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

Without the assumption/presumption of fact this theory proposes, the rest falls like a house of cards. And conveniently, none of it is verifiable. Might as well claim that Zeus did it.

SC: Rubbish.

CMA: Which has nothing to do with the earth's axial tilt.

SC: More rubbish.

CMA: Hotspots, such as those that created the Hawaiian Islands chain (and others) would appear to work against this idea since they show the progression of the chain over millions of years in an ESE direction which isn't compatible with the "sudden" axial tilt that Woelfli's theory proposes.

SC: Even more rubbish.

CMA:You brought it up as relevant. It's not.

SC: And capped with utter rubbish.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Rubbish.

SC: More rubbish.

SC: Even more rubbish.

SC: And capped with utter rubbish.

I agree, your entire premise qualifies explicitly.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Rubbish.

SC: More rubbish.

SC: Even more rubbish.

SC: And capped with utter rubbish.

SC

Wow, I think we really are misunderstanding what you want to tell us, so the GP was a refuse disposing unit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, your entire premise qualifies explicitly.

cormac

SC: Hmm... that the best you can do? You need to try harder, dear boy. Good luck trying.

SC

Wow, I think we really are misunderstanding what you want to tell us, so the GP was a refuse disposing unit?

SC: Hmm... that the best you can do? You need to try harder, dear boy. Good luck trying.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Hmm... that the best you can do? You need to try harder, dear boy. Good luck trying.

SC

SC: Hmm... that the best you can do? You need to try harder, dear boy. Good luck trying.

SC

Well dear boy, so far, and examining your intellectual diarrhea, that is the best anybody sane can come up with. Every time we show that we know in detail the angle you want to mislead us with we have "misunderstood you". Sorry does not fly...at least around here. But there are a few "oh my gosh aliens!" websites where you might have a little more luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well dear boy, so far, and examining your intellectual diarrhea, that is the best anybody sane can come up with. Every time we show that we know in detail the angle you want to mislead us with we have "misunderstood you". Sorry does not fly...at least around here. But there are a few "oh my gosh aliens!" websites where you might have a little more luck.

SC: The flattery!

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SC: What complete and utter bunk. The AEs themselves had an end time flood myth that was to be sent by their God Thoth to drown all Egypt. The early Arab Chroniclers tell us that the pyramids were built as protection against an anticipated flood after the heavens had changed its course. It can even be argued that the name of 'Khufu's Akhet' relates to the coming flood of Thoth. This is ALL ancient material and has NOTHING to do with modern "global warming hysteria". It is about trying to understand the motivations of the ancients using their own words.

Modern "global warming hysteria" - what utter tripe.

Not know whether to laugh or cry at this. I had the patience to find your theory on the fantasy forum and read all of it. I posted here valid question and proposal, yet no answer, hmmm. You have the conceit to show yourself as some orthodoxy and holder of some truth, and that consensus is the weird and wacky alternative. You are an alternavik, a menshevik. It is you who bangs head against the brick wall of reality and say it is the fault of consensus when the blood pours in your eyes and blinds you to the massive edifice of reality. The onus to prove anything is entirely on you. Your hatred of Egyptology and consensus is odd and irrational, some chip on shoulder..... And I certainly do think you put modern conceptions on the ancient world, but then you are not the first to do that, and no doubt will not be the last. I think that like the Mensheviks, your theory will be consigned to the rubbish bin of history, and books by the likes of Bauval and Hancock consigned to the bonfire of the vanities.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the size is different, they have nothing in common? Maybe that can apply to small cars and tractor trailers or small and large planes or even small and large people.

A car comparably sized to a tiny pyramid fits in a child's toy box with his other little trucks

and helicopters. He certainly won't drive his car to grandma's house.

The Egyptians made all their pyramids in a brief time span and the first real pyramid was

only 2 1/2% of the "size" of the last. The other rinky dink little things are not pyramids any

more than the oragami pyramid I'm making right now.

Calling these later things "pyramids" is merely a way for Egyptology to hide the facts. The

fact is they don't have a clue how they were built or what they were for so they play pretend.

They pretend that the great pyramids are just an extension of what came later and despite

the absurdity of the arguments they rarely get called on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Something can only be disproved only when it is believed to have been proven. You cannot attempt to disprove something that has not been proven (or believed to have been proven). You present a logical fallacy. So, you might want to start by asking someone to FIRST prove to you that the early, giant pyramids WERE conceived and built as tombs. I have been asking that very question on this site for years and no one has yet come forward and presented any clear-cut evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that these structures were as the Consensus Egyptologists claim, built as tombs.

