1650 replies to this topic

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

kmt_sesh, on 22 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

I think it simply a variation on a theme. For boat pit read pin-head, for beetle read angel, for what alternaviks say is dialouge read distraction technique. And anybody else start to see this thread as some weird manifestation of Schrödinger's Cat, or perhaps GP is the box for the cat, or perhaps............

[Alcibiades9]

kmt_sesh, on 22 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

I'm no authority on King Arthur and have no more background on him than watching the average Hollywood movie, but if memory serves he lives entirely within the realm of mytho-history. In other words, outside the pages of literary fiction, there's no real proof the man existed.

Much more can be said about Khufu. While Khufu himself was the subject of mytho-history fiction by the time of the Middle Kingdom (see the Westcar papyrus), the man's name is attested on physical objects from the Levant to the Sudan. He is in the formal annals as a living king. The brief rundown of places where his name can be found, not the least of which is within and around the Great Pyramid, more than establishes conclusively (yes, conclusively) that he was real. Come to think of it, it would be decidedly odd for the Egyptians of the Early Bronze Age to have not only built a massive pyramid for him if he was mytho-historical, but also for dozens of very powerful and elite people to have erected their tombs adjacent to his and make a point of it to include his name within their tombs.

His family was even buried right there, so I see no reasonable doubt that he was anything but real.

It's also odd to me that you're also now placing suspicion on the existence of Ramesses III as a real king—a man who is exponentially better attested than Khufu and about whom we know extensive details (everything from his parentage to the legal papers surrounding the harem conspiracy at the end of this life).



This merely falls within the realm of logic. Beetles do not go into stasis and spring back to life 4,500 years later. The covering slabs have been removed from the boat pit so it's not likely they will ever be examined for holes or poor fitting, not that any researcher would bother to do so. It's a friggin' bug, for goodness sake.

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?



Then you of course should not ask me to furnish a high level of proof. This is an ongoing problem I have with folks who question orthodox history merely for the sake of questioning things. It's also why I no longer tend to provide a lot of substantive material and citations. Most people who question orthodoxy don't even care to dig into the research and attempt to understand its veracity for themselves. They just want to question it. That doesn't strike me as either fair or reasonable. It strikes me as a copout.



In all honesty, the same to you. Season's greetings.

Just a couple of points -

King Arthur may have been real, a local English king circa 500AD, though of course the knights and the round table and all that other romantic nonsense was a back projection from the middle ages.  Another subject of course, but an example of something in history we are not quite sure about.

As for Rameses III, I must not have expressed myself properly because I was holding him up as an example of someone I would say we do have conclusive proof about, and I wouldn't argue you with you for a moment about the finer details of his life or indeed the vast majority of AE history which was not only well documented within, but which has many surviving corroborative sources.

The problem with Giza, the only real reason it is here in the realms of "unexplained mysteries" being subjected to every loony tunes, aliens, and power plants interpretation going is the lack of the same kind of conclusive, corroborated evidence that would shut these theories down at a stroke.

There is a gap in our knowledge, and I for one am not looking for some outlandish, exciting, earth shattering relevation about ancient aliens or power plants (all of which I believe to be nonsense) to fill that gap... but I am not prepared to paper over the huge cracks with what we think we know, and most of all - this is an extremely important point to me when it comes to history - it is not acceptable to back-project what we know about a later time onto what we don't know about an earlier time.

You believe the pyramids were built as tombs.  I think that's a workable theory, but based on the evidence I don't know for sure and I don't regard it as a fact.  Scott thinks they were recovery vaults.  Again, I think that's a workable theory, but the same available evidence won't allow me to regard that as a fact.

I'm not an enthusiast of ancient mysteries,  I can't be bothered with mumbo jumbo or applying complicated interpretations onto what is probably very simple motives.  My main interest in history is very down to earth and the only real "alternative" streak I have in me is a suspicion that we have probably - as humans - achieved and lost certain levels of civilisation prior to 6000BC, the facts of which are yet to be discovered... but it won't bother me if I'm completely wrong on that score, and the lack of evidence so far indicates that I am.

As for Giza, as Cladking often and rightly points out, these people were not the "bumpkins" they are often made out to be.  They certainly set out to achieve something monumental in every sense and they succeeded, and we are arguing about their intentions 4500 years on.  No matter how much we would love to think we know all the answers here, we simply don't yet.  I accept and respect every reasonable assumption you make if it matches the evidence, but we are simply not in a place where we can state certain things (who, when, how and why) as fact.  I am happy to admit that given the available resources I still don't know what to think.

