Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Great Pyramids VS Egyptian Pyramids


  • Please log in to reply
579 replies to this topic

#241    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:09 PM

View Poststereologist, on 03 May 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

You seem ready to throw everything away just to save your failed notion that artists always represented the world accurately. You need to learn a little bit about art instead of desperately clinging to your obviously failed notion that artists don't employ artistic license.


The neck is not elongated. The neck does change length. What happens is that the shoulder is depressed making the neck appear longer. I know it is a trivial point, but thought you might be interested. It is easy to detect the use of these metal rings because of the deformation it causes to the shoulders. It is also easy to detect skull deformations from bindings. Yet the remains show no such deformation as already pointed out.

Again you misrepresent me......I never claimed that artiste always depict the world as it is literally, but it does depend on what activity they are performing.
I wouldn't pay an artiste who i have commisioned to make a bust of me, if he makes it look like a human but a different person.
Artiste also represent the world literally in many instances especially when it comes to Potraits and Busts meant to depict reality.

The shoulders being depressed will result in elongation of the neck, obviously they were not implanting additional cervical vertebrae in the neck to elongate it. But thanks again captain obvious.
And since the facts don't add up either the mummies are different people who have displaced the original mummies in the tombs by later foreign pharaohs or may be the busts are depicting other people.
Or maybe the modern day discoverers of the mummies in the tombs messed around and added mummies from different locations just to make their finds more impressive, there are many possibilities.

Mummies were easily available in Egypt, they were so common that they were apparently used as train feul. We do not have any video evidence that the Mummies reported by these modern day adventurers were found as reported in the tombs.


#242    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:10 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 03 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Not wrong. His burial equipment is a mix of his own and that of at least one, and perhaps two others before him. Even the famous mask was not originaly his, the face had to be replaced with his. About who exactly some of the equipment belonged to originally is the area for debate, but the mummy is that of Tutankhamun 100%
Why and how are you so convinced that the mummy is tut, when you know how these ancients recycled stuff?


#243    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,623 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:16 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Why and how are you so convinced that the mummy is tut, when you know how these ancients recycled stuff?

Where I come back to the theme I had before: knowledge of the history of ancient Egypt, where tomb raids to increase the own future life equipment are well documented. That is how we know that items were recycled and have an explanation why others were modified... sometimes centuries after they were made.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#244    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:17 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Why and how are you so convinced that the mummy is tut, when you know how these ancients recycled stuff?
Prove it isn't....


#245    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:19 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 May 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

And since the facts don't add up either the mummies are different people who have displaced the original mummies in the tombs by later foreign pharaohs or may be the busts are depicting other people.
Or maybe the modern day discoverers of the mummies in the tombs messed around and added mummies from different locations just to make their finds more impressive, there are many possibilities.

Has it been mentioned in this thread yet that Carnavon himself may well have found the tomb before he officially found it, and had moved and rearranged various things, perhaps even moving everything to a different, smaller tomb...

Edited by Spinebreaker, 03 May 2013 - 01:20 PM.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#246    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:02 PM

Quote

Don't go debating abstract art with me, am very well aware of it. But you have to be literally a fool to commision a sculptor to scuplt a bust of you and tell him to give it completely different features and make it unrecognizable but still keep it human (yes you can request the artiste to make you look prettier), mind you that it was a bust of a supposed King, not some abstract artistic concept.
Again i said before that if the busts had some fantastical non-human traits like the head of a wolf or three horns on the head etc then you can dismiss it as an abstract representation, why would i pay someone to make a bust of me but to make it look like some other person.
What you are suggesting makes no sense.You cannot compare it with the wall paintings where some humans are shown  as gaints and others are shown as dwarfs, which i guess will be the next example you would suggest.
Here you toss in your personal opinion that someone is a fool if they obtain a piece of art that is to their choosing and contains desired features which are not a realistic representation.

Then you repeat your opinion that the object depicts something that the person commissioning the art did not want.

Your personal requirements for art is not the same as other people's requirements for art. That is the issue plain and simple. You may not like having that pointed out to you but that is the way things are. For reasons we do not understand the art has traits which were considered desirable. It is not limited just to what you might consider "pretty."

BTW, all of your arguments here are what is known as arguments from incredulity.


#247    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:16 PM

Quote

Again you misrepresent me......I never claimed that artiste always depict the world as it is literally, but it does depend on what activity they are performing.
I wouldn't pay an artiste who i have commisioned to make a bust of me, if he makes it look like a human but a different person.
Artiste also represent the world literally in many instances especially when it comes to Potraits and Busts meant to depict reality.
No. You are the one misrepresenting ancient art in terms of your personal preferences. You are imposing your personal preferences onto the wants and likes of someone else.

Quote

But thanks again captain obvious.
As long as we are on correcting your errors, it is not necessary to add cervical vertebrae. The issue is elongation of the bones, which does not happen. So please spare me the snotty remarks and do a little thinking.

