34 replies to this topic

[The_Spartan]

Scott..stop beating around the bushes and try to answer.
All your posts looks like a with too much hot air and nothing in them. i dont get any facts from them at all. its as i have to curl my hand around my head to touch my nose when i can touch it directly.

[Scott Creighton]

The_Spartan, on 17 September 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Scott..stop beating around the bushes and try to answer.
All your posts looks like a with too much hot air and nothing in them. i dont get any facts from them at all. its as i have to curl my hand around my head to touch my nose when i can touch it directly.

SC: With respect, looking back through this thread I see that you raised 6 initial questions followed by a number of supplementary questions all of which I answered. I don't quite see what it is of yours that I have not answered??

SC

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 16 September 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

"It is known" is perhaps something of an exaggeration. It is not really known, in the sense of facts that one can check and analyze. It is surmised or believed, yes, based on the language in the texts. But as no version of the Pyramid Texts exists prior to Dynasty 5, we can't know anything with certainty about what might have come before.

Granted.  It is merely obviously older than when it was found.  It's possible the author
intended that it appear older and even wrote some in archaic language.  It is not established
fact that it is older.

Quote

The Pyramid Texts tell us practically nothing about the realities of the workers.

If this were true then why do Egyptologists tell us that the people had superstitious tend-
encies and expended unheard of effort to build a tomb for a king who lived forever.  Egypt-
ology bases everything on the PT whether they are aware of it or not.  It is based on their
understanding or interpretation of the words whose meaning can only be circumscribed.

Quote

Much more significant and revealing are the excavations of the several workmen's villages that existed at Giza, especially the one to the south of the pyramid field. This includes the burials of many of the higher-status workmen, such as foremen. The material culture recovered from the workmen's villages tells us a great deal about how they were supplied and fed and cared for. The Pyramid Texts do not mention any of this—that is, information of a practical and real-world nature.

I agree except the PT tell us everything about the builders.  They wrote it!!!  These ideas
expressed in the PT are the ideas of the writers who are among the same people who built  the pyramids.   You see the PT and think they are superstitious bumpkins because you believe these are spells.  Of course if the people are casting spells to get the king into heaven via the pyramid then this says everything that needs to be said.

But you are still wrong.

Quote

You've been disproved repeatedly on this "nothing survives" error, and continuing to repeat it will not make it any more correct.

No!  You’ve had innumerable chances to come up with more ancient writing and best thing, the only thing, you’ve come up with is “Nefermaat is he who makes his writing in words that can not be erased”.  This might not even be translated properly since it doesn’t make sense to the modern ear.

I’ve found some more stuff on my own but it still adds up to virtually nothing.  In aggregate it is nothing.
Nothing survives from before the 5th dynasty.  There is no “cultural context” except what has been extrapolated from later times.  It is merely assumed that the nature of the Gods and the language never changed.  With this assumption the book of the dead has been projected back to the beliefs of the pyramid builders.

Ask yourself a simple question;  does the book of gates look anything at all like the PT.  If you answer honestly you’ll see my point.  There is no similarity to the earlier works.  The coffin texts are very similar because they were written in the same language but the so called religion had changed dramatically.  You and no one else can show these contentions are wrong because we are working with the exact same source material and we are simply interpreting it completely differently.  There are no facts to show I’m wrong and no facts to show you are right.  You’re interpreting the evidence to fit a paradigm composed of changeless superstitious people who dragged tombs up ramps.  And you’re interpreting it in terms of later eras that are very well understood by Egyptology.  You are doing this in a vacuum of evidence or you could simply cite some fact that proves me wrong (or even suggests I’m wrong).  Simply stated the evidence does not exclude much of anything at all though ramps are still debunked. I don’t know what these structures were for but, quite frankly, I think it’s far more likely they were for grain storage than for final resting places for immortal kings.  One caveat here though; It’s improbable that the primary function of each great pyramid was grain storage and it’s entirely possible that Djoser’s Pyramid really was a tomb. If it were a tomb it probably was not for Djoser.  A safer bet would be Imhotep but this last is all speculation.

