Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

what evidence is their that Egyptian build and had the technology to build the pyramid how was it done how long would it have taken?

how old is the pyramid compared the sphinx?

what was the pyramid really used for, some archeologist claimed for years it was a kings burial tomb others say it is not.

would it have bn possible for the Egyptians to have traveled across the sea, could they have landed in the americas and help build the Olmec empire as some african historians theories claim.

why does it seem we are missing so much history of an advance society who kept records?

was Cleopatra african descent or foreign possibly white as many western academics claim?

what animals lived during the time of the pyramid builders what was the area like?
tell me what you know of the Egyptians...

Originally posted by King Castle

would it have bn possible for the Egyptians to have traveled across the sea, could they have landed in the americas and help build the Olmec empire as some african historians theories claim.


No and why do "theories" like this exist? Do people just not like the idea of "Red Indians" doing great things without help? The Mayans, Aztecs and Incans (three of the greatest civilizations the world has ever seen) did it all on their own.

Theories that Egyptians, ancient white people, or that aliens helped them, or "taught" them how to build their structures are considered psuedo-science and rejected by mainstream anthropologists and archaeologists.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No and why do "theories" like this exist? Do people just not like the idea of "Red Indians" doing great things without help? The Mayans, Aztecs and Incans (three of the greatest civilizations the world has ever seen) did it all on their own.

Theories that Egyptians, ancient white people, or that aliens helped them, or "taught" them how to build their structures are considered psuedo-science and rejected by mainstream anthropologists and archaeologists. i actually think that at the time of discovery many people the spaniards and other explorers did not like it.

i know that there is a giant coliseum stadium build by natives in arizona and was like a mecca city.. we know they had roads and stuff but, i think more often then not it was purposely forgotten or destroyed by the euro immigrant settlers.
plus, euro disease wiped out the natives and euro people took over the settlements making it their own and building over it.

same happen to the olmecs, mayans, aztecs empires.

but, i think " some" african historians want it to be so b/c they want their claim in history after having so much of their history raped and taken by whites..

trying to claim something and grasping at straws and using the olmec face/head carvings as african features and origin.

Here:

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/

Originally posted by King Castle
what evidence is their that Egyptian build and had the technology to build the pyramid how was it done how long would it have taken?

Well there are pyramids there in Egypt during the time we know there was an empire there. That's plenty of proof they built them.

If you need more, well, there are work records and whole cities built to hold the workers.

Originally posted by King Castle
how old is the pyramid compared the sphinx?

"The" pyramid?

Originally posted by King Castle
what was the pyramid really used for, some archeologist claimed for years it was a kings burial tomb others say it is not.

Considering there are literally tombs inside of the pyramids...

Originally posted by King Castle
would it have bn possible for the Egyptians to have traveled across the sea, could they have landed in the americas and help build the Olmec empire as some african historians theories claim.

No. That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by King Castle
why does it seem we are missing so much history of an advance society who kept records?

What records are you looking for?

Originally posted by King Castle
was Cleopatra african descent or foreign possibly white as many western academics claim?

She was a descendant of Ptolemy. We know that for a fact. Thus she was Greek from that line of descent at least.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No and why do "theories" like this exist? Do people just not like the idea of "Red Indians" doing great things without help? The Mayans, Aztecs and Incans (three of the greatest civilizations the world has ever seen) did it all on their own.

Theories that Egyptians, ancient white people, or that aliens helped them, or "taught" them how to build their structures are considered psuedo-science and rejected by mainstream anthropologists and archaeologists.

While the South American Native cultures were amazing in their own, lets not take away from the Iriquois, Plains and even Inuit cultures. While maybe not inventing things like huge cities and the like, they were very advanced culturally. The Iriquois had a constitution that was in many ways similar to those of modern nationstates

Originally posted by inimalist
While the South American Native cultures were amazing in their own, lets not take away from the Iriquois, Plains and even Inuit cultures. While maybe not inventing things like huge cities and the like, they were very advanced culturally. The Iriquois had a constitution that was in many ways similar to those of modern nationstates

Mexico isn't in South America.

The Indians in what is today the US and Canada were not even close to being on the level of the Aztecs and Incans. The Mayans, Aztecs and Inca were advanced in city-planning, agriculture, math and commerce. The Aztecs also had a 365-day calender. The Iriquois don't even come close. The Inuits were too busy battling the cold to ever advance.

no, they don't really come close in terms of things that the West calls "civilization", but they certainly "advanced"

Objectively speaking, the Aztecs were technologically superior to the Inuits.

Bunch of Eskimo haters up in this *****. Considering what they had to work with, Eskimos did exceptionally well.

i guess you are right.

http://www.millionface.com/l/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/superb_pics/Polar_bear_trying_to_get_into_mini-iglo.jpg

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Objectively speaking, the Aztecs were technologically superior to the Inuits.

yes, the Inuit were no a technologically advanced culture, I'm not trying to take away from the meso-american empires, they were clearly dominant in the Americas prior to colonization, and in places, even after.

All I wanted to point out, is that many people assume that a lack of things like big stone pyrimids or whatever means that there was something "less" advanced about the more northern native american people's, which is very much untrue.

Also, the Iriquois gave the Europeans a way better run for their money

Originally posted by King Castle
i guess you are right.

that bear is like 12 seconds from being a carpet

the hopi, aztecs, mayans, incas had cities and towns equal if not surpassing many if the european towns/cities of the time.. so i seen on tv/learning channels and online.

http://picsicio.us/keyword/hopi%20shelter/

http://ele.n-polk.k12.ia.us/WebQuest/Aztec/DailylifeinAztecs.jpg

That's^ right.

When the Spaniards first entered Tenochtitlan, they thought it was more magnificent than Venice.

i watched online what ended up happening was that many europeans just took over the indian towns and cities and build over them or expanded them once the indians started dying off from diseases.

hence, loss of buildings and signs of a once advance civilization plus, the looting and will destruction of artifacts to hide evidence and change religion.

this pup just showed up the inuits
http://smartarch.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/iglo.jpg?w=450&h=434

This is where I chip in with the only conspiracy theory I think holds any weight based on evidence. That the Egyptians on the eastern side of the Altantic and the Mayans etc on the western side of the Atlantic are all descended from a common civilisation known now as Atlantis. The mid atlanti ridge is active enough to have made and destroyed islands somewhere along it considerable length where an advanced civilisation could once have existed.

Given that over 10,000 years have passed since the destruction of Atlantis (according to Plato) then it is likely that the vast majority of physical remains of Atlantis would have been either buried under silt or destroyed by further plate techtonics then it'll be damn difficult to definitively prove the existence of such a culture.

Personally though...I think we should start searching here.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=31.522361,-24.477539&spn=4.293184,5.916138&z=8

Originally posted by jaden101
This is where I chip in with the only conspiracy theory I think holds any weight based on evidence. That the Egyptians on the eastern side of the Altantic and the Mayans etc on the western side of the Atlantic are all descended from a common civilisation known now as Atlantis. The mid atlanti ridge is active enough to have made and destroyed islands somewhere along it considerable length where an advanced civilisation could once have existed.

Given that over 10,000 years have passed since the destruction of Atlantis (according to Plato) then it is likely that the vast majority of physical remains of Atlantis would have been either buried under silt or destroyed by further plate techtonics then it'll be damn difficult to definitively prove the existence of such a culture.

Personally though...I think we should start searching here.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=31.522361,-24.477539&spn=4.293184,5.916138&z=8



Considering that Plato was very clear about Atlantis not existing I'm going to have to call bullshit on that particular detail.

i just found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaPKNGXithQ&feature=related


European crossing the ice bridge and mixing with indigenous people making them our native ancestors..

saying like 25% is European DNA can be found in genetics of indian tribes,

that evidence was found in in new mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8obwteQyOuI&feature=related

so it basically saying natives are a mix of Asians and European type ppl.. but, its like whatever its not even a race by today's standard. they were paleo man.

imo its the same as us humans coming from africa.

yeh, it happen thousands upon thousands of year ago so does it really matter?

some of the evidence is kinda iffy since they are using arrow points as well.

Originally posted by King Castle


why does it seem we are missing so much history of an advance society who kept records?



Destruction of many great libraries over the centuries. In ancient times many records weren't copied so once the original(s) were lost it was lost forever. Most of the Egyptian history and mysteries was lost once the Romans conquered Egypt and destroyed the libraries of Alexandria. At the Time the Libraries of Alexandria held most of the significant records of the entire Western world. All of the Western civilizations greatest philosophical ideas, scientific theories and recorded history was erased in a night. Now, consider all of the other great libraries that were lost in other great wars and during the dark ages and that is one reason why we still know so little about the details of our past.

As to whether or not the Egyptians traveled to the Americas...,i think that can be aswered by saying no because they would have certainly colonized the land.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering that Plato was very clear about Atlantis not existing I'm going to have to call bullshit on that particular detail.

