My proposed explanation for the great pyramids.

[Stealth]

Focusing Reflector

There was a scientist,I can't remeber his name at the moment, who built an exact replica of the pyramid in his back yard. I think it was on a 500th scale. He did all kinds of experiments with it. I can't remeber what his theory was for daytime use, but night time use was as a giant telescope. He claimed the Egytians, or someone before them, had laid out grids on the surrounding land and had filled them with water, blackened with oil or tar, to use as a reflector.When the top cap was installed on his pyramid, he could reflect the entire visible universe onto the surrounding land. He also claimed that the Egytians used this layout to measure accurately the distance betwen each star or galaxie. He claimed the Egytians actually walked among the stars. It was as if looking into the water at a bright full moon,where you can see intricate details. He also claimed that during daytime, the light from the pyramids could be seen as far away as Israel. I will try to find his name in my research files when I get time. Good Luck. Stealth

[rickoff]

More about the concave surfaces of the Great Pyramid

I pointed out in a previous post that an aerial photo of the Great Pyramid, taken in 1940, showed definitive proof that the 4 exterior faces were constructed slightly concave. This wasn't the first case in which the concaved faces were discovered and noted, though. In 1881, William Flinders Petrie, a professional surveyor, had noticed this. And much earlier, around 1798, one of Napoleon's scientists had made note of this in a sketch that he had drawn at the site. The concavity at the center of each face measures about 37 inches in relation to the outer corners. Theories abound as to the possible reasons for incorporating the concave faces into the pyramid's design, but to date none of these has proven a satisfactory explanation. Perhaps that is because these theories are based upon thoughts that the purpose was to stengthen the structure, when it is more likely that it served an entirely different function. We know the outer surface was gleaming white, and highly polished, presumably for reflective properties. But why made concave, rather than flat? I may be wrong, but the only answer that makes sense to me is that these concave sides were used to focus something. For example, sunlight reflected and focused into a converging beam of tremendous intensity which could have been utilized for a number of purposes. Or, the focusing of communication signals for sending or receiving, to or from other points on Earth or elsewhere. Or perhaps used for the focusing of some other high energy device. Until and unless we know for certain, one hypothesis is as valid as another. The only thing we can be certain of is that the designers and constructors of the Great Pyramid had a definite purpose in mind, and that they carried out this design aspect, in spite of the enormous degree of difficulty that it presented, and with an extraordinary degree of precision.

Rick

[Jbignes5]

Again I guess...

I won't beat this to death and I'll attempt to give you the supporting links as well...

World Mysteries - Mystic Places - The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt

This is a good page on the exact nature of the pyramids. Mind you pay attention to the words "Unique" and never seen before in pyramid building.


Anchorage Daily News - Google News Archive Search
Anchorage Daily News - Google News Archive Search
These links talking about the drilling in the pyramid.

http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/OsirisTomb1.htm

This is the link to the wall they built around the pyramid and to all the other discoveries that they don't want us to see...
I will add more links as I go...

[ANTIQUER]

Understanding

Hi Jbignes5;

I'm sorry you are having trouble understanding my postings. I try to make them as clear as I can without being too long. Perhaps English is not your native language?
I will try again;

So are you implying you or anyone else are the "Egyptians" who knew perfectly well what these pictures are saying in the context of their language at that time? If as you say these pictures were written later after the Pyramids were built then how could they have been done as the pyramid was built in full light? Your explanation contradict your other explanations.

There is no contradiction, only a lack of understanding. The Pyramids were built during the Old Kingdom in Egyptian history, the Great Pyramid was finished in about 2560 BC.
The temple of Hathor at Dendura was built in 54 BC, 2500 years later, by Ptolemeius XII.
During those 2500 years the Egyptian mythology changed, new gods were added and some were absorbed by other gods.This created new gods with characteristics of both the gods involved. This makes it hard to follow the evolution of their mythology unless you wish to spend a lot of time learning it.
Also during this 2500 years new symbols were added to the approx. 800 symbols that were used originally.
By the time the Temple of Hathor was built there were approx. 5000 new symbols, some of which appear in this temple,like the symbol of the god Harsomtus ( the snake). In the Old Kingdom (2550 BC) symbols it definitely looked like a cobra; by now (32 BC) it was a simple wavy line.

