1650 replies to this topic

[kmt_sesh]

samspade, on 18 November 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

Since your view counterdicts  some Egyptologists I can not agree with you.

http://www.touregypt...s/smallstep.htm
here is a quote from the above link

"Huni, the last ruler of the 3rd Dynasty, who probably at least built the one located on Elephantine Island.

They are very different than the later, larger pyramids, having no internal chambers, nor any underground structures. Among them, only the pyramid in Zawiyet el-Meiyitin was not built on the west bank of the Nile. The purpose of these pyramids is a matter of dispute among Egyptologists, though without any chambers within or below, they could probably not have been true tombs. Nor has any evidence of a funerary cult been found near these pyramids, though some believe they might have been centotaphs (fake tombs) of queens. Others believe they might have been shrines connected with the myth of Horus and Seth, or perhaps predecessors of the later sun temples, while still others believe they represented the primeval mound on which life was created. In fact, we may never completely understand their purpose, unless other evidence is uncovered."

It's not my "view," samspade. It's the current consensus of Egyptology. It's not even clear where much of your information is coming from, aside from the internet.

I cannot make you see my position, nor is there any requirement for you to do so. I perfectly understand that. What frustrates me, however, is how you seem to ignore the point-by-point synopsis of research I've presented, such as the weak and unreliable evidence for linking Huni to the Elephantine pyramid. Is it possible Huni built this one? Yes, it's possible, but the evidence as it stands is not very credible, so stating it as a fact is misleading. The evidence for Sneferu having built all of them is not rock solid, either, but it's certainly on stronger ground.

Look at the paragraph you yourself quoted. It more or less dismisses the premise of cenotaphs. The one exception is an old theory equating them with the cenotaphs of queens, which is a rather silly idea in the first place. This is not something Egyptology posits any longer. You're either missing or ignoring a wealth of current research.

You also still seem to be evading my request for your source for claiming Huni died away from Egypt. What's up with that?

You are free to believe what you want. No one can deny you that. Just don't be surprised, at least in this case, if your belief is incorrect.

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 20 November 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

It's not my "view," samspade. It's the current consensus of Egyptology.

well my previous post just proved your statement was incorrect ,y showing some egyptologists did not believe in your statement,  you mention  now it was not your view, well you show not been as vague.

kmt_sesh, on 20 November 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

The evidence for Sneferu having built all of them is not rock solid, either, but it's certainly on stronger ground.

stronger ground ? your statement is incorrect and based on unreliable evidence, even the co-author  as you mention did share other author view.

the Seila pyramid is more developed  than the other small 6 pyramids and thats why the german archaeologists date Seila to Snofru, but others believed that all 7 were done by Huni.

but to be fair, to me, and others at the hall of matt egypt forum,
  if you can show evidence which  shows  the stronger ground to be Snofru pyramid and
  not Huni pyramid at Elephantine, post it at the hall of matt in the egyptian forum.

i am sure Warwick and Anthony would love it, especially Anthony,
he could update his pdf files and article. Until Anthony revises his statements and warwick revises statements and views i frankly cant discard what i have read by articles, pdf etc going by the unreliable evidence your have given.

i had to address the more important issue, not a request, plus to remind you I did you the word "probably" in that phrase about Huni, not that it was absolutely certain. But a lack of a pyramid complex does really stick out for Huni. anyhow, it does not disclude me thinking he may of died at home. i think you missed seeing the word probably.

Edited by samspade, 20 November 2012 - 06:03 AM.

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 20 November 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Look at the paragraph you yourself quoted. It more or less dismisses the premise of cenotaphs. The one exception is an old theory equating them with the cenotaphs of queens, which is a rather silly idea in the first place. This is not something Egyptology posits any longer. You're either missing or ignoring a wealth of current research.

well that article was updated june 2011, and Dunn talks about the small pyramid and
goes to mention
" In fact, we may never completely understand their purpose, unless other evidence is uncovered.".

you have not provided any  peer review or new evidence released in the last year or so,
to prove the purpose of these specifc small pyramids,  so until then the egyptologists views stands..

http://www.touregypt...s/smallstep.htm
heres quote from above link
"They are very different than the later, larger pyramids, having no internal chambers, nor any underground structures. Among them, only the pyramid in Zawiyet el-Meiyitin was not built on the west bank of the Nile. The purpose of these pyramids is a matter of dispute among Egyptologists, though without any chambers within or below, they could probably not have been true tombs. Nor has any evidence of a funerary cult been found near these pyramids, though some believe they might have been centotaphs (fake tombs) of queens. Others believe they might have been shrines connected with the myth of Horus and Seth, or perhaps predecessors of the later sun temples, while still others believe they represented the primeval mound on which life was created. In fact, we may never completely understand their purpose, unless other evidence is uncovered."