The Illuminati told him to say that

I saw something on the history channel were there were some ancient drawings of what seem to be like planes, well they created one exactly based on the drawings with the same dimensions and they actually fly, who knows what kind of tech the egypt had

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos




No. That's ridiculous.



check my post

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I saw something on the history channel were there were some ancient drawings of what seem to be like planes, well they created one exactly based on the drawings with the same dimensions and they actually fly, who knows what kind of tech the egypt had

Not planes, gliders. Models of gliders in fact. And even if they had built them (which I concede is unlikely, but not unreasonably so) using them to travel any distance would have been impossible due to Egypt being so incredibly flat.

Unless...

Maybe that is the true purpose of the pyramids. They just wanted something to jump off in order to have fun with their huge impractical gliders.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not planes, gliders. Models of gliders in fact. And even if they had built them (which I concede is unlikely, but not unreasonably so) using them to travel any distance would have been impossible due to Egypt being so incredibly flat.

Unless...

Maybe that is the true purpose of the pyramids. They just wanted something to jump off in order to have fun with their huge impractical gliders. they could of seriously used it to travel

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
they could of seriously used it to travel

Not very far, even then only from high up to low down.

And of course we've never found any of these gliders, just miniatures and schematics.

i heard that the pyramids were not build for king tombs its just that other dynasty used them as such but it was not the original purpose for them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not planes, gliders. Models of gliders in fact. And even if they had built them (which I concede is unlikely, but not unreasonably so) using them to travel any distance would have been impossible due to Egypt being so incredibly flat.

Unless...

Maybe that is the true purpose of the pyramids. They just wanted something to jump off in order to have fun with their huge impractical gliders.
No the pyramids were built as landing sites for Goa'uld motherships.

Obviously.

Originally posted by King Castle
i heard that the pyramids were not build for king tombs its just that other dynasty used them as such but it was not the original purpose for them.

So, how did the dynasty that used them as tombs get a sarcophagus into the king's chamber when it would never have fit through the openings?

are you implying the tombs were build around sarcophagus?

Originally posted by King Castle
are you implying the tombs were build around sarcophagus?

Of course not. They used teleprompters to put the sarcophagus in there.

cuckoo cuckoo..

anyways.. not even sure how they got lighting in there. i am assuming they had torches, air vents and whatnot.

plus, could have also build and worked on Sarcophagus while inside.

i think they may have actually just made their own limestone style cement and formed the blocks on site.

Originally posted by King Castle
are you implying the tombs were build around sarcophagus?

Yes

Originally posted by King Castle
cuckoo cuckoo..

anyways.. not even sure how they got lighting in there. i am assuming they had torches, air vents and whatnot.

Torches would get you killed without really great vents. When I was a kid Egytologists seem to think they used polished shields to reflect light down the shafts.

Originally posted by King Castle
i think they may have actually just made their own limestone style cement and formed the blocks on site.

The limestone seems like less of a problem than the sandstone.

that was the prevailing theory during the mummy movie phase.

i see it working for the 1st few rooms not so much after.

i really think that they made their own stone blocks via an ancient cement mixing.

it would answer a lot of questions.

Originally posted by King Castle
that was the prevailing theory during the mummy movie phase.

i see it working for the 1st few rooms not so much after.

i really think that they made their own stone blocks via an ancient cement mixing.

it would answer a lot of questions.

But we have found the quarry were they cut the stone from the bedrock. Did they do that just to fool us?

no, they still needed the ingredients.

Originally posted by King Castle
no, they still needed the ingredients.

Why would they cut out large blocks just to grind them into powder?

easier to transport.

plus a lot of the breaking and crumbling would be done regardness due to trying to quarry them.

Originally posted by King Castle
easier to transport.

plus a lot of the breaking and crumbling would be done regardness due to trying to quarry them.

Wouldn't it be easier to cut out smaller blocks? Big blocks are much harder to transport.

hence, they probably did.

but, at times it is more efficient to break a large block due to already cracks being there... and simply breaking it down later or to even smaller manageable pieces.

Originally posted by King Castle
hence, they probably did.

but, at times it is more efficient to break a large block due to already cracks being there... and simply breaking it down later or to even smaller manageable pieces.

Is there any evidence to support this idea?

yes, the quarry.

also common sense of construction workers/builders.

you know the cement concrete workers, brick layers and stone cutters.

Originally posted by King Castle
i really think that they made their own stone blocks via an ancient cement mixing.

it would answer a lot of questions.

