Pyramids - Egypt/Yucatan Connection?

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
I was thinking more of a trans-pacific boatride.

I'll start by disproving that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu. The only evidence pointing to that conclusion are 1) inscriptions up in the Construction Chamber and 2) a statuette of Khufu which was found in the temples surrounding the pyramids. Records indeed say that Khufu built mortuary temples and mastabas on the plateau, yet there is no mention of him actually built one of the seven wonders of the old world! I do not dismiss the possibility that such records could have been destroyed due to jaelousy or Khufu's cruel ways.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, one that a lot of people make. The misunderstanding is that pyramids usually contained a lot of text, specifically mentioning the king himself, or making references to him. The opposite is actually the truth - that is, after Djoser's step pyramid in the early 3rd Dynasty, and until Unas's pyramid at the end of the 5th Dynasty, there were no pyramids with decorations or inscriptions in them anywhere in Egypt. The oft-touted "lack of inscriptions" in the Great Pyramid is by no means unique - it's to be expected, and the very lack of interior decorations would indeed place the construction of the pyramid squarely in one of the three dynasties between Djoser's and Unas's reigns. But with no identifying marks, how do we know which king built which pyramid?

A second misunderstanding, held by even more people, is that pyramids are monuments in and of themselves. Pyramids were actually built as complexes - the pyramid itself, the satellite pyramids, the mortuary temples, and all related statuary, stelae, causeways, and related works are all part of the self-same monument. The pyramid's builder is identified by the inscriptions adorning the structures in front of his pyramid. Khufu's mortuary temple is worn down to the foundation, but the remains of the connecting causeway and the secondary mastabas clearly identify Khufu by name; therefore, the pyramid connected with them should be his.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
Concerning the Construction Chambers red ochre paint writings, there was a certain amount of secrecy during Vyse's excursions. Many men were fired from his team for knowing too much, the name Khufu is mis-spelled "Re-ufu", and I believe Vyse wrote these himself. All of the Construction Chamber's walls feature writings, except for the east wall, which was partly blown apart by Vyse with dynamite.

Vyse's wheelings and dealings are not necessarily indicative of fraud on his part; but it doesn't matter. His findings are of subdued importance now that more definitive evidence in the form of the mastaba village and causeway inscriptions identifying Khufu (using his properly spelled name) has been unearthed and studied.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
There is enough evidence however to believe that Khufu adopted the Great Pyramid as his own.

- Cement found between some of the Great Pyramid's blocks contained straw particles carbon-dated back to 3,100 BC, right around when Upper and Lower Egypt were unified under Narmer.

I'd need a source before I can argue this point.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
- Unlike Menkaure and Sneferu, Khufu and Chephren are never credited for building their pyramids. They are however credited for building mortuary temples.

Menkaure and Sneferu are associated with their respective pyramids in the exact same way Khufu and Khefren are - related stelae, mortuary temples, and/or valley temples which feature their names. If mentions of Khufu's name on structures outside his pyramid are not enough to identify the pyramid as his, then no pyramid built between Djoser's and Unas's can be positively identified as belonging to any particular king. The pyramids are all identified through objects associated directly with them. There is enough independent evidence that this is simply the way things were in the Old Kingdom.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
- The Great Pyramid does not fit Egyptian dynastic history. The builders used revolutionary features (such as advanced portcullis systems, a "King's Chamber" surrounded by granite walls, an all-around over-engineered design, etc.) which were never found in later pyramid designs. In some cases, features were found to replicate those at Giza, but with a negligeable quality.

This is indicative of nothing but old-fashioned R&D and subsequent results. And Khefren's pyramid cannot compare in the least to Khufu's - the internal layout is completely different, and the pyramid is imperfect. This makes it obvious that two different sets of engineers built those two pyramids.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
- The use of monoliths is contrary to practical uses, and is found exclusively at Giza. The weight of the blocks average at 2.5 tons, and the biggest blocks are made of granite and reach 80 tons. Other pyramids throughout the world use much smaller blocks and mud bricks.

This is easily explained by the presence of nearby quarries and the ambitious designs of the planners involved.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
- A pyramid design can be found on the Narmer palette. Some say it depicts a raft (?) but it appears clear to me that a rectangle (Upper and Lower Egypts united) containing a pyramid symbol in its upper part could mean the Giza plateau.

