orangepeaceful79 Posted December 3, 2012 #1401 Share Posted December 3, 2012 And evidently the depths of your ignorance know no bounds. cormac As they say - Go Big or Go Home. I'm sure that applies to ignorance as well. In which case, LRW should be commended on his panache. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRW Posted December 3, 2012 #1402 Share Posted December 3, 2012 And evidently the depths of your ignorance know no bounds. cormac As does yours when it comes to alternative theories being expressed that differs from the mainstream. metaphorically speaking It all boils down to a taste in music, do i like the music that Egyptologists play? no its bland, boring, disgusting and non interesting to my senses. Do you like the music that alternative theorists play? no, you don't, if anything you have a disgust for such music. There is the dilemma. . Ignorance is bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted December 3, 2012 #1403 Share Posted December 3, 2012 As does yours when it comes to alternative theories being expressed that differs from the mainstream. metaphorically speaking It all boils down to a taste in music, do i like the music that Egyptologists play? no its bland, boring, disgusting and non interesting to my senses. Do you like the music that alternative theorists play? no, you don't, if anything you have a disgust for such music. There is the dilemma. . Ignorance is bliss. Yours isn't an alternative theory, it's an outright fabrication. Egyptologists don't use the Bible for anything dealing with Ancient Egypt. cormac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRW Posted December 3, 2012 #1404 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Egyptologists don't use the Bible for anything dealing with Ancient Egypt. cormac Yes they do, a lot of material about the pyramids comes from the bible, a lot of their motivations stems from biblical text, speaking about so called dynasties in the region. Many of the Egyptologists translations are based on the bible text. Mainstream Egyptologists also apply AD/BC chronology to papyrus texts and inscriptions. The translation of those texts and inscriptions is dodgy to say the least and is all subjective. The sphinx has already been defaced, it is not a stretch to say that the writers of some of those papyrus texts and some insciptions were stealing and twisting other tribes historic connections to the pyramids. Ancient historians are dodgy characters from less than reputable sources. The idea that a guy called Khufu built the pyramids as a tomb is junk science, a few ornaments, fragments and so called lost buildings, papyrus texts etc, is not proof of anything significant enough to make an egotistical maniac called Khufu a candidate for the construction of the pyramids as a tomb. For the egotistical Khufu to be considered as a prime candidate for the construction of the pyramids is ludicrous. Mainstream Egyptologists are naive. That ornament could be of anyone, to say that its a guy called khufu and that he wanted the pyramids constructed as a giant tomb for himself is remarkably comical. Its an insult to the builders of the pyramids to suggest that the great pyramid was built for just one person. The great pyramid is far more complex than that. Its a monument to the stars and glorification of the cosmos. Its a powerful symbol of scientific and architectural wonder. A remnant of a worldwide collaboration of amazing pyramid wonders, whose knowledge comes from a golden advanced worldwide lost spiritual empire. It almost looks like a face of a cambodian. Which is funny. . For the mainstream egyptologists to apply AD/BC chronology to papyrus texts and pyramid constructions speaks volumes about how credible they are. They want to make it appear that a fictional character (jesus christ) from a twisted and corrupted book (the bible) existed without question, to then use that fictional birth as a method of chronology is preposterous. Also to use the CE/BCE chronology is not anymore credible given the fact that CE/BCE is still based around Anno Domini. Mainstream Egyptologists are not credible when it comes to the history of that particular region of north africa. The sphinx also shows flood damage, something that mainstream egyptologists prefer to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted December 3, 2012 #1405 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Yes they do, a lot of material about the pyramids comes from the bible, a lot of their motivations stems from biblical text, speaking about so called dynasties in the region. Many of the Egyptologists translations are based on the bible text. Mainstream Egyptologists also apply AD/BC chronology to papyrus texts and inscriptions. The translation of those texts and inscriptions is dodgy to say the least and is all subjective. None of the information concerning the pyramids comes from the Bible, nor is any of it motivated by biblical text. Again, your ignorance is showing. Egyptian translations are based on the Rosetta Stone and other such texts which is how Egyptologists were able to translate the language in the first place. None of the languages in use to translate said texts was Biblical in origin. And while you don't want to believe it, Khufu and other pharaohs were seen as God-kings. Their word was law. As to the scientific use of AD/BC which is more often presented as CE/BCE, you're just as ignorant as you claim them to be since you use the year 2012 AD or CE in writing the current year, if you belong to any of the predominantly English speaking countries. cormac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRW Posted December 3, 2012 #1406 Share Posted December 3, 2012 None of the information concerning the pyramids comes from the Bible, nor is any of it motivated by biblical text. Sure it doesn't, whatever floats your boat Cormac. You still are not convincing enough to change my opinion. I have