Quote

And since the facts don't add up either the mummies are different people who have displaced the original mummies in the tombs by later foreign pharaohs or may be the busts are depicting other people.
Or maybe the modern day discoverers of the mummies in the tombs messed around and added mummies from different locations just to make their finds more impressive, there are many possibilities.
More unfounded musings in an attempt to support your obviously failed notion that art should be as you want it to be.


#248    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:45 PM

View Poststereologist, on 02 May 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

I used a simple example to illustrate that events leave traces. In the case of settlements, the lack of old settlements is that people were not creating them. Your Damascus example was not clear. Are you trying to say that Damascus would not be det4ectable in the future? Are  you serious?

Probably you didn't understand the problem statement of continuous habitation.

View Poststereologist, on 02 May 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

I posted a link a short while ago explaining the archaeological evidence.

Thanks a lot, yet to search and read it. Will let you know my feedback.

View Poststereologist, on 02 May 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

There is the crux. You think that the geology is clear. That is not the case.  Where do you get the idea that the geology is clear? There are differing points of view. A very tiny minority suggests it one way while the rest state that the geology supports the archaeological evidence.

I am talking about water erosion pattern on the western enclosure wall of Sphinx. This can be one of the theoretical example for geologists for rain water erosion on limestone. But what Lal Gauri, etc assume that the timeline decided by Egyptologists is absolute. So, now you need to fit your geology into this timeline. So, some up with all possible scenarios. Please try to study "salt Exfoliation" which is the explanation in answer to rain erosion, see some text book example of that.

View Poststereologist, on 02 May 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

  
Again, your post is quite vague. What do you want to know and why should I bother to post anything relative to Schoch?

Sorry, if I was not clear. I wanted to know names of four mainstream geologists who challenged Schoch and link to their research.

View Poststereologist, on 02 May 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

I guess you have almost no experience with dealing with scientific issues. You are latching onto this idea simply because it is contrary to the large amount of information collected on the subject. It is independent research as almost all scientific work should be. That does not make it right or wrong. It is good to challenge, but in the end the idea is accepted or rejected and so far the notion that the Sphinx is must older than the Giza complex is not panning out.

Lol! Science is what my profession is!

Also you need to understand that history is not science. History can't be compared with physics , chemistry. Also it's not mathematics. But for your kind information, geology is pure science. Egyptologists are histoirans and they are fully dependent upon physics, chemistry or geology when it comes to scientific approach to any solution. They are just lame without the science. Unfortunately, in Egypt they are more powerful than science.

View Poststereologist, on 02 May 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

That is the the claim made by very few people such as Schoch.

Then what is your claim about the special erosion pattern? You all people just parrot the ARCE project. You have already provided some links , but look into the geology link of the project
http://www.aeraweb.o...-of-the-sphinx/

They never mentioned the western enclosure, because they never observed that in 80s. If it is special case of erosion which they knew in 80s they should have mentioned in their original study. But actually their observation power is low, that's why they had to defend themselves after decade with Schoch's observation.


#249    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:56 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 May 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Whatever artistic explanations you may give, it makes no sense that ancient artiste/sculptors would deliberately distort Busts of nobility so that it would be difficult to recognise to whom the busts belong. Similarly for the Sphinx, it makes no sense that an ancient egyptian Pharoan would carve the sphinx head to not look like him or his father etc.
It would make more sense for egyptologists to accept that they have ****ed up regarding many things including identifying the ancient Egyptian Nobility, they have relied so much on the Manetho's kings list and have gone about trying to find each Pharoan mentioned in there and associate him/her with a tomb and a pyramid/temple etc.There has been arbitary classifications of old dynasty and new dynasty etc. What about the legendary dynasty?


Legendary period

In the texts of the Palermo, Turin and Manetho king lists, there are different versions of names of eight god kings that ruled Egypt in the beginning.[citation needed] Turin King List Manetho
(Egyptian equivalent) Function Ptah Hephaistos
(Ptah) Craftsmen & Creation Ra Helios
(Ra) Sun - Sosis or Agathosdaimon (perhaps Sothis?)
(Shu) Air Geb Kronos
(Geb) Earth Osiris Osiris Afterlife Set Typhon
(Set) Chaos Horus Horus War Thoth Knowledge Ma'at Order
These god kings are followed by differing sets of semi-divine rulers. Turin King List Length Manetho Length Second dynasty of gods unknown Dynasty of Halfgods unknown 3 Achu-Dynasties unknown 30 Kings from Memphis 1790 years Dynasty of Disciples of Horus unknown 10 Kings from This 350 years


http://en.wikipedia....ist_of_pharaohs

Check the above link and see how many times the word could/maybe appears in the mainstream King's list. Also it is important to know that most of them had other names and titles with which they were addressed, this makes it highly probable for the Egyptoloigists to have been mistaken in identifying many of the AE kings correctly.

