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

#301    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:13 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Why and how are you so convinced that the mummy is tut, when you know how these ancients recycled stuff?
Hasn't DNA testing conclusively put Tut's mummy into the timeline? To challenge Tut is to challenge the whole established series of Dynastys.

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

Posted Image
Harte addressed this I think. What is happening here is due to varying densities and strengths of the stone layers.

As to why it might erode faster... I don't see erosion that couldn't have happened in 4500 years. As Harte pointed out we can't know what the weather in that time was accurately enough. These particular constructions date to Twice the age of Rome. These ruins were the same age to the Romans that the Romans are to us.

Also whos to say they did not create some of this apparent water damage during the time of contruction? Supposedly there was water all over the plateau for almost a century? What is the plateau's dranage pattern? I've heard that flash floods can tear through the Giza area and create quite a lot of damage. That would lead to the idea that drainage tends toward the river.

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.
Their only "Fail" was in using Mud Bricks rather then stone...

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#302    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,157 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:18 AM

View Postthird_eye, on 06 May 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

That's one way of considering a solution to the conundrum I know ... but that will mean that Khufu was entombed before the completion ... so was the tomb waiting for Khufu or was Khufu laying in wraps waiting for the tomb ?

In terms of the construction phases we can't really tell as either propositions comes with its own sets of counter logic problems,
in terms of building the thing Sir cormac ... not the certain all too convenient speculative proposals from all parties.

Not necessarily, since it's possible the cladding was added from the top down. And we now know, per the papyri recently found near an ancient port in Egypt, that the pyramid was still in construction during the 27th year of Khufu's reign. Which would also seem to suggest a topward-down application for the cladding IMO, since by this time most of it would have been complete.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#303    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 06 May 2013 - 03:19 AM

and i certainly do underestimate them, i do not challenge anyone.

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.

#304    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,157 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:27 AM

View PostSheep Smart, on 06 May 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

cormac,
you can not accept what is not backed by someone with a degree, nor can you accept the fact that despite every attempt at taking sharp shots, people dont agree with your views which by the way only reflect those who put them fourth. which is fine, except you are forgetting that the Giza pyramid itself is by far one of the most debated, controversial, and misunderstood subjects in existance.   accusing one who opposes your opinions based on others of being paranoid is not cool.  
so i suggest you pull your chin down a bit my friend because youre far from reining this thread by a longshot.

No, I accept what is backed by actual, verifiable evidence and not what someone wants to be true.

You pretty much admitted to being paranoid (Posts 289 - 291) so what are you complaining about. I can't help it if you don't like it being pointed out.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#305    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,498 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:50 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 06 May 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

Not necessarily, since it's possible the cladding was added from the top down. And we now know, per the papyri recently found near an ancient port in Egypt, that the pyramid was still in construction during the 27th year of Khufu's reign. Which would also seem to suggest a topward-down application for the cladding IMO, since by this time most of it would have been complete.

No.  The cladding could not have been added from the top down.

The orthodox opinion is is devoid of evidence and substantiation almost across the board.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#306    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,157 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:03 AM

View Postcladking, on 06 May 2013 - 03:50 AM, said:

No.  The cladding could not have been added from the top down.

The orthodox opinion is is devoid of evidence and substantiation almost across the board.

Apparently it could be, since the cladding at the peak of G2 is still pretty much there and it hasn't fallen off. Or are you going to try to tell me it's held there by "sky-hook"? :rolleyes:

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#307    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 06 May 2013 - 04:28 AM

See cormac,  this is why i denounce 90% of the proposed garbage out there. you say,.

Quote

...apparently it could be....
  
This goes nicely with everything you attributed to today in refuiating the so called facts from personal opinions/unconventional theories.

The top down theory is a joke. i disagree. and get this, thats MY theory.  the top part which is still in tact has not fallen because first the weight is already off and secondly it blankets the top. thats not a mystery.
With that said i stand by the idea that the exterior built around was put on last. possibly even long after construction was complete. these are MY thoughts do not ask me for any proof. especially now. youll rarely see me plaster links because i prefer to express my own thoughts.



Edited by Sheep Smart, 06 May 2013 - 04:41 AM.

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.

#308    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,157 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:43 AM

View PostSheep Smart, on 06 May 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

See cormac,  this is why i denounce 90% of the proposed garbage out there. you say,.  
this goes nicely with everything you attributed to today in refuiating the so called facts from personal opinions. The top down theory is a joke. i disagree. and get this, thats MY theory.  the top part which is still in tact has not fallen because first the weight is already off and secondly it blankets the top. thats not a mystery.

also i stand by the idea that the exterior built around was put on last. possibly even much long after construction was complete. these are MY thoughts do not ask me for any proof. especially now. youll rarely see me plaster links because i prefer to express my own thoughts.

It doesn't "blanket the top" since they are not one, singular piece but hundreds if not thousands of pieces of cladding with nothing under them where the majority has already been removed. Which means they don't rely on what's beneath them, casing-wise, for support.