The entire symbol, including the rectangle, is of indeterminate meaning. The rectangle certainly is not known to represent Upper and Lower Egypt united, as it appears nowhere else in that context.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
Anyway, here's an incomplete list of similarities between the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan and the Great Pyramid of Giza. I _will_ include evidence which is nothing more than speculation, for the sake of the argument.

- Both pyramids were places where "men became gods", which means they were both burial places or at least an instrumental part of a burial ceremony.

But while the Egyptian pyramid was in fact a tomb for a king, the Aztec structure was a place where common sacrifices were performed - though I suppose one could call the actual act of killing an "instrumental part" of a burial ceremony...

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
- Both pyramids have the same base measurements, which makes me believe that 230x230 meters somehow "means" something.

The Sun Temple is ever-so-slightly longer than it is wide. In any case, the width today is the result of unfortunate and inept "restoration" attempts - these attempts have enlarged the base of the pyramid, and even added a new "top level" that was originally never there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
- A universal flood myth present in practically all of the old world's mythologies, which could link whatever cultures are responsible for building both pyramids. Charles Hapgood's book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, is a good place to start.

Perhaps...if you want to discuss the maps of Piri Reis, Oronteus, and Bauche - as far as their inaccuracies, and how they don't depict the coast of Antarctica "without ice", I'm perfectly willing to do that also, in another thread.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
- The Pyramid of the Sun is associated with Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent god. The Pyramid of Giza is associated with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge and wisdom. There are many similarities between the two dieties, mainly that they were teachers of mathematics, architecture, numerology, etc. Both share the symbolic number of 52, both gods are sometimes associated with a serpent or winged serpent. Allow me to speculate that both dieties were the same person.

There are many assertions in this point that are simply incorrect.

First, Quetzalcoatl actually has his very own temple pyramid at Teotihuacan, but I'll allow the possibility the Pyramid of the Sun was also dedicated to him, or that he was somehow associated with it.

The pyramid of Giza is not associated with Thoth; in fact, no pyramid in the whole of Egypt is associated with Thoth or any other god for that matter, save the king himself, who was considered to be the son of Re in the Old Kingdom. However, while Re or Horus may have had cameos as statues in the king's mortuary temple, the pyramid itself would've been associated only with the king whose body resided therein.

Thoth was the teacher of writing, but not architecture; I cannot find any relation between Thoth and any specific number, and Thoth was represented most often as an Ibis-headed man, or occasionally as a baboon, but never a snake. The only Egyptian deity represented by a snake was the cobra goddess Wadjet, who was the tutelary goddess of Lower Egypt (she appears together with Nekhbet the Vulture on the crown of Egyptian kings). She had nothing to do with wisdom or architecture, nor had she wings.

In addition, Quetzalcoatl was the chief diety of the Aztecs, while Thoth was subservient to Osiris, Horus, and Re.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
I'd just like to close this post by saying that I am biased in believing that there is indeed a correlation between both pyramids. Whatever link exists could lead thousands of years before they were actually built, which would explain the discrepancies in building material and techniques.

What we're dealing here is a puzzle old as civilization itself, and I find it foolish to dismiss certain theories because the status quo does not agree with them. Just look at what happened to independent researchers like Rudolf Gantenbrink, Robert Schoch and Graham Hancock when they tried to investigate the structures at Giza: they got kicked out, and the director of Egyptian antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, deals with "alternative views" with something that resembles religious zeal. I just think that he should stop dealing with people as if they were children and start answering questions.

It is foolish to dismiss any theory simply because it finds itself at odds with the mainstream; however, it is equally foolish to abandon the mainstream explanation in favor of a theory which has little supporting evidence, absolutely none of which is definitive.

[chance]

Joshua Korosi A little off topic (but pyramid related). What if any consensus is there re the ‘Orion theory’. Basically The Orion Theory was published a few years ago, and stated that the 3 pyramids of Giza represent the belt in the constellation of Orion, while the red and bent pyramids form the 2 next brightest stars in the same constellation. The 2 ‘vents’ of the great pyramid were aligned with the pole star and Sirius (I think), also formed part of the theory.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by chance
Joshua Korosi A little off topic (but pyramid related). What if any consensus is there re the ‘Orion theory’. Basically The Orion Theory was published a few years ago, and stated that the 3 pyramids of Giza represent the belt in the constellation of Orion, while the red and bent pyramids form the 2 next brightest stars in the same constellation. The 2 ‘vents’ of the great pyramid were aligned with the pole star and Sirius (I think), also formed part of the theory.

