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 -

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


Big Bad Voodoo

Recommended Posts

Hans rears his head and deigns to weigh in!

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your contention is the Sphinx is a tomb as well!!!

They said nothing at all except that Neefermaat is he who makes his gods in

words that can not be erased. How you get ramps, tombs, superstition and

people who don't change out of that I do not know. How you gewt the Sphinx

being a tomb one minute and the exception to the rule the next minute I do not

know.

What I do know is that we have very little data to work with and most of it is

embraced by Egyptologists when it supports their conclusions and held at arms

lenght when it doesn't. What I know is there is more evidence it was a seed

vault than that it was a tomb when interpretations are cast aside. What I know

is there is a very low probability that they were solely tombs or solely anything.

There is a very low probability they were tombs at all unless the people were

very superstitious AND didn't mean what they (their grandchildren if you must)

actually said. What I know is the evidence doesn't well support mainstream op-

inion. Saying the evidence does and 5 generations of Egyptologists can't be all

wrong changes nothing. The fact is they can be wrong and the evidence sug-

gests they are wrong and no argument to the contrary is forthcoming because

there is no evidence outside the paradigm with which to argue. Did I ever men-

tion that almost no evidence exists?

There is almost no evidence the Sphinx is a tomb. We don't know what existed

at Giza before the pyramids so saying those things are tombs is also devoid of

evidence. The list of isn't known is lengthy while the list of what is known is not.

Not every monument on a cemetery is a tomb, though they are dead related, like funerary temples and funerary monuments. The sphinx seems to be a funerary monument... no sarcophagus inside, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionmark said nothing of the sort. You're misrepresenting him, which is transparent but no less improper to do.

If you're right that he wasn't implying that the pyramid is a tomb because it sits in a cemetery

then he simply evaded the question about where is the evidence that says they are tombs. No

one wants to admit there is no evidence to show they were tombs and then they want to hit

Scott Creighton (et al) over the head with the assumption they were tombs. And it goes on and

on. To sum up the orthodox position; they must be tombs therefore it is perfectly acceptable

to assume they were tombs and anything derived from this assumption is valid.

So when making such a statement, refrain from saying "we can't understand what they wrote". The mystery you're trying to present in the ancient language is not based on reality, but serves to support your personal agenda. It doesn't succeed.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my "personal agenda". This is about meaning

and the actual beliefs of the great pyramid buiulders and the authors of the PT. This is about the

simple fact that Egyptologists say they don't understand the meaning of this work and this is sup-

ported by the fact that they each say it's a dead language whose meaning can only be circums-

cribed. But most importantly this is about the fact that the literal meaning of the translation in our

languages don't support the assumptions which orthodoxy uses to understand and argue about

the great pyramids. The fact is there is no direct evidence of any sort that the Great Pyramid was

a tomb yet there is shallow direct evidence it was a seed vault. The fact is the evidence for water

erosion on the Sphinx might well be anomalous to traditional dating. I might not know what all this

means but I do know that there is very little evidence and people are playing fast and loose with it.

Meanwhile the powers that be can't be bothered to do the testing that would answer questions like

whether there are flecks of gold or flecks of grain husks in the cracks in the pyramids. They can't

be bothered to do any of the basic science that would resolve some of the issues. They can't be

bothered to look at the evidence in any light other than 150 year old assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be precise he implied anything in a cemetery is a tomb and said Giza was a

cemetery even before the pyramids so by the transitive property the Sphinx must

be a tomb. I disagree both that the Sphinx was a tomb and that any great pyramid

was a tomb yet they all sit in cemeteries.

This is the gatehouse at Evergreen cemetery at Gettysburg:

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

By your logic, this too ought to be a tomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my Cladking is still at I see......yah nothing is more impressive than personal incredulity about the understanding of a language by a guy who cannot read it.....sheesh

You read enough of these translations and you soon find that it is being

translated into gobblety gook. Imagine that!! The translations sometimes

include phrases that aren't sentences and words that don't exist. Mean-

while the translators want to "fix" the grammar in which they were written

when they don't understand the language they're translating or the one

to which they are translating.

Yes, I am incredulous. Part of the incredulity though is that I get so little

argument or assistance and that no one else seems to notice. It's incred-

ible that anyone could consider any of these answers cut and dried. We

have a mummified ham sandwich in a poke and there's nothing wrong with

that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You remind me of something and someone I read about that occurred and lived in the late 19th century. An Urdu speaking Islamic scholar read some of the plays of Shakespeare that had been translated into Urdu. He himself couldn't speak English and he was completely ignorant of western culture......he compared what he read to his own cultural Islamic/Urdu bias and complained that the plays made no sense. While other Urdu speakers who could speak English - and had western style educations and were aware of English cultural norms didn't have this problem.

