Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

SC:The biggest error of most proponents of the Pyramid Tomb Theory is that all pyramids that Consensus Egyptology has not classed as a Cenotaph or a Provincial Pyramid is regarded as the tomb of an AE king.

The early, giant pyramids were *not* conceived or built as tombs. They were built as Recovery Vaults to protect against the anticipated end time 'Flood of Thoth'; a means to effect the (eventual) rebirth of the kingdom, of the two lands. As instruments to effect the ‘rebirth of the kingdom’ these first pyramid structures *may* have influenced the ongoing development of the AE religion and provided the impetus for the building of the later, much inferior pyramids as instruments to facilitate the rebirth of the king i.e. as tombs. But these first pyramids were, first and foremost, about the protection, preservation and rebirth of the kingdom. Later this concept *may* have morphed into the protection, preservation and rebirth of the king.

PTT proponents insist on the concept that no significant changes happened after

the great pyramid building age. The only ones they allow relate to conjecture about

why the ancients would cease building great pyramids. There is no evidence for why

they built great pyramids so any evidence about why they might quit has to be conjec-

ture.

Frankly, I believe there are numerous theories out there that are far more plausible

than orthodoxy. There are numerous theories that are better fit with logic and evidence

than orthodoxy. But orthodoxy simply dismisses them all as they continue to damage the

evidence and look for the ramps they'll never find. Everything about orthodooxy founded

on the big four assumptions will be found to be untrue in time. Virtually all of orthodoxy as

it relates to the pre-5th dynasty is founded on the assumptions. They use tactics to deflect

argument and facts.

People deserve better and I don't understand why they get support. What is it that main-

stream is so afraid of that prevents them from defending their position and seeking the proof

which must exist on the site? Why is modern technology simply cast aside while they employ

"tactics" to support their arguments?

I'm sure I could make a far better case that these were recovery vaults than they were tombs.

So why do people just brush the idea aside as baseless? There are many facts that are sim-

ply being denied by orthodoxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I could make a far better case that these were recovery vaults than they were tombs

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

Besides that, the shift of the axis would not really change the relative position to the equator, that would require a complete shift of the angular rotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides that, the shift of the axis would not really change the relative position to the equator, that would require a complete shift of the angular rotation.

[snip]

Wasn't in reply to you. Why does a post end up in other poster's replies on this site?

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

With respect, but even if the evidence of this was presented here (and there is much), the naysayers here (and you know who you are) would simply claim it does not present proof as to why the Ancient Egyptians undertook the construction of all these early pyramids even though this is what the early Arab chroniclers tell us (the same Arab chroniclers who wrote down and preserved the works of Aristotle and Plato which were later brought back to Europe after the 'Dark Ages' via the Arabic writings).

And the Egypt-apologist naysayers would deny this in spite of the fact that they cannot themselves present a cogent and plausible motivation for the AEs to begin building such monumental structures. They will insist these structures were built as single royal funerary complexes of a particular AE king when the evidence against these early, giant pyramids being tombs is considerable. See here. They are welcome to their view, of course--just don't ask me to share it.

This is not to say, however, that these early pyramids might not have been later appropriated as tombs (intrusive burials) or that the much later, inferiror pyramids were built in imitation of the originals for the purpose of burial--I think this is possible.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides that, the shift of the axis would not really change the relative position to the equator, that would require a complete shift of the angular rotation.

SC: Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of Rapid True Polar Wander (RTPW).

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of Rapid True Polar Wander (RTPW).

SC

Oh sure, but that has not happened in historic times so it is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip]

Wasn't in reply to you. Why does a post end up in other poster's replies on this site?

Because it's an open forum.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure, but that has not happened in historic times so it is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

SC: Just as I thought. Scientists claim TPW has not occurred for millions of years. The evidence, however, says different. RAPID TPW occured in early historical times. And, contrary to what you claimed earlier, a shift of the axis via RTPW will relocate Giza (and any other point on the Earth) relative to the equator (and the poles).

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's an open forum.

cormac

SC: What are you bumping your gums about now? I am saying that I had replied to another poster and my reply ended up being tagged onto someone else's reply. It's not the first time that has happened to me.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Just as I thought. Scientists claim TPW has not occurred for millions fo years. The evidence, however, says different. RAPID TPW occured in early historical times. And, contrary to what you claimed earlier, a shift of the axis via RTPW will relocate Giza (and any other point on the Earth) relative to the equator (and the poles).

