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.


- - - - -

A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
798 replies to this topic

#271    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:25 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 20 November 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

Even Herodutas said there were water canals built for the frist pyramid of Cheops to bring the water from the nile.What other purpose then to ship the big stones in and is why the pyramid was flooded.


The problem is that the pyramid was 200' above the Nile even at high nile.  

There is no known means by which the Nile could have flooded the pyramid.  
This leaves us either to seek a new means, reinterpret the meaning of the
statement, or discard it altogether.

I tend toward reinterpreting it since it's possible to just assume he was
using words in a different way than modern usage.  This means he was right
but that being right doesn't demand that water from the Nile directly im-
pacted the pyramid.  

I have a different idea about what the tales of water or salt lines on the
pyramid meant.  I bwelieve it's related to the red band around the base of
the heiroglyph for "pyramid".  It was caused from water leakage and siderite
staining from the 160' level on down.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#272    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,126 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:26 PM

I perfer Jean-Pierre Houdin Theory, its the only way the pyamid was built with out ramps outside of the pyramid, but inside,  maybe the shafts were ramps to since they have had to built before inclosing the tops as they went up.


#273    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:33 PM

View Postpatrickgiles, on 20 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

As far as cultivatable land. Even if it rained 20 inches a year, the cliff area was too rocky to support good soil, such as that found next to the river.

The PT refers to this as "herb hill".  Herbs do best in sandy and poor soil.  

At some point most of the plateau was stripped right down to bedrock.  

Quote

Lots of mudflows from rainwater.

Somehow or other no one ever wants to talk about this evidence.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#274    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:35 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 20 November 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

I perfer Jean-Pierre Houdin Theory, its the only way the pyamid was built with out ramps outside of the pyramid, but inside,  maybe the shafts were ramps to since they have had to built before inclosing the tops as they went up.


I like this theory a lot as well.  It's the only one I haven't felt like
I can disprove and it is pure genius.  

It's highly unlikely it's correct though and will be disproven by its author
soon. Some of his ideas may stand the test of time though.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#275    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:40 PM

View Postpatrickgiles, on 20 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

OK, so you're suggesting that every single scrap and fragment, every tiny bead, every speck of gold, every fragment of pottery, and every other tiny bit of evidence has been carefully picked and removed by tomb robbers. Do you really think robbers take pottery? Not usually. How about pieces of wood. Not usually. Perhaps a forensic team came in and somehow vacuumed the floor. Keep in mind, that the cracks between the floors have also been analyzed, and nothing--nothing was found. You have to rethink your claim. They may have been cenotaphs, and I am willing to admit that. But I doubt that anything was ever placed in the sarcophagus.


They can't even find a speck of gold hidden deep in the cracks in the floors.  We
are supposed to believe that the tomb robbers tunneled and hacked their way in and
then gingerly removed all the spoils without even causing a speck of guilding to
flake from their ill gotten booty. They're so sure it was a tomb that they've never
even done a forensic investigation.  They're so positive of everything they don't
need to test anything and can jump right ahead to drilling holes everywhere.

I certainly understand your frustration.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#276    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:04 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 20 November 2011 - 04:57 AM, said:

Most scholars are in agreement that the human remains found in the burial chamber of the Step Pyramid are those of Djoser

No!  

They are not even in agreement on the sex of the very fragmentary
piece they have.  

Quote

The Pyramid Texts were inscribed and addressed to each royal specifically and thus were made unique for each. Their funerary nature, many references to the place of burial, the burial chamber, burial equipment, and standard royal burial rituals of that period leave no doubt as to their intent and purpose. I would suggest consulting the translations conducted by Raymond Faulkner and especially those published by James Allen.

A simple book he wrote is Mountains of the Pharaohs (2006) but I like it because the book contains more details than most other written material on the nature of the relief carvings and inscriptions of Khufu's temple structures. These reliefs and inscriptions are strictly funerary in nature, and make it clear the entire complex existed for the cult of the dead king.

Where you see funerary, I don't.  The PT speaks far more about living
than dying.  This is pretty surprising when it was obviously written
about a recently deceased king.  

I have no doubt that if I saw these relief carvings which are currently
associated with G1 "temples" that I wouldn't agree that they are funerary
in nature.  But even if they are I can't see how they might prove all of
the orthodox ideas.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#277    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    Unknown title error

  • Member
  • 3,210 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona (originally the wisconsin/minnesota area eh!)

  • Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:09 PM

Battle of the geniuses happening right before our eyes. LOL that was a bit sarcastic I apologize.

