1650 replies to this topic

[Quaentum]

Scott Creighton, on 20 November 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

SC: It's already been posted elsewhere on UM and elsewhere. To be perfectly frank, I am of the opinion that you should seek the evidence yourself by doing your own research. I am well aware that nothing I say will ever convince you (or any of the diehard Egypt-apologists on this site) of the merits of the RVT. When evidence is presented by me on this site that the afore-mentioned apologists cannot debunk, they simply blank it and move on to their next bone of contention.  I am not remotely interested in trying to convince you of the merits of my argument hence why I honestly think it best you do your own research in order to draw your own conclusions. Like I said, the evidence has been presented many times here and elsewhere.  Shouldn't be too hard to find.

SC

Looking online I find the only results from Google about RVT are your posts at various locations including your own website.  Your posts on various websites can not be considered evidence to support your own theories.  Therefore, I looked at your site and read the Giza Genesis plan.  95% of the paper is dedicated to trying to prove the Orion - Giza correlation which has been refuted here on UM.

The only listing you have for what you would term a recovery vault is the material found in subterranean galleries and tunnels under Djoser's pyramid.  There were 40,000 stone containers found though the vast majority have the names of other kings preceding Djoser on them so Djoser must have had them moved from various locations to the underground chambers.

Your view that the name of the Great Pyramid means protect from flood has been shown by kmt_sesh to be wrong and conflicts with the Djoser setup.  Subterranean locations are the worst places to put anything you are trying to protect from a flood as the water will get in and destroy or contaminate everything down there with few exceptions.

The Great Pyramid was sealed but when broken into was not found to contain the materials needed to make it a recovery vault.  One would not make such a vault and then seal it before putting in what was supposed to help the country recover.

Based on just what I have found, your recovery vault theory remains unevidenced and unsupported.

As a side note from someone who is no expert with no further research, I would say, the Djoser setup wasn't designed for some catastrophic flood but for times of drought or perhaps even war.

[Scott Creighton]

Quaentum, on 20 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

The only listing you have for what you would term a recovery vault is the material found in subterranean galleries and tunnels under Djoser's pyramid.  There were 40,000 stone containers found though the vast majority have the names of other kings preceding Djoser on them so Djoser must have had them moved from various locations to the underground chambers.

SC: Indeed. Good to see you found the evidence without me having to cite it chapter and verse. Ready made storage/redistribution vessels. Why go to all the trouble of making such storage/distribution vessels from scratch when they already had a ready-made supply that could be recycled?

Quote

Q: Your view that the name of the Great Pyramid means protect from flood has been shown by kmt_sesh to be wrong

SC: Dream on. KMT_Sesh is hardly the fount of all knowledge and he certainly seems to have been unaware that the Ibis bird was revered in AE as the 'harbinger of the flood'. The Ibis ALSO symbolised the AE god, Thoth whom the AEs believed would send a great deluge to drown all of Egypt. And that is even before we begin to analyse the AE word for 'pyramid' (actually a Greek word) which in AE was 'm r'.  I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself.

Quote

[...and conflicts with the Djoser setup.  Subterranean locations are the worst places to put anything you are trying to protect from a flood as the water will get in and destroy or contaminate everything down there with few exceptions.

SC: Then by that standard it would be the worst possible place to inter a king whose body is supposed to remain intact and not to decay in a sodden tomb. Over and above which, the vast quantities of seeds recovered from under this pyramid complex showed no sign of water ingress. There was a reason they built the Recovery Vaults on high plateaus.

Quote

Q: The Great Pyramid was sealed but when broken into was not found to contain the materials needed to make it a recovery vault.  

SC: Why would you expect it to still contain recovery goods?  That was the point!  Unlike the mummified remains of AE kings, the recovery goods stored in and around the pyramid complex were MEANT to be removed (when it was deemed necessary to do so). Mummies weren't meant to be removed. But we still have enough recovery items recovered from two of the eleven galleries under Djoser's pyramid and elsewhere in that pyramid complex to know what its purpose was. That is REAL HARD evidence supporting the RVT.  Where's your mummies?

Quote

Q: One would not make such a vault and then seal it before putting in what was supposed to help the country recover.

SC: See above. It was sealed (from the top) when the chambers were filled. There is good evidence to suggest that the three granite plugs at the bottom of the Ascending Passage of the GP were placed in-situ as the pyramid was being built layer by layer. Why seal the entrance when the king's coffin is supposed to pass through there? This makes perfect sense in terms of the RVT but absolutely not in terms of the PTT (Pyramid Tomb Theory).

Quote

Q: Based on just what I have found, your recovery vault theory remains unevidenced and unsupported.