When construction was complete the entire pyramid was complete. Which makes your idea non-sensical.

That's rather obvious.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#309    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 06 May 2013 - 05:02 AM

Quote

It doesn't "blanket the top" since they are not one, singular piece but hundreds if not thousands of pieces of cladding with nothing under them where the majority has already been removed. Which means they don't rely on what's beneath them, casing-wise, for support.
If that were the case, the "sky-hook" theory works.
Youre clearly not familiar with the laws of physics particularly suspension.

Research avalanches.


Quote

When construction was complete the entire pyramid was complete. Which makes your idea non-sensical.

That's rather obvious.
As if you know this matter-of-factly.

Edited by Sheep Smart, 06 May 2013 - 05:34 AM.

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.

#310    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 06 May 2013 - 05:33 AM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 03 May 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Prove it isn't....
I just gave a very good argument of why it is possible that the mummy in tut's tomb isn't tut. You are making the positive claim, so burden of proof lies on you, If you claim that you are 100% sure that there is no alternative possible then please tell us why?


#311    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 06 May 2013 - 05:38 AM

View Poststereologist, on 03 May 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Here you toss in your personal opinion that someone is a fool if they obtain a piece of art that is to their choosing and contains desired features which are not a realistic representation.

Then you repeat your opinion that the object depicts something that the person commissioning the art did not want.

Your personal requirements for art is not the same as other people's requirements for art. That is the issue plain and simple. You may not like having that pointed out to you but that is the way things are. For reasons we do not understand the art has traits which were considered desirable. It is not limited just to what you might consider "pretty."

BTW, all of your arguments here are what is known as arguments from incredulity.
No matter how you try to justify it, i don't think anyone would commision a sculptors to create a bust of them that looks like some other human being.

I don't want to digress more on your flimsy notions of abstract art.

As far as i understand neck elongation and head binding are still practiced by many tribes of Africa and there is no need to justify any such depictions as abstract art....lol.


#312    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:40 AM

In every field there are experts.  If I have a broken leg I see a doctor.  If my neighbor sues me I see a lawyer.  If my air conditioner stops working, I call an air conditioner shop.

When it comes to scientific and historical matters, I have pretty much the same attitude.  The authorities and reporters generally get it about right, with no doubt some reporters going overboard and getting details that don't really matter to me personally screwed up.  The prevailing science about something is far more likely to have it about as right as it can be.

We have to remember that the world is full of people with agendas that are served by spreading lies.  Often these are personal notions about the world, or derived from religion, or in various other ways generated by a desire that the scientists be wrong.  Well, they generally aren't, and science is far more self-correcting than any other human activity.


#313    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 06 May 2013 - 05:44 AM

View PostHarte, on 03 May 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

Here you endeavor to pretend that this erosion has some bearing on the age of the sphinx.

The fact is, Schoch's date is not based on any erosion whatsoever.

On top of that, not enough is known about weather patterns in Egypt over the 5,000 years in question to substantiate any claim based on water erosion.

These are simply the facts of this matter.  You're awareness of them (or not) does not reflect, nor does it impact at all, the veracity of these two facts.

Harte
You try to evade the evidence, the water erosion is done by Rain to be mnore specific torrential rains. That is how the timeline gets pushed that far i,e when torrential rainfall was common in Giza i.e way before 6500 B.C.


#314    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 06 May 2013 - 05:54 AM

View Poststereologist, on 03 May 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:



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.



Lol, so typical...."ask others for evidence and provide none yourself" the motto of egyptologists, certainly they are more then historians. And you are right that Egyptologist do not fully rely on science, yet anyone who questions their conclusion is deemed a Fringe Looney instead of a skeptic, this is not how Science works at all.
The Egyptologist can decipher and at times also invent the meanings of ancient texts, certainly no good scientist can do this.
The bottom line is that Egyptologists own Scientists anytime.....as one can influence your view of the past as they want to potray it without sufficient evidence and the other can only show you whats real and can be proved empirically with evidence.


#315    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 06 May 2013 - 06:16 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 May 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

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.



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.


Colin Reader, a British geologist, agrees that the suggested evidence of weathering indicates prolonged water erosion. Reader found, inter alia, that the flow of rainwater causing the weathering had been stemmed by the construction of 'Khufu's quarries',[10] which lie directly "upstream" of the Sphinx enclosure, and therefore concludes that the Sphinx must predate the reign of Khufu (25892566 BC), and certainly Khafra, by several hundred years. Reader, however, disagrees with Schoch's palaeometeorological estimates, and instead concludes that the Sphinx dates to the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150–2686BC).[11][12]

Similarly, David Coxill, a geologist working independently of both Schoch and Reader, has concluded from the evidence of weathering in the enclosure that "[t]he Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times [before 3100 BC]."[13]



It is not Schoch alone who agrees that it is prolonged water erosion.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users