Evidence of Anti-Gravity Technology in Ancient Egypt

I never expected to be writing what I'm about to write but it has finally dawned on me that it's time to stop avoiding the subject that is the most other-worldly claim that one can make regarding the extent of the advanced technology employed in Ancient Egypt. I can no longer avoid the subject because evidence is found in so many areas that reason now demands that I connect the dots. So that's what I'm going to do.
In order to follow the trail of evidence with me, one will have to be committed to seriously contemplating the logic and logistics behind the moving of massive objects. This path will not be one for the mentally timid, nor those married to established, but unfounded, doctrines regarding the history of terrestrial technology.

This journey begins with the realization that terrestrial humans are not the only humans that have ever inhabited the surface of our planet. Either you have acquired sufficient knowledge to know that that is a fact, or you have avoided it purposefully and are therefore in the dark regarding that fact and all those that will follow it. In that case, this 'enlightenment' is not for you, and you will not welcome it shining into the darkness that you misperceive as rational truth. But you can have a very interesting ride if you follow along anyway… -out of curiosity.
~ ~ ~
There are many ancient stonework mysteries in Egypt that cannot be explained by either the technology that existed in ancient times nor by that which exists today. They all involve the lifting of massive weights, -weights that span a wide spectrum from stunning to mind-boggling…with the latter dwarfing the former.

I have argued for the view that most massive objects were simply cast in place rather than moved, but there are enough situations in which that was not the case that we, in this exploration, will simply adopt the establishment assumption that they were all quarried and moved and not made on-the-spot from reconstituted stone. The fact that some don't fit the casting theory complicates matters but does not rule out that both methods were used but in different cases.
The case for the use of anti-gravity technology encompasses examples of both construction and destruction. Some things were inexplicably constructed and transported, and then at some point were inexplicably destroyed. There are no explanations for either because of the massiveness of the objects and the limits of human muscle power.

The biggest flaw in how people think about these issues is that they do not think about them in any in-depth manner at all, so the inexplicable remains unanalyzed. That's natural since there are no 'answers' that one can figure out, -at least until now. But we are going to do some analysis that I've never heard anyone do, but do it in a more superficial manner than I'll employ later when I pen a more in-depth look at the greatest of all mysteries, namely; the unfinished obelisk of Aswan.
It tops the list by far when it comes to the need to invoke anti-gravity technology to explain stone movement. If we view it as though it was already free from the bedrock then we are confronted with the powerful question of how the pre-industrial Egyptians expected to raise it out of the trench and transport it, and erect it to an upright position. It is so massive and heavy (2,200,000 pound) that, for better or worse, those questions are rendered moot in the face of such a weight.

It was far beyond possible for any civilization in human history to raise or transport such a weight, including today. There is no crane in the modern world that could be installed around it and manage to raise and move it. All cranes that can lift such weights are fixed-location port cranes that can lift entire ships out of the water. They are not portable or transportable…and they are made of amazingly massive amounts of steel… which ancient Egyptians did not have considering that they essentially had no steel at all.
The second largest transportable crane in the world is at Elon Musk's Florida Space Base, and it's capacity is 253 tons and weighs 1,000 tons. It uses tank treads rather than wheels. It could only lift 25% of the weight of the obelisk, but could not have been positioned in a quarry with no roadways.

Those facts are clear evidence that no terrestrial technology was capable of lifting the obelisk, much less placing it on a transport device and transporting it.
So, assuming that those who excavated it were fully capable of manipulating it successfully, we simply cannot include the ancient Egyptians as among the possible list of those who could. That list is awfully short since no terrestrial people or technology is on it, and it comes with the knowledge that for those who excavated it the use of 'physical means' to manipulate it would be extremely awkward given the terrain of the Aswan quarry and the obelisk's stupifying weight. That reality channels us in only one direction: anti-gravity technology being available to manipulate it however they desired.
With the removal of the limitation (-that is impossible to overcome; namely gravity), every kind of movement becomes possible. It explains its intended movement where nothing else is even conceivable.

Next on the list of 'impossibles' are the colossi of Memnon; two gigantic sitting statues of pharaoh that fronted a temple complex the size of a town. They are claimed to have been carved from single gigantic blocks of hard stone that came from a quarry far away. That would have to be true if they were not somehow cast-in-place… which would be very conceivable were it not for the nature of the stone from which they are made which is highly siliceous and dense, (quartzite)-formed by great heat within the earth.