SC: Alas for you, I actually have the recovery goods to support my theory.  Where's your mummies?

Quote

Q: As a side note from someone who is no expert with no further research, I would say, the Djoser setup wasn't designed for some catastrophic flood but for times of drought or perhaps even war.

SC: The Arab texts state both - flood first, then drought. So I will not disagree with you on that point.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 20 November 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[cladking]

Quaentum, on 20 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

95% of the paper is dedicated to trying to prove the Orion - Giza correlation which has been refuted here on UM.

Surely you jest.  Naysayers are forever saying that any configuration or numerical
values can be found in any complicated set up or layout.  But now we're making an
especial exception and discounting a set of stars!  You can't have it both ways.  With
this train of logic everything must be coincidence.

I see no reason to doubt the possibility these are laid out like the belt stars.  It has
as much or more evidence than most of the orthodox theories.  But few people want
to hold the orthodox theories to the same level of proof they want to use for all ot-
hers.  They seem to think that a belief is on more solid ground simply because it's
widely held.

[Scott Creighton]

Quaentum, on 20 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Looking online I find the only results from Google about RVT are your posts at various locations including your own website.  Your posts on various websites can not be considered evidence to support your own theories.  

SC: The fact of the vast quantities of recovery goods recovered from the Djoser complex is evidence recovered by Consensus Egyptology itself. Unless, of course, you  now wish to denounce the Egyptologists who discovered it?

Quote

Q: Therefore, I looked at your site and read the Giza Genesis plan.  95% of the paper is dedicated to trying to prove the Orion - Giza correlation which has been refuted here on UM.

SC: Yes the Egypt-apologists can refute and rant and bleat all they like. The fact remains - the relative base proportions of the Giza three can be determined in a simple and systematic fashion using only the three Orion Belt Stars.  See here. Do not confuse what I present with that of Bauval.

[samspade]

cladking, on 20 November 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

I see no reason to doubt the possibility these are laid out like the belt stars

i hope you would believe there is a stronger possibly of me at the Great Pyramid coming across the
stone of the builders rejected that Jesus talked about and put on the ground,
in my professional opinion, me coming across that rejected stone jesus mention  
is more likely than any of the belts stars of orion representing the great pyramid.

Basically i cant rule out the possibilty of me fulfilling a prophency, while i do  realize it there is a chance it
may not be a prophency.

While you are entitled to your opinion but i have reached the conclusion that none of the belt stars are
meant to represent the Great Pryamid


regards

Edited by samspade, 21 November 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[cladking]

samspade, on 20 November 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

While you are entitled to your opinion but i have reached the conclusion that none of the belt stars are
meant to represent the Great Pryamid.

i hope you would believe there is a stronger possibly of me at the Great Pyramid coming across the
stone of the builders rejected that Jesus talked about and put on the ground,
in my opionion, me coming across that rejected stone jesus mention  is more likely than any of the belts stars representing orion.

Basically i cant rule out the possibilty of me fulfilling a prophency, while i do  realize it there is a chance it
may not be a prophency.

I just don't know.  It seems everyone has a different interpretation of the evidence and
I tend to rate them on how well they fit.  But I also have my own interpretation of all the
evidence so I rate them how well they fit it as well.  My knowledge is mostly limited to the
more ancient times.  There's no reason many of the alternative theories might be mostly
or wholly correct.  I agree with you that the pyramids were very important for a very long
time.  We don't see them in the historical record not because they aren't there but because
we misunderstand the historical reord.  This makes perfect sense since many people would
consider these structures to virtually be magic because of their immensity.  Educated peo-
ple far and wide would not have even believed in the pyramids during the various dark ages
to which the human race has been subjected.

I don't know the original meaning of the stone rejected by Jesus.  You can look up lots of
information but the meaning remains at least somewhat ephemeral. Worse is that the refer-
ent for this stone and story are also somewhat up for grabs.  If we put two and two together
then your version looks like four but without hard data and more sources we just don't know
what two and what two we're putting together.

The problemn is and has been that we have no square one.  We've been finding little shards
and devining bones for a long time.  There's a great deal of data but it doesn't shed light on
any starting point until far later in history.  Mainstream makes numerous assumptions but
rarely makes it clear that there are assumptions.  Then they reject every single theory that
doesn't fit these assumptions as being untenable or unevidenced.  Again both you and Scott
Creighton are using later historical evidence to support much of your argument.  I have no
problem with this because there must have been some meaning to every historical account.
I believe that this meaning always included at least a grain of truth and that people would be
surprised at the accuracy of all such accounts.