Quote

Moreover, the Book of the Dead has nothing to do with modern translations and analysis of the Pyramid Texts. The sum total of the Pyramid Texts provides a complete corpus of material, so there is plenty of source material to work with. The spells in the Pyramid Texts are written in hieroglyphs, and they speak for themselves. I did not, for example, even consider the Book of the Dead when I translated the passages above, nor have I ever done so in those passages I translated in past debates with you. There's no reason to do so.

Of course the book of the dead plays a primary role in all understanding of the PT.  No Egyptologist (or anyone else) could possibly translate the PT without understanding the later words.  The PT exists in a vacuum virtually with very few known words from BEFORE it was written.  Even Maspero was familiar with the book of the dead the first time he translated it or he couldn’t have done it.  Allen refers repeatedly to the book of the dead in his translation. But the problem more pernicious than merely using the same vocabulary or dictionary; you also use the same understandings.  You never consider that the meaning of words like “Neter” changed over a thousand years.  You know what Neter means so you simply insert the pagan concept of a god where you see “Neter”.  This applies to every word.  All these meanings changed and it is not obvious.  They defined these terms because this work was meant  to be complete in itself.  B ut there are so many words that are misunderstood that it’s not obvious to modern people that they are defined and they do not mean the same things they meant a thousand years later.  Rather than looking and seeing you are relying on current understanding.

Languages change.  Thinking changes.  Everything changes.  The ancient Egyptians changed.

Quote

Not quite. It boils down to the ability of an alternative writer to prove a case in point, to the extent that the alternative explanation survives scrutiny and supplants the standard orthodox explanation. Has this ever happened? Can you cite an example? No, of course you cannot.

It always happens.  It is nature for even paradigms to change and no paradigm will ever be static until there is no more human progress.  Even if it’s proven G1 was a seed vault someday someone will come along and prove this is a very simplistic (and possibly wrong) understanding.

Quote

What must be emphasized is the fringe writer's responsibility to do this. It is not up to any Egyptologist to prove an alternative writer's concept.

I’m actually coming to agree with this!  It’s sad really but orthodoxy everywhere is just an old boys club out to protect each other’s careers and stab colleagues in the back for advancement.  It’s not so much about finding the truth as establishing oneself as high up in the pecking order as possible.  Everything about science and nature takes a backseat to respect of ones’ peers and ability to get funding and stripends.

Quote

Demonstrate this with a linguistic and translational argument. The hieroglyphs speak for themselves, and the Egyptians preserved their religious beliefs through their hieroglyphs.

And when I do this people cry. They scream that the builders didn’t mean exactly what they said.  Well, they said the pyramid was Osiris and I believe they meant it.  I do agree with you that it was Osiris only secondary to being the dead king but, unlike you, I believe when they said the dead king was the pyramid that they meant  it literally.

Edited by cladking, 18 September 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 18 September 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Granted.  It is merely obviously older than when it was found.  It's possible the author
intended that it appear older and even wrote some in archaic language.  It is not established
fact that it is older.


If this were true then why do Egyptologists tell us that the people had superstitious tend-
encies and expended unheard of effort to build a tomb for a king who lived forever.  Egypt-
ology bases everything on the PT whether they are aware of it or not.  It is based on their
understanding or interpretation of the words whose meaning can only be circumscribed.



I agree except the PT tell us everything about the builders.  They wrote it!!!  These ideas
expressed in the PT are the ideas of the writers who are among the same people who built  the pyramids.   You see the PT and think they are superstitious bumpkins because you believe these are spells.  Of course if the people are casting spells to get the king into heaven via the pyramid then this says everything that needs to be said.

But you are still wrong.



No!  You’ve had innumerable chances to come up with more ancient writing and best thing, the only thing, you’ve come up with is “Nefermaat is he who makes his writing in words that can not be erased”.  This might not even be translated properly since it doesn’t make sense to the modern ear.

I’ve found some more stuff on my own but it still adds up to virtually nothing.  In aggregate it is nothing.
Nothing survives from before the 5th dynasty.  There is no “cultural context” except what has been extrapolated from later times.  It is merely assumed that the nature of the Gods and the language never changed.  With this assumption the book of the dead has been projected back to the beliefs of the pyramid builders.

