Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

why no hieroglyphs inside the great pyramid


zoombie

Recommended Posts

If I were to organise my own burial, the last thing I would do is adverstise the fact by placing myself in a gargantuan piece of architecture like the GP, openly inviting intrusion.

How come the later dynasties did the opposite and buried themselves deep underground? Change of fashion perhaps? Highly unlikely.

Where were the mummies in the pyramids? How come none have been found or even reported?

How come Al Mamoon did not report a mummy during the initial break in? Everything eles was described. The case is totally overhwelming, and I find it incredible and even primitive to think that there are people that still believe in the tomb theory.

There is not one shread of evidence to support it. What about the countless weird dimensions and features of the GP that in no way can be explained in the manner of a tomb.

Well maybe one day people will wake up and see the truth.

I tend to agree but do think you are overstating the case.

There are several things which would lead one to believe they

are tombs but separately they are not in the least conclusive

and even in aggregate they aren't terribly convincing. For me

it's primarily the fact that the people who built them said ov-

er and over that they werren't tombs and whaen combined with the

fact that there is no good evidence to contradict it then I'll go

with the words of the builders. They weren't tombs. They were an

extension of Atum; an extension of the primeval mound and as the

ben ben was the ka of Atum the pyramid was the ka of the king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • cladking

    95

  • kmt_sesh

    60

  • questionmark

    20

  • ShadowSot

    19

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well thank you Cladking for not denying its existence, yes Menkaure’s sacrophagus was found in a pyramid but it would seem you are going to deny it has anything to do with the other two pyramids sitting right next to it, okay ...why?

Essentially it boils down to the facts already mentioned plus

the biggest fact of all; 6 1/2 million tons of masonry is not

a man sized pyramid like Menkaure's. It is a God sized pyramid

and required the Gods to build it exactly as the PT says.

There are physical laws that determine the size of something

that can be built by men hauling material up ramps. These are

independent of how superstitious or how motivated the workforce

is. Using nothing but the most primitive tools and techniques

certainly doesn't extend them at all.

When someone actually demonstrates ramps are a possibility then

you'll have a case but as the situation stands there is no evi-

dence ramps were used and solid and conclusive evidence that

they were not used.

The fact that G3 was built last and is quite tiny suggests that

a great deal might have changed. This took a tiny fraction of

the effort to raise stones as did G1.

So if Menkaures pyramid was bigger, size being your criteria that determines if a pyramid is a tomb or not, then at some point it would morph into a non-tomb? Why does size dictate whether a tomb is a tomb or not a tomb? I think size just reflects the ego of the pharaoh – don’t you?

Size is wholly irrelevent to whether it was a tomb or not. Chron-

ology is the determining factor. They built all the pyramid as

large as they could. When the Gods no longer pulled their weight

they became tombs.

Sorry nice dance, there is no phrasing I used the websites comments as written, you rejected something visual without seeing it. Which just reinforces the observation that you are in a nearly pure denial mode. Why not at least withhold your withering denial until you’ve actually SEEN the object first, you might appear to be a bit more believable.

This is no dance. It's mere recognition of the fact that egyptolo-

gists have been seeing ramps everywhere for 150 years. If there were

a model pyramid with ramps on it it would be shown to every newspaper

and news service in the world. There's a reason there's no evidence

for ramps.

Explain to us how you think the symbol changed from the mastaba sign to the pyramid sign without them being concurrent? Was the mastaba sign in use then the next day only the pyramid one was used? Do you think the word for tomb disappeared for a certain period of time and then popped back into the language as a different symbol? It would seem the symbol changed because the elite moved from using mastabas for tombs to pyramids.

I believe that if someone were familiar with the language they could

go back and translate everythging so it was more internally consistent

and more consistent with the literal meaning of what was left. This is

mere opinion and dependent on me being right.

But the fact is that I know very little about the language so can not

have an opinion on specific things. I have to go by what I'm told and this

is what I'm told.

Sorry Cladking I didn’t understand your comments on trace. If you think the Giza tombs were something else where is the trace that they were whatever you think they were? Why was this concept not repeated, the AE tended to repeat symbolism a great deal but not, it would seem, of whatever you think the great tombs were.

People aren't ready to look at the implications of the Pyramid Texts

having been meant literally. They can barely even accept the concept

that they could have a literal meaning.

Suffice to say that the "Hymms of Ascension" were a minor part of the

Egyptian Bible and that that Bible has not survived. It didn't com-

pletely disappear however and there are fragments everywhere. This

will not become clear until it's shown that the pyramid was built with

counterweights and the Pyramid Texts were meant literally and called

something like the Hymms of Ascension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CladKing

Question: If the PTs are to be taken literally, do you mean the whole thing? Or, just those cherrypicked sections you find fit your model? Can you translate, Literally, the whole thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CladKing

Question: If the PTs are to be taken literally, do you mean the whole thing? Or, just those cherrypicked sections you find fit your model? Can you translate, Literally, the whole thing?

Yes. The entire thing was generally meant literally I believe except

for utterances 272 to 274 (the canibal hymms). There is some flowery

language throughout so every single word isn't meant completely liter-

ally but if you read it looking for a literal meaning you'll see that

the vast majority could have been meant this way.

They did not express themselves like modern people do. They left more

to the imagination but were quite explicit. Some of this is probably

the nature of the specific work. A tenth grade text book, for instance,

probably had a different flavor than the PT but many of the same consid-

erations applied. The PT was apparently written as a sort of "poetry"

that was intended to be understood by the masses. Not all of it would

have been an "open book" to every individual but most understood the gen-

eral flow and the general meaning. The writers might have delighted in

phrasing some things so they could only be understood by insiders. This

is part of the reason a literal meaning is not obvious and hasn't been

previously considered in modern times. The actual characteristics of the

Gods couldn't be stated explicitly for religious reasons and the specif-

is characteristics of "Osiris" were a state secret. It was a very loosely

gaurded secret but a secret nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you translate, Literally, the whole thing?

No.

I'm up to about 80% that seems clear enough but I know

that there are layers of meaning beneath what I can com-

prehend. I know this because I can understand some of

it in greater depth and there are layers of meaning in

them.

If the intended meaning was literal it wouldn't take the

scholars very long to essentially crack the entire thing.

Some could pass me in a few months and they'd have it bas-

ically solved in twenty years. The translation will look

somewhat different and will flow more smoothly.