Edited by samspade, 20 November 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

samspade, on 20 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

well my previous post just proved your statement was incorrect ,y showing some egyptologists did not believe in your statement,  you mention  now it was not your view, well you show not been as vague.



stronger ground ? your statement is incorrect and based on unreliable evidence, even the co-author  as you mention did share other author view.

the Seila pyramid is more developed  than the other small 6 pyramids and thats why the german archaeologists date Seila to Snofru, but others believed that all 7 were done by Huni.

but to be fair, to me, and others at the hall of matt egypt forum,
  if you can show evidence which  shows  the stronger ground to be Snofru pyramid and
  not Huni pyramid at Elephantine, post it at the hall of matt in the egyptian forum.

i am sure Warwick and Anthony would love it, especially Anthony,
he could update his pdf files and article. Until Anthony revises his statements and warwick revises statements and views i frankly cant discard what i have read by articles, pdf etc going by the unreliable evidence your have given.

i had to address the more important issue, not a request, plus to remind you I did you the word "probably" in that phrase about Huni, not that it was absolutely certain. But a lack of a pyramid complex does really stick out for Huni. anyhow, it does not disclude me thinking he may of died at home. i think you missed seeing the word probably.

You haven't proven anyone wrong. Since "concensus" is the majority view and "some" is not, you've just shown you didn't understand what was being said.

cormac

[Quaentum]

Scott Creighton, on 17 November 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

If everything were to be washed away in a great inundation or otherwise lost by some other means, where do you obtain the seeds to start again and how do you ensure they will be found (sooner rather than later)? I'll give you a clue - the seeds (and other essential recovery items) were placed in very BIG thus highly visible structures whose name begins with the letter 'P'.

Must have been magic disappearing seeds and other items because they certainly didn't find them in any of the sealed pyramids

[cormac mac airt]

Quaentum, on 20 November 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Must have been magic disappearing seeds and other items because they certainly didn't find them in any of the sealed pyramids

And according to the Arabs that Scott likes to pretend were historians, happened 300 years after this alleged axial tilt which places it c.2045 BC. This would be the 11th Dynasty which bears no evidence of having had a "Great Flood" of any such magnitude. So again, another fail.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

Quaentum, on 20 November 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Must have been magic disappearing seeds and other items because they certainly didn't find them in any of the sealed pyramids

SC: Even basic research will show just how wrong your statement above actually is.

SC

[Scott Creighton]

cormac mac airt, on 20 November 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

And according to the Arabs that Scott likes to pretend were historians, happened 300 years after this alleged axial tilt which places it c.2045 BC. This would be the 11th Dynasty which bears no evidence of having had a "Great Flood" of any such magnitude. So again, another fail.

cormac

SC: Try following what has actually been said rather than spouting forth what you think has been said. Just because the AE astronomer-priests anticipated a great deluge and advised the king to prepare the kingdom, doesn't actually mean it came about.

Although there are, of course, AE legends that an actual flood that destroyed the kingdom DID occur. Basic research would tell you that.

And as for the Arabs as historians - if it weren't for the Arab chroniclers the writings of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates would never have come down to us either.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 20 November 2012 - 05:32 PM.

[samspade]

cormac mac airt, on 20 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

You haven't proven anyone wrong. Since "concensus" is the majority view and "some" is not,

my comment was directed to his statement in post #1211 , which at that point  nothing mentioned by kmt suggested it was a concensus view.

based on his statement at that point, it was incorrect, and i mentioned that. in his following post he mentioned it was not his view but a concensus view.

it showed how i proved his statement was incorrect, you didnt understand what was being said.

to recap his statement in #1211 here it is , noticed there is no mention of concensus view at that point.

kmt_sesh, on 18 November 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

None of these tiny pyramids were cenotaphs.

concensus view is  that it is  Huni pyramid at Elephantine.

Edited by samspade, 20 November 2012 - 06:40 PM.

[Quaentum]

Scott Creighton, on 20 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

SC: Even basic research will show just how wrong your statement above actually is.

SC

Since you have made the claim that they were recovery vaults that had seeds and other recovery items within them please show links to that information

[Scott Creighton]

Quaentum, on 20 November 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Since you have made the claim that they were recovery vaults that had seeds and other recovery items within them please show links to that information

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

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

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

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

This is asking to prove a negative as it will need to be proved what AEs thought and what they said to each other. It is for you to prove these things, many of which seem to be from the realms of mysticism, or something.....

In blurb to your book is this "Uncovers the location of an additional as-yet-undiscovered "recovery vault" on the Giza plateau, as revealed in the myth of Osiris". This seems to be an oxymoron, this "recovery vault" is discovered or not? And why use this word "recovery" in connection with Osiris? surely you mean resurection, though that does not quite tie in with your theory of pyramids being some sort of ark. Seems you have twisted the meaning of words. Besides, it does not fit with Osiris also being Ra/Horus/Ptah/Atum/Amun and on and on.