heard countless mainstream Egyptologists talk about the bible as if it was all true. They base their history around the bible and frequently cite from it when they talk in interviews and documentaries. Again, your ignorance is showing. Egyptian translations are based on the Rosetta Stone and other such texts which is how Egyptologists were able to translate the language in the first place. None of the languages in use to translate said texts was Biblical in origin. And while you don't want to believe it, Khufu and other pharaohs were seen as God-kings. Their word was law. As to the scientific use of AD/BC which is more often presented as CE/BCE, you're just as ignorant as you claim them to be since you use the year 2012 AD or CE in writing the current year, if you belong to any of the predominantly English speaking countries. My ignorance must be very terrible to you. You sound like you're hurting from alternative views being expressed. I can feel your pain. I entertain the idea that the translation of the rosetta stone is all subjective, its only an opinion. I am not going to accept it as truth, because i don't believe Egyptologists are qualified enough to translate Hieroglyphics efficiently and truthfully. I also entertain the idea that they did not make that stone, therefore their assumptions are wild guesses full of holes. They could not possibly understand ancient Hieroglyphics. I also entertain the idea that the rosetta stone could in fact be a farce, a fake etc and has a dubious origin. It certainly looks quite dubious, given that greek is on it. The stone is seen to be the key to the modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Note, i don't agree with the term Egyptian hieroglyphs, therefore i shall reconstruct the sentence to my liking. The rosetta stone is seen to be the key to the modern understanding of hieroglyphs engraved in the north african region. I entertain the idea that that such a stone is not a 100% real genuine artifact from the region of the pyramids. I am leaning towards the idea that the rosetta stone is a fake designed by organisations promoting false history, but i would have to see the stone close up to be 100% sure. Certainly from the photographs it looks like a genuine fake. Thats my opinion. It does not look to be of an ancient construction, it looks like quite a recent construction, perhaps a few hundreds years old or so. The name of the stone is also dubious and suggests promotion of deceit. The whole look of the stone looks fake and certainly not as real as real genuine tangible artifacts like the hammurabi code. The hammurabi code looks more majestic and tangible looking evidence of an ancient world. The Rosetta stone looks fake compared to the hammurabi. By the way, i do not use AD/BC or CE/BCE when talking about the ancient world, i don't use those chronologies or calendars with links to Anno Domini garbage. The very fact that mainstream Egyptologists widely use the anno domini style calendars makes their views very suspect in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 3, 2012 #1407 Share Posted December 3, 2012 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. You're entitled to your opinion, but i think its mindless drivel. May I recommend hieroglyphs for beginners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted December 3, 2012 #1408 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) They could not possibly understand ancient Hieroglyphics. I also entertain the idea that the rosetta stone could in fact be a farce, a fake etc and has a dubious origin. It certainly looks quite dubious, given that greek is on it. The stone is seen to be the key to the modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Note, i don't agree with the term Egyptian hieroglyphs, therefore i shall reconstruct the sentence to my liking. The rosetta stone is seen to be the key to the modern understanding of hieroglyphs engraved in the north african region. I entertain the idea that that such a stone is not a 100% real genuine artifact from the region of the pyramids. I am leaning towards the idea that the rosetta stone is a fake designed by organisations promoting false history, but i would have to see the stone close up to be 100% sure. Certainly from the photographs it looks like a genuine fake. Thats my opinion. I agree in part with several of your points but not as much with the Rosetta Stone. It is the three different languages in which an idea was expressed that proved key to initially translating the Egyptian language of that era. Then using this understanding it was possible to translate even further back. We have excellent translations of mater- ials going back to the 20th century BC (~4000 years ago). The real problem is that translations of anything older than this just generates gobblety gook and rather than doubt their understanding of the language they instead doubt the ability of the people to make sense when they spoke. It's not so much that Egyptology has taken much of anything from the Bible as that the Bible was founded on ancients texts and some of these are about the same thing as our understanding of the ancients. This is largely perspective but Egyptologists won't even understand you if you say their understanding comes from the Bible. Even Egyptologists are just trying to do what's right and to uncover the truth. Certainly results are more im- portant than intentions but I'm saving my wrath for the more deserving. Edited December 3, 2012 by cladking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhaten-pasheri Posted December 3, 2012 #1409 Share Posted December 3, 2012 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 I also agree that the bible is total garbage. I am also not a Christian. Neither do I normaly use latin. Not one of my real life friends who are interested in Egypt is Christian, or any religion, except a few pagans... So perhaps to tar all with the same brush