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.


* * * * - 2 votes

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

#1381    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,918 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:37 PM

View PostOniomancer, on 02 December 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

This is the gatehouse at Evergreen cemetery at Gettysburg:

http://en.wikipedia....etery_gatehouse

By your logic, this too ought to be a tomb.

Read post #1367 again.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1382    Hanslune

Hanslune

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:17 PM

You remind me of something and someone I read about that occurred and lived in the late 19th century. An Urdu speaking Islamic scholar read some of the plays of Shakespeare that had been translated into Urdu. He himself couldn't speak English and he was completely ignorant of western culture......he compared what he read to his own cultural Islamic/Urdu bias and complained that the plays made no sense. While other Urdu speakers who could speak English - and had western style educations and were aware of English cultural norms didn't have this problem.


You cannot read AE and you have a laughingly bad understanding of their culture......sound familiar?


Oh have you've been sending email and letters to scholars who do understand AE and the culture to tell them their wrong? I'm sure they would treasure your insights......


#1383    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,918 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:45 PM

View PostHanslune, on 02 December 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

You remind me of something and someone I read about that occurred and lived in the late 19th century. An Urdu speaking Islamic scholar read some of the plays of Shakespeare that had been translated into Urdu. He himself couldn't speak English and he was completely ignorant of western culture......he compared what he read to his own cultural Islamic/Urdu bias and complained that the plays made no sense. While other Urdu speakers who could speak English - and had western style educations and were aware of English cultural norms didn't have this problem.


You cannot read AE and you have a laughingly bad understanding of their culture......sound familiar?

As this story is relayed the scholar could be exactly correct in all regards.

If the translation into Urdu was exceedingly poor and the meaning was damaged or destroyed then
he could be exactly right that it made no sense.  The other Islamic readers of the works might have
read them in English and were able to see that most concepts were intelligible from their viewpoint.

The problem here  is that we know the ancient writing is exceedingly poorly translated.  This is a given
fact since no two translators translate it the same way and new translators appear to even be trans-
lating another work altogether!!!! All of the translators have had the temerity to "fix" the ancient gram-
mar. Incredibly the same grammatical "mistakes" appear engraved in stone in one pyramid after anot-
her but we deign to fix the errors rather than investigate why they used the words they did!!

This might seem perfectly natural to some but it's an absurdity of the highest order.  Despite the know-
ledge that we don't know the meaning, we still feel competent to fix the grammar rather than using the
actual words as clues to author intent.  If I used one exclamation mark for that last sentence then I'd
have to use millions of them.

Quote

Oh have you've been sending email and letters to scholars who do understand AE and the culture to tell them their wrong? I'm sure they would treasure your insights......

It would be a total waste of time to send any communication to a scholar about Egyptian culture.  They
do not respond to any communication at all.  Every single scientist I've contacted for help has replied
even though they have been of exceedingly little help but not one single Egyptologist has responded.
Unless you subscribe to the assumptions it's impossible for an Egyptologist to even address a question.
It's impossible for an Egyptologist to complete a sentence without invoking one or more of the assump-
tions.  I'd very much like to sit down with someone knowledgeable and just hash it all out but they run
away if you disallow the assumptions.  I believe this problem is insurmountable because of human nature
and the nature of Egyptology.  The Great Pyramid wasn't a seed vault because you don't store seeds
in a tomb; case closed...  ...next.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1384    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,918 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:55 PM

Hydro Excavation
Self-contained trucks ready to work Expose utilities 100 ft underground

www.H2xInc.com

Wow!  Those bots are getting pretrty impressive.

This ad shows upon my computer  on this page yet not even the word "water" appears. I guess they're mining my user name.

Mebbe they think I want one of these for Christmas.  ;)

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1385    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,247 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • Question everything

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:00 PM

View Postcladking, on 02 December 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Read post #1367 again.

Only reenforcing my point, as like the gates, if you don't count the later addition of the worker's cemetery, the Sphinx doesn't sit in a cemetery, it sits in front of it.
Evergreen ends up being a bad example in one sense as the gate house was purpose built rather than added organically. Green-wood would be better since like the sphinx, the gatehouse post-dates the earliest burials:

http://en.wikipedia....n-Wood_Cemetery

And lets keep in mind the various mortuary temples located at Giza, analogous again to the many chapels in our current cemeteries and like them, also generally not tombs, but certainly associated with them.

