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

Great Pyramids VS Egyptian Pyramids


  • Please log in to reply
579 replies to this topic

#256    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:19 PM

No Abhijith, you are making a fundamental mistake in calling Harte a Fringie.
that should be the joke of the year.
he is the perennial Skeptic, The resident doubting thomas.

What we all are doing is referring to other people's materials /data and making or arriving at conclusions.
The fact is that we dont know enough.
If you want to make a final statement, you have to go into the field, do the tests/analyze  the findings yourself.
Until then, nothing is final - neither for the science, the skeptic or the layman or the fringie.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#257    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:19 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 03 May 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Scoch , if he could have stayed in his own field - Geology & geophysics would have maintained his respectability. But when he starts straying outside his discipline and author books like the ones at his website link, he is veering towards the fringe quadrant.
And people except the fringe wouldnt take him seriously.

That's the problem when a subject doesn't follow science and mathematics. And this is exactly what with history and egyptology.
You can't negate a correct theory in science even if the same inventor deduce some wrong theory later.
You can't deny the contribution of Tesla to the Alternative Current you are working on currently, though later he was considered as a mad scientist and did many failed experiments!


#258    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,018 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

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

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:19 PM

View Postabhijit_b, on 03 May 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Do you have any doubt that this enclosure is not cut at the same time when Sphinx was curved? I think you have no doubt on Valley temple, which was built separately but you have doubt on the same curved structure? I will run out of any logic to debate with you guys soon!


I agree. I don't buy Schoch's dates. But I am equally not convinced with Lehner too. Lehner's Khafre theory is equally challenged or even more than an older sphinx theory. Then why to agree to Lehner or Hawass? Are they the supreme expert of each and every structure in Egypt?  But I thing again I will repeat that the enclosure wall erosion is water erosion and prove it if not. Please send me the link of scientific research that shows that wind or salt erosion can produce exactly this pattern!

Posted Image




Please don't try to act like a fringe. You are tweaking the real meaning. The sentence should be - "There is no weather pattern known us similar to what we see in Sphinx. So Sphinx may be even 5000 years old!"

Oh, I am pretty certain that the rock is quite a bit older.... just not in the form it exists today or existed in 2000 BC.

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

#259    abhijit_b

abhijit_b

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:23 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 03 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

No Abhijith, you are making a fundamental mistake in calling Harte a Fringie.
that should be the joke of the year.
he is the perennial Skeptic, The resident doubting thomas.

What we all are doing is referring to other people's materials /data and making or arriving at conclusions.
The fact is that we dont know enough.
If you want to make a final statement, you have to go into the field, do the tests/analyze  the findings yourself.
Until then, nothing is final - neither for the science, the skeptic or the layman or the fringie.
I do respect Harte, from my heart. I am in this form for a long time and I am benefited many times from his knowledge. I am not trying to prove him as Fringe. But his single statement sounded like that. Should I stop my own expression if I feel something is illogical?
Thank you pointing this out. i am sorry if I hurt someone here!


#260    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,533 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:29 PM

Quote

Probably you didn't understand the problem statement of continuous habitation.
I do understand that issue. As I mentioned your posted was not clear. At this point it is probably not important for you to clarify what you meant in your post.

Quote

I am talking about water erosion pattern on the western enclosure wall of Sphinx. This can be one of the theoretical example for geologists for rain water erosion on limestone. But what Lal Gauri, etc assume that the timeline decided by Egyptologists is absolute. So, now you need to fit your geology into this timeline. So, some up with all possible scenarios. Please try to study "salt Exfoliation" which is the explanation in answer to rain erosion, see some text book example of that.
I have been aware of salt exfoliation issues for decades. The problem for Schoch is still the use of a rate which is uncertain.

Quote

Sorry, if I was not clear. I wanted to know names of four mainstream geologists who challenged Schoch and link to their research.
Again, what is the reason for your request? I asked, "What do you want to know and why should I bother to post anything relative to Schoch?"

Quote

Lol! Science is what my profession is!