is not so good. Also you have no qualms about refering to North Africa. But this is simply the hated latin word for the land of the Carthaginians, modern Libya and Tunisia. From space there is no label saying Africa either, or anywhere else. If you have a theory, then tell it, because no purpose is served by thrashing about and heaping s**t on all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted December 3, 2012 #1410 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I entertain the idea that the translation of the rosetta stone is all subjective, its only an opinion. The Rosetta Stone bears three distinct scripts, each saying the same exact thing. So no, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. I also entertain the idea that they did not make that stone, therefore their assumptions are wild guesses full of holes. Strawman! Egyptologists didn't create the Rosetta Stone to begin with. So now you're making up things. It certainly looks quite dubious, given that greek is on it. So is Egyptian. ....therefore i shall reconstruct the sentence to my liking. Which is confirmation that you'll make up things which aren't true. By the way, i do not use AD/BC or CE/BCE when talking about the ancient world, i don't use those chronologies or calendars with links to Anno Domini garbage. If you've ever written the current year down as "2012" then you've done just that. cormac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted December 3, 2012 #1411 Share Posted December 3, 2012 None of the information concerning the pyramids comes from the Bible,... Sure it doesn't, whatever floats your boat Cormac. I'd be interested to see the quote from the Bible that mentions pyramids. How do you know they are pyramids anyway? From space, there's no word "pyramid" printed on them and the people that lived in the area (obviously not Egyptians, right?) didn't call them pyramids. I think they should be called "idiot attractors." Harte 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 3, 2012 #1412 Share Posted December 3, 2012 By the way, i do not use AD/BC or CE/BCE when talking about the ancient world, i don't use those chronologies or calendars with links to Anno Domini garbage. The very fact that mainstream Egyptologists widely use the anno domini style calendars makes their views very suspect in my opinion. Lol, you say you are only giving your opinion. Good, and I am only quoting Clint Eastwood ("Dirty Harry") : "Opinions are like a$$holes; everybody has one." Btw, BCE and CE mean "before common era" and "common era". If you don't like that, use Muslim or Jewish time reckoning. If you don't like that either, use BP ("before present"). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRW Posted December 3, 2012 #1413 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Even Egyptologists are just trying to do what's right and to uncover the truth. I would have to disagree with that. I believe that Egyptologists are simply too extreme to admit that they could be wrong, they are some of the most closed minded people i have ever witnessed and their whole theory is something that is quite disgusting in my opinion, it is simply not something i would ever believe as truth. They are an insult to the builders of the pyramids, i would have to see strong undeniable evidence that the pyramids can be built with primitive ramps, pulleys and copper chisels and man-power before i would ever believe it. I believe that whoever built the pyramids were in possession of a powerful technological scientific breakthrough and knowledge given to them by something from the outside. Whether that knowledge and technological breakthrough was transmitted through peoples minds is still something that i am interested in. I believe that those ancient people were in communication with something incredible, possibly something from another dimension perhaps that was transmitting knowledge to their brains. As much as some people find that too hard believe and take in, i simply feel its a more plausible theory than the garbage that Egyptologists like to smear debates with. Also you have no qualms about refering to North Africa. But this is simply the hated latin word for the land of the Carthaginians, modern Libya and Tunisia. . Actually i do, but for the sake of debate i will refer to the name of the region as "north africa", so people can understand my opinions better. I prefer to use the term "afar" when describing the region, but for the sake of debate, i have not used it in case people would not have a clue about what i am on about, but i'll just call it north africa for the sake of debate. I believe the term "north africa" is not the correct term though, the tribes that put their stamp in the region, must have known it by different names long since lost. I don't mind using the term "north africa" as long as its for debating purposes. However, i do feel uncomfortable when describing the builders of the pyramids as "ancient egyptian" as that denotes that modern egyptians ancestors constructed the pyramids, i strongly disagree with that assumption so i avoid using the term "ancient egyptians" I also strongly believe that Egyptology is only a theory, a theory i regard as junk science and Egypologists are in nowhere whatsoever the leading authority when it comes to knowledge of the area in my view. Also i have told my theory earlier in the same thread probably numerous times. See above, i have theorized that the pyramids are part of a worldwide collaborative effort by ancient peoples that had connections to each other, i believe they were given knowledge by something superior to themselves intelligent wise. The ancients even communicate that themselves through artwork and engravings on stone in my opinion. They were much smarter than everyone realises and certainly far more smarter than modern people in general, whom i regard as sheep when it comes to the ancient world. Its a matter of