Great Pyramid not built by Khufu?

[Quaentum]

SC: And not to mention that the Invetory Stela ALSO states that Khufu repaired a number of monuments at Giza, including the Sphinx, thereby debarring Khafre (Djedefre's successor) as its creator, as believed by many an Egypt apologist.

SC

SC: Just showing how Egypt apologists cherry pick data to make a point whilst completely ignoring other information presented by the Inventory Stela that contradicts completely consensus opinion with regards to the Sphinx.

As for the grafittii in the Relieving Chambers of the Great Pyramid--the veracity of the disputed Khufu cartouche can be easily determined. Vyse used dynamite to blast open these 'chambers'. As such, a fine layer of blast residue will be on top of these glyphs. If these glyphs were placed by Vyse then they would have been done so AFTER the blast, therefore, the blast residue will be UNDER the disputer glyphs. Forensic science should be able to test this quite easily. Curious why it has never been done.

Regards,

SC

If you accept the inventory stela as accurate then you accept that Khufu built the great pyramid and it matters not what you believe about the glyphs

If you don't accept the stela as accurate then it tosses out the part about Khufu making repairs to the Sphinx.

If you accept from the stela Khufu's repairs but not Khufu building the Great Pyramid then aren't you cherry picking?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

And radiocarbon dates.

Of what?

And pottery dates.

Pottery found in pyramid?

And the temple in front of the Great Pyramid.

Im not saying it is but could it be that temple was built separatly from GP?

[ATO33]

Pyramids and Sphinx are probably much older than what mainstream academia would tell us.

Anyone read Chris Dunn's Giza Power Plant? Very detailed (from engineering point of view). It's hard to believe that they used primitive tools to build pyramids considering that it is extremely hard to work with granite.

http://www.weltonrotz.com/ts.html

http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html

[Quaentum]

Pyramids and Sphinx are probably much older than what mainstream academia would tell us.

Anyone read Chris Dunn's Giza Power Plant? Very detailed (from engineering point of view). It's hard to believe that they used primitive tools to build pyramids considering that it is extremely hard to work with granite.

http://www.weltonrotz.com/ts.html

http://www.robertsch...inxcontent.html

95-99% of each pyramid is made from limestone blocks

Edited September 13, 2012 by Quaentum

[ATO33]

You got it yet?

The first study, by the geologist David Coxill ("The Riddle of the Sphinx" published in the Spring 1998 issue (Issue 2, pp. 13-19) of the journal "InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt"), has already been mentioned and quoted above. After confirming my observations on the weathering and erosion of the Sphinx, and pointing out that other explanations (for instance, as proposed by Gauri and Harrell) do not work, Coxill clearly states (page 17): "This (the data and analysis he covers in the preceding portions of his paper) implies that the Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and predates dynastic times." Coxill then discusses very briefly the seismic work that Thomas Dobecki and I pursued and my estimate of an initial date of 5,000 to 7,000 B.C. for the earliest parts of the Sphinx based on the seismic data. He neither supports nor refutes this portion of my work, but simply writes (page 17): "Absolute dates for the sculpturing of the Sphinx should be taken with extreme caution and therefore dates should be as conservative as possible--until more conclusive evidence comes to light." I can understand that he could take this stance, although perhaps I feel more comfortable with, and confident in, the seismic analysis we did. Coxill, in the next paragraph of his paper (page 17), continues: "Nevertheless, it (the Sphinx) is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx--in the reign of Khafre, 2520-2490 B.C."

Another geologist, Colin Reader, has also pursued a

[Scott Creighton]

If you accept the inventory stela as accurate then you accept that Khufu built the great pyramid and it matters not what you believe about the glyphs

SC: You are obviously unaware of my views. Many of the Egypt apologists on this site are well aware that I take the view that Khufu was the builder of the Great Pyramid--but Khufu was not the second king of the 4th dynasty as the Egyptologists and their Egypt apologists would have us believe.

Quaentum: If you don't accept the stela as accurate then it tosses out the part about Khufu making repairs to the Sphinx.

SC: Moot. I accept Khufu built the Great Pyramid. Always have, always will. I just don't accept that he is who the Egyptologists and their Egypt apologists say he is i.e. the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty.

Quaentum: If you accept from the stela Khufu's repairs but not Khufu building the Great Pyramid then aren't you cherry picking?

SC: No, obviously not since I accept Khufu built the Great Pyramid. And I accept that Khufu made repairs to the Sphinx also. I accept everything the Inventory Stela tells us. The Egyptologists and their Egypt apologists don't--they cherry pick what they want to believe from this Stela. So--where exactly does that leave your argument?

Next.