Ask yourself a simple question;  does the book of gates look anything at all like the PT.  If you answer honestly you’ll see my point.  There is no similarity to the earlier works.  The coffin texts are very similar because they were written in the same language but the so called religion had changed dramatically.  You and no one else can show these contentions are wrong because we are working with the exact same source material and we are simply interpreting it completely differently.  There are no facts to show I’m wrong and no facts to show you are right.  You’re interpreting the evidence to fit a paradigm composed of changeless superstitious people who dragged tombs up ramps.  And you’re interpreting it in terms of later eras that are very well understood by Egyptology.  You are doing this in a vacuum of evidence or you could simply cite some fact that proves me wrong (or even suggests I’m wrong).  Simply stated the evidence does not exclude much of anything at all though ramps are still debunked. I don’t know what these structures were for but, quite frankly, I think it’s far more likely they were for grain storage than for final resting places for immortal kings.  One caveat here though; It’s improbable that the primary function of each great pyramid was grain storage and it’s entirely possible that Djoser’s Pyramid really was a tomb. If it were a tomb it probably was not for Djoser.  A safer bet would be Imhotep but this last is all speculation.



Of course the book of the dead plays a primary role in all understanding of the PT.  No Egyptologist (or anyone else) could possibly translate the PT without understanding the later words.  The PT exists in a vacuum virtually with very few known words from BEFORE it was written.  Even Maspero was familiar with the book of the dead the first time he translated it or he couldn’t have done it.  Allen refers repeatedly to the book of the dead in his translation. But the problem more pernicious than merely using the same vocabulary or dictionary; you also use the same understandings.  You never consider that the meaning of words like “Neter” changed over a thousand years.  You know what Neter means so you simply insert the pagan concept of a god where you see “Neter”.  This applies to every word.  All these meanings changed and it is not obvious.  They defined these terms because this work was meant  to be complete in itself.  B ut there are so many words that are misunderstood that it’s not obvious to modern people that they are defined and they do not mean the same things they meant a thousand years later.  Rather than looking and seeing you are relying on current understanding.

Languages change.  Thinking changes.  Everything changes.  The ancient Egyptians changed.


It always happens.  It is nature for even paradigms to change and no paradigm will ever be static until there is no more human progress.  Even if it’s proven G1 was a seed vault someday someone will come along and prove this is a very simplistic (and possibly wrong) understanding.



I’m actually coming to agree with this!  It’s sad really but orthodoxy everywhere is just an old boys club out to protect each other’s careers and stab colleagues in the back for advancement.  It’s not so much about finding the truth as establishing oneself as high up in the pecking order as possible.  Everything about science and nature takes a backseat to respect of ones’ peers and ability to get funding and stripends.



And when I do this people cry. They scream that the builders didn’t mean exactly what they said.  Well, they said the pyramid was Osiris and I believe they meant it.  I do agree with you that it was Osiris only secondary to being the dead king but, unlike you, I believe when they said the dead king was the pyramid that they meant  it literally.

I've said it before, but it might be useful for others to remember: the Coffin Texts first appear late in the Old Kingdom, in provincial cemeteries dating to Dynasty 6. They're a direct adaptation of the Pyramid Texts and were being used at the same time as the Pyramid Texts. So there was no period of obscurity between the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts. Moreover, the earliest attested appearance of spells from the Book of the Dead are those on the coffin of a queen dating to Dynasty 13, and the spells are intermingled with those from the corpus of the Coffin Texts. Here, again, we see the evolution of an unbroken but changing litany of important funerary spells.

I've explained this I don't know how many times in past debates with you. Your decision to ignore me does not make your beliefs correct.

I've also explained the nature of hieroglyphs. Although there were certainly changes to them over the centuries, for the most part they remained as they had been in the Old Kingdom. Hieroglyphs no longer represented the every-day, spoken tongue even by the time of Khufu. They expressed religious concepts, not ordinary conversation. The every-day language is well preserved in the hieratic and demotic scripts (the former including many examples dating to centuries before the time of Khufu).

That said, nTr (netjer) is attested by its hieroglyphic sign long before the time of the Great Pyramid. This is well explained in Erik Hornung's The Conception of God in Ancient Egypt. You might enjoy this book (you can buy it at Amazon or get it from most any library). There are late-prehistoric attestations of this glyph in the contexts of burials and of early temples. Even before the time of Khufu the dead were referred to as the nTrw, the "divine ones." From the start there was an integral and inseparable relationship between the tomb (the dead) and the divine (the gods).