Well, that the "shafts" in the Great Pyramid had an astronomical significance is probably likely. I'm not certain that the southern shaft points toward Sirius, however. See, the northern shaft always pointed toward Alpha Draconis (which was the pole star in 2500 BCE), because Alpha Draconis never moved. But the sky the southern shaft aims at is constantly moving, with so many stars being intercepted by the shaft over the course of the year. Sirius was only one of those stars, so the significance pertaining to Sirius isn't definitive.

The problem with the Orion theory, though, is one of direction. Yes, we've seen photos of Orion's belt superimposed over the pyramids, and they do tend to fit; however, you'll notice as you stand at Giza that the arrangement of the pyramids, compared to Orion's actual belt, is upside down! In order to get the pyramids to "fit", you have to spin the earth 180 degrees. It's easy to do with an aerial photo, of course - but standing at Giza, it's difficult to do. Take a look at the following photos:



You'll notice that in the Orion photo, north is at the top; but in the Giza photo, north is at the bottom.

In other words, if the Giza pyramids were lined up with Orion, then they confused celestial north with celestial south, and the shafts in the Great Pyramid shouldn't point where we know they point. Chances are, they weren't intended to match up with Orion's belt. They may have been, of course - it wouldn't change anything, really, about our understanding of Egypt - but at the moment it seems sort of incidental.

The kicker here is that even taking the directional differences into account, the pyramids of Giza - set at an angle of 38 degrees from perpendicular to true north - differs from the angle at which Orion's belt lined up with celestial north in 2500 BCE - and here's where the "woo" factor comes in. Proponents of the Orion link theory declare that the angle of Giza against north would match the angle of Orion's belt against celestial north in 10500 BCE, which indicates that the pyramids were built not by Egyptians, but by a long lost civilization! Well, that won't work. See, the angles of Giza and Orion's belt in 10500 BCE do not match up; the angle of Orion's belt against celestial north in 10500 BCE is about 50 degrees, not 38. Well, it was fun while it lasted...meanwhile, you'd expect such an advanced "lost civilization" to get their cardinal direction points right.

[chance]

Joshua Korosi Thanks for the most informative reply (again). I was never sure if the ‘Orion Theory’ every got debunked (or accepted), or if the Author was a bit selective with his facts.

Quote:

Well, it was fun while it lasted

indeed, which is a pity because the book was quite a good read.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by chance
Joshua Korosi Thanks for the most informative reply (again).

Anytime - anytime at all! Me loves ancient history - and Egypt in particular. I get a sort of odd pleasure out of doing the research, locating images, and typing out the posts...even the really long ones.

[BillyJoe]

.....waiting for frost to bite.

[Frostbite]

Well, what else is there to say? You can either look at every single piece of evidence out of context and dismiss them, or you can look at the big picture and see the pieces start to fit. It's all about interpretation, and I've never been satisfied by the answers and general "we'll take it from here" attitude I get from the experts. I want answers and I want them now. I thought I'd get some answers when I watched FOX specials about the opening of the Gantenbrink door or the Tomb of Osiris, but it was just a big joke.

[Larspeart]

The 'Orion Theory' was the one I was sort of refering to myself, albeit badly.

Thank you to guys like Frost that support me.

Thank you to guys like Josh that make the give-n-take more enjoyable, and spice up my day.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
I thought I'd get some answers when I watched FOX specials about the opening of the Gantenbrink door or the Tomb of Osiris, but it was just a big joke.

Don't give up yet. It's true, there was absolutely nothing behind the shaft door, and Osiris's tomb was bare. But how were these "big jokes"? When what you expect to happen doesn't happen, "it was faked" is not the only explanation.

[Frostbite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Don't give up yet. It's true, there was absolutely nothing behind the shaft door, and Osiris's tomb was bare. But how were these "big jokes"? When what you expect to happen doesn't happen, "it was faked" is not the only explanation.

No, no, I'm not saying anything was faked. Just that it was a great big joke because the show was marketed as something that would answer a lot of questions. So you got a 2-hour show with Hawass acting like he's Indiana Jones or something, jumping around like a complete boob, saying it's the first time he's getting inside the Queen's pyramid when it's obvious it's not the case, and in the last 5 minutes they show us absolutely nothing but a second Gantenbrink door and tell us it'll be months before they open it. I understand it's a very delicate process, but I don't understand why it should take another 6 months to drill a hole in the second door and take a peek on the other side.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite


No, no, I'm not saying anything was faked. Just that it was a great big joke because the show was marketed as something that would answer a lot of questions. So you got a 2-hour show with Hawass acting like he's Indiana Jones or something, jumping around like a complete boob, saying it's the first time he's getting inside the Queen's pyramid when it's obvious it's not the case, and in the last 5 minutes they show us absolutely nothing but a second Gantenbrink door and tell us it'll be months before they open it. I understand it's a very delicate process, but I don't understand why it should take another 6 months to drill a hole in the second door and take a peek on the other side.

