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

#511    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:39 PM

For myself I close this off. I, and other posters, have presented the undisputed facts again and again that the KV62 mummy is Tutankhamun. I have told again and again the vital evidence presented by his names being on the walls of KV62, of his names being on so many artifacts within the tomb. The most compelling evidence, not disputed by anybody except Harsh, is that of his names being on the shrines, sarcophagus, coffins and various jewelry on his mummy. That much of the burial equipment was not originally for Tutankhamun is not in any way relevant to the identity of the mummy, it is only relevant in the genuine mystery about who Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten were, and that should be a seperate thread. All other considerations about robbery of the tomb shortly after the burial, cast no doubts whatever on the identity of the mummy. It has been shown by Howard Carter that the seals on the inner shrines were still intact and that the burial itself had been undisturbed since interment. Tomb robbers, if they got as far as the mummy before being caught, tended to rip it's wrappings to pieces and hack the chest open for the heart scarab. There is zero evidence that tomb robbers even got past the inner shrine, and the mummy was of course found intact within it's coffins. Even flowers placed over the outer coffin were still were they had been left. Robbers would not have robbed the mummy and then put everything back together again, and besides, as I already mentioned, the mummy was completely intact and surrounded by the most expensive ancient bling imaginable. This, I hope, completely dispells any notion that the KV62 mummy is not Tutankhamun because of the activiites of any robbers.

Now, to address whether the mummy is not Tutankhamun because the AE have buried a body that was not Tutankhamun, but put his name all over the place. This is inconcievable, it goes into the realms of the Twilight Zone. The AE would never bury the body of person X and give them the identity of person Y. We would not do this today, and certainly not with a king. I cannot think of a single reason, no matter how bizarre, to account for them doing this. If this mummy was Smenkhare or Neferneferuaten, then why re-incise the cartouches on all the burial equipment with the names Tutankhamun and Nebkheprura? It is, as I have said, inconcievable and totaly unbelievable. So please, no more distractions about other Armarna royalty. The mummy is Tutankhamun. But, there is still the business of Howard Carter. He and Davies knew there was a king named Tutankhamun whose tomb had not been found. They knew this because of various cartouches found in a burial cache found near KV62, and also found on the lion statue from Gebel Barkal, and on a colonnade at Luxor, and other evidence. To state that Davies and Carter were "desperate" to find Tutankhamun is an overstatement. Of course they wanted to find an un-robbed tomb, but I am sure that if Carter had found that KV 62 was not Tutankhamun, I expect he would have been overjoyed, as this would have meant there was still Tutakhamun to find. What would you prefer, to find just one tomb, or, after finding one tomb, then realise there was anothre one to find? Personally I would like two tombs, or more. So I contend that Carter had no reason to alter the tomb and it's contents to show the name of Tutankhamun. This would invole a huge amount of time and work of the most careful and delicate kind. This could only have been done if the tomb was found many years before 1922, and would have involved the services of many experts. It would also have involved the collaberation of all the experts, British and American, that Carter invited to help him clear, conserve and catalogue the tomb and it's contents. As I have already mentioned, more than once, this idea of a huge conspiracy has been postulated by only one far out fringe writer, who was subsequently laughed out of existance for his disgracefull slur on the dead Carter and Canarvon. He too was unable to provide one piece of evidence to back up his claim.

Again, I clearly state that there is no rational reason to doubt the identity of KV62 being Tutankhamun. There is no evidence of any description that in ancient times or modern times that a body not Tutankhamun was placed in the tomb. There is however, the overwhelming evidence of what was found in the tomb, evidence that is so complete and overwhelming that it is far beyond the bounds of rationality to doubt. Any attempt to conflate the real Armarna mysteries with the known identity of KV62 being Tutankhamun will fail, as there is no evidence, and no reason of any kind to doubt.

Now, and not for the first time, I rest my case. And believe me, I will not engage again with anybody who insults me in such a disgusting manner as today, simply because they spit in the face of reality and have lost a debate. I leave here knowing I have provided clear evidence, several times, that KV62 is Tutankhamun. Goodbye.


#512    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,891 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:28 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 08 May 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

Pray tell me who is Tut?
Tutankhamun is a title.
It is not in the Abydos kings list.
Egyptologist still wonder and debate who he is.

