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.


- - - - -

Analyse This


  • Please log in to reply
295 replies to this topic

#271    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    Unknown title error

  • Member
  • 3,215 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 19 November 2011 - 10:21 PM

You know cladking... rumor has it that you will latch on to any idea that goes against orthodoxy... no matter what the idea is without question... is that true? It certainly appears that way... did aliens design the water catchment for the Egyptians?
Lets assume water played an integral role in the Egyptians minds in regards to the pyramids...is it plausible it was simply used for a level and that's all... used for utilitarian purposes for the base level... I have no clue really I'm just tossing that out there as an honorable mention.... if its not the case then I apologize for suggesting it....just a random thought.

"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."

#272    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,240 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 19 November 2011 - 10:48 PM

View PostAus Der Box Skeptisch, on 19 November 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

You know cladking... rumor has it that you will latch on to any idea that goes against orthodoxy... no matter what the idea is without question... is that true? It certainly appears that way... did aliens design the water catchment for the Egyptians?
Lets assume water played an integral role in the Egyptians minds in regards to the pyramids...is it plausible it was simply used for a level and that's all... used for utilitarian purposes for the base level... I have no clue really I'm just tossing that out there as an honorable mention.... if its not the case then I apologize for suggesting it....just a random thought.


I don't think the usage of water solely as a leveling device would really
be considered integral.  Handy. Important. Accurate all spring to mind though.  
But, if it were solely for leveling they would not likely have extended it
beyond the perimeter of the pyramid and might not have built the catchment
first.

Orthodoxy gets enough people kowtowing to it that it doesn't need me.  If
I'm right they are mostly wrong but some of the fringe ideas may also be right.
It appears to a lot of people that the ancients were smarter and more knowledge-
able than they are being given credit for.  There's simply no reason to suppose
that they had to have been any more superstitious than modern man.  

A great deal of what's known about the ancients has been dug up or figured out
by individuals who mostly accepted orthodox beliefs.  But we shouldn't lose sight
of the fact that orthodox belief has been little changed in 150 years. Yes, this
sticks in the craws of Egyptology because they see the great progress on many
fronts rather than the utter lack of progress in answering even the most basic
questions.  Our greater "understanding" is irrelevant if it can't answer basic
questions about the people, resolve mysteries, or make predictions.  

I'll leave it to others to congratulate them on their huge efforts and true gen-
ius while I try to answer the basic questions and find input anywhere it exists.  
There are great ideas out there (and in this very thread) so I'm just trying to
keep my eyes and ears open and my ideas as unencumbered as any of us can.  

You never know where the answer or the proof might arise.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#273    Mangoze

Mangoze

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,581 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2011 - 10:57 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 14 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

...
The Challenge:

Get three friends to each draw a random square or rectangle on a piece of card. Cut-out these three squares/rectangles. These are your three random bases. Carefully mark the centre of each of the cut-out bases with a black pen.

Now scatter your three cards (bases) randomly to the floor. Observe the pattern made by the three centres of these three cards. You may move one of the bases fractionally in any direction. (Afterall, G2 is not exactly in its proper location in the Belt asterism, so fair's fair).

Now, using these three centres, follow the procedure outlined in the Giza-Orion Blueprint and try and recreate your three bases in the order and rotation they have fallen and in the shape and proportions they have been made by your three friends. (You might find it helpful to photograph the arrangement with a digital camera, upload the image into Powerpoint or some other application and attempt the procedure that way. Saves a lot of time crawling about the floor).

If the first arrangement of the centres doesn't produce a match in orientation, order, shape and proportion to the three bases created by your three friends then throw your three card bases to the floor again - and repeat. Keep repeating until you find a match. What you will quickly realise, is that you would not have enough life-times to find such a match.

And yet, quite incredibly, this is almost precisely what we have at Giza! If the Gizamids had been defined in the manner I propose in my presentation but had been laid out on the Giza plateau, say, in a straight east-west line and in a different order and orientation, it would have been infinitely more difficult for me - or anyone - to discover this simple technique or to find the correct star asterism used to achieve those proportions. However, the fact that the builders actually laid down the Gizamids in pretty much the same way that their proportions, shapes and orientations were designed helped immensely to discovering the technique and the correct star asterism that was used to define their relative size and layout.

