Interesting insight into the creation of the Egyptian pyramids

[azzazurna]

Many of you have probably heard of this before, so this might not come across as anything new to you. Anyhow, just in case any of you still have any doubts about the theory which holds that the Egyptian pyramids could not be built by the ancient Egyptians without some form of guidance from a superior source of knowledge, here it is...

This is an article from a magazine called Atlantis Rising that I accidentally came across on the net and copied to my documents...

Over the course of the last four decades several paradigms attempting to explain the origin of civilization have emerged. Of course I am referring to
theories that are outside of the orthodox models. The new paradigms acknowledge several crucial principles that mainstream historians and archaeologists generally ignore: 1) the archaeological record contains
many anomalies and 2) so far the mainstream has failed to address them
or to provide a satisfactory history of the emergence of civilization.

Many authors from J. A. West and Graham Hancock to Zechariah Sitchin and
many others including myself have addressed these issues extensively. The Great Pyramid is perhaps the best single example. Here we are faced with a massive structure rising to 48 stories and weighing in excess of 4 million tons. Egyptologists claim that it was built in 20 years using nothing more than hammer-stones, wooden sledges and manual labor. Wait a minute.

Before we even give the obviously mechanically impaired yarn-spinners the courtesy of belief or disbelief we need to raise some fundamental questions. Before we even begin to seriously examine the premise that the Egyptians of the 4th Millennia B.C. had the engineering and construction know-how to build a precision engineered pyramid of such gargantuan proportions we need to see the following:
Evidence that they built smaller pyramids over the course of many generations.
Corroborating evidence that shows that they were capable engineers, architects, stonemasons, mathematicians, inventors and so forth.

We raise our first objection because 5,000 years of civilization has proven that sophisticated skills, knowledge, technologies and artifacts leave a trail of developments, a history of trial and error experimentation behind. We did not start out building skyscrapers, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam any more than we went right from biplanes to supersonic jets. This point seems so obvious in the modern context it traceable sequence of developments? That is exactly the case we are confronted by in ancient Egypt and Sumeria. Logic dictates that there must be evidence showing that the Egyptians developed the stone masonry skills, engineering and construction knowledge necessary to design and build the Great Pyramid. Such evidence, like the progression of simple to complex bridges and dams,
should exist in the form of thousands of small stone pyramids. This is what we
should find scattered all over Egypt. Of course, the problem is that such evidence does not exist.

There are literally reams of serious historical and archaeological questions that the orthodoxy has not even addressed, let alone attempted to answer. Chris Dunn has also carefully scrutinized the level of engineering skills required to build the Great Pyramid and he has equated them to the levels we possess today. When Flinders Petrie, the father of Egyptology, investigated the GP in the 19th century he arrived at similar conclusions. Obviously, this presents us with a paradoxical situation.

There are no tools and no inventions in the Egyptian record dating to 2500 B.C. that substantiate the conclusions that the orthodoxy has reached. If you remove the Great Pyramid from the record and examine their tools and their level of knowledge you see that the Egyptians of that era did not have sophisticated tools or knowledge. They called their surveyors, rope-stretchers.” How could these rope stretchers survey a 13-acre plot on an uneven limestone bench and then have it cleared and leveled by men wielding hammer-stones as flat as a sheet of glass?

We know that this was the level of precision achieved because the international engineering firm of Menendall, Johnson, et. al, studied the site and determined that the base had been planed to an accuracy that could only be achieved with equipment on par with laser levels. This is another disturbing fact. The precision of the structure on such a massive scale is unthinkable for any technically unsophisticated culture. The Great Pyramid is a mystery because in our guts we know that it could not have been built the way we are told it was.

The orthodox scenario is equivalent to claiming that we built the Hoover dam
without centuries of experiments building much smaller dams. We know that statement is so patently false that it is laughable. But people, even educated people, do not laugh at the equally silly proposals made by Egyptologists, historians and archaeologists. To build the Great Pyramid would require extensive geological knowledge and the skills of master stonemasons. Now we
come to the next stumbling block. The ancient Egyptians did not build with stone prior to the dynastic era.

