What if the archeologists are wrong?
Do you follow those TV shows that focus on the Egyptian pyramids and the tombs of the pharoahs?
The ones that tend to question how the pyramids were built and who built them, and when? Showing the great size and complexity of them, and the difficulty of actually building them in the time we're told they used?
Especially the ones that tell us we couldn't build them today, even if we wanted to?
Well, Fellow Patriot, me too. I've been paying attention to them for decades. Trying to convince myself that they were built when and how we're told. And by whom we're told. And I can tell you I'm not convinced at all. Stone, as you know, cannot be carbon dated. So we have no idea how old those stone blocks in the pyramids are. They could be 4,500 years old, as the archeologists tell us, or 12,600 years old, as some others tell us. Or, there's a guy named Charles Hathcock who has stated they're as much as 100,000 years old. And he should know. He's a Harvard-trained professor. Whose book, "Earth's Shifting Crust," had the foreward written by Albert Einstein. Who had his book open on his desk the day he died. So believe what you will, we should at least pay attention to what Albert was thinking.
The same with the Sphinx. Dr. Robert Schock, Geologist at Boston University, has told us that the Sphinx was built at least 10,600 years B.C. It has been weathered by centuries of rainfall, he said. And the only rainfall of that magnitude fell in Northern Africa at least 7,000 or more years ago. Back when that area of Egypt was in a moderately wet climate. Greenbelts were situated across Northern Africa. The area was saturated with moisture. With lakes and rivers and streams. For thousands of years. Wet enough to have done to the Sphinx what Schock is professing.
And we all know that the pyramids of Giza were covered by Tura limestone, white as pearl and worked down smooth as glass. It's been removed over the centuries and repurposed by those down through the centuries who wanted it for area mosques and cathedrals. And with exception of what's left at the very top, leaving only the 2,400 million rough sandstone blocks underneath which we see today.
But there's something that should give us all pause. Just 3 or 4 steps inside any of the Egyptian pyramids, or the more than 100 burial tombs in the Valley of the Kings 100 miles away, it's as dark as the inside of a cat. And black, even. Can't see your hand in front of your face. And almost devoid of the oxygen necessary to permit a torch to burn and give off light. Or humans to breathe. And so we see no smudges on the ceilings of those tombs or pyramids. And there's no firelight from torches necessary to paint those hieroglyphics we see so perfectly emplaced.
So how could they have seen to produce them?
Nor do we see any evidence of smudges on the ceilings of the pyramids the artists would need to have built? Or the interior rooms and shafts? Or the oxygen torches would have needed to light and shine? So how would these ancient workmen build the Queen's Chamber in the Great Pyramid? Or the King's Chamber? Or the various tiny shafts leading outward and upward for hundreds of feet? You should know that you must first go downward at a 30 degree angle for more than 300 feet as you enter, and then upward for several hundred feet, in order to enter the center of the Great Pyramid. So how would those have been built without light?
It sure seems to me they would have needed an artificial lighting source to build those features. We see a hieroglyph in the Tomb of Hathor at Dendara just down the Nile a bit showing a rather large "light bulb." With what seems to be a "power cord" running from it to provide the electrical power. (Google Dendara Light Bulb). And a stylistic snake to show what would have been the filament. And what appears to be a power cord plugged into the wall. See if you don't agree with me.
We know they also had what's been called the "Baghdad Battery." (Google it). Which our archeologists have called an early energy source. Producing some 0.5 volt of electricity. Which our archeologists surmise were used to electroplate jewelry with gold and silver. So it's been proposed that a much larger battery of that type, using that technology, in a much larger vessel, could produce enough electricity to have powered that large Dendara lightbulb. Or so they say.
Were the pharonic Egyptians starting about 5,000 B.C. more technologically advanced than we've given them credit? And could they have actually made the pyramids into giant power producing devices? Such has also been proposed by engineer Christopher Dunn in his 1998 book, "The Giza Power Plant." He proposes that mixing different chemicals produced hydrogen, which was used as a power source. And even residual chemicals indicating he may be right.
There's no evidence that these pyramids were tombs of the pharoahs. Not one single mummy has been found in any of the 103 pyramids we've discovered in Egypt. Nor a single hieroglyph on the walls. Yet, once again, we've found evidence of the chemicals used to produce the electricity we think they might have generated (Google it).
As the genius Nikola Tesla once proposed, electricity could be sent through the air. He thought the many obelisks were designed to do this. And he wished to recreate them. His Wardencliff Tower in New York (Google it) was built to prove that theory. Except his funding source, the telephone's inventor, one Mr. Alexander G. Bell, was cut off. Because Tesla wished to provide the power to the people for free. And Bell was not so generous. He saw it as a way to get even richer. Leaving Tesla as poor as a church mouse when Bell pulled the plug.
