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.


* * * * * 1 votes

Great Pyramid not built by Khufu?


  • Please log in to reply
592 replies to this topic

#91    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:43 PM

View PostBanksy Boy, on 13 September 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

I think we have been through all this haven't we lol.....I'm not the one claiming it can be done am I :)

Probably we have. I can't keep track. But you seem to be the only one asking this, and I'm willing to bet you have a similar skill set as most of the rest of us. I myself cannot claim to have the skills to reproduce such an artifact, and to be honest, neither would I have the interest to do so. In other words, how many of us here are professional stone masons? Realistically, how many here could craft such an object?

But obviously it can be done because...it was done. And it was done 5,000 years ago.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#92    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,499 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:11 PM

View PostKmt_Sesh (time stamp wrong-edit), on 13 September 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

It always amuses me that the people who believe these things are the same people who don't understand Egyptology, its methodologies, or the sciences it employs. Nor does any attempt ever seem to be made to rectify such shortcomings. Then again, it's easy to rail against that which you don't understand.

Have you been keeping up with the news?  It still doesn't support the assumptions.

Good theory makes good predictions and Egyptological predictions haven't worked.

Everyday people are coming up with new observations that show the builders were
sophisticated and scientific.  This is not consistent with the assumptions.  Of course,
neither is the pyramid but it's dismissed as a habit.

Edited by cladking, 13 September 2012 - 11:49 PM.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#93    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:16 PM

View Postcladking, on 13 September 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Have you been keeping up with the news?  It still doesn't support the assumptions.

Good theory makes good predictions and Egyptological predictions haven't worked.

Everyday people are coming up with new observations that show the builders were
sophisticated and scientific.  This is not consistent with the assumptions.  Of course,
neither is the pyramid but it's dismissed as a habit.

Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms, not from the perspective of science fiction. Every day people do indeed come up with new observations. Most of them have problems with accuracy, while nearly all of the stuff slapped up on the internet is not worth consideration.

Aside from that, what you quoted are definitely my words, but it's weird that the quote is attributed to Banksy Boy. Last I checked, I'm still posting under kmt_sesh.

Ghost in the machine?

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#94    Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Joined:07 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:52 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 13 September 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

It always amuses me that the people who believe these things are the same people who don't understand Egyptology, its methodologies, or the sciences it employs. Nor does any attempt ever seem to be made to rectify such shortcomings. Then again, it's easy to rail against that which you don't understand.

A familiar image comes to mind when such folks encounter real-world research:

Posted Image

Yea yea whatever dude.. people ARE obviously researching it from another perspective and finding GIANT gaps in their logic... Some of their assumptions are just plain ridiculous... its obvious for anyone with half a brain to see. You can't hide behind saying people are ignorant now when the ignorance of those gone before is apparent to all. There is real-world research there... go on explain away all the ideas in that doco, i'd love to see it.

Edited by 4MinuteNile, 13 September 2012 - 11:55 PM.


#95    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,395 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:55 PM

Good grief, khufu built his pyramid and Atlantis was off the coast of Spain:):)


#96    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 888 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:56 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 13 September 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:


Quote

Kmt_sesh: Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms…

from here.


kmt_sesh: Of course the heavens were important to the Egyptians, but not to the extent that we ought to think of them as "master astronomers."

from here

SC: So, the AEs were sophisticated and scientific but just not too sophisticated or scientific, if we are to believe what the Egypt apologists tell us. Well, consider the following:

Quote

ABSTRACT

The eclipses in binary stars give precise information of orbital period changes. Goodricke discovered the 2.867 days period in the eclipses of Algol in the year 1783. The irregular orbital period changes of this longest known eclipsing binary continue to puzzle astronomers. The mass transfer between the two members of this binary should cause a long-term increase of the orbital period, but observations over two centuries have not confirmed this effect. Here, we present evidence indicating that the period of Algol was 2.850 days three millenia ago. For religious reasons, the ancient Egyptians have recorded this period into the Cairo Calendar, which describes the repetitive changes of the Raging one. Cairo Calendar may be the oldest preserved historical document of the discovery of a variable star.  From this paper.

SC: So, given that our own civilisation did not discover Algol as a variable star until 1783, do you still consider that the astronomical knowledge of the ancient Egyptians presented in the above abstract/paper to be "....sophisticated and scientific-- in realistic Bronze Age terms…”?  And do you not consider that the AEs, contrary to your statement that they were not "...master astronomers...", were, in fact, much more adept and advanced in astronomy than you give them credit for?

SC

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

#97    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,499 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:56 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 13 September 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms, not from the perspective of science fiction. Every day people do indeed come up with new observations. Most of them have problems with accuracy, while nearly all of the stuff slapped up on the internet is not worth consideration.

Aside from that, what you quoted are definitely my words, but it's weird that the quote is attributed to Banksy Boy. Last I checked, I'm still posting under kmt_sesh.

