Did Napoleon build the Great Egyptian Pyramids?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,373
Likes
2,241
#1
An idea of Napoleon Bonaparte being the mastermind behind the construction of the three Great Pyramids of Egypt sounds ludicrous at best. We all know the dogmatic version. The three Pyramids of Giza: pyramids of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure were built a gazillion years ago. Science says the Khufu one was built around 2560 BC. The other two our scholar are not really sure about, but they are positive that it was a long time ago, for they have multiple sources. Everybody knows where to go to read up on what the textbook version is.

Before I start, I wanted to make a little side note. If you are one of those people who would dismiss his own observations, because "this is just impossible", you might as well walk by. You already know that what I am about to say is impossible. This article will only benefit you, if read it entirely, and while paying attention to what's presented and described. A good follow up discussion is always welcome.

Napoleon_egypt_painting_small.jpg

I did not really have a specific approach to this 100% unscientific research. It's just that at different times I ran into little things, here and there, which were not making sense. Once the critical mass reached an amount justifying the use of the word "bizarre", I figured a little summary of my observations would not hurt.

We will look at:
  • Books, Manuscripts, Maps and Art
  • Hieroglyphs and Engravings done by Giovanni Battista Piranesi
  • 18th century master buiders
  • Napoleon Bonaparte's French campaign in Egypt and Syria
  • Was lime mortar(-like) substance used to produce blocks for the Great Pyramids?

Books, Manuscripts, Maps and Art

It is presumed, that the Ancient Egypt, as well as Egyptian Pyramids were a common knowledge for just about forever. This automatically makes any sort of discovery of the said objects and locality pointless. At least you will probably not be able to find that this, or that person discovered the Pyramids, or was the first to set foot in Egypt. Yet we should be able to track some of the so called "first mentioned in" sources.
Books:
As you might know, the first published book that we know of was The Gutenberg Bible. It was printed in the 1450s. Since then there were a lot of books printed.

Assisted by Google, quite a few were scanned and made available to public. As you can imagine, different books contained various topics. Google Ngrams service assists in tracking down specific words, or groups of words as they appear in books throughout history. Unfortunately it only starts at 1500. For example, when we want to see when words: England, France, and Rome were mentioned, we end up with the following graph. It shows that the words were very much in use from the beginning of the 16th century. It is obvious that those were early days of book printing, but some common words were clearly used.

ngram_pyramids_egypt_3.png

When we use the same service to look at: Egyptian Pyramids, Pyramid of Egypt, Pyramids of Egypt, Pyramid of Giza, we end up with publications gravitating to the late 17th, and early 18th century. There is a single graph spike pertaining to 1650's, but if you actually use Google Ngrams and see the publication, you will understand why we have that spike.

Overall, it is clear, that at least from 1500 to about 1700 the Pyramids of Egypt are not mentioned. Yet there might have been a lot of pyramids, but they were not as great as the Great Pyramids. I will demonstrate those possible pyramids below.

ngram_pyramids_egypt_1.png ngram_pyramids_egypt_2.png ngram_pyramids_egypt_4.png ngram_pyramids_egypt_5.png
When searching specifically for Great Pyramids, we end up with 1795-1798 as the time when Great Pyramids were first mentioned. This could be either attributed to the combination "Great Pyramids" not being used at the time. It could also be attributed to the existing pyramids not being as great to qualify for Greatness we see in the Great Pyramids of today.

ngram_pyramids_egypt_6.png
And the last publication worth mentioning would be the Bible itself. There are multiple explanations of why the Great Pyramids are not mentioned, but the fact remains, they are not. Some say that they are mentioned in Isaiah 19, but using that analogy anything could be considered a Great Pyramid.

Manuscripts: Manuscripts deserve some special attention. I have spent plenty of time trying to get to the point where there is at least a bit of useful information. Good luck with that one. Here is the scenario everything will follow.
  • This guy who lived in 1226 copied that document which was dated to 846 BC.
  • Scientist Mr. X was able to locate the 1226 copy in his grandma's attic in 1854
  • Grandma's house burnt down in 1855 and the copy perished in the fire, but not before Mr. X took some notes
  • Here is the book printed in 1876 describing what the 846 BC document was saying
  • Initial book is followed up by 400 different editions and scientific analysis papers
  • Here comes the official dogmatic version
If you want an exercise in time wasting try to research this, "According to Arabian historian Ibn Abd al-Salam’s records, the Pyramid of Khafre was opened in 1372 BC. " You are welcome to knock yourself out in the process of understanding that the only initial source you will find, is the one printed some time in the 18th, or 19th Century.