When you can come back with a match in your attempt at this, then and ONLY THEN will you have any grounds to claim this is but a “coincidence”. Incidentally, the odds against you succeeding in this challenge are something in the order of 280 TRILLION to one!

Until then.........

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

You can observe about 2000 stars at night with the naked eye.  Choosing any combination of three stars gives you 1,331,334,000 choices.

Are you just asking to select a triple, of coordinates, and match it with another triple?  What resolution?  360 times 90 is 32,400.

How did you calculate the odds of 280 trillion to one?


#274    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,566 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:38 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 19 November 2011 - 09:27 AM, said:

My work here, for the moment, is done so there is no need for me to go round in circles with ya'll. When I prove my point(s), I do not see any reason to hang around and pontificate as you all like to do. I presented this material to demonstrate geometrical intent at Giza; geometrical intent that clearly demonstrates large-scale site planning. Few now doubt this. You are permitted, of course, to reject my reasoning as to how that large-scale planning came about or what its underlying reasoning was but that it is there cannot now be denied (though some will attempt to sooth their anxieties by denying it but in the wee dark hours....). Some also have suggested that it was not preconceived i.e. that it did not start with Khufu's structure.  Well, it was preconceived.

As another Terminator once famously said, "I'll be back!" and when I return I will present that proof. Like I said - it was fun. The usual suspects on this board are fond of kicking theories into touch with their 'superior knowledge'. They do not take too kindly when the shoe is on the other foot.  As a wise old sage, Corporal Jones, once famously said, "They don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring!"  So yes - do keep your rear guard in place. You're gonna need it!

Best wishes to you all,

Scott Creighton

Re: Bolded #1 - However, it would not appear that you have proven your point(s). Rather the contrary.

Re: Bolded #2 - And what personages would this statement include? The contributors to these pages? The rest of the archaeological community? This claim would also not appear to be substantiated. Your documentation for such?

Re: Bolded #3 - Yet another unsubstantiated absolutist claim. Will await your next attempt.

For the record, will address some of your last responses from your post # 254.

"INTENT" - You are now delving into cognitive archaeology. In doing so you are putting yourself in the position of being well-versed enough on the intricacies of the culture that you are capable of interpreting the thoughts and motivations of said culture. This would not appear to be the case. To explore some of the pitfalls of this approach, you may wish to consult Flannery and Marcus (1993) along with Hastorf and Johannessen (1991).

Re: "Your dogmatic intransigence will blinker you to the fact (yes, fact) that there is a completely different ‘cultural context’ to explain what  we find at Giza".

Credible support for this bold proclamation?

Re: " None of which has ANY relevance to the monuments at Giza, their size, shape, proportions or orientation. Deal with THAT."

Given that the Giza complex was designed and built by H.s.s., how can the probabilities of the specie's presence not be considered relevant? Rather confused rationale don't you think? And yet you refuse (despite your repeated probability "issues") to deal with this simple example.

.


#275    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,240 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:54 AM

View PostSwede, on 20 November 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

Credible support for this bold proclamation?

Credible support for a different interpretation of the "cultural evidence"
is wholly irrelevant because the current understanding of the evidence is
based solely on assumptions, projections, and interpretation.  

THERE IS NO CULTURAL CONTEXT EXCEPT IN MODERN PEOPLES' MINDS.

The great pyramid builders were not stinky footed bumpkins who couldn't
have thought of anything more complicated than dragging stones like don-
keys.  The pyramid (the evidence) puts the lie to this view.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#276    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    Unknown title error

  • Member
  • 3,215 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 - 01:25 AM

Thank you for answering my post. Cladking...
I see I posted on the wrong topic but thank you anyways... my last post was meant for the other thread we are familiar with.

"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."

#277    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,349 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 20 November 2011 - 03:57 AM

View Postcladking, on 19 November 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

...

