1650 replies to this topic

[Quaentum]

cladking, on 27 November 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

On the one hand (in this specific instance),  we have the concept the pyramid was designed
and intended to save the enture Egyptian country from starvation and on the other we have
the idea that the pyramid's sole function was to serve as a tomb.  I believe "tomb" loses this
particular argument.

Not to the concept of the pyramid being a recovery vault it doesn't.

Please explain to me, how, once the pyramid was sealed shut, they would have been able to put the materials for recovery in the pyramid without destroying the blocks that would have protected those very materials?

[cladking]

Quaentum, on 27 November 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Not to the concept of the pyramid being a recovery vault it doesn't.

Please explain to me, how, once the pyramid was sealed shut, they would have been able to put the materials for recovery in the pyramid without destroying the blocks that would have protected those very materials?

I'm sure there are numerous possibilities but the two that spring to mind are that it
wasn't actually emptied of its contents for the intended purpose or that the contents
were in sealed containers in a lower part of the pyramid.

I personally believe we all pay too much attention to G1 and too little to the nature
of the great pyramids.  I believe there is more to be learned and more relevant in-
formation in what they have in common than in how they are different.

Yes, it is ironic that the one commonality they share (other than size) is that they look
like tombs.

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 27 November 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

but I alone know the truth!" When you see something like this, you intuitively know to dismiss the fringie.

Your statment is foolishly wrong and terribly flawed.

[kmt_sesh]

samspade, on 27 November 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Your statment is foolishly wrong and terribly flawed.

I figured you would say something like that. LOL

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 28 November 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

I figured you would say something like that. LOL

i just had to tell you the truth and point out how stupid your statement was,

[kmt_sesh]

samspade, on 28 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

i just had to tell you the truth and point out how stupid your statement was,

Why, sam, you sound angry. Don't like the heat?

[samspade]

kmt_sesh, on 28 November 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

not at all kmt, your post #1285 was  response to someone else post, aten.

i just had to post the truth based on your statement.

and based on your statement it was a stupid statement and terribly flawed, and i said that as a professional and analyst.

you sound like you didnt like my reply to you - you cant face the truth on the fact your statement was terribly flawed and stupid.

Edited by samspade, 28 November 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[Alcibiades9]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 27 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Hmmm, so just how can alternaviks say they are correct and "consensus/orthodoxy" is wrong, when there so many bizarre and conflicting alternavik theories. There can only be one truth, one reality. It is ridiculous to say that alternaviks are correct, because it is impossible that they are all correct. Though in the Alice through the looking glass world of fantasy and DELIBERATE FRAUD of the alternaviks, anything is possible

Do you ever consider - beyond calling people names and accusing them of various imaginary crimes - that is possible for learned, thinking people to - in good faith - examine the same evidence yet come to astonishingly different conclusions?

Not once during this thread has anyone come up with any conclusive proof - nor any interpretation of the actual evidence that is convincing to any degree - as to who built the pyramids, when they were built, or what they were intended for.  Spouting the accepted narrative doesn't count as proof, not matter how many times you do it.  Stating things with an air of authority doesn't help either.  Back projecting evidence from later AE history is invalid.  Repeating stories with an almost religious conviction because you are a devout Egyptian history enthusiast may impress some on here, but it cannot count as scientific, empirical conclusive proof.

The tomb theory is just that - it's a theory.  It may well be the right one - it is certainly the obvious one and the most established.  But it is completely unproven, as are the other theories.  Now, as a "peddlar" of this theory, you are as much a "fringe" thinker as anyone else, because you may be completely wrong in your beliefs.  That doesn't make you a bad person.  And thinking differently from you doesn't make anyone else a bad person.

As for "There can only be one truth, one reality"... well, I think quantum physics may one day prove you wrong there, but when it comes to history I think we all would like to know the truth.  I'd be quite happy to see conclusive proof that the pyramids were tombs, as I don't particularly like unsolved mysteries, but until that day arrives I'm curious to see what other people think they might have been built for.

[lakeview rud]

Harte, if the dew done did it, wouldn't there be at least some of the similar erosive patterns on the very oldest of the repair blocks on the Sphinx?  Supposedly some of these date to the 4th dynasty.   If there are erosion patterns on these than I will indeed give up the fight, but I haven't seen any, have you?