Some of it may never be understood. For some things you

just have to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own personal opinion is Imhotep designed it and as he would have been quite old, if alive at all, others built it based on his knowledge. HIS.

His name equates to The one who comes in, with peace. In where? To Egypt...? from where with peace? Canaan...was Imhotep a Hebrew - didn't I just see a topic about Joseph and Akhenaten? That Moses ends up being taken in by Pharoahs daughter could surely indicate a Hebrew intrusion into the Egyptian Royal line.

Imhotep (sometimes spelled Immutef, Im-hotep, or Ii-em-Hotep; called Imuthes (Ιμυθες) by the Greeks), fl. 27th century BC (2650-2600 BC) (Egyptian ii-m-ḥtp *jā-im-ḥatāp meaning "the one who comes in, with peace") was an Egyptian polymath,[1] who served under the Third Dynasty king, Djoser, as chancellor to the pharaoh and high priest of the sun god Ra at Heliopolis. He is considered to be the first engineer[2], architect and physician in history known by name,[3] though two other physicians, Hesy-Ra and Merit-Ptah lived around the same time. The full list of his titles is:

Chancellor of the King of Egypt, Doctor, First in line after the King of Upper Egypt, Administrator of the Great Palace, Hereditary nobleman, High Priest of Heliopolis, Builder, Chief Carpenter, Chief Sculptor, and Maker of Vases in Chief.

Imhotep was one of very few mortals to be depicted as part of a pharaoh's statue. He was one of only a few commoners ever to be accorded divine status after death. The center of his cult was Memphis. From the First Intermediate Period onward Imhotep was also revered as a poet and philosopher. His sayings were famously referred to in poems: I have heard the words of Imhotep and Hordedef with whose discourses men speak so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

A religous site I know but still, the info given is pretty amazing if even half of it is true. When I was researching Newton before and his studies into working out ancient history and timelines I read he quit science and dedicated himself to the Bible after measuring the pyramid. http://www.network54.com/Realm/Present_Truth/pyramid.html

The architect of the Great Pyramid knew the exact length of the solar year, even to the tenth part of the second. This is shown in at least sixplaces, and by means of four units of length.

There is a second period known as the stellar year, or sidereal, year, about 20 minutes longer than the solar year. Thirdly there is another length called the orbital or anomalistic, year, which is in turn a few seconds longer still. And these two latter year lengths are also enshrined in the Great Pyramid.

The "Precesssion of the Equinoxes", a period of 25,827.5 years, the time required for our solar system as a unit to make one revolution around its vastly greater sun, the Pleiades, is shown exactly in the pyramid in four places.

Other scientific truths enshrined in the pyramid:

1. The mean distance from the earth to the sun.

2. The weight of the earth.

3. The mean density of the earth.

4. The fact of the sphericity of the earth.

5. The polar diameter of the earth, or the exact length of earth's polar axis of rotation.

6. The earth's mean orbit and maximum variation.

7. The variation of the earth's ecliptic.

8. The earth's mean temperature (the average temperature of the air in the Kings chamber).

9. The exact inch, foot, yard, furlong and mile, including the true length of the Standard Geographical Mile, a measure of 2917.467+ Pyramid Cubits.

10. The exact grain, ounce, pound, stone, (English weight of 14 pounds) and ton.

11. The standard British (and American) measures of the pint, quart, gallon, bushel and "quarter."

12. The art of squaring the circle in theory and in practice.

13. The art of doubling the cube, likewise in practice as well as in theory.

14. The art of that extremely difficult mathematical feat of offering a practical solution to the baffling problem, the quadrature of the circle.

15. The direction of True North.

16. The Pi Proportion, Pi being the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference, 3.14159+

17. The total land-area of the earth, the pyramid located in such a manner as to divide said land-area into four equal quarters, and in so doing to thus define both the earth's "master-meridian" of longitude, and "master-parallel" of latitude. In other words, the meridian passing over the Great Pyramid from north to south traverses more miles of land, and less of sea, than any other that can be drawn around the earth at any place, and that same distinction holds true of a parallel passing over the Pyramid's apex from east to west, or vice versa.

What about the Bible?

1. The cubic capacity of the Coffer in the King's Chamber is exactly the same as that of the famous Ark of the Covenant.

2. The Coffer's cubic capacity is also identical with that of the Jewish laver, and with that of the lavers, or baths, in the world-famous King Solomon's Temple, dedicated 1000 bc.

3. The "Golden Sea" of King Solomon's Temple had a capacity exactly equal to the cubic contents of the Coffer times 50.

4. Noah's Ark had a capacity identical with the cubic contents of the Coffer multiplied by 100,000.

The book of Job makes repeated mention of it. See 9:9, 19:24, 26:7 and 13, 28:7-9, 37:15-18, 38:4-36.

Why no hieroglyphs? Maybe because it was not actually an Egyptian creation.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imhotep was chief priest at Heliopolis. The Sun city, how did the Sun religion get into Egypt anyway?

According to Diodorus it was a son of Helios and Rhode, Actis who fled from the rest of the Heliadae TO Egypt showing that even the Greeks said that the Sun cult of Heliopolis was not Egyptian in origin.

It is the seat of the original Ennead pantheon and is also the original city of it's sister city Baalbek according to the Wiki article.

It is where the most ancient Egyptian history was preserved and where Plato and others studied philosophy in Egypt.

It stated in my above post how Imhotep was an early philosopher, surely it would be his own works, also seen as the writings of Thoth that influenced most Greek philosophers since his own philosophical writings were in Heliopolis. It states below they knew the exact solar year in Heliopolis.

Heliopolis has been occupied since the Predynastic Period, with extensive building campaigns during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Today it is mostly destroyed, its temples and other buildings having been used for the construction of mediæval Cairo; most information about it comes from textual sources.

According to Diodorus Siculus Heliopolis was built by Actis, one of the sons of Helios and Rhode, who named the city after his father.[4] The chief deity of Heliopolis was the god Atum, who was worshipped in the primary temple, which was known by the names Per-Aat (pr-ˁ3t; "Great House") and Per-Atum (pr-ỉtmw; "Temple [lit. "House"] of Atum"). The city was also the original source of the worship of the Ennead pantheon, although in later times, as Horus gained in prominence, worship focused on the syncretic solar deity Ra-harakhty (literally Ra, (who is) Horus of the Two Horizons). During the Amarna Period, King Akhenaten introduced monotheistic worship of Aton, the deified solar disc, built here a temple named Wetjes Aton (wṯs ỉtn "Elevating the Sun-disc"). Blocks from this temple were later used to build the city walls of mediaeval Cairo and can be seen in some of the city gates. The cult of the Mnevis bull, an embodiment of the god Ra, had its centre here, and possessed a formal burial ground north of the city.

