Did Napoleon build the Great Egyptian Pyramids?

OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
Why the three pyramids resemble the Orion's belt is an interesting question, but the belt can be seen with a naked eye. The belt is not something we discovered in the 20th century. People know about it for thousands of years. I assume Napoleon's scientists knew about the Belt as well.

The existence of the pyramids prior to 1798-1801 is not being questioned here. The existence of the Great Pyramids is.

Nubian pyramids are situated down the Nile and clearly show a very similar pyramids to those depicted on the early engravings from Giza.

At the same time a more "down to reality" question of why we do not have a whole bunch of drawings of the Great Pyramids prior to the Napoleon's visit remains unanswered. It's like no European ever visited Egypt, saw the Great Pyramids and said "Holycow they are huge". An answer could be very simple, but totally provocative. The Great Pyramids were not there.

From what I can see, the pyramids are being depicted through time in a very consistent manner, and the look like this.

Egyptioan_pyramids_1643.jpg
 

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
101
Reactions
485
Why the three pyramids resemble the Orion's belt is an interesting question, but at the same time the belt can be seen with a naked eye. The belt is not something we discovered in the 20th century. People know about it for thousands of years. I assume Napoleon's scientists knew about the Belt as well.
Oh, it is beyond an interesting question. Even today in their state of decay, the astronomical and mathematical correlates of the Great Pyramids are obsessively accurate. Let me whack you with some data:

- The Great Pyramids stand at a point on earth's surface exactly 1/3 of the way between the equator and North Pole (i.e. 30 degrees latitude) and its NS axis is aligned to within 3/60 of a single degree to the true south (the Greenwich Observatory in London deviates from true north by 9/60 of a degree).

- Although the Orion's belt stars are somewhat skewed in relation to the ground plan of the 3 Pyramids, we know (as did the Egypt--- I mean, whoever built the Pyramids) precession causes the height of stars to change with time over a period of 26,000 years. Tilting the sky-image back through time, to the night sky we would observe in the 10,500 BC epoch, we observe a perfect sky-ground imprint! The Great Pyramid aligns perfectly to Al Nitak, Second Pyramid to Al Nilam and the Third Pyramid, to star Mintaka. What's more, only in the 10,500 BC epoch do we find the Nile actually mirroring the Milky Way in the night skies (others concluded that the exact mirroring occurred in 12,500 BC).

- Interestingly, the outer mantle of Khafre was composed of 144,000 casing stones, all of them highly polished and flat to an accuracy of 1/100th of an inch, about 100 inches thick and weighing approx. 15 tons each. It is believed that the numeric value of 144,000 plays a key role in the harmonic connection that eventually determined the exact size of the structure. They are no longer present, having been pilfered by Arabs to build mosques after an earthquake in the 14th century loosened many of them. It has been calculated that the original pyramid with its casing stones would act like gigantic mirrors and reflect light so powerful that it would be visible from the moon as a shining star on earth. Appropriately, the ancient Egyptians called the Great Pyramid “Ikhet”, meaning the “Glorious Light”.

- This is a fact unknown to many people. The Great Pyramid of Giza is the only Pyramid discovered to date which in fact has eight sides. The four faces of the pyramid are slightly concave, the only pyramid to have been built this way. The centers of the four sides are indented with an extraordinary degree of precision forming the only 8 sided pyramid. Like with the Nazca lines, this effect is visible only from the air, and then only at dawn and sunset on the spring and autumn equinoxes. The curvature designed into the faces of the pyramid exactly matches the radius of the earth.

- Basic geometry tells us that the vertical height of the pyramid holds the same relationship to the perimeter of its base as the radius of a circle bears to its circumference. If we equate the height of the pyramid to the radius of a circle than the distance around the pyramid is equal to the circumference of that circle.

- When it was first entered by the Arabs in 820 AD, the only thing found in the pyramid was an empty granite box in the King’s chamber called the “coffer”. Though it was presumed to have been raided or vacated, it seems more likely that it was not a tomb. The volume or cubic capacity of the Coffer in the King’s chamber is exactly the same volume to the Ark of the Covenant as described in the Bible. Interestingly, The granite coffer in the “King’s Chamber” is too big to fit through the passages and so it must have been put in place during construction. Microscopic analysis of the coffer reveals that it was made with a fixed point drill that used hard jewel bits and a drilling force of 2 tons.