So if we assume that the standard narrative is mostly true, we still have to exclude Egyptian terrestrial masonry technology as the means to accomplish their quarrying and transportation. They had no means to quarry (successfully) blocks of such a size… as is evident by failed attempts to quarry smaller blocks from huge blocks in abandoned ruins.

Even today, to quarry such huge volumes of stone requires an enormous effort and long powerful drills or diamond-encrusted cutting cables to split or grind through huge areas of stone.
Don't confuse that effort with what is seen in Youtube videos of one man splitting a massive boulder in two. It is completely different. A quarry is worked from the surface downward, and the walls inward, with all stone being a part of the bedrock, whereas a 'free-standing' boulder is attached to nothing so it has no bottom that needs quarrying.
Also, it's shape provides a strong force (gravity) pulling in opposite directions from its center line, and once sufficient separation pounding has been performed, the two sides instantly fall away from each other. But there is no such circumstance with bedrock since it is attached to the ground vertically and horizontally. Wedges can't create a horizontal split from a vertical line so they are irrelevant if the depth of the bedrock significantly exceeds the height of the quarried block that is sought. Deep bedrock can't be split with mere hand-held hammers since their power cannot overccome the resistence of excessively thick solid stone. (As an extreme example, consider trying to split off an immence slab from 'El Capitan' in Yosemite Park.)

So, the ancient Egyptian masonry technology could not have quarried such massive blocks, -nor have raised them out of the quarry and onto a transport mechanism, much less transported them.
Transport requires a transport vehicle or deivse, and it must be positioned under the stone block. That alone is impossible to accomplish but even that would not be enough to successfully transport a massive weight since a smooth, thick, hard surface would be needed as a roadway for dragging or rolling.

But both have a distinct huge problem: rolling is impractical because of the lack of any practical and safe means of braking when rolling downhill, and dragging is impractical because of the nature of roads…which have turns that must be followed, but which can't be followed if those pulling on long ropes have to be off-road beyond where a road makes a hard turn. They need to be pulling from on a solid flat surface which fields of dirt or crops do not resemble.
Also, human pullers can only pull for a short distance because a necessary roadway of sufficient thickness and inflexibility would be rather short being as it would need to be made of stone blocks and not sand or dirt which would result in an enormous amount of friction between the ground and any sled. Some things can eliminate friction but they are only possible for a short distance due to a lack of sufficient volume of anti-friction material, but pulling uphill would enormously increase the amount of power needed to propel such blocks forward.

And it needs to be pointed out that a famous tomb inscription of a gigantic statue of a seated pharaoh being pulled on a sled by hundreds of men is not a depiction of actual reality. It is unknown if there was any connection in time or place between the painter and what is depicted. It ought to be viewed as the artist's creative imagining of how such a massive statute was moved… perhaps long before he was even born and beyond memory of the times in which it was accomplished.

That depiction has a few huge problems that show a lack of reality. One is that the men are holding the ropes at their hips not their shoulders, and that they are facing forward instead of facing backward (with extensions of the rope wrapped around their backs). Pulling backwards allows the full surface of the foot to make contact with the ground, while pulling forward only allows the ball of the foot to make contact… and the leg muscles are only used to the maximum when extending, which is only possible when pushing downward while 'pulling' backward.

Also, there's a person pouring water or oil onto the sand to wet it in front of the sled, and that's far from realistic. First, you'd need two people, -one for each rail of the sled, but that would never work anyway because you would need a volume of water a thousands times greater than what comes out of a small hand-held vessel.
To make sand slippery requires that it be thoroughly wet (which makes it completely flat) which serves to put the grains of sand into a very close relationship, kind of locked together in comparison to dry sand…as is the case on every wave-washed beach.
But the depiction is not of dragging the sled with the gigantic statue on a wet sand beach. It's of dragging it across dry land, which means desert sand…which is not wet nor 'solid' enough to support any weight on the surface. The depiction is evidently a creative visualization, not reality.

In addition, the depiction shows that the artist was not familiar with the statue since the beard is too short and not even attached to the neck for backing as is every statue that features a royal beard. And even worse is the fact that neither the arm nor the leg is depicted as being attached to the main body of the statue. Instead they are shown are having distance between them and the lap / and the seat. No statues in ancient Egyptian history were sculpted in such a manner... but perhaps they might have been in the later Roman era of sculpting marble.