As the capital of Egypt for a period of time, grain was stored in Heliopolis for the winter months, when many people would descend on the town to be fed, leading to it gaining the title place of bread.

Alexander the Great, on his march from Pelusium to Memphis, halted at this city (Arrian, iii. 1); and, according to Macrobius (Saturn. i. 23), Baalbek, or the Syrian Heliopolis, was a priest-colony from its Egyptian namesake.

The temple of Ra was said to have been, to a special degree, a depository for royal records, and Herodotus states that the priests of Heliopolis were the best informed in matters of history of all the Egyptians. Heliopolis flourished as a seat of learning during the Greek period; the schools of philosophy and astronomy are claimed to have been frequented by Orpheus, Homer,[5] Pythagoras, Plato, Solon, and other Greek philosophers. From Ichonuphys, who was lecturing there in 308 BC, and who numbered Eudoxus among his pupils, the Greek mathematician learned the true length of the year and month, upon which he formed his octaeterid, or period of eight years or ninety-nine months. Ptolemy II had Manethon, the chief priest of Heliopolis, collect his history of the ancient kings of Egypt from its archives. The later Ptolemies probably took little interest in their "father" Ra, and Alexandria had eclipsed the learning of Heliopolis; thus with the withdrawal of royal favour Heliopolis quickly dwindled, and the students of native lore deserted it for other temples supported by a wealthy population of pious citizens. By the 1st century BC, in fact, Strabo found the temples deserted, and the town itself almost uninhabited, although priests were still present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopolis_(ancient)

In Greek mythology, Actis (Ἀκτίς) was one of the Heliadae, a son of Rhodus and Helios. Actis, along with his brothers, Triopas, Macar and Candalus, were jealous of a fifth brother, Tenages's, skill at science. They killed him and Actis escaped to Egypt.[1] According to Diodorus Siculus, Actis built the city of Heliopolis in Egypt to honour his father Helios.

In Greek mythology, the Heliadae (Ἡλιάδαι) were the seven sons of Helios and Rhode. They were Ochimus, Cercaphus, Macareus, Actis, Tenages, Triopas, and Candalus. They were expert astrologers and seafarers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason that could explain the lack of hieroglyphics in GP is that the written script was imperfect in some way. Considering the apparent perfection of complex nature of GP perhaps the architects thought that to write text would detract from the amazing geometry. I was reading about the last pharoah of the 5th dynasty, Unas and how his pyramid at Saqqara was the first to have a complete text incribed.

The last king of this dynasty, Unas, built his complex close to the southwestern corner of the enclosure wall surrounding the complex of Djoser. The main pyramid is called, ‘Perfect are the Places of Unas.’ There were human remains found but it is uncertain whether they are those of Unas. The pyramid is the first since that of Djoser to have decorated rooms. The columns in the antechamber and part of the horizontal passage are carved with hieroglyphs painted in blue. These are the earliest known examples of the pyramid texts and considered the oldest collection of religious texts known to man. Pyramid texts are inscribed with a collection of religious texts and spells.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/saqqara.html

Some useful information in the link below.

http://anthropology.suite101.com/article.cfm/egyptian-king-unas-and-the-pyramid-texts

And some more here. Interesting how the first hieroglyphs in a tomb are a proto-canaanite spell warding off snakes.

http://phoenicia.org/byblos_priests_spells.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own personal opinion is Imhotep designed it and as he would have been quite old, if alive at all, others built it based on his knowledge. HIS.

His name equates to The one who comes in, with peace. In where? To Egypt...? from where with peace? Canaan...was Imhotep a Hebrew - didn't I just see a topic about Joseph and Akhenaten? That Moses ends up being taken in by Pharoahs daughter could surely indicate a Hebrew intrusion into the Egyptian Royal line.

The name "Comes in Peace" or "Comes with Peace" (ii-m-Htp) does not imply a foreign origin. It was a common name as well as epithet that simply meant the person so named was satisfied or content in his being. There is no evidence Imhotep was anything else than Egyptian, born and bread. This was Dynasty 3 (2663-2195 BCE), a time in Egypt well before we have solid attestation of foreigners becoming powerful members of the ruling elite. We do not have any idea of the identify of Imhotep's parents (aside from legends written millennia later that have no basis in fact), and I do not believe evidence has surfaced to show familial ties with Djoser, the first king he served; however, it is logical to suspect that he came from a powerful family that was already part of the ruling elite in Early Dynastic Egypt.

The last definitive evidence we have for Imhotep is an inscription at the site of the unfinished pyramid complex of Sekhemkhet, two kings after Djoser. It's quite possible Imhotep had a hand in the beginnings of this pyramid before construction was abandoned. This was around 2626 BCE. This was around 80 at the least before construction would've begun on the Great Pyramid at Giza, so we can safely discount any idea that Imhotep had anything to do with Khufu's reign. Or that he was even still alive by then. Moreover, this was over 1,400 years before the earliest identifiable evidence for a people who would be known as Israel, so we can definitely discount any connections between Imhotep and the Hebrews. When a strict observance of timelines is not practiced, such an argument cannot possibly be realistically posited. It's no more realistic than trying to find a time and place in Egypt for Joseph and Moses, two people for whom there is no evidence whatsoever outside the pages of the Old Testament.

Imhotep (sometimes spelled Immutef, Im-hotep, or Ii-em-Hotep; called Imuthes (Ιμυθες) by the Greeks), fl. 27th century BC (2650-2600 BC) (Egyptian ii-m-ḥtp *jā-im-ḥatāp meaning "the one who comes in, with peace") was an Egyptian polymath,[1] who served under the Third Dynasty king, Djoser, as chancellor to the pharaoh and high priest of the sun god Ra at Heliopolis. He is considered to be the first engineer[2], architect and physician in history known by name,[3] though two other physicians, Hesy-Ra and Merit-Ptah lived around the same time. The full list of his titles is:

Chancellor of the King of Egypt, Doctor, First in line after the King of Upper Egypt, Administrator of the Great Palace, Hereditary nobleman, High Priest of Heliopolis, Builder, Chief Carpenter, Chief Sculptor, and Maker of Vases in Chief.

