Secret Caves under the Pyramids

[kmt_sesh]

Hi KMT-SESH,

I'm contraversial enough and have no wish to debate this subject, only add humour, i was wondering if there were any ancient Egyptian Quote you would like to add from the list below, i know you have a favourite one ha ha!

http://www.historyof...pt_proverbs.htm

Howdy, monk 56

Great list! I've always got a chuckle out of the "boy's ears" proverb but the second from the top is a new one for me, and I quite like it. This is something by which we all should live:

The mouth of a perfectly happy man is filled with beer.

Well said.

[samspade]

You keep trotting out the "flawed" comments. Yet, you never explain what's supposed to be flawed with my or anyone else's information, and you never offer any details on what you believe to be "correct."

How is this useful to anyone?

i quoted you and mention your statement was flawed. it was clear to me.

then you mention you were in the mood to debate.

and you didnt want to address the issue and try to turn it around on me.

fact is your a "LIAR" and have a flawed mindset based on your flaw statement.

in the past. i have explained to you So it proves your a LIAR .

you even had the nerve to even try to raise a past issue of another flawed statement from before.

good proof of you being a LIAR is i have shown you flaw statements in the past.

so you can look it up, and see there to.

really you so think more in what your posting and the flaws that exist in your logical flaw statements

at this point, i dont have nothing else to said to

after your display yesterday, avoiding the issue when clearing you wanted to dispute the point.

you tried to turn it on me, your basically a waste of time.

if mods other than kmt wish to see the old flawed statement where it proves it proves he is lying above about not explaining his flawed statement in past i gladly look it up. kmt can look it for himself.

and he has the nerve to reference a old discussion.

You know what I've said before about a person who claims to be the only one to know "the truth," and that maxim still stands.

Edited March 3, 2013 by samspade

[dreamland]

i quoted you and mention your statement was flawed. it was clear to me.

then you didnt want to address the issue and try to turn it around on me.

fact is your a liar and have a flawed mindset based on your flaw mindset.

good prove of you being a liar is i have shown you flaw statements in the past.

you even had the nerve to even try to raise a past issue of another flawed statement from before.

so you can look it up, and see there to.

really you so think in a more logical flaw instead of thinking so foolishly, not trying to be mean just accurate,

at this point, i dont have nothing else to said, your basically a waste of time.

Calm down " Mr Flaw". This is not the place to fight with other members, especially mods.. They can suspend your account,so be careful.

[samspade]

Calm down " Mr Flaw". This is not the place to fight with other members, especially mods.. They can suspend your account,so be careful.

He is in the wrong here and lying

his behaviour is unbecoming of a mod.

he should be banned.

Edited March 3, 2013 by samspade

[kmt_sesh]

He is in the wrong here and lying

his behaviour is unbecoming of a mod.

he should be banned.

Sam, please see the PM I sent you.

[samspade]

Sam, please see the PM I sent you.

saw it , see the pm i sent you.

[Saru]

he should be banned.

Disagreeing with something you've said is not an offense, a moderator is as entitled to contribute to this topic as anyone else.

Instead of resorting to defamatory personal observations why don't you spend some time providing a concise rebuttal to what has been said and explaining why you feel the provided counter-arguments are flawed ?

[samspade]

why don't you spend some time providing a concise rebuttal to what has been said and explaining why you feel the provided counter-arguments are flawed ?

i did post mention why kmt statement was flawed in my post 782.

then instead of addressing the issue, he replys in his post 784, he tries to divert from his current flaw and then diverts with a old statement in a thread long ago,

and it can be seen as offensive because i clarified where he was flawed in the past too.

[Saru]

i did post mention why kmt statement was flawed in my post 782.

So you are saying that the opinions of KMT and those of anyone else who disagrees with your position are 'flawed' solely on the basis that, according to the post you've referred to, professional research "can't be trusted" ?

[monk 56]

Hi KMT_SESH,

I see you love proverbs and quotes like i do, although i do have a vice once a year, my family buy me a bottle of my favourite whisky for a Christmas present, Talisker, well if it was good enough for Robert Louis Stevenson, it's good enough for me once a year ha ha!

http://en.wikipedia....sker_distillery

I like your choice "The Mouth of a Perfectly Happy Man is Filled with Beer".

Although not Egyptian i would add a proverb by Oscar Wilde, although is twisted on its head and at odds with the truth, but funny "Everything in moderation, including moderation" Ha Ha!

I've never been keen on beer!