Wood and mud-bricks were the main building materials used by the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Master stonemasons are not born, they are the product of skills handed down over many generations. Clearly, the same statement holds true for architects, engineers, mathematicians, artists and
craftsmen. But they arrive at a very advanced state at Djoser’s complex, supposedly the first pyramid. We must keep in mind that we are not just talking about whether the Egyptians could quarry, transport and lift the stones. We are asking, where is the history that led up to these historical
achievements? We want the antecedents, the missing links, clearly delineated.

These are some of the questions that a real scientist would be trying to answer. Our pretenders—the spawn of academia—do their best to avoid them. As a result we end up with a truncated, illogical and broken history. It makes no sense. But that is only true because we have been handed a faulty model, a batch of misconceptions and a made-up chronology. You cannot build a
Hoover Dam until you have a history long enough to allow for a complex civilization to produce it. The same is true for the large pyramids in Egypt, not just the Great Pyramid the (earlier) Red, Bent and Step-pyramid complexes as well.

I would have come to a different conclusion if there were thousands of small stone pyramids scattered all over the countryside. If we found the record, which logic dictates we should find, there would be no mysteries and no controversies. Such is not the case and there is the rub. The greatest of history’s mysteries is that there is any mystery at all. We have been conditioned to accept this state of affairs and take it for granted. But that too is a trap. The very fact that we find anomalies, artifacts that are not consistent with orthodox theories or timelines, suggests we are facing a very profound enigma. Someone left these sophisticated artifacts behind and they had a civilization capable of producing them. It is not just a matter of explaining the Great Pyramid; we also have to explain the geodetic position of the structure, the align and two main causeways intersect in the center of the sacred precinct.

Returning to the original premise, I think there are two main alternative theories about how all this came into existence. One theory proposes that there must have been a ‘zero’ civilization (Atlantis) that had a long history which incubated the technologies that we find in our alleged earliest civilizations. That civilization was destroyed by cataclysms and the survivors
were the culture-bearers that fanned out all over the world. This is why we find pyramids and other artifacts that appear to have similar characteristics.

The second theory proposes that civilization did not originate on this planet. It was brought here and given to us by ‘gods’, an advanced ‘human’ race that evolved on another planet. They not only intervened to uplift us to a civilized status (some would question whether we are); they also seeded the planet with microbes to bring life to earth to begin with. I do not find the two theories incompatible or mutually exclusive. In fact, the cultural evidence supports the Atlantis theory and I accept it.

The Egyptians and Sumerians both said they were taught by ‘gods’ that lived on earth for a prolonged period of time. The Egyptians claimed this occurred in a land (Amenti) to the west of Egypt and Osiris came to Egypt from the West and was known as the ‘Foremost of the Westerners’. My own years of research have led me to conclude that life is not unique to our planet and we are not the only sentient beings in the universe. The human race has existed for far longer than we dare imagine. I have found that virtually all of the early
civilizations agree upon several things; humans did not invent agriculture or civilization.

The ancient oral traditions and texts suggest that our ancestors lived on an island (it may have resembled Eden) where they were taught the arts of civilization. We have been rebuilding a variant of it for thousands of years. In the introduction to my book The Genesis Race I described the situation, “Our scientists have unlocked the genetic code, but we have yet to find the key to solving the riddles in the great and beautiful cities whose ruins haunt us today. We have yet to understand the legends these ancient cultures share, or why they are shared by peoples so distant from each other geographically—the stories of a great deluge, of the origins of agriculture, of giants that once roamed the earth, and of a race with superhuman powers that created and taught people how to be human.”

[mr_oo3]

Read the Atlantis Blueprint (http://www.amazon.com/Atlantis-Bluep...dp/0385334796).

