According to Egyptologist's the Great Pyramid at Giza was created in just 23 year's. Personally, I find this idea/theory a bit ridiculous.
Here's why:
Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims
by Will Hart
Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.
The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.
Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.
Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.
The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.
I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.
This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.
Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).
2002 by Will Hart
Email: Cwillwrite1@hotmail.com
Full Version: The Giza Pyramids
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 19 2007, 06:47 PM) [snapback]1683368[/snapback]
According to Egyptologist's the Great Pyramid at Giza was created in just 23 year's. Personally, I find this idea/theory a bit ridiculous.
Here's why:
Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims
by Will Hart
Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.
The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.
Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.
Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.
The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.
I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.
This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.
Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).
2002 by Will Hart
Email: Cwillwrite1@hotmail.com
Here's why:
Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims
by Will Hart
Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.
The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.
Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.
Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.
The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.
I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.
This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.
Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).
2002 by Will Hart
Email: Cwillwrite1@hotmail.com
Hey if we can get an answer to that I contribute and make it two free lunches!
I've never seen the problem as there being excessive difficulty in quarrying,
placing or moving the stone over flat surfaces. Certainly all of these activities
would present a huge task to ancients but given sufficient manpower and time
they would seem to be doable.
My problem with the traditional explanations is the seeming impossibility of
bringing sufficient manpower to bear in lifting the stones into a pile. This would
be a huge task for each and every stone using primitive technology and it could
not be overcome by simply throwing more men at the job because there would
not be room to work.
Why are the earliest reports that they used great machines and that stones
were moved toward the pyramids a bowshot (300') at a time simply ignored?
placing or moving the stone over flat surfaces. Certainly all of these activities
would present a huge task to ancients but given sufficient manpower and time
they would seem to be doable.
My problem with the traditional explanations is the seeming impossibility of
bringing sufficient manpower to bear in lifting the stones into a pile. This would
be a huge task for each and every stone using primitive technology and it could
not be overcome by simply throwing more men at the job because there would
not be room to work.
Why are the earliest reports that they used great machines and that stones
were moved toward the pyramids a bowshot (300') at a time simply ignored?
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 19 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]1683529[/snapback]
Hey if we can get an answer to that I contribute and make it two free lunches!
LOL I'm guessing sum of the egyptologists are playing dumb on the matter so they wont lose there job.
QUOTE(cladking @ May 19 2007, 09:27 PM) [snapback]1683554[/snapback]
I've never seen the problem as there being excessive difficulty in quarrying,
placing or moving the stone over flat surfaces. Certainly all of these activities
would present a huge task to ancients but given sufficient manpower and time
they would seem to be doable.
My problem with the traditional explanations is the seeming impossibility of
bringing sufficient manpower to bear in lifting the stones into a pile. This would
be a huge task for each and every stone using primitive technology and it could
not be overcome by simply throwing more men at the job because there would
not be room to work.
Why are the earliest reports that they used great machines and that stones
were moved toward the pyramids a bowshot (300') at a time simply ignored?
placing or moving the stone over flat surfaces. Certainly all of these activities
would present a huge task to ancients but given sufficient manpower and time
they would seem to be doable.
My problem with the traditional explanations is the seeming impossibility of
bringing sufficient manpower to bear in lifting the stones into a pile. This would
be a huge task for each and every stone using primitive technology and it could
not be overcome by simply throwing more men at the job because there would
not be room to work.
Why are the earliest reports that they used great machines and that stones
were moved toward the pyramids a bowshot (300') at a time simply ignored?
Where did you here they used machines? For the record, the egyptologists claim they used nothing but primitive tool's and methods. In fact, they didn't even have the ol horse and cart at the time the egyptologist's claim it--the great pyramid--was built.
It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.
QUOTE
Where did you here they used machines? For the record, the egyptologists claim they used nothing but primitive tool's and methods. In fact, they didn't even have the ol horse and cart at the time the egyptologist's claim it--the great pyramid--was built.
It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.
It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.
Manetho wrote that stones moved to the pyramid 300' at a time per Vyse.
Herototus was told that the ancients used "great machines" and "conducted a canal thither".
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 19 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]1683665[/snapback]
It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.
That is a fact the Pyramids were there long before Khufu was born.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 19 2007, 11:51 PM) [snapback]1683665[/snapback]
Where did you here they used machines? For the record, the egyptologists claim they used nothing but primitive tool's and methods. In fact, they didn't even have the ol horse and cart at the time the egyptologist's claim it--the great pyramid--was built.
It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.
It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.
For the record egyptologists must be as thick as two short planks in claiming they used nothing but primative tools (let's see one of these tools Mr Egiptologist) for there must have been millions.
This is interesting, http://www.materials.drexel.edu/Pyramids/ this theory looks good in parts, cement may be the answer ?
You think it was so hard for them to build this in 23 years..But you have not figured in one very important thing....How many people did they have working on it....They where built cause of a very simple thing.. It's called man power and if you have enough of it you can move mountain's.......
The most common theory for moving large blocks is to slide logs under the large stones to make mobility easier. The block would have been attached to large ropes with people pushing the block forward. At the same time several men would remove the last log uncovered by the stone. The end log that was removed would then be transported to the front where it would complete the cycle under the stone and the endless cycle would be repeated.
Moving the block was one thing but placing it into position was another. This idea has also left scientist baffled. The most common theory for placement of each stone is said to have a ramp that went around the pyramids sides. Some have concluded that the ramp only touched one side of the pyramid. This might have been true, but the ramp might have had more material then the pyramid did and this would have made placement of each block difficult.
Herodotus was a Greek historian who traveled to Egypt around 450 B.C. and wrote that the Egyptians had some sort of gear that was used in lifting these large blocks. Although this might sound extraordinary, scientists have found no proof of any such lifting devices.
Its estimated that the Great Pyramid took almost twenty years to complete due to its size and the type of stone used in creating the structure. Each stone weighed about two to five tons and came from Aswan and Tura. Not only was the stone imported but also stonemasons would have worked all year long cutting and shaping each block. All these complicated tasks made the pyramid difficult to construct but as we know today, the end results are amazing.
You have to really ask yourself with alot of man power even in the thousands, HOW?
I mean the fact that each stone weighing in at 2 to 5 tons had to be taken from a location and masoned which took a year or two and then moved and fixed into place.
Even if you had 20,000 men with rudimentary tools 20 years is an astounding feat.
Moving the block was one thing but placing it into position was another. This idea has also left scientist baffled. The most common theory for placement of each stone is said to have a ramp that went around the pyramids sides. Some have concluded that the ramp only touched one side of the pyramid. This might have been true, but the ramp might have had more material then the pyramid did and this would have made placement of each block difficult.
Herodotus was a Greek historian who traveled to Egypt around 450 B.C. and wrote that the Egyptians had some sort of gear that was used in lifting these large blocks. Although this might sound extraordinary, scientists have found no proof of any such lifting devices.
Its estimated that the Great Pyramid took almost twenty years to complete due to its size and the type of stone used in creating the structure. Each stone weighed about two to five tons and came from Aswan and Tura. Not only was the stone imported but also stonemasons would have worked all year long cutting and shaping each block. All these complicated tasks made the pyramid difficult to construct but as we know today, the end results are amazing.
You have to really ask yourself with alot of man power even in the thousands, HOW?
I mean the fact that each stone weighing in at 2 to 5 tons had to be taken from a location and masoned which took a year or two and then moved and fixed into place.
Even if you had 20,000 men with rudimentary tools 20 years is an astounding feat.
But they had more then 20 thousand men working, You have to understand they where building a house for their living God.....And greater thing's have been done in the name of a God....It's not really that hard when you have a whole country working for a single God....
QUOTE(isis-999 @ May 20 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]1684569[/snapback]
But they had more then 20 thousand men working, You have to understand they where building a house for their living God.....And greater thing's have been done in the name of a God....It's not really that hard when you have a whole country working for a single God....
Yeah, I suppose any great feat in building such a thing can be accomplished in large numbers and team work!
But you also have to take into concideration of the death toll, and injuries on a daily bases that had to be in the hundreds alone!
Working from sunrise to sunset, and probably malnutritioned! That had to be a bit like torture to alot of them.
But in any case we may never find the truth in how they built the pyrimids, all we can do is speculate.
QUOTE(isis-999 @ May 20 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]1684569[/snapback]
But they had more then 20 thousand men working, You have to understand they where building a house for their living God.....And greater thing's have been done in the name of a God....It's not really that hard when you have a whole country working for a single God....
In all of the Pyramids in Egypt there has not been one Mummy entombed within the so-called burial chambers of these structures. The majority of entombments have taken place away from the Pyramids in the Valley of the Kings. Does it seem logical the Great Pyramid, such a grand edifice, was created as a final resting place to satisfy someones colossal ego? At the time it was first discovered the mankind was still very superstitious and to understand the mentality of the time when imagination and knowledge were not as advanced as it is today. Imaginations of the times were incapable of advanced thinking such as demonstrated by Piazzi Smyth who was ridiculed for his radical theories regarding the time aspects of the Pyramid. The idea the Great Pyramid having a correlation to time was laughable to mainstream Archeologist of the time so by arbitration they contrived the idea of a burial chamber. Piazza Smyths idea of the Great Pyramids correlation to time was correct, but the contexts of his findings were erroneous.
Isnt it time we dropped the absurd age-old concept of the Great Pyramid as a 4,500-year-old mausoleum. The mausoleum nonsense is a hold over idea from more superstitious times grasped and held on to by Archeology for far too long. How egotistical does one man have to be to build such and edifice as a monument to himself? Someday you will come to realize as I did the idea of a burial chamber is more a concept of superstitious western man.