Additionally some things even Google does not know: when were egyptian pyramids first mentioned?

Maps:
Honestly, maps are not the best of sources. When somebody is trying to fake the History of Mankind, it is to easy to add a few pyramids to an old map. Whereas it's pretty hard to stick a paragraph into an existing handwritten manuscript (that is if there is one). Manuscripts are being studied, inspected dated and such. Is there anybody to pay specific attention to a couple triangles on an old map as far as scrape some paint of and determine when it was made I do not know.

Fist of all, let's determine where the Great Pyramids are at by looking at a contemporary schematic. Also to see what shape of a pyramid symbol we use today, you are welcome to look at these Google Images of various Maps. Basically the symbol looks like a small pyramid only much smaller. Not trying to insult nobody's intelligence, but details are important.

map-of-ancient-egypt_1.jpg Egyptian_pyramids_1.jpg
egyptian-pyramids_today.jpeg
At the same time it gets pretty interesting with the old maps. The pyramids of Egypt are on the maps. As a matter of fact there are multiple maps with pyramids. And if we get away from "this is how they drew" those days ideology, we could be able to consider, that those are not the Great Pyramids of Egypt we know. And quite possibly our Sphinx looked different as well.

First of all, today's Pyramids are humongous to the point when they still hypnotize with their size and greatness. But did they have the same impact on the people who lived in the 16th, and 17th centuries? What if not so much? Well, Let's take a look at the maps (the last map I don't know the source of).


1570-1587

1575_Hogenberg, Franz_Cairo.jpg bertelli_1575_cairo.jpg 1570_Natoliae_Aegypti_Carthaginis_Ortelius_Abraham_1.png 1587_Monte_Urbano.png City of Cairo_ Piri_Reis_1554.jpg map_egypt_old.jpg
The above maps can be reference at David Rumsey Map Collection. The first two maps look similar, but they are done by different individuals, and are different if you pay attention. Both are dated 1575 on the DRMC site. Also for whoever wants to do additional research into the above maps, the map file names will provide you with enough info for that.

In the above maps we can see, that some of the depicted pyramids are narrower then the other ones. Yet they all share a common trait: none of the bases exceed the height of the pyramid. Our Great pyramids look either very different, or simply different. Additionally the size of the pyramids shown does not correspond with "bigger then life" achievement of the ancients. May be this is why some of the maps do not have any pyramids at all. Below are two maps dated 1548. One shows pyramids, and the other one does not. There are a lot of maps not showing pyramids at the same DRMC website.

1548_Gastaldi_Giacomo.jpg 1548_Mattioli_Pietro_Andrea.jpg

Of additional interest could be the appearance of the possible Sphinx as seen in 1575. An idea of two different maps showing our Sphinx as a female, and one displaying Sphinx with exposed female breasts is strange at the very least.

sphinx_1.png sphinx_2.jpg

Returning to the pyramids depicted on the old maps, it's fairly obvious that they were depicted looking like this, more or less. The shape of these pyramids is obvious, even though we can see that they are buried in the sand.

buried_pyramids_old_1.png


Art:
Pretty much the same theme is dominating the graphical representation of the Egyptian pyramids pre-dating the 19th century. The Greatness is not there and the shape is not the same. Yet, the consistency of the depiction is there. There are pyramids, but not the Great Pyramids.

Illustration of the pyramids from Cosmographia - 1554, by Sebastian Munster.jpg Giza_1.jpg egyptian_pyramids_x_y_4.jpg
egyptian-pyramids_1690.jpg Egyptioan_pyramids_1643.jpg Engraved_By_J.Clark_1735.png sphinx_3.png
Giza_2.png Giza_11.jpg Bataille des Pyramides. Lithographie ancienne colorée signée Pellerin à Epinal, représenta...jpg langendijk-dirk-1748-1805-neth-la-bataille-des-pyramides-2314264.jpg
egyptian_pyramids_x_y_1.jpg egyptian_pyramids_x_y_2.jpg egyptian_pyramids_x_y_3.jpg Pyramid_du_nil.jpg

Where else can we find similar pyramids? They still exist, and the place is just South down the Nile from Egypt. They are pyramids, just not as great as the Great Pyramids. Welcome to Nubia, Sudan.

Nubian_Pyramids_1.jpg nubian_pyramids_2.jpg nubian_pyramids_3.jpg
I find it to be a pretty interesting coincidence: same river, same pyramids. Same pyramids built along the river by whoever. Where are the Great Pyramids though?