There is no proof they were tombs. Much more importantly than this lack of proof is the simple

fact that not even one shred of direct evidence exists that they were tombs. When you think about

it this is truly remarkable that Egyptology maintains there's a mountain of evidence and they have

all the answers but they can't reach into that mountain of evidence and pull out even a shred to sup-

port their contention!!

The bottom line amounts to the real definition of Egyptology as the science of pounding a few known

facts into the assumptions that the great pyramids were tombs built with ramps by stinky footed bump-

kins who never changed. What seems obvious to most of the alts seems to be nearly invisible to those

who accept the assumptions. They see the circumstantial evidence to support their beliefs and can't

see past it. They don't argue the facts because what they know is a part of the assumptions.

We all do this with almost all knowledge but we should be able to at least see that there are other ways

to view the facts. With most religions there are a few points that are taken on faith and argument is ir-

relevant as well as futile. You can't convince a Christian there was no Christ or an Egyptologist there

were no tombs. You can't even get one to see that without a start point you can't know if the people ever

changed or not.

One thing which is well attested throughout Egyptian history is that the people cared a great deal about

past and future generations. They cared about truth and balance and, it would seem, still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't need to build large numbers to get it right. There is clear progression from step pyramid, two unfinished pyramids, the failure at Meidum, then the Bent pyramid before getting it right with the Red Pyramid. Moving straight on to building G1 shows the AEs confidence in their own abilities. I don't have a closed mind to any possibilities, in fact I can imagine all manner of scenarios for the pyramids, though they remain idle fantasy until I see proof that they are not tombs. Dimensions, angles of shafts and purposes are all fascinating, and may forever be clouded in the mists of time for us. Yet the theories I see here are simply part of a mass of conflicting pyramidologist theories. There is nothing wrong with "conventional", by definition it is normal. Most reasonable and educated people see the pyramids primary purpose as being a tomb. To me the debate is about what was in the mind of the AEs, not our 21st century obsessions with UFOs and "global warming". This flood defence theory is not really about AE, but about our own times being incorrectly overlayed on the past, perhaps to "prove" the deeply cynical "global warming" hysteria.

My point is that the very first pyramid (Djoser's) was a great pyramid. Yes, it's only 1/ 45th the effort

of G1 but it's far larger than their known technology could build. We can either assume that this marks

the date the little green men landed or we can do science to figure out how they did it even if it really

did require alien help.

What are people so afraid of? Why has there been almost no real science done at Giza since 1986

when it was essentially proven these were built with counterweights? Why have we been sitting on our

hands for a quarter of a century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would everyone please stop saying rubbish...

Is there a recently promoted Moderator in the house? Tell them to stop saying rubbish...

Edited by Alcibiades9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would everyone please stop saying rubbish...

How long have you been 'round here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long have you been 'round here?

If they don't stop saying rubbish I think I shall scream. Honestly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't stop saying rubbish I think I shall scream. Honestly...

only too good we don't have any audio on this site :devil:

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only too good we don't have any audio on this site :devil:

Quite. Or you'd be uploading your Nana Mouskouri and Demis Roussos tracks to it. Which is actually not as bad as it sounds, if it drowns out the noise of grown men shouting "rubbish" at each other... :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some nonsense I made. Just for some light entertainment in this sea of nonsense :rolleyes:7de315667829.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some nonsense I made. Just for some light entertainment in this sea of nonsense :rolleyes:7de315667829.jpg

You forgot to add the little bodies wrapped in bandages in them!

Edited by Alcibiades9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no proof they were tombs. Much more importantly than this lack of proof is the simple

fact that not even one shred of direct evidence exists that they were tombs.

You use the term tomb, but lets be clear a cenotaph is a tomb which has no body remains of that person within it.

Therefore there would be no proof in the form of remains within it if it was a cenotaph, other than a chance of remains placed elsewhere outside the cenotaph tomb..

later they used the term tomb of osiris, which basically in my view can be thought as a cenotaph as well if the pyramids were intended to be something like it.

Evidence may exist, and if they were as good as me in problem solving, they would know where to look and why.

Edited by samspade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would everyone please stop saying rubbish...

I've told everyone what the problem is a hundred times but people reject it. They want to believe

their own little pet theories rather than seek the truth. You'll believe that it's the alts with their silly

ideas about seed vaults and aliens who are the worst but it is not. It is mostly the skeptics and what

they believe who continually get frustrated and want to stifle or withdraw from argument.

We all face the exact same problem and that is there is a serious paucity of evidence. We all want

to arrange it to suit our own needs and beliefs rather than to discuss it. To a large extent this is

quite understandable because the evidence for many of the theories is exceedingly limited and no

one wants to stop after barely scratching the surface. What everyone really needs to do is almost

impossible because what we need to do is drop the assumptions and discuss only evidence. This

would leave a fairly brief discussion.