On first blush I would say no. After all we know they had the means to move similarly sized granite blocks.

Looking again, the guy proposing it does seem legitimate and willing to admit he doesn't have everything he needs to prove the theory.

but we really dont know how they moved the stone blocks we have theories that dont make sense.

some say the used their ships to float them do the build site and then hauled it off by slaves..

others that they were rolled down to the site using logs but there were no forest to get them and it would be too much for a forest to support the required lvl of wood.

Originally posted by King Castle
but we really dont know how they moved the stone blocks we have theories that dont make sense.

some say the used their ships to float them do the build site and then hauled it off by slaves..

How does that not make sense?

Originally posted by King Castle
others that they were rolled down to the site using logs but there were no forest to get them and it would be too much for a forest to support the required lvl of wood.

The concrete theory requires tremendous amounts of wood in order to work. Rollers have the advantage of being reusable.

no, they would not be re usable and making carts would be more reusable then a log supporting tons of weight.

the rolling log theory is the most absurd theory ever proposed.

there was no near by forest or sufficient wood at the time. logs dont have the strength to continuously support the weight of stone blocks used by Egyptians at the time.

for the boat theory to work we need to factor in the time frame and how feasible it would be to transport stone blocks at one time per ship.

it would be a constant river traffic jam. by the way it takes a thousands slaves just to move one large stone.

if you want answers about building dont ask a scientist, anthropologist or archeologist ask construction workers and architect

the concrete theory is actually the most realistic one require the least amount of expended resources and that is adding the amount of ships required and wood logs to roll them.

If you're talking about the wooden-ramp idea, it really falls flat due to the size the ramp would have to be once they built about half-way up the pyramid due to the angle of slope they would have needed to achieve. It would have been a colossal project in of itself,, equaling the pyramid, a several mile long ramp.

Wooden scaffolding, plus rope, plus thousands and thousands of slaves seems more plausible in lifting and placing these hundred ton stone , then rolling.

Edit: Though I guess a combo of scaffolding and smaller ramp and rollers could have been it too, maybe swtiching mid-point in the constuction.

Weren't they free men who were paid?

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're talking about the wooden-ramp idea, it really falls flat due to the size the ramp would have to be once they built about half-way up the pyramid due to the angle of slope they would have needed to achieve. It would have been a colossal project in of itself,, equaling the pyramid, a several mile long ramp.

Wooden scaffolding, plus rope, plus thousands and thousands of slaves seems more plausible in lifting and placing these hundred ton stone , then rolling. yes, to an extend minus a few irregularities and logic gaps.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Weren't they free men who were paid?

I'm sure the artisans and engineers were free and being paid, but most think the main force of hard-labor was provided by slaves, namely the Jews.

There is a theory based on certain biblical translation that supports that the Jewish tribes weren't slaves, but hired as day laborers by the Pharaohs.

also if they were paid it was mostly done by food...

beer and dried fish.

Originally posted by King Castle
yes, to an extend minus a few irregularities and logic gaps.

They would also have had access to domesticated animals to supply pulling and lifting force. Horses, oxes/water-buffalo, elephants, to name some.

youtube video talking about the pyramids dispels some of the building theories just being absurd. regardless of the PHD a person is holding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCpNr5EMMJw&NR=1

just ignore the title of teh video and listen to the ppl talking about how it could be done or not be done.

Originally posted by King Castle
no, they would not be re usable and making carts would be more reusable then a log supporting tons of weight.

Not the carts, you need to burn coal to get the natron ingredient.

And why would logs suddenly cease to be logs once you roll them around?

Originally posted by King Castle
the rolling log theory is the most absurd theory ever proposed.

there was no near by forest or sufficient wood at the time. logs dont have the strength to continuously support the weight of stone blocks used by Egyptians at the time.

Techniques like it seem to have been used all over the world.

Originally posted by King Castle
for the boat theory to work we need to factor in the time frame and how feasible it would be to transport stone blocks at one time per ship.

it would be a constant river traffic jam.

Yeah, it's pretty amazing. Why is your solution to this problem to have the Egyptians gather and trasnport an even greater amount of materials?

Originally posted by King Castle
by the way it takes a thousands slaves just to move one large stone.

Not slaves, paid workers. And yes they had thousands of them. We even found the places where they lived.

Originally posted by King Castle
if you want answers about building dont ask a scientist, anthropologist or archeologist ask construction workers and architect

Josepgy Davidovits is a chemist . . .