Everyone is always constrained by the laws of nature and we will never
understand these laws. As we learn more we are able to create increasing-
ly complex machines, but we and our machines remain always bound by these
laws whether we know them or not. This applies to ancients no matter how
fanatic they may or may not have been. They could not build these by mere
wishing. They could not build them without a means to deliver stones at a very
high rate to a very high altitude. How they did it is unknown but we do know
that this feat was not accomplished by mere brute force because mindless brute
force can not be brought to bear in a small area.
Many people and mainstream egyptology believe that by understanding the
people that you can understand the pyramids, but these connections seem
highly tenuous to those of us analysing the situation on the evidence alone.
This isn't to say that mainstream egyptology is wrong just that most of what
they claim flies in the face of all the known facts except those relating to the
builders themselves.
We are left with a situation where there is no first hand information and even
third hand is quite scarce. The known tools are few. Some of the physical in-
formation is suspect. But most importantly nothing fits.
The way to find a fit is scientific investigation but instead only those who agree
with the mainstream view are allowed on site.
understand these laws. As we learn more we are able to create increasing-
ly complex machines, but we and our machines remain always bound by these
laws whether we know them or not. This applies to ancients no matter how
fanatic they may or may not have been. They could not build these by mere
wishing. They could not build them without a means to deliver stones at a very
high rate to a very high altitude. How they did it is unknown but we do know
that this feat was not accomplished by mere brute force because mindless brute
force can not be brought to bear in a small area.
Many people and mainstream egyptology believe that by understanding the
people that you can understand the pyramids, but these connections seem
highly tenuous to those of us analysing the situation on the evidence alone.
This isn't to say that mainstream egyptology is wrong just that most of what
they claim flies in the face of all the known facts except those relating to the
builders themselves.
We are left with a situation where there is no first hand information and even
third hand is quite scarce. The known tools are few. Some of the physical in-
formation is suspect. But most importantly nothing fits.
The way to find a fit is scientific investigation but instead only those who agree
with the mainstream view are allowed on site.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 19 2007, 05:51 PM) [snapback]1683665[/snapback]
It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.
No, he didn't.
Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.
Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.
QUOTE(Dragonwick @ May 20 2007, 09:21 AM) [snapback]1684563[/snapback]
Its estimated that the Great Pyramid took almost twenty years to complete due to its size and the type of stone used in creating the structure. Each stone weighed about two to five tons and came from Aswan and Tura. Not only was the stone imported but also stonemasons would have worked all year long cutting and shaping each block. All these complicated tasks made the pyramid difficult to construct but as we know today, the end results are amazing.
Well, at least you got the average size right. BTW, that 2.5 tons is about 7 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet. Not exactly monolithic.
The stones came from the Giza Plateau itself - the limestone ones, that is, which is the vast majority. Quarrying occured a few hundreds of yards away from the Great Pyramid.
Harte
[quote name='Harte' date='May 21 2007, 05:31 PM' post='1686530']
No, he didn't.
Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.
Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.
If you do more objective research you will find that he in fact did. There is also a reference to this in this webpage:
http://tinyurl.com/2sz2pn
No, he didn't.
Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.
Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.
If you do more objective research you will find that he in fact did. There is also a reference to this in this webpage:
http://tinyurl.com/2sz2pn
QUOTE(Harte @ May 21 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]1686530[/snapback]
No, he didn't.
Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.
Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.
Well, at least you got the average size right. BTW, that 2.5 tons is about 7 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet. Not exactly monolithic.
The stones came from the Giza Plateau itself - the limestone ones, that is, which is the vast majority. Quarrying occured a few hundreds of yards away from the Great Pyramid.
Harte
Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.
Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.
Well, at least you got the average size right. BTW, that 2.5 tons is about 7 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet. Not exactly monolithic.
The stones came from the Giza Plateau itself - the limestone ones, that is, which is the vast majority. Quarrying occured a few hundreds of yards away from the Great Pyramid.
Harte
What about the 50-70 ton stones set 280 feet from grade? Quarried some 30 miles away and transported to the site. The Kings Chamber is Granite and not of local origin.
From Wikipedia.
In contrast, the Inventory Stela of the 26th dynasty (664-525 BC), found by Auguste Mariette on the Giza plateau in 1857, describes how Khufu (the father of Khafra, the alleged builder) discovered the damaged monument buried in sand, and attempted to excavate and repair the dilapidated Sphinx. Because of the late dynasty origin of the document and reference to Khufu as the builder and not the accepted Khafra, this particular section of Inventory Stela is often dismissed by Egyptologists as late dynasty historical revisionism.[5]
What about the 50-70 ton stones set 280 feet from grade? Quarried some 30 miles away and transported to the site.
The site verification is not for us! The site verification is for you to confirm what we already know.
Hello Folks,
sorry for my english...
there is a new theory on how the pyramids were erected: A ramp within the pyramid was constantly build (so forming an inclined tunnel) while the pyramid gained height, it was located alongside the surfaces and winding up like a spiral. An outside ramp winding up would have caused trouble to get a smooth, symmetrical pyramid form in the end, so to speak to determine the right position of the edges. The volume of a single side ramp would have been larger than the volume of the pyramid itself, and thus uneconomical.
How to Build a Pyramid Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007
by Bob Brier
Hidden ramps may solve the mystery of the Great Pyramid's construction.
Of the seven wonders of the ancient world, only the Great Pyramid of Giza remains. An estimated 2 million stone blocks weighing an average of 2.5 tons went into its construction. When completed, the 481-foot-tall pyramid was the world's tallest structure, a record it held for more than 3,800 years, when England's Lincoln Cathedral surpassed it by a mere 44 feet.
We know who built the Great Pyramid: the pharaoh Khufu, who ruled Egypt about 2547-2524 B.C. And we know who supervised its construction: Khufu's brother, Hemienu. The pharaoh's right-hand man, Hemienu was "overseer of all construction projects of the king" and his tomb is one of the largest in a cemetery adjacent to the pyramid.
What we don't know is exactly how it was built, a question that has been debated for millennia. The earliest recorded theory was put forward by the Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt around 450 B.C., when the pyramid was already 2,000 years old. He mentions "machines" used to raise the blocks and this is usually taken to mean cranes. Three hundred years later, Diodorus of Sicily wrote, "The construction was effected by mounds" (ramps). Today we have the "space alien" theory--those primitive Egyptians never could have built such a fabulous structure by themselves; extraterrestrials must have helped them.
Modern scholars have favored these two original theories, but deep in their hearts, they know that neither one is correct. A radical new one, however, may provide the solution. If correct, it would demonstrate a level of planning by Egyptian architects and engineers far greater than anything ever imagined before. ...
Source: http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html
sorry for my english...
there is a new theory on how the pyramids were erected: A ramp within the pyramid was constantly build (so forming an inclined tunnel) while the pyramid gained height, it was located alongside the surfaces and winding up like a spiral. An outside ramp winding up would have caused trouble to get a smooth, symmetrical pyramid form in the end, so to speak to determine the right position of the edges. The volume of a single side ramp would have been larger than the volume of the pyramid itself, and thus uneconomical.
How to Build a Pyramid Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007
by Bob Brier
Hidden ramps may solve the mystery of the Great Pyramid's construction.
Of the seven wonders of the ancient world, only the Great Pyramid of Giza remains. An estimated 2 million stone blocks weighing an average of 2.5 tons went into its construction. When completed, the 481-foot-tall pyramid was the world's tallest structure, a record it held for more than 3,800 years, when England's Lincoln Cathedral surpassed it by a mere 44 feet.
We know who built the Great Pyramid: the pharaoh Khufu, who ruled Egypt about 2547-2524 B.C. And we know who supervised its construction: Khufu's brother, Hemienu. The pharaoh's right-hand man, Hemienu was "overseer of all construction projects of the king" and his tomb is one of the largest in a cemetery adjacent to the pyramid.
What we don't know is exactly how it was built, a question that has been debated for millennia. The earliest recorded theory was put forward by the Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt around 450 B.C., when the pyramid was already 2,000 years old. He mentions "machines" used to raise the blocks and this is usually taken to mean cranes. Three hundred years later, Diodorus of Sicily wrote, "The construction was effected by mounds" (ramps). Today we have the "space alien" theory--those primitive Egyptians never could have built such a fabulous structure by themselves; extraterrestrials must have helped them.
Modern scholars have favored these two original theories, but deep in their hearts, they know that neither one is correct. A radical new one, however, may provide the solution. If correct, it would demonstrate a level of planning by Egyptian architects and engineers far greater than anything ever imagined before. ...
Source: http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html
QUOTE(isis-999 @ May 20 2007, 07:08 AM) [snapback]1684554[/snapback]
You think it was so hard for them to build this in 23 years..But you have not figured in one very important thing....How many people did they have working on it....They where built cause of a very simple thing.. It's called man power and if you have enough of it you can move mountain's.......
then why cant we replicate it?
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 21 2007, 08:14 PM) [snapback]1687307[/snapback]
What about the 50-70 ton stones set 280 feet from grade? Quarried some 30 miles away and transported to the site. The Kings Chamber is Granite and not of local origin.
Good point. However, an earlier post stated that the stones that made up the pyramid were not quarried locally. I'm just saying that the vast, vast majority of them were quarried almost right next to the pyramid complex.
The granite you refer to is, as I recall, from Aswan. Brought by river boat.
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 21 2007, 08:14 PM) [snapback]1687307[/snapback]
From Wikipedia.