Also you need to understand that history is not science. History can't be compared with physics , chemistry. Also it's not mathematics. But for your kind information, geology is pure science. Egyptologists are histoirans and they are fully dependent upon physics, chemistry or geology when it comes to scientific approach to any solution. They are just lame without the science. Unfortunately, in Egypt they are more powerful than science.
Lol! You certainly do not write as if science were your profession. I apologize if you find that offensive. In reality, your posts do not come across as being written by someone in the sciences. Please don't bother to claim any personal authority because frankly I do not find it believable.

Egyptologists are more than historians. They rely on more than what was written. They also, but not fully rely on sciences. They are not lame without science. They can decipher ancient texts.

Quote

But actually their observation power is low, that's why they had to defend themselves after decade with Schoch's observation.
It is good that Schoch pointed out the issue of erosion, but Schoch appears to be wrong.


#261    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,933 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 May 2013 - 05:15 AM

View Postabhijit_b, on 03 May 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

...

Lol! Science is what my profession is!

Also you need to understand that history is not science. History can't be compared with physics , chemistry. Also it's not mathematics. But for your kind information, geology is pure science. Egyptologists are histoirans and they are fully dependent upon physics, chemistry or geology when it comes to scientific approach to any solution. They are just lame without the science. Unfortunately, in Egypt they are more powerful than science.

You say your profession is science, and I have no overt reason to doubt you. I only present some degree of skepticism due to my long personal experience at UM and the parade of pretenders who profess to be experts in science or in this or that, but who clearly are not. Their own posts give them away. For instance, you seem resolute in defending Robert Schoch, while reality informs us that Schoch has no support for his Sphinx hypothesis in his own professional community. In formulating his hypothesis Schoch ignored all manner of relevant evidence, including archaeological, and so there is a reason his hypothesis is not taken seriously.

You are correct that history is not a hard science, but you don't seem to understand the field of historical study very well. Egyptology is a perfect example. While Egyptology itself is not a hard science, it regularly employs all manner of scientific fields in its research—everything from geology to physics. Egyptologists are aware that they could not acquire as much knowledge as they've achieved without the aid of scientific disciplines, and that's anything but "lame."

Perhaps you should understand the field of Egyptology quite a bit more before patently condemning it.

You seem to spend a lot of time poking fun at Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass. In the very least you should keep yourself up to date. Hawass no longer holds any position in Egypt, and the last I heard he was looking for a position with a university or institute in the United States. He was tossed out with Mubarak. I grow so very weary of the anti-acadmic crowd trying to use Hawass as a boogyman, as though Hawass was the only Egyptologist involved in studying ancient Egypt. He was not even one of the most prominent.

As for Lehner, there's a reason he's considered the world's leading expert of all things Giza. No one on this earth has studied Giza and its monuments for so long and in such detail. There's a reason Lehner heads the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, which has studied Giza in more detail in archaeology, geology, philology, and other disciplines than any other organization. And the GPMP has settled the issue: the Sphinx is an integral part of the Khafre pyramid complex. You linked to the GPMP's website, so perhaps you should read all those pages pertaining to the Sphinx.

You have asked about geologists who oppose Robert Schoch. Quite simply most ignore him, but the best example is James Harrell, who has directly addressed Schoch's errors. One of Harrell's articles can be found here. In my own readings I've come across other geologists who might not have confronted Schoch head on like Harrell has, but nevertheless have authored papers that oppose Schoch in their conclusions. Examples of these geologists are David Coxill, K. Lal Gauri, and Jayanta Bandyopadhyay (sp?). I don't have web links for them but I'll leave it to you to look into their research. I don't agree with Coxill's conclusions necessarily, but they're a lot more grounded than what Schoch came up with.

View Postabhijit_b, on 03 May 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

+1 . There are gaps, but the Egyptologists think that they know everything. Not knowing something doesn't mean that we will have to opt for AA theories. But it will be honest and scientific to accept the gap and open to everyone's thought!