Many of his critics are in fact engineers, but mostly they're petrologists (ie people who a train in the study of rocks and rock formation).

Originally posted by King Castle
the concrete theory is actually the most realistic one require the least amount of expended resources and that is adding the amount of ships required and wood logs to roll them.

Even though chemically the stones don't seem to be a form of concrete? Even though they were able to move even larger blocks of granite?

The simplest explanation is only the best one if the evidence doesn't contradict it.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're talking about the wooden-ramp idea, it really falls flat due to the size the ramp would have to be once they built about half-way up the pyramid due to the angle of slope they would have needed to achieve. It would have been a colossal project in of itself,, equaling the pyramid, a several mile long ramp.

Wooden scaffolding, plus rope, plus thousands and thousands of slaves seems more plausible in lifting and placing these hundred ton stone , then rolling.

Edit: Though I guess a combo of scaffolding and smaller ramp and rollers could have been it too, maybe swtiching mid-point in the constuction.

No scaffolding needed. The mainstream theory is that they piled up sand, mud and waste material from the construction project then laid wooden planks along the top. Not a major technological feat.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No scaffolding needed. The mainstream theory is that they piled up sand, mud and waste material from the construction project then laid wooden planks along the top. Not a major technological feat.

Would have been rather massive, no? Especially as they got closer and closer to the top, these piles of earth and such.

Seems scaffolding (logs, planks and rope) would require far less material, considering they could have broken down sections and moved it around as needed, but I'm a laymen.

Originally posted by Robtard
Would have been rather massive, no? Especially as they got closer and closer to the top, these piles of earth and such.

Seems scaffolding (logs, planks and rope) would require far less material, considering they could have broken down sections and moved it around as needed, but I'm a laymen.

This is Egypt. See the foreground there? Dirt. See the city of Cairo in the back? Before it was there that was all dirt.

Of course that's just for the "long ramp" version. If they decided to twist their way around the sides scaffolding would probably be easier to work with.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is Egypt. See the foreground there? Dirt. See the city of Cairo in the back? Before it was there that was all dirt.

Of course that's just for the "long ramp" version. If they decided to twist their way around the sides scaffolding would probably be easier to work with.

Not questioning the supply of dirt, but the scope of work required to build and then take down these massive dirt mounds/ramps.

Be like building another Pyramid or two in terms of labor.

here is another link about the pyramid building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDLjd2CZYt8

Originally posted by Robtard
Not questioning the supply of dirt, but the scope of work required to build and then take down these massive dirt mounds/ramps.

Be like building another Pyramid or two in terms of labor.

Heterodotus says they used 100,000 people.

Let's say they had a third that number available all carrying 20lb bags.

The NIST gives an average of 120lb per cubic foot for dirt. That's 5500 cubic feet of building material every few hours.

10 meters wide. 5 degree angle. Let's call it 85, 90, 5. 146 meters tall. That's 1675 meters long and 1668 meters at the bottom.

So 121763 * 10 = 1217630m^3

So those guys would all have to make 7818 trips in the course of 30 years. Not even one trip per person per day.

Originally posted by Robtard
Be like building another Pyramid or two in terms of labor.

even if that were true, that is more of a criticism of the practicallity of the pyrimids than it is an argument against some type of ramp construction

though, at the end of the day, you are probably right that they used some series of different methods depending on what they were doing.

Originally posted by King Castle
cuckoo cuckoo..

anyways.. not even sure how they got lighting in there. i am assuming they had torches, air vents and whatnot.

plus, could have also build and worked on Sarcophagus while inside.

i think they may have actually just made their own limestone style cement and formed the blocks on site.

Built what? It's a solid piece of rock. Are you saying the stones in the pyramids are some sort of cast cement?

What always amazed me about the Mesoamerican pyrmaids was the fact that the Mayans and Aztecs never had the wheel, yet they were still able to transport all that material and built those massive buildings.

Then you're equally impressed by the same feat having been performed by the ancient Egyptians?

i climbed the step of the pyramid of the sun and moon(aztec)

those steps are steep almost vertical.. F'n dangerous.

http://images.travelpod.com/users/ccheng/latin_america07.1198642620.steep_steps_1.jpg

not me by the way just wanted to show them.

I've been there too, it's pretty amazing.

its the Mecca for the brown ppl of the americas.. Nican Tlaca.



red_indiansombrero2

So, how about that pesky piece of solid granite?

Sad. Do you want to know anything about the threads you post, or are you just interested in spamming?