Nubia_today.png
Additionally you can see a very similar pyramid in Rome. I believe, originally it appears in some of the Piranesi engravings, but there are some actual photographs as well. Here is the Pyramid of Cestius. They say it was built around 18-12 BC. First of all they clearly do not know. Second, I would not bet on what they say anyways.

1_italy_pyramids_Caius_Cestius_3.jpg 1_italy_pyramids_1.jpg 1_italy_pyramids_2.JPG 1_italy_pyramids_Caius_Cestius_4.jpg

Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Engravings by Giovanni Battista Piranesi

If you do not know who Piranesi was, you should probably read this article, and the Wikipedia piece. Besides his obvious talents of a Master of Engraving, he also was a renown archaeologist. His attention to detail can be observed in the article: Ancient bridge construction as presented by Piranesi in the 18th century.

It is important to look at his contribution as an archaeologist, which was acknowledged at the time as he had been elected to the London Society of Antiquaries. His influence of technical drawings in antiquarian publications is often overshadowed. He left explanatory notes in the lower margin about the structure and ornament. Most ancient monuments in Rome were abandoned in fields and gardens. Piranesi tried to preserve them with his engravings. To do this, Piranesi pushed himself to achieve realism in his work. A third of the monuments in Piranesi's engravings have disappeared, and the stucco and surfacings were often stolen, restored and modified clumsily. Piranesi's precise observational skills allow people to experience the atmosphere in Rome in the eighteenth century. Piranesi may have recognized his role to disseminate remarkable information through meaningful images. He became the Director of the Portici Museum in 1751.
Well, hieroglyphs is one thing I have not seen in any of the above images. I should probably rephrase myself. I have not seen any hieroglyphs pertaining to the Great Pyramids. To start with, I have not seen any Great Pyramids yet.

Yet Egyptian hieroglyphs were somehow well known in Europe. I have not seen any material proof of hieroglyphs existing in actual Egypt, but somehow they made it their way to Europe. At least Piranesi was able to provide us with plenty of the engravings depicting them. He also presented the Ancient Egyptian theme altogether.

Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_1.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_10.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_11.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_12.jpg
Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_9.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_2.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_3.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_4.jpg
Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_5.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_6.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_7.jpg Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_8.jpg

And the pyramids as understood by Piranesi looked like this.

Ancient_Egypt_Piranesi_13.jpg


Prior to Piranesi we have the 17th century Jesuit scholar Athanasius Kircher.

Kircher_pyramids_egypt.jpg
Kircher_ancient_egypt_1.jpg Kircher_ancient_egypt_2.jpg Kircher_ancient_egypt_3.jpg
Additionally we have three types of Sahara pyramids as presented by Frederick Louis Norden (1708 - 1742)

Sahara_pyramids_1.png Sahara_pyramids_2.png

It does not appear that either Kircher, Norden, or Piranesi had ever traveled to Egypt. At least I was unable to locate any reference of them going there. Yet there was some collection of hieroglyphs at the library of Speyer (Germany) in 1628. The first modern study of hieroglyphics came with Piero Valeriano Bolzani's Hieroglyphica (1556).

We clearly have the knowledge about Ancient Egypt in the 16th century. Scientists say that Egypt is pretty Ancient. How ancient it really is remains to be seen. The etymology of hieroglyphics says that English language acquired the word in 1590.

What I'm leading to here is that there had to be a crazy volume of information about the so-called Ancient Egypt in Europe. Individuals like Piranesi, who were known for their attention to detail create super complicated engravings, showing Egyptian theme and hieroglyphs. Yet none of them had a chance to observe the three Great Pyramids of Giza as we know them today. I doubt they would consider the Great Pyramids to be not worthy of their talent, or attention. This leaves us with only one other explanation - they have never seen them.

18th Century Master Builders

Now, if we imagine for a second, that there were no Great Egyptian Pyramids as late as 1798, we would have a question: who was skilled enough to build those at the split of the 17th-18th centuries? Well, may be these master builders were. We are googling 18th Century Architecture.

18th_century_builders.png

How they might have done it we will discuss later, but they clearly had the skill. I'm talking about the same people who supposedly built all the above structures.

Napoleon Bonaparte's French campaign in Egypt and Syria
(1798 - 1801)

Obviously we have an official version of the events. Here is why Napoleon spent four years in Egypt, "The French Campaign in Egypt and Syria was Napoleon Bonaparte's campaign in the Ottoman territories of Egypt and Syria, proclaimed to defend French trade interests, weaken Britain's access to British India, and to establish scientific enterprise in the region." - Wikipedia

Just FYI, the duration of WW2 was approximately 4 years.