It's basically the idea that Atlantis existed on Anartica. It's main theory is the idea of 'golden sites', which are sites that lie on exact points on the earth relative to the Yukon Pole, as opposed to the North Pole. These sites are occupied by ruins like the Pyramids and Stonehenge.

The Yukon Pole was the North pole thousands of years ago, before the poles flipped.

It really is an excellent book, a good airport read.

[Fidelis]

Atlantis theories make me slap my forehead as a student of anthropology and archaeology.

[Guardian]

Im not sure on the whole atlantis thing.


One thing I do believe is that the Egyptians did not build the Great pyramids from the ground up. They may have modified them slightly but I think the structure themselves were around for much longer. Im not sure who built them.

[riptor]

Originally Posted by azzazurna

Many of you have probably heard of this before, so this might not come across as anything new to you. Anyhow, just in case any of you still have any doubts about the theory which holds that the Egyptian pyramids could not be built by the ancient Egyptians without some form of guidance from a superior source of knowledge, here it is...

This is an article from a magazine called Atlantis Rising that I accidentally came across on the net and copied to my documents...

Atlantis Rising is a new age type of magazine, replete with bigfoot and UFO stories. I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt.

Over the course of the last four decades several paradigms attempting to explain the origin of civilization have emerged. Of course I am referring to
theories that are outside of the orthodox models. The new paradigms acknowledge several crucial principles that mainstream historians and archaeologists generally ignore: 1) the archaeological record contains
many anomalies and 2) so far the mainstream has failed to address them
or to provide a satisfactory history of the emergence of civilization.

There are many satisfactory answers to how civilization developed. Try Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Many authors from J. A. West and Graham Hancock to Zechariah Sitchin and
many others including myself have addressed these issues extensively. The Great Pyramid is perhaps the best single example. Here we are faced with a massive structure rising to 48 stories and weighing in excess of 4 million tons. Egyptologists claim that it was built in 20 years using nothing more than hammer-stones, wooden sledges and manual labor. Wait a minute.

Argument from incredulity. "I can't think how they did it so they didn't".

Before we even give the obviously mechanically impaired yarn-spinners the courtesy of belief or disbelief we need to raise some fundamental questions. Before we even begin to seriously examine the premise that the Egyptians of the 4th Millennia B.C. had the engineering and construction know-how to build a precision engineered pyramid of such gargantuan proportions we need to see the following:
Evidence that they built smaller pyramids over the course of many generations.
Corroborating evidence that shows that they were capable engineers, architects, stonemasons, mathematicians, inventors and so forth.

We raise our first objection because 5,000 years of civilization has proven that sophisticated skills, knowledge, technologies and artifacts leave a trail of developments, a history of trial and error experimentation behind. We did not start out building skyscrapers, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam any more than we went right from biplanes to supersonic jets. This point seems so obvious in the modern context it traceable sequence of developments? That is exactly the case we are confronted by in ancient Egypt and Sumeria. Logic dictates that there must be evidence showing that the Egyptians developed the stone masonry skills, engineering and construction knowledge necessary to design and build the Great Pyramid. Such evidence, like the progression of simple to complex bridges and dams,
should exist in the form of thousands of small stone pyramids. This is what we
should find scattered all over Egypt. Of course, the problem is that such evidence does not exist.

Any serious student of history or egyptology knows that the knowledge to build these structures didn't just pop into existence. Read up on the evolution of pyramid building to see what I mean. They tombs started off as large squares, then they began to add squares on top, then to use bricks to fill in the sides to give it a smooth appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids

There are literally reams of serious historical and archaeological questions that the orthodoxy has not even addressed, let alone attempted to answer. Chris Dunn has also carefully scrutinized the level of engineering skills required to build the Great Pyramid and he has equated them to the levels we possess today. When Flinders Petrie, the father of Egyptology, investigated the GP in the 19th century he arrived at similar conclusions. Obviously, this presents us with a paradoxical situation.