Leaving that aside, there is a possibility that the mummy found by Carter is not TUT:
1.Many mummies were housed in different tombs for their protection in the 20th century.
I thought the DNA evidence settled this? The DNA clearly shows a line of decent across several known and unknown mummies. Are you suggesting that some just lucked out and got a related mummy, out of dozens and slipped it in for Tut? That is hightly unlikely IMHO.

Quote

2.The artifacts in tut's tomb were modified to say his name.
Again this is highly unlikely. The tomb was permenantly sealed, after being broken into, shortly after Tut died. So who swapped the names? Davies? Carter? They didn't have that skill and the hoax would have been obvious to researchers of today when looking at the artifacts.

Quote

3.There is no videographic evidence of what exactly happened when carter found the tomb, we have to rely on his eyewitness testimony, i,e his journals, where he has known to be dishonest.
That is too heavy of a demand. Very few of the digs and researches of the early 20th century were filmed. It was incredibly expensive and required expert training and maintenance.

At least Carter's journal is 1st person account. And not a story recounted by a distant decendant based on a rumor of what some other decendant possibly read.

Quote

4.Tut might be a shadow name given posthumously to Smenkhare to prevent his grave from desecration.
5. Tut might actually be Rathotis.
I'm not an expert, just a guy using common sense and logic here. So, I can't really comment to those points.

Quote

6.The cache of TUT was found in a different tomb.
Perhaps this is where your "reuse" theory comes in? Or perhaps the items were stashed there by looters for later retreval and they never returned? Or perhaps some of Tut's items were recovered from looters and were reburied seperately because they did not want to expose Tut's primary tomb?

Again, I'm not an expert, but I can see lots of reasons for a seperate burial.

Quote

7.The tomb showed evidence of being broken in atleast twice, according to carter. There was also repair work in the tomb after one of the break in, immediately after the Burial.
Lots of tombs were looted right after they were sealed. Often by the people who buried them. Or by their own decendants, who sought to reuse the items, or in an attempt to remove status/power from the deceased person.

That Tut's tomb was resealed and stayed sealed is actually remarkable. And that it was sealed basically from soon after Tut was buried till when it was dug up by Carter is more remarkable.


Basically your throwing out Facts without context and hoping that they alone can cast doubt, but when the very Facts you are tossing about are pulled into context, they actually prove that the mummy is Tut.

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

#513    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:20 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 08 May 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Again, I'm not an expert, but I can see lots of reasons for a seperate burial.
I'll answer a few points for you while I am here for a short while longer, but not much......

About Tutankhamun being a "shadow name" or him being "Rathotis. Well this is laughable, it has been plucked from a vacuum. Again there is no evidence, and saying Tutankhamun may be another person, no matter who, strays into the fantasy land of trying to match real Armarna people to people named in the Bible or some comic or whatever. The statement is completely without foundation or evidence of any description.

About the "The cashe of TUT was found in a different tomb". He either refers to the debris of a funeral found in pit 54 by Davis in 1907, which contained evidence of  Tutankhamun, or the recent discovery of KV63, which contained, seemingly, most of the equipment from his mummification packed into a large number of storage jars and a few unused coffins with their names removed, probably because they were unused, and not any conspiracy. Hawass has stated that KV63 may have been intended to be the tomb of KV35YL, Tutankhamun's mother, though I have not seen his evidence for saying this. In either case, these two discoveries simply show evidence that a king named Tutankhamun existed, and that he was mummified. Nothing about either discovery casts doubt on the indentity of KV62 mummy being Tutankhamun, they actually re-inforce the fact that there was a king Tutankhamun.

The phrase "hoist on his own petard" constantly comes to mind these past few days on this thread............

That's all folks!

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 08 May 2013 - 09:55 PM.


#514    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 11 May 2013 - 05:24 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 07 May 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

One thing that I've not seen is how the water erosion has been seperated specifically from sand erosion and how the percentages of each was set. It seems to me that if 95% of the erosion is sand based over the last 5000 years, then how it is possible to claim acurately about the other 10% of erosion from 6000+ years before that? It would seem that the sand erosion would have sand blasted the signs of water erosion right off the Sphinx and off the enclosure wall.

Am I to believe that there was phenominal erosion 6000 years ago and then all erosion stopped, so that we can tell it was water erosion??