Napoleon's Army, "The French army was large, although perhaps not large enough to attempt the permanent occupation of Egypt on its own. The original plan included provision for reinforcements to be sent, assuming that France would retain her freedom to act in Mediterranean. Napoleon’s expedition included 30,000 infantry, 2,800 cavalry, 60 field guns, 40 siege guns and two companies of sappers and miners. This was enough for the initial conquest, but as will be seen it was severely stretched to provide both a garrison for Egypt and a field army. The officers that accompanied the army were an impressive group. As well as Napoleon, the army included Berthier, Murat, Marmont, Davout, Kléber, Reynier, Junot and Alexandre Dumas, the father of the famous novelist. To transport an army this size to Egypt required a massive fleet. Nearly 300 transport ships were accompanied by 13 ships of the line and seven frigates." - French Invasion of Egypt, 1798-1801

Interesting enough, "An unusual aspect of the Egyptian expedition was the inclusion of an enormous contingent of scientists and scholars ("savants") assigned to the invading French force, 167 in total. This deployment of intellectual resources is considered as an indication of Napoleon's devotion to the principles of the Enlightenment, and by others as a masterstroke of propaganda obfuscating the true motives of the invasion; the increase of Bonaparte's power.

These scholars included engineers and artists, members of the Commission des Sciences et des Arts, the geologist Dolomieu, Henri-Joseph Redouté, the mathematician Gaspard Monge (a founding member of the École polytechnique), the chemist Claude Louis Berthollet, Vivant Denon, the mathematician Jean-Joseph Fourier (who did some of the empirical work upon which his "analytical theory of heat" was founded in Egypt), the physicist Étienne Malus, the naturalist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, the botanist Alire Raffeneau-Delile, and the engineer Nicolas-Jacques Conté of the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers. Their original aim was to help the army, notably by opening a Suez Canal, mapping out roads and building mills to supply food. They founded the Institut d'Égypte with the aim of propagating Enlightenment values in Egypt through interdisciplinary work, improving its agricultural and architectural techniques for example. A scientific review was created under the title Décade égyptienne and in the course of the expedition the scholars also observed and drew the flora and fauna in Egypt and became interested in the country's resources.

The Egyptian Institute that Napoleon established saw the construction of laboratories, libraries, and a printing press. The group worked prodigiously, and some of their discoveries were not finally cataloged until the 1820s." - Wikipedia.

* * *
Essentially we have 30,000 soldiers and an army of scientists and artists spending 4 years in Egypt doing whatever. Official version of their endeavors is widely available. But my understanding that after this voyage we end up with this drawing by Napoleon.

napoleon_sketch_of_pyramids.jpg
Whatever the text (above) in French says, I don't know, but this is the first time I see the known layout of the Great Egyptian Pyramids. Allegedly, at least a portion of the handwriting is attributed to Napoleon himself, "Still, the savants carefully cataloged the pyramids and debated learnedly over their observations. Napoleon jotted down his own. On his rough sketch of the Giza pyramids, he noted the calculation that they contained enough stone to build a ten foot wall around France."

Could concrete be used t build the Great Pyramids?
MIT professor says it could. And I like the first two lines in this article.

concrete_napoleon_pyramids.png

You could probably watch a few YouTube videos on the matter, like this one: Ancient Building Techniques Concrete Use in Ancient Egypt.
Not only MIT professors think it was possible. Regular observers agree as well.


comments_artificial_concrete_egypt.png
For masters who were able (around the same time) to build the structures mentioned in this article, "Similar style buildings are all over the world. Were they built by our civilization?" it could be possible to achieve the impossible - to build the known Great Egyptian Pyramids between 1798 and 1801. If you doubt they could do it,check this out: 1889 Post-Fire Seattle rebuild speed: 5,625 buildings in 18 months.

Getting back to concrete. Obviously it would not be cement, or concrete we use today. This could be some sort of lime mortar substance.

Here are some of the construction solutions the Great Pyramids display.

Pouring blocks?
How else do you achieve this perfectly aligned curves?

ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_2.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_1.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_3.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_5.png


Filling in the holes with cement?

egyptian_cement_16.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_use_1.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_use_4.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_use_3.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_use_2.jpg

Woven mat or cloth liner used inside the formwork?

egyptian_cement_15.jpg mat_ancient_egypt_1.jpg mat_ancient_egypt_2.jpg


Is there a huge pile of dirt inside the Pyramid?
Why is it sagging?
pyramid_ancient_egypt_curves_2.jpg pyramid_ancient_egypt_curves.jpg


Why did they use bricks!
Top 10-20 rows have brick blocks intermingled with regular ones.
Is it to better support the cladding?

pyramid_ancient_bricks.jpg


Synthetic Granite?
Could it be a failed formwork?
pyramid_ancient_egypt_granite_pouring_1.jpg pyramid_ancient_egypt_granite_pouring_2.jpg pyramid_ancient_egypt_granite_pouring_3.jpg egyptian_cement_14.jpg

Plaster falling off?

ancient_egypt_concrete_34.jpg egyptian_cement_12.jpg
_______________________
* * * * *

Even conventional scientists agree that Egypt became famous after the visit of Napoleon. Did he build the Great Pyramids? I don't know. Is there enough circumstantial evidence to consider such a possibility? That is for someone else to decide.

Additional two cents. The Great Pyramids are falling apart. The science says it is due to the expansion of the planet Earth. What a coincidence. They stood for thousands of years, and suddenly started to fall apart? Could it be because they are only 200 years old and it's simply time for them to start falling apart?

I remember something similar from my school days, "The Great Pyramid sits upon the Giza Plateau, in the desert just southwest of present day Cairo. It soars to a height of 481 feet. Constructed of approximately 2.3 million stone blocks with an average weight of 2.5 tons each, the stone blocks fit together without mortar, yet a knife blade cannot be placed between the seams. It was not eclipsed in height by any other man-made structure until the 14th century - nearly 3800 years later."

Times have changed. You can fit a few chainsaw blades these days.

pyramids_falling_apart_1.jpg pyramids_falling_apart_2.jpg pyramids_falling_apart_4.jpg
 
Last edited:

CyborgNinja

Well-known member
Messages
119
Likes
320
#2
Individuals like Piranesi, who were known for their attention to detail
Good point. Piranesi"s style was so realistic
It's not like he's gonna suddenly drop the ball and draw the giza pyramids all weird and skinny looking if he'd seen them as they are today. They have definitely been altered or are more recent constructions.

Kircher_ancient_egypt_2.jpg
Another thing. I just realise this fore ground scene is a cross section of an underground tunnel system. The white squares on the floor represent the rooms and passages. The rumours of tunnels under giza are true.
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,373
Likes
2,241
#3
Yup. What about the size of the sarcophagus in the same image? Whoever it belonged to was 3-4 times taller than a regular human.

And I think Piranesi has a couple of their skulls in one of his engravings.

4C5A4D6D-8CFD-449B-9B2A-E9B3F481071D.jpeg
 

The Kraken

Active member
Messages
66
Likes
170
#4
Well if your trying to hide a tunnel complex just filling the entrances runs the risk of someone digging it up. But covering it in a gigaton of rock would be the most effect way of hiding with out destroying it.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
591
Likes
298
#5
yep looks like they modified the giza pyramids, however i dont agree 100% that napoleon built them, i think that someone built them to attract napoleon's atention
 
Last edited:

in cahoots

Active member
Messages
77
Likes
191
#6
I think it's true that the pyramid of Khafre and the Sphinx were not built by who we know to be the ancient Egyptians. Evidence of dateable rain-weathering on these structures suggests they predate the emergence of Egyptian civilization by a long shot, such that radical differences in size and durability from the other, later Egyptian megastructures, can be explained. Egyptians have their own flood myth predating their emergence, as well.

There is a basis for the pervasive presence of Egyptian motifs in Western Europe. Ever since Cleopatra, Egyptian style and technique made an exotic impression on the Roman psyche -- we have Sphinx coins which date all the way back to the reign of Augustus, commemorating this deep cultural overlap. Surely this influence might continue on after a break in relations.

I believe it's said Napoleon slept inside one of the pyramids, and emerged a changed and enlightened man. I'm personally extremely suspicious of the purpose of the original pyramid in the first place. There is no reason to believe that the 3 "greats" were built for use as tombs. It seems intentionally rigged with solvable puzzles and unmistakable allusions to heavenly geometries, pointed to a period in history roughly now. They look like power stations to me.
 

Hardy

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
171
#7
Well, it's funny - I had the same conclusion with napoleon and Giza 2 years ago - more an intuitive Idea but i looked at his 'Description de l’Égypte'.
Then i put this asumption in the stockroom and now it comes back like a bummerang in a much better way.
I wondered for example to see clear colours on struktures in la 'description' (or elsewhere) which are now nearly dissapeared. I doubt the air pollution explanation - you pointed it out with the Pyramids itself falling apart.