My interest in the Pyramids has waned over the last few years as there are so many investigating this subject, i like new horizons so i'm very interested in the "Ness of Brodgar" in this period of my life, and although not as large as the Pyramid complex at Giza, but was built before them.

http://en.wikipedia....Ness_of_Brodgar

Edited March 3, 2013 by monk 56

[cormac mac airt]

Hi KMT_SESH,

I see you love proverbs and quotes like i do, although i do have a vice once a year, my family buy me a bottle of my favourite whisky for a Christmas present, Talisker, well if it was good enough for Robert Louis Stevenson, it's good enough for me once a year ha ha!

http://en.wikipedia....sker_distillery

I like your choice "The Mouth of a Perfectly Happy Man is Filled with Beer".

Although not Egyptian i would add a proverb by Oscar Wilde, although is twisted on its head and at odds with the truth, but funny "Everything in moderation, including moderation" Ha Ha!

I've never been keen on beer!

My interest in the Pyramids has waned over the last few years as there are so many investigating this subject, i like new horizons so i'm very interested in the "Ness of Brodgar" in this period of my life, and although not as large as the Pyramid complex at Giza, but was built before them.

http://en.wikipedia....Ness_of_Brodgar

If you're interested in the Ness of Brodgar you might also be interested in the Knap of Howar, Skara Brae and Barnhouse Settlement if you haven't looked into them already.

cormac

[monk 56]

Hi Cormac Mac Airt,

Thank you for your comments, yes i'm interested in the sites you mention including Maeshowe:-

My special interest is archaeoastronomy and mathematics of geometry in ancient times, before i was disabled i was a member of ASH, link below:-

http://2012forum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=5130&mode=view

A contraversial subject would be if Plato invented the Platonic Solids, debate may lead to Scotland a thousand years before, you see why i like new horizons!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carved_Stone_Balls

Debate and research on this are a long way from being proven but interesting.

Drink send people crazy, i'm glad my taste buds only leave me able to get Talisker once a year as i'm not rich....a message for all!

[samspade]

So you are saying that the opinions of KMT and those of anyone else who disagrees with your position are 'flawed' solely on the basis that, according to the post you've referred to, professional research "can't be trusted" ?

first of all, a flawed statement is not solely my position.

my position is one of a analyst, and it goes by guidelines, and analysts follow those rules,

so it is not my sole position, there are standards that are followed.

i stated in past flaws in such statements and in the past i have clarified that position which he seems to wish to ignore.

i just take view of a analyst approach, where i dont rely on the opinion or work of others 100 percent , and tend to try and verifiy things rather than soley relying on a person, or a group view because i know it could be prone to error, or not fully accurate or incorrect for various reasons..

people are prone to error, miss evidence, change views, experts disagree among other experts, its unreliable,

basically i tend to be open minded if there is a possibly, to dismiss something while its possible is a very unprofessional approach if your a analyst.

example of people who views that went against the norm that were proven to be true.

1. the world isnt flat,

2. the sun is in the center of our solar system.

i wish kmt would be more respectfull to all instead of sometimes making comments which are offensive. i am respectfull that way, but it reachs a point where one is being offensive and not truth and has maded comments which i see being harsh to others, i be truthfull and comment on it while he may not like it. but the truth is the truth and he wrong.

Edited March 3, 2013 by samspade

[+DieChecker]

professional research because the conclusions of fringe writers have basically no research value?

being a analyst for so long, i see flaws in your statement, clearly your assuming to trust them.

thats a terrible flaw.

anyhow from a analyst point of view, i cant trust the majority orthodox view.

its would be terribly flawed to trust them without doing research and checking things out for myself.

anyhow in regards to people who really dont research and just come up with some crazy theory without evidence from the ancient egyptians, agreed they cant be trusted as well.

basically i stick with a analyst approach its far more reliable than trustly in someone else work or opinion,.

I think you need to outline the "analyst approach".

Don't analysts take facts generated by someone else and see how they fit together? It is truely impossible for every person who wishes to be educated on Ancient Egypt to go and do all their own field work and their own translations and their own scholarly papers. The only way to successfully extend knowledge in the field is to build on what others have already done and conceived. To reject all expert opinion outright might be the actions of an analyst, but once it becomes clear that a person HAS done their research and IS an established expert, that opinion should be recognized as such. A long read of Kmt_sesh's posts should leave little doubt as to his knowledge and opinion in this field.

You are asking everyone to re-invent fire individually.

So you are saying that the opinions of KMT and those of anyone else who disagrees with your position are 'flawed' solely on the basis that, according to the post you've referred to, professional research "can't be trusted" ?

That is how I read it too.

