The Coconut Fibers are the Key to this hunt

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Charlie, I thought you were all done wasting your time on the Oak Island boards. Couldn't stay away eh?

I'm glad you are back, it's always nice to have a durable reference for all the baloney modern scholarship has produced.

It's like a grisly train wreck or a Kardashian. You know you will be upset but you just can't look away.

But I did stop watching the show.

It's long been known in general how the pyramids were built. The specifics of where a long enough ramp was or went was the question. In 2007 scientists from France did sonograms of the Cheops(aka Khufu) Pyramid and found a spiral internal ramp. The blocks were quarried next to the pyramid and slid up the ramp. The smaller casing stones (the outside finish blocks) were moved from a much more distant quarry.



The Mysteries Of The Pyramid Of Cheops Are Finally Revealed!

But yes, it's just one of many theories. At least this one doesn't rely on aliens or magic. ;-)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Silver]

You are talking about the Coral Castle guy.

Yes, he most likely figured out a way to levitate large objects that has been lost to us.

My theory is that it has something to do with resonant frequencies. Every kind of matter has a unique speed at which it's vibrating. Everything is sung into existence, so to speak.

If you send an object's resonant frequency back at itself, the effects of gravity are perhaps reduced on that object.

Charlie, I thought you were all done wasting your time on the Oak Island boards. Couldn't stay away eh?

I'm glad you are back, it's always nice to have a durable reference for all the baloney modern scholarship has produced.

I believe Edward Leedskalnin discovered something unknown to mainstream science, but I don't think it's the secrets of how the Pyramids were built.

 

[New Gold]

I believe Edward Leedskalnin discovered something unknown to mainstream science, but I don't think it's the secrets of how the Pyramids were built.

I agree Silver. Although Leedskalnin was quoted as saying "I've discovered the secret of the pyramids" the problem of lifting very heavy objects is only one of many where the pyramids are concerned.

 

[Dave Rishar]

You keep misunderstanding. It's YOU who proved yourself wrong. You were saying before that things are not to be accepted just because they COULD BE true. Now you use the "could be" for your own arguments.
I know there's plenty you can't pick apart. I just don't think you actually know that.

I suspect that we're "talking past" one another. Let me back up to the beginning.

I make a claim that something is. You do not believe that this is the case. It's now on me to prove that that something truly is, inasmuch as anything can truly be proven for good; the fact that the grass is green, or the sky is blue, or gravity exists are only proven until they change, after all. We all accept these things now, but if we were to wake up tomorrow and find that the sky was green and the grass was blue...well, there go those theories.

You claimed that the pyramids could not have been built with modern technology. I disagreed, and as an example explained how a square could be layed out on the ground to the required accuracy level using only four pieces of rope and four men of approximately the same size...and that's not the only way to do it, but merely the simplest that I could think of. Likewise, I mentioned that I knew of a way to fit two stone blocks together extremely precisely, going so far as to say that I actually do this at work on a regular basis. (I'm not working with stone per se but the principles are exactly the same. I was hoping that someone would ask me to explain this further but alas, no one did.

The other "mysteries" also have mundane explanations. I haven't bothered to go into them because given the response that I got to my earlier examples, I don't think that there's much interest. The true mystery here is exactly which methods were used, but not how it was done. There are plenty of theories for how it was done, and all of them were possible back then, let alone now.

Getting back to Oak Island, there are varying claims as to what's buried and who buried it. I merely pointed out that nothing has turned up yet, and some (most?) of the evidence supporting the theories that something is buried there have serious issues.

Yeah, I have a pretty good Idea what you would say, and an even better Idea WHY. Forget this guy is a professional in his field, he doesn't say what you want to hear, what you've been led to believe your whole life. Same as what we've all been led to believe. But there is more to some things than what we were led to believe.

He's a professional in his field. I'm a professional in my field. You're a professional in your field. Are any of our fields related to ancient Egypt?

You say you're pretty sure we can build the Pyramid today. I guess you would say that, since you think it was laid out by 4 pieces of rope. It was not.

No, I don't think that. I merely pointed out that it could have been done that way - very simply, might I add. I cannot think of a simpler way to lay out an accurate square. There are of course more complicated ways of doing it.

What I had indicated was that in 1307 the Catholic Church was in control of Iceland. You had asked why the Templars would not have set up their fortress in Iceland didn't you? The reason was that the Church they were running from was firmly in control of that country. It doesn't matter what it became later, although as a Lutheran myself I can tell you there isn't much difference between the two.