I don't know if i stretch a point ,but i even doubt the figure of the 'Master of the hidden hand' himself - Monsieur Bonaparte with his impossible military campaigns. (Korben: Infrastructure).
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,373
Likes
2,241
#8
Well, we needed a few instances here and there like Sumerians, Egyptians, Chinese, and Ancient Greeks to give our long progressive history some credibility.

Just like we needed ridiculous dinosaur-type related dating to give our planet proper age.

One thing pertaining to the Great Pyramids is fairly certain: based on the available info, the world had no clue about its Greatness till about 1800. What books or pubs do we have prior to that date?
 

Hardy

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
171
#9
If Mao Zedong (or better the experiment MZ) built the great wall ,like some reckless men insist ,there could be a pattern.This wall is the embodiment
of a thousand years old chinese history.Without it there remains no much ,except some porzelain ?
That means,if there really is a long wall not only some parts for illusion.
But Mao back or force -the great wall has probably the same 'aviable info Problem' with a 1800 Time wall.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
591
Likes
298
#10
I think it's true that the pyramid of Khafre and the Sphinx were not built by who we know to be the ancient Egyptians. Evidence of dateable rain-weathering on these structures suggests they predate the emergence of Egyptian civilization by a long shot, such that radical differences in size and durability from the other, later Egyptian megastructures, can be explained. Egyptians have their own flood myth predating their emergence, as well.

There is a basis for the pervasive presence of Egyptian motifs in Western Europe. Ever since Cleopatra, Egyptian style and technique made an exotic impression on the Roman psyche -- we have Sphinx coins which date all the way back to the reign of Augustus, commemorating this deep cultural overlap. Surely this influence might continue on after a break in relations.

I believe it's said Napoleon slept inside one of the pyramids, and emerged a changed and enlightened man. I'm personally extremely suspicious of the purpose of the original pyramid in the first place. There is no reason to believe that the 3 "greats" were built for use as tombs. It seems intentionally rigged with solvable puzzles and unmistakable allusions to heavenly geometries, pointed to a period in history roughly now. They look like power stations to me.
maybe thats exactly what they were, fucking huge versions of the "domes"!
 

in cahoots

Active member
Messages
77
Likes
191
#11
Accounts of the Pyramids, indeed in all their splendor, are available as far back as 450 BC with Herodotus himself, grand-daddy of history. Mystery abounds already (bold added):

"While Herodotus reports are all clearly important, in this case, it is not for the details he includes (i.e. the tale of the phoenix, the means by which Khufu's wife procures the blocks for her pyramid, an inscription about the price of vegetables and 'machines' made of small planks), but more for the details he neglects to include. It is already noted for example, that the top is neither mentioned of as missing or in any way different to the rest of the pyramid in this report; he makes no mention of any entrances, or even the sphinx, not even its head (strange?)."

We have an account by Pliny, expanding on earlier works by Herodotus, stating, "Pliny gives a more exact measurement than any other ancient author, stating the Great Pyramid base as 883 feet. This would require a foot of 10.2705 inches; and this is just half of the cubit of 20.541, or a rather short form of the Egyptian cubit, Taking the mean cubit, we cannot tax him with a greater error than 1/230 of the whole, which is quite as close as some of the most credible measures taken in this century."

Napoleon was not the first to launch an academic siege with an army of engineers upon the Pyramids. It's said that the Caliph Al Mammun of Baghdad beat him to it in 820 AD.

Here are some more ancient accounts of the Great Pyramids.
 

ion.brad

Active member
Messages
70
Likes
133
#12
Great research and great pictures! I knew about the nubian pyramids, but I did not knew that the Giza structures were started to fall apart. But I have a problem: there is so called pyramid effect discovered by Antoine Bovis, the same Bovis which invented very interesting devices! Our civilization does not use the pyramid effect, excepting some researchers, on the contrary, we are trying to minimize it. I think the Giza structures were cast in forms by the destroyed global civilization from three-four hundreds of years ago, before the mud floods and before the continents changing their shapes. We need more experiments to establish a connection between pyramidal shape and ether/aether/orgone. Looking at the properties of pyramidal water, I think that actual civilization has nothing to do with the Giza structures and Napoleon was sent there to recover as much lost knowledge as he could.