[Alcibiades9]

questionmark, on 22 December 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

Simple, if a bug survives 4500 years that thing ain't no boat pit, it is the fountain of eternal youth!

Wish that 3/4 of the fringe would bury themselves into a boat pit as autoexperiment. The other 1/4 can stay around as intermission clowns.

Aww... now where is all this anger coming from?

Did Erich Von Daniken trick you as a child?

Did you see something nasty in the woodshed?

Feel free to share....

[questionmark]

Alcibiades9, on 22 December 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Aww... now where is all this anger coming from?

Did Erich Von Daniken trick you as a child?

Did you see something nasty in the woodshed?

Feel free to share....

Anger? Humanity ha enough stupid superstitions that we don't need brain amputated to create some more. Anger has nothing to do with it.

[Scott Creighton]

Quaentum, on 21 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Indications from indicate - to show or shows  Indications he is on the king's list = shows he is on the kings list.  Nothing tentative about it.

No comments about the statue with his name on it or the inscription at the oasis?  Oh that's right, they actually support Khufu being a king of Egypt.

SC: Less misinformation from you and more actual fact would be good. Like I keep telling you - you need to do much more research. And FTR - I have never stated anywhere that Khufu never existed nor have I ever claimed anywhere that he was not a king of ancient Egypt. Furthermore, if you look back through my posts you will clearly find that I am consistent in my view having always accepted that Khufu was responsible for having had the Great Pyramid built (although I dispute the consensus Egyptology mantra that it was built on his orders to function as his eternal tomb).

SC

[Alcibiades9]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 22 December 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I think it simply a variation on a theme. For boat pit read pin-head, for beetle read angel, for what alternaviks say is dialouge read distraction technique. And anybody else start to see this thread as some weird manifestation of Schrödinger's Cat, or perhaps GP is the box for the cat, or perhaps............

I presume you've made an early start on the Christmas eggnog?

[cladking]

Yes.  There's simply no doubt someone we call "Khufu" was king about the
time G1 was built however there is much more doubt that the Egyptians called
him "Khufu", that it was anywhere near 2550 BC, or that he ordered the pyramid
as his tomb.  Indeed almost everything here is assumptive and based on fairly
little and somewhat contradictory evidence.

We know there was an individual whom we call "Khufu" and he was king.

Egyptology has done a superb job of ferreting out the evidence and learning
enough about the language to read lists and identify a great number of words.
The problem is that they leap to conclusions that are not accurate or could be
accurate but are interpretation and assumption.

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 22 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

This merely falls within the realm of logic. Beetles do not go into stasis and spring back to life 4,500 years later. The covering slabs have been removed from the boat pit so it's not likely they will ever be examined for holes or poor fitting, not that any researcher would bother to do so. It's a friggin' bug, for goodness sake.

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

We shouldn't study the beetle because of what it might tell us about beetles. There's nothing
wrong with studying any specific beetle and this one is as good as any but there are billions of
beetles and only hundreds of scientists to study them.  What are the odds.

Scientists are supposed to be able to see anomalies and have enough curiousity to want to
understand them.  Scientists are not supposed to jump to conclusions.  Any uneducated bump-
kin can see a beetle in a sealed boat pit and say "oh, it must not have been sealed after all".  But
when you stick a camera into a pit you believe has been sealed for 4700 years and a bug comes
out to see what's going on you should wonder at least a little about that specific bug (did you see
the film?).  Not because he looked so healthy or even because he looked so curious but simply
because so far as you know he's still out of place and shouldn't exist.  If you scan the desert and
there's suddenly a 6 1/2 million ton pile of stone you don't just come to the conclusion people
mustta built it with ramps and forget about it.  You study it.  This means you measure it six ways
from Sunday and you seek anomalies to try to understand.  One of those anomalies might be a
beetle in a sealed boat pit.

It is by studying anomalies that scientists really make almost every single one of our momentus
discoveries.  Oh sure, it's hypothesis, experiment, results but it's observation that drives the en-
tire process and when we don't stumble on new discoveries through observation we tend to stum-
ble on new hypothesis through observation.  It's not the mundane everyday things that lead to
new hypothesis but the unexpected anomalies that do.