Lime stone is mostly stone I read up there somewhere.... LOL OK... I'm even going to risk making my next few statements from memory because I feel pretty confident in the basic nature of the material we are speaking about.
OK you have a sea.
You have things living on the sea floor. Coral and such which will undoubtedly filter salt water...
Break apart limestone and you will find shell and other fossils .... I find them all the time at 6000 feet above sea level in thehigh desert of Arizona!!! Tons of salt too... so much that my shoes get a white layer on them from walking around. How silly of an idea to find so much salt in an ancient sea bed... have any of you seen limestone or is it just a concept in your mind? Its no big deal if its just a concept as there are a lot of things conceptual in my mind I just happen to have hands on experience with limestone and old sea beds because of where I live... I wanted to share that experience with you all.
Good day

"Though I stand in opposition to you, I am not opposed to you. Night and Day stand in opposition to each other, but they are not opposed to each other -they are merely two halves of the same coin."

#278    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:18 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 20 November 2011 - 12:37 AM, said:

On top of the fact that you continue to use the PT in an anachronistic fashion as some sort of construction manual for the GP, you've effectively shot yourself in the foot with this passage. Particularly as the people buried in adjacent tombs contemporary to those of the pyramids would have to have been dead quite some time before they would have been considered "Ancients". Also, according to your interpretation of this passage the inundation would have to have occurred AFTER they were dead and buried. Meaning that anything they may or may not have done while alive happened BEFORE an inundation.


298c. and will let loose an inundation over the Ancients;

No I haven't. The whole theory is built up around and in conjunction
with the literal meaning of the words of the builders.  Unless someone can
show a more likely literal meaning the words can't hurt me.  

People dying and being born was a continuing thing.  The evolution of the
Pyramid Texts was a continuing thing from before the invention of writing
to the book of gates.  Rain water was a continuing thing until circa 2200 BC.
Water spraying from under the ground was a continuing thing until around
2400 BC.  

But "all" the ancients were "always" buried on high ground.  Officials and
various dignitaries were awarded choice spots high on the cliffs over the
valley.  Any inundation that would be let loose on them had to come from
above.  

If anything this is the one line in the PT that can stand alone as proof of
a water source high up on the plateau.  Of course there is the even more
direct proof that is these words;

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

The w3g-festival was held on the specific uplands known as Giza and an inun-
dation named Osiris came to it.  

This is just plain English.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#279    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,747 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:53 PM

Quote

The whole theory is built up around and in conjunction
with the literal meaning of the words of the builders.

No it's not, unless you can provide literary evidence of what the builders, meaning those of the time of Khufu, actually said. Now, once and for all, DO YOU HAVE SUCH EVIDENCE?

Quote

Rain water was a continuing thing until circa 2200 BC.
Water spraying from under the ground was a continuing thing until around
2400 BC.

Not to any significant degree, and by that I mean anything over 2 inches per year. If you have evidence to the contrary then cite it.

Quote

But "all" the ancients were "always" buried on high ground.

Wrong again, in part, the Valley of the Kings being an example. And yet, the Giza Plateau was a necropolis AND on high ground. Kind of works against you, doesn't it?

Quote

This is just plain English.

No, this is just plain made-up on your part.

So, you need the following:

1) Literary evidence from the actual builders c.2500 to substantiate your claims as to what they said.

2) Citation for any studies showing a significant (2+ inches per year) rainfall between 3500 and 2200 BC.

3) Geological/hydrological evidence for pressurized water on the Giza Plateau, at any point in AE history but more specifically prior to 2400 BC.

Am anxiously awaiting your verifiable evidence and/or citations.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#280    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:06 PM

Cormac;

You are essentially seeking verifiable proof from me while holding
Egyptology to no standard at all except the "proof by consensus". If
I had verifiable proof of everything there would be no reason to discuss
the evidence at all.  Why does Egyptology get a pass on saying they must-
ta used ramps despite the fact the evidence strongly is against them but
you can't agree that the evidence supports the idea that stones moved
straight up the side.  

By refusing to give in on even the worst supported aspects of Egyptological
assumption you are either suggesting that Egyptology is an integrated thing
that can't be distilled and mustn't be wrong in any part or that the evidence
is in your opinion so strong that they can't be wrong in any part.  

I believe if you look inside you will find that it's the former; that Egyp-
tology is a whole thing that can't exist without the assumptions.  If you
remove ramps the whole thing tumbles down.  Remove tombs and there's no rea-
son for Egyptology to exist.  Remove the assumptions and all that's left are
a very few very disjointed facts.  There are no words fronm the great pyra-
mid builsding age that are an intelligible and complete thought.  All that
survives is; "He who makes in Gods that can not be erased".  How can ramps
or tombs be deduced from such a thing.  Ironically enough even this tends to
support my theory better than it supports orthodox beliefs.  