LOL! I'll give you that, old Zahi sure loved to ham it up. In reality, he's very serious and passionate about his work. Think of Dr. Hawass as like the Steve Irwin of Egyptology.

I'll also admit that the end of the show was rather anticlimactic, and I'm equally eager to see what's on the other side of Door Number Two (watch it be another door). But it's not just as simple as fitting a longer drill bit on the end of the robot's arm and drilling another hole. My guess is that they'll want to bring the first door down as intact as possible - it's been damaged enough already. There's also another apparent concern. See, placing a single door in the shaft to keep air from coming in and deteriorating the body of whomever was to lay within makes sense - but now there's two doors, and possibly more. There must be some symbolic significance here. Perhaps the shaft doors are false doors, of the type prevalent in other tombs of the period? Perhaps the shaft doesn't even penetrate all the way to the surface of the pyramid. In any case, whatever waits behind Door Number Two will have been waiting patiently for over 4,000 years now - a few more months won't hurt. There's still broadcasting contracts to be worked out I guess...

[LW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite

What we're dealing here is a puzzle old as civilization itself, and I find it foolish to dismiss certain theories because the status quo does not agree with them.

Yeah. The way how the establishment treats The Pharaoh's Pump Foundation is just reprehensible. And they also claim that Enoch didn't build it. Or the Atlanteans. Or that the stones were placed using sonic levitation. Actually, pretty much every theory presented in the following links has been unjustly ignored without consideration:

http://www.crystalinks.com/gparc.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/gpellie.html
http://www.new-universe.com/pythagoras/secrets.htm
http://stargazers.home.pages.at/heav...id/pyramid.htm
http://home.globalcrossing.net/~kjohnson/
http://www.wwatching.net/cgi-bin/pgs...enigma/pyramid
http://greatpyramid.org/aip/index.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...p5/pyramid.htm
http://www.hunkler.com/pyramids/pyramid_symbolism.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9007/RMS699.html
http://www.worldtrans.org/lyssa/tape131.html
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword12q.htm
http://24.141.54.174/Ahatmose.html
http://gpblueprint.users.btopenworld.com/
http://members.hometown.aol.com/_ht_...an/myhomepage/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...eatPyramid.htm
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1a.html

There are a lot of kooks with their Solution for Age-Old Mysteries of Pyramids and who would like to run around the Giza plateau. I'm not surprised that the authorities presiding over it are rather unresponsive to unorthodox theories.

And about the alleged pyramid in the Narmer palette: it is rather blunt-tipped compared to the Giza pyramids. It is not because of the medium prohibits sharp angles as the walls of the town in the bottom have some. I find it also strange that someone would have drawn a pyramid with side walls implying that the inside would be empty.

[Frostbite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


LOL! I'll give you that, old Zahi sure loved to ham it up. In reality, he's very serious and passionate about his work. Think of Dr. Hawass as like the Steve Irwin of Egyptology.

I'll also admit that the end of the show was rather anticlimactic, and I'm equally eager to see what's on the other side of Door Number Two (watch it be another door). But it's not just as simple as fitting a longer drill bit on the end of the robot's arm and drilling another hole. My guess is that they'll want to bring the first door down as intact as possible - it's been damaged enough already. There's also another apparent concern. See, placing a single door in the shaft to keep air from coming in and deteriorating the body of whomever was to lay within makes sense - but now there's two doors, and possibly more. There must be some symbolic significance here. Perhaps the shaft doors are false doors, of the type prevalent in other tombs of the period? Perhaps the shaft doesn't even penetrate all the way to the surface of the pyramid. In any case, whatever waits behind Door Number Two will have been waiting patiently for over 4,000 years now - a few more months won't hurt. There's still broadcasting contracts to be worked out I guess...

That is interesting. Actually, I've had the idea for some time that they created a void of air to slow down the decomposition of whatever was in that box in the King's Chamber. By sealing it with portcullises and the shafts with many layers of granite, you can use the Queen's or King's Chamber as a boiler room and burn up the oxygen, killing most of the bacteria that's inside the pyramid and lowering air pressure dramatically. For the next three thousand years, oxygen could've gradually leaked inside until it was reopened in the middle ages. Now I wonder what role the Underground Chamber had in all this; it was probably used as a water tank.