How can some people believe something can't be true merely because it comes from Sitchen
or the Bible????  Yet this is what we're dealing with.  Ideas and authors come in and go out
of style.  But the facts can't change. They are set in 6 1/2 million tons of stone.  We are sup-
posed to be seeking facts, not trying to be stylish.

[samspade]

cladking, on 21 November 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

   Ideas and authors come in and go out of style.  But the facts can't change.

what jesus meant with the rejected stone of the builders, was enlightment to reach the father.

and in  my  professional opinion they will reach the same conclusion and facts when they to discover the truth of  what is encoded in the great pyramid,as i have long claimed to find.  

  None of belt stars  of orion is meant to represent the great pyramid, which is a fact and it will never change because it was never designed by the egyptians to respresent any of the belt stars of orion,

Edited by samspade, 21 November 2012 - 12:53 AM.

[cladking]

samspade, on 21 November 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

  None of belt stars  of orion is meant to represent the great pyramid, which is a fact and it will never change because it was never designed by the egyptians to respresent any of the belt stars of orion,

What do you believe the design was?

If the answer isn't apparent, how does a belt alignment contradict your theory?

[YouVotedBushDummy]

I saw a video that stated the pyramids were built much earlier then that, around the time the Nile river was much closer to the sight. You could go and google it or look it up on youtube, it was a very fascinating theory but since there was no concrete evidence its in the category labeled "speculation".

[cormac mac airt]

YouVotedBushDummy, on 21 November 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

I saw a video that stated the pyramids were built much earlier then that, around the time the Nile river was much closer to the sight. You could go and google it or look it up on youtube, it was a very fascinating theory but since there was no concrete evidence its in the category labeled "speculation".

The Giza Pyramids weren't built earlier but the Nile was much, MUCH closer to both Giza and Saqqara in the 26th century BC than it is today.

Source:  The Nile on the Move (PDF - 2008)  Katy Lutley and Judity Bunbury

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 21 November 2012 - 02:49 AM.

[samspade]

cladking, on 21 November 2012 - 02:22 AM, said:

What do you believe the design was?

If the answer isn't apparent, how does a belt alignment contradict your theory?

i dont wish to disclose to much, perhaps when and if the djedi team find what i believe the ancient egyptians left behind.

anyhow, orion belt stars do not represent the great pyramid in any fashion and should be regarded as dispectfull to khufu,
i would hope scott doesnt take it personal , but its the truth,

regards

[kmt_sesh]

Scott Creighton, on 20 November 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

...

SC: Dream on. KMT_Sesh is hardly the fount of all knowledge

I certainly am not. Nor are you. The difference is, of the two of us, I seem to be the only one who can admit he makes mistakes. You try to present yourself as infallible, which only further corrodes your credibility. More than once at UM a poster has pointed out where I was wrong in a statement I'd made, and I will admit my mistake and move on. You. however, seem to refuse to budge on any conceivable issue no matter how successful and coherent the counterargument is.

Our earlier debate on the hieroglyphs of Akhet Khufu is a case in point. I presented a basic but coherent argument based our knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language and its scripts. You presented an idea about ibises waddling around in the muck. And you take issue when other posters favor my argument?

Quote

and he certainly seems to have been unaware that the Ibis bird was revered in AE as the 'harbinger of the flood'. The Ibis ALSO symbolised the AE god, Thoth whom the AEs believed would send a great deluge to drown all of Egypt.

I'm quite familiar with the mythology and religious precepts, and was studying them many years before you and I first encountered each other. Please don't try to misrepresent me or my knowledge base. Only you come out looking unfavorable in the attempt.

What's clear is that you seem to lack a lot of requisite understanding of the ancient Egyptian view of the world-ending flood. You're trying to attach it to your recovery vault hypothesis but are evidently ignoring how the ancient Egyptians viewed this concept. Despite the fact that the Egyptians never identified a specific time when this flood might happen, in their religious view there was nothing they could do to prepare for it. There was nothing they could do to survive it. As they believed, it was literally world ending—which in their view meant cosmos ending. No one would survive. The gods as well would be destroyed, because in the Egyptian view nothing would last forever. It pertains to their complicated concept of nonexistence. In essence, this world-ending flood would cause existence to revert to pre-creation status.

A pyramid with a bunch of seeds stuffed in it would be useless because the pyramid and the seeds would be destroyed, as would every single living person and all forms of animal and plant life. And the gods as well.

If you truly want to understand the ancient Egyptian view of this event, I suggest Erik Hornung's Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt (Cornell University Press, 1996 ed.). The book includes an excellent excursus on nonexistence (beginning on Page 172).