Any way you shake it out, the Pyramids were built to point to specific points in time. Whether they point into the future or the past is yet another mystery -- though I am very excited to see what secrets the newly discovered chambers hold.

>>>

Just an addendum - the point in time 12500-10500 BC on our current calendar corresponds to a very rapid ice age and global melt, said to be caused by cometary impact, and the foundation of creation legends the world over.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
The positioning is definitely grounds for discussions. Here is an additional theory.

pyramid_disposition.jpg

The Giza complex of pyramids, as depicted from the air, showing the north-south meridian through the center of the Great Pyramid.
According to Soviet space engineer Alexander Abramov the three largest pyramids on the Giza Plateau are arranged in a special geometric configuration known in ancient Egypt as an "abaka". Ballard found that several Pythagorean triangles could be formed by the perimeters and centers of the pyramids. - "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" by Peter Tompkin page 219.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Reactions
692
Why the three pyramids resemble the Orion's belt is an interesting question, but the belt can be seen with a naked eye. The belt is not something we discovered in the 20th century. People know about it for thousands of years. I assume Napoleon's scientists knew about the Belt as well.

The existence of the pyramids prior to 1798-1801 is not being questioned here. The existence of the Great Pyramids is.

Nubian pyramids are situated down the Nile and clearly show a very similar pyramids to those depicted on the early engravings from Giza.

At the same time a more "down to reality" question of why we do not have a whole bunch of drawings of the Great Pyramids prior to the Napoleon's visit remains unanswered. It's like no European ever visited Egypt, saw the Great Pyramids and said "Holycow they are huge". An answer could be very simple, but totally provocative. The Great Pyramids were not there.

From what I can see, the pyramids are being depicted through time in a very consistent manner, and the look like this.

yep they a little thinner and more numerous
also just like the stonehenge, the sphinx looks different in every engraving i see her!

the original pyramid with its casing stones would act like gigantic mirrors and reflect light so powerful that it would be visible from the moon as a shining star on earth
that frankly sounds like bs, from space is plausible, but from the moon?! look at the size of the earth in the apollo pictures
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
A little tiny mirror sun reflection can be seen from tens of miles away.

I just don't see what this light reflection could be for.
 

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
101
Reactions
485
also just like the stonehenge, the sphinx looks different in every engraving i see her!
She's the town bike of the plateau. She's had tails, manes, horns over the years. Even mainstream Egyptology accepts that the Sphinx has been buried and unburied and structurally modified several times over the millenia (centuries?).

that frankly sounds like bs, from space is plausible, but from the moon?! look at the size of the earth in the apollo pictures
Have you forgotten already what we had to say about pictures from space? :p The pyramids can tell you all about the size of the earth -- and the distance to the sun and stars as well.

A little tiny mirror sun reflection can be seen from tens of miles away.

I just don't see what this light reflection could be for.
?

andalusia.jpg
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Reactions
692
She's the town bike of the plateau. She's had tails, manes, horns over the years. Even mainstream Egyptology accepts that the Sphinx has been buried and unburied and structurally modified several times over the millenia (centuries?).
thats what i think too
as far as i know its one of the oldest structures on earth!

Have you forgotten already what we had to say about pictures from space?
i dont agree with it, just because NASA is censoring pictures doenst mean they are fake
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
I assume somebody has an answer why the Great Pyramids are not present in art prior to the 18th century? Or why they were considered so insignificant back in the day, that an awe we display today was not felt back then. Where is Alexander the Great's, or Julius Caesar's admiration of this incredible achievement of the ancients?
 

The Kraken

Well-known member
Messages
91
Reactions
435
I assume somebody has an answer why the Great Pyramids are not present in art prior to the 18th century? Or why they were considered so insignificant back in the day, that an awe we display today was not felt back then. Where is Alexander the Great's, or Julius Caesar's admiration of this incredible achievement of the ancients?
Here's an idea. Nothing is stated about them from before Napoleon. Could it be that any references made to them also stated there meaning and purpose. So all of this has been removed and only "great mystery" narrative was left in place. Napoleon cleansed Europe of its history. No reason to believe he didn't also erase Egypt history as well.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
Here's an idea. Nothing is stated about them from before Napoleon. Could it be that any references made to them also stated there meaning and purpose. So all of this has been removed and only "great mystery" narrative was left in place. Napoleon cleansed Europe of its history. No reason to believe he didn't also erase Egypt history as well.
Well, he is not claiming he excavated them from under 400 feet of sand, as far as I know.