The symbols in this temple which picture the so called Dendura Light do not appear anytime before this temple was built, so even if it was a light bulb it did not exist when The Great Pyramid was built.

The pyramids were built in the exact center of the land mass there. They are not only on the exact center of the land mass they are in the exact position of the magnetic lei lines that are there as well. Meaning they knew about the lei lines and about the center of the landmass when it was built. This infers that they knew about magnetics and about complex geometries that they shouldn't have had knowledge of.

The Pyramids were built on the outskirts of Cairo, just as cemetaries now and in the past are built near the edge of town. They were aligned north-to-south using constellations and stars as they new about astronomy and used stars and constellations to navigate, not compasses as magnetics were unknown to them. There may also have been religious reasons for this alignment.

The fact the pyramids are in the center of the land mass or on lay lines is coincidental. I welcome any factual evidence to the contrary. To claim there is an inference there is not proof, only speculation.

You say the pyramids were built before the pictures were put on the walls and you believe they were masterfully etched and painted after that building. Meaning they tried to explain stuff a long time after they forgot a lot of what it was they were trying to explain.

No,what I am trying to explain is that as they built the pyramid, when they got to the place where the tomb was, they stopped building in that area as soon as the tomb walls were finished. Then they brought in the artisans to chisel and and color the pictures, etc. Then when they were finished the roof of the tomb was put on and the building of the pyramid continued in that area.

When you want to show a smaller item in a depiction of the apparatus in our current society we enlarge the picture of the item we want to show. This is what I think anyone would do. The size is irrelevant but the picture is very very important.

The"bulb" is enlarged as it is the central theme of the picture and therefore enlarged for emphasis. Then they had to reduce the size of the other symbols to fit in the space they had. If you tried to post pictures here they won't come through, so please post links to them.

Since they were not in use they were in the storage mode. This implies that they did this to store the batteries and the substance they used was to prevent oxidation of the metals before usage. That is not that far of a stretch. I don't believe they were closed in any way. after the seal was broken on them (coating). I would have to see the exact item to know for sure. I am not arguing that the batteries were useful what I am arguing is that in that configuration it wouldn't take much to make a battery.

As I said previously; "Whatever they were used for they are from a time period (app. 250BC-275 AD) way after the Giza pyramids were built." So like the "bulb" they came along 2500 years after the pyramids were built.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the soot discussion. We all agree the soot was caused by people entering the tombs long after they were built and sealed; they used torches or smoky kerosene lights and left soot on the ceilings and walls.
As to the oil lamps any oil residue would be in the lamps where the oil was. If any was spilled it would have evaporated or been absorbed by all the dust and/or covered up by debris long ago. They would only have used them for short intervals, as during the actual entombment or related rituals, not a very long time.

I was talking about the Cayce predictions about a room that was hidden. They even drilled the wall there and sand came out of it. If you don't know about the Cayce prediction they maybe you should look it up. It is yet another piece of the puzzle that most don't like to look at.

I have tried to look it up. It is just another false rumor. Here is the actual "Reading" from 1932;

Edgar Cayce - Great Pyramid and Sphinx Reading from 1932
No mention of a door and there is no mention of drilling a door in the great pyramid and sand coming out that I can find. If you or anyone has info. on this I would love to see it.
All that came of this was some testing around the paws of the Sphinx which did not reveal any hidden rooms. There was supposedly a telecast by NBC(I think) which claimed someone had found a new tunnel opening under the rear of the Sphinx, but nothing has come of it.

The problem is you do rely on others opinions about it. Anything outside of those accepted theories you shoot down as nonsense. Instead of looking for the facts, you never question the intent of the controllers in this instance.

These controllers I am talking about are the ones who just about made it impossible to go to the pyramids now. No one is allowed to go there anymore and when they are allowed it is only a very very small group of select people. Access is being restricted for a reason and not because the pyramids are falling apart either. I believe they will still be there after we have gone.
You know it is funny but they restore everything around the pyramids except for the pyramid itself. Why is that? Are they making sure it is in the condition that makes it easier to call it unsafe? What are they hiding?