Imhotep's legends as a healer are not from his own time. This came millennia later, when he was deified and venerated in the Late Period and Ptolemaic Period, as well as into Roman times. When we turn to titles for him known from his own time, we have this. LOL It was very nice of someone out there to place this graphic on the internet. Saved me a lot of work, and it's nicely done. Most of the titles mentioned in the Wiki article are on this inscribed fragment, but nothing pertaining to healing or medicine. If he was known for such feats, evidence for it doesn't survive from inscriptions in his own time. And that is what we are required to go by--separating fact from legend. Fussy point, I know, but I'm admittedly anal about content accuracy.

I should also point out that none of Imhotep's titles preserved in inscriptions from his time are unique to him. At least one high-ranking courtier in the reign of each notable king bore basically the same titles, if not more. I'm not trying to demean Imhotep, who was clearly an impressive figure, but it strikes me that this fellow from the 27th century BCE has become something of a cult hero on the internet, and a lot of the information out there on the internet is just plain simplistic, if not dubious.

Imhotep was one of very few mortals to be depicted as part of a pharaoh's statue. He was one of only a few commoners ever to be accorded divine status after death. The center of his cult was Memphis. From the First Intermediate Period onward Imhotep was also revered as a poet and philosopher. His sayings were famously referred to in poems: I have heard the words of Imhotep and Hordedef with whose discourses men speak so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

I'm not familiar with Imhotep's reputation in the First Intermediate Period, although I don't outright doubt this fact. I've read a lot of the written material that survives from this period (2195-2066 BCE, over 400 years after Imhotep's time) and haven't come across praises to Imhotep; I'll have to dig deeper because I'd like to read some of this stuff. I am in agreement with everything else in the quote. Truly Imhotep was highly regarded in his own time. The inscription dedicated to him that appears on one statue of Djoser's is extremely unusual, if not unique. Pity that Imhotep's tomb has not yet been found. It's unlikely there would be little if any notable inscriptional material within this tomb, but what a discovery it would be!

1. The mean distance from the earth to the sun.

2. The weight of the earth.

3. The mean density of the earth.

4. The fact of the sphericity of the earth.

5. The polar diameter of the earth, or the exact length of earth's polar axis of rotation.

6. The earth's mean orbit and maximum variation.

7. The variation of the earth's ecliptic.

8. The earth's mean temperature (the average temperature of the air in the Kings chamber).

9. The exact inch, foot, yard, furlong and mile, including the true length of the Standard Geographical Mile, a measure of 2917.467+ Pyramid Cubits.

10. The exact grain, ounce, pound, stone, (English weight of 14 pounds) and ton.

11. The standard British (and American) measures of the pint, quart, gallon, bushel and "quarter."

12. The art of squaring the circle in theory and in practice.

13. The art of doubling the cube, likewise in practice as well as in theory.

14. The art of that extremely difficult mathematical feat of offering a practical solution to the baffling problem, the quadrature of the circle.

15. The direction of True North.

16. The Pi Proportion, Pi being the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference, 3.14159+

17. The total land-area of the earth, the pyramid located in such a manner as to divide said land-area into four equal quarters, and in so doing to thus define both the earth's "master-meridian" of longitude, and "master-parallel" of latitude. In other words, the meridian passing over the Great Pyramid from north to south traverses more miles of land, and less of sea, than any other that can be drawn around the earth at any place, and that same distinction holds true of a parallel passing over the Pyramid's apex from east to west, or vice versa.

Most of this has no relevance to the ancient Egyptian culture, aside from something like the knowledge of true north (the establishment of which requires no advanced skills and can achieved by the average Boy Scout). For more than two centuries people have been "measuring" the Great Pyramid and coming up with all sorts of odd and unusual facts, practically all of which are scientifically dubious at best and outright falsifications at worst. It seems people who grasp at such straws do not understand an incredibly basic fact about the ancient Egyptian culture: they were flat earthers. In their cosmology the earth was a flat disk surrounded by heavenly waters through which Re towed the sun in a solar barque.

Therefore, things like weight of the earth, density of the earth, sphericity of the earth, polar axis, and total land area of the earth can be dismissed if we're examining this from the perspective of the Egyptians of the Early Bronze Age, which is the only perspective that matters. The earth's mean temperature is a silly one, to be sure. Climatic change is an ever-present phenomenon on this little blue globe. Indeed, the climate in Egypt today is more humid than it was in Khufu's time. As for units of measurement, the Egyptians did not use inches, feet, yards, furlongs, miles, pints, quarts, gallons, and bushels. Egyptian units of measurement are fairly well understood, but we have modern New Age types or biblical enthusiasts twisting cubits or inventing nonsensical units of measurement ("Pyramid Inch") to try to arrive at meaningful results. There is also no evidence in those works of mathematics which survive from pharaonic Egypt that the Egyptians knew of or understood Pi. They may have come to something close to it in the Great Pyramid and other monuments, but that doesn't mean it was a working principle in their building projects. It wasn't.

What about the Bible?

1. The cubic capacity of the Coffer in the King's Chamber is exactly the same as that of the famous Ark of the Covenant.

2. The Coffer's cubic capacity is also identical with that of the Jewish laver, and with that of the lavers, or baths, in the world-famous King Solomon's Temple, dedicated 1000 bc.

3. The "Golden Sea" of King Solomon's Temple had a capacity exactly equal to the cubic contents of the Coffer times 50.

4. Noah's Ark had a capacity identical with the cubic contents of the Coffer multiplied by 100,000.

The book of Job makes repeated mention of it. See 9:9, 19:24, 26:7 and 13, 28:7-9, 37:15-18, 38:4-36.[/i]

Why no hieroglyphs? Maybe because it was not actually an Egyptian creation.

Why no hieroglyphs? Asked and answered in this thread numerous times now, and amply explained in the professional literature. It's well understood, just as there can be no question whatsoever that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid and all of the other pyramids in their land. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kmt, I won't repeat the whole post but thought this sentence of yours pointed something important out:

"Therefore, things like weight of the earth, density of the earth, sphericity of the earth, polar axis, and total land area of the earth can be dismissed if we're examining this from the perspective of the Egyptians of the Early Bronze Age, which is the only perspective that matters."

