1650 replies to this topic

[cladking]

samspade, on 15 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Scott clearly in the 3rd dynasty and Warwick will tell you as well, the pyramid of Huni has been deemed to be a cenotaph.
A Cenotaph is a tomb, basically a tomb with no physical body remains  in it.
So we seen that even in the 3rd Dyn we see pyramids being used as a tomb.

Your beliefs thinking the great pyramid is representing 1 of the belt stars of Orion is terribly wrong, nothing personal but its the truth, whether you chose to believe it or not. There is more truth in  me by the Great Pyramid coming across the rejected stone of the builders that jesus talked about.

regards, a pal from Egypt 2008.

samspade, on 15 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Scott clearly in the 3rd dynasty and Warwick will tell you as well, the pyramid of Huni has been deemed to be a cenotaph.
A Cenotaph is a tomb, basically a tomb with no physical body remains  in it.
So we seen that even in the 3rd Dyn we see pyramids being used as a tomb.

Your beliefs thinking the great pyramid is representing 1 of the belt stars of Orion is terribly wrong, nothing personal but its the truth, whether you chose to believe it or not. There is more truth in  me by the Great Pyramid coming across the rejected stone of the builders that jesus talked about.

regards, a pal from Egypt 2008.

I don't believe anything about tiny pyramids has anything to do with great pyramids.

There were several pyramids built in the third dynasty but they are tiny and most are
not believed to be tombs or cenotaphs.

[the L]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 15 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Beacons for starships that will return after the second great fracture, also, with the great light that shines miles up into the sky, as beacon for the survivors to head for. Then there is the question of the lights from the obelisks, the dark light that is also bright. Khonsu/Horus, fracture, death, dark. Was before, now comes again. Siberia is not high enough, Midgard (Omsk) will drown........

Seems to me that new mummy on UM still speak Egyptian.

[cladking]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

1466b. N. was given birth by his father Atum,

Atum is even the father of N just as is Osiris!!!
It’s obvious that Egyptology is simply misunderstanding the meaning of this work. They believe it has no meaning but this is because they can’t see it and they can’t see it because their assumptions are invalid.

2065a. Behold N., his feet shall be kissed by the pure waters,
2065b. which come into being through Atum, which the phallus of Shu makes, which the vulva of Tefnut brings into being.

Both Atum and Osiris are cool effervescent water!

This is really an extension of post #1125;

Utterance 213.

134a. O N., thou didst not depart dead; thou didst depart living,
134b. (so) thou sittest upon the throne of Osiris, thy ‘bȝ-sceptre in thy hand, thou commandest the living;
134c. (thy) mkś-sceptre and thy nḥb.t-sceptre in thy hand, commanding those of secret places.
135a. Thine arm is like that of Atum; thy shoulders are like those of Atum; thy body is like that of Atum; thy back is like that of Atum;
135b. thy seat is like that of Atum; thy legs are like those of Atum; thy face is like that of Anubis.

In each instance there is typically good reason that "Atum" is preserved in utterances.

In some cases it appears the utterance was just never "osirianized";

207c. thou art (king) with thy father Atum, thou art high with thy father Atum;

The PT can be projected backward though, of course, one runs a risk of making deductions that
are inaccurate or inapplicable.  But projecting the book of the dead back on the PT is a non-starter
right from the beginning.

It would seem that if Osiris and Atum share all their defining characteristics then they must be the
exact same thing in separate incarnations.  There are numerous ways the Egyptians could have
handled the death of Atum but they chose to assign his duties to a God (Osiris) who was born "dead"
and retain him as the "father of the Gods".  Any other method would have been confusing, probably.
The Greek god Hermes has attributes (connotative characteristics) of both Atum and Osiris but was
probably much more an attempt to incorporate Atum into their own pantheon.  It's likely that the Greeks
better understood the nature of these Gods  than we do.  They might have dropped the scientific de-
scription largely because they were outside Greek experience and they had a similar misapprehension
of the nature of the ancient science.

I think this will prove a difficult question.  It seems improbable the Greeks intentionally misled everyone
and much more likely they had a simple misunderstanding.