I don't expect you to appreciate or recognize the complexities of any of this. Although you possess more than sufficient intelligence to do so, you've wedded yourself so concretely to your theme that you simply cannot and will not accept or consider counter-arguments. I think you're probably more aware than you let on of some basic Egyptological concepts, but you choose to ignore them because they don't fit the mold you've created for yourself. In the other discussion about the Great Pyramid you mentioned you might be interested in learning hieroglyphs, which I've hoped you would all along, but in the end I suspect you won't tackle it. Not because of the work involved, but because if in some years' time you truly do acquire a working knowledge of hieroglyphs and how to analyze and understand the language itself, you'll see for yourself how terribly far from the mark you've been all along.

Your comment about Nefermaat and how the translation doesn't make sense to the "modern ear" tells me you might, perhaps, not be ready to tackle hieroglyphs. As long as you look at these things through a modern perspective and with the attitudes and sensibilities of a modern Western person, there is quite simply no possibility that you will honestly understand the ancient Egyptians on their own terms.

It's a pity you see the ancient Egyptians as "superstitious bumpkins." I have to imagine this is really your own assessment—what you truly feel inside—because in all my years you're the only one I've seen refer to them this way. You're trying to spin it, of course, and you've been asked repeatedly by many posters to stop this, because not only is it irritating but it rings of true absurdity. As for those of us who study ancient Egypt and understand them on their own terms—the only legitimate way to do so—we're in consensus that they were one of the most remarkable and sophisticated civilizations the world has ever known.

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 18 September 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

I've said it before, but it might be useful for others to remember: the Coffin Texts first appear late in the Old Kingdom, in provincial cemeteries dating to Dynasty 6. They're a direct adaptation of the Pyramid Texts and were being used at the same time as the Pyramid Texts. So there was no period of obscurity between the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts. Moreover, the earliest attested appearance of spells from the Book of the Dead are those on the coffin of a queen dating to Dynasty 13, and the spells are intermingled with those from the corpus of the Coffin Texts. Here, again, we see the evolution of an unbroken but changing litany of important funerary spells.

Again, this is exactly the trail of "logic" that is wrong.  Obviously the book of the dead
derives from the PT and there is no doubt about this.  But my speech derives from the
speech of Shakespeare but that don't make me no poet.  More importantly nothing I
can say or do can ever have any effect of any sort on the 16th century.  Shakespeare
and I are distinct and while his influence on me could be great or near total, my influ-
ence on him and the meaning and corpus of his writing is wholly nonexistent.  I am
derived from the past but they are derived from me.  

Quote

That said, nTr (netjer) is attested by its hieroglyphic sign long before the time of the Great Pyramid.

Yes! I believe the meaning of the word changed.  

Quote

Your comment about Nefermaat and how the translation doesn't make sense to the "modern ear" tells me you might, perhaps, not be ready to tackle hieroglyphs. As long as you look at these things through a modern perspective and with the attitudes and sensibilities of a modern Western person, there is quite simply no possibility that you will honestly understand the ancient Egyptians on their own terms.

Maybe they would make sense if there were another interpretation.

I have a huge amount of respect for Egyptians in the past and in the present (we'll
just have to see about the future).  It seems to me that few others have such respect
for the ancients.  And I think there is something wrong with that.

[cladking]

How in the world can it be possible to understand the meaning of the pyramids and the
birth of Osiris if we wholly misapprehend the nature of Osiris and the reasons they built
the pyramids at all?  In the earliest corpus that exists they said in plain English that the
pyramid is Osiris.  

It is our duty to understand the meaning of this or show that it has no meaning.  The lat-
ter is difficult to proive but the orthodox contention that it has no meaning can't legitimately
be used as an argument for or against anything other than that the writers had ideas that
we consider unintelligible.  It can't be used to show anything else.  It is not legitimate to
couple concepts from the PT with ideas from later times to try to make anything.  It is mere
assumption that there were no changes to a "religion" that isn't understood untl later in its
history.  

Sorry, but there just isn't anything under the foundation except the assumptions.  

