Who built the Pyramids?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But Cayce has been demonstrated to have been a fraud. Also, isn't this thread about "who built the pyramids?" The Atlantis thread is a little down the topic list.

Back on Egypt: What do you find compelling about West's work that suggests the Sphinx is older than the rest of the architecture on the Nile at Giza?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its not really a mystery to those that actually study Egyptian archaeology (with a few isolated exceptions). There are two primary hypotheses with regard to the sphinx at Khafre's valley temple: 1) that it was constructed to be the guardian of the temple and the causeway leading to the mortuary temple & pyramid, and the likeness of Khafre was carved to either memorialize him or suggest that his kah or ahk would continue to be present and perhaps inhabit this particular sphinx; 2) that the sphinx was built by the vizier who was commissioned to construct Khafre's complex who had the problem of a small hill or knoll and decided it already had a vauge shape of a sphinx and therefore modified it, adding the face, carving the paws, etc.

Regardless of the method, it wasn't constructed prior to the Old Kingdom based on the tool marks. Pre-dynastic Egypt simply did not have the tools nor was it consistent with their culture to build monumental architecture, modest though the Sphinx is.

We have to remember that sphinxes aren't rare in Egyptian art & architecture, there are several miles worth of ram-headed sphinxes at Luxor. But there are no examples of sphinxes that I know of prior to the Old Kingdom, ca. 2500 BCE. If the hypothesis that the sphinx at Giza were far older than Dynastic Egypt were true, we would expect to see them in the art of Predynastic Egypt.

 

Poppycock. The conchoidal fracturing or rhombohedral jointing of the rock formations above are consistent with the same formations above sea level at the same general locality. This sort of jointing/fracturing is expected in tectonically active localities.

Its a natural feature. To my knowledge, no artifacts have been recovered and no tool marks demonstrated. If it were truly monumental architecture, there would be tool marks.

As to dating, what dating methods were alleged to have been used?

 

Well i will say that the structures of eygt are not older than 8,000 years, as a magnetic pole reversal would have uprooted any structures on earth, in the redistribution of land mass in a magnetic pole reversal.
The earth is a very tropical place it appears after a magnetic pole reversal, which is then followed by a ice age. so if the structures of eygpt where built in a tropical enviroment they where built just after the magnetic pole reversal. so there oldest date could only be about 8,000 years.
This also suggest that the region had a much higher elevation than current, and this alone may be the reason for the legend of atlantis, wherein the north african conteint sank forming the mediterranean sea and the european land mass/ swiss alps ect.. this most likly occured when the magnetic pole pass through the area and lifted land mass, as it left the region the land mass sank forming the mediterranean sea. there may have been structures in this region before it sank.
So it would seem that both atlantis and the eygptian structures if built during a tropical time where built before the ice age.
As the ice age after a magnetic pole revesal invovles the freezeing of about 2/3rds the earth surface it may be that they where built at least the eygptian strutures as the ice age began to receed, at which time the oceans begin to fill with water from the melting ice, pushing any populations to higher elevations. this may also exspalin the legend of the atlantis, it also would exsplain the advancement of builders out of lower eygpt. it also places the time line of such events closer to our time than 8,000 years ago and make a legend more probable of surviving, it would then be the legend of the advanced city that was flooded by the melting of the ice age.
Much of plant life on the earth would have been tropical in nature prior to the iceage it may be that such plant life is the abunadant form of plant life and therefore is natural to enviroment, for example in the artice there are the remains of tropical plant life, as well around the 45 latitude, the condtions that allowed them to grow are the tropical enviroment just after the magnetic pole reversal which makes the entire earth a tropical zone, later on in time the ice age occurs exstending all the way to north africa, appearntly the area of eygpt was covered in ice according to geology. plant life must have migrated northward during the melting of the ice age which added to the meditrreanean sea, as the magnegtic feild lis lower in the atmosphere during this time more energy from space is recived by the earth, duriong this time nitrogen is very abundant in the atmopshere having a greater precentage than present in its mixture of oxygen. however there is greater water content in the air/ mist.
The building of the prymids and other heavy stone structures around the earth seems easist to build during this period, where the capture of nitrogen, or the production of oxygen/ and heating of oxygen or nitrogen allowing for the motion of such large stones found in these structures with ease,by meathod of ballon lifts.
In fact there are several times within the period after a magnetic pole reversal where humans could fly easly as the atmosphereic medium changes.

DDLR

 

The smallest of these "steps" is on the order of 3 feet tall! Did you notice the diver in the photo above, which is the same formation from a different angle?

The sensationalist speculations of sites like Yonaguni and the Bimini "road" formations are generally misunderstood by lay persons. A casual look at the rhombohedral jointing and conchoidal fracturing of underwater Yonaguni photos such as the one above bring to mind anthropomorphic structures like walls and steps, but nature is quite adept at creating such formations, particularly in tectonically active regions with the right lithology. Such is the case with Yonaguni. There is nothing to indicate actual human activity or construction at the site beyond the casual association of lithologies that appear to be cubic and "cut." But "appear" is the operative verb in that statement.

An example of the lithology of Yonaguni island and the stratigraphy that would allow the kinds of jointing and fracturing found in it's underwater site is at this url:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(ironically, from a site that proposes the site is artificial).