[Scott Creighton]

cormac mac airt, on 15 November 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

George Dodwell and Axial Tilt.jpg

http://articles.adsa...000208.000.html

Of particular interest from this article:



Needless to say the impact from a minor planet would not go unnoticed in the geological record, assuming for sake of argument there was anyone left alive afterwards to investigate such. And as Steven Dutch (Natural and Applied Sciences - University of Wisconsin - Green Bay) has already mentioned:



http://www.uwgb.edu/...sc/flipaxis.htm

cormac

SC; And yet the data that shows, unequivocally, that the Earth's axis was inclined at 26.5 degrees remains.  Dodwell may not have understood the physics that could permit this to occur and it was the general scientific view in his day that it would require an impact of the scale of a planetary collision to effect such a change and that, of course, would result in an Extinction Level Event (ELE). Which, obviously, hadn't occurred.

But we move now to the 21st century. Science has moved on a good bit since Dodwell's day and it no longer requires an ELE to change the Earth's axis.  These papers demonstrate this quite well.

An additional planet as a model for the Pleistocene Ice Age.

On the change of latitude of Arctic East Siberia at the end of the Pleistocene.

On the Possibility of Instantaneous Shifts of the Poles

Meteor clue to end of Middle East civilisations

In short, theoretical physics can demonstrate that the Earth's axis can be changed relatively easily without incurring an Extinction Level Event, or even close to it. As such modern scientific research allows Dodwell's data to stand. Dodwell (and mainstream science) simply didn't know in his day the means by which such an axis shift could occur in a manner that would permit life to continue relatively unaffected and so his research was rejected by his peers. Not so now.

But then I suspect that you will simply come back and say, "It's all just one BIG coincidence."

Aye right!

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 November 2012 - 11:11 PM.

[cladking]

Here's another example;

1466a. To say: The mother of N., dweller in the lower sky, became pregnant with him;
1466b. N. was given birth by his father Atum,
1466c. before the sky came into being, before the earth came into being,
1466d. before men came into being, before the gods were born, before death came into being.

It was Atum who gave birth to upward and downward and separted the earth from the sky.  It
would be confusing to substitute "Osiris" for Atum so they just called Atum the father of "Horus"/
Osiris N.

This process might be deductive and open to interpretation but there is ample evidence to sup-
port my contentions.  They say the exact same things over and over and over.  Since it is logi-
cally coherent there is simply no reason to dismiss the literal meaning of tbheir words.

[Scott Creighton]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

And, last but not least, the Earth axis at this point in time is 23.4 degrees, which all good astronomy programs I know reflect accurately and according to Milankovitch axial tilt the end point is 24.5 degrees, not 26. Something you could find out really fast by googling it.

SC: Indeed. Now go back and read what I said and not what you *think* I said.

SC

[samspade]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

I don't believe anything about tiny pyramids has anything to do with great pyramids.

There were several pyramids built in the third dynasty but they are tiny and most are
not believed to be tombs or cenotaphs.

well the fact Huni pyramid is a cenotaph speaks for itself and validates  my point that a pyramid can be a tomb as in a  cenotaph which is tomb where there are no remains of the indiviual in the tomb.
Also a tiny pyramid in the 3rd Dyn would not fair well as a Seed Vault but regardless Huni pyramid proves a point that a pyramid can be a cenotaph. .

And as for the great pyramid,  it may well be a cenotaph as well, if the khufu was not buried in or under it.

To suggest the Great pyramid was design to be a seed vault is just foolish when one understands the true symbolism in the great pyramid that i have found during my path to enlightment.

Edited by samspade, 16 November 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[cladking]

samspade, on 16 November 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

well the fact Huni pyramid is a cenotaph speaks for itself and validates  my point that a pyramid can be a tomb as in a  cenotaph which is tomb where there are no remains of the indiviual in the tomb.
Also a tiny pyramid in the 3rd Dyn would not fair well as a Seed Vault but regardless Huni pyramid proves a point that a pyramid can be a cenotaph. .

And as for the great pyramid,  it may well be a cenotaph as well, if the khufu was not buried in or under it.

To suggest the Great pyramid was design to be a seed vault is just foolish when one understands the true symbolism in the great pyramid that i have found during my path to enlightment.

I don't think it's likely that G1 was a seed vault.

I think it's more logical and easier to prove it was a seed vault than a tomb.  

Colloquially, it's more likely it was a seed vault than a tomb.  A few things are more likely than tomb.

[samspade]

cladking, on 16 November 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

I don't think it's likely that G1 was a seed vault.

I think it's more logical and easier to prove it was a seed vault than a tomb.  