[samspade]

cladking, on 18 September 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

Sorry, but there just isn't anything under the foundation except the assumptions.  

I tend to believe certain monuments on the ground are position at certain stars,
as in the old as above so below, to be position for the ancient egyptian king,

since i know Scott, i will just mention these locations and pyramids that Scott lists here
do not relate to the what i feel is the real key to the mystery of the pyramids.(as above - so below).

since the cenotaphs are a old idea, i come to the conclusion long ago it is possible khufu may of been buried elsewhere.

using my problem skills i determined what i feel the
most probable location of khufu burial site, if he wasnt buried in or under the gp...

its very possible the djedi team, may find some more clues, in the gp
if they are bright, they will look at further understanding what is going on.

based on what i understand, they have been pretty pitfull.

[Scott Creighton]

cladking, on 18 September 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

How in the world can it be possible to understand the meaning of the pyramids and the
birth of Osiris if we wholly misapprehend the nature of Osiris and the reasons they built
the pyramids at all?  In the earliest corpus that exists they said in plain English that the
pyramid is Osiris.  

It is our duty to understand the meaning of this or show that it has no meaning.  ...

SC:This is exactly right.

In Frank Cole Babbit's translation of Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris", we find this:

Quote

"The traditional result of Osiris's dismemberment is that there are many so‑called tombs of Osiris in Egypt; for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it ... all of them called the tomb of Osiris."

Again we find, through the actions of Isis, that the various pyramids become a personification of the body of Osiris.I do not consider it unreasonable then to consider that the early, giant pyramids, the first 14 or so pyramids the AEs built may have represented the allegorical 'body of Osiris'; the 14 dismembered body parts of Osiris, each containing the 'seed of Osiris' (recovery items) in order that, through the agency of Osiris (i.e. the 14 pyramids that represented his body), the kingdom might be revived (from injury)--a corporeal revivication in this realm (as per the Osirian doctrine) as opposed to a metaphysical ressurection in the realm hereafter.

Regards,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 18 September 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[samspade]

Scott Creighton, on 18 September 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Again we find, through the actions of Isis, that the various pyramids become a personification of the body of Osiris.I do not consider it unreasonable then to consider that the early, giant pyramids, the first 14 or so pyramids the AEs built may have represented the allegorical 'body of Osiris'; the 14 dismembered body parts of Osiris, each containing the 'seed of Osiris' (recovery items) in order that, through the agency of Osiris (i.e. the 14 pyramids that represented his body), the kingdom might be revived (from injury)--a corporeal revivication in this realm (as per the Osirian doctrine) as opposed to a metaphysical ressurection in the realm hereafter.

cladking is referring to isis and the 14 shrines or tombs  of osiris, no mention in the myth about pyramids.

no evidence to suggest isis built the first pyramids,

no evidence to suggest these 14 pyramids united were in the locations the ancient egyptians believed isis built tomb.

other than that, no harm in throwing it out there,


regards

Edited by samspade, 18 September 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[cladking]

samspade, on 18 September 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

its very possible the djedi team, may find some more clues, in the gp
if they are bright, they will look at further understanding what is going on.

based on what i understand, they have been pretty pitfull.

John Anthony West believes 90% of current research is entirely misdirected.  I believe he
might be underestimating the problem significantly.  Of course the nuts and bolts of archae-
ology is all any of us have to arrive at hypotheses but rather than getting fodder for scientific
enquiry they are digging for ramps and looking for bumpkins.  They are looking in all the wrong
places and failing at taking basic measurements and investigating anomalies.


I still believe they are afraid of what they'll find so they are simply seeking to confirm their beliefs.

[Hanslune]

Scott Creighton, on 16 September 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Hello Hans,



SC: You misunderstand what I am suggesting.

No I understand your idea, my questions, which you ignored address the fallacy of the idea

You are suggestion that for generations the AE located their habitations and built tombs for their pharoahs to provide a 'dot map' of Osiris?

Okay what evidence do you have that they would do that? You just have your  opinion from what I can see, thats nice

Where is an example of them doing this? Any other cases?

They did have look down maps but those were 1000+ years later and they were not large/small scale, so who would see this outline? Was their survey up to this??

I asked about the oldest representation of Osiris, are these all facing to the right?

What about the many representations of Osiris that don't fit that dot map?