You cannot read AE and you have a laughingly bad understanding of their culture......sound familiar?

Oh have you've been sending email and letters to scholars who do understand AE and the culture to tell them their wrong? I'm sure they would treasure your insights......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You remind me of something and someone I read about that occurred and lived in the late 19th century. An Urdu speaking Islamic scholar read some of the plays of Shakespeare that had been translated into Urdu. He himself couldn't speak English and he was completely ignorant of western culture......he compared what he read to his own cultural Islamic/Urdu bias and complained that the plays made no sense. While other Urdu speakers who could speak English - and had western style educations and were aware of English cultural norms didn't have this problem.

You cannot read AE and you have a laughingly bad understanding of their culture......sound familiar?

As this story is relayed the scholar could be exactly correct in all regards.

If the translation into Urdu was exceedingly poor and the meaning was damaged or destroyed then

he could be exactly right that it made no sense. The other Islamic readers of the works might have

read them in English and were able to see that most concepts were intelligible from their viewpoint.

The problem here is that we know the ancient writing is exceedingly poorly translated. This is a given

fact since no two translators translate it the same way and new translators appear to even be trans-

lating another work altogether!!!! All of the translators have had the temerity to "fix" the ancient gram-

mar. Incredibly the same grammatical "mistakes" appear engraved in stone in one pyramid after anot-

her but we deign to fix the errors rather than investigate why they used the words they did!!

This might seem perfectly natural to some but it's an absurdity of the highest order. Despite the know-

ledge that we don't know the meaning, we still feel competent to fix the grammar rather than using the

actual words as clues to author intent. If I used one exclamation mark for that last sentence then I'd

have to use millions of them.

Oh have you've been sending email and letters to scholars who do understand AE and the culture to tell them their wrong? I'm sure they would treasure your insights......

It would be a total waste of time to send any communication to a scholar about Egyptian culture. They

do not respond to any communication at all. Every single scientist I've contacted for help has replied

even though they have been of exceedingly little help but not one single Egyptologist has responded.

Unless you subscribe to the assumptions it's impossible for an Egyptologist to even address a question.

It's impossible for an Egyptologist to complete a sentence without invoking one or more of the assump-

tions. I'd very much like to sit down with someone knowledgeable and just hash it all out but they run

away if you disallow the assumptions. I believe this problem is insurmountable because of human nature

and the nature of Egyptology. The Great Pyramid wasn't a seed vault because you don't store seeds

in a tomb; case closed... ...next.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydro Excavation

Self-contained trucks ready to work Expose utilities 100 ft underground

www.H2xInc.com

Wow! Those bots are getting pretrty impressive.

This ad shows upon my computer on this page yet not even the word "water" appears. I guess they're mining my user name.

Mebbe they think I want one of these for Christmas. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read post #1367 again.

Only reenforcing my point, as like the gates, if you don't count the later addition of the worker's cemetery, the Sphinx doesn't sit in a cemetery, it sits in front of it.

Evergreen ends up being a bad example in one sense as the gate house was purpose built rather than added organically. Green-wood would be better since like the sphinx, the gatehouse post-dates the earliest burials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-Wood_Cemetery

And lets keep in mind the various mortuary temples located at Giza, analogous again to the many chapels in our current cemeteries and like them, also generally not tombs, but certainly associated with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only reenforcing my point, as like the gates, if you don't count the later addition of the worker's cemetery, the Sphinx doesn't sit in a cemetery, it sits in front of it.

Evergreen ends up being a bad example in one sense as the gate house was purpose built rather than added organically. Green-wood would be better since like the sphinx, the gatehouse post-dates the earliest burials:

http://en.wikipedia....n-Wood_Cemetery

And lets keep in mind the various mortuary temples located at Giza, analogous again to the many chapels in our current cemeteries and like them, also generally not tombs, but certainly associated with them.

You are ignoring the fact that he was challenged to find one fact that showed these

were tombs and he implied they are tombs because they sit in a cemetery. In other

words neither he nor anyone else can come up with one single direct piece of evi-

dence that the pyramids are tombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are ignoring the fact that he was challenged to find one fact that showed these

were tombs and he implied they are tombs because they sit in a cemetery. In other

words neither he nor anyone else can come up with one single direct piece of evi-

dence that the pyramids are tombs.