There have been many experiments done to show that ancient people could build such structures. And if the Egyptians didn't have the skills, where did the Atlanteans learn to do it since this article seems to be claiming they built them.

There are no tools and no inventions in the Egyptian record dating to 2500 B.C. that substantiate the conclusions that the orthodoxy has reached. If you remove the Great Pyramid from the record and examine their tools and their level of knowledge you see that the Egyptians of that era did not have sophisticated tools or knowledge. They called their surveyors, rope-stretchers.” How could these rope stretchers survey a 13-acre plot on an uneven limestone bench and then have it cleared and leveled by men wielding hammer-stones as flat as a sheet of glass?

Gesh. Since they called their surveyors rope stretchers we are to shrug off they fact that they did build the pyramids? Once again there is another argument from incredulity.

We know that this was the level of precision achieved because the international engineering firm of Menendall, Johnson, et. al, studied the site and determined that the base had been planed to an accuracy that could only be achieved with equipment on par with laser levels. This is another disturbing fact. The precision of the structure on such a massive scale is unthinkable for any technically unsophisticated culture. The Great Pyramid is a mystery because in our guts we know that it could not have been built the way we are told it was.

The orthodox scenario is equivalent to claiming that we built the Hoover dam
without centuries of experiments building much smaller dams. We know that statement is so patently false that it is laughable. But people, even educated people, do not laugh at the equally silly proposals made by Egyptologists, historians and archaeologists. To build the Great Pyramid would require extensive geological knowledge and the skills of master stonemasons. Now we
come to the next stumbling block. The ancient Egyptians did not build with stone prior to the dynastic era.

Once again read up on the history of pyramid building.

Wood and mud-bricks were the main building materials used by the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Master stonemasons are not born, they are the product of skills handed down over many generations. Clearly, the same statement holds true for architects, engineers, mathematicians, artists and
craftsmen. But they arrive at a very advanced state at Djoser’s complex, supposedly the first pyramid. We must keep in mind that we are not just talking about whether the Egyptians could quarry, transport and lift the stones. We are asking, where is the history that led up to these historical
achievements? We want the antecedents, the missing links, clearly delineated.

So basically since there are some gaps in our knowledge we are to ignore all that is known? Yes, it is reasonable to assume that since we don't know everything about the subject we can jump to wild conclusions.

These are some of the questions that a real scientist would be trying to answer. Our pretenders—the spawn of academia—do their best to avoid them. As a result we end up with a truncated, illogical and broken history. It makes no sense. But that is only true because we have been handed a faulty model, a batch of misconceptions and a made-up chronology. You cannot build a
Hoover Dam until you have a history long enough to allow for a complex civilization to produce it. The same is true for the large pyramids in Egypt, not just the Great Pyramid the (earlier) Red, Bent and Step-pyramid complexes as well.

Sounds like someone is jealous of academia.

I would have come to a different conclusion if there were thousands of small stone pyramids scattered all over the countryside. If we found the record, which logic dictates we should find, there would be no mysteries and no controversies. Such is not the case and there is the rub. The greatest of history’s mysteries is that there is any mystery at all. We have been conditioned to accept this state of affairs and take it for granted. But that too is a trap. The very fact that we find anomalies, artifacts that are not consistent with orthodox theories or timelines, suggests we are facing a very profound enigma. Someone left these sophisticated artifacts behind and they had a civilization capable of producing them. It is not just a matter of explaining the Great Pyramid; we also have to explain the geodetic position of the structure, the align and two main causeways intersect in the center of the sacred precinct.

Ugh. There is no controversy among Egyptologists of who built the pyramids.

Returning to the original premise, I think there are two main alternative theories about how all this came into existence. One theory proposes that there must have been a ‘zero’ civilization (Atlantis) that had a long history which incubated the technologies that we find in our alleged earliest civilizations. That civilization was destroyed by cataclysms and the survivors
were the culture-bearers that fanned out all over the world. This is why we find pyramids and other artifacts that appear to have similar characteristics.