It's fascinating that Egyptological thought generally is underpinned by little more than
a "sarcophagus" in G1.  This alone bears most of the weight of proving great pyramids
were tombs built with ramps...

That sarcophagi were used for burial is beyond question. What fringe proponents have never been able to explain when they try to deny the funerary nature of pyramids, is the purpose of sarcophagi if they were not meant to store bodies. What other purpose did they serve, then? No logical or well-thought counter-argument has ever been proposed by the fringe camp. Yes, counter-arguments have been presented by fringe proponents, but the key words here are logical and well-thought.

It is never enough simply to deny an orthodox argument or theory and leave it at that. Such a tactic is ill conceived and pointless. If you wish to refute an orthodox argument, you better have the precedent and evidence to corroborate your claim; otherwise, your claim requires no further consideration.

You're abundantly guilty of this yourself, cladking. You refute orthodoxy merely for the sake of refuting it. It doesn't seem to matter what the case may be--if it stands against orthodox history, you're all for it. For instance, to this day you continue to deny the colossal masonry pyramids were tombs and yet you've never contributed a logical or productive argument to support yourself. I asked you about this once and you more or less answered that the Great Pyramid was built because they could. For the hell of it, in other words. Needless to say, such an answer lacks merit. It's not even an answer but an excuse to avoid critical thinking.

But back to sarcophagi.

You seem to think that the sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid is Egyptology's only point of reference for what the thing was meant to be. The subterranean spaces of the Step Pyramid include five burial chambers for Djoser's family members, all of which contain calcite sarcophagi, including two intact examples. These are the earliest known stone sarcophagi. From that point on they became more common, and not only in royal tombs. The earliest hard-stone sarcophagus was found in Mastaba 17 at Meidum (Ikram & Dodson 1998: 246). It was made of pink granite and dates to early in the reign of Sneferu. More sarcophagi have been found in elite tombs from Dynasty 4 on and numerous examples contained human remains. Frequently these did not include coffins but contained the wrapped body on its own.

In other words, the preponderance of stone sarcophagi even in this early period of pharaonic history makes it patently obvious that they were carved and dressed to hold bodies. Suggesting that other Old Kingdom sarcophagi which were not found with bodies must not have been made for bodies because they don't contain bodies is, well, an exceedingly disingenuous thing to propose. The precedent and evidence is there to show us in no uncertain terms why these costly stone containers were made. Fringe proponents cannot put a dent in such a well-evidenced and basic fact.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#278    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:41 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 20 November 2011 - 03:57 AM, said:

What fringe proponents have never been able to explain when they try to deny the funerary nature of pyramids, is the purpose of sarcophagi if they were not meant to store bodies. What other purpose did they serve, then? No logical or well-thought counter-argument has ever been proposed by the fringe camp. Yes, counter-arguments have been presented by fringe proponents, but the key words here are logical and well-thought.


SC: Go back to your books. The answer is there.  There is indeed another purpose for these stone boxes than that agreed amongst Egyptologists. The evidence for an alternative (true) use for these stone boxes found in the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids is right there in the culture. Go and look.

Best,

Scott Creighton

Edited by Scott Creighton, 20 November 2011 - 10:42 AM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#279    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 16,911 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:23 PM

View Postcladking, on 20 November 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

Credible support for a different interpretation of the "cultural evidence"
is wholly irrelevant because the current understanding of the evidence is
based solely on assumptions, projections, and interpretation.  

THERE IS NO CULTURAL CONTEXT EXCEPT IN MODERN PEOPLES' MINDS.

No, it is not "just in modern people's minds". The knowledge we have of the culture of the AE's comes from different sources.

First, and most importantly, there is the archaeology they have left behind. From this can be ascertained the general level of cultural/technological evolution a particular society has achieved. It is the 'fringe theories' postulating cultural or technological development that is not supported directly by the archaeology that exist only in the mind(s) of the theorists.

Second, parallel discoveries in other cultures tend to be mutually supporting. This is because human societies have a tendency towards similar structure at equivalent eras of their evolution. Scholars do not make 'assumptions' about cultures such as the AE's without knowing something about cultural anthropology. It is untenable to make assumptions about one specific culture, without taking into account the body of knowledge accumulated about all cultures - yet this is something which you, and other 'fringe theorists' are all too eager to do.