Besides, I'm going to be very very curious about any bug, stone, or  tree that seems to be cur-
ious about me.  I'm funny that way.  If a hummingbird comes up to me and watches I'm going to
observe it right back. I'm going to be forming testable hypotheses to beat the band.

Truth to tell I believe that the number one problem in Egyptology is they have their minds made
up and closed off.  They won't even measure anything any longer.  They gave up on the scien-
tific process long ago as nonproductive and believe the only possible solution is through digging
that they might find some proof of anything.  All they'll find though are more pot shards of types
they've got mountains  of already if they just keep digging in all the same places.  Sure, eventually
there might be something pretty important but there's no need to wait for "eventually" because
people have this wonderful tool we call "science" that is very powerful in the right hands.

Edited by cladking, 22 December 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[Alcibiades9]

cladking, on 22 December 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Yes.  There's simply no doubt someone we call "Khufu" was king about the
time G1 was built however there is much more doubt that the Egyptians called
him "Khufu", that it was anywhere near 2550 BC, or that he ordered the pyramid
as his tomb.  Indeed almost everything here is assumptive and based on fairly
little and somewhat contradictory evidence.

Yes we have a name, and we are told from fragments of evidence that he was a king.  He begins and he ends there.  The rest is massive supposition, pinned onto his name and embellished... and all dictated more by a prevailing narrative and paradigm than any actual historical evidence.

Nennius's Historium Brittonum tells us that Arthur was a British king, and it details the battle he fought.  The Annales Cambriae, written a century later, concurs.  So there, we "know" from 9th and 10th century sources that there was a king called Arthur.  And we know from 20th Century Fox that he had a round table, an army of chivalrous knights, a wizard friend called Merlin and a magical sword called Excalibur.

We have to stick to real facts, real evidence.  Take out what we don't actually know, what is not conclusive, from the picture and we are left with some very bare bones indeed.  But that's not a bad place to start.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Alcibiades9, on 22 December 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

I presume you've made an early start on the Christmas eggnog?

Would be very early start as Rozhdestvo is not for 16 days, and this eggnog, I googled and see it is some sort of drink for women, that?

[Alcibiades9]

cladking, on 22 December 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

We shouldn't study the beetle because of what it might tell us about beetles. There's nothing
wrong with studying any specific beetle and this one is as good as any but there are billions of
beetles and only hundreds of scientists to study them.  What are the odds.

Scientists are supposed to be able to see anomalies and have enough curiousity to want to
understand them.  Scientists are not supposed to jump to conclusions.  Any uneducated bump-
kin can see a beetle in a sealed boat pit and say "oh, it must not have been sealed after all".  But
when you stick a camera into a pit you believe has been sealed for 4700 years and a bug comes
out to see what's going on you should wonder at least a little about that specific bug (did you see
the film?).  Not because he looked so healthy or even because he looked so curious but simply
because so far as you know he's still out of place and shouldn't exist.  If you scan the desert and
there's suddenly a 6 1/2 million ton pile of stone you don't just come to the conclusion people
mustta built it with ramps and forget about it.  You study it.  This means you measure it six ways
from Sunday and you seek anomalies to try to understand.  One of those anomalies might be a
beetle in a sealed boat pit.

It is by studying anomalies that scientists really make almost every single one of our momentus
discoveries.  Oh sure, it's hypothesis, experiment, results but it's observation that drives the en-
tire process and when we don't stumble on new discoveries through observation we tend to stum-
ble on new hypothesis through observation.  It's not the mundane everyday things that lead to
new hypothesis but the unexpected anomalies that do.

Besides, I'm going to be very very curious about any bug, stone, or  tree that seems to be cur-
ious about me.  I'm funny that way.  If a hummingbird comes up to me and watches I'm going to
observe it right back. I'm going to be forming testable hypotheses to beat the band.

Truth to tell I believe that the number one problem in Egyptology is they have their minds made
up and closed off.  They won't even measure anything any longer.  They gave up on the scien-
tific process long ago as nonproductive and believe the only possible solution is through digging
that they might find some proof of anything.  All they'll find though are more pot shards of types
they've got mountains  of already if they just keep digging in all the same places.  Sure, eventually
there might be something pretty important but there's no need to wait for "eventually" because
people have this wonderful tool we call "science" that is very powerful in the right hands.

Cladking, I don't believe a beetle survived 4500 years and I'm sure you don't either.