Access to the pyramids has been restricted for various reasons including, but not limited to cleaning which is done on a scheduled, rotational basis, fears of terrorist attacks, sudden observance of a religious holiday normally overlooked, politics within the Egyptian Antiquities Authority and the whims of its director
Dr. Zawi Hawass.

Graham Hancock

What have they restored around the pyramids? How and to what extent would you restore the pyramids? They have not claimed them to be unsafe that I know of as they still want the tourist's dollars. As far as I can find there are no current restrictions on visiting the pyramids.

Until next time,

Al

[rickoff]

Hi Al,

My answers to your post, shown below, are embedded in blue text:

Quote Rick:
As I see it, the inscriptions on pyramid walls could just as well have been added by the Egyptians thousands of years after the pyramids were built, and therefore what is written and pictured there may only be their crude attempt at explaining things they did not understand - stories that were passed down from generation to generation.

There are many reasons I don't that is the case.
1. Why would they go to the trouble of going back into a sealed tomb to add all that over several centuries? What would have been their motivation?
As I mentioned early on, I do not subscribe to the theory that the Giza pyramid was built as a tomb. I believe it was built, or at least surely designed, around 10,500 BC, because that was the time when the constellation it was based on would have perfectly matched the layout at Giza. If the pyramid complex was built around 2500 BC, as popular belief would have it, then why wouldn't the layout have matched the Orion constellation position for that time period? It doesn't. I say that the Egyptians, several thousand years later, used the pyramid to entomb their regal dead, and then sealed the chambers.

2. There are several ways authorities can tell the age of inscriptions and if they are fake or added to. No one has ever suggested that that I know of.
So how old do they say the inscriptions are? Somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 BC? If so, and if correct, that would point to the inscriptions having been made 7,500 to 8,500 years after the pyramid complex was designed, and more likely constructed.

3. This is not like writing graffiti on a wall with a marker. This work takes a skilled artisan and takes time, plus they need light and would in many cases be working in stifling heat and humidity. The original artisans did not have as severe conditions as they did their work before the top was put on, so they had light and air. Who knows, maybe they even had someone waving a fan on them.
Yes, it takes a lot of time, and they certainly had plenty of that. I don't think that heat would have been much of a problem. The so called "Queen's Chamber," for example, remains at a nearly constant 69 degrees Farenheit. You know how your cellar stays relatively cool on a stifling hot summer day, and the interior of the pyramid would be much the same. Cool air from the lower chambers could have circulated throughout the upper chambers that the Egyptians used for the entombing, before being sealed off. Furthermore, the polished white exterior facings of the pyramid would have reflected exterior heat away from the structire, rather than absorbing it. And I expect that lighting would not have been a problem, either. There is a great deal of evidence to support the theory that the pyramid was used for electrical power generation and Hydrogen production, both which could have been used for lighting. Have you had time to check out the "Giza Power Plant" video that I referenced earlier? I think you would find it very interesting, if not compelling. It is possible that these power sources were still at least partially functional during the early Egyptian era. Then again, if they were not available, or if the Egyptians didn't understand how they could be used, perhaps they made use of chemiluminescence, such as is used in the popular "light sticks." These use a mix of diphenyl oxalate and Hydrogen peroxide to produce a light emitting chemical reaction that requires no power source. Of course other compounds could be used to produce a similar effect, and also a brighter effect than common light sticks. Incidentally, the largest modern "light stick" was 8ft 4 inches in length and made in 2009.

Last, there is no evidence of this. Surely there would be some mention of this somewhere , as I think this would be considered desecration of a tomb and be subject to a lot of outcry.
The evidence of the inscriptions having been made long after the design and construction of the pyramid complex is based upon the complex existing thousands of years before either the inscriptions were made or the structure became used as a tomb.