Quote

The great pyramid builders were not stinky footed bumpkins who couldn't
have thought of anything more complicated than dragging stones like don-
keys.  The pyramid (the evidence) puts the lie to this view.

Unless you are willing to apply your theory to all other monument-building cultures at a similar stage of development, then why apply it to only one? Why not suggest the monument builders in Ancient Mesopotamia also had to have some 'alternate' method of moving large stones around? Why not suggest that also of the mesoamerican cultures, the European cultures, etc which all undertook the building of large monuments in stone?

The fact is, cladking, that the ability of all these other cultures to "drag stones like donkeys" supports the Ancient Egyptian culture doing exactly the same.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#280    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,240 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 05:50 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 20 November 2011 - 03:57 AM, said:

That sarcophagi were used for burial is beyond question. What fringe proponents have never been able to explain when they try to deny the funerary nature of pyramids, is the purpose of sarcophagi if they were not meant to store bodies.

I have no difficulty denying the funerary purpose of great pyramids; they were
not used as tombs.  The evidence they were used for tombs is not extremely strong
and there is no direct evidence of any sort that they were used for tombs.  The
builders specifically said in plain English that they were not used for tombs many
times.  See, I did it again.  

You call it a sarcophagus but without evidence for a burial it is just another stone
box.  

Quote

What other purpose did they serve, then? No logical or well-thought counter-argument has ever been proposed by the fringe camp. Yes, counter-arguments have been presented by fringe proponents, but the key words here are logical and well-thought.

I don't know what they were for.  I'm not required to know what they were for
or have a theory on every aspect of the very little evidence that survives. If
Egyptologists felt the same way maybe they wouldn't have gone so far up a blind
alley.  

Since the pyramid was called the "ka of the king" by the builders then perhaps
the stone box held personal mementos and possessions of the dead king.  Perhaps
it held writings or even religious artefacts.  It could have even held his body
or his ashes but I doubt this because it doesn't agree very well with what the
builders actually said.  If it contained his remains then this was an inciden-
tal condition and had nothing to do with why the pyramid was built.  It was not
a tomb and they never ever even once called it a tomb.  They said the king's tomb
was in heaven and the pyramid was his ka.  

Orthodoxy can recite the company line from now until the pyramid has collapsed
into dust and these facts will remain the same.  

Quote

You're abundantly guilty of this yourself, cladking. You refute orthodoxy merely for the sake of refuting it.

Actually if I could choose my friends then orthodoxy would most assuredly be included.
Even though I believe their assumption are wrong it would be easier to argue about how,
why, and in what ways they are wrong with friends.  But Egyptology doesn't want any
friends who disagree with the assumptions.  As soon as anyone says they might not have
used ramps orthodox believers form a circle ansd scream like something out of Invasion
of the Body Snathchers.

So I try to be friends with everyone else.  

Quote

It doesn't seem to matter what the case may be--if it stands against orthodox history, you're all for it.

Is there an emoticon for "smiling out loud".  :)  SOL

This isn't strictly true but there's a lot of truth in it.

The bottom line is I don't know anything at all except my guts tell me not mention it
when I find commonality with orthodoxy and to emphasize it with fringees. This is due
to the behaviour, beliefs, and actions of orthodox believers.  

Orthodoxy isn't really wrong about "everything" but only their assumptions.  

Quote

For instance, to this day you continue to deny the colossal masonry pyramids were tombs and yet you've never contributed a logical or productive argument to support yourself. I asked you about this once and you more or less answered that the Great Pyramid was built because they could. For the hell of it, in other words. Needless to say, such an answer lacks merit. It's not even an answer but an excuse to avoid critical thinking.

Astounding!  More than 5000 posts and every single one of them is a logical argument
against tombs.  Not one of them nor all of them in aggregate proves I'm right but isn't
it something that you've not seen them but continue to believe in ramps that left no
evidence at all and tombs for which there is no proof in a mountain of evidence.  I'm
surprised you'd type out something like this.  