fact. They are the mainstream facts and are only developed through other peoples interpretation and so called research, you can't force those so called facts and research on others, there is no law saying that everyone should obide by the opinions and views of Egyptologists. You may not like that, but i do not really care about your condemnation of my views. You seem very closed minded on the topic and seem to want everyone else to have the same attitude as yourself, so they won't go against the grain. Egyptologists may control what material gets accepted in the mainstream science and mainstream history community, but does not necessarily mean people have to agree with it. They may control the material thats pumped into the big universities and colleges etc, but that does not necessarily mean they are correct in their theories, i know many smart and enlightened people that disagree with Egyptologists and i commend those people for their alternative theories and taking an issue with the methods and closed minded approach that Egyptologists use. I also simply do not agree with your opinions and the mainstream Egyptologist opinions that you try and vigorously defend, if anything it proves to my senses that you are defending a loved yet inaccurate and failed model. The way you refer to ancient hieroglyph's as being "Egyptian" is quite alarming and simply not something that i agree with. For that reason, i do not see the reason in going around in circles with you. Also just because you are retorting to my opinions does not make you anymore correct in my opinion, "the who can shout the loudest approach is not something i am going to indulge in. I would be the first to admit that myself and other people's theory could be wrong, i.e. that the pyramids in afar (north africa to you) are part of a lost worldwide advanced culture that built monuments as an adoration and glorification of the cosmos and their ancestors whom they described as extraterrestrials. There is direct evidence that ancient people worshipped extraterrestrials. The sun, moon and planets are all extraterrestrial. Definition of Extraterrestrial: Of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere. The sun, moon and other planets are all outside the earth and were worshipped by the pyramid builders, a direct link in the chain that ancient builders worshipped extraterrestrials. I'd be interested to see the quote from the Bible that mentions pyramids. You must be not familiar with the fictional twisted biblical charater called moses. A character that was based around several ancient gods and kings whose stories were corrupted and put into the form of moses, a fictional character who never existed. Yet the Egyptologists believe he was real. Lol, you say you are only giving your opinion. Btw, BCE and CE mean "before common era" and "common era". If you don't like that either, use BP ("before present"). I am fully aware what CE/BCE means, i am also fully aware that its a corruptive term that originates from anno domini style calendars. Thats my view and opinion on it, i don't really care what you think about it, in my opinion you are not an adept on such topics. No, i don't like AD/BC or CE/BCE anno domino vatican influenced calendars, and i won't use any other vatican style calendar you say either. You're wasting your time trying to convince otherwise. Not everyone has to agree with your views and cited research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted December 3, 2012 #1414 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) I would have to disagree with that. I believe that Egyptologists are simply too extreme to admit that they could be wrong, they are some of the most closed minded people i have ever witnessed and their whole theory is something that is quite disgusting in my opinion, it is simply not something i would ever believe as truth. They are an insult to the builders of the pyramids, i would have to see strong undeniable evidence that the pyramids can be built with primitive ramps, pulleys and copper chisels and man-power before i would ever believe it. I believe that whoever built the pyramids were in possession of a powerful technological scientific breakthrough and knowledge given to them by something from the outside. Whether that knowledge and technological breakthrough was transmitted through peoples minds is still something that i am interested in. I believe that those ancient people were in communication with something incredible, possibly something from another dimension perhaps that was transmitting knowledge to their brains. As much as some people find that too hard believe and take in, i simply feel its a more plausible theory than the garbage that Egyptologists like to smear debates with. Actually i do, but for the sake of debate i will refer to the name of the region as "north africa", so people can understand my opinions better. I prefer to use the term "afar" when describing the region, but for the sake of debate, i have not used it in case people would not have a clue about what i am on about, but i'll just call it north africa for the sake of debate. I believe the term "north africa" is not the correct term though, the tribes that put their stamp in the region, must have known it by different names long since lost. I don't mind using the term "north africa" as long as its for debating purposes. However, i do feel uncomfortable when describing the builders of the pyramids as "ancient egyptian" as that denotes that modern egyptians ancestors constructed the pyramids, i strongly disagree with that assumption so i avoid using the term "ancient egyptians" I also strongly believe that Egyptology is only a theory, a theory i regard as junk science and Egypologists are in nowhere whatsoever the leading authority when it comes to knowledge of the area in my view. Also i have told my theory earlier in the same thread probably numerous times. See above, i have theorized