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

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

SC: Well, to be honest, I would not expect you to say anything else since it seems to me that your mind has been made up even before you entered into this discussion. The fact remains, whether you agree or not, we have texts from Arab chroniclers claimed to be from the Ancient Egyptian builders of the early, giant pyramids. These texts state that the pyramids were constructed to store all that was “of esteem in the king’s treasury” (i.e. important recovery items) to ensure the kingdom might be reborn. The catalyst event for the decision to construct the pyramid recovery vaults was the observation that the stars in the heavens had changed their course. There is much in the Arab chronicles that cannot be externally corroborated but there are two essential elements that can. We have scientific evidence that the Earth’s axis was disturbed around the time of the early pyramid-building age. A disturbance of the Earth’s axis would, of course, appear to the ancients that the stars had changed their course. Another part of the story that we have independent corroboratory evidence of is their use to store all “that was of esteem in the kingdom”. This would, naturally, include all manner of seed types, storage/distribution vessels and the remnant cache of such recovery items were found in massive quantities in and under Djoser’s pyramid complex.

I was referring to one Arab chronicler, Murtadi, the only one I had access to. Trying to indicate that that is my view on all of them is dishonest.

all that was “of esteem in the king’s treasury” and all “that was of esteem in the kingdom” are two different things. You are applying the second (I'll wager Djoser's Pyramid) as if it were the first and it's not the same thing. If you want to see what would have been all that was “of esteem in the king’s treasury”, look at what they found with Tutankhaumen. That is what would have been in the pyramids and what would have been the driving force behind the grave robbing. In fact what they describe concerning the king's treasury fits perfectly with the Tutankhaumen tomb and not with a recovery vault.

So, far from being “plain false”, there are key elements of the Arab chronicles that can be independently corroborated. I rather imagine that if the tomb-theorists had such corroborative evidence they wouldn’t be slow to ram it down everyone’s throat as proof-positive of the tomb theory. Alas for them, however, they simply do not have such corroboration. If it s evidence that we judge a theory by then any person of reasonable mind can see that the RVT is better evidenced than the PTT (Pyramid Tomb Theory).

You mean evidence like sarcophagi or a mummy like Djoser's? That's evidence that has been there and a person of reasonable mind would not discard such pysical evidence out of hand .

SC: They did. There were 11 shafts leading to numerous underground galleries. Only 2 of these 11 underground galleries were found to have large quantities of various seed type, including tens of thousands of storage/distribution vessels. So, the other galleries were emptied (as were the other pyramids) of their recovery items. We could spend all year speculating as to why 2 out of the 11 galleries under the Step Pyramid were not emptied but it is fortunate indeed that they weren’t otherwise we would not have the evidence to show what they were used for – the storage of large quantities of various seed type and distribution vessels.

Even though the cache of items under Djoser's pyramid exists, it does not, of itself, support that the empty chambers or the pyramids were used for the same thing.

SC: Sorry, but I simply do not follow your logic here. Are you now trying to suggest that the king was buried somewhere else in the pyramid and that the AP was a decoy of some kind? If so, then think carefully before you reply.

Quite the opposite and remember this is just a guess. The descending passage was the decoy. All the previous pyramids had descending passages but no ascending passages so it would become set in their minds to search the descending passage. It may have been the hope of the builders of Khufu's pyramid that the grave robbers might not look for something that didn't exist in the previous tombs.

SC: It’s not important but Belzoni’s book *does* state the bull bones found in G2’s granite box were sent to London to be verified. The pitch-like substance was not in G2 (this is where the bull bones were found). The pitch-like substance is one of the many things that were supposedly found by al-Mamun in the stone box of G1. Mixed with potable water, earth and grain would, after a long period of time, decay into a dark, pitch-like substance. The germinating grain placed on the earth in the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’ symbolized the invisible life-force of the Ka. It is not unreasonable then to suggest that, given the early, giant pyramids as symbolizing the dismembered body parts of Osiris (as per the Myth of Osiris), the germinating grain in the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’ symblised the Ka within the allegorical body of Osiris i.e. the pyramid(s). The bull bones in the second pyramid at Giza would then symbolize the ba of Osiris within the allegorical 'body of Osiris'.