Do you understand why Thoth was associated with this myth? It has nothing to do with ibises waddling around in the muck.

Quote

And that is even before we begin to analyse the AE word for 'pyramid' (actually a Greek word) which in AE was 'm r'.  I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself.

The word mr for pyramid is not evidenced until later in the Old Kingdom. The hieroglyph is there, but there's no evidence in the phonetic rendering of hieroglyphs that pyramids went by that name in Khufu's time.

Quote

SC: Then by that standard it would be the worst possible place to inter a king whose body is supposed to remain intact and not to decay in a sodden tomb. Over and above which, the vast quantities of seeds recovered from under this pyramid complex showed no sign of water ingress. There was a reason they built the Recovery Vaults on high plateaus.

Many of these high plateaus have their own abundant water tables. Even in Khufu's time the water table at Giza fluctuated considerably. Tomb builders would've encountered it frequently when cutting shafts and burial chambers.

You're correct that water does not seem to have been a weighty problem in the subterranean areas of Djoser's pyramid, but the builders certainly made a "recovery vault" problematic there when they sealed the subterranean areas for eternity (which didn't stop tomb robbers, of course). Djoser's subterranean areas represent the only pyramid of the early masonry pyramids with considerable storage space, and yet it was never meant to be entered again by legal or legitimate means. And obviously it never was (except by tomb robbers).

Quote

SC: Why would you expect it to still contain recovery goods?  That was the point!  Unlike the mummified remains of AE kings, the recovery goods stored in and around the pyramid complex were MEANT to be removed (when it was deemed necessary to do so)...

And yet following the collapse of the Old Kingdom, Giza was abandoned. It received almost no attention or further building activity until the early New Kingdom, almost a thousand years after the Great Pyramid was built. Why would they abandon their recovery vaults there?

Quote

SC: Alas for you, I actually have the recovery goods to support my theory.  Where's your mummies?

You have a lot of ritual vessels under Djoser's pyramid. You're trying to present the situation there as a recovery vault while simultaneously dismissing all other possibilities. You suggest two centuries of Egyptological research are wrong while only you are right. You really don't see a problem with this?

As for the mummies, by your reasoning hundreds upon hundreds of tombs, royal and private, must've been recovery vaults down through time because archaeologists didn't find human remains in them (at least not the remains of the intended occupant). The absence of mummies has never been, is not, and never will be a logical or credible argument against the funerary purpose of a monument.

[kmt_sesh]

samspade, on 21 November 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

i dont wish to disclose to much, perhaps when and if the djedi team find what i believe the ancient egyptians left behind.

...

I can't imagine what more the robots would find, aside from another blocking plug or two and more lengths of shafts. You do understand how tiny in dimension these shafts are, right? They could serve no practical, functional purpose.

Whatever the case, I might suggest you not hold your breath in anticipation of more robotic exploration. This was almost exclusively the pet project of Zahi Hawass, and he is permanently gone from the scene. He no longer holds any archaeological or governmental position in Egypt in so far as I'm aware. Your only hope would be if some other prominent archaeologist takes up the project, but I don't know of any who are interested. Who knows, though? It might happen.

Editing to add: You'll need to find an archaeologist or Egyptologist who loves the TV cameras as much as Hawass did, because the robot project was chiefly eye candy for TV specials.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 21 November 2012 - 04:27 AM.

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 21 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

You do understand how tiny in dimension these shafts are, right?

yes i do, perhaps you forgotten in the older thread i gave you the dimensions.

kmt_sesh, on 21 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Zahi Hawass, and he is permanently gone from the scene. He no longer holds any archaeological or governmental position in Egypt in so far as I'm aware. Your only hope would be if some other prominent archaeologist takes up the project, but I don't know of any who are interested. Who knows, though? It might happen.

i tend to believe since there was interest in the djedi team,  that others that follow in his footsteps would want to keep interest alive, but who knows

others are  applying for other permits regarding  evidence in the Great Pyramid as i mention earlier as well.

Edited by samspade, 21 November 2012 - 04:48 AM.

[lakeview rud]

Folks, seems were getting a bit off topic (How old is the Sphinx?). I would like to see some explanation of the apparent evidence of water erosion (vertical cuts) on the body of the Sphinx that makes at least some scientific sense. .  SInce the Sphinx was evidently buried up to its neck for much of its existence it would make sense that this erosion dates from way back in its past.  Another way to check on this would be to remove some of the cosmetic surgery (more operations than Joan Rivers?) and see if there is any evidence of this erosion beneath.  Alledgedly there is some repair work on it that dates to the 4th dynasty and that would be a good place to start.