that the pyramids are part of a worldwide collaborative effort by ancient peoples that had connections to each other, i believe they were given knowledge by something superior to themselves intelligent wise. The ancients even communicate that themselves through artwork and engravings on stone in my opinion. They were much smarter than everyone realises and certainly far more smarter than modern people in general, whom i regard as sheep when it comes to the ancient world. They are the mainstream facts and are only developed through other peoples interpretation and so called research, you can't force those so called facts and research on others, there is no law saying that everyone should obide by the opinions and views of Egyptologists. You may not like that, but i do not really care about your condemnation of my views. You seem very closed minded on the topic and seem to want everyone else to have the same attitude as yourself, so they won't go against the grain. Egyptologists may control what material gets accepted in the mainstream science and mainstream history community, but does not necessarily mean people have to agree with it. They may control the material thats pumped into the big universities and colleges etc, but that does not necessarily mean they are correct in their theories, i know many smart and enlightened people that disagree with Egyptologists and i commend those people for their alternative theories and taking an issue with the methods and closed minded approach that Egyptologists use. I also simply do not agree with your opinions and the mainstream Egyptologist opinions that you try and vigorously defend, if anything it proves to my senses that you are defending a loved yet inaccurate and failed model. The way you refer to ancient hieroglyph's as being "Egyptian" is quite alarming and simply not something that i agree with. For that reason, i do not see the reason in going around in circles with you. Also just because you are retorting to my opinions does not make you anymore correct in my opinion, "the who can shout the loudest approach is not something i am going to indulge in. I would be the first to admit that myself and other people's theory could be wrong, i.e. that the pyramids in afar (north africa to you) are part of a lost worldwide advanced culture that built monuments as an adoration and glorification of the cosmos and their ancestors whom they described as extraterrestrials. There is direct evidence that ancient people worshipped extraterrestrials. The sun, moon and planets are all extraterrestrial. Definition of Extraterrestrial: Of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere. The sun, moon and other planets are all outside the earth and were worshipped by the pyramid builders, a direct link in the chain that ancient builders worshipped extraterrestrials. You must be not familiar with the fictional twisted biblical charater called moses. A character that was based around several ancient gods and kings whose stories were corrupted and put into the form of moses, a fictional character who never existed. Yet the Egyptologists believe he was real. I am fully aware what CE/BCE means, i am also fully aware that its a corruptive term that originates from anno domini style calendars. Thats my view and opinion on it, i don't really care what you think about it, in my opinion you are not an adept on such topics. No, i don't like AD/BC or CE/BCE anno domino vatican influenced calendars, and i won't use any other vatican style calendar you say either. You're wasting your time trying to convince otherwise. Not everyone has to agree with your views and cited research. Wow, what a verbose way of showing you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Hilarious. cormac Edited December 3, 2012 by cormac mac airt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted December 3, 2012 #1415 Share Posted December 3, 2012 You must be not familiar with the fictional twisted biblical charater called moses. A character that was based around several ancient gods and kings whose stories were corrupted and put into the form of moses, a fictional character who never existed. Yet the Egyptologists believe he was real. So, pyramids are mentioned in Exodus? Not. Since you refuse to provide any quote about pyramids from the Bible, you agree that you were caught talking out of your a$$ then, eh? So, now, how about a link to a paper from an Egyptologist that believes Moses was real? An Egyptologist, not a Biblical Archaeologist. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 3, 2012 #1416 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I am fully aware what CE/BCE means, i am also fully aware that its a corruptive term that originates from anno domini style calendars. Thats my view and opinion on it, i don't really care what you think about it, in my opinion you are not an adept on such topics. No, i don't like AD/BC or CE/BCE anno domino vatican influenced calendars, and i won't use any other vatican style calendar you say either. You're wasting your time trying to convince otherwise. Not everyone has to agree with your views and cited research. Man, pick up your brains from the floor and read my post again. "Vatican style calendar"? I said MUSLIM or JEWISH or BP (Before Present). And what research did I cite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 3, 2012 #1417 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) The rosetta stone is seen to be the key to the modern understanding of hieroglyphs engraved in the north african region. I entertain the idea that that such a stone is not a 100% real genuine artifact from the region of the pyramids. I am leaning towards the idea that the rosetta stone is a fake designed by organisations promoting false history, but i would have to see the stone close up to be 100% sure. Certainly from the photographs it looks like a genuine fake. Thats my opinion. And what is your 'opinion' based on? The 'looks' of a photo? Gimme a break. Go to the museum where they show the Rosetta Stone, and convince yourself. You appear to forget that the Greeks had settled in Alexandria (Egypt). Or maybe you are of the 'opinion' that that is a lie too? +++ EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Egypt [...] the stone was transferred to the British Museum, where it is located today.