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#1386    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,918 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:05 PM

View PostOniomancer, on 02 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Only reenforcing my point, as like the gates, if you don't count the later addition of the worker's cemetery, the Sphinx doesn't sit in a cemetery, it sits in front of it.
Evergreen ends up being a bad example in one sense as the gate house was purpose built rather than added organically. Green-wood would be better since like the sphinx, the gatehouse post-dates the earliest burials:

http://en.wikipedia....n-Wood_Cemetery

And lets keep in mind the various mortuary temples located at Giza, analogous again to the many chapels in our current cemeteries and like them, also generally not tombs, but certainly associated with them.

You are ignoring the fact that he was challenged to find one fact that showed these
were tombs and he implied they are tombs because they sit in a cemetery.  In other
words neither he nor anyone else can come up with one single direct piece of evi-
dence that the pyramids are tombs.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1387    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,599 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:23 PM

View Postcladking, on 02 December 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

You are ignoring the fact that he was challenged to find one fact that showed these
were tombs and he implied they are tombs because they sit in a cemetery.
  In other
words neither he nor anyone else can come up with one single direct piece of evi-
dence that the pyramids are tombs.

By that token we should discount mausoleum's and crypts as well, since just because they sit within a cemetery and are laid out for the dead they couldn't possibly have been used to house the dead. :rolleyes:

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

#1388    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,421 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

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

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:34 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 02 December 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

By that token we should discount mausoleum's and crypts as well, since just because they sit within a cemetery and are laid out for the dead they couldn't possibly have been used to house the dead. :rolleyes:

cormac

oH, now, now, them pyramids actually were clubs for the social gathering of the dead!

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

#1389    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,247 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • Question everything

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

View Postcladking, on 02 December 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

You are ignoring the fact that he was challenged to find one fact that showed these
were tombs and he implied they are tombs because they sit in a cemetery.  In other
words neither he nor anyone else can come up with one single direct piece of evi-
dence that the pyramids are tombs.

Only if one is willing to ignore the veritable pyramid-sized mountain of it:

http://egyptian-myst....com/?q=node/18

Along with all the aforementioned indirect evidence besides.

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#1390    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,918 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:22 PM

View PostOniomancer, on 02 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Only if one is willing to ignore the veritable pyramid-sized mountain of it:

http://egyptian-myst....com/?q=node/18

Along with all the aforementioned indirect evidence besides.

I've debated every point in this yet when I point out direct evidence that the
pyramids were not tombs and the king was burned it is ignored or called mere
"interpretation".

It is you claiming a mountain of evidence yet are unable to come up with an
"Overseer of the Masons for the Kings Tomb" or anything that supports this
notion other than indirect evidence and interpretations.  It was called "Khu-
fu's Horizon" not his tomb.

Certainly there is a strong circumstantial case that the Great Pyramid was a
tomb but the direct evidence all says it wasn't.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1391    LRW

LRW

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:42 AM

Egyptology is a farce. The creators and builders of the pyramids or the sphinx did not call themselves egyptians. Therefore it is junk science to refer to the builders of the pyramids and the sphinx as the "ancient egyptians"  Whoever built the pyramids did not refer to themselves as egyptian per se, they did not  engrave anywhere on stone in latin alphabet that they were egyptians.

Egyptologists try to make themselves appear as credible on the topic, when they are anything but credible. The whole term "egyptologist" is nothing but a farce, considering that the builders of the pyramids did not call themselves "egyptians" therefore any study of those north african pyramids in the guise of "egyptology" is inaccurate, misleading, and wreaks of sheer and utter crap.

The pyramids are part and parcel of an ancient worldwide golden age of pyramid building that had somewhat of an advanced, connected and shared knowledge in different continents. To suggest anything otherwise is futile and ignorant.  Who the constructs and designers of those pyramids are, remains the mystery. A mystery that "Egyptologists" try to suppress with wild assumptions and misleading propaganda.