This, more than any other, is the post that clarified for me how little you understand the field of Egyptology. "Egyptologists think that they know everything," is how you put it. It would seem you know no Egyptologists personally or are truly familiar with their work. I do know Egyptologists personally, and I am intimately familiar with their work. One thing they always stress is how we don't have all the answers and how they must always continue their research so we can learn more. One Egyptologist I know has emphasized more than once that everything she learned as a grad student many years ago has changed. While an exaggeration, it represents reality. No real Egyptologist—a properly trained, degreed, experienced, actual Egyptologist—would ever say Egyptology has all the answers.

My apologies for the negative tenor of this post, abhijit_b, but I've been reading the discussion as of late and you seem rather full of yourself. You come across as assuming that you are right while everyone else is wrong. I would definitely dial it down. The fringe approach of self-promotion and ad hominem attacks never succeeds, nor does it raise one's credibility in our forum.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#262    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,933 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 May 2013 - 05:46 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 May 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

The picture was posted to illustrate that a long neck can also be acheived easily, neck elongation was again a practice in the African tribes.
Hope i don't need to post pictures for a a wide Hip...lol.

At first I thought you had written "wide lip" and was picturing those tribes who significantly distend their lips, which looks a bit disconcerting. I'm not sure what a "wide Hip" means, but the elongated neck photo was enough. :lol:

Quote

Regarding Amarna art: if you are so convinced of the mummy found in tut's tomb actually being tut then maybe the amarna bust is showing a different person. In my opinion it could swing either ways.

I can understand the stylization argument if the busts portrayed totally inhuman fantastical features, but then all the features observed are commonplace and examples can be found even now.

Like i said, there were so many rulers in ancient egypt, there were ample number of foreign pharoans, who had forcefully conquered egypt numerous times. They could have done a lot of mixing up. Am just being skeptical of consensus Egyptology, i am saying there is a possibility that we are wrong about many things.

The al-mammun expedition of the great pyramid is a classical example of a myth being propounded as a fact....had linked a good article from smithsonians where this is discussed. According to the article, Al Mammun may have never entered the great pyramids.

Also you are ignoring the amount of possible modern contortions of AE history, i.e by the people who made the initial finds. Most of these finds were made in prior to 1940's when we did not have a very good surveillance technology to videograph all the finds and claims.

What I find most remarkable here is that you actually seem to be doubting that the mummified body found in KV62 does not belong to Tutankhamun. Really? What direction are you trying to take this?

In any case you're making some fundamental errors. Consider, for example, that while the Antechamber and Annex of KV62 had been entered by tomb raiders at least twice in ancient times, the burial chamber had never been violated. Its sealed door was found intact by Howard Carter in 1922. Moreover, once Carter and his team got into the burial chamber to clear it, the sarcophagus itself was sealed. I'm working from memory here, but of the four gilded-wood shrines surrounding the sarcophagus, the outermost door was never sealed but all three of the inner shrines' doors still had their original necropolis seals from more than 3,300 years ago.

Added to that, Tut's tomb was situated underground in the floor of the Valley of the Kings. As we know, Tut lived in Dynasty 18. In Dynasty 20, the joint tomb of Ramesses V / VI (KV9) was built into the cliff face uphill from Tut's tomb. In the quarrying operations for KV9, countless amounts of rubble and fill were dumped down the slope. The end result is that the upper sealed entrance to Tut's tomb, KV62, was completely buried in thick strata of this rubble and fill. Tutankhamun was a minor king in the first place—he did not live long, of course—and in all likelihood was quite forgotten by the time of Ramesses V. The proscriptions and erasures of Amarna history instituted by Horemheb and the early Ramessides would've helped to ensure that.

I'm not going to bog down the discussion with a debate on Amarna artwork or pharaonic art in general, but very rarely did royal artwork accurately depict or reflect the actual physical appearance of the kings for whom they were built. Tut himself is a good example of that, but an even better example is Ramesses II, one of the greatest kings in history. Were we to believe the royal art program of his nearly 70-year reign, we would be left to think Ramesses II was young and buff and beautiful until his dying day. And when that sad day came, we know Ramesses II was around 90 years old, so of course he was no longer young and buff and beautiful. But the statues depicting him still were.