You may find it enlightening to do a bit of reading about how the church was established on Iceland, particularly with regard to how physical churches were built, how the priesthood was manned up, and where the money was going. In the early 14th century, building a church and staffing it was very much a money-making operation for the landowner, and what was being practiced back then was not how Lutheranism is practiced today.

In any event, they had little contact with Rome. Wealthy Icelanders occasionally made pilgrimages there. I'm not aware of too many Roman pilgramages to Iceland. The reason it existed the way that it did for so long (and still speaks something very close to Old Norse today, while Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all speak something different) was that it was very isolated. Greenland was more of the same in all categories.

Yeah, I can cite sources for my statement that Coconut fibres were not introduced to the Atlantic Basin before 1500, although I already did in one of my first post on here. One source (there are many) is a book authored by Charles Clement, Daniel Zizumbo-Villarreal, Cecil Brown, Alessandro alves-Pereira and Hugh Harries, published in 2013 and called "Coconuts in the Americas: it has been clearly established that the Portuguese introduced coconuts to the Cape Verde Islands in 1499, and these supplied the Atlantic Coasts and the Caribbean in the 1500's."
Loki

So there were no other coconuts there at the time?

Dave, I googled "great pyramid eight sided" and themindunleashed was the first website that came up.

You will find that many different websites have reported on this phenomenon.

It has not attracted much mainstream attention as archeologists have a hard time explaining it.

That's one way to look at it I suppose. The other answer might be that it's not real. That would be a pretty significant find if it were proven. (Or maybe not. I can actually think of a very good reason to indent the sides that's not mystical in any way. Can you?)

Anyone who has truly studied the pyramids knows that we are incapable of building them today.

Really? What part can't we do?

The pyramids were in all likelihood built before the egyptians some twelve thousand years ago.

Based on what?

Your universities tell me that the pyramids were tombs, yet not a single mummy was ever found in the pyramids.

Queen's Mummy Found In 4,300-Year-Old Pyramid

Google "pyramid mummy." This should be the fifth hit.

An empty granite sarcophagus is what led egyptologists to conclude that they were tombs.

Well, that and human remains, at least in the ones that hadn't been trashed too badly by looters.

This sarcophagus is the exact dimensions required to seat the ark of the covenant, as described in the bible.

That may be, but let's stick to the subject at hand, shall we?

Also Dave, you are messing up your quotes and it's confusing me.

Noted, and you have my sincerest apologies for that. The last few weeks have been rough at work and it's catching up with me. The good news is that the worst is now over, so things should be getting back to normal.

 

[Dave Rishar]

You are talking about the Coral Castle guy.

Yes, he most likely figured out a way to levitate large objects that has been lost to us.

This Coral Castle guy?

My theory is that it has something to do with resonant frequencies. Every kind of matter has a unique speed at which it's vibrating. Everything is sung into existence, so to speak.

Who?s Ed?- Coral Castle Museum

When questioned about how he moved the blocks of coral, Ed would only reply that he understood the laws of weight and leverage well.

Perhaps he was telling the truth. Cutting the stones would have taken some time, but it would not have taken 18 years. I'd expect the job to have taken considerably less time if he was levitating the stones or somesuch.

It may just be that there was a simple (yet still impressive!) answer behind how Mr. Leedskalnin accomplished this. When we consider that both the reason and the mystery behind the construction of Coral Castle came from him and only him, and that his livelihood depended on these things...patterns emerge, I suppose. I certainly wouldn't have told anyone that I was using a block and tackle to do the job, but he might have known just how to do this - he was from a family of stonemasons, after all.

 

[lokiblossom]

You may find it enlightening to do a bit of reading about how the church was established on Iceland, particularly with regard to how physical churches were built, how the priesthood was manned up, and where the money was going. In the early 14th century, building a church and staffing it was very much a money-making operation for the landowner, and what was being practiced back then was not how Lutheranism is practiced today.

In any event, they had little contact with Rome. Wealthy Icelanders occasionally made pilgrimages there. I'm not aware of too many Roman pilgramages to Iceland. The reason it existed the way that it did for so long (and still speaks something very close to Old Norse today, while Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all speak something different) was that it was very isolated.


So there were no other coconuts there at the time?