Quote

Suggesting that other Old Kingdom sarcophagi which were not found with bodies must not have been made for bodies because they don't contain bodies is, well, an exceedingly disingenuous thing to propose.

Some have been found empty.

Perhaps the stone box in the upper chamber really was a sarcophagus but was merely in-
tended as a reminder that the pyramid did in a sense represent a dead king.  Of course
his ka was alive and would live a million years with his soul in heaven.  Building pyra-
mids was an honor sought by people throughout the land and was a long party with numerous
feasts.  It might be easy to forget among the ascended Gods and all the revelry that a
man had died as well  and the box was a representation of that.  

I never said the absense of bodies proves they weren't tombs. You keep reading things I
don't write and not seeing that I do.  I merely said that there is no direct evidence of any
sort to show these were tombs.  There is what seems like an air tight circumstantial case
that they were tombs (sorry, if you read as much PT as I do these puns would flow from you
too) but in the absence of direct evidence they were tombs and in the presense of direct
evidence that they were not then the circumstantial evidence fails utterly even sinking
the so called sarcophagus.

Edited by cladking, 20 November 2011 - 05:55 PM.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#281    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,240 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 05:59 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 20 November 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

SC: Go back to your books. The answer is there.  There is indeed another purpose for these stone boxes than that agreed amongst Egyptologists. The evidence for an alternative (true) use for these stone boxes found in the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids is right there in the culture. Go and look.

I've come up with dozens of possibilities but don't mention most of them
because they are either low probability or it's something people just can't
accept.  

I think I see where you're headed but am not certain.  A lot of people will
be watching for your work on the subject.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#282    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,240 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:25 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 20 November 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

No, it is not "just in modern people's minds". The knowledge we have of the culture of the AE's comes from different sources.

Yes.  And it all fits into the picture drawn by Egyptology.  But if
you look too closely at this picture you'll see that there are only
a few pieces of the jig saw that were hammered into place and the rest
is all sketched in by hand.  

You can't analyze an entire culture on the basis of a few pottery
shards and how they buried their dead.  "Culture" by definition is
living and composed of living people with living ideas.  Pottery
shards are dead pottery.  Tombs are dead stone around dead people.  

Quote

It is the 'fringe theories' postulating cultural or technological development that is not supported directly by the archaeology that exist only in the mind(s) of the theorists.

Most of the little evidence about the living culture is open to in-
terpretation.  I believe it is that interpretation that they got wrong.
There is another way to organize all these jig saw pieces so that they
all fit smoothly into place and much less has to be sketched in by hand.  

Quote

Second, parallel discoveries in other cultures tend to be mutually supporting. This is because human societies have a tendency towards similar structure at equivalent eras of their evolution.

I wonder how much of this real.  Having not studied other places or times
I don't have an opinion but if they'll take ideas from later eras and put
onto the pyramid builders then maybe they'd take things from other places
and put to them as well.  

Science now is all based on euclidean geometry and the same sets of axioms.  
Cultures now have a binding that is very strong.

Ancient cultures had very primitive science that was based on observation.
There were many ways to organize and see the results.  There was nothing
bonding ancient cultures other than trade and translators.  

Quote

Unless you are willing to apply your theory to all other monument-building cultures at a similar stage of development, then why apply it to only one? Why not suggest the monument builders in Ancient Mesopotamia also had to have some 'alternate' method of moving large stones around? Why not suggest that also of the mesoamerican cultures, the European cultures, etc which all undertook the building of large monuments in stone?

I haven't studied other ancient cultures or building practices.  But Machu
Pichu wasn't even begun until the water catchment device was built.  The
Central American pyramids are all built adjacent to cenotes (water).  There's
evidence of water above ground level at one of these sites.

Ancient man had one overpowering need to where to locate.  Just one single
need was sufficient to be met because all others would flow from the satis-
faction of this single need.  He needed fresh water.  The best fresh water
would spray right out of the ground and taste like Perrier.  

Maybe all the megalithic sites just mark a spot where water was abundant and
the biggest megalithic sites mark the spots where water had the most energy.  