I read through Belzoni's book on Google Books and even did a search of the text and the word Bull does not appear anywhere in the book. As I've shown with my previous post that Osiris Beds are from the new kingdom and later, the concept that the sarcophagus in the kings chamber of G1 wouldn't have been an Osiris Bed when it was installed. However, as with later intrusion burials in some tombs, someone may have tried to make it into an Osiris bed at a time during the new kingdom.

SC: No, the bull bones were not dated because it was simply assumed by Lehner and Hawass that they MUST have been some bizarre intrusive burial from later times since this granite box, in their opinion, was the sarcophagus of a king. They cavalerely dismiss actual in-situ evidence because they cannot explain it within their tomb paradigm and they do not stop to think that another paradigm might actually offer an explanation for this in-situ evidence. The RVT explains these bull bones.

Perhaps it's confusion on my part, but if Belzoni sent the bull bones to London what does that have to do with Lehner and Hawass?

SC: It’s there. I won't say something unless I can back it up.

As far as Osiris Beds, I have done the searching and found nothing to put them before the new kingdom. Since you can back up your claim that they existed before then, it's time to do exactly that. Back up the claim with either a link or reference to a work which contains the information.

Bottom line here - there is another paradigm that is better supported by the available evidence and which simply does not dismiss evidence. I really do not care whether you accept this more rational paradigm or not - you are obviously convinced of the unevidenced pyramid tomb theory. That's entirely your choice - just do not expect me to share your view. Most rational, thinking people actually demand good, compelling evidence before accepting the veracity of a theory. Sheeple accept an unevidenced theory on blind faith.

SC

The problem with your paradigm is that it is not supported by available evidence. The physical evidence of sarcophagi and Djoser's mummy certainly do not support it.

Evidently some of the breakins happend mere months after the tombs were sealed meaning that anything within would be gone. As more and more breakins took place there would be fewer and fewer tombs with anything inside. If they were recovery vaults, after the supposed catastrophe, it would have been necessary to empty out the caverns below Djoser's pyramid that were found to contain the vessels beause of the depletion at the other locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would respectfully disagree. The ka and ba were both manifestations of the individual, the ka being the representation of the physical needs and the ba the representation of the non-corporeal. "Personality" or "character" are good interpretations of the ba so we are in agreement on that, but the ka was definitely a living, cognizent life force. The Egyptians believed you were born with it, and it went on for eternity so long as it was properly tended to in the tomb—which is what tombs were for (pyramids included).

I think cladking and others have confused themselves with the "pyramid as ka" based on an insufficient basic understanding of Egyptian funerary religion. One of the most common words for "tomb" in all periods of Egyptian history was pr-kA (per ka), which literally translates as "soul house." The tomb was the home in which the ka was meant to dwell forever, and it did not leave that place. When loved ones or priests brought food offerings to a tomb's offering chapel (in the case of pyramids, the mortuary temple), they were providing sustenance to the ka. The relief carvings of cattle butchery, food production, fishing, and fowling so typical of offering chapels were not art, per se, but were assurances to the ka—the ka would always directly benefit from the cattle butchery, food production, fishing, and fowling.

This practice carried over in a wider sense that was already firmly in place by Dynasty 3: tomb statues. One of the ancient Egyptian words for these statues was kA-twt, "ka statue." The ka of the tomb owner was believed to inhabit these statues, and the statues served as another place to dwell in case the mummy was destroyed. The mortuary temples of pyramids were replete with stone statues serving the same purpose. None of Khufu's have survived, but a number have from the complexes of Khafre and Menkaure.

This is incorrect. At this point in time, as long as the samples are good, carbon dating for something as old as the Great Pyramid (c. 2500 BCE) can accurately produce a date within a century either way. Organic materials from the New Kingdom (c. 1550 BCE) can be accurately dated within around fifty years either way.

Radiocarbon dating is in fact a very solid and reliable science, which is why it's universally employed in archaeology so long as good samples exist at the site. Archaeologists and the various scientists with whom they work do not question the validity of radiocarbon dating. Usually the only folks who do question it are creationists. Given that creationism (a.k.a. intelligent design) is the antithesis of science, I'll trust the scientists on this matter.

