530 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 09 October 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

It's already been said in this thread but this contention is impossible according to the
laws of nature as we understand them.  A human of the size you suggest could not even
lift his own weight much less carry large stones.  To lift his own weight he'd need bones
of steel and and a different sort of structure and metabolism.  He would not be human.

I'm agreeing with Clad here. Come on all you skeptics... Hit "Like" on Clads post, don't be a Hater.

[DieChecker]

egyptian lad, on 09 October 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

What about the size of Casing-stones which were supposed to cover the pyramids?

The casing-stones were big and heavy

People of our size were able to lift them and put  around the pyramids by that height?? is it logical??



People of our size have any luck to lift those stones??? Impossible even they were some hundred guys, On the practical theory.....How could people handle to lift and move by them?

So.... Question.... Most of the cladding, all the way to the top was taken by the locals and dragged off to Cairo. How did they do that without Giants? The cladding was taken over thousands of years, and much was taken by the Arabs. Why did these peoples not need giants?

There are online Youtube videos showing a handful of people pulling 6 ton stones under controlled conditions. You're just Wrong!!!

Edited by DieChecker, 10 October 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

meryt-tetisheri, on 10 October 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Thank you Cormac, much appreciated!
I have the studies of Cavalli-Sforza "History and Geography of Human Genes" and Manni (2004) downloaded and will read them tomorrow (it's too late here).

I have come across a passing reference to a comparative study carried out by Cairo University on the remains of Giza pyramid builders discovered on the plateau, and modern Egyptians but could not find the study itself or any articles referrencing it, do you have any information about it?

Lastly, the 2004 mtDNA study mainly used Gurna for samples, I also seem to remember that they were one of the Arab tribes which were forced to settle under Muhammed Ali's rule, but I need to dig further for confirmation, I have a question mark with regards to how representative this community is, in comparison with populations of other villages and towns in Upper Egypt.

Thanks again

I've seen the same reference but not come across a specific study. The closest, generally speaking, is a compilation of various studies found here:

http://mathildasanth...-dna-reference/

Even with that, it's still evident that Ancient Egypt was a melting pot. Even if one leaves Egypt, specifically, out of the picture then the migrations and back migrations of the various haplogroups further show the influence of multiple groups from different points of origin.

cormac

[jmccr8]

Hi Cormac,

  No I hadn't seen this information previously,thanks for posting it,it does paint an interesting picture of the Sahara during a time that we can only imagine. I hope that at some time we may have more information on the Kiffian people as I am curious as to where they went and how/if they continued to develop as a culture.As always thank you for your assistance and input.

jmccr8

[Mangoze]

DieChecker, on 10 October 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

I'm agreeing with Clad here. Come on all you skeptics... Hit "Like" on Clads post, don't be a Hater.

What if the giants didn't know about the Square Cubed Law?

[Quaentum]

egyptian lad, on 09 October 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Lets go for analyzes for this art:

comparison between colossal statues.


Comparison between the size of workers and our size.








So, small giants of size 3 to 4 meters were used in moving colossal statues? while the larger giants were constructing ancient egypt, the obelisks and pyramids, the gigantic temples

Yes lets do an analysis though I don't think you'll like the results.  Thanks to kmt_sesh for providing the information that the statue in the image was 22 feet tall.  Two of your so called 3 meter giants placed one on top of the other would reach a height of 19 ft 6 in, close to the top of the statue.  If we take a ruler and using the supposed giant standing on the leg of the statue, we find it takes 4 to reach from the base to the top of the statue, making those supposed giants a bit over 5 ft in height.  In other words, average humans not giants.

kmt_sesh has indicated the statue in the painting has not been found so you used a picture of an entirely different statue as a comparison which further muddies your claims.

[egyptian lad]

cormac mac airt, on 10 October 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

I've seen the same reference but not come across a specific study. The closest, generally speaking, is a compilation of various studies found here:

http://mathildasanth...-dna-reference/

Even with that, it's still evident that Ancient Egypt was a melting pot. Even if one leaves Egypt, specifically, out of the picture then the migrations and back migrations of the various haplogroups further show the influence of multiple groups from different points of origin.

cormac

All studies about DNA, its wrong lol

U know why??? because most mummies of ancient egypt are anonymous, Its the archaeologists who put them into the coffins and sacophaguses of royal people


No where on the depictions of ancient egyptians" The so called mummification science" They invented a great lie in egypt history by so and so

The check of anubis the afterlife god over coffins......it was a spiritual action, doesnt mean mummification





Some cheaters and dishonest people


The ancient egyptians recorded everything about their life ,everything you could imagine....even penis of men regarding the fertility was recorded


So, logically, if we have a brain....You think the mummification which was considered a something unique, wasnt recorded or even refered to?