What is the age and provenance of the Osiris image you are using?

The 14 parts, and one version of the myth says 26, are those the locations of where the parts were found?


However Scott I do like this idea better than your one of Dendera images being lifting balloons

Well done

[Hanslune]

Then Cladking convince someone to do what you want or fund your own research - why do you refuse to try to do this?

Are you afraid that you will fail?

Don't just sit on websites screeching your opinions do something!

[Scott Creighton]

Hanslune, on 18 September 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

However Scott I do like this idea better than your one of Dendera images being lifting balloons

Well done

Hi Hans,

Thank you for this. There are, naturally, many unanswered questions and probably many that can never be fully or properly answered. Consider this idea a 'work in progress'. Much more research to be done on this.

Regards,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 18 September 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Scott Creighton]

This material may better be placed in a separate thread but since it is closely related to the ‘Body of Osiris’ material presented in this thread, I thought it best to post here.

We are told in the Myth of Osiris that his body was cut into 14 pieces (some versions say 16) and that these body parts were scattered across the land of Egypt i.e. the Nile Valley. I contend that this myth is an allegorical tale identifying the first 14 (or so) pyramids built by the ancient Egyptians as Recovery Vaults for the Kingdom. Through the agency of Osiris, the kingdom would be revived and rise again in the aftermath of a cataclysmic deluge anticipated by the ancient Egyptians. There are ancient texts that allude to this cataclysmic event and also to the function of the pyramids as ‘recovery vaults’. The Recovery Vault Theory (RVT) can be read in more depth elsewhere in this Forum.

The Pyramid Texts state: “This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris.” The pyramid was the personified (dismembered) body of Osiris which would later be equated with the King himself.

Now, one of the other intriguing nuggets of information the Myth of Osiris presents us with is that it tells us Isis set about discovering the body parts of Osiris in order that he could be pieced back together (reborn).We are told that Isis found most of the parts except one – the phallus. Remember, this is an allegorical tale. If the pyramids represent the allegorical body parts of Osiris then the part that could not be found may be indicative that it has, unlike the pyramids recovery vaults, been hidden out of site. Could the final ‘body part’ of Osiris actually be a hidden chamber, buried somewhere in Egypt?

In the Corpus Hermeticum, a body of treatises compiled from older materials toward the beginning of the Christian era, we find in one of these works, the Virgin of the World, these words:

Quote

“The sacred symbols of the cosmic elements, the secrets of Osiris, were hidden carefully. Hermes (the Greek equivalent to Thoth), before his return to Heaven, invoked a spell on them, and said, O holy books which have been made by my immortal hands, by incorruption's magic spell remain free from decay throughout eternity and incorrupt by time. Become unseeable, unfindable, from everyone whose foot shall tread the plains of this land, until old Heaven shall bring instruments for you, whom the Creator shall call His souls. Thus spake he, and laying the spells on them by means of his works, he shut them safe away in their rooms. And long has been the time since they were hid away.

The Roman Marcellinus, in the 4th century, stated: There are certain subterranean galleries and passages full of windings beneath the pyramids which, it is said, the adepts in the ancient rites (knowing that the flood was coming, and fearing that the memory of the sacred ceremonies would be obliterated), constructed vaults in various places, mining them out of the ground with great labor..”

The Corpus Hermeticum also states that the secret rooms of Osiris will be found by three. This last part got me thinking – three what? Three people? Three stars? Three pyramids? Three something else altogether? I put the question aside until one day, some months later, whilst researching the concavities of the Great Pyramid and puzzling why such features are found in only two of the 138 known pyramids, my young son asked me a question about centroid geometry – a subject I hadn’t looked at for some 30 years. It was a eureka moment. The penny dropped, the lightbulb went on. The ‘three’ in question could be the Great Pyramids and the unique concavities were placed in two of these pyramids (G1 and G3), indicating their particular centroid type.

The ancient world understood three centroid types: barrycentre, circumcentre and incentre. Using these three centroids in conjunction with the concavities of G1 and G3 allows us to reverse engineer a theoretical triangle of specific proportions, oriented in a particular direction.





