1650 replies to this topic

[cladking]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

SC:The biggest error of most proponents of the Pyramid Tomb Theory is that all pyramids that Consensus Egyptology has not classed as a Cenotaph or a Provincial Pyramid is regarded as the tomb of an AE king.

The early, giant pyramids were *not* conceived or built as tombs. They were built as Recovery Vaults to protect against the anticipated end time 'Flood of Thoth'; a means to effect the (eventual) rebirth of the kingdom, of the two lands. As instruments to effect the ‘rebirth of the kingdom’ these first pyramid structures *may* have influenced the ongoing development of the AE religion and provided the impetus for the building of the later, much inferior pyramids as instruments to facilitate the rebirth of the king i.e. as tombs. But these first pyramids were, first and foremost, about the protection, preservation and rebirth of the kingdom. Later this concept *may* have morphed into the protection, preservation and rebirth of the king.

PTT proponents insist on the concept that no significant changes happened after
the great pyramid building age.  The only ones they allow relate to conjecture about
why the ancients would cease building great pyramids.  There is no evidence for why
they built great pyramids so any evidence about why they might quit has to be conjec-
ture.

Frankly, I believe there are numerous theories out there that are far more plausible
than orthodoxy.  There are numerous theories that are better fit with logic and evidence
than orthodoxy.  But orthodoxy simply dismisses them all as they continue to damage the
evidence and look for the ramps they'll never find. Everything about orthodooxy founded
on the big four assumptions will be found to be untrue in time.  Virtually all of orthodoxy as
it relates to the pre-5th dynasty is founded on the assumptions.  They use tactics to deflect
argument and facts.

People deserve better and I don't understand why they get support.  What is it that main-
stream is so afraid of that prevents them from defending their position and seeking the proof
which must exist on the site?  Why is modern technology simply cast aside while they employ
"tactics" to support their arguments?

I'm sure I could make a far better case that these were recovery vaults than they were tombs.
So why do people just brush the idea aside as baseless?  There are many facts that are sim-
ply being denied by orthodoxy.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I'm sure I could make a far better case that these were recovery vaults than they were tombs

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 15 November 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[questionmark]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 15 November 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

Besides that, the shift of the axis would not really change the relative position to the equator, that would require a complete shift of the angular rotation.

[Scott Creighton]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Besides that, the shift of the axis would not really change the relative position to the equator, that would require a complete shift of the angular rotation.

[snip]

Wasn't in reply to you.  Why does a post end up in other poster's replies on this site?

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 November 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[Scott Creighton]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 15 November 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

With respect, but even if the evidence of this was presented here (and there is much), the naysayers here (and you know who you are) would simply claim it does not present proof as to why the Ancient Egyptians undertook the construction of all these early pyramids even though this is what the early Arab chroniclers tell us (the same Arab chroniclers who wrote down and preserved  the works of Aristotle and Plato which were later brought back to Europe after the 'Dark Ages' via the Arabic writings).

And the Egypt-apologist naysayers would deny this in spite of the fact that they cannot themselves present a cogent and plausible motivation for the AEs to begin building such monumental structures. They will insist these structures were built as single royal funerary complexes of a particular AE king when the evidence against these early, giant pyramids being tombs is considerable. See here.  They are welcome to their view, of course--just don't ask me to share it.

This is not to say, however, that these early pyramids might not have been later appropriated as tombs (intrusive burials) or that the much later, inferiror pyramids were built in imitation of the originals for the purpose of burial--I think this is possible.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 November 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Scott Creighton]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Besides that, the shift of the axis would not really change the relative position to the equator, that would require a complete shift of the angular rotation.

SC: Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of Rapid True Polar Wander (RTPW).

SC

[questionmark]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

SC: Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of Rapid True Polar Wander (RTPW).

SC

Oh sure, but that has not happened in historic times so it is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

[cormac mac airt]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

[snip]

Wasn't in reply to you.  Why does a post end up in other poster's replies on this site?

Because it's an open forum.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Oh sure, but that has not happened in historic times so it is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

SC: Just as I thought.  Scientists claim TPW has not occurred for millions of years. The evidence, however, says different. RAPID TPW occured in early historical times. And, contrary to what you claimed earlier, a shift of the axis via RTPW will relocate Giza (and any other point on the Earth) relative to the equator (and the poles).

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 November 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Scott Creighton]

cormac mac airt, on 15 November 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Because it's an open forum.

cormac

SC: What are you bumping your gums about now?  I am saying that I had replied to another poster and my reply ended up being tagged onto someone else's reply. It's not the first time that has happened to me.

SC

[questionmark]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

SC: Just as I thought.  Scientists claim TPW has not occurred for millions fo years. The evidence, however, says different. RAPID TPW occured in early historical times. And, contrary to what you claimed earlier, a shift of the axis via RTPW will relocate Giza (and any other point on the Earth) relative to the equator (and the poles).

SC

The evidence that people have been using the North star to navigate as long as they have been on the water (which happens to be a little longer than the existence of the pyramids) is quite a good indicator that the earth axis has not moved that much (in fact about 2 degrees as any decent Stellarium can show you)

[Scott Creighton]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

The evidence that people have been using the North star to navigate as long as they have been on the water (which happens to be a little longer than the existence of the pyramids) is quite a good indicator that the earth axis has not moved that much (in fact about 2 degrees as any decent Stellarium can show you)

SC: Really? What Pole Star did these early navigators use? Why would you expect Stellarium etc to show you such a RTPW change of the axis?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 November 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

SC: What are you bumping your gums about now?  I am saying that I had replied to another poster and my reply ended up being tagged onto someone else's reply. It's not the first time that has happened to me.

SC

Never had nor heard of that problem before.

cormac

[questionmark]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

SC: Really? What Pole Star did these early navigators use? Why would you expect Stellarium etc to show you such a RTPW change of the axis?

SC

Probably not, but certainly it is a large coincidence that the deviation of the GP sue north is exactly the movement of the North Star over the millenia since about 2400 BC (you can easily check that as yuo have all the maps at your disposal).

[Scott Creighton]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Probably not, but certainly it is a large coincidence that the deviation of the GP sue north is exactly the movement of the North Star over the millenia since about 2400 BC (you can easily check that as yuo have all the maps at your disposal).

SC: No one doubts this. But it wasn't ONLY RTPW that occurred. It occurred in conjunction with a an actual tilting of the axis. How do you explain why the Earth's rotational axis was inclined at 26.5 degrees ca.2,350 BCE? According to astronomy programs (Stellarium, Starry Night Pro, Red Shift etc), the Earth's axis should be at around 24 degrees at this time and 26.5 degrees is a full 2 degrees beyond what Milankovitch theory can ever allow it. So why did the Earth's axis break Milankovitch theory ca.2,350 BCE?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 November 2012 - 07:17 PM.