Colloquially, it's more likely it was a seed vault than a tomb.  A few things are more likely than tomb.

when one understand whats at play at the Great Pyramid and its true symbolism,
one can not rule out it was intended to be a tomb to house the remains of the pharoh, but it can easily seen as a cenotaph tomb as well if he was not buried in the gp or under it.

plus there are claims of hidden rooms in the GP and they were to run infra red and
do more measurements but do to the trouble in egypt last year as you know things were delayed.
I hear they started reissuing permits but no mention if any dates given to them, or djedi team, etc.

but if khufu is buried outside the GP, i personally am worry that he may be located based on what i have found encoded in the GP.
I would hope he didnt follow what i am seeing at the plateau. personally i got alot of respect for him, and know he probably would want to rest in peace.

regards

[cormac mac airt]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

SC; And yet the data that shows, unequivocally, that the Earth's axis was inclined at 26.5 degrees remains.  Dodwell may not have understood the physics that could permit this to occur and it was the general scientific view in his day that it would require an impact of the scale of a planetary collision to effect such a change and that, of course, would result in an Extinction Level Event (ELE). Which, obviously, hadn't occurred.

But we move now to the 21st century. Science has moved on a good bit since Dodwell's day and it no longer requires an ELE to change the Earth's axis.  These papers demonstrate this quite well.

An additional planet as a model for the Pleistocene Ice Age.

On the change of latitude of Arctic East Siberia at the end of the Pleistocene.

On the Possibility of Instantaneous Shifts of the Poles

Meteor clue to end of Middle East civilisations

In short, theoretical physics can demonstrate that the Earth's axis can be changed relatively easily without incurring an Extinction Level Event, or even close to it. As such modern scientific research allows Dodwell's data to stand. Dodwell (and mainstream science) simply didn't know in his day the means by which such an axis shift could occur in a manner that would permit life to continue relatively unaffected and so his research was rejected by his peers. Not so now.

But then I suspect that you will simply come back and say, "It's all just one BIG coincidence."

Aye right!

SC

Your links to Woelfi, et al. are, as the first article states, based on an assumption:

Quote

We propose a model for the Pleistocene Ice Age, assuming the following scenario:

So overall you've found someone who's presupposing the facts to fit their theory, instead of making their theory fit the facts. And all the while not leaving any evidence of this alleged Mars-sized planet, which conveniently "evaporates". That's about as meaningless as Zechariah Sitchin's story of Nibiru. As to your last link, the Umm al Binna structure has never been confirmed as an impact crater since it was first discovered in 2002.

Edit to add:  Even "if" Umm al Binna was confirmed as an impactor, evidence shows that it had no effect on the contemporary sites of southern Mesopotamia which went on unaffected by it before, during and after any alleged impact.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 16 November 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[Mangoze]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

I don't believe anything about tiny pyramids has anything to do with great pyramids.
...

What's "tiny"?

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

the L, on 15 November 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Seems to me that new mummy on UM still speak Egyptian.

No, simply фигня

[cladking]

Mangoze, on 16 November 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

What's "tiny"?

Any pyramid that required less than about 2% as much lifting as G1 would be tiny.

This is not an arbitrary number since they started with great pyramids and each got progressively
larger until they didn't build them any longer. The very first great pyramid S1 required about 2.5%
as much lifting as G1.  With the amount of lifting needed to build G1 they could have made about
forty S1's.

[Scott Creighton]

cormac mac airt, on 16 November 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Quote

SC; And yet the data that shows, unequivocally, that the Earth's axis was inclined at 26.5 degrees remains.  Dodwell may not have understood the physics that could permit this to occur and it was the general scientific view in his day that it would require an impact of the scale of a planetary collision to effect such a change and that, of course, would result in an Extinction Level Event (ELE). Which, obviously, hadn't occurred.

But we move now to the 21st century. Science has moved on a good bit since Dodwell's day and it no longer requires an ELE to change the Earth's axis.  These papers demonstrate this quite well.

An additional planet as a model for the Pleistocene Ice Age.

On the change of latitude of Arctic East Siberia at the end of the Pleistocene.

On the Possibility of Instantaneous Shifts of the Poles

Meteor clue to end of Middle East civilisations

In short, theoretical physics can demonstrate that the Earth's axis can be changed relatively easily without incurring an Extinction Level Event, or even close to it. As such modern scientific research allows Dodwell's data to stand. Dodwell (and mainstream science) simply didn't know in his day the means by which such an axis shift could occur in a manner that would permit life to continue relatively unaffected and so his research was rejected by his peers. Not so now.