#1392    Hanslune

Hanslune

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:26 AM

View Postcladking, on 02 December 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:



The point Cladking is that the problem is you



Quote

It would be a total waste of time to send any communication to a scholar about Egyptian culture.  They
do not respond to any communication at all.  Every single scientist I've contacted for help has replied
even though they have been of exceedingly little help but not one single Egyptologist has responded.
Unless you subscribe to the assumptions it's impossible for an Egyptologist to even address a question.
It's impossible for an Egyptologist to complete a sentence without invoking one or more of the assump-
tions.  I'd very much like to sit down with someone knowledgeable and just hash it all out but they run
away if you disallow the assumptions.  I believe this problem is insurmountable because of human nature
and the nature of Egyptology.  The Great Pyramid wasn't a seed vault because you don't store seeds
in a tomb; case closed...  ...next.

Yep its amazing how well reality can be used as a filter for nonsense, eh?


#1393    Hanslune

Hanslune

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:30 AM

View Postcladking, on 02 December 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I've debated every point in this yet when I point out direct evidence that the
pyramids were not tombs and the king was burned it is ignored or called mere
"interpretation".

It is you claiming a mountain of evidence yet are unable to come up with an
"Overseer of the Masons for the Kings Tomb" or anything that supports this
notion other than indirect evidence and interpretations.  It was called "Khu-
fu's Horizon" not his tomb.

Certainly there is a strong circumstantial case that the Great Pyramid was a
tomb but the direct evidence all says it wasn't.

So where are all the Pharaoh's buried Cladking - why are his relatives not buried near him?  Your burning idea is just too silly to consider--- but then you don't know anything about the AE religion so you don't realize just how super silly it sounds

I'll be back in a couple of weeks and see if you come up with anything that isn't based on your ego and a foundation of know nothingness, lol


#1394    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,599 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:47 AM

View PostLRW, on 03 December 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

Egyptology is a farce. The creators and builders of the pyramids or the sphinx did not call themselves egyptians. Therefore it is junk science to refer to the builders of the pyramids and the sphinx as the "ancient egyptians"  Whoever built the pyramids did not refer to themselves as egyptian per se, they did not  engrave anywhere on stone in latin alphabet that they were egyptians.

Egyptologists try to make themselves appear as credible on the topic, when they are anything but credible. The whole term "egyptologist" is nothing but a farce, considering that the builders of the pyramids did not call themselves "egyptians" therefore any study of those north african pyramids in the guise of "egyptology" is inaccurate, misleading, and wreaks of sheer and utter crap.

The pyramids are part and parcel of an ancient worldwide golden age of pyramid building that had somewhat of an advanced, connected and shared knowledge in different continents. To suggest anything otherwise is futile and ignorant.  Who the constructs and designers of those pyramids are, remains the mystery. A mystery that "Egyptologists" try to suppress with wild assumptions and misleading propaganda.

You have a meaningless argument since the land they lived in is now called Egypt and even if we used the ancient name Kemet (Kmt) it's still in reference to the same area. And no, there wasn't a "Golden Age" of pyramid building since the pyramids built around the world were built at completely different times with little to no connection between the cultures involved. In most cases when one area started building, such as those of the Americas, the peoples of Egypt had long since given up on such constructions.

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

#1395    LRW

LRW

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:29 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 03 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

You have a meaningless argument since the land they lived in is now called Egypt

From space, there is no name on north africa saying Egypt. Modern governments have created the idea of a nation of Egypt and given it borders. Such borders or labelling did not exist in the ancient world. Therefore it is blatant junk science to refer to the ancient builders of the pyramids as being "ancient egyptian" rendering the idea of egyptology as a disgusting deception.

View Postcormac mac airt, on 03 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

and even if we used the ancient name Kemet (Kmt) it's still in reference to the same area.

I see an a bird, i don't see any mention of "Kemet". The idea of "Kemet" comes from a hieroglyph, translations are only an opinion. The translators never drew them, therefore are only guessing their meaning and could not possibly know their real meaning.

Like i said, i see a bird, not "Kemet" written in latin alphabet.

Posted Image

View Postcormac mac airt, on 03 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

And no, there wasn't a "Golden Age" of pyramid building since the pyramids built around the world were built at completely different times with little to no connection between the cultures involved. In most cases when one area started building, such as those of the Americas, the peoples of Egypt had long since given up on such constructions.

cormac

You're entitled to your opinion, but i think its mindless drivel.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users