[45] Go see it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone . . Edited December 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaentum Posted December 3, 2012 #1418 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I ran out of time when replying to your post and couldn't get to the last item. SC: Alas, I have to disagree. 10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory. SC I'm not going to quote your supposed facts because of the length but will, for some of the 10, post the points you made and reply to them. 1. Why the evolution from the simpler mastaba to the pyramid, They couldn't have been built to the kings greatness because no statues or inscriptions were found, What was created could also be dismantled. I can not say about the inscriptions but grave robbers could have taken the statues. Yes the same culture that could build the pyramids would have the knowledge to take them apart or break into them, but that is true even of the mastaba's, so a larger size would have created more difficulty, time and expense to achieve the same results. As for the evolution of the mastaba to the pyramid, let's look at a more modern counterpart. The evolution of the simple churches to the huge cathedrals. The change in size did not radically alter the function and so it was with the pyramids. 2. The provincial pyramids and cenotaph's were not intended for burial so no pyramids were intended for burial. The conclusion that if A=1 and B=1 then C must equal 1 because C is a letter just like A and B, is definitely not founded in logic. 4. The sarcophagus in Khufu's pyramid does not bear his name or any inscriptions so it couldn't have been a sarcophagus to be used in his burial. It is possible that in Khufu's case the inscriptions were all on the lid which no longer exists. 5. Preconceived Unified Plan The supposed Orion/Giza correlation had been refuted on UM 6A. Trial passages are a map to the layout of the Great Pyramid Though similar to the layout in the Great Pyramid, they are aligned north-south as Khufu's queens pyramids are and the rock around the north entrance was leveled indicating that a structure was to be built on top. Clearly not a map to the layout of the great pyramid. 6B. The main entrance door was designed to swivel and there is a lack of security features in the descending passage. The main entrance was so successfully camouflaged that they needed to break in through the walls of the pyramid because they couldn't find it. If the "Queens Chamber" was just a serdab (storage room) they wouldn't have need an abundance of security. 6C. Why use granite plugs and a limestone prism stone instead of just limestone plugs Granite is far harder than limestone and more difficult to break through so the use of granite plugs is logical as is the use of a limestone prism stone to camouflage their existence. 7. Intrusive burials, there was no original burial. You have concluded that there were no original burials based on a lack of mummies. I believe. Djoser's mummy refutes the concept of there being no original burials. As far as intrusive burials. I could be wrong but, I contend, that the current king would be more concerned with the running of his kingdom and his own future demise than the resting places of his ancestors. At what point were the intrusive burials made? Was it during the time the pyramids were being built or long after their construction ceased? If after, then there may have been none who noticed. To indicate that because there were intrusive burials then it must have been considered OK is invalid logic and would be the same as saying that because there are drive by shootings, then it is considered OK. 9. The Sarcophagus The fact that sarcophagi have been found in various pyramids lends more credence to the pyramids being tombs than not. The fact they have been found empty and with a lack of funerary items present does not present a problem in light of grave robbers. As far as the KA statues, Those placed in the pyramids could have easily been taken by others after the initial theft. As for the others in sealed sarcophagi, their lack may mean that nothing happened that would require the placement of a KA statue. 10. Osiris Beds. The Festival of Khoiak was reconstructed by Mikhail using several temple calendars, some as early as 1187 BCE. That and the reference to Tutankhamen place Osiris Beds in the new kingdom. They were not in use in the old kingdom and so are not relevant to whether the pyramids were tombs or not. Your 10 facts are in reality not facts. They are composed of suppositions, irrelevancies, fallacies and illogical conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 3, 2012 #1419 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) LRW. Having an opinion is peanuts. But for your opinion to be taken seriously is based on having an opinion based on more than having just an alternative view on things. If archeologists, linguists, Egyptologists and so on are twisting facts, it's up to you to prove they do. , Edited December 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhaten-pasheri Posted December 3, 2012 #1420 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Thinking aloud, or something, I thought about the sarcophacus in GP. If this pyramid is not a tomb, then why the sarcophacus? Oh!, of course, it is a "storage container" to keep their knowledge safe for after the flood. Odd then that they would have these scrolls or whatever, in a sarcophacus in a sealed chamber. Why not have many more