I agree it is difficult to accept in our "modern" society that these Herculean projects could have been built in the time frame specified with what we know of their technology. But I think we fail to take into account what brute force coupled with simple ingenuity can accomplish as we have become too accustomed to using such machines as huge cranes to do our construction work.

Masada is a good example of this "brute force technology".

Masada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in about a year, during which time they performed several assaults on the fortress, they also built a 30 foot tall ramp atop a naturally occurring "ramp" along with an encampment, assorted fortifications, and walls surrounding everything, which required moving thousands of tons of rock and dirt by hand.
Yes, a 30 foot tall ramp, and a one meter high circumvallation wall, but that is miniscule compared to what would have been required at Giza.

Another example is the Pantheon in Rome;

Wow! How did they load these monsters onto ships, then transfer them to barges, then drag them uphill 700 meters to the building site? The ships and barges on their own must have been impressive for that time period.
Perhaps the details of Egyptian pyramid construction were still known to them? In any event this is a truly remarkable building. I have read that the original dome was one piece with no seams and it was unknown how they did that.
Yes, a remarkable building for sure, although twice rebuilt and not of the engineering caliber or lasting quality of the Giza pyramid. The last construction was in 126AD, perhaps 2,500 to 3,000 years after the early Egyptian era, and you would expect that they would have acquired newer technology and better ways of doing things than the Egyptians knew of. Wheels, manufacturing methods, force multiplying apparatus, etc. The Romans borrowed much of what they knew about construction from the Greeks, of course, and we know there isn't much that remains of Greek architecture.

The pyramid complexes, especially those in Egypt and Mexico, are of a different class alltogether. Built thousands of years ago, and mostly remaining intact despite all that nature could throw their way. To me, that is far more remarkable than any structures built by the Greeks or Romans.

I'm sure you know all the proposals on how the ramps were constructed and the huge blocks moved, and I agree we don't know exactly how it was done yet. Hopefully further discoveries will turn up the answers. In the meantime I will continue to go with the bulk of the evidence that says they did it in this manner, we just aren't sure exactly how.
That's fine with me, Al, and I'm sure you won't mind if I choose to reject the common viewpoint and continue to believe as I do. Aside from the popular assumptions, which certainly aren't conclusive, there are other theories that could just as well explain how the massive blocks were moved and placed. One is that the advanced beings who designed and constructed the pyramids may have used the same anti-gravity or gravitational distortion technology that is used by alien spacecraft for maneuvering. Another theory is that the pyramids, and other early structures, were built by giants. I'm open to just about anything that sounds reasonable, but you and I will just have to agree to disagree on the Egyptian theory. Maybe someday the actual construction plans, and the story of those who designed them, will be recovered, and that would be great. I doubt that will happen in our lifetimes, though.

Quote Rick:
Consider that each stone was prepared so accurately that even a thin knife blade can not be inserted between adjacent blocks.

I think Gattenbirk answered that with his explanation of shoving two blocks together as close as possible, then sawing down the joint which left both sides the same (matching). Of course, they may have had to remove the saw, shove them together again, and repeat until the match was perfect.
I think that's a stretch of imagination. Think of the problems - the rapid dulling of the saw blade, twisting of the blade, the length of blade that would have been used, the pinching between the stones, the time involved in carrying out such an imperfect process, etc. Highly unlikely.

Quote Rick:
What isn't generally known about this exterior surface, is that each of the four sides was engineered to be slightly concave, and this means that no two stones on each face or course were made exactly alike. The geometry of each piece would have had to be determined very carefully, and each stone laid out and milled to laser precision specifications.

I don't see how you could have two concave surfaces facing each other without there being a crack that was larger in the middle? I would think one would have to be convex, one concave to fit together tightly? I'd be interested in reading your source for that if you have a link or something.
Two concave surfaces facing each other? No, I said each of the four sides, or exterior faces, were slightly concave. Here's a link to information about that, a factor first discovered in 1940 from an aerial photo:
Concave GP Faces

See also this link, which speaks not only of the concave faces, but of many other interesting facts, and the evidence concerning the actual age of the pyramid complex and Sphinx being dated to 10,500BC.
Illuminating the Mysteries of the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx


Best regards,

Rick

[HairBear]

You may want to archive this!

