If you understood how the thought-energy/chi works then all these calculations make lots of sense...the pyramids were nothing more than an elaborate machine having nothing to do with sacredness
Astronomical Architecture of Great Pyramid
- Thread starter IceAgeCivilizations
- Start date
How does the "chi" relate to those calculations?
How old is the great pyramid?
About 4,200 years old.
And the Sphinx?
About the same.
Khufu restored the Great Pyramid, but he did not "build it". I think he took an exhisting monument for his own tomb.
Wood found inside(David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project), RC dated as older(400 years) than Khufu. Other Pharaoh's had done the same thing. It is possible they used 400 year old wood - but why? Some samples from the upper courses date around a 1000 years before Khufu, further pointing at a possibility(indeed a LIKELYHOOD) that Pharaoh's loved to "doll up the place". Khufu wasn't the first...but perhaps the last to do so.
I assume you are aware that the Sphinx's position is closely related to the Pyramid that it was build after or near the same time. In any case, they are related. Robert Schoch concluded that the Sphinx could not be any younger than 6000BC, from Geological erosion evidence alone. I know many don't accept this, but take in context with other circumstancial evidence, it makes more sense.
Circumstances like Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval have put forward, detailing that the position, layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River is a reflection of the constellations of Leo, Orion and the Milky Way, respectively at 10,500 B.C when they were an exact match to the way they are depicted in relation to the Nile Valley.
Wood found inside(David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project), RC dated as older(400 years) than Khufu. Other Pharaoh's had done the same thing. It is possible they used 400 year old wood - but why? Some samples from the upper courses date around a 1000 years before Khufu, further pointing at a possibility(indeed a LIKELYHOOD) that Pharaoh's loved to "doll up the place". Khufu wasn't the first...but perhaps the last to do so.
I assume you are aware that the Sphinx's position is closely related to the Pyramid that it was build after or near the same time. In any case, they are related. Robert Schoch concluded that the Sphinx could not be any younger than 6000BC, from Geological erosion evidence alone. I know many don't accept this, but take in context with other circumstancial evidence, it makes more sense.
Circumstances like Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval have put forward, detailing that the position, layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River is a reflection of the constellations of Leo, Orion and the Milky Way, respectively at 10,500 B.C when they were an exact match to the way they are depicted in relation to the Nile Valley.
Hancock now says they were built in the conventional timeframe.
And there was much more rainfall in Egypt up until around 1500 B.C. (see the Ipuwer Papyrus), so plenty of rainfall then for that Sphinx water erosion.
And there was much more rainfall in Egypt up until around 1500 B.C. (see the Ipuwer Papyrus), so plenty of rainfall then for that Sphinx water erosion.
Hey Nietz, do you think they built the Sphinx and GP, then took 7,000 years off before building the other megalithic structures of Egypt?
By subdividing the circle of the horizon by 360, and then measuring how long for 1 degree of movement.
Any star of the twelve constellations of the zodiac.
Any star of the twelve constellations of the zodiac.
movement of what?
are you saying the ancients had a way of pinpointing where a point of light is on the horizon?
one degree is of the earths circumference is approximately 1 mile. have any idea what 1 mile is on the horizon?
how did the ancients record this movement?
You need to follow the discussion, and didn't you tell me to get a life? So buzz off.
This isn't supported by evidence enough that Egyptologists or archaeology in general accepts the hypothesis.
If so, it demonstrates that the wood was older. But you must bear in mind the further back in time an object is dated, the more error is introduced into the sample. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what the error is for the particular Dynasty in question is, I'll have to check some notes. But suffice to say that, even if true, a piece of wood dated prior to Khufu & Khafre would only date the wooden object (a beam, door, post, artifact) and not the pyramid itself. It was common practice to utilize materials from other construction projects, particularly wood, which was in scarce supply.
It makes very little sense at all to those that studied the archaeology of the region and the motif of the sphinx in general, which is one reason why it hasn't been accepted. Moreover, there is no evidence of a pre-Dynastic civilization in the region of the Sphinx & pyramids on the Giza plateau. Besides, Schoch is generally regarded as a kook in the scientific community, not just because of his great antiquity claims of the Sphinx, but also for other wacky ideas that are without genuine scientific support. Many of his methods, in short, are pseudoscientific.
Bauval and Hancock are definitely kooks. They both pretend to conduct science based on preconceived conclusions to which they seek only data that is supportive -even if the data is completely spurious.
it was meant for ghost or whoever posted that garbage.
Oh, I apologize.
Obveously, I do not think the people whom built the Pyramids and Sphinx are of the same culture(or perhaps even the ancestors...) of the Dynasties of Egypt. Hancock retracted his theory? I did not know that, he must have been desperate to get a job...
I know where you are coming from and do humbly awknowledge that you stand on ground far more firm than I. Most of the scientific community does back what you say, with a multitude of evidence. However such situations have happened before in Egyptology and Archaeology specifically, where previous fact was found false. I know full well what my thinking would mean for Egyptology and Archaeology in general, if it were proven true. I might well be wrong. You might think I am wasting time even reading up on it. Some scientists have spent money and time investigating these theories, not without any reason. It is always worthwhile even if the reason was proven false.
Of course it is very difficult to attempt to prove some fairly advanced civilizations may have exhisted pre-"neolithic". It is hard to find even a "neolithic" site and determine the timeframe, etc.
Not to even mention what has been suppressed in terms of finds of human/non-human remains and out-of-place artifacts. Even what has not been surpressed is sometimes ignored as if it does not even exhist. This is a problem modern archaeologists need to solve.
Well in my opinion the pyramids were simply machines that gathered this type of thought-energy, after studying this energy I tried to calculate a location and dimensions of a pyramid that would transform the energy on Earth into positive energy...for some reason I arrived at very similar dimensions as the Egyptian Pyramids...I needed to find the center of Earth...I needed to find the Earth's dimensions for the sides...it was as if I was repeating what the architects of the Egyptian pyramids were doing....
Well anyway this is just what I found to be true...
Also I should note that the light coming to Earth (in the form of stars, planets, etc...) also generate this energy...when the Egyptian aligned to Orion belt it was also for a specific reason like a well-designed machine
Also I put the construction of the Egyptian Pyramid to around Maya World 3 7.0.0.0.0 - September 11, 10604 BCE (the great flood Maya world 0 13.0.0.0.0 - October 19, 28740 BCE)
Ofcourse there's no reason to believe me (yet)...just do the research on this energy for yourself...
Last edited: