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

#61    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,448 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:44 AM

Quote

Rain errosion marks on the sphinx, which make it way older, and the Vyse Forgery and the heading of this topic are three reasons i am questioning the mainstream assumptions about the Great Pyramid...there i have spelt it out for you my confused friend.
Back to the failed Vyse forgery claim. Oh brother.

Although geologists in general do not agree with Schoch I do appreciate his input into the issues. It's a clear demonstration that new ideas need to be put forth. New ideas might work out or they might not work out. It seems that Schoch interesting suggestion does not work out, but that does not mean that Schoch should not have suggested it in the first place. It makes people think and it makes people more aware of what is in front of their eyes.

The pyramids are stunning. They are mountains on the outskirts of Cairo. Unless you've climbed to the top as I have you might not understand how truly incredibly large these are. All I climbed was the smaller of the 3 and that's a big pile of rock. Standing at the top with arms stretched upwards towards a pristine night sky was suddenly broken by a spotlight from the sound and light show by the Sphinx. That certainly got the adrenaline pulsing through me.

I tip my hat to Schoch for being observant and bringing an interesting point of view out for discussion.


#62    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 20,927 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 04:28 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 April 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

If the great pyramid was actually built by the same AE, and if you plot a graph comparing it with other so called contemporary pyramids.... you would see a huge spike and then a steep slope downwards...doesn't fit in with gradual evolution theory. As it would need to be a gradual downfall as well, it is difficult to imagine that if the great Pyramids were built by Khufu and his sons, no other contemporary structure of similar scale and quality was built immediately before or after him and his son.
There is a reason that the Giza Pyramids are a Wonder of the Ancient World.... Because they were amazing.

Did the Greeks that built the Colossus of Rhodes go forth and build even bigger and more incredible colossi? Did the Chinese build even Greater Walls around China? Did the Babylonians build even bigger Hanging Gardens in even more cities? No.... They did not. So, that alone makes your assumptions invalid. To insist that the Egyptians MUST have kept working at the level they had achieved is truely naive and ignores human history regarding such moumental projects.

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

#63    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 25 April 2013 - 05:28 AM

View PostNefer-Ankhe, on 25 April 2013 - 12:44 AM, said:

I like the site that you posted Atentutankh-pasheri ^_^ ... I've just posted some key points (below), from the website, just in case Harsh and CladKing, failed to read it.



1) …concluded that the western enclosure wall was not eroded by rainfall per se, but rather rainfall run-off. Rainfall run-off would explain the extreme water erosion on the western side of the enclosure, and why the same characteristics could not be found either on the other enclosure walls, or on the Sphinx itself.


2) The Giza Plateau has an eastward sloping topography which causes a natural rainwater run-off into the west part of the Sphinx enclosure which would erode the limestone along the exposed western enclosure walls and selectively exploit any joints exposed along the cut face. This view is contrasted with Schoch’s initial assertions which stressed that direct rain was the cause of the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure, not rain run-off...

3) The Sphinx is made up of three different types of limestone, each with different strengths. The top and the bottom parts are much stronger than the middle part which makes up most of the body of the Sphinx, and is badly eroded by a number of factors.

4) In addition all parties now agree that salt exfoliation, or “chemical weathering” proposed by K. Lal Gauri also is playing, and has in the past played a major role in the erosion of the Sphinx.


And an additional quote from Colin Reader below...

“The rainy conditions of c. 5000±7000 BC, to which Schoch attributed the degradation of the Sphinx, will have been separated from these later arid conditions by a transitional phase, during which increasingly arid conditions will have been interrupted by occasional, probably seasonal rains. Flood damage to Menkaure’s valley temple (Reisner 1931) attests to the fact that, even during the late Old Kingdom, rainfall run-off was a significant agent of erosion at Giza.”


My apologies, as for my quoting system, is not working temporarily.


Reader, who agrees that the Sphinx predates Khafra but prefers a construction date within the Early Dynastic Period, points to the tombs dug into the enclosure walls during Dynasty XXVI (c. 600 BC), and notes that the entrances of the tombs have weathered so lightly that original chisel marks are still clearly visible. He points out that if the weathering on the enclosure walls (up to a metre deep in places) had been created by any of the proposed alternative causes of erosion, the tomb entrances would have been weathered much more severely.[26]

It is also agreed that wind erosion has played a significant role in eroding the Sphinx. Schoch states that wind erosion forms distinctive horizontal bands, whereas the water erosion features are clearly vertical.[21]



The Alternative explaination of rain water run off doesn't fit in as similar errosion pattern should be observed elsewhere.


R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, a French mystic[3][4] and amateur Egyptologist, first claimed evidence of water erosion on the walls of the Sphinx enclosure in the 1950s.[5] John Anthony West, an author and alternative Egyptologist, investigated Schwaller de Lubicz's ideas further and, in 1989, sought the opinion of Robert M. Schoch, a geologist and associate professor of natural science at the College of General Studies at Boston University.