I've seen pictures of the pyramid's interior and it pretty much seems like it has as much functional purposes as it has symbolic meanings. Its measurements certainly are symbolic, some researchers have established a bunch of relationships. But the way things are arrayed inside make it appear like some kind of huge machine. Whatever it did certainly could help figure out why it was drawn with a glowing apex, and why the apex itself is missing. Perhaps the apex was some kind of lighthouse, maintained alive at all times using the pyramid itself as a fuel tank or engine.

[King of the Americas]

...in History AND Architecture in these points made:

- Both pyramids were places where "men became gods", which means they were both burial places or at least an instrumental part of a burial ceremony.

- Both pyramids have the same base measurements, which makes me believe that 230x230 meters somehow "means" something.

- A universal flood myth present in practically all of the old world's mythologies, which could link whatever cultures are responsible for building both pyramids. Charles Hapgood's book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, is a good place to start.

- The Pyramid of the Sun is associated with Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent god. The Pyramid of Giza is associated with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge and wisdom. There are many similarities between the two dieties, mainly that they were teachers of mathematics, architecture, numerology, etc. Both share the symbolic number of 52, both gods are sometimes associated with a serpent or winged serpent. Allow me to speculate that both dieties were the same person.

*Not the same PERSON, but representing the same entity.

The two pyramids ARE too smililiar to ignore their likenesses.

The flood myth IS an enduring one, even though they had come from many far away people seperated for many years.

---

But while the Egyptian pyramid was in fact a tomb for a king, the Aztec structure was a place where common sacrifices were performed - though I suppose one could call the actual act of killing an "instrumental part" of a burial ceremony...

*The 'funcion' was the same. "Men becoming Gods."

The Sun Temple is ever-so-slightly longer than it is wide. In any case, the width today is the result of unfortunate and inept "restoration" attempts - these attempts have enlarged the base of the pyramid, and even added a new "top level" that was originally never there.

*So you AGREE that the two pyramids were originally built to the same dimensions?

Frostbite got it wrong, in that these two entites were the SAME entity, as you point out their many differences, but they MAY have represented teh same entity,'a heavenly being'.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...in History AND Architecture in these points made:

- Both pyramids were places where "men became gods", which means they were both burial places or at least an instrumental part of a burial ceremony.

- Both pyramids have the same base measurements, which makes me believe that 230x230 meters somehow "means" something.

- A universal flood myth present in practically all of the old world's mythologies, which could link whatever cultures are responsible for building both pyramids. Charles Hapgood's book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, is a good place to start.

- The Pyramid of the Sun is associated with Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent god. The Pyramid of Giza is associated with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge and wisdom. There are many similarities between the two dieties, mainly that they were teachers of mathematics, architecture, numerology, etc. Both share the symbolic number of 52, both gods are sometimes associated with a serpent or winged serpent. Allow me to speculate that both dieties were the same person.

*Not the same PERSON, but representing the same entity.

The two pyramids ARE too smililiar to ignore their likenesses.

Well I think we've established that the only likeness is the area of their bases (in the present time at least). They have nothing else in common...

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The flood myth IS an enduring one, even though they had come from many far away people seperated for many years.

I hate to be so harsh, but it's time to slam the hammer down on this one. I think the interjection of the flood myth paradigm has nothing to do with this argument. Although the Egyptian creation story has the earth rising from the water (sort of like the bible), there is no catastrophic flood myth there. And the South American peoples had no flood myth either - they claimed to have originated from an "eden" in the north called Atzlan, and migrated down to the south - perhaps a passed down memory of the real migration from Asia down through North America. Several authors insisted that their cultures held a "flood" myth - that Atzlan was a "land in the eastern sea" that was flooded disastrously and forced them to flee. I think Berlitz was the first person to assert this (trying to suggest a link to Atlantis..."Atzlan", flood, get it?), and since then so many people have simply accepted Berlitz's interpretation. The fact is, it is complete invention. The Egyptians, Aztecs, and Mayans had no flood myths. Several cultures did - but that argument simply doesn't belong here.

---

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*The 'funcion' was the same. "Men becoming Gods."

Sacrifice victims did not become gods.

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*So you AGREE that the two pyramids were originally built to the same dimensions?

No, the Sun pyramid is less than half as tall as the Great Pyramid, even counting the Sun pyramid's brand new "top level".