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Alcibiades9, on 28 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Do you ever consider - beyond calling people names and accusing them of various imaginary crimes - that is possible for learned, thinking people to - in good faith - examine the same evidence yet come to astonishingly different conclusions?

Deliberately telling lies for the purposes of selling books to the gullible is fraud in my opinion. Yes yes, caveat emptor etc, but they still tell lies for money. I don't care what anybody believes, no matter now bizarre, but I will call a fraud a fraud when I see one, Von Daniken and those who hang to his coat-tails. Debate about anything, but when money is involved then I will absolutely take a higher moral position than these charlatans. And what names have I called anybody?

Read my blog entries and there will be another side of me......

There is too much not understanding here, to many fixed positions. I am against fraud and pseudoscience
http://humanism.al.r...html?num=000010

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 28 November 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Quaentum]

cladking, on 27 November 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

I'm sure there are numerous possibilities but the two that spring to mind are that it
wasn't actually emptied of its contents for the intended purpose or that the contents
were in sealed containers in a lower part of the pyramid.

Neither the Arabs in 820 CE nor the others that followed found anything in the Great Pyramid.  If we combine that with the knowledge that they would have had to break into the pyramid to retrieve anything and there was no sign of forced entry prior to the Arabs, we can assume and IMO rightly so, that there was nothing to retrieve and so was not a recovery vault.

[questionmark]

Quaentum, on 28 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Neither the Arabs in 820 CE nor the others that followed found anything in the Great Pyramid.  If we combine that with the knowledge that they would have had to break into the pyramid to retrieve anything and there was no sign of forced entry prior to the Arabs, we can assume and IMO rightly so, that there was nothing to retrieve and so was not a recovery vault.

Sure was, they recovered and to lead us astray they sealed it again...

[cladking]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 28 November 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Deliberately telling lies for the purposes of selling books to the gullible is fraud in my opinion. Yes yes, caveat emptor etc, but they still tell lies for money. I don't care what anybody believes, no matter now bizarre, but I will call a fraud a fraud when I see one, Von Daniken and those who hang to his coat-tails. Debate about anything, but when money is involved then I will absolutely take a higher moral position than these charlatans. And what names have I called anybody?

Read my blog entries and there will be another side of me......

There is too much not understanding here, to many fixed positions. I am against fraud and pseudoscience
http://humanism.al.r...html?num=000010

Thanks for the link.

I believe this problem is spreading.  In the US it appears to be caused by the failure of the educational
system and with mass media complicity.  Textbooks here are often riddled with errors of various sorts and
even 40 years ago many advanced trigonometry texts "proved" the trigonometric functions.  The FED has
been usurping the educational system and this seems closely correlated with its failure.  The federal budget
to take over education was recently doubled and the dumbing down is accelerating.

People don't know what to believe about anything any longer and most simply jump onto whatever looks like
a paradigm.  Everyday we get conflicting reports about what is science and the results of scientific enquiry.

[cladking]

Quaentum, on 28 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Neither the Arabs in 820 CE nor the others that followed found anything in the Great Pyramid.  If we combine that with the knowledge that they would have had to break into the pyramid to retrieve anything and there was no sign of forced entry prior to the Arabs, we can assume and IMO rightly so, that there was nothing to retrieve and so was not a recovery vault.

I'll give you this if you'll give me that it kills the tomb theory too.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 28 November 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

I'll give you this if you'll give me that it kills the tomb theory too.

Not quite, per Mark Lehner:

Quote

Lehner mentions another account, that of Abu Szalt of Spain, which he suggests is sober and trustworthy. In Lehner’s words: “He tells of Mamun’s men uncovering an ascending passage. At its end was a quadrangular chamber containing a sarcophagus.” This in itself does not tell us much, but Lehner then adds what appears to be a direct quote:

The lid was forced open, but nothing was discovered excepting some bones completely decayed by time.

http://www.ianlawton.com/pgp3.htm

It's not definitive proof, but it's far FAR from having killed the tomb theory.

cormac