From his investigation of the enclosure's geology, Schoch concluded the main type of weathering evident on the Sphinx enclosure walls was caused by prolonged and extensive rainfall.[1] According to Schoch, the area has experienced a mean annual rainfall of approximately one inch (2.5 cm) since the Old Kingdom (c. 26862134 BC), such that, since Egypt's last period of significant rainfall ended between the late fourth and early 3rd millennium BC,[6] the Sphinx's construction must date to the 6th millennium BC or 5th millennium BC.[7][8][9]


Schoch further notes the same heavy precipitation-induced weathering as seen on the walls of the Sphinx enclosure is also found on the core blocks of the Sphinx and Valley Temples, both known to have been originally constructed from blocks taken from the Sphinx enclosure when the body was carved [3]. Though the presence of extensive 4th Dynasty repair work to the Sphinx and associated temples is acknowledged by egypotologists like Lehner and Hawass among others, Schoch contends; " Therefore if the granite facing is covering deeply weathered limestone, the original limestone structures must predate by a considerable degree the granite facing. Obviously, if the limestone cores (originating from the Sphinx ditch) of the temples predate the granite ashlars (granite facings), and the granite ashlars are attributable to Khafre of the Fourth Dynasty, then the Great Sphinx was built prior to the reign of Khafre" [4].

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]



"Three independant geologist have acknowledged this feature"



#64    Nefer-Ankhe

Nefer-Ankhe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined:21 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Female

  • "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:15 AM

Getting Wikipedia to do your dirty work for you? ha.

All of which you have posted above ^^^^ has already been mentioned or disproven :mellow:

Quote

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).[

This is where the :face slap: emotive, would have came in handy. If you were to have read Atentutankh's site link, you would have known, all of which you have posted above ^^^ was already included in that site, therefore there was no point of you, in reiterating it.
I am not disagreeing with Colin Reader's conclusions whatsoever, however there is a big time gap, between Schoch's estimated age of the Sphinx in contrast to Reader's estimated age of the Sphinx and Readers conclusions are more substantiated than that of Schoch's.

Still NONE of which you have posted, proves or even hints to the conclusion (of yours) that the Pyramids were built by an entirely different group of people altogether.

"It is of course the height of irony that, after this intensive campaign to expunge them from the annals of Egypt, the Amarna pharaohs are today probably the most recognized of all the country's ancient rulers."

--- from Amarna Sunset, Aidan Dodson.

#65    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 25 April 2013 - 08:20 AM

View PostNefer-Ankhe, on 25 April 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

Getting Wikipedia to do your dirty work for you? ha.

All of which you have posted above ^^^^ has already been mentioned or disproven :mellow:



This is where the :face slap: emotive, would have came in handy. If you were to have read Atentutankh's site link, you would have known, all of which you have posted above ^^^ was already included in that site, therefore there was no point of you, in reiterating it.
I am not disagreeing with Colin Reader's conclusions whatsoever, however there is a big time gap, between Schoch's estimated age of the Sphinx in contrast to Reader's estimated age of the Sphinx and Readers conclusions are more substantiated than that of Schoch's.

Still NONE of which you have posted, proves or even hints to the conclusion (of yours) that the Pyramids were built by an entirely different group of people altogether.
All of the disproofs that have been given have also been disproven.
Even Hawass gave up when faced with the question, saying that the sphinx couldn't have been built by a more ancient people then the AE because he has not found evidence for such a people. The biggest evidence i.e the sphinx is forgotten about.


#66    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:43 AM

Quoting Schwaller de Lubicz as any source is not so good. I have actually read his huge two volume work "The Temple of Man", has anybody else here ? and I can say that while it is fascinating, it is not fully within reality :)

What we do not know is what Giza looked liked before any construction, we can only guess. We see that the Sphinx is in the middle of a quarry, this cannot be doubted by any rational person, though we do not know precisely what was there before any quarrying for the pyramids or creating the Sphinx. It is quite possible that there was a geological feature already existing that suggested to the AE that here is a good spot to construct the Sphinx. And who knows whether they had intended to create a giant Sphinx iresspective of the geology, or whether the existing geology suggested a Sphinx to them. The existing geology would have been subjected to erosion before any sphinx was built, so it is possible for there to be very ancient erosion there, but it pre dates the Sphinx, and may even have partly "constructed" it.


#67    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 25 April 2013 - 10:40 AM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 25 April 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Quoting Schwaller de Lubicz as any source is not so good. I have actually read his huge two volume work "The Temple of Man", has anybody else here ? and I can say that while it is fascinating, it is not fully within reality :)

What we do not know is what Giza looked liked before any construction, we can only guess. We see that the Sphinx is in the middle of a quarry, this cannot be doubted by any rational person, though we do not know precisely what was there before any quarrying for the pyramids or creating the Sphinx. It is quite possible that there was a geological feature already existing that suggested to the AE that here is a good spot to construct the Sphinx. And who knows whether they had intended to create a giant Sphinx iresspective of the geology, or whether the existing geology suggested a Sphinx to them. The existing geology would have been subjected to erosion before any sphinx was built, so it is possible for there to be very ancient erosion there, but it pre dates the Sphinx, and may even have partly "constructed" it.
Maybe the sphinx was an older leo monument whose face was recarved by a later pharoan.