Most of what the archaeologists and egyptologists say and talk about in their cheap tales books = complete lies, they invented texts claim there was a mummification


hahahahahaahaahha look at their jokes

Some so called mummies were dead while screaming and some other were dead fell on their head...etc, so they are making studies over it lol to know how they were dead like that


THE BRAINWASHING!!!


Those mummies are actually made by nature, they were dead like any dead body but the difference their dead body was unrotten, the flesh was not eaten or removed by worms


what i mean from this " the person who was dead unrotten in egypt, doesnt mean he was egyptian of origin"


Those mummies belong to various people, probably belong to some romans,blacks,egyptians,greeks,modern egyptians


If u open the modern day egyptian graves, We gonna find mummies of my modern egyptians ( stories are many over this subject).


Its funny that some fanatic black americans author books about egyptians being black according to the mummies and skeletons dna analyzes


If some black african slaves were in egypt.....That means " they are native egyptians":

Ancient egyptians beat up african black slaves







I got tired of any discussion with any black american

Edited by egyptian lad, 10 October 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

All studies about DNA, its wrong lol

Prove it.

Quote

U know why??? because most mummies of ancient egypt are anonymous, Its the archaeologists who put them into the coffins and sacophaguses of royal people

Again wrong. Many mummies have been found within their own sarcophagi untouched by modern archaeologists.

Quote

Those mummies are actually made by nature, they were dead like any dead body but the difference their dead body was unrotten, the flesh was not eaten or removed by worms.

Those that went through the mummification process weren't. They didn't remove their own organs to include their brains, pack and wrap their bodies inside and out with natron and resins and finally linen. This was not a natural process.

Use of natron:

http://journal.plast...ol.11_20-21.pdf

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

Mangoze, on 10 October 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

What if the giants didn't know about the Square Cubed Law?

But Mangoze, they didn't. They never studied Law!

cormac

[egyptian lad]

Quaentum, on 10 October 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Yes lets do an analysis though I don't think you'll like the results.  Thanks to kmt_sesh for providing the information that the statue in the image was 22 feet tall.  Two of your so called 3 meter giants placed one on top of the other would reach a height of 19 ft 6 in, close to the top of the statue.  If we take a ruler and using the supposed giant standing on the leg of the statue, we find it takes 4 to reach from the base to the top of the statue, making those supposed giants a bit over 5 ft in height.  In other words, average humans not giants.

kmt_sesh has indicated the statue in the painting has not been found so you used a picture of an entirely different statue as a comparison which further muddies your claims.

first i didnt finish my assumptions to you

See this image, comparison between rekmire art Vs djehuthotep art




the statue in djehuthotep art......its sitting on chair and holds a sign of Power in his hand


The statue in rekhmire art, its a statue sitting on stone, it clearly shows its the colossal seated statues of ancient egypt


" we find it takes 4 to reach from the base to the top of the statue, making those supposed giants a bit over 5 ft in height. In other words, average humans not giants."

I didnt make things up, I just put a comparison with memon colossal seated statues

Again look plz at the size of people compared to the legs:



[IMG]http://images1.bonha...0&dt=zoom_image[IMG]

The other comparison was the crashed colossal statue in temple of sohag, they claimed its ramses II statue:

[IMG]http://www.jhu.edu/e...es/061412-4.jpg[IMG]


The pictures doesnt lie,so dont say" kmt_sesh" provided me some info

If i go by the mentality of Kmt_sesh, How he knew that the statue in this art was 22 feet tall???? assumption based on his delusion?


No one knows what height of this seated statue in djehutehotep tomb depiction





Another thing that i wanted to show from this comparison too:

That u and kmt_sesh take in conisderation the image of djehuthotep tomb art , But u ignore the art of  rekhmire tomb



Rekhmire tomb arts were all about the giants of early ancient egypt, It tells with details how ancient egypt was built



In rekhmire tomb too" You find many deocrations are distorted, Some guys deliberately distored it to hide lot of ancient egypt's secrets".