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Frostbite got it wrong, in that these two entites were the SAME entity, as you point out their many differences, but they MAY have represented teh same entity,'a heavenly being'.

I won't be meanspirited toward Frostbite; I believe he read about the Quetzalcoatl/Thoth connection as proferred by Hancock (maybe?), but it is in fact Hancock who is mistaken - none of the links between the two that Frostbite posted are true - not one. If that's the case then, the only thing left connecting Quetzalcoatl with Thoth is the fact that they're both gods. How do we still go about connecting the former to the latter? Thoth wasn't the only god of the Egyptians. Since Thoth isn't represented or associated with the Great Pyramid after all, why is the old chap even relevant?

[Frostbite]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Frostbite got it wrong, in that these two entites were the SAME entity, as you point out their many differences, but they MAY have represented teh same entity,'a heavenly being'.

See, you lost me there. I don't believe in heavenly beings or gods or "entities". I think what we're dealing with here is a wandering teacher, and over time, stories get exaggerated and blown out of proportion. I'll have to dig back in my books, but I remember reading about similarities between Quetzalcoatl, Thoth, Ninghishzidda and Enoch. Wether they're founded or untrue, I don't know for sure, I'd have to check it out. I also read somewhere that some christians believe Quetzalcoatl to be St-Thomas; Quetzalcoatl who was kicked out of America sometimes and sailed westward on a magical "raft of snakes". Strange, because at around the same time, a god on a raft of snakes arrived in Asia (was it in Tibet or India, I forget). Also, Mayans had a prophecy about the return of Quetzalcoatl to a certain date, and that date was the gregorian equivalent of 1492, when the Spanish came to America. I don't believe in prophecies either, so I guess that date was somewhat significant.

Keep in mind that this is all speculative, but I think there's something there worth proving or disproving. I'll get to it when I get the time.

[Mark]

From the web site "Lost Civilzations Uncovered" ( A skeptic web site)...

"The United States has had many cases of mysterious stones and markers bearing writing variously attributed to Phonecians, Egyptians, Vikings and Celts. While the vast majority of these are obviously racist hoaxes designed to bolster Euro-American claims to Native American lands, at least a handful of these artifacts have not been explained. In addition, late twentieth-century research confirmed that Vikings had colonized a portion of eastern Canada, the famous Vinland, during the eleventh century.

An archaeological team announced in 2001 that Roman coins had been discovered underneath the floor of an Aztec temple, proving that Roman goods had been present in the New World before Columbus. This dovetailed on reports of a Roman-style sculpture discovered in Mexico and Roman amphorae in Brazil. While some of these goods could have arrived through ships blown off course or by conquistadors bringing a bit of home with them, this mystery remains unexplained. "

the web sitehttp://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivi...ons/index.html

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frostbite
I'll have to dig back in my books, but I remember reading about similarities between Quetzalcoatl, Thoth, Ninghishzidda and Enoch. Wether they're founded or untrue, I don't know for sure, I'd have to check it out.

No rush...I'm about to go to work soon. But, if you do get some spare time, do look for those books. I find these theories intriguing and would like to know more about them before I destroy them utterly!!!! (j/k )

Seriously though, I am interested.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark
From the web site "Lost Civilzations Uncovered" ( A skeptic web site)...
An archaeological team announced in 2001 that Roman coins had been discovered underneath the floor of an Aztec temple, proving that Roman goods had been present in the New World before Columbus. This dovetailed on reports of a Roman-style sculpture discovered in Mexico and Roman amphorae in Brazil. While some of these goods could have arrived through ships blown off course or by conquistadors bringing a bit of home with them, this mystery remains unexplained. "

the web sitehttp://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivi...ons/index.html

Now that was some cool stuff, I must tell you. It's a developing development, though...we'll have to keep an eye on things and see where this new evidence leads.

[kookbreaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Now that was some cool stuff, I must tell you. It's a developing development, though...we'll have to keep an eye on things and see where this new evidence leads.

This was particularly amusing.

[King of the Americas]

Joshua Korosi


Well I think we've established that the only likeness is the area of their bases (in the present time at least). They have nothing else in common...

*Their common base dimensions (as originally constructed) is suspect to me.