In contrast, the “Inventory Stela” of the 26th dynasty (664-525 BC), found by Auguste Mariette on the Giza plateau in 1857, describes how Khufu (the father of Khafra, the alleged builder) discovered the damaged monument buried in sand, and attempted to excavate and repair the dilapidated Sphinx. Because of the late dynasty origin of the document and reference to Khufu as the builder and not the accepted Khafra, this particular section of Inventory Stela is often dismissed by Egyptologists as late dynasty historical revisionism.[5]
In contrast, the “Inventory Stela” of the 26th dynasty (664-525 BC), found by Auguste Mariette on the Giza plateau in 1857, describes how Khufu (the father of Khafra, the alleged builder) discovered the damaged monument buried in sand, and attempted to excavate and repair the dilapidated Sphinx. Because of the late dynasty origin of the document and reference to Khufu as the builder and not the accepted Khafra, this particular section of Inventory Stela is often dismissed by Egyptologists as late dynasty historical revisionism.[5]
I assume you include this because of my insistence that Khufu never wrote on a stela that the pyramids were there before he was?
If that is the case, note that Khufu in this stela is talking about the Sphinx and not the pyramid, which was the subject I was commenting on.
If that is not the case, then I must assume you had a reason to include this quote from wiki, but I cannot fathom what that purpose might be.
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 21 2007, 08:14 PM) [snapback]1687307[/snapback]
The site verification is not for us! The site verification is for you to confirm what we already know.
Not clear on this either. Do you mean that it is not up to the people that are making ignorant claims to provide some evidence for what they are saying, but that it is up to the people that know better to provide evidence to the contrary?
Well, no thanks. I think I'll just adopt your attitude:
I have proof that you are completely wrong in every, single tiny thing you say about the Ancient world. In fact, anything you say in the future will be wrong as well. Not only are you wrong, you are attempting to mislead people here (and elsewhere) in a nefarious plot to take money from the uneducated and keep it for your greedy self. I've seen plenty of evidence that proves what I say about you to be true.
But, as you say, "The site verification is for you to confirm what (I) already know!!!"
Harte
QUOTE(TheManWithoutQualities @ May 22 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]1688379[/snapback]
Hello Folks,
sorry for my english...
there is a new theory on how the pyramids were erected: A ramp within the pyramid was constantly build (so forming an inclined tunnel) while the pyramid gained height, it was located alongside the surfaces and winding up like a spiral. An outside ramp winding up would have caused trouble to get a smooth, symmetrical pyramid form in the end, so to speak to determine the right position of the edges. The volume of a single side ramp would have been larger than the volume of the pyramid itself, and thus uneconomical.
How to Build a Pyramid Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007
by Bob Brier
sorry for my english...
there is a new theory on how the pyramids were erected: A ramp within the pyramid was constantly build (so forming an inclined tunnel) while the pyramid gained height, it was located alongside the surfaces and winding up like a spiral. An outside ramp winding up would have caused trouble to get a smooth, symmetrical pyramid form in the end, so to speak to determine the right position of the edges. The volume of a single side ramp would have been larger than the volume of the pyramid itself, and thus uneconomical.
How to Build a Pyramid Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007
by Bob Brier
Your English is good.
My problem with any sort of internal ramp is that no matter how they
are constructed you end up with a huge empty volume to fill when they
are no longer needed. No matter how they are designed you either have
to fill in on the top first which is like building a house starting with the roof
or you start filling in on th bottom and still have a large amount of stone to
lift up the side of the pyramid.
Also no matter where you put the ramps they still need to be about a mile
long and there would be a huge traffic jam on them trying to deliver stone
at a rate of about one every five minutes.
QUOTE(Harte @ May 22 2007, 06:46 PM) [snapback]1688455[/snapback]
Good point. However, an earlier post stated that the stones that made up the pyramid were not quarried locally. I'm just saying that the vast, vast majority of them were quarried almost right next to the pyramid complex.
The granite you refer to is, as I recall, from Aswan. Brought by river boat.
I assume you include this because of my insistence that Khufu never wrote on a stela that the pyramids were there before he was?
If that is the case, note that Khufu in this stela is talking about the Sphinx and not the pyramid, which was the subject I was commenting on.
If that is not the case, then I must assume you had a reason to include this quote from wiki, but I cannot fathom what that purpose might be.
Not clear on this either. Do you mean that it is not up to the people that are making ignorant claims to provide some evidence for what they are saying, but that it is up to the people that know better to provide evidence to the contrary?
Well, no thanks. I think I'll just adopt [your attitude:
I have proof that you are completely wrong in every, single tiny thing you say about the Ancient world. In fact, anything you say in the future will be wrong as well. Not only are you wrong, you are attempting to mislead people here (and elsewhere) in a nefarious plot to take money from the uneducated and keep it for your greedy self. I've seen plenty of evidence that proves what I say about you to be true.
But, as you say, "The site verification is for you to confirm what (I) already know!!!"
Harte
The granite you refer to is, as I recall, from Aswan. Brought by river boat.
I assume you include this because of my insistence that Khufu never wrote on a stela that the pyramids were there before he was?
If that is the case, note that Khufu in this stela is talking about the Sphinx and not the pyramid, which was the subject I was commenting on.
If that is not the case, then I must assume you had a reason to include this quote from wiki, but I cannot fathom what that purpose might be.
Not clear on this either. Do you mean that it is not up to the people that are making ignorant claims to provide some evidence for what they are saying, but that it is up to the people that know better to provide evidence to the contrary?
Well, no thanks. I think I'll just adopt [your attitude:
I have proof that you are completely wrong in every, single tiny thing you say about the Ancient world. In fact, anything you say in the future will be wrong as well. Not only are you wrong, you are attempting to mislead people here (and elsewhere) in a nefarious plot to take money from the uneducated and keep it for your greedy self. I've seen plenty of evidence that proves what I say about you to be true.
But, as you say, "The site verification is for you to confirm what (I) already know!!!"
Harte
Share your proof because some of the best kown Archeologist and metrologist in the world say I am right.
Did you bother to check out the web sites I listed
Since you didn't get the message I will say it in Plain English, If you don't know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut, and quit acting like an moron.
QUOTE(dmurdock36 @ May 22 2007, 06:15 PM) [snapback]1688397[/snapback]
then why cant we replicate it?
Exactly!
Here's an excerpt from the article I posted which some here have obviously not contemplated:
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They couldn't even get past the first step successfully. And this was a one-third scale attempt! LOL
The same then happened with the NOVA team who also failed miserably.
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 22 2007, 07:09 PM) [snapback]1688496[/snapback]
Share your proof because some of the best kown Archeologist and metrologist in the world say I am right.
Did you bother to check out the web sites I listed
Since you didn't get the message I will say it in Plain English, If you don't know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut, and quit acting like an moron.
Did you bother to check out the web sites I listed
Since you didn't get the message I will say it in Plain English, If you don't know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut, and quit acting like an moron.
There's also the little know--even to this day--incident in which Vyse and his cronies were busted as fraud's.
Here's some light on this matter:
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Scratch Khufu
Date: 3 Aug 1993 04:29:43 GMT
Here's some info about the (not) building of the Pyramid by Khufu... taken
from Sitchin, "The Wars of Gods and Men", p. 136:
"The current theories regarding the pyramids' builders are anchored to an even
greater extent on the discovery of the name Khufu inscribed in hieroglyphics
within a long-sealed compartment within the Great Pyramid and thus apparently
establishing the identity of its builder. Unnoticed has gone the fact that the
discoverer of that inscription was the same Colonel Vyse and his assistants
(the year was 1837). [The preceding paragraph deals with the faking of a mummy
by Vyse] In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have put together substantial evidence
to show that the inscription was a forgery, perpetrated by its "discoverers."
At the end of 1983, a reader of that book came forward to provide us with
family records showing that his great-grandfather, a master mason named
Humphries Brewer, who was engaged by Vyse to help use gunpowder to blast his
way inside the pyramid, was an *eyewitness to the forgery* and, having objected
to the deed, was expelled from the site and forced to leave Egypt altogether!
In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have shown that Khufu could not have
been the builder of the Great Pyramid because he had already referred to it as
existing in his time in a stela he had erected near the pyramids; even the
Sphinx, supposedly erected by the next-after successor of Khufu, is mentioned
in that inscription."
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 22 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]1688496[/snapback]
Share your proof because some of the best kown Archeologist and metrologist in the world say I am right.
Not a single, solitary one of these says this.
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 22 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]1688496[/snapback]
Did you bother to check out the web sites I listed
I don't need to go read the various metric and English dimensions of the Great Pyramid. Why would I?
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 22 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]1688496[/snapback]
Since you didn't get the message I will say it in Plain English, If you don't know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut, and quit acting like an moron.
That is rich, considering I was admittedly acting like you.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 22 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]1688777[/snapback]
There's also the little know--even to this day--incident in which Vyse and his cronies were busted as fraud's.
Here's some info about the (not) building of the Pyramid by Khufu... taken
from Sitchin, "The Wars of Gods and Men", p. 136:
"The current theories regarding the pyramids' builders are anchored to an even
greater extent on the discovery of the name Khufu inscribed in hieroglyphics
within a long-sealed compartment within the Great Pyramid and thus apparently
establishing the identity of its builder. Unnoticed has gone the fact that the
discoverer of that inscription was the same Colonel Vyse and his assistants
(the year was 1837). [The preceding paragraph deals with the faking of a mummy
by Vyse] In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have put together substantial evidence
to show that the inscription was a forgery, perpetrated by its "discoverers."