Here's an example of jointing with limestone:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Limestone would be subject to chemical weathering in the water, and thus the edges wouldn't be as "crisp" as they are with the Japan example, which is why I suspect it's basalt. But it could be a dense sandstone with a very highly lithified deposition.

The point is, such formations can and do occur in nature. They are even expected.

 

"Pyramid like?" You seriously get that from the few photos of this underwater rock formation?

Did you look at the strata of the formation that is above sea level at the same locality, with a strike that is heading out to sea? Can you not imagine what this formation must look like with a few layers of strata removed? Do you not think that some tectonic activity could fracture this formation a bit?

I suppose its simply more fun to imagine the fantastic rather than look for the realistic. But these types of formations are common and expected. A mystery exists only for the mystery-monger.

 

Clearly misapplied.

First, there are many. I included a picture of one in limestone. Second, the island strata I linked to above is definately affected by erosion and weathering, but the jointing and fracturing present is identical to that in under the sea. The dark, thick layers appear to be the very same member. But it would be pointless for me to go on if you haven't the basics of geology to draw on, which appears to be the case based on your question on how the "strata would be formed under water in the same way?"

To answer: they are probably the very same geologic strata. Formed millions of years ago. The strike indicates an uplift as a result of tectonic activity.

I'm going to stop there and recommend a that you pick up a good book in geology if you want further info, but rest assured, there is absolutely nothing man-made implied in the images and they are consistent with the geology of the area as well as with other examples of jointing/fracturing around the globe. They are quite common, but the more common examples are easily accessed, as with the photo of the limestone "stairs" and "beds" above. The inaccessability of the Japanese formation lends itself to mystery for the mystery-mongers and signficance-junkies who seem to find it easy to spuriously associate it with man made architecture like the well-understood Egyptian pyramids.

Neither has anything to do with what we're talking about. Imagination also gave rise to the holocaust, but I wouldn't use it to make a point.

 

I belive it was edgar casey that also said that lighter than aircraft where used during the time of the pryamids and there construction.

A fact comes to mind when considering the building of the pryamids, given the condtions of the earth enviroment, atmosphere, there is very little oxygen in the air that is free as most of it is stored in the ice, this fact makes hard labor very difficult, a labor effort such as speculated by some to have taken place with manual labor as the means of moving such stones is almost improbable as there is little oxygen in the air to support such laborous efforts iun the human breath.
oxygen over the last 8,000 years has been released form its storage in the layers of ice and evaporation form the oceans, making our current breathing of oxygen content in the air higher than in the past or history of humans in the last 8,000 years. just as occurs today the oxygen content is slightly higher at the shore, this same fact would exist at the time of the building of the pryamids and just about any other time in the last 8,000 years, so when looking at old structures the predominate local for such structures will be near the shore.( with a few at high elevations which may also represent a change in atompshere causeing the migration of humans).
As the oxygen of the world is strored in ice layers as water, the ocean level is much lower than today, to find this elevation one would remove about 2/3rds the world oceans, to find the ocean level at the height of the ice age, at this new sea level is where you might find structures, places where humans built around the small oceans to get a better breathing gas.
humans in the very early part of the last 8,000 years where subject to changing atmopsheric condtions, at times they may have chosen to build at very high elevations to get a breathing atmopshere of oxygen.
if the pryamids or japanese pyramids, muchu picu ect where but at a certain time they would be built in a area where oxygen was the evaporated from the mist, and water vapors under sun light, more easly, if this certain time was relavatnt to the construction it would appear to them as though they where building on a very large mountain, as the oceans of the world where frozen in to ice, they could see the floor of the ocean where we would see only the surface of the ocean.
Therefor the type of building that would be seen as a form of construction would be simular to those found in carved dwellings, carved in the side of the mountain, this might lead to the formation of the pryamid structrue in concept.

The use of large stones in a enviroment that does not allow the physical body of humans to excert large amounts of labor, strongly suggest that the structures where not built by exstensive manual labor. where even a 1,000 years ago there was less oxygen content in the air. the use of gases such as nitrogen and or oxygen as a lifting device really becomes the only means plausable to account for the constrution of such large structures with large stone.

so here we see that edgar casey has some insight.



DDLR

 

Dwayne, that is pure BS. Please stop.

 

Repeat after me, "Rabon, where are the data." No data=no evidnece. No evidence=you are a liar.

 

water erosion on the sphinx..... when did it last time rain so much in egypt.... at the end of the last ice age...

 

Water is one Errosive force, another is the wind... especially if it's carring grains of sand within it. Now I'm not familiar with Egypt, but I do believe it has sand around it, which means that for thousands of years the scuplture has been battered by wind and sand.

If there is any salt around the figure itself, it can be suggested that the "dew" caused in the mornings of such deserts could rest upon its surface and salt could slowly formulate around the droplets. (Minerals tend to do this in caves at a greater rate causing Stalactites and Stalacmites.)

 

It's quite obvious that you aren't familiar with Egypt. Because the erosion on the Sphinx is clearly water erosion. Not flood water erosion, but water erosion that has falled from above the structure.

There is a clear distinction between the many different forms of erosion.