You can say what you want about the condition of the Church in Iceland, but the point is it was Catholic in 1308!

No, there were no other coconuts there at the time.

 

[Old Silver]

You claimed that the pyramids could not have been built with modern technology.

Where did I claim that? I said just the opposite.

He's a professional in his field. I'm a professional in my field. You're a professional in your field. Are any of our fields related to ancient Egypt?

He is a professional in the use of modern, high tech machinery, and he knows the tell tale marks they make. He uses high tech tools that show tolerances, etc. Many stones in Egypt have those tell tale marks of modern machinery. Stones are cut and placed with a precision that could ONLY be done by high tech, modern type machinery. So yes, his field very much relates to ancient Egypt.

No, I don't think that. I merely pointed out that it could have been done that way - very simply, might I add. I cannot think of a simpler way to lay out an accurate square. There are of course more complicated ways of doing it.

It's obvious you don't comprehend the technology that went into that building. Nothing that high tech is done simply, unless the technological challenges are matched by technological advancements. You don't travel into outer space with Model T technology.

 

[New Gold]

Dave, here is an article explaining all of the mathematical ingenuity that went into the pyramids, as well as several references to Chris Dunn and his proof of advanced tools being used to build them.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/great-pyramid-mystery.html?m=1

I know you will pooh on that article simply because of the name of the website and probably wont even read it.

You can deny the existence of the eight sided pyramid all you want, it just proves my point that you are encountering mental blocks when it comes to accepting the truth on this matter.

We are incapable of building the pyramids today not because we don't have the tools or the general know-how, but because it would be a logistical nightmare akin to the building of the Panama canal.

It would cost billions of dollars. And there's a strong chance we would end up with an inferior end product.

Not to mention we still don't understand the true purpose of the pyramids.

The great pyramid was originally encased in limestone slabs that reflected light like a mirror.

The mortar used on the pyramids is of unknown origin. We know it's chemical composition but archeologists have no idea where it came from, how it was made, or how it is still stronger than the stone itself.

The granite sarcophagus is too large to fit through the tunnels which means it was placed in the king's chamber before the tunnels were built.

There is evidence that the pyramids were built from the top down.

The sarcophagus (lets call it a coffer) is cut from a single block of granite. To cut it would have required bronze saws with sapphire teeth.

Microscopic analysis of the interior showed that it was carved out with a fixed point drill that used hard jewel bits and had a drilling force of two tons.

The sphinx and the great pyramid both show evidence that they were submerged under water at some point.

There are water marks on the pyramid up to 400 feet above the Nile, and deposits of sea salt have also been found inside.

The sphinx is perfectly aligned to the constellation Leo as it was 12000 years ago.

The link you provided to show that mummies were found in pyramids is a joke. A few bits of a mummy were found inside a piece of cloth in a 16-foot-tall "pyramid".

This is also at Saqarra, which is a necropolis. Most of the mummies found were buried in tombs in the valley of the kings.

Not a single mummy was found inside the Giza pyramids.

Modern science tells me that looters must have robbed the great pyramid of its mummies. That's their explanation for not finding any.

The picture you provided of Ed the coral castle guy shows a pretty standard chain and pulley system...other than the box sitting on top. What's that for Dave?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Not a single mummy was found inside the Giza pyramids.

Wrongo.

Menkaure was fund interred in his pyramid (the smaller of the three at Giza) and removed in 1835.

 

[New Gold]

Wrongo.

Menkaure was fund interred in his pyramid (the smaller of the three at Giza) and removed in 1835.

Your arrogance is noted.

"Richard William Howard Vyse, who first visited Egypt in 1835, discovered in the upper antechamber the remains of a wooden anthropoid coffin inscribed with Menkaure's name and containing human bones. This is now considered to be a substitute coffin from the Saite period, and radiocarbon dating on the bones determined them to be less than 2,000 years old, suggesting either an all-too-common bungled handling of remains from another site, or access to the pyramid during Roman times."

Vyse also found a large basalt box that had no markings on it in the pyramid. This box is now at the bottom of the ocean, but if there was a mummy inside I'm sure we would have been told.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

And yours is obvious.

Inside the Great Pyramid | Blogs | Smithsonian

So, we can compromise and say: "The only mummy found intact in one of the three great pyramids was likely from a later period near the Time of Christ."