At the end of 1983, a reader of that book came forward to provide us with
family records showing that his great-grandfather, a master mason named
Humphries Brewer, who was engaged by Vyse to help use gunpowder to blast his
way inside the pyramid, was an *eyewitness to the forgery* and, having objected
to the deed, was expelled from the site and forced to leave Egypt altogether!
Here's some info about the (not) building of the Pyramid by Khufu... taken
from Sitchin, "The Wars of Gods and Men", p. 136:
"The current theories regarding the pyramids' builders are anchored to an even
greater extent on the discovery of the name Khufu inscribed in hieroglyphics
within a long-sealed compartment within the Great Pyramid and thus apparently
establishing the identity of its builder. Unnoticed has gone the fact that the
discoverer of that inscription was the same Colonel Vyse and his assistants
(the year was 1837). [The preceding paragraph deals with the faking of a mummy
by Vyse] In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have put together substantial evidence
to show that the inscription was a forgery, perpetrated by its "discoverers."
At the end of 1983, a reader of that book came forward to provide us with
family records showing that his great-grandfather, a master mason named
Humphries Brewer, who was engaged by Vyse to help use gunpowder to blast his
way inside the pyramid, was an *eyewitness to the forgery* and, having objected
to the deed, was expelled from the site and forced to leave Egypt altogether!
Marduk52,
Sitchen is not a good source. He's a economics historian that started making up lies about ancient civilizations, claiming to be able to translate cuneiform and truthfully unable to even correctly translate the Hebrew he was taught at Temple before his Bar Mitzvah.
The "Vyse forgery" he dredged up here was long ago discovered not to be forged at all. The graffitti Vyse found was written using a form and grammar that, during Vyse's time, was unknown. It was immediately suspected to be forged at the time.
Decades later, new discoveries turned up showing that the grammar and structure of the hieroglyphic graffitti found by Vyse was not only legitimate, but that the particular style dated to approximately the period to which the construction of the Great Pyramid is attributed.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 22 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]1688777[/snapback]
In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have shown that Khufu could not have
been the builder of the Great Pyramid because he had already referred to it as
existing in his time in a stela he had erected near the pyramids; even the
Sphinx, supposedly erected by the next-after successor of Khufu, is mentioned
in that inscription."
been the builder of the Great Pyramid because he had already referred to it as
existing in his time in a stela he had erected near the pyramids; even the
Sphinx, supposedly erected by the next-after successor of Khufu, is mentioned
in that inscription."
It is still possible that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid. But the stela you refer to (the "Inventory" Stela,) which was wrtitten in the 26th Dynastic period and not by Khufu nor during his reign (the 4th Dynasty,) says the following:
QUOTE
from Jordan, Riddles of the Sphinx, p. 94:
Long live...the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life...He found the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran [the Sphinx]...and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King's daughter Henutsen beside this temple. The place of Hwran Horemkhet is on the south side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid.... He restored the statue, all covered in painting, of the Guardian of the Atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze. He replaced the back part of the nemes head-dress which was missing with gilded stone.... The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face always to the east.
Long live...the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life...He found the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran [the Sphinx]...and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King's daughter Henutsen beside this temple. The place of Hwran Horemkhet is on the south side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid.... He restored the statue, all covered in painting, of the Guardian of the Atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze. He replaced the back part of the nemes head-dress which was missing with gilded stone.... The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face always to the east.
If you reread Sitchen, you'll see that he's playing fast and loose with this stela, leaving out any part that might tend to contradict his moronic drivel. That is typical of how this person operates.
Harte
QUOTE(Dragonwick @ May 20 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]1684586[/snapback]
Yeah, I suppose any great feat in building such a thing can be accomplished in large numbers and team work!
But you also have to take into concideration of the death toll, and injuries on a daily bases that had to be in the hundreds alone!
Working from sunrise to sunset, and probably malnutritioned! That had to be a bit like torture to alot of them.
But in any case we may never find the truth in how they built the pyrimids, all we can do is speculate.
But you also have to take into concideration of the death toll, and injuries on a daily bases that had to be in the hundreds alone!
Working from sunrise to sunset, and probably malnutritioned! That had to be a bit like torture to alot of them.
But in any case we may never find the truth in how they built the pyrimids, all we can do is speculate.
They didn't work from sun up to sun down they have found proof of how they judge time...They worked in 8 hour shift's just like most of us do now.....And they didn't really lose that many people day, It's Egypt not China and the Great Wall....
Marduk52,
Sitchen is not a good source. He's a economics historian that started making up lies about ancient civilizations,
-----------------------------------
Actually, there is absolutely zero hard evidence that Sitchin is a liar. Some people have assumed him to be a liar due to there ignorance of ancient history. Other's have simply defamed him.
claiming to be able to translate cuneiform and truthfully unable to even correctly translate the Hebrew he was taught at Temple before his Bar Mitzvah.
--------------------------------------
He can not only read Sumerian, but also Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian. This is a fact and there is zero evidence to the contrary. You most likely have seen the selection of slander and dis-information which some people have planted all over the internet about Sitchin and other's with alternative interpretation's of ancient history.. These are generally people who haven't even read one of his book's and haven't a clue what they are talking about.
The "Vyse forgery" he dredged up here was long ago discovered not to be forged at all. The graffitti Vyse found was written using a form and grammar that, during Vyse's time, was unknown. It was immediately suspected to be forged at the time.
Decades later, new discoveries turned up showing that the grammar and structure of the hieroglyphic graffitti found by Vyse was not only legitimate, but that the particular style dated to approximately the period to which the construction of the Great Pyramid is attributed.
------------------------------------------------
Not only was it a forgery, but Vyse even got the spelling all wrong to the point of blasphemy. He and his assistant's were also found guilty of planting a coffin dated several centuries after Menkara's death with bones found from testing to be from the Christian era. Yes it was Vyse and his cronies who planted the coffin and bones in the "Menkara" pyramid at the Giza complex.....doesn't say much about the credibility of the man who claimed to have found Khufu's signature on the great pyramid, IMO.
It is still possible that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid. But the stela you refer to (the "Inventory" Stela,) which was wrtitten in the 26th Dynastic period and not by Khufu nor during his reign (the 4th Dynasty,) says the following:
If you reread Sitchen, you'll see that he's playing fast and loose with this stela, leaving out any part that might tend to contradict his moronic drivel. That is typical of how this person operates.
----------------------------------------------
I realize that some archeologist's claim the Inventory Stele is a fraud, but there are several other credible sources besides Sitchin who claim otherwise.
Sometimes people cant accept the truth--perhap's due to selfish agendas--or simply cant except the idea that the history book's are wrong so they then bury there head in the sand. Sitchin is not one of those people, IMO.
Everyone to his/her own opinion.
Here's a link with the evidence that Vyse was an embarrasing fraud:
http://www.umf.net/umf/data/text/PYRAMID4.TXT
QUOTE
Actually, there is absolutely zero hard evidence that Sitchin is a liar. Some people have assumed him to be a liar due to there ignorance of ancient history. Other's have simply defamed him.
I'm not ignorant of ancient history and I think that his theories are complete rubbish.
QUOTE
He can not only read Sumerian, but also Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian. This is a fact and there is zero evidence to the contrary. You most likely have seen the selection of slander and dis-information which some people have planted all over the internet about Sitchin and other's with alternative interpretation's of ancient history.. These are generally people who haven't even read one of his book's and haven't a clue what they are talking about.
I am learning to read cuneiform. Its very difficult. That said the texts that he refers to are online and I have read these. They do not support his theory.
QUOTE
realize that some archeologist's claim the Inventory Stele is a fraud, but there are several other credible sources besides Sitchin who claim otherwise.
Who are your other credible sources?
QUOTE
Sometimes people cant accept the truth--perhap's due to selfish agendas--or simply cant except the idea that the history book's are wrong so they then bury there head in the sand. Sitchin is not one of those people, IMO.
The first thing you learn at university is not to accept anything you read without questioning it. I don't have any agenda at all. I read Sitchen, checked it out for myself and decided he was wrong.
I'm with Harte 100% on this
[quote name='Themis' date='May 23 2007, 07:43 PM' post='1690667']
I'm not ignorant of ancient history and I think that his theories are complete rubbish.
-----------------------------------------------
Well one thing is for certain...you THINK you are not ignorant of ancient history.
I am learning to read cuneiform.
-------------------------------------
Well if that claim is even true you should know that you are one of only about 300 people alive on this planet today who can read Sumerian. Ohhh I forgot, you claim you are learning to read Sumerian... and yet you already are proficient enough in reading Sumerian to discredit Sitchin. (yawn)
I'm done with this thread. In fact, I wont be posting messages at all here anymore. In fact, I wont even be reading the post's here anymore as I dont have time for silly games, argument's, and lies coming from people like yourself.
I'm not ignorant of ancient history and I think that his theories are complete rubbish.
-----------------------------------------------
Well one thing is for certain...you THINK you are not ignorant of ancient history.
I am learning to read cuneiform.
-------------------------------------
Well if that claim is even true you should know that you are one of only about 300 people alive on this planet today who can read Sumerian. Ohhh I forgot, you claim you are learning to read Sumerian... and yet you already are proficient enough in reading Sumerian to discredit Sitchin. (yawn)
I'm done with this thread. In fact, I wont be posting messages at all here anymore. In fact, I wont even be reading the post's here anymore as I dont have time for silly games, argument's, and lies coming from people like yourself.
what do you think of this satelite pic saying the Chinese and Egyptian pyramids are baiscally made in the same way, one aligns with Orion and the other with Gemini.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1690649[/snapback]
Marduk52,
Sitchen is not a good source. He's a economics historian that started making up lies about ancient civilizations,
-----------------------------------
Actually, there is absolutely zero hard evidence that Sitchin is a liar. Some people have assumed him to be a liar due to there ignorance of ancient history. Other's have simply defamed him.