Conveniently the cataclysms that destroyed their civilization also destroyed any evidence of their existence. Pyramids all over the world like similar because without internal supports, which the ancients didn't have, the only way to build a tall building is to make a pyramid.

[riptor]

The second theory proposes that civilization did not originate on this planet. It was brought here and given to us by ‘gods’, an advanced ‘human’ race that evolved on another planet. They not only intervened to uplift us to a civilized status (some would question whether we are); they also seeded the planet with microbes to bring life to earth to begin with. I do not find the two theories incompatible or mutually exclusive. In fact, the cultural evidence supports the Atlantis theory and I accept it.

This is just laughable.

The Egyptians and Sumerians both said they were taught by ‘gods’ that lived on earth for a prolonged period of time. The Egyptians claimed this occurred in a land (Amenti) to the west of Egypt and Osiris came to Egypt from the West and was known as the ‘Foremost of the Westerners’. My own years of research have led me to conclude that life is not unique to our planet and we are not the only sentient beings in the universe. The human race has existed for far longer than we dare imagine. I have found that virtually all of the early
civilizations agree upon several things; humans did not invent agriculture or civilization.

The ancient oral traditions and texts suggest that our ancestors lived on an island (it may have resembled Eden) where they were taught the arts of civilization. We have been rebuilding a variant of it for thousands of years. In the introduction to my book The Genesis Race I described the situation, “Our scientists have unlocked the genetic code, but we have yet to find the key to solving the riddles in the great and beautiful cities whose ruins haunt us today. We have yet to understand the legends these ancient cultures share, or why they are shared by peoples so distant from each other geographically—the stories of a great deluge, of the origins of agriculture, of giants that once roamed the earth, and of a race with superhuman powers that created and taught people how to be human.”

So basically ancient myths count as evidence, while archaelogical evidence isn't good enough. Sounds alot like creationists.

Like all psuedoscience, it's easy to see through with a little effort.

No offense, but some people on these boards need to be a little less credulous and need to study a little more.

[SYRIANKID]

Not denying that the feat was impressive, but what is so inconceivable about the idea that the pyramids were built by forcing tens of thousands of slaves to work on them for decades?

[riptor]

Originally Posted by SYRIANKID

Not denying that the feat was impressive, but what is so inconceivable about the idea that the pyramids were built by forcing tens of thousands of slaves to work on them for decades?

Agreed. Give one hundred thousand men twenty years to build it and they certainly could. And actually they weren't slaves, but farmers in the off season. The workman were buried in the shadow of the pyramid, slaves would not have been allowed to be buried near the Pharaoh.

The whole aliens built the pyramid idea is just a leftover of one of the old notions that Europeans had about indigenous peoples. Many ancient, non-European ruins were attributed not to the ancestors of the local people, but to other, European races. And still in the twenty first century we have people who claim that the ancients were incapable of building such structures, but how often do you hear that aliens built the magnificant structures of ancient Greece and Rome? It not only robs the indigenous people of their heritage, but it takes away from the human race's heritage as well.

[honeybbqgrundle]

I wish those aliens would come back to visit Boston and teach engineers how to build tunnels that don't collapse on people. Ancient people got to meet aliens, frolic with dinosaurs, and hang out with Jesus. Pretty lucky.

[( S I C )]

My response to the "aliens built the pyramids" debacle -

It doesn't help that Tutmosis III claimed to have seen some sort of "disk" in the sky. This disk that he refers to is known as the Aten (sun disk), and becomes a henotheism movement by Amenhotep IV to make the Aten the only worshipped god throughout Egypt. There are paitings that depict some sort of flying saucer through the sky during Amenhotep's reign.

I know this all comes much later after Khufu's reign, but the alien link, unfortunately, can still be made.

Is it really impossible to conclude that the Egyptians started with a mastaba, stacked them on top of each other, and made a rather large triangle?