The meaning and purpose theory is pretty interesting.
 

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
101
Reactions
485
Here's an idea. Nothing is stated about them from before Napoleon. Could it be that any references made to them also stated there meaning and purpose. So all of this has been removed and only "great mystery" narrative was left in place. Napoleon cleansed Europe of its history. No reason to believe he didn't also erase Egypt history as well.
To say "nothing" is stated about the pyramids before Napoleon is disingenuous and therefore hurts our case. YES, documentation could be fabricated, but there is much preNapoleonic observation of the pyramids available from a simple Google search.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
To say "nothing" is stated about the pyramids before Napoleon is disingenuous and therefore hurts our case. YES, documentation could be fabricated, but there is much preNapoleonic observation of the pyramids available from a simple Google search.
What I'm trying to point out here is the difference between pyramids and the Great Pyramids. There are tonnes of pyramid accounts in history, and we automatically assume that the reference is to the Great Pyramids.

But there is a big difference between this

egyptian_pyramids_x_y_3.jpg

and that

egyptian-pyramids_today.jpeg
What do those accounts reference to?
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Reactions
692
I assume somebody has an answer why the Great Pyramids are not present in art prior to the 18th century? Or why they were considered so insignificant back in the day, that an awe we display today was not felt back then. Where is Alexander the Great's, or Julius Caesar's admiration of this incredible achievement of the ancients?
somebody altered it, i aint so sure it was napoleon though, maybe someone faked them just to attract napoleon
 

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
101
Reactions
485
What I'm trying to point out here is the difference between pyramids and the Great Pyramids. There are tonnes of pyramid accounts in history, and we automatically assume that the reference is to the Great Pyramids.

But there is a big difference between this


and that

What do those accounts reference to?
Hmm, how about Strabo, ca. 24 BC? Sounds like he found it, at least, greater than its neighbours. We can even run math on the dimensions, if we know a 1st-c. BC stadium-length -- it's roughly 200 metres. The GP shakes out to less than 150m with capstone, currently. Strabo even reports the smallest of the 3 big ones to be encased in black, Ethiopian stone... Rounding error, or change in size?

Strabo's [I]Geographica[/I] said:
"On proceeding forty stadia from the city, one comes to a kind of mountain-brow; on it are numerous pyramids, the tombs of kings, of which three are noteworthy.... The Greater (Pyramid), a little way up one side, has a stone that may be taken out , (exairesimon, exemptilem) which being raised up (arqentoV, sublato) there is a sloping passage to the foundations."
Perhaps the so-called "casing stones" which were said to have been shaken lose by that 14th-c. earthquake were much more than just casing stones.

from Pliny's Natural History, Book 36, ca. 20 AD (Pliny's Natural History became a model for later encyclopedias and scholarly works as a result of its breadth of subject matter, its referencing of original authors, and its index. - Wiki):

"The other three pyramids, the renown of which has filled the whole earth, and which are conspicuous from every quarter to persons navigating the river, are situate on the African side of it, upon a rocky sterile elevation. They lie between the city of Memphis and what we have mentioned as the Delta, within four miles of the river, and seven miles and a-half from Memphis, near a village known as Busiris, the people of which are in the habit of ascending them."

"The largest Pyramid is built of stone quarried in Arabia: three hundred and sixty thousand men, it is said, were employed upon it twenty years, and the three were completed in seventy-eight years and four months. They are described by the following writers: Herodotus, Euhemerus, Duris of Samos, Aristagoras, Dionysius, Artemidorus, Alexander Polyhistor, Butoridas, Antisthenes, Demetrius, Demoteles, and Apion. These authors, however, are disagreed as to the persons by whom they were constructed; accident having, with very considerable justice, consigned to oblivion the names of those who erected such stupendous memorials of their vanity. Some of these writers inform us that fifteen hundred talents were expended upon radishes, garlic, and onions alone."

Take it or leave it; the ancient world was quite impressed with the GPs.
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
At work now. We can look up later when we found out about those 24 BC Strabo and Co.

Actualy found in Wikipedia on Strabo “Although the Geographica was rarely utilized in its contemporary antiquity, a multitude of copies survived throughout the Byzantine Empire. It first appeared in Western Europe in Rome as a Latin translation issued around 1469. The first Greek edition was published in 1516 in Venice. Isaac Casaubon, classical scholar and editor of Greek texts, provided the first critical edition in 1587.”