To those confused about the relevance of the beetle issue, it's really about this:

1) Egyptologists often don't seem to have proper, enquiring scientific minds beyond a certain point.  They often don't seem to want to find out anything new, but simply to confirm what they think they already know.  So when they find a beetle - one beetle - in what is supposed to be a sealed pit, they don't question it.  This shows a lack of imagination at best and the whole approach is very, very frustrating to those of us who want clear answers to old questions.

2) Those who habitually defend orthodoxy do so blindly, almost absurdly, using a logic all of their own.  It doesn't matter what they say, as long as they are defending the orthodox narrative they will say anything.  Even when they are trying to explain away the presence of a little beetle who shouldn't have been there.  Again, very frustrating but also self-defeating because rather than defending orthodoxy they are making it look desperate and the very antithesis of the search for new knowledge.

[cormac mac airt]

Alcibiades9, on 22 December 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Yes we have a name, and we are told from fragments of evidence that he was a king.  He begins and he ends there. The rest is massive supposition, pinned onto his name and embellished... and all dictated more by a prevailing narrative and paradigm than any actual historical evidence.

Nennius's Historium Brittonum tells us that Arthur was a British king, and it details the battle he fought.  The Annales Cambriae, written a century later, concurs.  So there, we "know" from 9th and 10th century sources that there was a king called Arthur.  And we know from 20th Century Fox that he had a round table, an army of chivalrous knights, a wizard friend called Merlin and a magical sword called Excalibur.

We have to stick to real facts, real evidence.  Take out what we don't actually know, what is not conclusive, from the picture and we are left with some very bare bones indeed.  But that's not a bad place to start.

Not quite. We also have his name written in the relieving chambers of the GP along with work gangs associated with him. Some of these hieroglyphs of which are located in places that could only have come from the original builders.  We can also match the timeframe he was said to have reigned with the timeframe of the GP's construction.

Nennius' writings, on the other hand, were written some 300 years after the mytho-historical Arthur was alleged to have lived. This is nowhere near contemporary to his time. And the mention of 20th Century Fox's interpretation on the tale is just laughable, to say the least. It would appear that what you claim we know and what we actually know are two different things.

cormac

[Alcibiades9]

cormac mac airt, on 22 December 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

And the mention of 20th Century Fox's interpretation on the tale is just laughable, to say the least.
cormac

Yes.  It was meant to be.  Hopefully the elves are busy working on a sense of humour for you.

And as for Vyse's graffiti in the relieving chambers, well... the jury is still out on that one.  You need to read the full story of Howard Vyse and his race to somehow link the GP to Khufu to get a meaured view of this.  Even if the graffiti is genuine, "Khufu's gang" (as it is often translated) doesn't mean a damn thing.  Khufu could have been the foreman of a work group... you know, Khufu, good boss, firm but fair, liked his beer.    And out of the whole, massive structure of the GP this is the only written reference we have to who it is supposedly built for?  Nope.  No way.  Get a grip Cormac.


Kilroy was here.  But was Khufu?

[questionmark]

Alcibiades9, on 22 December 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Yes.  It was meant to be.  Hopefully the elves are busy working on a sense of humour for you.

And as for Vyse's graffiti in the relieving chambers, well... the jury is still out on that one.  You need to read the full story of Howard Vyse and his race to somehow link the GP to Khufu to get a meaured view of this.  Even if the graffiti is genuine, "Khufu's gang" (as it is often translated) doesn't mean a damn thing.  Khufu could have been the foreman of a work group... you know, Khufu, good boss, firm but fair, liked his beer. And out of the whole, massive structure of the GP this is the only written reference we have to who it is supposedly built for?  Nope.  No way.  Get a grip Cormac.


Kilroy was here.  But was Khufu?

A foreman of an Egyptian work-team around 2500 BC could certainly NOT write. So, get a grip on yourself.

[Alcibiades9]

questionmark, on 22 December 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

A foreman of an Egyptian work-team around 2500 BC could certainly NOT write. So, get a grip on yourself.

What a ridiculous statement.  I don't mind you trying to stick up for your little friend, but do try to choose the time and place and not embarrass yourself.  You don't have a clue who could and couldn't write in 2500BC.  Anyway, I didn't say it was the foreman who wrote it, did I?   Do try to think before you bash angrily away at your keyboard.


You've been getting away with this type of nonsense on here for way too long.  You're dealing with Alcibiades now, unfortunately.  And you are out of your depth, believe me.