scrolls, but on racks all around the chamber, for surely they are no less safe there than in some small stone box. The more I think about this RVT theory, and the more of the book I read, then the more bizarre it becomes. And still no responses on SC saying, in his book, that first intermediate period lasting more than two thousand years. Surely just this aspect alone sinks him below waterline. But then why bother firing torpedo into a ship already rusting on sea bed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 3, 2012 #1421 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think we are dealing with a troll here. It's either that, or with someone suffering from a 'major mallfunction". Or with someone who recently had to deal with the realization that Santa really does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRW Posted December 3, 2012 #1422 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) LRW. Having an opinion is peanuts. But for your opinion to be taken seriously is based on having an opinion based on more than having just an alternative view on things. If archeologists, linguists, Egyptologists and so on are twisting facts, it's up to you to prove they do. , I already know they have twisted things and still continue to twist and steal other peoples history and misrepresent them. The opinions of others on the thread even makes it more believable in my opinion. I don't care if you do not take my opinion seriously, nor do i feel the need the need to proove it to others for recognition. I know that great damage has been already done by the wealthy institutions promoting false history. Power corrupts, Romans were also indulging in promotion of false history and making northern tribes appear as primitive disgusting violent murderers, when in fact the romans themselves were the cowardly disgusting murderers. I can say this, do you have video footage of some fictional character called Khufu that built the pyramids? no, you do not, so why should anyone believe Egyptologists theory? they have no real proof, their theory is weak in my opinion. Do Egyptologists make up things as they go along? is applying your own interpretation to stone monuments, hieroglyphs, and dodgy papyrus scribes all the Egyptologists and their supporters have as evidence of their ludicrous assumptions? yes, it appears so in my opinion. They do exactly the same thing i'm doing, i can take an ancient hieroglyph and apply my interpretation to it aswell. I am going to say that hieroglyph is a helicopter and some spaceships. Because that is what it looks like in my opinion. If Egyptologists say different, then i would say they were having a laugh and disregard their theory outright. A piece of fancy paper saying they are qualified from institutions to talk on the topic is meangingless in my opinion, qualifications from institutions promoting false history means absolutely nothing significant in my opinion. All theories are an opinion, you can not prove whether or not those hieroglyphs are not helicopters or spaceships, neither can i prove that they are helicopters and spaceships, however, i still believe they are a presentation of advanced helicopter technology and spaceship technology. The pictures in of itself are all the proof i need to influence my opinion on it. I already believe that people that engraved those hieroglyphs were having visions of the future or a parallel universe. I do not expect others to believe my opinion though. So i will not force it down their throats like Egyptologists do, thats not my style. Egyptologists theories are no better than the next persons theory. The only difference is that Egyptologists are given a powerful public platform from well funded institutions to promote their theory as truth, when in fact many people think its garbage. There is no law saying that its a crime not to believe them. It is extremely easy to realise that Egyptologists profession is promotion of fiction, why? because they base their whole study around christianity and dubious dodgy scholars who do not seem like they are from the ancient world, in fact they seem like a fabrication promoted by institutions indulging in promoting false history for hidden agenda purposes. Thats my opinion, whether people agree with it or not, i don't care, if i can change the thinking of one person reading the thread and make them have a different view of Egyptologists, then thats a victory as far as i am concerned. But apparently to you, i am a troll for expressing an alternative version of history in an alternative history discussion forum. Mainstream historic and scientific research is no yardstick to measure truth in my opinion. Edited December 3, 2012 by LRW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted December 3, 2012 #1423 Share Posted December 3, 2012 You appear to forget that the Greeks had settled in Alexandria (Egypt). Or maybe you are of the 'opinion' that that is a lie too? Abe, Of course it's a lie. If you look at a pic of Alexandria from space, it doesn't have the word "Alexandria" printed on it. What these evil and despicable "Egypt"-ologists don't tell you is that the place wasn't named for Alexander, it was named for Shlomo. The real name is, of course, Shlomopolis. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted December 3, 2012 #1424 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I would have to disagree with that. I believe that Egyptologists are simply too extreme to admit that they could be wrong, they are some of the most closed minded people i have ever witnessed and their whole theory is something that is quite disgusting in my opinion, it is simply not something i would ever believe as truth. They are an insult to the builders of the pyramids, i would have to see strong undeniable evidence that the pyramids can be built with primitive ramps, pulleys and copper chisels and man-power before i would ever believe it. I believe that whoever built the pyramids were in possession of a powerful technological scientific breakthrough and knowledge given to them by something from the outside. Whether that knowledge and technological breakthrough was transmitted through peoples minds is still something that i am interested in. I believe that those ancient people were in communication with something incredible, possibly something from another dimension perhaps that was transmitting knowledge to their brains. As much as some people find that too hard believe and take in, i simply feel its a more plausible theory than the garbage that Egyptologists like to smear debates with. They are the mainstream facts and are only developed through other peoples interpretation and so called research, you can't force those so called facts and research on others, there is no law saying that everyone should obide by the opinions and views of Egyptologists. You may not like that, but i do not really care about your condemnation of my views. You seem very closed minded on the topic and seem to want everyone else to have the same attitude as yourself, so they won't go against the grain. Egyptologists may control what material gets accepted in the mainstream science and mainstream history community, but does not necessarily mean people have to agree with it. They may control the material thats pumped into the big universities and colleges etc, but that does not necessarily mean they are correct in their theories, i know many smart and enlightened people that disagree with Egyptologists and i commend those people for their alternative theories and taking an issue with the methods and closed minded approach that Egyptologists use. It's always the same thing. Egyptology plays loose and fast with facts. They interpret evidence to fit their beliefs and then hit everyone over the head with "cultural context" that is really defined by the book of the dead because nothing survives from the great pyramid building age. They sug- gest they have a mountain of evidence to support their assumptions when in actuality they have a mountain of evvidence appended to their assumptions and most of it doesn't fit at all. But, I still believe they came to their beliefs honestly. I have less confidence in why they cling to their beliefs and interpretations so tenaciously while there are dozens of good theories out there that can explain the facts. I'm coming to believe that it's a religious issue. They don't want to find any religious precepts are actually founded on aliens, seed vaults, or ancient science so they re- fuse to investigate any facts or attempt to prove their own theories. They're still teaching children these are tombs built with ramps and are afraid of shaking the al- mighty status quo. I agree it's sad but perhaps no single individual is intentionally doing something he believes is wrong. Afterall protecting beliefs and the way things have always been seen is the way of mankind. Change will come because the status quo is wrong and it's unsupported and this will never change. The weight of being wrong just keeps accumulating until nothing can stand. A theory that can't make predictions is wrong and useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted December 3, 2012 #1425 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Thinking aloud, or something, I thought about the sarcophacus in GP. If this pyramid is not a tomb, then why the sarcophacus? Oh!, of course, it is a "storage container" to keep their knowledge safe for after the flood. Odd then that they would have these scrolls or whatever, in a sarcophacus in a sealed chamber. Why not have many more scrolls, but on racks all around the chamber, for surely they are no less safe there than in some small stone box. The more I think about this RVT theory, and the more of the book I read, then the more bizarre it becomes. And still no responses on SC saying, in his book, that first intermediate period lasting more than two thousand years. Surely just this aspect alone sinks him below waterline. But then why bother firing torpedo into a ship already rusting on sea bed.... I've said it before but will repeat it anyway. I believe the so-called sarcophagus is the single best piece of evidence that the Great Pyramid was a tomb. But it falls far short of convincing. The simple fact is that a stone box made for any purpose whatsoever of this size by these people would probably be identical to what we call a sar- cophagus. That this was put in the pyramid during construction indicates that it was of some im- portance. That it has no apparent function other than a box or container is apparent. Therefore when they built the pyramid there was some importance to it containing a box that could have held a body or a coffin. The problem is that this does not necessarily translate to "the pyramid must be a tomb". A body or coffin are not the only objects for which the box might have been intended. The builders did name these after their kings so this could be more equivalent to something like the "Reagan Library" than his tomb. The builders suggested these structures were the Ka (life's work) of the kings so why not put his persoinal possesssions in them? Of course there are numerous possibilities about the intend- ed function of the box but the bottom line seems to be that it was a box and potentially a sarcophagus. It was a rush to judgement that gave birth to Egyptology. In the absense of supporting evidence that this was a sarcophagus all the evidence deserves equal weight. It certainly seems that Egyptology relies far too heavily on the absense of evidence to support their contentions. They rely on it so heav- ily that they won't even seek evidence to support them. So long as there are no bodies and no ramps they consider their position perfectly secure. If they go digging around too much they might find out they're wrong about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now