So another means of transport is needed to explain such a massive stone object weighing perhaps 1,000 tons being moved from a quarry to its sculpting location...and later to its final destination. But there is and was no such means in existence. Things that are moved over sand are either moved on camels' or oxe's backs. -or on wheels. There was no alternate terrestrial means of transport back then. So that opens the door to a means that was not terrestrial, and that means was the use of anti-gravity technology.

Next on the 'impossibles' list is the gigantic statue of Rameses at the Ramesseum.

Ramesseum - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RamesseumTheRamesseum is the memorial temple (or mortuary temple) of Pharaoh Ramesses II ("Ramesses the Great", also spelled "Ramses" and "Rameses"). It is located in the Theban Necropolis in Upper Egypt, on the west of the River Nile, across from the modern city of Luxor.
Only fragments of the base and torso remain of the syenite statue of the enthroned pharaoh, 19 m (62 ft) high and weighing more than 1000 tons.[3] 
This was alleged to have been transported 170 mi (270 km) over land.
This is the largest remaining colossal statue (except statues done in situ) in the world. However, fragments of four granite colossi of Ramesses were found in Tanis (northern Egypt) with an estimated height of 69 to 92 feet (21 to 28 meters). Like four of the six colossi of Amenhotep III (Colossi of Memnon), there are no longer complete remains, so the heights are based on unconfirmed estimates.[4][5] ~fini~

It was either cast-in-place using reconstituted-stone concrete or it was inexplicably quarried from a location like the famous Aswan quarry…where no sign of the removal of such a huge block is to be seen anywhere.
Of course, if quarried as that standard narrative assumes, then it had to have been transported to its final destination at the temple, but such a feat of transportation was impossible with the primitive technology of ancient Egypt… but, as with the unfinished obelisk, even the technology of today would find it impossible to lift onto a carrier and then transport without a colossal amount of steel equipment and at least 100 truck wheels.

Look at these massive pieces of equipment, -some in transit down standard roadways. They're made of metal but not solid metal. They're hollow tubes, but the statue of Ramses II is solid stone and weighed far more than them. Those trucks have at least 75 truck tires, so the math is pretty enormous.
But the Egyptians, in the dragging theory, had no tires or wheels (nor steel, hydraulic jacks or pulleys) so a multitude of unanswerable questions abound… the first of which is; how could they have even gotten such a weight onto a sled?

No levers could have lifted it, but even lifting it is not the same as centering it. It was impossible to do with ancient tools…unless they included anti-gravity technology.

I mentioned that the evidence of anti-gravity technology was in the form of construction and destruction. Now let's examine 'destruction', -the kind seen all over ancient Egypt, but more specifically, the kind that destroyed specific objects, including that gigantic statues of Ramses II. There are two facts that are foremost in such an analysis, and they are the massive thickness of the stone and the fact that the colossus at the Ramesseum was not a standing statue but a sitting one.
That fact rules out destruction resulting from a seventy foot tall standing statue falling over in an earthquake. A sitting statue is extremely bottom heavy and only the most massively powerful earthquake could topple it, but topple it only in a backwards direction. But, a fall backwards would, at worst, only fracture or break the neck and leave everything else intact. But that is not what is seen.
Instead, the ankles are broken and separated from the base. Arms are broken off, the torso is broken through, and the face is missing. Some sections are missing completely. Very odd and inexplicable…except by one explanation alone, and it is not hammers and chisels since holes for wedges are completely absent.

The one and only simple explanation is that the statue was dropped…from a considerable height. Consider, only anti-gravity technology could have transported its massive weight, and only an anti-gravity lifting force can explain the destruction of it massive bulk. Look at those feet...and realize that they were not an integral part of the base or pedestal on which the statue was positioned since they are 'cleanly' detached from it.
That means that the massive statue had to be lifted onto the huge, solid and heavy base...and no terrestrial technology was capable of doing that. Which only leaves anti-gravity power as an explanation. That same power was also use to dethroned it from the base by raising it up into the air and then dropping it. You can easily recognize where it landed since no human force on Earth could have shattered that base into those broken pieces.
But its use would not have been by the statue's creators but by those who opposed their egregious idolatry and deification of a mortal dictator.

Those opponents of such megalomaniacal stonework were not a force that was internal to the groups of inter-stellar colonists that brought advanced technologies to Earth, and whose descendants employed them at specific times for grandiose purposes…principally for self-glorification.