Edited March 3, 2013 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

With 1000 quarrymen, and power tools, I'm sure we could get a lot more then 1 per minute

Are you referring to quarrymen today or back then? if back then..so why did you used word " power tools"? you know they had no any power tools. ( but i do believe they had) plus remember...these stone were not there ready to be cut. We are dealing with technology not known to us..what else do you want me to say?

There are marks, on several pyramids. And a giant quarry full of debris less then a mile away.

Can you show me artice or pictures that show marks from the ramp used to build great pyramid?

The comment referenced modern day workmen. As I believe the post I quoted was refering to how hard it would be to do this even today.

It has been shown that the height of the individual courses of stone do not show that they were purposefully cut that way, but that the natural fracture line of the local limestone faulted at these heights, and the Egyptians simply broke off the pieces to make them roughly cubic. Blocks more toward the interior have been shown to get more and more roughly masoned. This is visible in the entrance where entry was forced, and in the well-shaft and in the room found up on the corner of the exterior.

III. 2. The Discovery of the Ramp.

During the work of relocating the Sound and Light Show cables at Giza, we were able to excavate their route beginning at the Southwest of the Great Pyramid.

Also at this time we started the re-excavation of the cemetery GIS and the restoration of the tombs there.

As was discussed above the only possible side for the erection of the ramp during the reign of Khufu was the South side. The ramp was constructed of limestone chips, gypsum, and a calcareous clay called Tafla. Due to the hardiness of the construction materials what remains of the ramp, after the Egyptians removed it to build the tombs of GIS, should still exist on the South side.

We started to remove sand for the erection of the cables North of the paved road and South of the pyramid. During the work we found a big part of the ramp used to transport the stones from the quarry to the pyramid base. This part of the ramp consisted of two walls built of stone rubble and mixed with Tafla. The area in between was filled with sand and gypsum forming the bulk of the ramp.

Other theories are proposed by Lehner and Stadelmann. I believe that the ramp rises from the quarry about thirty meters above the pyramid's base at its Southwest comer, and the discovery of the ramp South of the Great Pyramid proved that the last theory is the correct one.

http://guardians.net...ss/pbuildrs.htm

This is generally considered to be good evidence of a ramp coming up from the quarry and starting its winding way up the side of the pyramid.

[samspade]

I think you need to outline the "analyst approach".

one just needs the understanding of what i mentioned here in this thread and

other treads in the past to kmt.

but to recap if you missed it in computer terms the

concept of null is absensce of data, unknown value,

when something is a unknown value you cant claim what it without fact and evidence.

That is how I read it too.

as long as you realize that my position on his flaw statement is not to be taken as i would be the only person taking that position, as i mention earlier than analysts would agree with me.

the big problem was his reply to my post and attempt to divert instead of addressing the issue.

kmt try to divert to something in the past where i clarified it, was offensive on his part, so his comment there was offensive when one understands the past comments.

kmt wanted to argue, then choose to muddy up the water and divert to something offensive when one knows what i mention in past to him.

frankly i pointed out to the others on the board, since he decided he didnt want to address the issue. so i mention to others here problems arise, as in unknown values - null in computer terms, errors, expects not agreeing.etc

i explain it before to him, instead he choose to make that divert and throw that remark about older comment months ago, which flaw as well, which he was fully aware.

to me it seems he is not respectfull to all and i base that on what i seen here in this thread and elsewhere.

Edited March 3, 2013 by samspade

[cladking]

This is generally considered to be good evidence of a ramp coming up from the quarry and starting its winding way up the side of the pyramid.

Unsurprisingly it doesn't include the actual evidence like secret caves.

It doesn't consider that there's no evidence that there were ramps on the pyramids nor does

it consider the ample evidence that ramps would be impossible to build five step pyramids and

leave no tell tale evidence.

Almost no one is suggesting the stones flew to the pyramid or took the subway. This mostly

leaves only a ground route that starts at a different altitude than it ends because the pyramid

is on a hill. Essentially what you're saying comes down to "the pyramid was built on a hill so

they mustta used ramps". I know it's on a hill and the stones moved near the ground. This

doesn't prove they were dragged by thirsty farmers in 110 degree heat with the sun almost

directly overhead. This is all your imagination and the imagination of Egyptology. There is

no evidence of any sort that any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using ramps and

wishing won't make it so. All the evidence suggests they used hydraulic means which is rat-

her remarkable in that they've studiously avoided ever even looking or investigating hydraul-

ic means. They boiard up caves and can't run a $200 analysis oif the water in the Osiris Shaft.