This was hosted @ geocities before it went bye bye. I have it saved myself but I would like to let people know this may disappear some day. If it weren't for The Way Back Machine, it would probably been lost. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

How to Build a Flying Saucer

[HairBear]

Grid Harmonics & Levitation in Tibet, Coral Castle, anti-gravity, Labyrinthina, Nazca, Crop Circles

[Jbignes5]

[Cloxxki]

After reading about hugely long gently sloped ramps that may have been built just to push up the heaviest blocks to the top, I just had a small epiphany.
Winches. Low-tech, high-strength, low speed.
I bet I could design a winch made of material available 2000BC, that can drag any sized rock up any sized structure. You can always make a stronger cable, a ticker log as axle, even multiple axles, and use a smaller gear ratio by adding pulleys. In theory AND practice, one man could winch up a 150 tonne block, with his pinky. One thing the Egyptians would have it, is time, and man power. Placing the top blocks would not make for great live television for sure. One frame per half hour might make it an even worth watching.
We'd be insulting the ancient Egyptians to suggest they didn't have the inventions of the winch and pulleys yet, when they possibly did apparently have barges and metal tools to even roughly produce square rocks. Like a 4000AD society questionning whether our cars needed to be bump-started each time, deduced from the fact that for some reason we used the same clumsy basic type of engine for over a century.

[ANTIQUER]

But the simple fact of the matter is that they indeed had batteries.

No, they did not have batteries. In the so-called "Baghdad Batteries" the metal iron rod and the copper cylinder were coated with bitumen which would have insulated them and prevented any contact with the grape juice or any other electrolyte, so no current could have been produced. Also, a reaction would have required oxygen and as the container was also sealed with asphalt (bitumen) no oxygen (air) was available.

Non-Electrical Theory
Skeptical archaeologists see the electrical experiments as embodying a key problem with experimental archaeology; such experiments can only show that something was physically possible, they say nothing about whether it actually occurred. Further, there are many difficulties with the interpretation of these artifacts as galvanic cells:

* The asphalt completely covers the copper cylinder, electrically insulating it, so no current can be drawn without modifying the design;
* There are not any wires or conductors with them;
* No widely accepted electrical equipment is associated with them (though controversial stone reliefs depicting arc lights have been suggested);
* An asphalt seal, being thermoplastic, is excellent for forming a hermetic seal for long term storage. It would be extremely inconvenient however for a galvanic cell, which would require frequent topping up of the electrolyte (if they were intended for extended use

Full article here;
Skeptic World - Baghdad Battery

They could have been for plating of gold as far as I would know from the evidence in their society. But the simple fact of the matter is that they indeed had batteries.

There has never been a gold-plated object found from ancient Egypt.

If you read down this account of the discovery of the pyramids you will start to see where the original soot came from that you use as an argument. It was our own intrusion into the pyramids that deposited the soot. If the Egyptians had done so it would have been discovered not

This is a theory that probably will never see the light of day since it would prove that they the Egyptians at the time had nothing to do with the making of the pyramids.

I'm not sure what theory you mean here. I don't see what that "door" (which I prefer to call a plug as it is only 8"x 8") has to do with proving the Egyptians did not build the pyramids, if that's what you mean. Maybe the details of building the pyramid are behind it? Actually I think it may be the last of a series of plugs used to keep construction debris from falling down the shaft, the others having been removed as they built upwards and were no longer needed. Since we don't even know the purpose of the shafts one guess is as good as another.

If you don't start to look at all of the explanations and just cherry pick them to your liking then you will never know the truth.

I don't cherry pick, I do look at as much data and/or opinions as I can find or have former knowledge of and post them/it in support of the post, just as I have done here. I do not post theories or statements based on pseudo-science which can easily be shown to be false as is the case with the Baghdad Batteries and the Lights of the Pharoahs.The only way to form an opinion on what is true is to discard nonsense such as this as part of the process.

Best wishes in your pursuit of the truth,

Al

[jtstatic]

I don't see light bulbs in the pictures, IMO it's more likely associated with the knowledge of lifting heavy things..