NOTE: Tesla died a pauper. Unlike our Mr. Musk, whi has usurped his name for his cars.
Do I think this is what they were doing? Perhaps. I can tell you this: There's no reason to believe that the early pharonic Egyptians actually built the pyramids. There's every reason to believe they found them already built.
Just wandered by one day and, WHOOPSIE! A bunch of pyramids. Perhaps they were built by the escapees from Atlantis? Or the Annunaki? Built by some forgotten society which was long gone. Just like the Incas found the pyramids in the Valley of Mexico, just north of Mexico City. (The largest, Teotihuacan, is actually bigger than Giza's Great Pyramid!) They found them in about the year 1,500, they have said, when what was left of them escaped the Spanish conquistadors in Central America. Dragging what gold and silver that had yet to be stolen by the Spanish on their backs looking for a new home.
One thing is certain: more than 1,000 pyramids, on every continent, including both the Arctic and the Antarctic, we think, were all built at about the same time. Under the tutelage of presumably the same teachers. And how would that be possible? Without them being able to converse with each other? One things' for sure: They each contain the same basic shape and markings. From thousands of miles away?
Would the ancient Egyptians have dedicated 20 years to assemble gigantic, nearly 500 foot tall pyramids in which to bury their pharoahs? Expecially when we know they were burying them 100 miles away in the Valley of the Kings so they wouldn't be found? After all, burying your Pharoah in a pyramid proclaims to all the grave robbers that the king and his goodies are in that really big thing RIGHT OVER THERE!
They've found more than 100 tombs in the Valley of the Kings. In which the great kings of Egypt were buried. Besides Tutankhamun, Rameses 2 has a tomb there that's more than 300 feet underground. And more than 4,000 sq. ft. in size. With hieroglyphs from floor to ceiling, and across those ceilings. Which presumably no one was supposed to ever see. And again, there's no smudge marks to indicate they were built under the light of torches. Isn't it reasonable to asssume they had some artificial light source?
Wouldn't they have to?
Do yourself a favor. Google these names and educate yourselves about the pyramids and the Valley of the Kings and Dendara and see what you think. See if you don't agree with me that there's evidence of a forgotten race. Or a highly advanced society which could have built these amazing monoliths. Surely the Pharonic Egyptians couldn't have done so. (And don't call me Shirley!). They had no beasts of burden. They didn't have the wheel. They only had copper tools, with an MOS-scale hardness of "3," to shape rose granite blocks, which have an MOS-hardness of "8." So they could not have shaped the gigantic blocks we're told they molded into their desired shapes. And isn't it even reasonable to assume that the Great Pyramid of Giza was the template they used to try and create more pyramids?
Instead of working up to the Great Pyramid, pyramid after pyramid, how about they saw it and tried to replacate it over and over? Without success?
We've produced proof they couldn't have done what our archeologists are telling us they did. But then we know that our archeologists are slow to change their opinions. They told us society began in ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia some 6,000 years ago. Yet, Gobekli Tepi in Southeastern Turkey, discovered 30 years ago, proves that society started 12,600 years ago. Or perhaps even earlier. The carbon dating proves it, Archeologists are doing their best to ignore it, yet there it is. We see it. So should they. But they routinely change the subject when asked.
The archeologists told us when we were in school that modern humans are no more than 30,000 years old. Yet, we now have proof they're at least 300,000 years old! And evidence just surfaced in sub-Saharan Africa of 456,000 year old wooden furniture. And half-million year old hominids built it. Were they humans? We don't know. And our archeologists are doing their best not to investigate it so we cannot find out for sure.
There's also evidence of advanced machining in the production of ancient statues, and buildings, and Earthenware. Stone vessels made with the thinness of a few human hairs. Stone, not clay. Likely diamond drill bits were used. And computerized controls. Yet no evidence has been found of any such equipment. Nor any hieroglyphs descirbing how they were built. Nor how the pyramids were built! Why would they keep that a secret? So the archeologists once again ignore any such investigation.
That means there's time for several societies to have come and gone in our past. We've only been a technologically advanced society for 200 years. And we may yet destroy ourselves like others have presumably done in the past. And we're told a society such as ours would leave no evidence of itself having existed after only about 10,000 years. Nothing but a thin carbon layer left in the dirt. Like the ones we're finding right now. Just imagine how many America-type societies may have come and gone in a half-million years?
Or just imagine how many may be left?
Back to the original question: Do you see evidence that the ancient Egyptians, or the Mayans, or the Incas, or the Indonesians, or the Indus Valley Indians, had a light source to aid their builders in producing interior artwork? No? Yet they did. We've had smoke blown up our asses our entire lives. So I believe we should now begin to question everything we've been taught about our past. With the goal of learning the truth.
Somebody has to...