I wanted to know who financed Napoleon and I have found that "The Rothschilds are the most famous banking family in history. In the 19 th century they lent money to Kings and governments and funded both sides in the Napoleonic wars". (The Rothschild Gang: Shadow Conspiracy Or Rumor?) But "roth schild" in german is "red shield", which is the symbol of Malta knigths and, in one picture from the net, Mayer Amschel Rothschild has the maltese cross at his neck. Who is controling the maltese order?Jesuits?
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,373
Likes
2,241
#13
Accounts of the Pyramids, indeed in all their splendor, are available as far back as 450 BC with Herodotus himself, grand-daddy of history. Mystery abounds already (bold added):

"While Herodotus reports are all clearly important, in this case, it is not for the details he includes (i.e. the tale of the phoenix, the means by which Khufu's wife procures the blocks for her pyramid, an inscription about the price of vegetables and 'machines' made of small planks), but more for the details he neglects to include. It is already noted for example, that the top is neither mentioned of as missing or in any way different to the rest of the pyramid in this report; he makes no mention of any entrances, or even the sphinx, not even its head (strange?)."

We have an account by Pliny, expanding on earlier works by Herodotus, stating, "Pliny gives a more exact measurement than any other ancient author, stating the Great Pyramid base as 883 feet. This would require a foot of 10.2705 inches; and this is just half of the cubit of 20.541, or a rather short form of the Egyptian cubit, Taking the mean cubit, we cannot tax him with a greater error than 1/230 of the whole, which is quite as close as some of the most credible measures taken in this century."

Napoleon was not the first to launch an academic siege with an army of engineers upon the Pyramids. It's said that the Caliph Al Mammun of Baghdad beat him to it in 820 AD.

Here are some more ancient accounts of the Great Pyramids.
My friend, at some point I will make this special sub-forum for the so-called sources from the times of BC and early AD. This is why I mentioned this "sources issue"at the very beginning of this thread.

manuscript_issue.png

Specifically about Herodotus who lived and died between approximately 484 BC and 425 BC. I assume that you are talking about his accounts of the Pyramids mentioned in The Histories, for there was no other work which made it through time, supposedly.

Original sources is what counts. What do we have for Herodotus who supposedly lived in the 5th Century BC. We have nothing, and here is why.

There are several of the so-called "original" manuscript fragments. All were published 700-800 years after Herodotus died. Below I show three examples out of like 12-15 in existence.
  • Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 18 - discovered: Grenfell / Hunt in 1897 in Oxyrhynchus. Dated to the 3rd century AD - fragment of Book I.
    • The measurements of the fragment are 182 mm (7.3 inch) by 87 mm (3.5 inch). The fragment contains 13 lines of text.
  • Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 19 - discovered: Grenfell / Hunt in 1897 in Oxyrhynchus. Dated to the 2nd or 3rd century AD - fragment of Book I.
    • The fragment is 125 mm (5 inch) by 80 mm (3.2 inch) and contains 16 lines of text.
  • Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2099 - discovered: Grenfell / Hunt in 1897 in Oxyrhynchus. Dated early 2nd century AD - fragment of Book VIII.
    • Contains 14 lines of text. The only one I could ind an image of. The other ones were too inconclusive to determine.
Herodotus_manuscript_2ad.jpg
So we have a few lines of text published at least 700 years after Herodotus died. Right now we are trying to figure out what happened 100 years ago, with a lot of sources available, and failing. For comparison, supposedly Columbus discovered America 526 years ago. How did The Histories make it through 700 years? Was it an oral tradition? The answer is - we do not now.

And where do we have this texts from. Well here is an example of our sources: c.1449 (1900 years after Herodotus) the first book of Herodotus’s Histories.

The reality - we do not have copies of his works that date before AD 900. We only have copies, of the copies, of the copies, of the copies. The earliest is in the Laurentianus manuscript in Florence.

The below images contain everything we have. Or click the link for Herodotus Sources.

Manuscript Fragments
herodotus_sources_1.png

Principal Manuscripts
herodotus_sources_2.png


The above problem is widespread and envelops everything we know. For example, Homer's (1260-1180 AD) Iliad first source came out 2000 years after Homer's death. Did they really keep it an oral tradition for 2000 years?