There is a big difference between 1000 years and 100 years. 100 Years would put the Sphinx still in the pyramid building time frame and not completely before the dynastic period at all.
The rain eroded part could have been covered and hence protected from sand erosion.


#515    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 11 May 2013 - 05:25 AM

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 08 May 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

For myself I close this off. I, and other posters, have presented the undisputed facts again and again that the KV62 mummy is Tutankhamun. I have told again and again the vital evidence presented by his names being on the walls of KV62, of his names being on so many artifacts within the tomb. The most compelling evidence, not disputed by anybody except Harsh, is that of his names being on the shrines, sarcophagus, coffins and various jewelry on his mummy. That much of the burial equipment was not originally for Tutankhamun is not in any way relevant to the identity of the mummy, it is only relevant in the genuine mystery about who Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten were, and that should be a seperate thread. All other considerations about robbery of the tomb shortly after the burial, cast no doubts whatever on the identity of the mummy. It has been shown by Howard Carter that the seals on the inner shrines were still intact and that the burial itself had been undisturbed since interment. Tomb robbers, if they got as far as the mummy before being caught, tended to rip it's wrappings to pieces and hack the chest open for the heart scarab. There is zero evidence that tomb robbers even got past the inner shrine, and the mummy was of course found intact within it's coffins. Even flowers placed over the outer coffin were still were they had been left. Robbers would not have robbed the mummy and then put everything back together again, and besides, as I already mentioned, the mummy was completely intact and surrounded by the most expensive ancient bling imaginable. This, I hope, completely dispells any notion that the KV62 mummy is not Tutankhamun because of the activiites of any robbers.

Now, to address whether the mummy is not Tutankhamun because the AE have buried a body that was not Tutankhamun, but put his name all over the place. This is inconcievable, it goes into the realms of the Twilight Zone. The AE would never bury the body of person X and give them the identity of person Y. We would not do this today, and certainly not with a king. I cannot think of a single reason, no matter how bizarre, to account for them doing this. If this mummy was Smenkhare or Neferneferuaten, then why re-incise the cartouches on all the burial equipment with the names Tutankhamun and Nebkheprura? It is, as I have said, inconcievable and totaly unbelievable. So please, no more distractions about other Armarna royalty. The mummy is Tutankhamun. But, there is still the business of Howard Carter. He and Davies knew there was a king named Tutankhamun whose tomb had not been found. They knew this because of various cartouches found in a burial cache found near KV62, and also found on the lion statue from Gebel Barkal, and on a colonnade at Luxor, and other evidence. To state that Davies and Carter were "desperate" to find Tutankhamun is an overstatement. Of course they wanted to find an un-robbed tomb, but I am sure that if Carter had found that KV 62 was not Tutankhamun, I expect he would have been overjoyed, as this would have meant there was still Tutakhamun to find. What would you prefer, to find just one tomb, or, after finding one tomb, then realise there was anothre one to find? Personally I would like two tombs, or more. So I contend that Carter had no reason to alter the tomb and it's contents to show the name of Tutankhamun. This would invole a huge amount of time and work of the most careful and delicate kind. This could only have been done if the tomb was found many years before 1922, and would have involved the services of many experts. It would also have involved the collaberation of all the experts, British and American, that Carter invited to help him clear, conserve and catalogue the tomb and it's contents. As I have already mentioned, more than once, this idea of a huge conspiracy has been postulated by only one far out fringe writer, who was subsequently laughed out of existance for his disgracefull slur on the dead Carter and Canarvon. He too was unable to provide one piece of evidence to back up his claim.

Again, I clearly state that there is no rational reason to doubt the identity of KV62 being Tutankhamun. There is no evidence of any description that in ancient times or modern times that a body not Tutankhamun was placed in the tomb. There is however, the overwhelming evidence of what was found in the tomb, evidence that is so complete and overwhelming that it is far beyond the bounds of rationality to doubt. Any attempt to conflate the real Armarna mysteries with the known identity of KV62 being Tutankhamun will fail, as there is no evidence, and no reason of any kind to doubt.

Now, and not for the first time, I rest my case. And believe me, I will not engage again with anybody who insults me in such a disgusting manner as today, simply because they spit in the face of reality and have lost a debate. I leave here knowing I have provided clear evidence, several times, that KV62 is Tutankhamun. Goodbye.
So now then who was Tutankhamun? Why was he not in the King's list?