Sitchen is not a good source. He's a economics historian that started making up lies about ancient civilizations,
-----------------------------------
Actually, there is absolutely zero hard evidence that Sitchin is a liar. Some people have assumed him to be a liar due to there ignorance of ancient history. Other's have simply defamed him.
Sorry, but there is simply skads and skads of evidence that Sitchin is a liar.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1690649[/snapback]
He can not only read Sumerian, but also Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian. This is a fact and there is zero evidence to the contrary. You most likely have seen the selection of slander and dis-information which some people have planted all over the internet about Sitchin and other's with alternative interpretation's of ancient history.. These are generally people who haven't even read one of his book's and haven't a clue what they are talking about.
Talk about not having a clue!
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1690649[/snapback]
The "Vyse forgery" he dredged up here was long ago discovered not to be forged at all. The graffitti Vyse found was written using a form and grammar that, during Vyse's time, was unknown. It was immediately suspected to be forged at the time.
Decades later, new discoveries turned up showing that the grammar and structure of the hieroglyphic graffitti found by Vyse was not only legitimate, but that the particular style dated to approximately the period to which the construction of the Great Pyramid is attributed.
------------------------------------------------
Not only was it a forgery, but Vyse even got the spelling all wrong to the point of blasphemy. He and his assistant's were also found guilty of planting a coffin dated several centuries after Menkara's death with bones found from testing to be from the Christian era. Yes it was Vyse and his cronies who planted the coffin and bones in the "Menkara" pyramid at the Giza complex.....doesn't say much about the credibility of the man who claimed to have found Khufu's signature on the great pyramid, IMO.
Decades later, new discoveries turned up showing that the grammar and structure of the hieroglyphic graffitti found by Vyse was not only legitimate, but that the particular style dated to approximately the period to which the construction of the Great Pyramid is attributed.
------------------------------------------------
Not only was it a forgery, but Vyse even got the spelling all wrong to the point of blasphemy. He and his assistant's were also found guilty of planting a coffin dated several centuries after Menkara's death with bones found from testing to be from the Christian era. Yes it was Vyse and his cronies who planted the coffin and bones in the "Menkara" pyramid at the Giza complex.....doesn't say much about the credibility of the man who claimed to have found Khufu's signature on the great pyramid, IMO.
Nope. In fact, Vyse had discovered a throne name (the "Horus name") for Khufu that was previously unknown at the time, but that was confirmed years later, precisely as I tried to tell you already:
QUOTE
These symbols show a name of Khufu which was at that time, in 1837, unknown. Even better: it was even unknown then that this is a name!
The name is "Mddw" and it is the so-called Horus name of Khufu.
SNIP
The first pharaoh who used the cartouche for his birth- and throne name was Neferirkare, the third pharaoh of dynasty 5 (the names can be looked up in J.v. Beckeraths Handbuch der gyptischen Knigsnamen, MS 49, Zabern 1999).
And before that? Well, the pharaoh only had his birth name in a cartouche (which had, to complete the confusion, the bee-reed-titulatory in front which was later associated with the throne name), and the cartouche-less Horus name as throne name! Those Horus names were not recorded in the king lists of the New Kingdom, which are the main sources for those names. There only cartouche names are recorded, and so Khufu became known to us through his birth- and not his throne name! And this was the only name for the king known at Vyses time!
The throne name of Khufu, "Mddw", means something like "he who gives" - goods to his people. Neither the meaning nor the existence of this name was known around 1840, not even to Birch. Birch, according to Sitchin te greatest hieroglyphic expert of his time, had the name before his eyes. He thought it was "just some title". So how could a faker, who had no knowledge about hieroglyphics at all, know more than the worlds biggest expert of that trade?
One explanation comes from Sitchin himself: inscriptions were found in the surrounding tombs, and it might be possible that one included the Horus name. The faker just copied it from the tomb without knowing the meaning.
Unfortunately for Sitchin no such tomb is known. Ant the idea is stupid because of the circumstances the horus name appears in. The writings were not meaningless scribbling like "Kilroy was here", they had a function: to assign blocks to the different worker groups. From discoveries in worker tombs we know that the workforce was divided into four large groups, each one working on one side of the pyramid.
The inscriptions in the chambers represent exactly these four teams (Phylae). My colleague Rainer Lorenz has an article about their names on his Homepage, and they are::
The gang, The Horus Mededu-is-the-purifier-of-the-two-lands
The gang, The Horus Mededu-is-pure (or the purifier)
The gang, Cheops-exites-love
The gang, The-white-crown-of Khnumkhufuw-is-powerful
So we do not have isolated names, the names were part of a whole sentence. The writer of these texts must have had not only knowledge about the Horus name, but also about how to use it and include it into a working group name. He needed knowledge no hieroglyphics expert of the 1840s had - knowledge of an ancient Egyptian!
The name is "Mddw" and it is the so-called Horus name of Khufu.
SNIP
The first pharaoh who used the cartouche for his birth- and throne name was Neferirkare, the third pharaoh of dynasty 5 (the names can be looked up in J.v. Beckeraths Handbuch der gyptischen Knigsnamen, MS 49, Zabern 1999).
And before that? Well, the pharaoh only had his birth name in a cartouche (which had, to complete the confusion, the bee-reed-titulatory in front which was later associated with the throne name), and the cartouche-less Horus name as throne name! Those Horus names were not recorded in the king lists of the New Kingdom, which are the main sources for those names. There only cartouche names are recorded, and so Khufu became known to us through his birth- and not his throne name! And this was the only name for the king known at Vyses time!
The throne name of Khufu, "Mddw", means something like "he who gives" - goods to his people. Neither the meaning nor the existence of this name was known around 1840, not even to Birch. Birch, according to Sitchin te greatest hieroglyphic expert of his time, had the name before his eyes. He thought it was "just some title". So how could a faker, who had no knowledge about hieroglyphics at all, know more than the worlds biggest expert of that trade?
One explanation comes from Sitchin himself: inscriptions were found in the surrounding tombs, and it might be possible that one included the Horus name. The faker just copied it from the tomb without knowing the meaning.
Unfortunately for Sitchin no such tomb is known. Ant the idea is stupid because of the circumstances the horus name appears in. The writings were not meaningless scribbling like "Kilroy was here", they had a function: to assign blocks to the different worker groups. From discoveries in worker tombs we know that the workforce was divided into four large groups, each one working on one side of the pyramid.
The inscriptions in the chambers represent exactly these four teams (Phylae). My colleague Rainer Lorenz has an article about their names on his Homepage, and they are::
The gang, The Horus Mededu-is-the-purifier-of-the-two-lands
The gang, The Horus Mededu-is-pure (or the purifier)
The gang, Cheops-exites-love
The gang, The-white-crown-of Khnumkhufuw-is-powerful
So we do not have isolated names, the names were part of a whole sentence. The writer of these texts must have had not only knowledge about the Horus name, but also about how to use it and include it into a working group name. He needed knowledge no hieroglyphics expert of the 1840s had - knowledge of an ancient Egyptian!
Much much more at that site about what lies you've apparently swallowed.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1690649[/snapback]
It is still possible that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid. But the stela you refer to (the "Inventory" Stela,) which was wrtitten in the 26th Dynastic period and not by Khufu nor during his reign (the 4th Dynasty,) says the following:
If you reread Sitchen, you'll see that he's playing fast and loose with this stela, leaving out any part that might tend to contradict his moronic drivel. That is typical of how this person operates.
----------------------------------------------
I realize that some archeologist's claim the Inventory Stele is a fraud, but there are several other credible sources besides Sitchin who claim otherwise.
If you reread Sitchen, you'll see that he's playing fast and loose with this stela, leaving out any part that might tend to contradict his moronic drivel. That is typical of how this person operates.
----------------------------------------------
I realize that some archeologist's claim the Inventory Stele is a fraud, but there are several other credible sources besides Sitchin who claim otherwise.
I've not mentioned that the stela may be a fraud. It's absolutely a fact that it was written in the 26th Dynasty though. There is not a single, solitary "credible source" that says otherwise.
There are Gods mentioned on the Inventory Stela that didn't exist in the 4th Dynasty.
So, why do you ignore Sitchin's deliberate omission (a form of lying) of part of the stela's translation, you know, the part that says Khufu "...built his pyramid..."?
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1690649[/snapback]
Sometimes people cant accept the truth--perhap's due to selfish agendas--or simply cant except the idea that the history book's are wrong so they then bury there head in the sand. Sitchin is not one of those people, IMO.
Your opinion is correct. Sitchin does not have his head buried in the sand. He has it buried in your (and other's) hard-earned cash. He buries it so that you can't hear him laughing at you!
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1690649[/snapback]
Everyone to his/her own opinion.
Keep your opinion, if you want. But the fact that you hold an ignorant opinion does not give you the standing to say that everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant of ancient history.
Harte
Not having participated in this thread, I'm just going to back up Harte and trot out this web address:
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/
Because it authoritatively proves Sitchin's translations are erroneous. The site is run by someone who actually has the credentials Sitchin claims.
--Jaylemurph
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/
Because it authoritatively proves Sitchin's translations are erroneous. The site is run by someone who actually has the credentials Sitchin claims.
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE(isis-999 @ May 23 2007, 01:27 PM) [snapback]1690401[/snapback]
They didn't work from sun up to sun down they have found proof of how they judge time...They worked in 8 hour shift's just like most of us do now.....And they didn't really lose that many people day, It's Egypt not China and the Great Wall....