You are correct that in its late years Egypt was repeatedly conquered. Of all of those conquerers, however, the Nubians seem to be the only ones who possessed a true veneration for or interest in Egyptian history and culture. Practically all of the others—Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans—didn't give much of a damn about Egypt itself, so long as they could get rich off its agriculture. Why you would suggest some Assyrian king or Roman emperor would be interested in "mixing up" things, doesn't make much sense to me. They simply would not have cared that much, and what would be the motive for it in the first place?

In conclusion, I'm aware some of this debate is about head binding. Let's put that to rest. Review the literature of the forensic experts who specialize in the study of ancient Egyptian human remains (e.g., Joyce Filer in particular). There is no evidence for skull deformation in the pharaonic society. While it may have been practiced elsewhere in ancient Africa, bear in mind that "Africa" is a modern place name and not a culture. Skull deformation was not part of the ancient Egyptian culture. No one can deny that Tut himself has an oddly shaped skull, but all forensic experts who examined it are in agreement that it's still within normal dimensions for the skull of a modern human.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#263    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,327 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:30 AM

View Postabhijit_b, on 03 May 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

I do respect Harte, from my heart. I am in this form for a long time and I am benefited many times from his knowledge. I am not trying to prove him as Fringe. But his single statement sounded like that. Should I stop my own expression if I feel something is illogical?
Thank you pointing this out. i am sorry if I hurt someone here!
For myself, I'm surprised that you have examined the small amount of data Schoch gathered.  Like I said, most posters on forums have never seen it.  It also surprised me because you argue about water erosion, when you've seen for yourself that Schoch's hypothesis not only does not rely on erosion, but never actually even mentions it.

My point, which you appear to have misunderstood, is that the erosion in the sphinx enclosure cannot be used to substantiate Schoch's claim at all.  For two reasons.  First, like I said, his claim does not rely on it.  Second, like I said, not enough is known about weather (not weathering) patterns in Egypt over the last 5,000 years.

I realize that Schoch attempts to connect the subsurface weathering (due to exposure to air) with what he considers to be purely water erosion (in the aboveground enclosure) in his essays.  However, this erosion is not part of his data.

Since Schoch's paper was published, it has been discovered that there were some very wet periods in the time of Ancient Egypt.  We do not know the rainfall conditions for the entire time period of the Egyptian Civilization.

Salt exfoliation is rampant in the enclosure, however.  Given the obvious exfoliation, which causes layers of the surface of the stone to separate from the stone body, imagine the effect that high winds and rains would have on the stone surface and it's not hard to see that erosion of the enclosure and the sphinx would be greatly accelerated over what would be accomplished with wind and rain alone, without exfoliation.

Regarding what you mention about the apparent weathering patterns of the eroded stone, Schoch himself admitted that such patterns are far more dependant on the original morphologyof the stone itself that on the action that caused the observed pattern of erosion.  I believe this was in response to some points made by one of his (Geologist) critics that you seem to be unaware of.

I used to have links to these criticisms, by the way, but that was three computers and four hard drives ago.  This subject is quite old, you know, no pun intended.  Some of these criticisms have been linked to at this forum in the past, as well as others that were new to me (at that time.)  I fear you cannot depend on me to find these criticisms that you seek for you.  As Kmt_sesh will attest, I am semi-retired from rebutting the same claims over and over now.  I mainly focus these days on giving what I know, and that usually without links, because I'm not going to do more work that any claimant, I'm just going to point out why I know they are wrong.   It takes up less of my life that way.  But you can find them yourself.  They're out there, and as I said, some of them are linked here, though quite some time ago.

Schoch's data itself is somewhat suspect, given the small area of the enclosure to the west of the sculpture (only three readings in the rear on a line only ten meters long - admittedly not Schoch's fault, but still...) and the fact that limestone is quite non-homogeneous.  This applies even more to his exercise of assuming a linear progression of weathering in order to obtain his range of dates for the supposed carving of the sculpture.  Because limestone is so variable, and because, as you likely know, there are multiple layers in the enclosure of widely varying hardness, and said layers are not parallel with the surface, the idea that one could calculate a date for the sculpture through examining subsurface weathering (due to air contact) is specious, at best.