Never disputed anything, again you mix a claim and exploring a possibility.

But it is sad, you finally started talking sense in a reasonable way and the topic is shut.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 11 May 2013 - 05:30 AM.


#516    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 11 May 2013 - 05:29 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 08 May 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

I thought the DNA evidence settled this? The DNA clearly shows a line of decent across several known and unknown mummies. Are you suggesting that some just lucked out and got a related mummy, out of dozens and slipped it in for Tut? That is hightly unlikely IMHO.
.
The identities of the other mummies found there are also highly debated, there is a consensus that Akhenaten is buried there and is the father is TUT, but there is no direct evidence.All we know from DNA analysis is that the mummies were related. No clues to the identities. It is surprising that Akhenaten would be buried without any clue to his identity.

But nevermind that, the repair work of the tomb in the ancient past can indicate a reburial.

There are no aneqdotes of Tut's rule, if he ever ruled. Almost everything we know about him is speculation not having any direct evidence.


#517    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:07 AM

So, do I continue?. A minimum of two likes on this post and I will seriously consider it.

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 11 May 2013 - 08:23 AM.


#518    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:58 PM

The votes counted, so this bizarre show goes on.

I will be fairly brief as otherwise I will be seriously repeating myself.

Tutankhamun, nor Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, Smenkhare and Aye are on any king lists because they were all part of the Aten "heresy" constructed by Akhenaten. Though religious normality was reverted to when Tutankhaten was renamed as Tutakhamun, and though he was too young to have been a "player" during the Armarna period, he was clearly seen to be heavily compromised by being a member of the family. Aye, who followed him, was an old man and would have been seen as being a part of the "heresy", even though it would probably have been Aye, who behind the scenes, instructed Tutankhamun to order the religious restitution. When Aye died, Horemheb became king. We cannot know his thoughts, though we can see by his actions that he decided to make a clean break with the Armarna period. He did his best to remove all references to any of the Armarna kings. Destroying, burying, and usurping statues of them. Eventually he dismantled Armarna itself. This is why they do not exist on any king list, anathema had been pronounced on them. This is also why Akenaten's tomb at Armarna is unfinshed and empty. It is why the coffin in KV55 had it's face and cartouches removed. His identity was deliberately destroyed because he was seen as a heretic.

The disputes about the surviving Armarna mummies is one of name. It is not disputed about who is related to who. For instance we know that KV35YL is Tutankhamun's mother, but we are not certain of the name of his mother, there are several possibilities. We know that the skeleton found in KV55 is Tutankhamun's father, but it is not 100% clear if this is Akhenaten or Smenkhare, and we may never know for certain. We know that the mummy KV21A is the mother of the two fetuses found in KV62, and we know that Tutankhamun is the father. What we do not know is the name of KV21A. We know that Tutankhamun had a wife named Ankhesenamun, but as kings had several wives, we cannot be certain if it is Ankhesenamun or an unknown secondry wife.

About if the mummy in KV62 is Tutankhamun, or if a king named Tutankhamun ever lived. Well, I have presented more than sufficient evidence for this and will not repeat these uncontroversial and totaly undisputed facts again.

Though I have my own knowledge and sources, very nearly everything I have written on this thread about this affair can have easily been found on wiki. As the facts of the identity and existance of Tutankhamun are not disputed by anybody of rational mind, then the wiki articles about Armarna can be relied on. It is only in which mummy, other than Tutankhamun and Queen Tye, has which name is contended. But as the orignal claim by Harsh was that the KV62 mummy is not Tutankhamun, these subsiduary matters are not important, and do not have any bearing on the fact of the existance of Tutankhamun. I have gone far beyond what any person can reasonably be expect to on this thread, I have almost written a book on the Armana period. Either these FACTS are believed or not, and I still wait for any evidence against what I have written, and which is undisputed by Egyptologists and the fringe alike. One persons inability and refusal to accept uncontroversial facts in no way alters these facts.

Relevant wiki links.
Nothing in these articles is at odds with any of my posts. Nothing in these links casts doubt on the existance or correct identity of the KV62 mummy being that of Tutankhamun. It is long past the time when any evidence to pull down reality should have been presented. Personal doubts and "feelings" are not sufficient in any debate, facts are, and I have provided very many. Now it is your turn to provide facts to back up your claim, Harsh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Tutankhamun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horemheb


#519    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,891 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:07 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 11 May 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

The identities of the other mummies found there are also highly debated, there is a consensus that Akhenaten is buried there and is the father is TUT, but there is no direct evidence.All we know from DNA analysis is that the mummies were related. No clues to the identities. It is surprising that Akhenaten would be buried without any clue to his identity.