But that would prove the pyramid was entered 800 years before the accounts conventionally given (820 AD) and so could have been looted repeatedly in that time. Alchemists called for mummy pieces so even the bones and wrappings had "souvenir value" to the visitors.

There was even a market for the old mummy linen wrappings to be used in making paper!

 

[New Gold]

Give me a break Charlie. We are taught that the pyramids were tombs when we know for a fact that most of the Egyptian royal families were buried in the Valley of the Kings, in tombs.

You picked the one part of my post that you thought you could refute, and it turns out you can't.

Now I'm sure you will go back and throw a bunch of mud at everything I posted as a distraction to the casual observers, but it doesn't change the fact that you are the one making a claim that has never been backed up by evidence.

The pyramids were not designed as tombs. So somebody has some explaining to do.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I believe strongly they were built approx. 4,500 to 3,500 years ago by earth-born Egyptians using human labor and mechanical leverage and percussive/abrasive techniques to shape the sarcophagi for the interment and memorial/honoring of their kings. Contents later removed by descendant Egyptians to prevent pillaging after some initial pillaging.

The Native Americans had nothing that would cut flint and yet they made flint arrowheads and knives.

So, what do you believe strongly that the pyramids were for and method of construction?

 

[joncutt87]

The Native Americans had nothing that would cut flint and yet they made flint arrowheads and knives.

It's called flint napping; you use varied stones (some flat some round), leather (to protect your legs and hands), and a whole lot of finesse. You can also use antler to aid in the final shaping of the flint blade.

I'm curious to know if the granite accessible to the Egyptians contain intrusions of diorite. Those intrusions are common in my area, and the diorite is pretty hard stuff. Could have been used to shape the granite.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Oh, I know. I knap the flints for my flintlocks. My point was working hard stone does not always require cutting instruments.

Neolithc people drilled holes in some pretty hard substances (quartz and Carnelian - 7 on the Mohs Scale) with flint tools or sand on the tip of a wood bow drill bit and a ton of patience and elbow grease.

 

[New Gold]

I believe the Giza pyramids and the Sphinx, as well as the Osirian Temple were all built by an advanced civilization that predates ancient Egypt. The Egyptians inherited many aspects of this ancient culture, as evidenced by the fact that they sprang up out of nowhere.

There is no archeological evidence of a gradual process by which the Egyptians evolved into such a technological and intellectual superpower.

In fact, the Egyptians appear to have devolved over the centuries, as evidenced by their lacklustre attempts to build additional pyramids.

In is my belief that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built to house the Ark of the Covenant.

I don't know why, I can only assume.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I didn't refute the following because they are pretty silly:

The great pyramid was originally encased in limestone slabs that reflected light like a mirror.

There is evidence that the pyramids were built from the top down.

The sphinx and the great pyramid both show evidence that they were submerged under water at some point.

There are water marks on the pyramid up to 400 feet above the Nile, and deposits of sea salt have also been found inside.

The sphinx is perfectly aligned to the constellation Leo as it was 12000 years ago.

A mirror. Now you give me a break. They may have been gleaming white or light cream, but you wouldn't see a good reflection to pick your teeth in them.

Just what is the primary difference between water and wind-blown sand erosion? If it was water erosion it would have been centuries of immersion in a current or a lot of rain to make much noticeable difference. I'd never heard or read of evidence they were submerged or salt found. But that wouldn't be a huge surprise. Where does salt in the ocean come from? What are sandstone and limestone made of? Old sea sediments. No surprise they were underwater. But as the strata the blocks were quarried from - 400,000,000 years ago when they were formed.

And as for this:

"The granite sarcophagus is too large to fit through the tunnels which means it was placed in the king's chamber before the tunnels were built."

So was the fuel tank and water tanks on my boat. They are larger than any opening. It was part of the build process. Proof the pyramid wasn't "built from the top down" (in addition to other proofs like gravity and reality).

"Microscopic analysis of the interior showed that it was carved out with a fixed point drill that used hard jewel bits and had a drilling force of two tons."

Remember Vinyl records? The tip of the needle exerts a pressure of 25 tons per square inch (psi). It's just not many square inches. How big was the "jewel bit" or hole mentioned above?