On the other hand, I tip my hat to you for at least looking at the data.  Now, look harder.  The data shows that the sides of the enclosure are, in many spots, older than the front (east) side.  By Schoch's logic, then, the sides were carved out before the front.  By several hundred years, in fact.  How could this be explained?  The same way I explained why Schoch's data is suspect.


Harte

Edited by Harte, 04 May 2013 - 07:43 AM.

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#264    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,933 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:30 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 May 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

...

In any case you're making some fundamental errors. Consider, for example, that while the Antechamber and Annex of KV62 had been entered by tomb raiders at least twice in ancient times, the burial chamber had never been violated. Its sealed door was found intact by Howard Carter in 1922. Moreover, once Carter and his team got into the burial chamber to clear it, the sarcophagus itself was sealed. I'm working from memory here, but of the four gilded-wood shrines surrounding the sarcophagus, the outermost door was never sealed but all three of the inner shrines' doors still had their original necropolis seals from more than 3,300 years ago.

Added to that, Tut's tomb was situated underground in the floor of the Valley of the Kings. As we know, Tut lived in Dynasty 18. In Dynasty 20, the joint tomb of Ramesses V / VI (KV9) was built into the cliff face uphill from Tut's tomb. In the quarrying operations for KV9, countless amounts of rubble and fill were dumped down the slope. The end result is that the upper sealed entrance to Tut's tomb, KV62, was completely buried in thick strata of this rubble and fill. Tutankhamun was a minor king in the first place—he did not live long, of course—and in all likelihood was quite forgotten by the time of Ramesses V. The proscriptions and erasures of Amarna history instituted by Horemheb and the early Ramessides would've helped to ensure that.

...

I'm quoting myself to add some clarification to my earlier post. It's been a long time since I've read about the archaeology of KV62, but I did just that and was reminded of a couple of things that are germane here. First, I made in an error in my earlier post. I had written that Tut's burial chamber "had never been violated." This is incorrect. It looks to have been entered by raiders, based on a scattering of objects found within the narrow space between the gilded shrines and the wall of the chamber. There was no order to these objects, so it looked to Carter and his team as though raiders entered the chamber, rifled about, but quickly left. This is consistent with the state of the first two chambers in the tomb (Antechamber and Annex). So evidently, the raiders fled or were caught in the act, and necropolis workmen resealed the entrance to the burial chamber.

I also mentioned the necropolis seals on the four shrines, and the fact that the door leafs to the outermost shrine did not contain a necropolis seal. This is correct. However, it was most likely raiders who had cut away the seal—something I should have considered more carefully. Nevertheless, the doors to the three inner shrines were still sealed, and the sarcophagus itself was undisturbed, so it's clear neither raiders nor anyone else accessed Tut's body after its original interment.

There's something else that occurred to me after posting last night. I had mentioned the great heaps of fill and rubble coming down the slope from the quarrying operations for the tomb of Ramesses V /VI (KV9), up above Tut's tomb. This rubble and fill covered the upper entrance to Tut's tomb, obliterating it from the historical record. What I neglected to add was the archaeology of this specific spot in the floor of the Valley of the Kings. Under the rubble and fill which Carter's team removed were also the foundations of workmen's huts, indicating these huts were built over the top of the entrance to Tut's tomb even before the cuttings for KV9 were begun. Evidently, then, KV62 and the burial of Tutankhamun were forgotten even before Ramesses V came to the throne in Dynasty 20.

My apologies for droning on. I hate it when I write something factually incorrect, so I wanted to straighten that out. The workmen's huts are even more significant: Tut and his tomb were clearly erased from history probably by some point in Dynasty 19. Obviously no one entered it later. Until 1922, that is.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#265    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,327 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:24 AM

There's a thing I didn't know!  :clap: :tsu:

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#266    Sheep Smart

Sheep Smart

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined:28 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Back in town!