I hate to be so harsh, but it's time to slam the hammer down on this one. I think the interjection of the flood myth paradigm has nothing to do with this argument. Although the Egyptian creation story has the earth rising from the water (sort of like the bible), there is no catastrophic flood myth there. And the South American peoples had no flood myth either - they claimed to have originated from an "eden" in the north called Atzlan, and migrated down to the south - perhaps a passed down memory of the real migration from Asia down through North America. Several authors insisted that their cultures held a "flood" myth - that Atzlan was a "land in the eastern sea" that was flooded disastrously and forced them to flee. I think Berlitz was the first person to assert this (trying to suggest a link to Atlantis..."Atzlan", flood, get it?), and since then so many people have simply accepted Berlitz's interpretation. The fact is, it is complete invention. The Egyptians, Aztecs, and Mayans had no flood myths. Several cultures did - but that argument simply doesn't belong here.

*EXACTLY. Different histories to different people in different regions, and yet still you find several subsets of like tales. In fact, it is difficult to find a completely original tale of creation, without a sister society that suffered like events at about the same point in time.


Sacrifice victims did not become gods.

*Okay, 'religious cermony', then.


No, the Sun pyramid is less than half as tall as the Great Pyramid, even counting the Sun pyramid's brand new "top level".

*Okay, but do you find the base dimensions to be equal?

I won't be meanspirited toward Frostbite; I believe he read about the Quetzalcoatl/Thoth connection as proferred by Hancock (maybe?), but it is in fact Hancock who is mistaken - none of the links between the two that Frostbite posted are true - not one. If that's the case then, the only thing left connecting Quetzalcoatl with Thoth is the fact that they're both gods. How do we still go about connecting the former to the latter? Thoth wasn't the only god of the Egyptians. Since Thoth isn't represented or associated with the Great Pyramid after all, why is the old chap even relevant?

*I hold that these god-entities are connected in some way, but that there are as different and as diverse as we are.

---

Frostbite:

You say that you don't 'believe' in god or heavenly beings or entities...

Do you believe in my Oak tree? I mean If you picked up a man's writing that spoke in earnest of seeing "Star-like objects move with a constant velocity and make right angle turns", and then applying this known to what is also known about human flight capability. 'I' have seen things in the heavens that were not piloted by human hands. These thing, "came two, together to make a larger versions of themselves", something I have not seen earthly things do.

I testify that I HAVE seen the Oak tree, and that these notes are based on my first hand eye witness account. Although I have no pictures or evidence that I can present here, I tell you no less that these things are true.

[Frostbite]

I've read stuff about the "starships" of Ezekiel, the indu Ramayana and its flying chariots, the travels of Gilgamesh, etc. It's indeed intriguing, but I don't see how these could not have been created from scratch by an imaginative author; much the same way Da Vinci designed his flying engines and wrote about them. I think UFO's are intriguing, but they belong to a different debate altogether.

[Larspeart]

Forget the Kennsington Rune, and other such nonsense hoaxes. The Viking coin found in Mass. has been stupied and tested over and over, and is always found to be REAL and legit. It even has a date on (14-- something).

There was a lot more going on between the continents before Columbus, and I think a lot more of Europe knew of 'something over there' then we think.

[LW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Larspeart
The Viking coin found in Mass. has been stupied and tested over and over, and is always found to be REAL and legit. It even has a date on (14-- something).

Do you have a link for information on that coin? I googled for a while but the only thing I found was a coin minted by Olaf Kyhre (1065-80) that was found in Maine. The 15th century date raises my suspicions since that is well after the end of the Viking era.

[Mark]

Quote:

Originally posted by LW


Do you have a link for information on that coin? I googled for a while but the only thing I found was a coin minted by Olaf Kyhre (1065-80) that was found in Maine. The 15th century date raises my suspicions since that is well after the end of the Viking era.

What about the Roman coins? Anyone know more?

[Larspeart]

Well, there is talk about Phoenician coins found in Carthage that bear a map of North America on them. . .

Still, the Viking coin was found in Maine (sorry to mistake it for Mass) in an old indian villages' trash dump. The site has been studied for along time as a wealth of native american info. then, they find a Viking coin in it. There is no evidence of 'planting', or any kind of forgery.

Beyond that,

[daver]

Quote:

Originally posted by Larspeart
Well, there is talk about Phoenician coins found in Carthage that bear a map of North America on them. . .

Extraordinary claims, and all that. The early Spanish maps didn't bear that great of a resemblance to north america. It seems much more reasonable that the squiggles on the coin originally represented something else entirely.

Quote:

Still, the Viking coin was found in Maine (sorry to mistake it for Mass) in an old indian villages' trash dump. The site has been studied for along time as a wealth of native american info. then, they find a Viking coin in it. There is no evidence of 'planting', or any kind of forgery.

