of whom say the feature is volcanic) or b) an underwater acheologist. Ideally both.

And Loki mate:

A rather tenuous and unfair analogy Meridian

All analogies are tenuous to some degree, but it is certainly not unfair. The point I am trying to make is that the age of the educated amateur has been over for more than thirty years. The fact is, most of history has been at least partially mapped out, and mostly agreed by historians. Yes, there are things that they argue about, but not the serious stuff. So when some pseudoscientist like Hancock appears he needs to follow the main rule: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not the fact that a pyramid in one country looks like one in another for instance (gravity and no cement exlains that perfectly adequately).

M

Loki · 19 Mar 2006 at 07:41

Meridian said:
Snip......
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not the fact that a pyramid in one country looks like one in another for instance (gravity and no cement exlains that perfectly adequately).
M

Why do Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ?

If the simple truth is the answer then so be it. Bear in mind that a lot of this is theory anyways. I use the example of Cartography. Supposedly the first readily available maps of the world were available circa 1800's. Yet with the discovery of the Piri Reis map was found in 1513. A map of considerable age showing the Americas, Greenland and Antarctica. Clear evidence that shows ancient man was certainly more mobile and advanced than thought, a point more in tune with Hancock than with some scholars who dismiss his theories out of hand yet they still dismiss it.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Mar 2006 at 11:07

Amp34 said:
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.

Somebody already explained that. It'll do you good to read posts.
However, they still used cubits to measure.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Mar 2006 at 11:30

Meridian said:
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

Rubbish.
A man with 30 years experience is unlikely to ever change his views for fear of ridicule.

I watched one documentary that made claims that Egyptian history doesn't match up with the history of The Bible. One guy decided to look into this and eventually he shifted Egyptian history forward or backward 300 years. As soon as he did this both histories became one and even Stevie Wonder could see they now matched up. The old Egyptologist 'experts' will not have it although some of the younger ones will.

Historians will not believe that cultures existed before about 6000BC (somebody help me here on my dates/wording). They make claims that the first proper cities/cultures were in the Indus Valley around this time and thats when modern man started. Yonaguni last saw the sun over 10,000 years ago when the sea levels were lower and this does not fit in with historians.

http://www.toriitraining.com/new_page_2.htm
http://www.toriitraining.com/stage_photo_gallery.htm

Satellite imagery has shown there is an underwater city to the west of India that once again last saw the sun over 10,000 years ago. For some reason 'experts' don't like to change their views.

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm

Hancock has been proved wrong many times and he talked about this at his seminar but they pale into significance to his other 'theories'.

Sleepy · 19 Mar 2006 at 13:52

Re Weathering of the Sphinx

Whilst the geologist Hancock used did originally give the age of the sphinx much older than accepted by the mainstream IIRC dating it back to 10,000 BCE to when that area was much wetter and the pyramids would have been aligned to a star in the constallation Leo on a certaind date. Later research by other geologists has found reasons to cast doubt on this research, they date the sphinx to a period that agrees with current Egyptologists work.

Meridian · 19 Mar 2006 at 13:53

dmpoole said:
One guy decided to look into this and eventually he shifted Egyptian history forward or backward 300 years.

So what you are saying is that the facts didn't fit his theory, so he changed the facts? Isn't there a word for that?

M

SCM · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:12

Meridian said:
So what you are saying is that the facts didn't fit his theory, so he changed the facts? Isn't there a word for that?

M

It was more he examined the Bible time line, the names associated and the historical facts and found discrepanicies in the accepted historical timeline. With some phaoroahs moving to different time periods and he was open enough to re-examine the facts and come up with a new timeline.

Sleepy the sphinx will always be an issue as the geologits dating it to the accepted historical date are saying the damage is wind based and not water based. Hancock and the others are saying the damage is water based hence the redating and the issue is egyptologists are not on the whole open to their accepted history being changed. This is especially true of egyptian ones at times.

SCM

Amp34 · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:32

dmpoole said:
Somebody already explained that. It'll do you good to read posts.
However, they still used cubits to measure.

Sorry I think you misunderstood me, I did read all the posts in this thread. What i was getting at was that you can't just convert a unit into another unit randomly to get a resonably feasable answer, as one of the other posters said, how did they know we were going to use inches, why not cm, mm, yards, feet. There are a huge amount of measurements that could be used, its just a case of converting the number in cubits into a modern measurement, i'm sure if you spent long enough converting the height of the london eye into another unit you will get something significant.

Also who uses inches and decimal? Things smaller than an inch are measured in fractions of an inch. I know thats a bit of a moot point but it s a little strange.

Skunkworks · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:37

Egyptology is more like a religion than a science these days. It's blinkered and set in its ways.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:37

Meridian said:
So what you are saying is that the facts didn't fit his theory, so he changed the facts? Isn't there a word for that?
M

The problem with Egyptology is that what was deemed true in 1850 (whatever) is still true today. Unlike other 'ologys' where if new evidence is bought forward they will bring it into their world. In the early days one man said that the timeline was thus and everybody went along with it. However, the timeline didn't fit with the history of other cultures including the Jews (Bible). Just a 300 year shift in the original timeline brings all cultures into line. Even Dr. Zahi Hawass has had to think very hard about this.

Can I just add that Dr. Zahi Hawass has only recently accepted Bauvals theory of the pyramids looking like Orions belt and that he now discusses the relevance of the small tunnels going up out of the chambers to look at Osiris and Isis many 1000's of years ago. So Egyptologists can change - a bit.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:44

Amp34 said:
What i was getting at was that you can't just convert a unit into another unit randomly to get a resonably feasable answer,

And I already accepted defeat a long time ago.

However, there are calculations on the pyramids that only take into account of cubits and their relevance to the world around us without converting into other units.

Zip · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:55

IIRC Egypt never used to be in a desert and it was more of a forrest/jungle so the water damage might have been done to the Sphinx.
The sahara desert is growing every single year by 30kms+ in diameter and droughts, fires and chopping down trees can really change landscapes.

Just something to take into consideration

NickXX · 19 Mar 2006 at 15:00

Bah, it's all coincidence. If it was another 10 metres taller or wider they'd find another random number that it was the same as.

And as for the land height - the Himalayas will have become taller since they built the pyramids anyway.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Mar 2006 at 15:03

Zip said:
IIRC Egypt never used to be in a desert and it was more of a forrest/jungle so the water damage might have been done to the Sphinx.
The sahara desert is growing every single year by 30kms+ in diameter and droughts, fires and chopping down trees can really change landscapes.

Just something to take into consideration

And if IIRC thats the whole point of the 'modern archaeologists'.
The last time Egypt was a forest was at least 10,000 years ago, so if the Sphinx had been weathered by rain then it was built 10,000 years ago and historians will not accept that man was capable of doing things all that time ago.

Psyk · 19 Mar 2006 at 15:03

dmpoole said:
And I already accepted defeat a long time ago.

However, there are calculations on the pyramids that only take into account of cubits and their relevance to the world around us without converting into other units.

With the one about pi it doesn't matter what the units are since they cancel out and leave a constant, pi.

The one about adding up the lengths of the walls is wrong though. Since the answer is in units of length it can't be compared to units of time. Especially since as you say they used cubits and not inches, which would end up with a completely different number.

Pickers · 19 Mar 2006 at 15:33

For more "way out there" stuff do a google for
"Nibiru" - planet x
and "Anunnaki" - The race of aliens depicted in sumerian artifacts that are due to return.

Amp34 · 19 Mar 2006 at 16:00

dmpoole said:
And I already accepted defeat a long time ago.

However, there are calculations on the pyramids that only take into account of cubits and their relevance to the world around us without converting into other units.

Sorry i didnt see your point take post, i thought you were going on about someone backing you up.

And yes as others have said some of the stats like pi etc. could easily be true. I for one think the egyptians and other civilisations were a lot cleverer than we believe them to be now. Just because they didnt have gunpowder, steel and concrete doesnt mean they weren't cleverer in other areas.

The sunken cities dont necessarily have to be as old as 10 thousand years. Both Cities may have been ports on techtonically unstable areas of land. Land all around us is rising and falling depending where we are, usually very slowly, but some times it can happen very fast, causing areas of land to fall by 10's of meters in a couple of years. This could be what happened to the two cities already described.