Why does everything have to be so complicated when simple answers are staring
us in the face.  This is one of the things I like about the Giza site plan
idea is that it simply says that that stellar observation was important to
the builders.  This is patently obvious.  That they needed fresh water above
all else is equally patently obvious.  

So why not prove the orthodox assumptions and be done with it.  Are we really
supposed to believe in all that mountain of evidence generated by centuries
of paleoarchaeologists, Egyptologists, anthropologists, etc, etc, etc they
can't find one single piece of evidence to prove these weren't part of a un-
ified plan.  ...Not one scrap of evidence they used ramps. ...That they can't
even find any proof they were tombs.  This is a mighty sloppy way to run a
fact factory.  If you can't bring out even the simplest proofs or know the
function of a single object of "magic" then appeals to "cultural evidence" are
hollow.  There is no cultural evidence other than what has been manufactured.
Pieces are hammered and nailed together until we have a monster made of many
dead parts.  

So let's talk about the living culture.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#283    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,125 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:44 PM

Fantasy/imagination and faith in some 'holy scripture' are two ways to feel the urge to investigate.

The Christians did, and most certainly the Muslems did; without the medieval Muslems we wouldn't even be talking about the ancient Egyptians. These medieval Muslems translated ancient Greek and Egyptian texts, and in the 13th Caliphate (Spain) they discussed their discoveries with Christian monks and priests, with rabbies, and anyone willing to listen.


#284    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    Unknown title error

  • Member
  • 3,215 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 - 07:48 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 20 November 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

SC: Go back to your books. The answer is there.  There is indeed another purpose for these stone boxes than that agreed amongst Egyptologists. The evidence for an alternative (true) use for these stone boxes found in the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids is right there in the culture. Go and look.

Best,

Scott Creighton

I see so when the conversation suits you then you'll talk about culture. Go back to your fictional writing. And don't pretend you could ever address sesh in a one on one debate. Though it would be hilarious to see you realize just how much you don't know.

"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."

#285    Djedi

Djedi

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined:17 May 2011
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:24 PM

View Postcladking, on 19 November 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

Later pyramids are irrelevant to how they built G1.  I really do
believe the later pyramids were probably tombs though I'm surprised
there's not more supporting evidence for it.  

Erm...Did I mention something related to building G1? I don't think so, my post was about sarcophagi.
Later pyramids irrelevant? Does this include Djedefre's and Khafre's then?
Not more supporting evidence? Tomb-robbing does that you know.

View Postcladking, on 19 November 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

I'm not impressed by canoptic jars unless they are present or con-
tain evidence

Only a few remain from the 4th dyn, tomb-robbing you know...

View Postcladking, on 19 November 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

"Archetectural  evidence" is really extremely low grade evidence.

Strange statement from someone who claims, "lines" on the pyramids are proof the blocks went straight up the side (and thus are evidence for existence of the infamous geyser powered counterweight device).

View Postcladking, on 19 November 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

They made most all permanent buildings of stone.  

Yep, tombs and temples, so?

View Postcladking, on 20 November 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

You call it a sarcophagus but without evidence for a burial it is just another stone
box.  

Following this (flawed) logic a modern day coffin without evidence for a burial is just another wooden box.

View Postcladking, on 20 November 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

I merely said that there is no direct evidence of any
sort to show these were tombs.  There is what seems like an air tight circumstantial case
that they were tombs (sorry, if you read as much PT as I do these puns would flow from you
too) but in the absence of direct evidence they were tombs and in the presense of direct
evidence that they were not then the circumstantial evidence fails utterly even sinking
the so called sarcophagus.

About that "presence of direct evidence they were not (tombs)"; I guess you mean the PT. The PT are not direct evidence since they are from a later era then the "great pyramids" even if you are right about their "literal" meaning. Problem (for you) is that no one believes in your so-called "literal meaning of the PT" (for obvious reasons), so using it as "evidence" is completely useless since no one accepts it as evidence.

So what do you have to put against sarcophagi and tombs in the end? Nothing at all!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users