Is it really the only perspective that matters? I think not and this is where everything gets confused. If the pyramid texts are not Egyptian in origin, nor is the whole concept of the pyramid more than likely. Since legend has the builder of Heliopolis as entering Egypt and the Sun cult in various forms outside of Egypt plus the contact between early Canaanites in Egypt and Egyptians in the Levant you should be looking far wider than an Egyptian perspective because contrare to what all the Egyptologists probably conclude, I believe Egyptian religion and the idea of the pyramids in general did not originate in Egypt. If one finds things that have no importance to Egyptians it is probably best to question why and where they were included from, not to simply dismiss it.

Joseph could easily have been a Hebrew, just not known as one at that time, a later term but the people existed.

Imhotep could easily have been from somewhere else, no evidence survives to say he was born in Egypt. No evidence has been found of his tomb, it might not be in Egypt, just as Josephs is not.

I do think the Egyptians built the pyramids, I don't think it was their knowledge that built it though.

Time frames are not as important as you think. Like I said Herodotus says the pyramids are built c. 1100BC!! by Hebrews. You say no way!! Why has this discrepency occurred in the first place as he has heard it relayed by the priests? See, stories twist as you know, events are not placed into context in many of these ancient writings, Greek myths record truth but the time frame makes it seem nonsense, none of it is, really, it is not in time frame context that is all nor a literal translation of events. The Bible is probably the same and we know how much bs the Egyptians wrote, you say yourself how much exaggeration went on. It seems ironic to me then that everything else is dismissed based on picking and choosing what timeframes determine it to be. I have been making a list lately of every thing I pick up on that has a skewed time frame or the 1000 year overlap I see all the time, a double up of cultures and kings with a thousand year gap between them all. I'm sure you will find it interesting when I'm done :)

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I deleted this post, just rambling OT. I'll keep it for another time.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really the only perspective that matters? I think not and this is where everything gets confused. If the pyramid texts are not Egyptian in origin, nor is the whole concept of the pyramid more than likely.

Ugh! I don't know where you're getting this but I've already addressed it at least once. I am compelled to do it again, for the sake of clarity. Some time ago in another thread I had mentioned to cladking that a handful of spells within the Pyramid Texts were derived from Canaanite serpent incantations. Did you read this and misinterpret it? This is only a scant handful of spells. The Pyramid Texts contain more than 700 spells, and in total at least 99% are purely Egyptian. Aside from a miniscule scattering of Canaanite serpent spells, these writings are Egyptian in origin and many of them almost certainly date back to prehistoric Egypt. They are not foreign in origin. The Pyramid Texts are purely Egyptian, and the pyramids are purely Egyptian. There is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate that either idea came from outside Egypt. Can you cite a scholarly source to suggest otherwise?

Since legend has the builder of Heliopolis as entering Egypt and the Sun cult in various forms outside of Egypt plus the contact between early Canaanites in Egypt and Egyptians in the Levant you should be looking far wider than an Egyptian perspective because contrare to what all the Egyptologists probably conclude, I believe Egyptian religion and the idea of the pyramids in general did not originate in Egypt. If one finds things that have no importance to Egyptians it is probably best to question why and where they were included from, not to simply dismiss it.

Most of these legends are Greco-Roman in origin. Practically none of them offer us a solid historicity of pharaonic Egypt. All Greek legends are presented with a heavy Greek bias, and they do not present a realistic or reliable historical study in most cases. The earliest temple setting of Heliopolis, for example, dates back to prehistoric times. No one has any idea who first started building there, and because this was at least 1,400 years before the earliest Greek peoples (Mycenaeans) interacted with Egyptians, we cannot realistically expect a Classical writer from Greece to have any meaningful knowledge of the founding of Heliopolis. What we're told in these legends is not Egyptian at all, but a Greek spin in an attempt to make connections for a Greek audience.

The Egyptian sun cult itself predates Heliopolis and probably had its origins in the prehistoric founding of the temple precinct at Hierakonpolis (ancient Nekhen, deep in southern Egypt). Careful research of the prehistoric Nile Valley peoples shows in no uncertain terms how what we see in pharaonic-period religion was a natural development and extension of the prehistoric religions of the Nile Valley. Egypt's religion wasn't "invented" by some foreign culture and then delivered to the Nile Valley like a UPS package. That is not how it works. And the pyramids, from Djoser's on, are a natural development and extension of the Egyptian solar cult that was growing in Heliopolis in the Old Kingdom. There is nothing foreign about them, either. The only thing close to them in form were the ziggurats of Mesopotamia, and although bearing a passing and vague similarity in form, in function they were completely different. No identifiable connection there, either. In the ancient Near East, pyramids as built by and used by Egypt are unique to Egypt.

Joseph could easily have been a Hebrew, just not known as one at that time, a later term but the people existed.

Imhotep could easily have been from somewhere else, no evidence survives to say he was born in Egypt. No evidence has been found of his tomb, it might not be in Egypt, just as Josephs is not.

At present Joseph exists as an allegorical, mytho-historical figure. There simply is no extra-biblical proof that he was a real man. The same is true for Moses. (I stress extra-biblical, in the sense that the origin for such figures as Abraham, Joseph, and Moses is the Old Testament of the Hebrews; all writings about such figures in Classical times, such as with Manetho and Josephus, drew from the Old Testament for information.) As Abraham is considered the founder of the Jewish faith, following the command of Yahweh to leave Ur (Genesis 12), all biblical figures that followed in the story were themselves of the same faith. Joseph is one of them. He was a Hebrew. The big difference here is that Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and the others were allegorical, mytho-historical figures. Imhotep was a real man.

It's true that no definitive evidence survives of Imhotep's parentage, and probably none shall ever be found, but we absolutely cannot use that absence of evidence to suggest that he was a foreigner. Plenty of foreigners were probably moving into Egypt at the time, especially from Nubia and the Levant (as they always would), but this was a very long time before they were in a position to figure prominently in the Egyptian court. All we have in the way of evidence for Imhotep from his own time are his name and titles, and all are classically Egyptian. There is no reason to suspect that he was not born in Egypt.

Neither can we base such an argument on the fact that Imhotep's tomb has yet to be located. There are still quite a number of kings whose tombs have yet to be found, but this doesn't give us cause to label them as foreigners. All it means is that we haven't yet found their tombs. Although Imhotep's tomb is still unknown, if it is found, I am willing to lay money on the odds that it will be found in Saqqara, and not far from the Step Pyramid complex. This may not happen in our lifetime, but I am certain of it. More than one huge but ruined Saqqara mastaba tomb has been posited to be Imhotep's, but the absence of inscriptions makes it impossible to be definitive about that. Most tombs in Dynasty 3 had few if any inscriptions, even among the ruling elite, so it's entirely possible his tomb has been found but we don't know it, and might never know it.