But then I suspect that you will simply come back and say, "It's all just one BIG coincidence."

Aye right!

SC

CMA: Your links to Woelfi, et al. are, as the first article states, based on an assumption:

Quote

We propose a model for the Pleistocene Ice Age, assuming the following scenario:

SC: Why wouldn’t it be? It is a theoretical model they present. Science, including Consensus Egyptology, does this all the time. Taking Consensus Egyptology as an example, it makes the assumption that once upon a time there were bodies inside the stone boxes that are in some of the early, giant pyramids (thus assumed to be sarcophagi) and voila, you have the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT). What’s your problem with assumptions as a basis to theorise?

Quote

CMA: So overall you've found someone who's presupposing the facts to fit their theory, instead of making their theory fit the facts.

SC: No. I think you mean "allowing the theory to explain the observable facts" - you can't "make" a theory fit facts since all you end up with is square pegs in round holes. I am quite sure that the various Ice Ages occurred BEFORE Woelfi, et al presented their theory to explain them—in fact I am sure of it.  I am also sure that the last Ice Age ended BEFORE Woelfi, et al presented their theory. In short, the observable facts existed before the theory.

Quote

CMA: And all the while not leaving any evidence of this alleged Mars-sized planet, which conveniently "evaporates".

SC: Not unlike your missing mummies then, eh?

Quote

CMA: That's about as meaningless as Zechariah Sitchin's story of Nibiru. As to your last link, the Umm al Binna structure has never been confirmed as an impact crater since it was first discovered in 2002.

SC: And once again you completely miss the point. Woelfi, et al present a theoretical model to explain the Ice Ages and as part of their model they put forward a theory that shows how Rapid TPW can occur in such a way that it will not result in an Extinction Level Event i.e. a mass collision of the Earth with another massive object which is how such a shift of the axis was believed could only occur in Dodwell’s day.  This theoretical model of Woelfi et al allows Dodwell’s data to stand and it is now incumbent upon science to revisit his results with this new theoretical model in mind.

Quote

CMA: Edit to add:  Even "if" Umm al Binna was confirmed as an impactor, evidence shows that it had no effect on the contemporary sites of southern Mesopotamia which went on unaffected by it before, during and after any alleged impact.

SC: Al 'Amarah  is not the only possibility—there are a number of other impact craters that have been found in the last few years that are under investigation in Egypt. What is becoming clearer, almost by the day, is that some catastrophic event of a stellar nature was the catalysts that brought about the collapse of the Near East cultures ca.2,350 BCE.

Quote

”Ever since it was first recognised that the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age represented a period of significant social and cultural change in many parts of the Near East, there have been attempts to explain the changes through a single overarching model (cf. Marro 2007a: 14). The archaeological record of this transitional period was characterized by changes in settlement patterns, the emergence of new cultural traits, and apparently abrupt settlement destruction and abandonment. Explanations have ranged from foreign invasions or penetration of new (ethnic) groups (Kenyon 1966) to system collapse (Butzer 1997; Peltenburg 2000). Based on ancient Egyptian texts, Bell (1971) proposed that an interruption of the annual Nile floods may have been responsible for the social disruption of the contemporary First Intermediate Period in Egypt. However, this hypothesis could not be substantiated by palaeoenvironmental data at the time and was not taken up for other parts of the Near East until the early 1990s.

In the early1990s climate change was put forward as an explanation for the changes observed in settlement patterns and in the political constellation of the Near East and beyond (Weiss et al. 1993). The study by Weiss et al. held that (a) soil micromorphological studies at and around Tell Leilan indicated the occurrence of an abrupt dry phase from 2200-1900 BC, possibly caused by an otherwise unidentified volcanic eruption . ( this evidence was supported by indications for drought elsewhere, notably Egypt, © this drought led to (i) the abandonment of urban settlements in the area around Tell Leilan including Tell Leilan itself, (ii) an overall decline of settlement population in the same area, (iii) an increase in pastoral subsistence strategies at the cost of agricultural production (iv) the collapse of the Akkadian state due to gain shortages, and (v) the subsequent collapse of the Ur III state due to pressure from refugees coming form the north and grain shortages as reported in the Royal correspondence from Ur, and (d) this collapse was synchronous with collapses elsewhere in the Old World, notably the Levant, Egypt, the Aegean, and the Indus Valley.