Beyond that,

How much circumpolar traffic was there? Was there traffic by the Inuit or Eskimo between Asia and North America? Anyway, i can see small things like coins, or useful things like knives, being carried as trade goods.

[LW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Larspeart


Still, the Viking coin was found in Maine (sorry to mistake it for Mass) in an old indian villages' trash dump.

That Maine penny is not really so surprising. It was already known that there was at least one Viking settlement in North America around the 11th century (the 15th century date would have been a surprise). Also, it doesn't prove that Vikings themselves visited Maine. The coin had been used as a pendant by indians and it is possible that it had been acquired by trade.

[Cleopatra]

Have you ever heard of this monument? The Greek Pyramid?

Of course many people doubt the explanation archeologists gave...

If you do a google search you will find the most crazy things about this monument. Some people suggest that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by the Greeks, just because of this monument

The Greek "Pyramid"

The link belongs to the official site of the Greek Ministry of Culture.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Have you ever heard of this monument? The Greek Pyramid?

Of course many people doubt the explanation archeologists gave...

If you do a google search you will find the most crazy things about this monument. Some people suggest that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by the Greeks, just because of this monument

The Greek "Pyramid"

The link belongs to the official site of the Greek Ministry of Culture.

Funny!

There's nothing odd or special about pyramids in and of themselves. If you want something really, really tall, and your culture hasn't invented the butress yet, a pyramid is an obvious solution. And although some of the pyramids get really big, there is absolutely nothing within them or about them that their contemporary cultures weren't capable of doing or making.

The whole "pyramid" thing is sort of analogous to the evolution argument. When creationists argue against evolution, they present evolution as a theory held in question - something that the scientific community is leaning toward but not betting on. Of course, this is a misrepresentation; the fact of the matter is, scientists are as sure of the actuality of evolution as they are that the earth orbits the sun.

Likewise, people who have alternative theories about the pyramids present those theories as if their incidental and nebulous "suggestive" evidence can actually hold a candle to the evidence mainstream historians use to determine the truth. For example, in this thread it has been asserted that the only things linking the Great Pyramid to Khufu was a bit of graffiti and a statue - of course, that's not true. There are remains of mortuary temples, the causeway, and the nearby mastabas of nobles and architects whose incriptions cry out "I helped build the Pyramid for Khufu!". That Khufu had the pyramid built was common knowledge in Egypt for thousands of years, even up to Herodotus' time, when they even told him how it was built. The sheer size of the Pyramid led Herodotus to insist that Khufu must've been a horrid taskmaster who drove countless slaves to toil night and day for 23 years. Now we know it was probably more of a public works project, with the engineers and laborers bragging about their parts in the construction of the marvel. During the four months in which the valley farms were inundated by the Nile, farmers flocked to Giza to help earn themselves a place by their king's side in the afterlife - as well as grain and beer to last them and their families until the next planting season. The swollen river even allowed the quarry barges to bring the stone blocks closer to the construction site than was otherwise possible.

Many television programs, even of late, claim that it is unknown how the Egyptians "moved such huge stones" up inclined planes. The same thing has been asserted by such sources of the Easter Island statues, despite the fact that when Thor Heyerdahl visited there, the natives demonstrated how the statues were moved. At Giza, now we know that there is no mystery at all; the stones were moved by gangs of 12 to 20 men or so. Tomb and quarry incriptions indicate that the teams even gave themselves special names, like "The Strong-arms of Giza" and "Khufu's Drunkards".

To scientists, the fact that the Great Pyramid belonged to Khufu is, like evolution, as certain as the earth orbits the sun. There are many mysteries in archaeology - even in Egypt. The Great Pyramid is no longer one of them. For all their hard work, ingenuity, and perseverance - all their blood, sweat, and tears - these wonderful people are entitled to the credit. They built monuments that, barring no great calamity, will be enjoyed by our descendants a thousand years from now. Men fear Time....but Time fears the Pyramids.

[ceo_esq]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Have you ever heard of this monument? The Greek Pyramid?

Of course many people doubt the explanation archeologists gave...

If you do a google search you will find the most crazy things about this monument. Some people suggest that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by the Greeks, just because of this monument

The Greek "Pyramid"

For that matter, remember this thread about the so-called Italian Pyramids?

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/show...threadid=18666

Something about pyramids seems to cause a shutdown of critical faculties in certain people.