[egyptian lad]

cormac mac airt, on 10 October 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Prove it.



Again wrong. Many mummies have been found within their own sarcophagi untouched by modern archaeologists.



Those that went through the mummification process weren't. They didn't remove their own organs to include their brains, pack and wrap their bodies inside and out with natron and resins and finally linen. This was not a natural process.

Use of natron:

http://journal.plast...ol.11_20-21.pdf

cormac

Cormac: The problem with you........ur mind is full up with the garbage that egyptologists say and write in their cheap books


Its the modern day doctors who took out the stomach and organs of mummies( the dead bodies of people) and put all stuff you hear about, in order to suit the egyptologist lies


A mummification must be told by egyptians on all arts


but what was told: Only anubis god making a check by his hands on the coffin....Its not even the dead egyptian


We dont see any depictions of ancient egyptians making mummifiaction for an egyptian king



Understand the main point? its such great lie invented by the hypocrites in archaeology fields



Mummies actually have been found world wide....Not even egypt

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Cormac: The problem with you........ur mind is full

It beats the notable echo your drivel is giving off.

Quote

Its the modern day doctors who took out the stomach and organs of mummies

No they didn't. The organs were found already mummified and wrapped within Canopic jars that were sealed at the time the process was performed.

Quote

Mummies actually have been found world wide....Not even egypt

True. And some are natural and some are manmade.

cormac

[Mangoze]

cormac mac airt, on 10 October 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

But Mangoze, they didn't. They never studied Law!

cormac

Wait, what... Lawless?

Did Xena Warrior Princess build the Pyramids?

[cormac mac airt]

Mangoze, on 10 October 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Wait, what... Lawless?

Did Xena Warrior Princess build the Pyramids?

Well, she did have Hercules as a friend. (Did we just start another fringe theory?)

cormac

[meryt-tetisheri]

Quote

All studies about DNA, its wrong lol

U know why??? because most mummies of ancient egypt are anonymous, Its the archaeologists who put them into the coffins and sacophaguses of royal people


No where on the depictions of ancient egyptians" The so called mummification science" They invented a great lie in egypt history by so and so

The check of anubis the afterlife god over coffins......it was a spiritual action, doesnt mean mummification..............
Some cheaters and dishonest people


The ancient egyptians recorded everything about their life ,everything you could imagine....even penis of men regarding the fertility was recorded


So, logically, if we have a brain....You think the mummification which was considered a something unique, wasnt recorded or even refered to?


Most of what the archaeologists and egyptologists say and talk about in their cheap tales books = complete lies, they invented texts claim there was a mummification


hahahahahaahaahha look at their jokes

Some so called mummies were dead while screaming and some other were dead fell on their head...etc, so they are making studies over it lol to know how they were dead like that

Egyptian Lad, are you really Egyptian? It is really sad to see how facile it is for you to persistently try to demolish your own heritage and history with uninformed, uneducated pictorial fantasy tales!

If you want to be taken even half seriously, bring proof to the table, one giant knuckle bone would suffice!

As long as you reject Egyptology as 'lies' and unless you learn to read and translate hieroglyphs yourself, you have no way to discern on your own what had or had not been referred to, and that includes mummification. Reliance on 'pictures' isn't enough, in other words, you have no clue!

You seem to be unaware that organic materials are examined using techiques like carbon14 dating which, along with DNA studies, requires the collaboration of scientists in disciplines other than Egyptology and archaeology. Are you proposing a 100% leak-proof, world wide multi-discipline conspiracy that spans 2 centuries, and that seems logical or rational to you?!  The 'wicked' Egyptologists mummified bodies, reburied them all over Egypt -sometimes under tons of sands- while altering tombs and inscriptions on stone & papyri...they did all that without anyone ever noticing, or are hundreds of Egyptian workers and their families also complicit in this grand conspiracy?

As for your offhand dismissal of archeogenetics and DNA studies, I blame the dysfunctional education system in Egypt that has been left to deteriorate & collapse since 1952!

According to you everything the Egyptians did is meticulously recorded otherwise it doesn't exist;  so please tell us the rules of senet, recipes of food they ate, notation of their music, I am asking you for only simple activities practiced by all individuals on daily basis, not technical knowledge reserved to the initiated, trained specialists; should be easy for you to answer.

When Cormac used the word 'drivel', he was being kind!

Edited by meryt-tetisheri, 10 October 2012 - 06:24 PM.