How can the evidence for ramps be so strong when virtually no evidence for ramps
exists?  How can ramps be the only possible means to build when it's obvious
even to a child that stones could be pulled straight up the side from men on
the top?  Why should anyone believe in ramps when there are no ramp builders
and no stone draggers anywhere in evidence?  

Why can't people cast off ramps?  

Why are ramps part and parcel of the way Egyptology sees the people?

Even if it were true that anything that can't be proved to be concurrent with
great pyramid building why should it become irrelevant?  Just because we don't
know the exact date "he, he is the pyramid, he protects." was written why can't
it apply to the Great Pyramid?  If it applies to Unas' Pyramid does this mean
only Unas' Pyramid wasn't a tomb?  Why can't it mean that at the time it was wri-
tten no pyramid was a tomb?  

I think if you answer these questions honestly you'll conclude that the bottom
line is that Egyptology has not proven their contentions nor incorporated most
of the physical evidence into their theory.  I think you are holding them to no
standard at all while expecting me to present conclusive proof of geysers.  

In the concrete world it is most probably impossible for me to find and present
such proof from this place at this time.  But I can and have shown solid evid-
ence for nearly every aspect of the theory and have cast grave doubt on most as-
pects of orthodoxy.  Ramps are essentially debunked and when this finally gets
factored into Egyptology it's going to leave a mark.  They have been impaled on
ramps.  This is fait accompli.  It's a done deal.  That they don't yet see or
admit it is to their detriment.  

Nearly equally well established are the rain catchments around the great pyramids.
(possibly others)(I've not looked at others).  When the question of how and why
the pyramids were built without the assumption of ramps and with catchments added
in then we have to at least consider the possibility they used water.  Add in the
fact that stones moved up the side and something (apparently) moved "down" the
opposite side and water filled counterweights become a very real possibility.  

I know these words are likely to tick people off but I believe every one of them
is true.  I believe they'll tick people off because they don't want to believe
them and they have the ring of truth.  It really is not and never has been my re-
sponsibility to prove this.  It is merely my job to solve the question and then
orthodoxy's job to prove me right or wrong.  There are a million ways to show
this and I've suggested dozens.  Here's one; show these devices under consideration
couldn't channel water.  My whole argument collapses in a cloud of dust without
a means to catch and channel the water at at least two points.  Why can I show a
water collectiuon device but Egyptology can't show a ramp OR disprove water col-
lection?  It always comes down to the best fit argument and tombs built with ramps
is not even a good fit far less a best fit.  The beuty of finding the actual ans-
wer though is it's usually testable just like mine is.  

So why aren't they testing it?  

Why do I so rarely get answers to any of my question when I always try to answer
every question?

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#281    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:16 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 20 November 2011 - 08:53 PM, said:

Wrong again, in part, the Valley of the Kings being an example.

Yeah, it's a shame they ever buried people here.  This is why
I put all and always in quotes.  But there's still the quotation
that says an inundation comes to Giza as Osiris.  The PT still
says that Osiris was a cool effervescent column of water that
tossed.  

Quote

2) Citation for any studies showing a significant (2+ inches per year) rainfall between 3500 and 2200 BC.

Did you notice even Kmt_Sesh said there was higher precipitation
until 2200 BC a couple pages back?

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#282    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,066 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:25 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 20 November 2011 - 08:53 PM, said:

No it's not, unless you can provide literary evidence of what the builders, meaning those of the time of Khufu, actually said. Now, once and for all, DO YOU HAVE SUCH EVIDENCE?


I'm of the opinion that EVERYONE interested in the great pyramids or their
builders study the Pyramid Texts. (and the Coffin Texts to a lesser degree)

I strongly recommend the following tools and resources for this job.  Start
by learning the alphabet.  

http://renfield.phys..._dictionary.pdf
http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/
http://books.google....page&q=&f=false
http://clusty.com/se...Previous Next"
http://www.pyramidte...ranslation.html
http://www.google.co..."&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
http://www.sofiatopi...aat/wenis12.htm
http://www.the-book-...ontent-157.html
http://unbound.biola...unbound.welcome

Just start at the top.  You might never need the last few.

The PT has a literal meaning and that meaning is coherent.  

I wish I had a list like this when I started.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#283    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,264 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

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

Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:25 PM

View Postcladking, on 20 November 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

Yeah, it's a shame they ever buried people here.  This is why
I put all and always in quotes.  But there's still the quotation
that says an inundation comes to Giza as Osiris.  The PT still
says that Osiris was a cool effervescent column of water that
tossed.  



Did you notice even Kmt_Sesh said there was higher precipitation
until 2200 BC a couple pages back?

Not enough to convert into an actual economic factor, see here, so there might have been 2.5 inches instead of 2, the water still was sourced from the Nile.

And the Pyramid texts reflect all kinds of things, but certainly not the reality... if it would be reality you would not be interested...