Serpent, IMO, is the analogy for wavelike structure of matter.

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Rick;

As I see it, the inscriptions on pyramid walls could just as well have been added by the Egyptians thousands of years after the pyramids were built, and therefore what is written and pictured there may only be their crude attempt at explaining things they did not understand - stories that were passed down from generation to generation.

There are many reasons I don't that is the case.
1. Why would they go to the trouble of going back into a sealed tomb to add all that over several centuries? What would have been their motivation?
2. There are several ways authorities can tell the age of inscriptions and if they are fake or added to. No one has ever suggested that that I know of.

3. This is not like writing graffiti on a wall with a marker. This work takes a skilled artisan and takes time, plus they need light and would in many cases be working in stifling heat and humidity. The original artisans did not have as severe conditions as they did their work before the top was put on, so they had light and air. Who knows, maybe they even had someone waving a fan on them.

Last, there is no evidence of this. Surely there would be some mention of this somewhere , as I think this would be considered desecration of a tomb and be subject to a lot of outcry.

I agree it is difficult to accept in our "modern" society that these Herculean projects could have been built in the time frame specified with what we know of their technology.But I think we fail to take into account what brute force coupled with simple ingenuity can accomplish as we have become to accustomed to using such machines as huge cranes to do our construction work.

Masada is a good example of this "brute force technology".

Masada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in about a year, during which time they performed several assaults on the fortress, they also built a 30 foot tall ramp atop a naturally occurring "ramp" along with an encampment, assorted fortifications, and walls surrounding everything, which required moving thousands of tons of rock and dirt by hand.

Another example is the Pantheon in Rome;

Pantheon, Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow! How did they load these monsters onto ships, then transfer them to barges, then drag them uphill 700 meters to the building site? The ships and barges on their own must have been impressive for that time period.
Perhaps the details of Egyptian pyramid construction were still known to them?
In any event this is a truly remarkable building. I have read that the original dome was one piece with no seams and it was unknown how they did that. More details here;

The Pantheon by David Moore

Further, much of the construction evidence has been lost and continues to be lost as Gattenbirk states:

I'm sure you know all the proposals on how the ramps were constructed and the huge blocks moved, and I agree we don't know exactly how it was done yet. Hopefully further discoveries will turn up the answers. In the meantime I will continue to go with the bulk of the evidence that says they did it in this manner, we just aren't sure exactly how.

Consider that each stone was prepared so accurately that even a thin knife blade can not be inserted between adjacent blocks.

I think Gattenbirk answered that with his explanation of shoving two blocks together as close as possible, then sawing down the joint which left both sides the same (matching). Of course, they may have had to remove the saw, shove them together again, and repeat until the match was perfect.

What isn't generally known about this exterior surface, is that each of the four sides was engineered to be slightly concave, and this means that no two stones on each face or course were made exactly alike. The geometry of each piece would have had to be determined very carefully, and each stone laid out and milled to laser precision specifications.

I don't see how you could have two concave surfaces facing each other without there being a crack that was larger in the middle? I would think one would have to be convex, one concave to fit together tightly? I'd be interested in reading your source for that if you have a link or something.

Best regards to you also,

Al

[rickoff]

They wrote down their symbols for exactly what they wanted to express.....the complete translation from the text on the four walls, which explains clearly what the glyphs are picturing. -
Al

Hi Al,

As I see it, the inscriptions on pyramid walls could just as well have been added by the Egyptians thousands of years after the pyramids were built, and therefore what is written and pictured there may only be their crude attempt at explaining things they did not understand - stories that were passed down from generation to generation.

How the massive blocks were raised to the height of the rising pyramid is not understood for certain. Earthen ramps were used at least in the initial stages of construction...... The ramps were made of brick or earth and rubble dressed with brick for strength. They were built up as the pyramid progressed upward, and removed as the pyramid was finished downward.

The ramps likely took the form of an inclined plane at the beginning of work, but the configuration in later stages has long been a matter of conjecture.....