The new ben ben stone just sits in the Sphinx Temple because Egyptology doesn't really want

to know about the ancient Egyptians; they only want to find proof of their assumptions.

[Swede]

my position is one of a analyst, and it goes by guidelines, and analysts follow those rules,

i wish kmt would be more respectfull to all instead of sometimes making comments which are offensive.

1) You frequently refer to yourself as an "analyst". However, you have yet to clarify what type. Behavioral? Corporate? Financial? Structural? Asbestos?(!). You would appear to utilize this appelation in lieu of credible documentation.

Different fields utilize somewhat differing guidlines. Nonetheless, there are some parallels. For example, in the case of behavioral analysts:

1.01 Reliance on Scientific Knowledge.

Behavior analysts rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making scientific or professional judgments in human service provision, or when engaging in scholarly or professional endeavors (Emphasis added).

http://www.bacb.com/index.php?page=57

In the case of policy analysts:

Policy analysts utilize a variety of techniques to accomplish the full range of their assignments. In some instances, significant emphasis is placed on the empirical method; in others, policy analysts rely more on use of quantitative techniques such as economic models, cost-benefit analysis, queuing approaches, linear programming, decision analysis, systems analysis, and simulation models in their discussion and evaluation of public issues (Emphasis added).

http://www.opm.gov/p...es/gspolanl.pdf

These guidlines would appear to be in conflict with your position in regards to the utilization of qualified scientific research.

2) As to Kmt's responses: Good Kmt has a long-standing record of restraint, civility, and well-studied contributions. Your vociferous accusations would appear to be less than well considered.

.

[cladking]

The comment referenced modern day workmen. As I believe the post I quoted was refering to how hard it would be to do this even today.

It has been shown that the height of the individual courses of stone do not show that they were purposefully cut that way, but that the natural fracture line of the local limestone faulted at these heights, and the Egyptians simply broke off the pieces to make them roughly cubic. Blocks more toward the interior have been shown to get more and more roughly masoned. This is visible in the entrance where entry was forced, and in the well-shaft and in the room found up on the corner of the exterior.

This is generally considered to be good evidence of a ramp coming up from the quarry and starting its winding way up the side of the pyramid.

You're reading way too much into this. Just as having been built on a hill doesn't prove they

must have used ramps discovering voids in the construction in a region that is exceedly low

density is hardly evidence of a ramp. How does an area get to be a mere density of less than

1.85 when it's made of material with a density of 2.71 without extensive voiding. It's hardly a

wonder that such a void is visible fronm the outside where there is damage even after the dam-

age caused by the loss of the cladding. You simply can't read every little irrelevancy as evi-

dence of ramps. If you start with the assumption they could only have used ramps this is ex-

actly what will happen; everything becomes evidence of ramps.

It is obvious from the scan that the builders wanted this area to be light. There are only two plau-

sible reasons; either there's something under here they didn't want to crush or they were con-

cerned with the ability of the cliff face to support the entire weight of the pyramid. No ramps!!

Ramps do not constitute a reasonable explanation for this evidence. They had some good reason

to be concerned with the ability of the cliff face to support the weight since there is only about

a five safety margin. Of course in an earthquake that safety margin could collapse as fast as

the cliff with the pyramid on it. I believe it's a little more likely that the reason is they didn't want

crush something underneath it. There's extensive evidence of an earlier structure around and

above the grotto area which is near this. There's also the fact that the weakest part of the cliff

face is a little west of the low density area. They would not have built lightly where it wasn't nec-

essary to protect the cliff. There's also evidence of an entrance to this area at ground level and

this implies a structure under the light region. No on cares but the PT also suggests something

under here.

When you compute those power saws be sure to count the horse power. People who use a pen-

cil almost always just throw more money, work, and time into their plans without ever considering

the human costs and the needs of the men who are doing the work. Only on paper can you treat

men worse than animals or machines or not allow enough room to work. In the real world things

won't happen and your workers will die.

I don't know why people have to see the ancients through a lens of ramps. I guess they have some

romantic notion of men bonding and a whole culture coming together while dragging stones up ramps.

They are simply incapable of even imanging an Egypt that had no options but ramps.

It's a strange world we find ourselves in.

Edited March 3, 2013 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

Unsurprisingly it doesn't include the actual evidence like secret caves.

It doesn't consider that there's no evidence that there were ramps on the pyramids nor does

it consider the ample evidence that ramps would be impossible to build five step pyramids and

leave no tell tale evidence.