SC

The evidence that people have been using the North star to navigate as long as they have been on the water (which happens to be a little longer than the existence of the pyramids) is quite a good indicator that the earth axis has not moved that much (in fact about 2 degrees as any decent Stellarium can show you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence that people have been using the North star to navigate as long as they have been on the water (which happens to be a little longer than the existence of the pyramids) is quite a good indicator that the earth axis has not moved that much (in fact about 2 degrees as any decent Stellarium can show you)

SC: Really? What Pole Star did these early navigators use? Why would you expect Stellarium etc to show you such a RTPW change of the axis?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: What are you bumping your gums about now? I am saying that I had replied to another poster and my reply ended up being tagged onto someone else's reply. It's not the first time that has happened to me.

SC

Never had nor heard of that problem before.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Really? What Pole Star did these early navigators use? Why would you expect Stellarium etc to show you such a RTPW change of the axis?

SC

Probably not, but certainly it is a large coincidence that the deviation of the GP sue north is exactly the movement of the North Star over the millenia since about 2400 BC (you can easily check that as yuo have all the maps at your disposal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, but certainly it is a large coincidence that the deviation of the GP sue north is exactly the movement of the North Star over the millenia since about 2400 BC (you can easily check that as yuo have all the maps at your disposal).

SC: No one doubts this. But it wasn't ONLY RTPW that occurred. It occurred in conjunction with a an actual tilting of the axis. How do you explain why the Earth's rotational axis was inclined at 26.5 degrees ca.2,350 BCE? According to astronomy programs (Stellarium, Starry Night Pro, Red Shift etc), the Earth's axis should be at around 24 degrees at this time and 26.5 degrees is a full 2 degrees beyond what Milankovitch theory can ever allow it. So why did the Earth's axis break Milankovitch theory ca.2,350 BCE?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: No one doubts this. But it wasn't ONLY RTPW that occurred. It occurred in conjunction with a an actual tilting of the axis. How do you explain why the Earth's rotational axis was inclined at 26.5 degrees ca.2,350 BCE? According to astronomy programs (Stellarium, Starry Night Pro, Red Shift etc), the Earth's axis should be at around 24 degrees at this time and 26.5 degrees is a full 2 degrees beyond what Milankovitch theory can ever allow it. So why did the Earth's axis break Milankovitch theory ca.2,350 BCE?

SC

The inclination of the Earth's according to the gentleman is cyclical shifting by about 2.4 degrees every 41000 years and back. That is consistent with the historic observations of building pointed to the North Star as northern marker throughout history. The last time the cycle was on its starting point was in 29500 BC (as far as we can tell), which means that since then, give or take 2 degrees, the North star was a known and only reliable geographic marker that existed throughout the ages.

Another good indicator that there were not many variations in known history is the Nebra disk, which also corroborates that the firmament has not changed all that much.

And, last but not least, the Earth axis at this point in time is 23.4 degrees, which all good astronomy programs I know reflect accurately and according to Milankovitch axial tilt the end point is 24.5 degrees, not 26. Something you could find out really fast by googling it. Around 18000 CE we will know whether he he was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-74391-0-70177600-1353008773_thumb.j

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1994PASAu..11..206E/0000208.000.html

Of particular interest from this article:

Dodwell acknowledges that since Halley's time it has become clear a cometary impact would not be sufficient, and postulates the impact of a minor planet. No calculation of the dynamical aspects of such an impact is undertaken, nor is any supporting historical evidence presented.

Needless to say the impact from a minor planet would not go unnoticed in the geological record, assuming for sake of argument there was anyone left alive afterwards to investigate such. And as Steven Dutch (Natural and Applied Sciences - University of Wisconsin - Green Bay) has already mentioned:

An impact big enough to have even a tiny effect on the Earth's orbit or rotation would almost certainly destroy all life on Earth as well.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/flipaxis.htm

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

I don'tbelieve the evidence for a pole shift is as strong as the evidence for recovery vaults. Or to

be more precise while there is evidence for a pole shift there is also strong evidence against it.

There's no reason they should necessarily need any major event to worry about the viability of the

kingdom in a land that was utterly dependent on unpredictable and undependable floods of a river.

It wouldn't take many consecutive crop failures before they had no seed crop and no hope. Perhaps

pyramids merely represented a second chance.

