So over 4,000 years ago, the ancient Egyptians flattened a limestone hill, paved an area the size of six football fields, carried two million blocks up a height of the equivalent of a 42 story building, built the outside of the pyramid with eight sides instead of four, and made it all earthquake proof using limited tools in a period of only 20 years.

This is so astonishing that it begs the question ‘is any of this even possible?’

The evidence is carved into the rocks, but Egyptologists and historians disagree on what it means. Maybe the answer is to be found through talking to geologists, engineers, and stonecutters—men who have the technical ‘know-how’, the people who are actually involved in this type of big projects.

In order to adhere to the theory that the pyramid was the tomb built for a Pharaoh, Egyptologists concluded that it took only 20 years to build. However the precision of the construction doesn’t support that theory. Even the irregular shaped stones were placed deliberately, perfectly mirroring those used on the other side of the building. The possibility that the pyramids could have been built for an entirely different purpose cannot be ignored. However, many Egyptologists and historians strongly disagree with this suggestion and discourage it adamantly.

Yet The Great Pyramid is so mathematically accurate that the surface of the four sides divided by the surface of the base equals the famous golden number; one of the key principles of aesthetics and design. The golden number is unique and occurs all over the natural world even in the proportions of the human anatomy and also in the proportions of great works of art. This golden number occurs repeatedly and deliberately in the Great Pyramid.

Who built this pyramid? Why is it perfectly aligned with other great monuments found all over the world? Is it possible that the precision of its design is not human origin? Watch this film now.

SUBSCRIBE – SHARE – LIKE
SUBSCRIBE : https://www.youtube.com/c/StrangeThingsChannel
Follow us on FACEBOOK : http://ift.tt/2newA52
Follow us on Twitter : https://twitter.com/StrangeThings16
╔═╦╗╔╦╗╔═╦═╦╦╦╦╗╔═╗
║╚╣║║║╚╣╚╣╔╣╔╣║╚╣═╣
╠╗║╚╝║║╠╗║╚╣║║║║║═╣
╚═╩══╩═╩═╩═╩╝╚╩═╩═╝

This video is fair use under U.S. copyright law because it is non-commercial, transformative in nature, uses no more of the original work than necessary for the video’s purpose, and does not compete with the original work and could have no negative affect on its market.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Robert Orel Dean (born March 2, 1929) is a UFOlogist from Tucson, Arizona.
Dean retired from the US Army as a Command Sergeant Major after a 28 year.

The Alleged SHAPE “Assessment” of UFOs
in 1964: What the Official Records Show
The Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), NATO’s military headquarters for
Europe from 1951-2003 and since 2003 responsible for all of NATO’s operations, is not
normally associated with Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). However, Mr. Robert O. Dean,
a retired U.S. Army Sergeant Major, has stated in numerous speeches, interviews and
internet postings that in 1964 SHAPE prepared a highly classified, limited-distribution
document analysing the threat posed by UFOs to NATO, a document with the title “The
Assessment: An Evaluation of a Possible Military Threat to NATO Forces in Europe”.
Furthermore, Mr. Dean has said that he read this document while stationed at SHAPE in the
mid-1960s and working in the SHAPE Operations Centre (SHOC), and he has claimed that the
report was more than 8 inches thick and full of sightings, alien encounters and even
autopsies of the bodies of aliens killed in spaceship crashes. As a result of these claims,
SHAPE has been asked on a number of occasions for a copy of this alleged document, and
the task of responding to these requests has been given to the SHAPE Historical Office.
The first such request came in 1991. The request was made by a retired four-star officer
who had once occupied a very high NATO position, so I took the request quite seriously. I
therefore searched through all of SHAPE’s historical records – including our classified
microfilm reels full of documents from the 1960s – for the document itself or any trace that
such a document had ever existed. I also checked with the International Military Staff and
the International Staff at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, and I asked the Intelligence
Division to check through its old records. All of these searches turned up no trace of the
document allegedly seen by Mr. Dean and no indications that any study of UFOs had ever
been undertaken. I therefore replied that I could find no record that such a document had
ever existed.
As a follow-up to that initial request, a prominent British UFO researcher named Timothy
Good, who had been in contact with the retired senior NATO officer and had also met with
Mr. Dean while the latter was on a trip to Europe, wrote to SHAPE in July 1993 saying that
he had received a photograph of the front cover of “The Assessment”. He enclosed this
photograph, saying that he hoped it might help us find the document. I then analyzed this
alleged cover sheet very carefully by comparing it with genuine classified documents from
the mid-1960s and found that there were significant divergences in style, layout and
content. Among the major errors was the statement that the document was classified
“NATO COSMIC TOP SECRET”. Such a classification has never existed at SHAPE or anywhere
else in NATO. In NATO’s initial years top secret documents were given the classification
NATO TOP SECRET, but by the mid-1950s the COSMIC control system had been established
for top secret documents created by NATO, and since then all of NATO’s top secret
documents have been given the designation COSMIC TOP SECRET but never “NATO COSMIC
TOP SECRET”, which is redundant and incorrect. (Incidentally, the term COSMIC has nothing
to do with UFOs or the cosmos; it is simply a codeword chosen in the 1950s to control
access to NATO’s top secret information.)

SUBSCRIBE – SHARE – LIKE
SUBSCRIBE : https://www.youtube.com/c/StrangeThingsChannel
Follow us on FACEBOOK : http://ift.tt/2newA52
Follow us on Twitter : https://twitter.com/StrangeThings16
╔═╦╗╔╦╗╔═╦═╦╦╦╦╗╔═╗
║╚╣║║║╚╣╚╣╔╣╔╣║╚╣═╣
╠╗║╚╝║║╠╗║╚╣║║║║║═╣
╚═╩══╩═╩═╩═╩╝╚╩═╩═╝

This video is fair use under U.S. copyright law because it is non-commercial, transformative in nature, uses no more of the original work than necessary for the video’s purpose, and does not compete with the original work and could have no negative affect on its market.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Kevin Hart Admitting to being a clone.
Most people will dismiss this as just a joke but it is another example of predictive programming.
What do you think?

SUBSCRIBE – SHARE – LIKE
SUBSCRIBE : https://www.youtube.com/c/StrangeThingsChannel
Follow us on FACEBOOK : http://ift.tt/2newA52
Follow us on Twitter : https://twitter.com/StrangeThings16
╔═╦╗╔╦╗╔═╦═╦╦╦╦╗╔═╗
║╚╣║║║╚╣╚╣╔╣╔╣║╚╣═╣
╠╗║╚╝║║╠╗║╚╣║║║║║═╣
╚═╩══╩═╩═╩═╩╝╚╩═╩═╝

This video is fair use under U.S. copyright law because it is non-commercial, transformative in nature, uses no more of the original work than necessary for the video’s purpose, and does not compete with the original work and could have no negative affect on its market.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.