Arne Wossink,

Source: Challenging climate change, p. 2


Ethiopian drought may have caused the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom
Monday 01 August 2011

“A severe drought approximately 4,200 years ago may have contributed to the demise of the Egyptian Old Kingdom new research has found.

A new survey of Lake Tana in Ethiopia, which is the source of the Blue Nile River, has discovered, through seismic investigations and carbon dating, that there was a drought around the time that the Egyptian Old Kingdom began to decline.

Dr Richard Bates, a senior lecturer in Earth Sciences at the University of St Andrew confirms that the new data reveals that the ancient civilisation may have experienced a prolonged period of the same severity being suffered by parts of the African continent today.

A geophysics expert, Dr Bates used seismic (sound) reflection methods on Lake Tana to acquire geophysical data on how the water levels in the lake had varied over the past 17,000 years.

He said: “This allows us to get a picture of what the past environments could have looked like.”

The geophysical information was verified by drilling a 100-metre core into the sediment on the lake bed.

Dr Bates added: “The core sediments have been dated to show a time period of over a hundred thousand years but geophysical data suggests that the lake might contain an even longer record of East African climate.”

Dr Bates together with a team from the University of Aberystwyth, linked the lake’s water levels with evidence for climate change.

Previous evidence had indicated an abrupt drought in Africa around 16,500 years ago liked to changes in the Earth’s climate, but the researchers were seeking evidence of a dry period around 4,200 years ago, when the Egyptian Old Kingdom declined.

As the fertile soils of the Nile’s floodplain were the bedrock of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, long-term changes in the river’s flow would have had serious implications for the Old Kingdom’s society.

Understanding how and why rainfall patterns change can help improve prediction of rainfall in sub-Saharan Africa where prolonged droughts have serious social and economic consequences today.”

Source: Ethiopian drought may have caused the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom


"Scientists have found the first evidence that a devastating meteor impact in the Middle East might have triggered the mysterious collapse of civilisations more than 4,000 years ago. Studies of satellite images of southern Iraq have revealed a two-mile-wide circular depression which scientists say bears all the hallmarks of an impact crater. If confirmed, it would point to the Middle East being struck by a meteor with the violence equivalent to hundreds of nuclear bombs. Today's crater lies on what would have been shallow sea 4,000 years ago, and any impact would have caused devastating fires and flooding. The catastrophic effect of these could explain the mystery of why so many early cultures went into sudden decline around 2300 BC."

-- Robert Matthews, The Sunday Telegraph, 4 November 2001
Source: Cambridge-Conference Network

SC: Etc, etc, etc.  Need I go on?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 16 November 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

They started right out with great pyramids.  They didn't warm up with 75' or 100' pyramid
and there are certainly no 150' pyramids.  There's nothing in the entire culture that would
lead us to believe they had the technology to lift stones to great height until the suddenly
"got religion" and built a 200' tall great pyramid.  This isn't logical.  It's apparent there was
a technological breakthrough that allowed them to build a great pyramid right on top of an
existing mastaba.

Why assume that this breakthrough entailed building tombs?  It's not impossible they were
tombs but why assume they were.  Modern science can answer these questions but people
are so wrapped up in the assumptions that they won't even consider science.  We are more
moribund than the pyramid builders or any mummy we believe might have been in them.

They didn't need to build large numbers to get it right. There is clear progression from step pyramid, two unfinished pyramids, the failure at Meidum, then the Bent pyramid before getting it right with the Red Pyramid. Moving straight on to building G1 shows the AEs confidence in their own abilities. I don't have a closed mind to any possibilities, in fact I can imagine all manner of scenarios for the pyramids, though they remain idle fantasy until I see proof that they are not tombs. Dimensions, angles of shafts and purposes are all fascinating, and may forever be clouded in the mists of time for us. Yet the theories I see here are simply part of a mass of conflicting pyramidologist theories. There is nothing wrong with "conventional", by definition it is normal. Most reasonable and educated people see the pyramids primary purpose as being a tomb. To me the debate is about what was in the mind of the AEs, not our 21st century obsessions with UFOs and "global warming". This flood defence theory is not really about AE, but about our own times being incorrectly overlayed on the past, perhaps to "prove" the deeply cynical "global warming" hysteria.