Thanks for brushing me up on that bit of info! That is something that I did not know.
You definetly know alot more about this subject than i do.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1690831[/snapback]
Well if that claim is even true you should know that you are one of only about 300 people alive on this planet today who can read Sumerian.
Another blatant falsehood perpetrated by Sitchin.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1690831[/snapback]
Ohhh I forgot, you claim you are learning to read Sumerian... and yet you already are proficient enough in reading Sumerian to discredit Sitchin. (yawn)
One need not read cuneiform to discredit a person that has never, ever demonstrated any ability at all to translate cuneiform script. A person that has never, ever taken even one single solitary course in any ancient language or script. A person that claims to be the only person on Earth that can properly translate Cuneiform script, yet has never, ever published even a single word in any academic journal anywhere on Earth concerning what he knows that nobody else knows concerning this ancient script!
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 23 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1690831[/snapback]
I'm done with this thread. In fact, I wont be posting messages at all here anymore. In fact, I wont even be reading the post's here anymore as I dont have time for silly games, argument's, and lies coming from people like yourself.
Sticks fingers in ears and screams LA LA LA LA LA!!!!
Typical of the Sitchinistas. They can't HANDLE the truth!
"I won't even be reading the posts here anymore..." Hmmm. I wonder why?
Harte
*runs to write down the word Sitchinista and use it as much as possible*
--Jaylemurph
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 19 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]1683368[/snapback]
According to Egyptologist's the Great Pyramid at Giza was created in just 23 year's. Personally, I find this idea/theory a bit ridiculous.
Here's why:
Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims
by Will Hart
Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.
The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.
Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.
Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.
The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.
I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.
This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.
Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).
2002 by Will Hart
Email: Cwillwrite1@hotmail.com
Here's why:
Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims
by Will Hart
Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.
The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.
Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.
Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.
The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.
I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.
This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.
Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).
2002 by Will Hart
Email: Cwillwrite1@hotmail.com
I agree that the figure of 23 years is questionable and I suspect that the proof for the construction time of the Giza Pyramids being much longer is via the simple fact that there are no insrciptions within the great Pyramid. The construction process outlived the Pharoah and although the Pyramid was completed the Pharoah had been buried elsewhere and had fallen from favour which was quite common in the Egypt of that time.
That the Egyptians could cut and move very large pieces of stone is a simple fact - they could do it and they did it with monotonous regularity. But they were not the only ones who had the secret as ancient cultures worldwide accomplished similar and greater feats of engineering. The Romans had no problem in shifting ancient Egyptian obelisks from the original position, putting them on ships and re-siting them in Rome
The question of course is how? How on earth did those ancient people using the most rudimentary tools cut the hardest stone, face them perfectly and shift them by water and land many miles to their final resting spot? We know for a fact that Limestone can be cut with copper chisels, but not Granite or hard quartzite. But the Egyptians had no problem in doing so.There is also ample evidence that they could turn stone using rudimentary machines.
They could move an Obelisk weighing 200 tons from its quarry,place it on a specially designed ship and sail it miles down the Nile,lift it off,drag it a further dozen miles and site it perfectly. And we still dont know how.
QUOTE(marduk52 @ May 22 2007, 09:55 PM) [snapback]1688731[/snapback]
Exactly!
Here's an excerpt from the article I posted which some here have obviously not contemplated:
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They couldn't even get past the first step successfully. And this was a one-third scale attempt! LOL
The same then happened with the NOVA team who also failed miserably.
Here's an excerpt from the article I posted which some here have obviously not contemplated:
The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.
They couldn't even get past the first step successfully. And this was a one-third scale attempt! LOL
The same then happened with the NOVA team who also failed miserably.
Well said!
This is a fundamental point, that many people, for some strange reason, want to completely disregard.
There is also, often, stubborn resistance to considering that the actual position, shape, design and dimensions of the Giza pyramids may be important.
The position of the Kings chamber, the Queens chamber, the directions of the shafts.
Besides being one of the 7 wonders of the world...the pyramids truely are an unexplained mystery.
Speaking of how mysterious the pyramid is.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
the Great Pyramid itself contained no pharaoh's body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures.
Who, then, designed it and built it?
What was its purpose,Some theorists also maintain that the great pyramid is in fact aligned with the constelation of Orion.
A total of over 2,300,000 (or only 590,712 blocks) of limestone and granite were used in its construction with the average block weighing 2.5 tons and none weighing less than 2 tons.
The large blocks used in the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh as much as 9 tons,
Construction date (Estimated): 2589 B.C.. Construction time (Estimated): 20 years.
Total weight (Estimated): 6.5 million tons. The estimated total weight of the structure is 6.5 million tons.
The base of the pyramid covers 13 acres, 568,500 square feet and the length of each side was originally 754 feet, but is now 745 feet.
The original height was 481 feet tall, but is now only 449 feet.
Like 20th century bridge designs, the Pyramid's cornerstones have balls and sockets built into them.
Several football fields long,
The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
the Pyramid is subject to expansion and contraction movements from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years it's structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction.
Amazingly, the outside surface stones are cut within 0.01 (1/100th) inch of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. And they were placed together with an intentional gap between them of 0.02 inch. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid.
numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
It is a matter of archaeological fact that none of the fourth Dynasty kings put their names on the pyramids supposedly constructed in their times, yet from the fifth Dynasty onwards, the other pyramids had hundreds of official inscriptions, leaving us no doubt about which kings built them.
The mathematical complexity, engineering requirements, and sheer size of the Giza plateau pyramids represent an enormous, seemingly impossible leap in abilities over the third dynasty buildings. Contemporary Egyptological explanation cannot account for this leap, nor can they account for the clear decline in mathematics, engineering and size of the constructions of the fifth dynasty.
Textbooks speak of "religious upheaval" and "civil wars," but there is no evidence whatsoever of these having occurred.
Measurements throughout the pyramid show that its constructors knew of the proportions of pi (3.14...), phi or the Golden Mean (1.618), and the "Pythagorean" triangles thousands of years before Pythagoras, the so-called father of geometry, lived.
Shafts leading upward from the two main chambers, previously thought to be air shafts for ventilation, have been shown to have another possible purpose. A miniature electronic robot mechanically crawled sixty-five meters up the shafts and its findings suggested that the south and north shafts in the Kings Chamber are pointed to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) and Alpha Draconis respectively, while the south and north shafts of the Queens Chamber point to Sirius and Orion.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
the Great Pyramid itself contained no pharaoh's body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures.
Who, then, designed it and built it?
What was its purpose,Some theorists also maintain that the great pyramid is in fact aligned with the constelation of Orion.
A total of over 2,300,000 (or only 590,712 blocks) of limestone and granite were used in its construction with the average block weighing 2.5 tons and none weighing less than 2 tons.
The large blocks used in the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh as much as 9 tons,
Construction date (Estimated): 2589 B.C.. Construction time (Estimated): 20 years.
Total weight (Estimated): 6.5 million tons. The estimated total weight of the structure is 6.5 million tons.
The base of the pyramid covers 13 acres, 568,500 square feet and the length of each side was originally 754 feet, but is now 745 feet.
The original height was 481 feet tall, but is now only 449 feet.
Like 20th century bridge designs, the Pyramid's cornerstones have balls and sockets built into them.
Several football fields long,
The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
the Pyramid is subject to expansion and contraction movements from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years it's structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction.
Amazingly, the outside surface stones are cut within 0.01 (1/100th) inch of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. And they were placed together with an intentional gap between them of 0.02 inch. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid.
numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
It is a matter of archaeological fact that none of the fourth Dynasty kings put their names on the pyramids supposedly constructed in their times, yet from the fifth Dynasty onwards, the other pyramids had hundreds of official inscriptions, leaving us no doubt about which kings built them.
The mathematical complexity, engineering requirements, and sheer size of the Giza plateau pyramids represent an enormous, seemingly impossible leap in abilities over the third dynasty buildings. Contemporary Egyptological explanation cannot account for this leap, nor can they account for the clear decline in mathematics, engineering and size of the constructions of the fifth dynasty.
Textbooks speak of "religious upheaval" and "civil wars," but there is no evidence whatsoever of these having occurred.
Measurements throughout the pyramid show that its constructors knew of the proportions of pi (3.14...), phi or the Golden Mean (1.618), and the "Pythagorean" triangles thousands of years before Pythagoras, the so-called father of geometry, lived.
Shafts leading upward from the two main chambers, previously thought to be air shafts for ventilation, have been shown to have another possible purpose. A miniature electronic robot mechanically crawled sixty-five meters up the shafts and its findings suggested that the south and north shafts in the Kings Chamber are pointed to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) and Alpha Draconis respectively, while the south and north shafts of the Queens Chamber point to Sirius and Orion.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
[Who, then, designed it and built it?
I don't think anyone has a definitive answer to this one!
so all suggestions are relevant. QUOTE
numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
Interesting.
QUOTE
The mathematical complexity, engineering requirements, and sheer size of the Giza plateau pyramids represent an enormous, seemingly impossible leap in abilities over the third dynasty buildings. Contemporary Egyptological explanation cannot account for this leap, nor can they account for the clear decline in mathematics, engineering and size of the constructions of the fifth dynasty.
This high-lights the question again of who designed and built it....and of course, why.
QUOTE
Shafts leading upward from the two main chambers, previously thought to be air shafts for ventilation, have been shown to have another possible purpose. A miniature electronic robot mechanically crawled sixty-five meters up the shafts and its findings suggested that the south and north shafts in the Kings Chamber are pointed to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) and Alpha Draconis respectively, while the south and north shafts of the Queens Chamber point to Sirius and Orion.