Regards,

SC

Edited September 13, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Silver Surfer]

Traditional Egyptologists are just stuck in the mud embarrassed fools... they are so far off the mark... the only problem is they have been claiming the same bulls*** for years and now look like a bunch of turkeys.

Watch this video which uses real world geologists and construction architects who analyse the great pyramids. They were so far beyond our capabilities it is not even funny....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooy2LTJoMVM

[Big Bad Voodoo]

26:54 is mystery.

Also 21:38 We havent work on tech used to make vases.

Thats what I have been talking for a while.

Edited September 13, 2012 by the L

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I just don't accept that he is who the Egyptologists and their Egypt apologists say he is i.e. the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty.

Why?

[cladking]

Traditional Egyptologists are just stuck in the mud embarrassed fools... they are so far off the mark... the only problem is they have been claiming the same bulls*** for years and now look like a bunch of turkeys.

Watch this video which uses real world geologists and construction architects who analyse the great pyramids. They were so far beyond our capabilities it is not even funny....

Egyptology and their assumptions are crumbling.

It's simply not a good idea to found anything on assumption and this goes many times over

when the assumptions aren't even logical. While the assumption they were tombs at least

seemed to make sense the assumptions that they must have used ramps never made any

sense at all. The assumption that the people were superstitious seemed to make sense but

only because they made the wholly inane assumption that the people of Egypt and their be-

liefs never changed at all.

Stick 'em with a fork... ...they're done.

They're just in the way of progress now. They run block to be sure no one ever has proof

of the real facts.

[kmt_sesh]

Traditional Egyptologists are just stuck in the mud embarrassed fools... they are so far off the mark... the only problem is they have been claiming the same bulls*** for years and now look like a bunch of turkeys.

Watch this video which uses real world geologists and construction architects who analyse the great pyramids. They were so far beyond our capabilities it is not even funny....

>>Snip<<

Egyptology and their assumptions are crumbling.

It's simply not a good idea to found anything on assumption and this goes many times over

when the assumptions aren't even logical. While the assumption they were tombs at least

seemed to make sense the assumptions that they must have used ramps never made any

sense at all. The assumption that the people were superstitious seemed to make sense but

only because they made the wholly inane assumption that the people of Egypt and their be-

liefs never changed at all.

Stick 'em with a fork... ...they're done.

They're just in the way of progress now. They run block to be sure no one ever has proof

of the real facts.

It always amuses me that the people who believe these things are the same people who don't understand Egyptology, its methodologies, or the sciences it employs. Nor does any attempt ever seem to be made to rectify such shortcomings. Then again, it's easy to rail against that which you don't understand.

A familiar image comes to mind when such folks encounter real-world research:

[Banksy Boy]

Also 21:38 We havent work on tech used to make vases.

I'm still waiting for at least one of the 'knowalls' on here to make one then show us their skills. Unfortunately most on here tend to be talkers rather than doers..... I don't expect to see anything materialize soon.

............Waits for the dummies to start being spat out

[Arbitran]

It always amuses me that the people who believe these things are the same people who don't understand Egyptology, its methodologies, or the sciences it employs. Nor does any attempt ever seem to be made to rectify such shortcomings. Then again, it's easy to rail against that which you don't understand.

A familiar image comes to mind when such folks encounter real-world research:

Tell me about it! Although, in my case, it's in pertinence to evolution and these asinine creationists. I find it ironic, that in each conversation I conduct with them, their behavior so closely resembles this trio of monkeys.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Arbitran

[kmt_sesh]

I'm still waiting for at least one of the 'knowalls' on here to make one then show us their skills. Unfortunately most on here tend to be talkers rather than doers..... I don't expect to see anything materialize soon.

............Waits for the dummies to start being spat out

No one's stopping you from doing it. So, stop talking and start doing.

[Banksy Boy]

I think we have been through all this haven't we lol.....I'm not the one claiming it can be done am I

[kmt_sesh]

I think we have been through all this haven't we lol.....I'm not the one claiming it can be done am I

Probably we have. I can't keep track. But you seem to be the only one asking this, and I'm willing to bet you have a similar skill set as most of the rest of us. I myself cannot claim to have the skills to reproduce such an artifact, and to be honest, neither would I have the interest to do so. In other words, how many of us here are professional stone masons? Realistically, how many here could craft such an object?

But obviously it can be done because...it was done. And it was done 5,000 years ago.

[cladking]

It always amuses me that the people who believe these things are the same people who don't understand Egyptology, its methodologies, or the sciences it employs. Nor does any attempt ever seem to be made to rectify such shortcomings. Then again, it's easy to rail against that which you don't understand.

Have you been keeping up with the news? It still doesn't support the assumptions.

Good theory makes good predictions and Egyptological predictions haven't worked.

Everyday people are coming up with new observations that show the builders were

sophisticated and scientific. This is not consistent with the assumptions. Of course,

neither is the pyramid but it's dismissed as a habit.