I don't think there is any controversy with the Photo i put up. People will debate who the original AE were and where they were from, until we have more definitive and believable answers based on empirical facts.

+1 . There are gaps, but the Egyptologists think that they know everything. Not knowing something doesn't mean that we will have to opt for AA theories. But it will be honest and scientific to accept the gap and open to everyone's thought!


#250    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:58 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 02 May 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

About "Cone heads". I think there is a culture clash here. Cormac was clearly refering to the film where aliens have cone shaped heads where the cone is vertical and very obvious.  abhijit_b perhaps is not familiar with this film and naturaly thinks about the tendency of Tutankhamun's family to be brachycephalic, and mistakes this for being a "conehead". In the context of the original mention of coneheads, Cormac was correct in his anology. We are looking at gross distortions here, not simply a "big head" within normal parameters for homosapiens.

edit to add for those unfamiliar with the term brachycephalic, it is having a wide skull, not elongated or stretched vertically (cone head). I know it is "shopped" but my avatar is an example of "extreme" brachycephalicism, but It is hardly visible unless you know what to look for.

:tu: ..Sorry I haven't watched that movie, neither I am a proponent of some weird species!


#251    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,148 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:23 PM

View Postabhijit_b, on 03 May 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

I am talking about water erosion pattern on the western enclosure wall of Sphinx. This can be one of the theoretical example for geologists for rain water erosion on limestone. But what Lal Gauri, etc assume that the timeline decided by Egyptologists is absolute. So, now you need to fit your geology into this timeline. So, some up with all possible scenarios. Please try to study "salt Exfoliation" which is the explanation in answer to rain erosion, see some text book example of that.
Here you endeavor to pretend that this erosion has some bearing on the age of the sphinx.

The fact is, Schoch's date is not based on any erosion whatsoever.

On top of that, not enough is known about weather patterns in Egypt over the 5,000 years in question to substantiate any claim based on water erosion.

These are simply the facts of this matter.  You're awareness of them (or not) does not reflect, nor does it impact at all, the veracity of these two facts.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#252    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,148 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:30 PM

View Postabhijit_b, on 03 May 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Sorry, if I was not clear. I wanted to know names of four mainstream geologists who challenged Schoch and link to their research.

Why?  Have you seen Schoch's research?

Typically, forum posters are only aware of his essays on the subject.  Schoch's actual numbers for his subsurface study are not readily available.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#253    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,734 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:48 PM

Scoch , if he could have stayed in his own field - Geology & geophysics would have maintained his respectability. But when he starts straying outside his discipline and author books like the ones at his website link, he is veering towards the fringe quadrant.
And people except the fringe wouldnt take him seriously.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#254    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:56 PM

View PostHarte, on 03 May 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:


Why?  Have you seen Schoch's research?

Typically, forum posters are only aware of his essays on the subject.  Schoch's actual numbers for his subsurface study are not readily available.

Harte

I know you will not open from your side. I have asked three times in this thread asking for names not supporting Schoch on Sphinx erosion. But I didn't receive a single name or link. All answers were curvy! Probably you guys don't want to spread your knowledge to others.

Anyway, if you just don't reject just by the name of Schoch, here are some scientific data you may want to read:

http://www.robertsch...eismicdata.html
http://www.robertsch...datasphinx.html
http://www.davidpbil...et/sphinx3.html

There are more on net if you will to read!


#255    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:13 PM

View PostHarte, on 03 May 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

Here you endeavor to pretend that this erosion has some bearing on the age of the sphinx.

Do you have any doubt that this enclosure is not cut at the same time when Sphinx was curved? I think you have no doubt on Valley temple, which was built separately but you have doubt on the same curved structure? I will run out of any logic to debate with you guys soon!

View PostHarte, on 03 May 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

The fact is, Schoch's date is not based on any erosion whatsoever.
I agree. I don't buy Schoch's dates. But I am equally not convinced with Lehner too. Lehner's Khafre theory is equally challenged or even more than an older sphinx theory. Then why to agree to Lehner or Hawass? Are they the supreme expert of each and every structure in Egypt?  But I thing again I will repeat that the enclosure wall erosion is water erosion and prove it if not. Please send me the link of scientific research that shows that wind or salt erosion can produce exactly this pattern!

Posted Image


View PostHarte, on 03 May 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

On top of that, not enough is known about weather patterns in Egypt over the 5,000 years in question to substantiate any claim based on water erosion.

Please don't try to act like a fringe. You are tweaking the real meaning. The sentence should be - "There is no weather pattern known us similar to what we see in Sphinx. So Sphinx may be even 5000 years old!"

Edited by abhijit_b, 03 May 2013 - 07:14 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users