Thanks for your post, Louie, good work.
QUOTE(louie @ May 24 2007, 06:22 PM) [snapback]1692206[/snapback]
what do you think of this satelite pic saying the Chinese and Egyptian pyramids are baiscally made in the same way, one aligns with Orion and the other with Gemini.
Louie,
You are dealing with People who practice the policy of if reality conflicts with beliefs then reality is wrong.
Check out these sites.
Egyptians in Arizona
Egyptians in Arizona II
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Speaking of how mysterious the pyramid is.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
the Great Pyramid itself contained no pharaoh's body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
the Great Pyramid itself contained no pharaoh's body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures.
True. It's thought that it was robbed. It may have never contained anything of value, on the other hand.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Who, then, designed it and built it?
The designer was a guy named Imhotep. That's right, same name as the Mummy of classic horror movie fame.
Built by conscripted laborers and paid artisans from the Egyptian populace.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
What was its purpose,Some theorists also maintain that the great pyramid is in fact aligned with the constelation of Orion.
The ruins around the Great Pyramid indicate that it was to be used as a tomb. Short answer is that it is not aligned with Orion today, and never was "aligned" with Orion in the past.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
A total of over 2,300,000 (or only 590,712 blocks) of limestone and granite were used in its construction with the average block weighing 2.5 tons and none weighing less than 2 tons.
As far as I know, the count estimate is these days considered to be incorrect. Average weight as well. Also, your minimum size is wrong. There are many stones on the upper half of the G.P. that weigh much less than two tons. Check this out:
QUOTE
For example, one may find in many books that Khufu's Pyramid, greatest of all in Egypt, contains an estimated 2.3 million blocks of stone weighing on average about 2.5 tons. In the past, both professional and amateur theorists assume that the pyramids are composed of generic blocks of this weight. Next, they set about solving the problem of how the builders could have possibly raised and set so many huge blocks. But upon closer examination, few of these traditional assumptions are really valid. In fact, recent analysis has suggested that Khufu's Pyramid has far fewer large blocks than originally supposed, and those who maintain that the blocks are more or less uniformly 2.5 tons are simply wrong.
At first glance, the sides of the Giza Pyramids, stripped of most of their smooth outer casing during the Middle Ages, look like regular steps. These are actually the courses of backing stones, so called because they once filled in the space between the pyramid core and outer casing. However, a closer examination reveals that the steps are not at all regular. In fact, rather then regular, modular, squared blocks of stone neatly stocked, there is considerable "slop factor", even in the Great Pyramid of Khufu.
Not only are the backing stones irregular, they are also progressively smaller toward the top. Behind the backing stones, the core stones are actually even more irregular. We know this because, in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks.
At first glance, the sides of the Giza Pyramids, stripped of most of their smooth outer casing during the Middle Ages, look like regular steps. These are actually the courses of backing stones, so called because they once filled in the space between the pyramid core and outer casing. However, a closer examination reveals that the steps are not at all regular. In fact, rather then regular, modular, squared blocks of stone neatly stocked, there is considerable "slop factor", even in the Great Pyramid of Khufu.
Not only are the backing stones irregular, they are also progressively smaller toward the top. Behind the backing stones, the core stones are actually even more irregular. We know this because, in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks.
Source: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidcore.htm
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Construction date (Estimated): 2589 B.C.. Construction time (Estimated): 20 years.
I've seen 2467 BC as the date, don't know if they can narrow it down much more though. Here's a link to an article by a construction engineering firm, published in the trade magazine "CIVIL ENGINEERING MAGAZINE" in 1999, regarding manpower and timeline for construction, the way they would have done it:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0699feat.html
Note this:
QUOTE
Based on our program management approach and our informed guesses we concluded that the total project required an average workforce of 13,200 persons and a peak workforce of 40,000 and that it required two to three years of site preparation, five years of pyramid construction, and two years of ramp removal, decoration, and other ancillary tasks. Assembling a workforce of this sizeand feeding itappear to have been well within the capabilities of the Egyptian economy at that time if the population was in fact 1 million to 1.5 million.
Adding it up, you can see that this firm estimates only about ten years from start to finish.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
Not so. The fact that the corners match well is not in any way indicative of how level the first course of stones is. Read the first article I quoted from - the one about the pyramid's core - and you'll see that once you get past the backing stones (the exterior stones we can see,) the interior is a mish-mash of mortar, mismatched stones and stone fragments that may or may not be even related to the nice, continuous-appearing outer stone courses.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
the Pyramid is subject to expansion and contraction movements from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years it's structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction.
This I doubt as well.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Amazingly, the outside surface stones are cut within 0.01 (1/100th) inch of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. And they were placed together with an intentional gap between them of 0.02 inch. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid.
Not true either.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
Another falsehood. Why do you believe that the Egyptians used inches, a unit invented in modern times?
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
It is a matter of archaeological fact that none of the fourth Dynasty kings put their names on the pyramids supposedly constructed in their times, yet from the fifth Dynasty onwards, the other pyramids had hundreds of official inscriptions, leaving us no doubt about which kings built them.
It takes guts to make a claim like this without citing a single source. Got one?
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Textbooks speak of "religious upheaval" and "civil wars," but there is no evidence whatsoever of these having occurred.
If "textbooks" do indeed "speak of" these things, you can bet there is evidence of them having occurred.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Measurements throughout the pyramid show that its constructors knew of the proportions of pi (3.14...), phi or the Golden Mean (1.618), and the "Pythagorean" triangles thousands of years before Pythagoras, the so-called father of geometry, lived.
There is nothing in any pyramid that would indicate that the Egyptians knew anything at all about pi. There is no such thing as a "Pythagorean triangle," to my knowledge. Do you mean right triangles? There's no doubt the Egyptians knew about these. They did, after all, use plumb lines. They cut stones at right angles too. I doubt they were aware of the Pythagorean theorem though.
QUOTE(louie @ May 25 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1693932[/snapback]
Shafts leading upward from the two main chambers, previously thought to be air shafts for ventilation, have been shown to have another possible purpose. A miniature electronic robot mechanically crawled sixty-five meters up the shafts and its findings suggested that the south and north shafts in the Kings Chamber are pointed to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) and Alpha Draconis respectively, while the south and north shafts of the Queens Chamber point to Sirius and Orion.
The robot you mention had only one finding, and that was that the shaft was closed off.
The direction of the shaft was already known. If you point anything (like your finger) at the sky, you'll be pointing toward some object or another in space, odds are anyway.
Harte
QUOTE(sirfiroth @ May 25 2007, 06:16 PM) [snapback]1694256[/snapback]
Louie,
You are dealing with People who practice the policy of if reality conflicts with beliefs then reality is wrong.
Check out these sites.
Egyptians in Arizona
Egyptians in Arizona II
You are dealing with People who practice the policy of if reality conflicts with beliefs then reality is wrong.
Check out these sites.
Egyptians in Arizona
Egyptians in Arizona II
Sirfiroth,
Check with the "Smithsonian Institute" on this one. Since there is no such thing as the Smithsonian Institute, you might have a hard time.
Similarly, establish if you can the actual existence of the "explorer" G.E. Kincaid, and the "Professor" S.A. Jordan mentioned in the article.
You'd probably love this site:
http://www.mysteriousarizona.com/
QUOTE
I am recognized as the world's expert on this strange and mysterious story. If you came here searching for information on G.E. Kincaid and the 1909 Arizona Gazette story: Explorations in the Grand Canyon, you have arrived at the most carefully researched and documented website available. I have spent several years gathering information, including onsite visits to the pinpointed location of this unbelievable cave story.
For a saner look at this fraudulent tale:
http://www.philipcoppens.com/egyptiancanyon.html
QUOTE
Though this story may or may not be reality, examples such as Mummy Cave have since proven that Kinkaids story may not be as important as many believe it is. Even if Kinkaid and Jordan were real people, the sensationalist flavourings of the report are all due to the anonymous author. And even if he was reporting truthfully, within the current climate, we can imagine why people could have easily mistaken an ancient culture with a local Indian culture. It is merely because the Indians were believed to have no level of sophistication whatsoever that almost de facto, the site had to be Old World In the 21st century, we know better.
Harte
Now I Lived In Egypt Most My Life Cause My Dads Egyptian And Moms American Anyways Ive been in pyarminds and it was amazing although the ride to get to it is hard they say its haunted and the workers still come at night to serve the king anywho when i went in it seemed to be new not old =\ i mean maybe because they keeped it in good shape
The Great Pyramid was built by Enoch and was designed by God. It was built using extremely advanced technology capable of suspending and moving any massive object in mid-air written about by some ancient greeks. Enoch is the great grandfather of the biblical Noah and was said to have walked with God and is also the Egyptian God known as Thoth who was the son of the biblical Cain and the priest king of Atlantis which is the city built by Cain.
QUOTE(Harte @ May 26 2007, 10:42 PM) [snapback]1695066[/snapback]
True. It's thought that it was robbed. It may have never contained anything of value, on the other hand.
The designer was a guy named Imhotep. That's right, same name as the Mummy of classic horror movie fame.
Built by conscripted laborers and paid artisans from the Egyptian populace.
The ruins around the Great Pyramid indicate that it was to be used as a tomb. Short answer is that it is not aligned with Orion today, and never was "aligned" with Orion in the past.