Besides the broken giant Ramses, there are many other large, and smaller objects that were destroyed by an unknown means, with the best suggestion to explain it being that they also were dropped from a considerable height. This cabinet in the rubble on Elephantine Island is an excellent example.

It's walls are so massively thick that its total destruction could not conceivably have been due to endless pounding with a super-massive sledge hammer wielded by an extremely strong giant.
It certainly did not 'break' due to falling over. Its companion in the nearby rubble did suffer damage by hammering but it was limited to the easily busted-off molding that ran down the edge of one side.

Statues of 'Rameses II' all over ancient Egypt were destroyed by badly damaging them. Many have been rebuilt in a molding process, including recreating in artificial stone more of the statue than the pieces that actually remain… including entire heads.
One cannot view so much wide-spread destruction of such thick stonework and ascribe it all to nature and falling over. Such giant objects would either fracture in two or three pieces or just crack badly. They would not remain fully intact except for having the legs blown apart near the ankles. Such damage was not the work of religious zealots responding to a divine condemation of idols since the faces on some were not even touched.
One in particular is a giant prone statue of Rameses II, lying on the ground inside of a museum building that was erected around the statue because it is too heavy to move.

If the lower legs & feet weren't blown up with kegs of gun powder, then they were shattered by ground impact.

It's lower legs and feet are destroyed but it's otherwise intact…almost. It was attacked not just by raising it and dropping it but by some form of matter-heating energy weapon that fried its left arm and the left side of the face.

The same kind of damage was inflicted on a giant Rameses at Tanis… -only more so. It affected the entire left side of the body,

and another one still standing looks like a lightning bolt fried it internally since the stone is blackened.
The question that comes to mind is: wouldn't lightning simply pass right through it to the ground? An energy that would not simply transfer to ground since it is not electro-magnetic is microwaves. They would be absorbed by an object until its surface began exploding due to unrelievable expansion caused by sudden heating.

That appears to have been what badly and inexplicably damaged the two giant statues labeled 'the Colossi of Memnon'. They suffered massive explosions of their surfaces and one of them remains a testament to that destructive energy, while the other has been 'repaired' using massive stone blocks, -presumably by the Romans when they ruled Egypt.

Now let's down-scale from the transporting of gigantic objects to the merely 'huge'. They are no less inexplicable since no technology existed, nor needed to exist, to move them being as everything build in ancient times by Egyptians was made either of mud bricks or of small to moderate-size quarried blocks of limestone or sandstone.
The 'huge' objects that were moved… apparently by levitation, include gigantic blocks of limestone comprising ancient walls on the Giza plateau,

Giza "quarry" wall...lacking evidence of quarrying

and the gigantic columns and blocks of the Osirion…

and the giant stone 'vaults' of the Serapeum, -speaking of which… there is a massive 'stone box' in the Serapeum that almost fills the full width of the corridor in which it sits and has sat for thousands of years.

~same stone vault with & without wood flooring

No explanation for its transport can be given from any conventional perspective since it weighs perhaps 60-70 tons and is not on any platform of transport. There is no massive steel frame on wheels beneath it, nor a sled of wood. It sits on the ground, so how did it get there? Something got it there and then ceased moving it. That ceasation of activity ended the construction of the Osirion... as well as other projects...but there is no surviving record of those times and events.
If some means other than levitation was employed then that means would still be visible and present but there is nothing. So again, logic leaves only one conceivable explanation.

It is unknown, and unknowable, who created such stone blocks and boxes, or why, or when, or how. But what we do know is that the ancient Egyptian technology was not capable of achieving the shaping and placing of such huge masses of hard stone, including the massive granite blocks of the King's chamber of the Great Pyramid hundreds of feet above the plateau surface.
There is no conceivable means to move and raise 100 ton blocks of granite with primitive technology, but from a theoretical perspective, anti-gravity technology could explain just about everything. And 'everything' would include the transport and placement of over 2 MILLION blocks to build just the Great Pyramid alone…besides the four other great pyramids of Giza and Saqqara.

And in addition to Egypt, there is also the super megablocks of the Jerusalem 'temple mount' platform, and the Baalbek complex in Lebanon.

So, since nothing conceivable of terresrial origin could have moved or raised such enormous weights, we are forced to consider...and concluded...that something of extraterrestria origin was employed, or intented to be employed, and that something was anti-gravity technology that we modern terrestrials may discover in a decade or two.

 This free site is ad-supported. Learn more
​