Why would they suddenly need to build great pyramids as tombs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-74391-0-70177600-1353008773_thumb.j

http://articles.adsa...000208.000.html

Of particular interest from this article:

Needless to say the impact from a minor planet would not go unnoticed in the geological record, assuming for sake of argument there was anyone left alive afterwards to investigate such. And as Steven Dutch (Natural and Applied Sciences - University of Wisconsin - Green Bay) has already mentioned:

http://www.uwgb.edu/...sc/flipaxis.htm

I agree it's highly improbable that any impact has ever had much affect on the direction of

spin since the planet was first fully formed. But there are other possible ways that the poles

can change locations including the most likely; relative movement of the crust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it's highly improbable that any impact has ever had much affect on the direction of

spin since the planet was first fully formed. But there are other possible ways that the poles

can change locations including the most likely; relative movement of the crust.

The relative movement of the crust does not change the poles, it just changes the relative position of the continents to the poles.

Besides, the probable movement in historic times of the continents are well studied and known. There is nothing that indicates major changes within the last 10,000 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was first time in Egypt I wonder how those people managed to live on 50 C. Then one Egyptian told me that he and his family are awake in 3 in the morning and work till 11. I remembered then stories about crazy ruler in Egypt who proclaims law that people must sleepat day and work at night. I tried to think where pyramids would fitt in that story. They could be Public light?No. Lighthouses? For aliens for Vimanas? No. For travelers. Possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it's highly improbable that any impact has ever had much affect on the direction of

spin since the planet was first fully formed. But there are other possible ways that the poles

can change locations including the most likely; relative movement of the crust.

An impact from a minor planet, Dodwell's later conclusion, rather negates any idea of the relative movement of the crust, such as some would compare to a loose skin rotating around an orange. The location directly at the point of impact would be obliterated. This would be evident in the geological record, yet we see evidence of no such thing having happened.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, but even if the evidence of this was presented here (and there is much), the naysayers here (and you know who you are) would simply claim it does not present proof as to why the Ancient Egyptians undertook the construction of all these early pyramids even though this is what the early Arab chroniclers tell us (the same Arab chroniclers who wrote down and preserved the works of Aristotle and Plato which were later brought back to Europe after the 'Dark Ages' via the Arabic writings).

Well, have seen diagrams, 15 exactly, and pages of writing about such. Not being trivial, though I think this information needs to be presented in holographic form. Well, expensive and difficult of course, or at least some type of 3D representation, as lines superimposed on one face of four sided object do not convince sufficiently. This needs visually explaning on a macro scale, to put 3D representation of GP on model of Earth and extend the lines planetwide and into the cosmos, and it needs to be exact, no manipulation. The physical elements, the geometry and star maps all checked by acknowledged experts with no axe to grind or egos to massage. While you still have only lines on a page and a heap of numbers, much the same as many others before in this affair, then yours is just another hypothesis in the crowded world of pyramidology. To me, John Romer's book from 2007 is as definitive about GP as we are likely to get for some time. You want to supplant his book, then you have some work to do, particulary with this axis change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they suddenly need to build great pyramids as tombs?

Faith? meglomania? (unlikely), because they could? because they had a vision, an idea, and they had a genius, or perhaps several, who could turn the ideas into reality. Think about why the medieval cathedrals were built (ad majorem Dei gloriam). These all seem reasonable to me. And I think they were not built "suddenly" in the sense you imply. Think of the early attempts as being like a child learning to ride a bike. One day you no longer wobble about and fall off, great!! so next day you show off and ride with no hands on the handles, do wheelies etc. For all the mystical elements strange to us, AEs were still people. Perhaps they just showed off, then with the expense and time involved, got bored, or tired, very tired probably....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith? meglomania? (unlikely), because they could? because they had a vision, an idea, and they had a genius, or perhaps several, who could turn the ideas into reality. Think about why the medieval cathedrals were built (ad majorem Dei gloriam). These all seem reasonable to me. And I think they were not built "suddenly" in the sense you imply. Think of the early attempts as being like a child learning to ride a bike. One day you no longer wobble about and fall off, great!! so next day you show off and ride with no hands on the handles, do wheelies etc. For all the mystical elements strange to us, AEs were still people. Perhaps they just showed off, then with the expense and time involved, got bored, or tired, very tired probably....

The Mega monuments in most cultures coincide with one event: The elevation of the king from mortal to god. No matter where you look before 500 BC, as soon as the kings convinced their gangs that they were gods gigantic constructions pop up, sometimes with funerary purposes, others with symbolic purposes.

From what we know, Khufu was the first Egyptian king with an actual religious cult in his memory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.