As far as I know, the count estimate is these days considered to be incorrect. Average weight as well. Also, your minimum size is wrong. There are many stones on the upper half of the G.P. that weigh much less than two tons. Check this out:
Source: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidcore.htm
I've seen 2467 BC as the date, don't know if they can narrow it down much more though. Here's a link to an article by a construction engineering firm, published in the trade magazine "CIVIL ENGINEERING MAGAZINE" in 1999, regarding manpower and timeline for construction, the way they would have done it:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0699feat.html
Note this:
Adding it up, you can see that this firm estimates only about ten years from start to finish.
Not so. The fact that the corners match well is not in any way indicative of how level the first course of stones is. Read the first article I quoted from - the one about the pyramid's core - and you'll see that once you get past the backing stones (the exterior stones we can see,) the interior is a mish-mash of mortar, mismatched stones and stone fragments that may or may not be even related to the nice, continuous-appearing outer stone courses.
This I doubt as well.
Not true either.
Another falsehood. Why do you believe that the Egyptians used inches, a unit invented in modern times?
It takes guts to make a claim like this without citing a single source. Got one?
If "textbooks" do indeed "speak of" these things, you can bet there is evidence of them having occurred.
There is nothing in any pyramid that would indicate that the Egyptians knew anything at all about pi. There is no such thing as a "Pythagorean triangle," to my knowledge. Do you mean right triangles? There's no doubt the Egyptians knew about these. They did, after all, use plumb lines. They cut stones at right angles too. I doubt they were aware of the Pythagorean theorem though.
The robot you mention had only one finding, and that was that the shaft was closed off.
The direction of the shaft was already known. If you point anything (like your finger) at the sky, you'll be pointing toward some object or another in space, odds are anyway.
Harte
The designer was a guy named Imhotep. That's right, same name as the Mummy of classic horror movie fame.
Built by conscripted laborers and paid artisans from the Egyptian populace.
The ruins around the Great Pyramid indicate that it was to be used as a tomb. Short answer is that it is not aligned with Orion today, and never was "aligned" with Orion in the past.
As far as I know, the count estimate is these days considered to be incorrect. Average weight as well. Also, your minimum size is wrong. There are many stones on the upper half of the G.P. that weigh much less than two tons. Check this out:
Source: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidcore.htm
I've seen 2467 BC as the date, don't know if they can narrow it down much more though. Here's a link to an article by a construction engineering firm, published in the trade magazine "CIVIL ENGINEERING MAGAZINE" in 1999, regarding manpower and timeline for construction, the way they would have done it:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0699feat.html
Note this:
Adding it up, you can see that this firm estimates only about ten years from start to finish.
Not so. The fact that the corners match well is not in any way indicative of how level the first course of stones is. Read the first article I quoted from - the one about the pyramid's core - and you'll see that once you get past the backing stones (the exterior stones we can see,) the interior is a mish-mash of mortar, mismatched stones and stone fragments that may or may not be even related to the nice, continuous-appearing outer stone courses.
This I doubt as well.
Not true either.
Another falsehood. Why do you believe that the Egyptians used inches, a unit invented in modern times?
It takes guts to make a claim like this without citing a single source. Got one?
If "textbooks" do indeed "speak of" these things, you can bet there is evidence of them having occurred.
There is nothing in any pyramid that would indicate that the Egyptians knew anything at all about pi. There is no such thing as a "Pythagorean triangle," to my knowledge. Do you mean right triangles? There's no doubt the Egyptians knew about these. They did, after all, use plumb lines. They cut stones at right angles too. I doubt they were aware of the Pythagorean theorem though.
The robot you mention had only one finding, and that was that the shaft was closed off.
The direction of the shaft was already known. If you point anything (like your finger) at the sky, you'll be pointing toward some object or another in space, odds are anyway.
Harte
As much as i respect your opnion, in the last few comments you claimed falsehoods, have you any proof to back up the claims that some of these comments are indeed lies.
QUOTE(louie @ May 27 2007, 04:08 AM) [snapback]1695779[/snapback]
As much as i respect your opnion, in the last few comments you claimed falsehoods, have you any proof to back up the claims that some of these comments are indeed lies.
Louie,
Since you provided no sources yourself, I felt no need to provide any of my own.
Providing the evidence for what I said involves showing what you said was wrong. Yet you haven't done the work necessary to show that what you said was right, or even that you hadn't just made it up yourself. (I've heard several of these claims before, so I'm not accusing you of this - just pointing it out.)
I'm not willing to do your work for you. I'll take your word for it that these are some claims that have been made. You take my word for it that the ones I said were false, are false.
Or, alternately, you could provide some reason for us to believe them, and thereby help me in debunking them.
Harte
QUOTE(Harte @ May 27 2007, 11:43 PM) [snapback]1696580[/snapback]
Louie,
Since you provided no sources yourself, I felt no need to provide any of my own.
Providing the evidence for what I said involves showing what you said was wrong. Yet you haven't done the work necessary to show that what you said was right, or even that you hadn't just made it up yourself. (I've heard several of these claims before, so I'm not accusing you of this - just pointing it out.)
I'm not willing to do your work for you. I'll take your word for it that these are some claims that have been made. You take my word for it that the ones I said were false, are false.
Or, alternately, you could provide some reason for us to believe them, and thereby help me in debunking them.
Harte
Since you provided no sources yourself, I felt no need to provide any of my own.
Providing the evidence for what I said involves showing what you said was wrong. Yet you haven't done the work necessary to show that what you said was right, or even that you hadn't just made it up yourself. (I've heard several of these claims before, so I'm not accusing you of this - just pointing it out.)
I'm not willing to do your work for you. I'll take your word for it that these are some claims that have been made. You take my word for it that the ones I said were false, are false.
Or, alternately, you could provide some reason for us to believe them, and thereby help me in debunking them.
Harte
There is no 1 source for them, they are facts/myths ive picked up over time. and as i said before ive no idea what is true and what is myth.
but that still means just because you say no i have to go ,ok harte said no it must be true then.
the topics were an open question for everyone, so i dont know where you got the idea you are doing my work for me.so if you can disprove one please explain how, if you dont know just say you dont know.
Maybe the meauserment in inches is just a bizarre coincidence
QUOTE(louie @ May 28 2007, 03:57 AM) [snapback]1697301[/snapback]
There is no 1 source for them, they are facts/myths ive picked up over time. and as i said before ive no idea what is true and what is myth.
but that still means just because you say no i have to go ,ok harte said no it must be true then.
the topics were an open question for everyone, so i dont know where you got the idea you are doing my work for me.so if you can disprove one please explain how, if you dont know just say you dont know.
Maybe the meauserment in inches is just a bizarre coincidence
but that still means just because you say no i have to go ,ok harte said no it must be true then.
the topics were an open question for everyone, so i dont know where you got the idea you are doing my work for me.so if you can disprove one please explain how, if you dont know just say you dont know.
Maybe the meauserment in inches is just a bizarre coincidence
Okay, let's start with the fact the Egyptians didn't use inches.
Where does your claim come from then?
No doubt it arises from the "pyramid inch" which is a derived unit that happens to almost match several things. I'm saying the measurements were measured, and then divided by the amount they wanted them to match, and the resulting unit was named a "pyramid inch."
It's fake, in other words.
I, and others here, would be doing your work since you asked the question and expect us to provide the answers for you. I've looked into these things. I know. Apparently you do not know. You will know, however, if you do the research yourself.
The way you've presented these claims, you've got a lot of them wrong, as far as I can remember. This means I'd first have to go out there and find the real claim, quote it here, then proceed to debunk it for you. That's a lot of work, and I don't have the time right now - maybe later.
On the other hand, if you actually quoted, or at least linked to, these claims in their correct statement, I would be willing to help you.
That's what I meant in my last post.
Harte
lets get one thing straight here, youre not helping me with anything,
These are statements ive found on numerous websites and i put them toghter too show people here what is being said about the pyramids. if you wanna prove them wrong go right ahead.
Your mighter than thou attitude is really a pain in the a***.
Just answer the bloody questions or dont, dont make a big song and dance out of it as you are prone to do with other replies ive seen belonging to you.
and as a matter of intrest how many times have you visited the pyramids, vacationing or research.
These are statements ive found on numerous websites and i put them toghter too show people here what is being said about the pyramids. if you wanna prove them wrong go right ahead.
Your mighter than thou attitude is really a pain in the a***.
Just answer the bloody questions or dont, dont make a big song and dance out of it as you are prone to do with other replies ive seen belonging to you.
and as a matter of intrest how many times have you visited the pyramids, vacationing or research.
QUOTE(louie @ May 30 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1701069[/snapback]
lets get one thing straight here, youre not helping me with anything,
These are statements ive found on numerous websites and i put them toghter too show people here what is being said about the pyramids. if you wanna prove them wrong go right ahead.
These are statements ive found on numerous websites and i put them toghter too show people here what is being said about the pyramids. if you wanna prove them wrong go right ahead.
I say that, in fact, most of the statements you "put together" have been misremembered by you. For example, nobody (except you, of course) has ever claimed that the Egyptians used inches or that certain dimensions of any pyramid mysteriously match up with some other measurements if the pyramid dimension is measured in inches.
QUOTE(louie @ May 30 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1701069[/snapback]
Your mighter than thou attitude is really a pain in the a***.
I am not concerned with your opinion of the tenor of my posts.
QUOTE(louie @ May 30 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1701069[/snapback]
Just answer the bloody questions or dont, dont make a big song and dance out of it as you are prone to do with other replies ive seen belonging to you.
I believe that anyone reading this must see that I have already done so, at least with most of the "questions" (there was in fact only one "question," I believe.)
QUOTE(louie @ May 30 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1701069[/snapback]
and as a matter of intrest how many times have you visited the pyramids, vacationing or research.
I have never been to Egypt in person.
Harte
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.