Almost no one is suggesting the stones flew to the pyramid or took the subway. This mostly

leaves only a ground route that starts at a different altitude than it ends because the pyramid

is on a hill. Essentially what you're saying comes down to "the pyramid was built on a hill so

they mustta used ramps". I know it's on a hill and the stones moved near the ground. This

doesn't prove they were dragged by thirsty farmers in 110 degree heat with the sun almost

directly overhead. This is all your imagination and the imagination of Egyptology. There is

no evidence of any sort that any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using ramps and

wishing won't make it so. All the evidence suggests they used hydraulic means which is rat-

her remarkable in that they've studiously avoided ever even looking or investigating hydraul-

ic means. They boiard up caves and can't run a $200 analysis oif the water in the Osiris Shaft.

The new ben ben stone just sits in the Sphinx Temple because Egyptology doesn't really want

to know about the ancient Egyptians; they only want to find proof of their assumptions.

While this is the wrong thread for this, once again you've not proven this contention as we both know.

cormac

[dreamland]

Cladking...i have a great idea. Since there are many new theories on how the pyramids were build, and for us to find out the real thruth,me and you should go to Egypt and dig under the sphinx during long night,so noone can see us, and see if we can find "hall of records" there. If there is such place and i beleive there is,then we may find messages left by the builders about us people and how the pyramids were really build. what you think?

[cladking]

While this is the wrong thread for this, once again you've not proven this contention as we both know.

You're right that it is not proven. Indeed, if I knew nothing except the appearance of the gravimetric scan

I wouldn't estimate over about a 55% probability it shows a five step pyramid. This is a very low confidence

level and I didn't mean to imply that the evidence is very strong. However I know a great deal more than just

the information on the scan which includes evidence that other great pyramids are step pyramids as well s

professional opinion that this and others are stepped. My opinion is also influence by the knowledge that

ramps are highly improbable due to the lack of evidence for them and their inefficiency. Basically, when I

put all this evidence together it comes up a better than 95% probability that it's a step pyramid and most pro-

bably a five step pyramid.

Until it is actually studied and the tests are run it is perfectly legitimate to say "it mustta been a five step pyra-

mid" because they had to lift the stones one step at a time. This is the reality now even though few realize

the playing field has changed and the ball is still in Egyptology's court. Logic and evidence transcend opin-

ion and assumptions and the logic and evidence flies in the face of ramps whether it's widely understood

yet or not.

[samspade]

These guidlines would appear to be in conflict with your position in regards to the utilization of qualified scientific research.

.

we talking about the study of ancient egypt.

so can you clarify what conflict in my position ?

and to answer your question not absetos - im a computer programmer for many many years and then moved up into computer analyst and design.

a null is well known in computer terms.

i mention before the null in computer terms is a null, a absence of data, a unknown value.

are you claiming computer analysts dont know what a NULL is in computer terms and handling them or query them improperly in regards to ancient egypt ?

nulls are a strange beast in the computer field

and you wouldnt believe some of the stuff i seem them do.

many changes over years but was glad to see normalization of databases occur,

2) As to Kmt's responses: Good Kmt has a long-standing record of restraint, civility, and well-studied contributions.

they said adam lanza was smart and seem nice but he did horrible bad things.

Edited March 3, 2013 by samspade

[cladking]

Cladking...i have a great idea. Since there are many new theories on how the pyramids were build, and for us to find out the real thruth,me and you should go to Egypt and dig under the sphinx during long night,so noone can see us, and see if we can find "hall of records" there. If there is such place and i beleive there is,then we may find messages left by the builders about us people and how the pyramids were really build. what you think?

First ya' gotta let me see if I can get in the Great Pyramid at ground level.

I can't help but suspect there is some sort of magic in the world and Cayce was right about

the hall of records. But it's not under the Shu's Sphinx we can see but Tefnut's Sphinx un-

der the NW corner of G1. "The Mafdet Linx lives in the House of Life."

677d. The fingers of N. which are upon thee are the fingers of the mȝfd.t-lynx, who lives in the "house of life,"

Everything is there. Magic is an ephemeral thing that can never be nailed to a wall. It's not

"real" like the concrete but it exists because "mind" exists beyond the concrete.

[cladking]

Curiously enough, one of the primary functions of the Mafdet Lynx was to pounce

upon the serpents escaping from under the plateau. These "serpents" were fluid

flows coming up from below in the caves. They were not only dangerous due to the

way hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide collect in low lying areas but they also af-

fected the strenght of Osiris to stand (achieve full pressure).

The Sphinxs protected the plateau as well as those who were supposed to be there.

Those cast out were in danger.