As to the quarrying, moving and placing of stones, explanations such as the above quotes offer no viable explanation at all, other than to surmise how the lowest courses of stones could have been moved into place. Yes, it is possible that a massive block could could be dragged along level ground, and that alone would have been quite a feat. As soon as you begin to incline that movement, however, the force required to accomplish any movement is then multiplied greatly, according to the amount of incline. I think you would agree that in order to avoid a steep incline, the ramp would have had to be a very long one with just a slight incline, let's say 5 degrees for example. As each course of stones was laid, a flat plateau would have had to been raised around the pyramid to the height of the previous stone block layer, and the ramp leading to that plateau would have had to be raised and lengthened accordingly. The original height of the Giza pyramid was 480.57 feet, and thus the ramp leading to that level of plateau would have been close to the same height, and would have been a length nearly ten times that of the pyramid's height, or nearly 9/10 of a mile. The size of an earthen mound capable of supporting a ramp of that length and height would have been gargantuan, and would have dwarfed the actual pyramid structure. Furthermore, both the ramp and plateau surfaces would have had to be very firm and very smooth to allow for stable movement of the massive blocks with the least possible friction. This entire concept really just isn't plausible.

And then we have the blocks themselves to consider. A link that you earlier provided stated that, "An estimated 2.4 million blocks were used in the construction. High quality limestone was used for the outer casing, with some of the blocks weighing up to 15 tons. This limestone came from Tura, about 14 km away on the other side of the Nile. Granite quarried nearly 800 km away in Aswan with blocks weighing as much as 60-80 tons, was used for the King's Chamber and relieving chambers.
The total mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tons with a volume (including an internal hillock) believed to be 2,600,000 cubic metres."

Let's recap:

• 2.4 million blocks required, with a total mass of 5.9 million tons
• outer casing limestone blocks of up to 15 tons each, quarried and moved 14km (nearly 9 miles)
• interior granite blocks of up to 60-80 tons each, quarried and moved 800 km (nearly 500 miles)

See the enormous obstacles to any and all phases of construction, other than to an extremely advanced civilization possessing very advanced knowledge and technology? The above does not even take into account the fact that the entire structure, and each of its singular parts, was built with laser precision, and laid out in perfect relationship alignment (that existed over 10,000 years ago) to constellations, and this by a people still living in the Stone Age? Consider that each stone was prepared so accurately that even a thin knife blade can not be inserted between adjacent blocks. And most amazing of all was the precision milling of the outermost casing blocks that formed a gleaming white, polished surface. These stones were made to sit upon the stepped stones of the pyramid's exterior, and were precisely angled to form a smooth slope. What isn't generally known about this exterior surface, is that each of the four sides was engineered to be slightly concave, and this means that no two stones on each face or course were made exactly alike. The geometry of each piece would have had to be determined very carefully, and each stone laid out and milled to laser precision specifications.

So you see, Al, that's why I just cannot accept any theory concerning the pyramids which is not based upon design, manufacturing methods, and construction methods of a very highly advanced civilization. The construction of the Giza pyramid would be a highly complicated project even with today's equipment and technology. To think that this all could have been accomplished in just 20 years time with any amount of manpower, and with the skill level of Stone Age stone masons is at best inconceivable to me, and I can't imagine how anyone or anything could persuade me to think otherwise. So to me it doesn't matter if even 98% of people accept and believe the prevailing explanations. Sorry, but I can not. I don't mind being within the 2% who believe otherwise, though. In fact, that seems to be the story of my life, lol.

Best regards to you Al, and to everyone who enters here,

Rick

[Jbignes5]

You are arguing without evidence.