So where was he for 1500 years? These sources are always the same. Never fails. His 15th century pub was probably made up in the 18th century. Just my opinion. We do not have any BC sources. And our AD sources are very often doctored.
 

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
101
Reactions
485
I mean, the printing press was not invented until 1436... No "books" as we know them actually exist prior to the century you indicate, because scrolls and papyri very easily destructible. This is to say that information may jumble and decay through successive copies, but to imagine that no effort was made to preserve ancient human knowledge whatsoever through the maintenance of these texts creates a dangerous dependence on novelty. There is just so much evidence that these Greek historians did exist and did observe the world -- the linked introduction alone has 37 critical addenda providing inconsistencies and historical context.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
Oh, I totally believe that they existed. I just don’t know which part of what attributed to them was in the original texts.

This is a very suspicious trait they all share. Somehow the non-printed sources survive for 1500-4000 years, but cannot make it through additional 500 for us to see. Not a single one as far as I understsnd. “Copies” normslly do though.

They don’t say it for no reason, that history is written by the victors. Plato, Strabon, Herodotus, Socrates... who knows what was in the original texts?
 

The Kraken

Well-known member
Messages
91
Reactions
435
The "events" or "books" or "people" cannot be changed but the details can. Changing the caption on a famous painting is easily done. Replacing the painting is much much harder.

Girl with a Pearl Earring

Girlwithpearlearing.jpg
WIKI

I have an art book at home with a different name for this painting. Will post pic when i get home.

**edit**

Here ya go
20180509_165317.jpg

In 1974 this painting was called
girl with a blue and yellow turban
 
Last edited:

ion.brad

Active member
Messages
81
Reactions
275
Thinking that the difference in the shapes of the pyramids to which Korben gave us details is very important, I wanted a non-european point of view and I chose an arab one, as they were there before Napoleon and, the Herodot of arabs, Al-Masudi says in the french edition from 1861-1877 ( no complete english edition found): "Les pyramides sont très-élevées, et d'une construction remarquable: présente toutes sortes d'inscriptions, leur surface , écrites dans les caractères des nations anciennes et des royaumes qui n'existent plus. On ne sait ce que c'est que cette écriture et ce qu'elle signifie. Ceux qui ont étudié les dimensions des pyramides évaluent leur hauteur à quatre cents coudées, ou davantage, ainsi que l'ont constaté ceux qui en ont fait l'ascension ; leur largeur (à la base) égale à peu près ce nombre. Leurs inscriptions sont relatives aux sciences, aux propriétés des corps, à la magie et aux secrets de la nature".

The Al-Masudi height of pyramids is around 400 cubits and he uses the plural. The "ancient" Egyptian cubit rods which survived are between 523.5 and 529.2 milimeters, so 1 cubit = (523.5+529.2)/2 = 526.35 milimeters on average. That give us pyramids heights around 0.52635x400=210.54 meters, far away from today 138.8 meters of Great Pyramid height!

But Al-Masudi offer an other detail: their edge of base is nearly their heights! Actual length of the Great Pyramid is 230.34 meters. Looks like Napoleon did not build it. I think it is too much science in the Great Pyramid even for the Napoleon scientists!

Remember, Al-Masudi uses the plural and the pyramids have "all kind of inscriptions"! Where are those inscriptions?! If they used the inscripted stones to build Cairo, where are the inscripted stones in Cairo?! The answer that they put the inscripted side on the interior does not hold. The muslims keep hieroglyphs stones above the entrance of some mosques!

So, where are the milions of stones full of hieroglyphs?! Why are the european descriptions looking like nubian pyramids only?! From which manuscripts are your european descriptions of pyramids Korben?

From Antichrist Osiris: the History of the Luciferian Conspiracy

"Surid, one of the kings before the flood, built the two great pyramids and ordered the priests to deposit within them the written accounts of their wisdom and acquirements in different arts and sciences, that they should remain on record for the benefit of those who could afterwards comprehend them". (Masoudi, Akhbar al Zaman Manuscript)

So Khufu and Khafre pyramids were build by Surid says Al-Masudi and we stare at the ruined empty walls of the biggest libraries before the flood! Where are the books? Did Napoleon stole them or there were others before him? That was the knowledge which allowed secret societies to enslave the world!
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,993
Reactions
15,502
Al-Masudi says in the french edition from 1861-1877
What is the date of the actual available source for this Al-Masudi? Some copy from like 11th or 12th century?
 

Top