We have no sources of anything BC as well as early AD. When this "early" ends, I do not really know. We are just starting to touch the tip of the history falsification iceberg. A very good and obvious example of this falsification is the Russian one. In the so-called "18th" century the Crown hired 3 German historians to rewrite their history. In "12-14th" centuries they were given a new modified language. Being sure of things is a luxury these days.
 

ion.brad

Active member
Messages
70
Likes
133
#14
Beside this problem of so called "ancient" manuscript we have a bigger one, about which I have found in Anatoly Fomenko's book "History: fiction or science?". Saying that I am writing this post during the year 2018 is equivalent with saying that there were many centuries during which the moon reversed its course! Why? Because we have the description of so called "ancient" eclipses and, when the "ancient" history was forged the math was not so advanced after such a big cataclism. All the eclipses have to corespond with the equation of movement of the moon in orbit, which is a quadratic equation. We can associate a quadratic function to every quadratic equation and every quadratic function has a second derivative parallel with x'Ox axis of time. In the moon case, if we accept that ancient history is true, we have a second derivative like letter Z with rounded corners, which means we have to have oral traditions from all the continents about centuries when the moon rised in the west and settled in the east. But we have no such tradition! On the contrary, in Africa there are stories which start something like this: "Long, long time aga, when there was no moon in orbit...", which indicate that the moon was put in orbit, so it serve a purpose or more purposes. One of this purposes could be keeping an eye to the mankind stages of development.

From wikipedia: Fomenko is a full member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1994), the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences (1993) and Russian Academy of Technological Sciences (2009), as well as a doctor of physics and mathematics (1972), a professor (1980), and head of the Differential Geometry and Applications Department of the Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics in Moscow State University (1992). Fomenko is the author of the theory of topological invariants of integrable Hamiltonian system.

Like a doctor of physics and mathematics Fomenko was intrigued by a paper of the american astronomer Robert Russell Newton, which was the first to point to the "anomalies" of the moon movement trying to explain them with gravitational anomalies. Robert Newton gave a lecture at Royal Society of London but it was ignored! Cheking Robert Newton calculus, Fomenko found it true! More than that, when Fomenko accepted medieval solutions for the "ancient" eclipses with insufficient details (who had a medieval and an ancient solution), the second derivative of the moon equation of movement became parallel with x'Ox axis again!

Looks like we need a true chronology along a true history!
 

ion.brad

Active member
Messages
70
Likes
133
#17
I think that we have to start somewhere and going step by step. I would start by buying a theodolite but, at my five hundred euros monthly income, I cannot afford spending two thousands dollars on aliexpress.com in order to extend the bending light experiments from rolf-keppler.de. We need as much as possible measurements at different latitudes and longitudes, hour by hour, in order to determine the variation in the light bending, because the light bending it is not constant. That it is not a task for a single man or for a few men. Then we need an experiment to find if we live on the interior of a concave sphere (a laboratory of some kind) or if the space itself is curved. I have read that, if you set a plane on autopilot for a horizontal flight, the autopilot corrections are always upward in good weather. Is that true? Do you have pilots in which do you trust? Like friends or relatives. On a round earth the autopilot corrections has to be always down in good weather. I think nobody has enough money to repeat the rectilineator experiment or to have access at some mine shafts in order to repeat the Tamarack mines experiment. A cheaper laser than a two thousand dollars theodolite has a very big divergence and a very small range.

If you know a cheaper experiment which shows us in which kind of space we are living in, I would be interested to know. Maybe it is euclidian and the bending of light is just an ether property, but it is too much for a refraction! Besides, for me, the rectilineator experiment looks like a very good one and I cannot believe that such kind of mahogany would bend very easily!

On the wildheretic.com is an other nice test for those who have pilots in which they can trust: looks like the stars are not so many and so bright at high altitudes, even on good weather and, more than that, on the same air rute, their visibility is depending from the season!
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,373
Likes
2,241
#18
While I agree with the above, what does it have to do with the topic of the Great Pyramids' creation?
 

ion.brad

Active member
Messages
70
Likes
133
#20
While I agree with the above, what does it have to do with the topic of the Great Pyramids' creation?
The pyramid effect shows that there are forces which are not recognized by the official physics and, in order to start to understand these forces we need to start to understand where we live. I do not think that those who build the pyramids did not use the pyramid effect. Many years ago I have read about russian researches both with regular pyramids and nubian pyramids. Russian pyramids were scaled down copies, but quite big, one of them made by reinforced concrete. So, somebody was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars years ago on this kind of research and I had to think at something small but put into public domain.

If pyramid effect is a kind of shape energy, then it has to be a connection with the space in which we are living. Antoine Bovis devices have to be revived and improved upon. We need also new maths, like Ruggero Maria Santilli math.

Why the biggest three pyramids resemble the belt of Orion? Why did those buiders knew?

Sorry! What did those builders knew? My tablet has a resistive screen.
 
Top