You are saying that others who couldn't understand what they plainly put down in pictures are correct. You rely on their interpretation that they would have needed two wires to complete the circuit. However on this forum it has been shown that indeed we can now light a light bulb with one wire. <-Proof that two wires need not be used. Although they had batteries I highly doubt they used them for lights. When I mentioned the batteries I did not mention there usage. They could have been for plating of gold as far as I would know from the evidence in their society. But the simple fact of the matter is that they indeed had batteries.
The pyramid was their major power source. what we are finding out about this other natural form of energy is that you only need one wire to transmit the potential as seen on this forum. The other potential is already present everywhere. It would radiate the natural energy and if done at the correct frequency with the right materials it could in fact be a brilliant white light.
So you can point to people who don't or will never understand what is presented to them but you can not focus your search for the truth on just a small little spot. You will miss everything that tells you who is correct. And to put it plain and simple you will never find anything unless you look outside the box they are trying to tell you to look in.
That's why I said that you have to look at everything from every time to connect the dots. I mean what if they did have a higher technology. What if this technology was so simple that it mirrors the natural way of potentials. What if all the others were viewing this evidence with blinders on. What if they were wrong all along.
We are missing a great discovery because we(you) refuse to do some work yourself and rely on others to tell you what it presented to you. I am guilty of this aspect as well since I am trying to argue the opposite side on this. But this is stuff I and others have found themselves. Not from others telling us what we are seeing but by pure discovery in our own way.
I bet if you actually look at all the pictures of the men who first opened the pyramids you would find that they themselves contaminated the area with soot because they used torches at first.
The Pyramid of Khufu at Giza in Egypt, An Introduction
If you read down this account of the discovery of the pyramids you will start to see where the original soot came from that you use as an argument. It was our own intrusion into the pyramids that deposited the soot. If the Egyptians had done so it would have been discovered not only on the surface but deep into the structures.

This is a theory that probably will never see the light of day since it would prove that they the Egyptians at the time had nothing to do with the making of the pyramids. Other then living around them and using the power they received.
What will be behind Gantenbrink's door? - Christopher Dunn

If you don't start to look at all of the explanations and just cherry pick them to your liking then you will never know the truth.

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Sucahyo;

Thanks for the links to Haramien video's, I'll try to watch them this weekend.

As to interpretations:

What if that light like symbol is only the way they can write what they want to express?

They wrote down their symbols for exactly what they wanted to express;

The meaning of the reliefs:

The text, which belongs to the relief, explains all its parts showing only the new year topics shown above. The main theme is the sun having its last day in the old year and its first morning in the new year. We can read this clearly enough: "Resomtus alive with gloss in the sky (and) lives at the day of the New Year celebration". That is in a way the heading of the whole scene.

The oval which contains the snake is according to some authors a light bulb and the snake a light filament. Apart from the fact that snakes in Egypt never represented "light" (and that I know of no lighting snakes) the oval had in Egypt a definite meaning: It was a symbol of the morning sky, in ancient Egypt "Duat"!
The snake represents, as in many other pictures, the god of the morning sun, Harsomtus. But why, say the skeptics, should a snake be a symbol of the morning sun? Quite simple. The Egyptians noticed that snakes shed their hide and were believed to renew with each shedding. Almost as the morning sun, which comes up every morning renewed. And the sun moves like the snake without visible outer organs.
Especially in Greek-Roman times from 300 B.C. on Harsomtus is always depicted as snake. Therefore Harsomtus appears in Dendera in all cases as newborn sun, and not as a filament - it would be widely out of the context.

And also;

Further relief elements:

The "light bulb" of Dendera has on the foot something like a socket, into which a "cable" runs, which is connected on the other side with a "generator". This is the description we can read in the more fantastic literature. But the cable is no cable. It is, as we can read directly in the texts describing the scene, a symbolic sun barge, a boat in which the sun floated across the sky. All this is written in the texts beside the objects.
Neither is the form of the barge shown in Dendera unusual. In many symbolic barge representations the boat only consists of a string like object which forms a bow and a stern. And on the horizontal platform between we find normally gods and objects connected with the sun or the sunrise. One of these objects connected with the sun barge, and normally located at its stern, is the lotus flower. This can be seen in Dendera, too. It's the so called "lamp socket"!!

Please read the entire article, as I requested before. This is nearly to the end, along with the complete translation from the text on the four walls, which explains clearly what the glyphs are picturing.


As to translators I will go with Champollion as he was infinitely more qualified than Osama Al-Saadawi.

Champollion, Jean-François

Al