But nevermind that, the repair work of the tomb in the ancient past can indicate a reburial.

There are no aneqdotes of Tut's rule, if he ever ruled. Almost everything we know about him is speculation not having any direct evidence.
Let's see... The mummies were all genetically related. Many of them had their names ON them in the form of jewery. Some were identified by way of their tombs. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. It all adds up. It is Conspiricy Theory to propose "What if"s as if they were actual evidence. Fine for discussion, as long as you make the disclaimer that that is what is going on...

Hasn't other posters shown that there is multiple places across Egypt (not etremely abundunt, but there) which have Tut's name written in stone? I'm sure Tutankhaten-pasheri, or one of the others posted several occurances of Tut's name in non-burial sites.

As for not being on the Abydos Kings List... I just looked at this, and the list apparently goes to #74 - Horemheb(ruled 1319-1292), but #73 is Amenhotep III (ruled 1386-1349). So that leaves 30 years in there unaccounted for...

We also know that Akhenaten was previously known as Amenhotep IV, so we know he was the son of Amenhotep III.

So this appears to be an attempt by the later Pharoah dynastys to erase the Amarna period.

Quote

Horemheb demolished monuments of Akhenaten, reusing their remains in his own building projects, and usurped monuments of Tutankhamun and Ay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haremheb

So there are 3 or maybe more Pharoahs not on the list, and then purposefully their monuments and history were attempted to be erased. Not so mysterious... Happened a couple times in the time of the AE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Tutankhamun

Edited by DieChecker, 11 May 2013 - 07:11 PM.

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

#520    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:16 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 May 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Hasn't other posters shown that there is multiple places across Egypt (not etremely abundunt, but there) which have Tut's name written in stone? I'm sure Tutankhaten-pasheri, or one of the others posted several occurances of Tut's name in non-burial sites.

Lion statue at Gebel Barkal, colonade at Luxor, statue of Khonsu and other statues that have Tutankhamun's features, but have the original cartouches changed. But I guess unless there is video evidence from 3400 years ago to show workmen altering cartouches, then it is no evidence at all :)


#521    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,891 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:21 PM

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 11 May 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Lion statue at Gebel Barkal, colonade at Luxor, statue of Khonsu and other statues that have Tutankhamun's features, but have the original cartouches changed. But I guess unless there is video evidence from 3400 years ago to show workmen altering cartouches, then it is no evidence at all :)
Even video evidence would be called hoax, as just look at how many bigfoot/aliens videos there are on Youtube.

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

#522    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:47 PM

There is something nagging me. My pictures in this thread dissapeared intermittantly, so to make sure of one important point I load this picture of Tutankhamun's mummy bands again. It was suggested that Tutankhamun and Nebkheperura are names for two different people. So, again, in the top cartouche is his throne name Nebkheperura. In the bottom cartouche is his given name, Tutankhamun, and the title "Ruler of Upper Heliopolis", all within that cartouche. That he was born as Tutankhaten is irelevant to the identity of his mummy, as I have explained the name change several times now. I hope nobody thinks for even one second that AE, or anybody, would bury a body with the names of two different people all over it, or a name nothing to do with the mummy........
Posted Image

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 11 May 2013 - 07:50 PM.


#523    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,891 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:24 PM

DNA + Tomb context + Jewelry = Tut Mummy Real

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

#524    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,223 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • Question everything

Posted 12 May 2013 - 02:12 PM

View Postcladking, on 07 May 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Sandbags can not stand up to the abrasion of many millions of people walking up and down
on them.  You'd end up with a sand dune rather than a structure.

Orly?

http://www.outdoorph...g-bridge-2.html

Do I have to trot out the several hundred year old rammed earth structures again?

Did I ever mention 51 degrees is almost exactly the median angle of repose for rammed earth?

http://books.google.... earth"&f=false

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#525    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 12 May 2013 - 04:46 PM

Stephen Mehler's interpretation of the Denderra light bulb and the speculation regarding electrical power.

Interesting stuff:



Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users