What I'd like to do is discuss the one thing we do have which is the PT but this can't work either be-

cause everyone else believes it's religious magico-incantation and gobblety gook. Most people be-

lieve it's only good for looking into the superstitions and religious beliefs of the builders but their ot-

her beliefs are absent from it or hidden in the words.

We can't work together because we lack the tools and supplies to build more than a mousetrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't stop saying rubbish I think I shall scream. Honestly...

Shrubbery!!! :w00t: Well, you did stay 'stop saying rubbish'.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to add the little bodies wrapped in bandages in them!

They walked out on strike after hearing so much "rubbishery". It nearly 2.30, time to be re-wrapped and put in my coffin for the night.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You use the term tomb, but lets be clear a cenotaph is a tomb which has no body remains of that person within it.

Therefore there would be no proof in the form of remains within it if it was a cenotaph, other than a chance of remains placed elsewhere outside the cenotaph tomb..

later they used the term tomb of osiris, which basically in my view can be thought as a cenotaph as well if the pyramids were intended to be something like it.

Evidence may exist, and if they were as good as me in problem solving, they would know where to look and why.

I don't disagree and we should employ an expansive definition of the word "tomb" just

so it can include contingencies which are outside modern perspectives.

But we do need to stay logical because it's almost a foregone conclusion that the build-

ers were logical. Or to state this more accurately that the builders were logical is the only

assumption that I've personally made. The fact is illogic is incapable of building anything

at all so it seems most improbable that the greatest thing on the planet is rooted in illogic.

I know that such an assumption might have led me far astray if these people were really

stinky footed bumpkins or if their motivation was strictly religion, or magic, or superstition.

Obviously religious, superstitious, and people who believed in magic have created great

things before so my assumption could be in error.

But this gets us to your contention that a god who was born dead would need a tomb. My

head is asea trying to wrap itself around such a concept. It's impossible for me to believe

that the builders of the Great Pyramid could have done this even if they actually had built

a tomb for a dead king who lived forever. This is tough enough but a god born dead who

lived forever certainly would never get a tomb even if they believed he died and there's no

evidence they believed that Osiris died unless you count his birth and his two deaths (from

later times) at the hand (eye of Horus) of Set. The mind boggles at the illogic.

When a much simpler explanation exists, why won't people consider the possibility the sim-

pler explanation is the correct one? We seem to be wed to the concept that ancient people

were superstitious and illogical so we try to make such beliefs seem normal or quaint.

The builders said four fiery red jugs of Osiris' efflux were buried at Rasteau. We apparently

know the location of Osiris' tomb. To me the path is clear and it's past time to yack and high

time to gather a few facts.

Sure the pyramids could be tombs but we still have no direct evidence and despite protesta-

tions to the contrary the many claims that the pyramids were not tombs is direct evidence that

they were not tombs. It may not constitute very high quality evidence in some people's minds

since they believe it's gobblety gook but it's still direct evidence and its coherence and consis-

tency makes it very high quality evidence to my mind. Indeed, coupled with all the other evid-

ence it seems significantly more likely they were tombs in no way, shape, or fashion than that

they were somehow markers for the death of the kings. I believe they were markers for the life

of the king because I believe this is what the builders clearly stated. Nobody in all of ancient

Egypt believed these were tombs. The PTT is simply not representative of the reality.

Of course I could be wrong and the more expansively "tomb" is defined the more likely I am to

be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

couldn't sleep with thoughts buzzing in head. perhaps somebody with better language and more wit can easily alter the speach bubbles.....3efed763f16d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree and we should employ an expansive definition of the word "tomb" just

so it can include contingencies which are outside modern perspectives.

i just go by the definition and terms used, clearly they are english words to which have a speciic meaning.

as in cenotaph meaning a tomb where there are no physcial remains of that person at the tomb.

as for tomb of osiris, it is also been called shrine of osiris as in the myths of isis.

if you wish to give a expansive definition or a different one please do so and explain why,

But this gets us to your contention that a god who was born dead would need a tomb.

i did not said that, perhaps you are confuse with some one elses post .

anyhow regardless of it being a tomb for the pharoh or a cenotaph tomb with a egyptian god in mind,

i believe it to be symbolic relating to what eqyptians believe to be a god and they followed the old " as above, so below" concept.

regards

Edited by samspade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would everyone please stop saying rubbish...

Is there a recently promoted Moderator in the house? Tell them to stop saying rubbish...

Okay.

Everyone: Stop saying "rubbish."

I'm not being serious, I'm must unfortunately admit, Alcibiades9. People could be saying much worse things.

Now, if people start saying "shrubbery" I am going to get medieval on all of you, and that ain't no rubbish. :devil:

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.