I do think the Egyptians built the pyramids, I don't think it was their knowledge that built it though.

No archaeological or textual evidence of any kind exists to suggest otherwise. No one else in the Mediterranean and Near East can be shown to have possessed the knowledge, administration, and engineering skills to build pyramids--except for the Egyptians. And no one else in the Mediterranean and Near East probably would've been motivated to build pyramids in the first place, seeing as how these pyramids served a uniquely Egyptian purpose.

Time frames are not as important as you think. Like I said Herodotus says the pyramids are built c. 1100BC!! by Hebrews. You say no way!! Why has this discrepency occurred in the first place as he has heard it relayed by the priests? See, stories twist as you know, events are not placed into context in many of these ancient writings, Greek myths record truth but the time frame makes it seem nonsense, none of it is, really, it is not in time frame context that is all nor a literal translation of events. The Bible is probably the same and we know how much bs the Egyptians wrote, you say yourself how much exaggeration went on. It seems ironic to me then that everything else is dismissed based on picking and choosing what timeframes determine it to be. I have been making a list lately of every thing I pick up on that has a skewed time frame or the 1000 year overlap I see all the time, a double up of cultures and kings with a thousand year gap between them all. I'm sure you will find it interesting when I'm done :)

Herodotus is not a reliable source on which to base such an argument. He gets some things right and many things completely wrong. You cannot use his writings alone as a basis for research, as any trained and experienced historian knows. Timelines are absolutely essential if an historical theory is to have any merit whatsoever. To disregard them is to negate the very purpose for real-world research. Classical writers do not teach us factual history. Archaeology, philology, and a myriad of related scientific fields teach us factual history.

Remember this: the earliest written record of Israel comes from Egypt and dates to about 1207 BCE, on a victory stela commissioned by Merenptah. They are displayed as a wandering bunch of nomads with no polity or central authority, which meshes very well with what archaeology of the Holy Lands tells us. The Hebrews were only starting to come into existence at this time. Prior to this, the Levant was a mixture of pagan Canaanite principalities, and prior to this, for many hundreds of years, either Egypt, Hatti, or the Mitanni controlled all of the Levant. None of them make any mention of a people even remotely identifiable as Hebraic until that victory stela of Merenptah.

Ignore timelines at your own peril. I know you and I see things very differently, but trust me: it cannot be done without negating the credibility of your arguments.

Sorry, I deleted this post, just rambling OT. I'll keep it for another time.

What's wrong with rambling? As is evident in practically every post I write, I myself am an insufferable rambler. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kmt - I think alot of people want to start their posts with Ugh when they reply to me... :rolleyes: lol

OK, your answer to cladking caught my attention at the time, yes. I might have been a bit heavy handed in saying the whole texts were not Egyptian. I see on clarifying it is a section of them. They may not be foreign in origin but we know at least a part of them is. I can't cite a scholarly source right now but imo it depends on how Imhotep conceived the idea and it could have been an outside influence. What I don't see is any build up to the idea in Egypt.

What it says though is the Egyptians at this early timeframe were willing to bring in outside religious influence so to say they wouldn't have or didn't is still being very closed-minded. They did bring in outside influences and at 3000BC (as these texts are sometimes backdated to) and around at least that time we can expect to find outside religious influences in Egypt.

Classical writers from Greece may have had a far better understanding than you realise. Homer hasn't plucked all that stuff from the air, there is underlying truth to it all and most classical Greek writers write what they have learned from others I have noticed, they themselves might not have known but information given to them can be far older than them and their own culture. I understand the word Heliopolis is Greek and adapted as the name through them and it still existed and was a sun cult city so regardless of what it's called by the Greeks the name of the city was still all about the Sun long before they got there. The Greeks didn't make it a sun cult city, it already was one, they just called it sun city. I agree it's a Greek spin but the story behind it does not even have to be Greek. How do you know that sun worshippers from Rhodes did not build the city that was a sun cult place? Rhodes had Neolithic settlers before the Minoans came.

A UPS package, lol. I beg to differ though to an extent and think that it is how it goes actually. Religions are usually imparted onto others, especially so in ancient times. The conquering of a country usually meant a UPS package delivered to that people of a new religion.

It depends also on whether you see the Sun cult as having an Egyptian origin or not too as to whether their reverence of it came from the inside.

I would be interested in where you get info on the sun religion being anywhere else earlier than Heiropolis because I can't seem to find anything, I've looked in books too, can you direct me better to how I would find info of this sort, you say Nekhen, but all I find is Horus and his role but nothing specifically on the sun.

The pyramids are the primordial mound of Atum then?

I know who they say is real by evidence and who's not. Here's the thing, what sort of evidence do you expect to find for these people? Written words about them by Egyptians? Hebrew writing which wasn't around? What sort of evidence would be required to establish that these men were real? They were not Kings, there would no records there, they didn't have a writing in use, orally, if the Bible is a record of oral history they should exist. I boggle my mind to find what it is that can be found though...

I gather you have heard of the Tempest Stele by Ahmose describing hard hail and torrential rain that flattened the place including the foundations of the temples and pyramids?

I mentioned last night somewhere here how it sounded like a record of that 'plague' and as I looked it over in the Bible and the translation and then went and slept on it I can see no other it could be talking about except the same event.

The stele even refers to the God as seemingly different to his own Gods that sends the storm. I know this was thrown into the James Cameron special but that whole thing was one of those overblown shows but standing alone on it's own, I cannot see how 2 seperate intense hailstorms hit Egypt around 1500BC when they barely have any at all. It has to be the same one referred to in the Bible imo, it's too co-incidental for it not to be.

The Victory Stela of 1207BC fits exactly when I would expect to hear of them as prior to them arriving back into Canaan I wouldn't expect to find any sign of them, then when they did get back and became an identifiable culture of wandering nomads, which is exactly what Moses and his band of people are as they wander through the Sinai, they set up some areas and were known by around 1200BC as Hebrews by the neighbouring people.

I am very much with the timeline actually and realise how fruitless it is to work against it, what I say is, not the timeline is wrong, the recorded events are recorded in wrong timelines much of the time.

Gotta go or I'd ramble some more.. ;)

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article seems to point out the Hebrew language existed at the time of the texts.