With the central line running from G1 centre thru G2 centre then only one triangle can be reconstructed using this method. The apex of this 'triangulation' picks out a very specific spot in the Egyptian desert to the southwest of the Giza pyramids, here:



During my last trip to Egypt in March 2008, I attempted to reach the apex location indicated in the image above. Alas, however, my first attempt was thwarted by ‘Hawass’s Wall’:



The next day I attempted to circumvent 'Hawass's Wall' by heading southwest around the perimeter of the Giza plateau. This is the route I planned to take:



As I journeyed around the perimeter of the Giza plateau (some 6 kilometers or so), it quickly became clear just how seriously the local Egyptian police took the security of Giza with mounted antiquities police (on camels) and in manned security towers:



Continuing down the main road south it gradually became clear to me that it would be impossible for me to reach the triangle’s apex point from the south (i.e. from the other side of 'Hawass's Wall').










Continued......

Continued from previous....

As can be seen from the next image, there is absolutely no way in to the location of the GGT Apex point. Arriving at the location from the south (as opposed from the north) we find this:

http://www.scottcrei...pex/Slide10.JPG

In short then, attempting to reach the triangle’s pex point from the North (via the Giza necropolis) is terminated by the obstruction of Hawass's Wall (not to mention armed mounted antiquities police and those also in the watch-towers).

Attempting to circumvent the 'wall' by walking around it to arrive at the Apex point from the south, your path is obstructed by another security fence for as far as the eye can see.

The location of the GGT Apex is effectively sealed off by Hawass's Wall and a second security perimeter fence. I see no reason for this double-fence - you certainly do not find them at other sacred sites such as Saqqara or Meidum.

Could it be that this sealed area - i.e. the location of the GGT Apex - is indeed hiding something under its ancient sands, something Dr Hawass does not wish anyone to know of?  I had a particular reason for reaching the apex point which I won’t go into here, so to say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. But there was nothing else I could do at the time and so, reluctantly, I put the quest on the back-burner - for the moment.

Some months later, I wrote to Dr Hawass explaining the centroid theory and asked him to explain his ‘Wall’.  He replied that the ‘wall’ was for “the security of  the guests of Egypt.” Some months after receiving Dr Hawass’s email, major excavation works began right in the location I had specified to Dr Hawass:

http://www.scottcrei...-Dig/Slide1.JPG

The image (below) shows that in Feb 2009, the area of the apex location was nothing but undisturbed barren land and sand dunes.

http://www.scottcrei...-Dig/Slide2.JPG

Then suddenly, in March 2009, the earth movers and excavators move in and begin digging up the area.

http://www.scottcrei...-Dig/Slide3.JPG

This image (below) shows that in June 2009, the entire area around the Apex location is being dug up.

http://www.scottcrei...-Dig/Slide4.JPG

This image (below) shows bulldozers and dumper trucks digging up the area in June 2009.

http://www.scottcrei...-Dig/Slide5.JPG

Now this digging may well have been for fairly benign and innocent reasons but it is somewhat curious that it takes place in the very area of the apex and that this digging commenced shortly after I had made this centroid theory known to Dr Hawass. I have emailed Dr Hawass again to ascertain why this area is being excavated but, as yet, have received no reply from him.

A little footnote:

In April 2012 I was sent the following images by an independent researcher which seem to show some form of anomaly under the sand in the apex location.

http://www.scottcrei...Dig/Slide16.jpg

http://www.scottcrei...iris/Slide1.JPG

http://www.scottcrei...iris/Slide2.JPG

(Thanks to Dennis Payne for generating the above image)

Are we looking at the ‘secret room of Osiris’ buried under the sands and’pointed’ to by the three Giza pyramids?

SC

[cladking]

Quote

If the pyramids represent the allegorical body parts of Osiris then the part that could not be found may be indicative that it has, unlike the pyramids recovery vaults, been hidden out of site. Could the final ‘body part’ of Osiris actually be a hidden chamber, buried somewhere in Egypt?

The coffin texts also state that the efflux of Osiris will be found in a chamber at Rosteau (Giza)
in four fiery red jugs.  These have never been located however I have found references to red
pot shards that were cleaned out of the Osiris Shaft a few years back.

None of orthodox beliefs is consistent with the physical evidence.  I suppose the best that can be
hoped for is that they didn't just throw away the "debris" found here.