Why should anybody believe your theory, which is one among many contradictory theories. Why is your theory correct and all other theories wrong? I don't comment from position of ignorance, I read the fantasy books, and I have been sent a copy of yours in the post. Should be with me in about 5 days, and I look forward to dissecting it, if I have not cracked ribs laughing by end of first chapter...

[questionmark]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 20 November 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

This is asking to prove a negative as it will need to be proved what AEs thought and what they said to each other. It is for you to prove these things, many of which seem to be from the realms of mysticism, or something.....

In blurb to your book is this "Uncovers the location of an additional as-yet-undiscovered "recovery vault" on the Giza plateau, as revealed in the myth of Osiris". This seems to be an oxymoron, this "recovery vault" is discovered or not? And why use this word "recovery" in connection with Osiris? surely you mean resurection, though that does not quite tie in with your theory of pyramids being some sort of ark. Seems you have twisted the meaning of words. Besides, it does not fit with Osiris also being Ra/Horus/Ptah/Atum/Amun and on and on.

Why should anybody believe your theory, which is one among many contradictory theories. Why is your theory correct and all other theories wrong? I don't comment from position of ignorance, I read the fantasy books, and I have been sent a copy of yours in the post. Should be with me in about 5 days, and I look forward to dissecting it, if I have not cracked ribs laughing by end of first chapter...

Oh come on, give him a break, he tried so hard...btw, where is the nearest book antiquary near you? I might buy the book once you discarded it, it is enough if he earns money on you

Edited by questionmark, 20 November 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Scott Creighton, on 20 November 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

SC: Try following what has actually been said rather than spouting forth what you think has been said. Just because the AE astronomer-priests anticipated a great deluge and advised the king to prepare the kingdom, doesn't actually mean it came about.

Although there are, of course, AE legends that an actual flood that destroyed the kingdom DID occur. Basic research would tell you that.

And as for the Arabs as historians - if it weren't for the Arab chroniclers the writings of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates would never have come down to us either.

SC

I know perfectly well what's been said. You brought it up in Post #1083. And its not coming about doesn't validate your ramblings about an unevidenced axial tilt. It just shows another attempt by yourself to throw a load of bull against the wall hoping something will stick.

Legends are meaningless without the evidence to support them, so where's the evidence for a flood that destroyed the kingdom. Not some little part, so you can claim to still be relevant, but the whole kingdom.

So you have nothing but the ramblings of a peoples (Arabs) who are separated from the 4th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt by well over 2000 years. Not exactly what one would consider a reliable source.  As to your axial tilt idea, which is just a variation of the Earth Crustal Displacement model of Charles Hapgood and later Graham Hancock, it doesn't appear to have held much weight even in 2002:

Earth Crustal Displace

Quote

Earth Crustal Displacement is based on the premise that Earth’s lithosphere (the outer part of the rocky Earth, about the uppermost 80 kilometers or 50 miles) has shifted as a whole at different times in the past over Earth’s interior. Hancock (1995, 11) went so far as to claim no geologist “has succeeded in proving it incorrect.” Results from pollenanalyses have revealed patterns of climate change that are at odds with the inherent predictions of the Earth Crustal Displacement model. Studies have shown that the Polar regions have either contracted or expanded toward the equator, but have never shifted their positions as required by Earth Crustal Displacement. The CLIMAP Project (1981) reconstructed climatic zones during the Last Glacial Maximum and the results obtained shows the North and South Poles (and the equator) in the same position as today. Paleontological data, summarized by Thiede et al. (1990), reveals that the Arctic Ocean has continuously experienced polar climates, almost permanent ice cover and glacio-marine sedimentation for all of the Late Cenozoic since the mid-Pleistocene. Phillips and Ganze (1997) reconfirm that, regardless of how the climate has varied in the Arctic Polar regions, they have been colder than the oceanic areas south of it for at least the past 7 million years. Earth’s lithosphere is attached to the mantle in such a way as to make Earth Crustal Displacement impracticable. The mechanism for Earth Crustal Displacement was postulated to be the sheer weight of the ice built up over time; this caused the crust to shift through unequal weight distribution. However, this weight is compensated for by isostatic depression of the crust. Finally, there is no paleomagnetic evidence for Earth Crustal Displacement having occurred.

http://www.csicop.or...fting_cataclysm

cormac

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

questionmark, on 20 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Oh come on, give him a break, he tried so hard...btw, where is the nearest book antiquary near you? I might buy the book once you discarded it, it is enough if he earns money on you

Bookshop at 8 Tverskaya street. Such books will be in fantasy section, with a huge heap of returned copies of Das Kapital etc