Aligned when? The stars that make up Leo are fixed in our galaxy and the Earth spins once a day in an elliptical yearly orbit of the sun: so "Leo" is all over the place depending when you choose to align with it. Time of day & time of year. And did the Egyptians even use the same constellation as Leo - a Babylonian and Greek creation of that star arrangement - as their star map? As a hint - the answer is "no". They had a large lion and a small lion but neither is Leo. Ancient Egyptian Constellations Differed from Ours Today… | Prof's Ancient Egypt | Derek Hitchins


And what DOES this have to do with Oak Island?

 

[New Gold]

Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be nearly twelve thousand years old.

Modern egyptologists have no explanation for the amount of weathering seen on the sphinx. The main problem they have is that the last time there was torrential rain in Egypt was some 6000 years BC.

The mortar at the top of the Great Pyramid has been carbon dated as being a thousand years older than the mortar at the bottom.

Not to mention the other giant slabs of pink granite in the king's chamber. The king's chamber is towards the top of the pyramid. It must have been built first, as there is no other way those granite slabs would have fit through the tunnels.

Explain this picture with your record player analogy: http://www.gizapyramid.com/Drill_hole-CD_07.jpg

Those are grooves made by a drill in solid granite at Giza, courtesy of Chris Dunn. No trepanning here.

"10,500 BC is the time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox.

Some also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion's Belt and the horizon were an "exact match" to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids."
(from Wikipedia)

It doesn't matter if the Egyptians had the same constellation Leo. The Egyptians didn't build the Sphinx.

What does this have to do with Oak Island? It has to do with the Ark. The Egyptians likely inherited the Ark of the Covenant from the same civilization that built the pyramids.

Moses stole it. Now I believe it is possibly buried in Nova Scotia. You'll have to figure out the in between yourself, if you so desire.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Fossils take a lot more than 12,000 years to form. If there were fossils they likely came with the rocks, not deposited on them afterwards.

Carbon dating only works with organic material. There is none in cement or concrete (though brick sometimes has straw added as a binder).

Can't open your attachment - says "Invalid attachment, please notify the administrator"

It hasn't been disproved that the immigrants from Mars who settled in Atlantis briefly took a side trip and carved the Sphinx. Or Smurfs or Hobbits, for that matter. But we'd need a lot more evidence as so far we're just seeing the leavings of Egyptians and their technology.

What has the Ark of the Covenant got to do with Oak Island? It's lost (if it ever existed) and nothing has been found on Oak Island to connect it. That's another pretty big leap. I believe the conventional series of events and period writings are that Moses had it constructed AFTER he received the tablets and smashed them. But then, history is written by man and may not be facts.

We're not supposed to discuss religion and the only conclusions of the Ark, the Sphinx and the Pyramids predating the Egyptians would be faith based and divorced of science so I think we're done with that.

 

[New Gold]

Fossils take a lot more than 12,000 years to form. If there were fossils they likely came with the rocks, not deposited on them afterwards.

They were fossils of lifeforms that should not exist in a desert. Care to explain the seashells?

Carbon dating only works with organic material. There is none in cement or concrete (though brick sometimes has straw added as a binder).

The mortar used on the pyramids contains charcoal. Organic enough for ya?

Can't open your attachment - says "Invalid attachment, please notify the administrator"

Sorry Charlie I fixed the link for ya.

It hasn't been disproved that the immigrants from Mars who settled in Atlantis briefly took a side trip and carved the Sphinx. Or Smurfs or Hobbits, for that matter. But we'd need a lot more evidence as so far we're just seeing the leavings of Egyptians and their technology.

That's not my theory at all. Please don't belittle me

What has the Ark of the Covenant got to do with Oak Island? It's lost (if it ever existed) and nothing has been found on Oak Island to connect it. That's another pretty big leap. I believe the conventional series of events and period writings are that Moses had it constructed AFTER he received the tablets and smashed them. But then, history is written by man and may not be facts.

If you believe that the Knights Templar came into possession of the Ark, as do I, then it is very important to understand what the Ark actually is. The Bible tells us Moses constructed a box for the Ark after he descended from mount Sinai with the tablets.

We're not supposed to discuss religion and the only conclusions of the Ark, the Sphinx and the Pyramids predating the Egyptians would be faith based and divorced of science so I think we're done with that.

Faith based and divorced of science lawl what a crock, this is a treasure legends board Charles, if everything was married to science there would be no legends.

I will be posting my theory on how the templars came into possession of the Ark in another thread Charlie I hope you come poop on it

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/o...ure-found-now-what-happens-2.html#post4308560