  • Im so happy I bleed it.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 04:56 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 19 April 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

The motive of this thread is to discuss the very apparent differences between the Great Pyramids and the other Egyptian pyramids.The differences are so great that it goes against our natural intleligence to believe that they were built by the same AE or were contemporary with the other AE pyramids.
Also the focus of the discussion will also be on "Water/Rain errosion marks on the Sphinx" and the "Vyse Forgery".
Shout out to KMT_Sesh and Scott Creighton to comment on the same.
http://en.wikipedia....yptian_pyramids

This link has pictures of a wide variety of Egyptian Pyramids. Starting with great pyramids. Please compare for yourself the other pyramids and the great pyramids, and think for yourself whether they are built by the same peoples.

Posted Image

Amenemhet's pyramid.

Posted Image

Pyramid of Meidum

Posted Image

Step pyramids of Djoser

Posted Image

Nuri main pyramid.


Please see the above half baked attempts of reproducing something as spectacular as the great pyramids.

Posted Image

The great pyramids. Notice the small ones in the front, they look very Ancient Egyptian like, but the great pyramids are something else.

In short, the piece of **** ones aside from Giza are clearly poorly built because they were trying to emulate the Giza. In which they didnt build. :D


have a nice day everyone.

Other life in the universe?, you dare to imply there are entities possibly far greater than us almighty humans, creators of canned ham and reality tv. Nonsense. Absurd.

   The reality that stupidy exists in abundance doesnt bother me. Its the fact that theres still no cure.

#267    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:53 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 05 May 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:


~snip

What I neglected to add was the archaeology of this specific spot in the floor of the Valley of the Kings. Under the rubble and fill which Carter's team removed were also the foundations of workmen's huts, indicating these huts were built over the top of the entrance to Tut's tomb even before the cuttings for KV9 were begun. Evidently, then, KV62 and the burial of Tutankhamun were forgotten even before Ramesses V came to the throne in Dynasty 20.

My apologies for droning on. I hate it when I write something factually incorrect, so I wanted to straighten that out. The workmen's huts are even more significant: Tut and his tomb were clearly erased from history probably by some point in Dynasty 19. Obviously no one entered it later. Until 1922, that is.


Thanks Boss ... shaken and stirred ... vigorously :tu:

I still look at it this way ....
A geometrical Pyramid is a perfection of angles set to mathematical 'abstracts' of the highest degree possible in theories of stability.
The Gizamids is the perfection of this made into reality.The AEs were not only persistent, they were insistent and succeeded.

I can't help but feel that the pattern of megalomaniac behavior of the Pharaohs began after the GIZAmids .... when construction standards began to deteriorate ....

Edited by third_eye, 05 May 2013 - 07:57 AM.

~

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer

~


#268    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,534 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 08:07 AM

I guess something good can come from megalomania.  Otherwise the human race would not have these things.


#269    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:28 AM

View PostSheep Smart, on 05 May 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

In short, the piece of **** ones aside from Giza are clearly poorly built because they were trying to emulate the Giza. In which they didnt build. :D


have a nice day everyone.

And pray do tell, what is  the basis of this statement?
When you have a architectural style, you revise, you introduce more detials, you try to prefect the design.
There is no regression in a desgin, but only progression.
For example, do you live in caves now?
No. You have advanced from the cave man dwellings and live in high rises and constructed buildings.
Thats progression and not regression.

Edited by The_Spartan, 05 May 2013 - 09:28 AM.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#270    Sheep Smart

Sheep Smart

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined:28 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Back in town!

  • Im so happy I bleed it.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:23 AM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 05 May 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

And pray do tell, what is  the basis of this statement?
The basis is that of lousy design and poor construction in the reproduction in hopes of replicating a great pyramid, which is that of Giza.

Quote

When you have a architectural style, you revise, you introduce more detials, you try to prefect the design.
There is no regression in a desgin, but only progression.
If youre referring to the sloppy layoutsof those so called pyramids (other than giza) Id  hardly call that  "architechural style". more like undeserved credit for lack of accomplishment.

Other life in the universe?, you dare to imply there are entities possibly far greater than us almighty humans, creators of canned ham and reality tv. Nonsense. Absurd.

   The reality that stupidy exists in abundance doesnt bother me. Its the fact that theres still no cure.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users