Edited September 13, 2012 by cladking

[kmt_sesh]

Have you been keeping up with the news? It still doesn't support the assumptions.

Good theory makes good predictions and Egyptological predictions haven't worked.

Everyday people are coming up with new observations that show the builders were

sophisticated and scientific. This is not consistent with the assumptions. Of course,

neither is the pyramid but it's dismissed as a habit.

Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms, not from the perspective of science fiction. Every day people do indeed come up with new observations. Most of them have problems with accuracy, while nearly all of the stuff slapped up on the internet is not worth consideration.

Aside from that, what you quoted are definitely my words, but it's weird that the quote is attributed to Banksy Boy. Last I checked, I'm still posting under kmt_sesh.

Ghost in the machine?

[Silver Surfer]

It always amuses me that the people who believe these things are the same people who don't understand Egyptology, its methodologies, or the sciences it employs. Nor does any attempt ever seem to be made to rectify such shortcomings. Then again, it's easy to rail against that which you don't understand.

A familiar image comes to mind when such folks encounter real-world research:

Yea yea whatever dude.. people ARE obviously researching it from another perspective and finding GIANT gaps in their logic... Some of their assumptions are just plain ridiculous... its obvious for anyone with half a brain to see. You can't hide behind saying people are ignorant now when the ignorance of those gone before is apparent to all. There is real-world research there... go on explain away all the ideas in that doco, i'd love to see it.

Edited September 13, 2012 by 4MinuteNile

[docyabut2]

Good grief, khufu built his pyramid and Atlantis was off the coast of Spain:)

[Scott Creighton]

Kmt_sesh: Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms…

from here.

kmt_sesh: Of course the heavens were important to the Egyptians, but not to the extent that we ought to think of them as "master astronomers."

from here

SC: So, the AEs were sophisticated and scientific but just not too sophisticated or scientific, if we are to believe what the Egypt apologists tell us. Well, consider the following:

]ABSTRACT[/b]

The eclipses in binary stars give precise information of orbital period changes. Goodricke discovered the 2.867 days period in the eclipses of Algol in the year 1783. The irregular orbital period changes of this longest known eclipsing binary continue to puzzle astronomers. The mass transfer between the two members of this binary should cause a long-term increase of the orbital period, but observations over two centuries have not confirmed this effect. Here, we present evidence indicating that the period of Algol was 2.850 days three millenia ago. For religious reasons, the ancient Egyptians have recorded this period into the Cairo Calendar, which describes the repetitive changes of the Raging one. Cairo Calendar may be the oldest preserved historical document of the discovery of a variable star. From this paper.

SC: So, given that our own civilisation did not discover Algol as a variable star until 1783, do you still consider that the astronomical knowledge of the ancient Egyptians presented in the above abstract/paper to be "....sophisticated and scientific-- in realistic Bronze Age terms…”? And do you not consider that the AEs, contrary to your statement that they were not "...master astronomers...", were, in fact, much more adept and advanced in astronomy than you give them credit for?

SC

[cladking]

Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms, not from the perspective of science fiction. Every day people do indeed come up with new observations. Most of them have problems with accuracy, while nearly all of the stuff slapped up on the internet is not worth consideration.

Aside from that, what you quoted are definitely my words, but it's weird that the quote is attributed to Banksy Boy. Last I checked, I'm still posting under kmt_sesh.

Ghost in the machine?

Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms, not from the perspective of science fiction. Every day people do indeed come up with new observations.

I just have to disagree.

So long as things are interpreted the way they are actually interpreted by Egyptology there

is no real conclusion a reasonable person can make other than these interpretations paint the

ancients as being highly superstitious and extremely primitive both in terms of technology and

their metaphysics. While I would agree that their technology was apparently fairly primitve (though

even this has yet to be firmly established), their understanding of nature and the means they ac-

heived this understanding was more advanced than our own.

All these things are not mere coincidences. They exist because the Egyptians had a far deeper

understanding of nature than we've admitted or could admit.

Ghost in the machine?

Things are calming down between my computer and the site's software. This one could have been

my fault.

[kmt_sesh]

Yea yea whatever dude.. people ARE obviously researching it from another perspective and finding GIANT gaps in their logic... Some of their assumptions are just plain ridiculous... its obvious for anyone with half a brain to see. You can't hide behind saying people are ignorant now when the ignorance of those gone before is apparent to all. There is real-world research there... go on explain away all the ideas in that doco, i'd love to see it.

I watched several minutes of the video you posted earlier, skimming here and there. This discussion isn't the appropriate venue for debating the video, so if you're really interested in doing so, you should probably start a new thread. More than likely I would take part.