The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic languages and literature at Yeshiva University in New York, in a lecture entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.

Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian scripts over the past 25 years. In his Hebrew University lecture, he provided the interpretation for Semitic passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago, inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but Egyptologists agree that the texts are older. The dates proposed for them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.

The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately

recognized the Semitic words for 'mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and Semitic texts elucidate each other."

Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of Egypt.

The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the

Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing of Semitic magic.

"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic and the other Semitic languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare words in the Bible, he said.

"This is a sensational discovery," said Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and Proto-Canaanite, in particular."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129100250.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another article dated from this year identifying Hebrew writing from 10th century BC, earliest known:

The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: "It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research."

A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David's reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.

Prof. Galil's deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages. The content itself was also unfamiliar to all the cultures in the region besides the Hebrew society: The present inscription provides social elements similar to those found in the biblical prophecies and very different from prophecies written by other cultures postulating glorification of the gods and taking care of their physical needs," Prof. Galil explains.

He adds that once this deciphering is received, the inscription will become the earliest Hebrew inscription to be found, testifying to Hebrew writing abilities as early as the 10th century BCE. This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognized the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107183037.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey all 1st post here so please forgive me if I seem ignorant of facts n all, but I just read the comments and its something that interests me very much, so I registered specifically due to this thread. I have been through the theories from sand slopes to flying saucer landing pads as someone said earlier, And I would just like to throw a few questions of my own into the mix if I may, that I don't think have been asked. Now I am a complete layman here so its not through any academic knowledgeable angle that I am bursting in here with, just questions, that's all.

1. Now as per sources like Wiki stating that Kufu's pyramid was built in an approx 20 year time span and given the estimations of how many stones and weights n such, I find this a little confusing.

There is said to be roughly 2.3 million stones in the Kufu's big pointy rock thingy (how they know that I don't know) but I am just going from what I have heard. Also the averaged weight, again another approximation is said to be somewhere in the region of 2.5 tons per stone. So from a few basic calculations, over 20 years the time to quarry, transport, cut and shape, lift into place comes out to about 5 minutes a stone for 20 years solid without a break "at all". Now if the Pyramid building time is in error which is basically what I am getting at here, how could it have been built for Kufu if not all sitting ready to go before hand?

I am not a Sitchin fan so I am not drawing any conclusions based on Aliens or the An/nun/aki (I think that's right) Annunaki has become the conspiricists buzz word of choice these days and its really hard to have a discussion without it going into the Sumerian mistranslations of Sitchin (although how would I know anyway, right?). I although have come across a pretty convincing couple of guys on my hobby quest regarding Egypt. And what caught my eye was a posters name I am speaking of KMT-Sesh (respect dude, you seem to know your onions), now these guys I speak of speak very much on the actual origin of the word KMT which If I am correct means 'The Black Land' as the Nile flooding would deposit rich black soil on the farmlands alongside it n all. So as far as I know vowels were not something these guys used in Ancient Egypt so I have heard it wrote or pronounced as Khemet, Kemet or Kemit, which one is more accurate I do not have a clue, but will lead me to my next question.

2. Could the name 'KMT' refer to more than just the soil? I am speaking of the race of people also, ie the Black African. Now I am not a black dude seeking my historical roots(no offense meant by that btw) I am a white Irish boy who relocated stateside for your women and jobs (lol just kidding although technically, not really :D ). Now I ask this for the reasons that the researchers I am about to name drop later in the post, as I don't want you to see the name and consider me an armchair pseudo-archeologist before you hear(read) me out, which I won't be offended with by the way. I have believed my fair share of theories only to be kicked in the teeth with evidence that puts me in my humble place so honesty is what I am after here.

Ok so on the "Black African" question still. The Sphinx is not of an Arab facial structure, its quite clearly African, It is also not Ramses II, these guys knew how to make pretty damn accurate representations of Ramses II. There is a statue of him and seems to be pretty anatomically correct, as one side does not mirror the other side but differs like the human head tends to do. This statue has been compared in facial structure to the sphinx and its definitely not Ramses II. Now i know the Black race was depicted many times in Egypt and Nefertiti was without a doubt a Black woman but is there not a missing link of the origins of the AE that seems would clarify things a little here, would they not be better described as Khemitians and later assimilated by Arabs later on?

3. cladking brought this up and I too think it has merit, the tomb issue. Why would Kufu be buried or expected to be buried in the Pyramid when Kufu's funeral boat (don't know the exact term for it) was for taking his body to Osiris in heaven by floating it down or up the Nile to the stars, as far as I know is also presently reconstructed at the Giza plateau?

4. If the Egyptians really did construct these things, then why is there any doubt at all? Why didn't they tell us exactly how they were built and for what purpose in hieroglyphs? Surely huge immense stories would have been written alongside the Pharaoh they were meant for. Plus how did they shape these huge pink granite and limestone blocks that would make any stone mason today very proud, with copper chisels? More importantly how did they lift them? To me there seems to be a huge chunk of knowledge not being addressed relating to this. Its a big mystery. but "why" is it a big mystery?, they made no great secret out of anything else.

Alongside this the massive Megaliths all over the world that just plain defy not only the technology of then, but also of now. The one that caught my attention was the unfinished Obelisk at Aswan. Now this thing is said to be in the region of 1,000 tons and has a big crack in it. People say "Oh yeah they were planning to use this then a big crack appeared in it and they had to leave it". Ok fair enough but how where they expected to get it out of the trench it was in, and how where they going to separate it from the bedrock it was carved from beneath it? Why would they have the visible sides in a finished state before even lifting the thing. I would have thought it better to lift out the block and then work on getting it flat and shaped, so why would they do this while it was still attached underneath? Again all this with Copper tools, now I don't know for a fact I have to say, that all they had was copper tools, its just that no tools have yet been found(AFAIK) that would allow them to shape pink granite which is pretty damn hard stuff. Copper cannot cut it, that has been tested and its the equivalent of chopping a tree down with a lead axe.

Ok so I will tell you where I am getting these questions from and I suppose it will either kill me, cure me or just get me insanely flamed (please be kind), they are coming from an guy called Stephen Mehler, I am sure some or all of you must be familiar with him. He has studied Egyptology for about 30+ years and has all the qualifications regarding the field yet his work is pretty much in contradiction to what Egyptology is all about. He states that quite a lot of Egyptology is flat out wrong and just echoes from the first errors of Archeologists that studied the Pyramids way back in the day. He doesn't negate them entirely either that has to be said. I will add a couple of vids at the end of my long winded post (sorry bout that btw) so you can see where I am coming from. Tear it apart or explain to me how its wrong, I am prepared to be wrong and won't take offense at being wrong, provided its explained in layman terms and I can understand 'how' its wrong.