Ghost in the machine?

View Postkmt_sesh, on 13 September 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Egyptology has always maintained that the ancient Egyptians were sophisticated and scientific—in realistic Bronze Age terms, not from the perspective of science fiction. Every day people do indeed come up with new observations.

I just have to disagree.

So long as things are interpreted the way they are actually interpreted by Egyptology there
is no real conclusion a reasonable person can make other than these interpretations paint the
ancients as being highly superstitious and extremely primitive both in terms of technology and
their metaphysics.  While I would agree that their technology was apparently fairly primitve (though
even this has yet to be firmly established), their understanding of nature and the means they ac-
heived this understanding was more advanced than our own.

All these things are not mere coincidences.  They exist because the Egyptians had a far deeper
understanding of nature than we've admitted or could admit.

Quote

Ghost in the machine?

Things are calming down between my computer and the site's software.  This one could have been
my fault.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#98    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:32 AM

View Post4MinuteNile, on 13 September 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Yea yea whatever dude.. people ARE obviously researching it from another perspective and finding GIANT gaps in their logic... Some of their assumptions are just plain ridiculous... its obvious for anyone with half a brain to see. You can't hide behind saying people are ignorant now when the ignorance of those gone before is apparent to all. There is real-world research there... go on explain away all the ideas in that doco, i'd love to see it.

I watched several minutes of the video you posted earlier, skimming here and there. This discussion isn't the appropriate venue for debating the video, so if you're really interested in doing so, you should probably start a new thread. More than likely I would take part.

Suffice it to say, everything I watched in my skimming was far from "new" from the fringe world. Parts of it are regurgitations of old fringe arguments dating back more than thirty years. It's the same stuff repeated through the years by the likes of Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Däniken, plus newer material by better educated but still comically incorrect folks like Chris Dunn. I've even seen it regurgitated on that sadly idiotic program Ancient Aliens.

The gist of it is, I remain unconvinced and unimpressed. To date fringe authors have not once forwarded an idea that can put even a scratch in the simplest principles of orthodox research. But start a new discussion if you want to talk about the video.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#99    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:57 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Why can there be no logical argument against the currently accepted time line of the pyramids you stated?

Haven't we covered this enough already? Granted, I could go on and on about how we can confirm attestation of the Great Pyramid to Khufu in the early to mid-third millennium BCE, but the carbon-dating results alone are unassailable.

I'm quite aware that some people still continue to doubt the C14 findings, and there are usually a couple of reasons for doing so. First, the scientific findings don't fit with some people's preconceived notions about the timeframe of the Great Pyramid (i.e., Atlanteans built it, aliens built it), so they simply chose to ignore the scientific findings. Second, most people with a fringe agenda have very little understanding about the carbon-dating method and how precise it's become, so they chose to argue their case from a position of ignorance. The latter group reminds me of creationists. Whatever the case, I should hope you wouldn't want to be lumped in with either of these groups.

Quote

Also are you sure that there are no heiroglyphs inside or outside the other pyramids as compared to the great pyramid?

As I wrote earlier, no royal tomb until the end of Dynasty 5 received a formal internal inscriptional plan. That's a basic fact (with the possible exception of brief hieroglyphic inscriptions in the subterranean areas of Djoser's pyramid). This does not include graffiti, of course. But graffiti is not part of a formal inscriptional plan. Many pyramids have graffiti in them and on them.

Quote

And if mainstream historians are really open minded and accept all their speculations to be what they actually are i.e 'speculation' then how different would they be from Fringees,

As a poster commented very aptly in an earlier post, historians will view and consider speculation but present it as such, until such time that evidence can turn speculation into theory or fact; conversely, fringe authors present speculation as fact, flat out. It's a decidedly deceptive practice.

Quote

what be the options for student's of histories studying these speculations as hard proven facts and growing up to snub any arguments against these speculations?

It all depends on the nature of the student's sources as well as the student's educational experience and his ability to apply critical thinking. Naturally many people turn right away to the internet. As wonderful as the internet can be for all manner of activities, as a source of information for useful and probative research, it is exceedingly limited. I can't precisely quantify it, but from my own experience, for every website dispensing reliable and valid information, there must be dozens presenting half-baked, poorly founded twaddle. For this reason a savvy and disciplined educator will not accept the internet as a source of information for students' papers. I've met high school teachers and college professors who state that if a student turns in a paper containing citations to websites for research purposes, that student will earn a failing grade on the paper. As a former teacher myself (but back before the internet was nearly as wide reaching as it is today), I would most certainly follow the same practice.

A formal educational experience is not necessarily required, of course. Here critical thinking is especially important, and many adults seem to suffer from an absence of it. Still, quite a few posters here at UM have said they do not have formal college degrees but have taken the time to educate themselves. Not only do I applaud them, but I consider some of these people to be extremely intelligent. Some even began with a belief in all things fringe, but upon taking the time to dig deeper and educate themselves, they saw the fringe for the sad thing it is and no longer believe a word of it.