By that token we should discount mausoleum's and crypts as well, since just because they sit within a cemetery and are laid out for the dead they couldn't possibly have been used to house the dead. :rolleyes:

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that token we should discount mausoleum's and crypts as well, since just because they sit within a cemetery and are laid out for the dead they couldn't possibly have been used to house the dead. :rolleyes:

cormac

oH, now, now, them pyramids actually were clubs for the social gathering of the dead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are ignoring the fact that he was challenged to find one fact that showed these

were tombs and he implied they are tombs because they sit in a cemetery. In other

words neither he nor anyone else can come up with one single direct piece of evi-

dence that the pyramids are tombs.

Only if one is willing to ignore the veritable pyramid-sized mountain of it:

http://egyptian-mysteries.com/?q=node/18

Along with all the aforementioned indirect evidence besides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if one is willing to ignore the veritable pyramid-sized mountain of it:

http://egyptian-myst....com/?q=node/18

Along with all the aforementioned indirect evidence besides.

I've debated every point in this yet when I point out direct evidence that the

pyramids were not tombs and the king was burned it is ignored or called mere

"interpretation".

It is you claiming a mountain of evidence yet are unable to come up with an

"Overseer of the Masons for the Kings Tomb" or anything that supports this

notion other than indirect evidence and interpretations. It was called "Khu-

fu's Horizon" not his tomb.

Certainly there is a strong circumstantial case that the Great Pyramid was a

tomb but the direct evidence all says it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egyptology is a farce. The creators and builders of the pyramids or the sphinx did not call themselves egyptians. Therefore it is junk science to refer to the builders of the pyramids and the sphinx as the "ancient egyptians" Whoever built the pyramids did not refer to themselves as egyptian per se, they did not engrave anywhere on stone in latin alphabet that they were egyptians.

Egyptologists try to make themselves appear as credible on the topic, when they are anything but credible. The whole term "egyptologist" is nothing but a farce, considering that the builders of the pyramids did not call themselves "egyptians" therefore any study of those north african pyramids in the guise of "egyptology" is inaccurate, misleading, and wreaks of sheer and utter crap.

The pyramids are part and parcel of an ancient worldwide golden age of pyramid building that had somewhat of an advanced, connected and shared knowledge in different continents. To suggest anything otherwise is futile and ignorant. Who the constructs and designers of those pyramids are, remains the mystery. A mystery that "Egyptologists" try to suppress with wild assumptions and misleading propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point Cladking is that the problem is you

It would be a total waste of time to send any communication to a scholar about Egyptian culture. They

do not respond to any communication at all. Every single scientist I've contacted for help has replied

even though they have been of exceedingly little help but not one single Egyptologist has responded.

Unless you subscribe to the assumptions it's impossible for an Egyptologist to even address a question.

It's impossible for an Egyptologist to complete a sentence without invoking one or more of the assump-

tions. I'd very much like to sit down with someone knowledgeable and just hash it all out but they run

away if you disallow the assumptions. I believe this problem is insurmountable because of human nature

and the nature of Egyptology. The Great Pyramid wasn't a seed vault because you don't store seeds

in a tomb; case closed... ...next.

Yep its amazing how well reality can be used as a filter for nonsense, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've debated every point in this yet when I point out direct evidence that the

pyramids were not tombs and the king was burned it is ignored or called mere

"interpretation".

It is you claiming a mountain of evidence yet are unable to come up with an

"Overseer of the Masons for the Kings Tomb" or anything that supports this

notion other than indirect evidence and interpretations. It was called "Khu-

fu's Horizon" not his tomb.

Certainly there is a strong circumstantial case that the Great Pyramid was a

tomb but the direct evidence all says it wasn't.

So where are all the Pharaoh's buried Cladking - why are his relatives not buried near him? Your burning idea is just too silly to consider--- but then you don't know anything about the AE religion so you don't realize just how super silly it sounds

I'll be back in a couple of weeks and see if you come up with anything that isn't based on your ego and a foundation of know nothingness, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egyptology is a farce. The creators and builders of the pyramids or the sphinx did not call themselves egyptians. Therefore it is junk science to refer to the builders of the pyramids and the sphinx as the "ancient egyptians" Whoever built the pyramids did not refer to themselves as egyptian per se, they did not engrave anywhere on stone in latin alphabet that they were egyptians.

Egyptologists try to make themselves appear as credible on the topic, when they are anything but credible. The whole term "egyptologist" is nothing but a farce, considering that the builders of the pyramids did not call themselves "egyptians" therefore any study of those north african pyramids in the guise of "egyptology" is inaccurate, misleading, and wreaks of sheer and utter crap.