#68    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:54 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 25 April 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Maybe the sphinx was an older leo monument whose face was recarved by a later pharoan.
Clearly the head of the Sphinx is too small for the body, much too small. It has been suggested often that the existing head was recarved to show the feautures of Khafra. It has been strongly argued by Robert and Olivia Temple in their book "The Sphinx Mystery", that the head of the Sphinx was originally that of Anubis. Indeed, when looking at the overlay of Anubis's head on the Sphinx it can be seen to be much more in proportion.
This is my scan of the cover of the book.
Posted Image

However, they contend that the Sphinx was not recarved to show the features of Khafra, but of Amenemhat II from dynasty 12. This has also been believed by others, notably Ludwig Borchardt. The evidence given is mostly about the eye make-up which they say was not evident in the fourth dynasty, though I cannot argue about that point as I am no expert. I do not agree that the Sphinx originally had the head of Anubis because I think, despite the Egyptians ability to construct the Sphinx and the pyramids behind it, to have made the head we see in the drawing may have been beyond them. There would be a huge unsupported weight at the muzzle and I am not sure they could have done this. But, who knows....Besides, can it be certain that there was enough rock to have carved such a large head from ? I am not certain there is, particulary as regards the hight of the ears, and the slope of the bedrock strongly argues against the possibility of such a large head. Also the body of the Sphinx is feline, not canine, the tail and paws seem nothing like a jackal to me. I would be prepared to believe the Sphinx's head had been recarved at a later time, but it was certainly originally constructed during the same time period as the pyramids behind it.

Edit to add that I never saw any jackal headed sphinx, plenty of sphinx with head of a man or a ram. If you do a google picture search for jackal headed sphinx, then it will show lots of pictures, but the only jackal headed sphinx it will show is the one I put in this post. Besides, the Sphinx is (probably) Horus, why would they put head of Anubis on it. The Egyptians certainly liked playing games with the heads of Gods and bodies of humans, or animals, or something from a nightmare, but there was some method in their madness I think :)

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 25 April 2013 - 12:11 PM.


#69    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 10,438 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:17 PM

The Egyptians were well acquainted with stone.

There is a layer of limestone in the neck of the sphinx that is soft.  This layer is to soft to support a larger head.

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
Anybody like Coleridge?

#70    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 25 April 2013 - 12:21 PM

View PostHarte, on 25 April 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

The Egyptians were well acquainted with stone.

There is a layer of limestone in the neck of the sphinx that is soft.  This layer is to soft to support a larger head.

Harte
Care to elaborate more.


#71    Nefer-Ankhe

Nefer-Ankhe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined:21 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Female

  • "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:44 PM

Agreed, that the head of the Sphinx is evidently too small, compared to it's overall body proportion and when confronted with the theory that perhaps the Sphinx's head had been altered later on, via documentary, I was one all for this conclusion. However, like Atentutankh mentioned above ^, I don't believe the head of the Sphinx, was originally that of a Jackal, though more than probably that of a lion, itself. Then altered to portray a fourth dynastic pharaoh, whilst the construction of the great pyramids were underway. My overall conclusion. <

"It is of course the height of irony that, after this intensive campaign to expunge them from the annals of Egypt, the Amarna pharaohs are today probably the most recognized of all the country's ancient rulers."

--- from Amarna Sunset, Aidan Dodson.

#72    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:49 PM

Just to elaborate on my own post 68. Sometimes I run sentences together rather to tightly and it can seem that I say something I do not. So, to be clear. I do not think for even one second that the Sphinx ever had a head of Anubis. And I certainly know that the rock we see on the Sphinx would not have supported such thousands of tonnes of muzzle poking out so far.


#73    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:55 PM

Many think the GP was very different from the other pyramids in Egypt.

One of their arguments is that there were no paintings, hieroglyphs or whatever in the GP.

My idea: maybe it was nothing but an UNfinished job?

The decorations and all that were to follow, but 'something' happened in between that prevented the workers to finish their job.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 25 April 2013 - 02:20 PM.


#74    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:38 PM

And that possibilty is something that has never entered my head before. An interesting "left field" thought. And something we will probably never know for certain. I sit here twiddly fingers waiting for timemachine to be invented, probably be a long time, but then it could appear at any moment, or have already appeared and I missed it. Time, confusing as life...


#75    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:59 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 25 April 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

And that possibilty is something that has never entered my head before. An interesting "left field" thought. And something we will probably never know for certain. I sit here twiddly fingers waiting for timemachine to be invented, probably be a long time, but then it could appear at any moment, or have already appeared and I missed it. Time, confusing as life...

No one even thought of that possibility, including me.

It's so simple that it can't be true, right?

It's much more interesting to think of some ancient very technological advanced people, than tho think of some stupid reason why there are no hieroglyphs or paintings inside the GP.

Occam's Razor is getting blunt.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users