Suffice it to say, everything I watched in my skimming was far from "new" from the fringe world. Parts of it are regurgitations of old fringe arguments dating back more than thirty years. It's the same stuff repeated through the years by the likes of Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Däniken, plus newer material by better educated but still comically incorrect folks like Chris Dunn. I've even seen it regurgitated on that sadly idiotic program Ancient Aliens.

The gist of it is, I remain unconvinced and unimpressed. To date fringe authors have not once forwarded an idea that can put even a scratch in the simplest principles of orthodox research. But start a new discussion if you want to talk about the video.

[kmt_sesh]

Why can there be no logical argument against the currently accepted time line of the pyramids you stated?

Haven't we covered this enough already? Granted, I could go on and on about how we can confirm attestation of the Great Pyramid to Khufu in the early to mid-third millennium BCE, but the carbon-dating results alone are unassailable.

I'm quite aware that some people still continue to doubt the C14 findings, and there are usually a couple of reasons for doing so. First, the scientific findings don't fit with some people's preconceived notions about the timeframe of the Great Pyramid (i.e., Atlanteans built it, aliens built it), so they simply chose to ignore the scientific findings. Second, most people with a fringe agenda have very little understanding about the carbon-dating method and how precise it's become, so they chose to argue their case from a position of ignorance. The latter group reminds me of creationists. Whatever the case, I should hope you wouldn't want to be lumped in with either of these groups.

Also are you sure that there are no heiroglyphs inside or outside the other pyramids as compared to the great pyramid?

As I wrote earlier, no royal tomb until the end of Dynasty 5 received a formal internal inscriptional plan. That's a basic fact (with the possible exception of brief hieroglyphic inscriptions in the subterranean areas of Djoser's pyramid). This does not include graffiti, of course. But graffiti is not part of a formal inscriptional plan. Many pyramids have graffiti in them and on them.

And if mainstream historians are really open minded and accept all their speculations to be what they actually are i.e 'speculation' then how different would they be from Fringees,

As a poster commented very aptly in an earlier post, historians will view and consider speculation but present it as such, until such time that evidence can turn speculation into theory or fact; conversely, fringe authors present speculation as fact, flat out. It's a decidedly deceptive practice.

what be the options for student's of histories studying these speculations as hard proven facts and growing up to snub any arguments against these speculations?

It all depends on the nature of the student's sources as well as the student's educational experience and his ability to apply critical thinking. Naturally many people turn right away to the internet. As wonderful as the internet can be for all manner of activities, as a source of information for useful and probative research, it is exceedingly limited. I can't precisely quantify it, but from my own experience, for every website dispensing reliable and valid information, there must be dozens presenting half-baked, poorly founded twaddle. For this reason a savvy and disciplined educator will not accept the internet as a source of information for students' papers. I've met high school teachers and college professors who state that if a student turns in a paper containing citations to websites for research purposes, that student will earn a failing grade on the paper. As a former teacher myself (but back before the internet was nearly as wide reaching as it is today), I would most certainly follow the same practice.

A formal educational experience is not necessarily required, of course. Here critical thinking is especially important, and many adults seem to suffer from an absence of it. Still, quite a few posters here at UM have said they do not have formal college degrees but have taken the time to educate themselves. Not only do I applaud them, but I consider some of these people to be extremely intelligent. Some even began with a belief in all things fringe, but upon taking the time to dig deeper and educate themselves, they saw the fringe for the sad thing it is and no longer believe a word of it.

Do you agree that if the mainstream wanted to collectively ignore an alternative explaination about their current erroneous belief then they could have pretty much have manipulated the entire process to do exactly the same,it is more difficult now to supress things now due to the internet and other advances in communication but it was not the same for a really huge periods of time.

No, academia does not suppress fringe ideas or literature, nor does it need to. For that matter, nor could it. Many posters have proclaimed nefarious and shady conspiracies concocted by the world of academia to stamp out "the truth," but if anyone really understands the nature of academia, he or she would see this statement for the ridiculous and unrealistic twaddle it truly is.

For the most part professional scholars simply ignore fringe authors. Nevertheless, over the years I've read historians' critiques of fringe work and why it cannot be accepted as valid, so on occasion academia does pay attention. Not usually, however. Fringe notions are sometimes so divorced from common sense that they need not be taken seriously in the first place.

[kmt_sesh]

SC: You are obviously unaware of my views. Many of the Egypt apologists on this site are well aware that I take the view that Khufu was the builder of the Great Pyramid--but Khufu was not the second king of the 4th dynasty as the Egyptologists and their Egypt apologists would have us believe.

...

So, I have to ask you, as a resident fringologist at UM, who do you think the second king of Dynasty 4 was? And how have you formed this belief? I'm honestly curious. I don't recall this from previous debates with you.