The pyramids are part and parcel of an ancient worldwide golden age of pyramid building that had somewhat of an advanced, connected and shared knowledge in different continents. To suggest anything otherwise is futile and ignorant. Who the constructs and designers of those pyramids are, remains the mystery. A mystery that "Egyptologists" try to suppress with wild assumptions and misleading propaganda.

You have a meaningless argument since the land they lived in is now called Egypt and even if we used the ancient name Kemet (Kmt) it's still in reference to the same area. And no, there wasn't a "Golden Age" of pyramid building since the pyramids built around the world were built at completely different times with little to no connection between the cultures involved. In most cases when one area started building, such as those of the Americas, the peoples of Egypt had long since given up on such constructions.

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a meaningless argument since the land they lived in is now called Egypt

From space, there is no name on north africa saying Egypt. Modern governments have created the idea of a nation of Egypt and given it borders. Such borders or labelling did not exist in the ancient world. Therefore it is blatant junk science to refer to the ancient builders of the pyramids as being "ancient egyptian" rendering the idea of egyptology as a disgusting deception.

and even if we used the ancient name Kemet (Kmt) it's still in reference to the same area.

I see an a bird, i don't see any mention of "Kemet". The idea of "Kemet" comes from a hieroglyph, translations are only an opinion. The translators never drew them, therefore are only guessing their meaning and could not possibly know their real meaning.

Like i said, i see a bird, not "Kemet" written in latin alphabet.

Kmt_obelisk.jpg

And no, there wasn't a "Golden Age" of pyramid building since the pyramids built around the world were built at completely different times with little to no connection between the cultures involved. In most cases when one area started building, such as those of the Americas, the peoples of Egypt had long since given up on such constructions.

cormac

You're entitled to your opinion, but i think its mindless drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From space, there is no name on north africa saying Egypt. Modern governments have created the idea of a nation of Egypt and given it borders. Such borders or labelling did not exist in the ancient world. Therefore it is blatant junk science to refer to the ancient builders of the pyramids as being "ancient egyptian" rendering the idea of egyptology as a disgusting deception.

I see an a bird, i don't see any mention of "Kemet". The idea of "Kemet" comes from a hieroglyph, translations are only an opinion. The translators never drew them, therefore are only guessing their meaning and could not possibly know their real meaning.

Like i said, i see a bird, not "Kemet" written in latin alphabet.

Kmt_obelisk.jpg

You're entitled to your opinion, but i think its mindless drivel.

That shows you know nothing about the subject. But thanks for playing.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows you know nothing about the subject. But thanks for playing.

cormac

What subject are you talking about? Are you talking about Egyptology? I don't regard that as being a noteworthy and valuable subject when it comes to ancient north africa. I believe it to be a blatant fallacy and misinterpetation of the ancient world. Most of the Egyptologists material comes from the bible, and i don't regard the bible as being truthful when it comes to the ancient world. Nor do i believe the romans and their coadjutors were truthful in their written materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What subject are you talking about? Are you talking about Egyptology? I don't regard that as being a noteworthy and valuable subject when it comes to ancient north africa. I believe it to be a blatant fallacy and misinterpetation of the ancient world. Most of the Egyptologists material comes from the bible, and i don't regard the bible as being truthful when it comes to the ancient world. Nor do i believe the romans and their coadjutors were truthful in their written materials.

That shows the depths of your ignorance, right there. Thanks for making my point.

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows the depths of your ignorance, right there. Thanks for making my point.

cormac

Yes, i am ignorant of egyptology in the same way you and your fellow ilk are ignorant of other theories. Egyptology is after all, only a theory and an opinion of mainstream scholars, just because they are educated from well known universites does not make them any more credible in my opinion. I do not trust or believe in Egyptology in the same way i do not trust and believe in the bible, a book that promotes the drivel of Egyptology. The bible is a book where Egyptologists cite so called history from. Their material is about as credible as the "Wizard Of Oz" The bible would have you believe in a God that murders for the fun of it. An egotistical maniac who wants to dominate others. Which is interesting, cause Egyptologists also come off as being a bit egostistical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, i am ignorant of egyptology in the same way you and your fellow ilk are ignorant of other theories. Egyptology is after all, only a theory and an opinion of mainstream scholars, just because they are educated from well known universites does not make them any more credible in my opinion. I do not trust or believe in Egyptology in the same way i do not trust and believe in the bible, a book that promotes the drivel of Egyptology. The bible is a book where Egyptologists cite so called history from. Their material is about as credible as the "Wizard Of Oz" The bible would have you believe in a God that murders for the fun of it. An egotistical maniac who wants to dominate others. Which is interesting, cause Egyptologists also come off as being a bit egostistical.

And evidently the depths of your ignorance know no bounds.

cormac

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.