Quote

Do you agree that if the mainstream wanted to collectively ignore an alternative explaination about their current erroneous belief then they could have pretty much have manipulated the entire process to do exactly the same,it is more difficult now to supress things now due to the internet and other advances in communication but it was not the same for a really huge periods of time.

No, academia does not suppress fringe ideas or literature, nor does it need to. For that matter, nor could it. Many posters have proclaimed nefarious and shady conspiracies concocted by the world of academia to stamp out "the truth," but if anyone really understands the nature of academia, he or she would see this statement for the ridiculous and unrealistic twaddle it truly is.

For the most part professional scholars simply ignore fringe authors. Nevertheless, over the years I've read historians' critiques of fringe work and why it cannot be accepted as valid, so on occasion academia does pay attention. Not usually, however. Fringe notions are sometimes so divorced from common sense that they need not be taken seriously in the first place.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#100    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:00 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 13 September 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

SC: You are obviously unaware of my views. Many of the Egypt apologists on this site are well aware that I take the view that Khufu was the builder of the Great Pyramid--but Khufu was not the second king of the 4th dynasty as the Egyptologists and their Egypt apologists would have us believe.

...

So, I have to ask you, as a resident fringologist at UM, who do you think the second king of Dynasty 4 was? And how have you formed this belief? I'm honestly curious. I don't recall this from previous debates with you.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#101    Banksy Boy

Banksy Boy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined:19 Jan 2011

Posted 14 September 2012 - 05:46 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Probably we have. I can't keep track. But you seem to be the only one asking this, and I'm willing to bet you have a similar skill set as most of the rest of us. I myself cannot claim to have the skills to reproduce such an artifact, and to be honest, neither would I have the interest to do so. In other words, how many of us here are professional stone masons? Realistically, how many here could craft such an object?

But obviously it can be done because...it was done. And it was done 5,000 years ago.

Oh...do stone masons opinions count now then ?

Apart from working with the stuff every single day of the week, I thought they didn't know what they where talking about as they didn't possess the the skill set of working with the ancient tool box.


#102    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 888 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:33 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 14 September 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

To date fringe authors have not once forwarded an idea that can put even a scratch in the simplest principles of orthodox research.

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC

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

#103    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:12 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 14 September 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC
Already put these doubts out in my previous posts,but most egyptologist do not consider the psychological aspects behind why the pyramids were built and a comparative study leads to a lot of refutation of commonly accepted circumstantial evidence.Good article though.


#104    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:44 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 14 September 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC



...Scott are you willing to answer some general quetion about your view on AE?



which number?


A number of so-called sarcophagi have been found in modern times completely
intact having been undisturbed since first being placed in the chamber. When these
‘sarcophagi’ were opened they were found to be empty. The conventional answer to
this conundrum posited by mainstream Egyptology is that the king was perhaps killed
in battle or was otherwise unavailable at the time of burial.  But this still does not
explain why the ‘sarcophagus’ or ‘burial chamber’ should have been found empty
since it is known that the ancient Egyptians in situations where the dead king’s body
was in absentia, would fashion a ‘Ka Statue’ of the king made of wood or stone and
place this within the sarcophagus of the tomb or within the tomb itself.  We have to
ask then, why were no ‘surrogate’ Ka Statues of the king found in these undisturbed
‘sarcophagi’ or ‘burial chambers’?


Any idea?

e. These early giant pyramids seem to have been
constructed with some other, grander purpose in mind.

Edited by the L, 14 September 2012 - 12:57 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#105    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 888 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:37 PM

View Postthe L, on 14 September 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

...Scott are you willing to answer some general quetion about your view on AE?



which number?


A number of so-called sarcophagi have been found in modern times completely
intact having been undisturbed since first being placed in the chamber. When these
‘sarcophagi’ were opened they were found to be empty. The conventional answer to
this conundrum posited by mainstream Egyptology is that the king was perhaps killed
in battle or was otherwise unavailable at the time of burial.  But this still does not
explain why the ‘sarcophagus’ or ‘burial chamber’ should have been found empty
since it is known that the ancient Egyptians in situations where the dead king’s body
was in absentia, would fashion a ‘Ka Statue’ of the king made of wood or stone and
place this within the sarcophagus of the tomb or within the tomb itself.  We have to
ask then, why were no ‘surrogate’ Ka Statues of the king found in these undisturbed
‘sarcophagi’ or ‘burial chambers’?


Any idea?

e. These early giant pyramids seem to have been
constructed with some other, grander purpose in mind.

Hi L,

I may start a new thread to answer your questions (above). I see little point in taking the current thread too far off-topic.

Regards,

SC

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users