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

#284    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,747 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 20 November 2011 - 11:10 PM

Quote

You are essentially seeking verifiable proof from me while holding
Egyptology to no standard at all except the "proof by consensus".

Egyptology has 200 years of archaeological, linguistic, religious and cultural finds behind them, while you have 5 years of "Nuh uh" behind you. I think I'll stick with Egyptology.

Quote

Even if it were true that anything that can't be proved to be concurrent with
great pyramid building why should it become irrelevant?

In the case of the Pyramid Texts because they, as written in the tomb of Unis, are addressed specifically to Unis. Not to Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure or any other 4th Dynasty king. But to Unis ONLY.

Quote

If it applies to Unas' Pyramid does this mean
only Unas' Pyramid wasn't a tomb?

Definitely not, because we know that Unis' tomb was a tomb.

Quote

I think you are holding them to no standard at all while expecting me to present conclusive proof of geysers.

Nope, I'm holding them to 200 years of archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence whereas all you've shown in 5 years is "because I said so".  :rolleyes:

Quote

Nearly equally well established are the rain catchments around the great pyramids.
(possibly others)(I've not looked at others).

You've not shown evidence that they were ever "rain catchment devices". Hell, you've not even shown that there was a significant amount of rain at that time. And I've asked you to support that claim several times now. Thusfar, you've failed.

Quote

But there's still the quotation that says an inundation comes to Giza as Osiris.

And as I've already shown you, there is evidence that the Nile was much closer to the Plateau during the 4th dynasty, yet nothing to suggest that the Nile waters were EVER on the plateau itself.

Quote

Did you notice even Kmt_Sesh said there was higher precipitation
until 2200 BC a couple pages back?

Did YOU notice that Kmt_sesh NEVER said that that means precipitation significantly greater than 2 inches per year. Hmm, I'd have to wonder why he wouldn't say that, unless it wasn't true.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#285    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 20,218 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 11:23 PM

View Postpatrickgiles, on 20 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

OK, so you're suggesting that every single scrap and fragment, every tiny bead, every speck of gold, every fragment of pottery, and every other tiny bit of evidence has been carefully picked and removed by tomb robbers. Do you really think robbers take pottery? Not usually. How about pieces of wood. Not usually. Perhaps a forensic team came in and somehow vacuumed the floor. Keep in mind, that the cracks between the floors have also been analyzed, and nothing--nothing was found. You have to rethink your claim. They may have been cenotaphs, and I am willing to admit that. But I doubt that anything was ever placed in the sarcophagus.
Yes. I'm suggesting that over the almost 3000 years before modern archeology got to the site, that it was robbed over and over again. That even if there was pottery, shards or scraps of wood left in the pyramid, that after it was forced open, that every tiny thing was taken from inside. "Trash" (potshards, bits of wood, bits of cloth...) was not likely noted by the earliest archologists and thus with the rise of modern Egyptology every scrap was carried away by "tourists".

Go to the Petrified Forest in Arizona(?) all that is left is the giant boulders, every last tiny piece of petrified wood was carried off by tourists back in the 19th and 20th centuries.

All I see in you Opinion above is... well opinion. You "think" no one would take pottery, and "think" no one would take wood... Robbers are.... well, robbers. They doubtless carried light sources with them, but the light would be very bad, so they would grab everything. And gold would glitter and so be easy to see. And robbers would have knifes to get stuff from between stones. They did have 3000 years you know. They could have even torn up the inside floors, as it is beleived that later Dynasties renovated the GP and resealed the entrance in ancient times.

So... in short, I think my Common Sense answer is more logical then your common sense answer.

View Postpatrickgiles, on 20 November 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

The rain catchments you are looking for were probably incorporated into the roofs of their houses. Lots of cultures did this. Polished limestone gets very cold at night, and it retains this temperature for a while. If the casing stones heated up in the day, a short rainfall would cool them down. Now imagine a hard rain. No evaporation once they are cooled.
Is there evidence of even one ancient or restored building having such a catchment? Surely if most buildings had a catchment, we'd have archeological evidence to support it.

Also why build it into a pyramid, or a house, when there was vast hillsides just waiting to be used to catch rain. The answer... there was never much rain.

View Postpatrickgiles, on 20 November 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

Tomb robbers must have used a vacuum cleaner because there are no fragments of anything in the cracks of the stones. It couldn't have all disappeared. Come on.  They were cenotaphs for the ba spirit probably.
Look at the Valley of the Kings. The tombs there that were robber are bare of artifacts as mole holes, yet the ones that were not robbed are full of good stuff. The robbers took every shard, bead, stick and bit of cloth. Doubtless these bits and pieces were discarded in the desert or into trash mounds back in town, but they were all carried off.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users