Ok so here is the vids,

Stephen Mehler Land of Osiris, guys introducing him is Christopher Dunn, talks for about 10 mins setting him up n all, you can skip it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 001846186#

This next one is very interesting too, bit out there but hey, isn't everything these days.

Christopher Dunn The Giza Power Plant

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 474744663#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome. Good first post, it's good to have more freethinkers on board to balance all the esteemed skeptical minds already present. Here is a quite interesting link on Stephen Mahler. He is not mainstream but has learnt from a man indiginous to the region and this may offer insights unattainable to academia.

http://www.gizapyramid.com/blue.htm

http://ascendingpassage.com/exploring-egypt.htm

You should enjoy this link if you have not read it already.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/stargate/stargate10.htm

Now I'm not a fan of William Henry but I am not afraid of seeking fringe material for research purposes provided the content is decent. Considering how much remains relatively unexplained and global parrallels in language and culture, it cannot hurt I feel, as long as one keeps an objective mind as much as possible.

Are you familiar with the work of Andrew Collins? I have a lot of time for some of his theories. You may also want to read about Unas who seems to be an important figure, especially as pertains to hieroglyphs.

Just some more links for fun.

http://www.hermes3.net/apr106.htm

http://www.sacredearthjourneys.ca/current-tours/journey-to-the-land-of-ancient-wisdom/tour-summary

http://www.gizapyramid.com/mehler-originword.htm

Thanks for putting me onto Mahler as I hadn't paid much notice to him previously. That's synergy for you I guess. Sorry to drone on but hit me up anytime as only so much can be discussed in thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Branjo and welcome to the forum.

Oh Boy! You've really opened the proverbial can of worms! I, like you, don't accept that the stone and copper tools were used to cut and dress the stones of the pyramids. However, orthodox Egyptology does, and they will not deviate from that belief no matter how many demonstrations are given to show that it could not happen.

Surely you've heard of the fiasco of Mark Lehner (second high God of orthodox Egyptology, Zahi Hawass being numero uno) who tried to duplicate the feat of building a pyramid, and failed miserably. Seems to me I recall it took a week to actually get a cut block with a copper tool. They couldn't move the block into place, had to bring in trucks, bulldozers and in the end a helicopter to place the top on, and yet they still believe the ancients did it with stone and copper. We're just not as talented don't you see?

Also like you, I thought kmt was referring to the black people, who most of my life, I thought were the original Egyptians. Amazing what a real education can learn ya, ain't it? :) In my own mind I call kmt_sesh Kem-Tee.

Clicking on your links, gives a Google video error. Dunn is considered a Fringie of course and I'm dying to see what happens regarding the name Mehler!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Also like you, I thought kmt was referring to the black people, who most of my life, I thought were the original Egyptians. Amazing what a real education can learn ya, ain't it? :) In my own mind I call kmt_sesh Kem-Tee.

Clicking on your links, gives a Google video error. Dunn is considered a Fringie of course and I'm dying to see what happens regarding the name Mehler!!

Dunn is more or less clueless and has no real understanding of Bronze Age technologies. He is certainly not to be taken seriously. I don't think I'm familiar with Mehler.

More important, however, is Kem-Tee. I don't get it. Sounds like some Asian herbal drink. :lol:

I'd like to address some of Branjo's points and questions but it will have to wait till this evening. Busy, busy today, including the memorial service for a friend who recently died. I'll pop in later.

Kem-Tee

I mean, kmt_sesh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Now I'm not a fan of William Henry but I am not afraid of seeking fringe material for research purposes provided the content is decent...

Bad, Slim. Bad! Twenty lashings. :lol:

Provided the content is decent? By definition the content of fringe material is extremely dubious, and is to be avoided at all costs. Why seek fringe material when there are mountains of professional and reliable material? All the research and literature is out there for the taking, so there should be no reason to resort to the fringe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad, Slim. Bad! Twenty lashings. :lol:

Provided the content is decent? By definition the content of fringe material is extremely dubious, and is to be avoided at all costs. Why seek fringe material when there are mountains of professional and reliable material? All the research and literature is out there for the taking, so there should be no reason to resort to the fringe!

Yeah sorry I should have explained... that is good research for creative writing. The Fringe is awesome for that stuff aswell as the world of mysticism. But I am not stating the fringe to be accurate in anyway just a good source of imagination and occasionally inspiration.

What is that site they refer to in the pleiades link please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. If the Egyptians really did construct these things, then why is there any doubt at all? Why didn't they tell us exactly how they were built and for what purpose in hieroglyphs? Surely huge immense stories would have been written alongside the Pharaoh they were meant for. Plus how did they shape these huge pink granite and limestone blocks that would make any stone mason today very proud, with copper chisels? More importantly how did they lift them? To me there seems to be a huge chunk of knowledge not being addressed relating to this. Its a big mystery. but "why" is it a big mystery?, they made no great secret out of anything else.

I'm not sure I understand all the other questions so will hold off for the nonce.

There's no reasonable doubt that the Egytpians built the great pyramids. It's not as though anyone's going to sneak in and start building pyramids for them. There is adequate evidence that they built them and, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence for how.

These questions aren't being addressed because those who are supposed to be carrying the torch instead just decided it must have been ramps 150 years ago so are too busy trying to prove something that is wrong to see the facts.

There's no secret here. The ancients even left the PT to tell how it was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mind boggles.

.......all the evidence available online, form some of the finest egyptologists, historians, archeologists, engineers and stone-masons who have no doubt the Egyptians built their pyramids, and yet still there are some who believe "aliens" somewhow are responsible for their construction. Despite zero ET evidence. tsk tsk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mind boggles.

.......all the evidence available online, form some of the finest egyptologists, historians, archeologists, engineers and stone-masons who have no doubt the Egyptians built their pyramids, and yet still there are some who believe "aliens" somewhow are responsible for their construction. Despite zero ET evidence. tsk tsk

Believe is not censurable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just once....

Instead of listing how they believe the Egyptians COULD NOT have built their pyramids..... I'd like them to explain how aliens COULD have built them. With maybe some evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.