Nothing in the archaeological makeup of Giza would require anything more than radiocarbon dating—so long as we're talking about paleolithic, neolithic, predynastic, and dynastic Egypt. C14 dating can accurately measure organic materials up to around 60,000 years of age, so that pretty much covers it all. Other methods of high accuracy exist, such as thermoluminescence to date pottery. However, if a geologist comes into play and wants to date actual stones, numerous other dating techniques can be used (e.g., potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead). This is how we know the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, but such is not really relevant to the archaeological investigations of Egypt.

Thanks for the correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

There are no known mummies of kings from before the 5th dynasty (actually it's even later).

I believe this dovetails quite nicely with my contention that these mummies were cremated to

protect them forever exactly as the ancients actually said and repeatedly implied.

Remember;

"...I will set fire to him (the corpse) at the beginning of the great season".

These things don't go away just because Egyptologists don't want to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no known mummies of kings from before the 5th dynasty (actually it's even later).

I believe this dovetails quite nicely with my contention that these mummies were cremated to

protect them forever exactly as the ancients actually said and repeatedly implied.

Remember;

"...I will set fire to him (the corpse) at the beginning of the great season".

These things don't go away just because Egyptologists don't want to see them.

There are the mummified remains of a foot which were found in the central chamber which cannot be summarily dismissed as intrusive. That is also part of the evidence, whether one likes it or not.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are the mummified remains of a foot which were found in the central chamber which cannot be summarily dismissed as intrusive. That is also part of the evidence, whether one likes it or not.

Somewhat singed is it not? ;)

Djoser's Pyramid started life as a mastaba and many mastabas were tombs. A burial under

the mastaba would be far less surprising than one in another great pyramid. But saying it

belongs to Djoser is speculative. I'd wager that if it's really contemporary that it's far more

likely to be Imhotep because it appears they burned the kings. Untill Egyptology does the

work to show a pyramid was a tomb the best guess, IMO, is that the kings were burned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You mean those same histories that the people of the time wrote? I see so reading their history as they wrote it is stealing the history. So much stolen history, the horror, the horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat singed is it not? ;)

Djoser's Pyramid started life as a mastaba and many mastabas were tombs. A burial under

the mastaba would be far less surprising than one in another great pyramid. But saying it

belongs to Djoser is speculative. I'd wager that if it's really contemporary that it's far more

likely to be Imhotep because it appears they burned the kings. Untill Egyptology does the

work to show a pyramid was a tomb the best guess, IMO, is that the kings were burned.

Saying it's intrusive is even more-so. And you can mangle ancient texts all you want, but they don't actually say the kings were cremated.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I would agree with that. I do not see any evidence for their assumptions though, i only see their interpretations and believe it to be wrong. I feel like its false history and they are telling lies. Why? maybe because they do not want people to see how advanced those ancient people really were and how they were inter-connected through vast distances and continents. I strongly believe without a shadow of a doubt that those ancient peoples knew much more about spirituality and the cosmos. Their knowedge seems to come from the stars. Who was giving them that knowledge is the question that remains the mystery. I believe that there was a prototype style worldwide civilisation that was probably submerged, the forerunners who survived that cataclysm shared their knowledge to other people who probably worshipped them in return for gaining knowledge of how to construct architecture and align it with the cosmos as a veneration to their creators or ancestors.

The Egyptologists and their posse probably cling to their beliefs and interpretations so tenaciously, because they don't want anyone exposing that there is strong potential for them to be extremely naive and wrong in their beliefs, methods, interpretations etc. I will readily admit that some of my theories and other peoples alternative theories might be wrong, but for Egyptologists to admit that they might be wrong would be something unheard of.

They make it out that their theory is the definitive truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they then try to force that theory down everyones throats and thats what is worrying. Heaven forbid if anyone challenges it. They have the funding and the already established theory to further promote their wild assumptions. Funding and fancy suit and ties does not make them anymore credible than the next person with a different theory, in my opinion.

Shamans do not wear fancy suits and ties and they are some of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to spirituality and the cosmos.

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.

I also agree with you about the religon part and your understanding that it might be a negative influence, the book of enoch seemed to be originally excluded from the bible because it suggested interference from beings not of the earth originally. Thats only one document, imagine the content of the documents that might be supressed from the wider public.

Also, there is direct evidence that the ancients worshipped extraterrestrials, the planets and stars are all extraterrestrial in origin yet were adored by the ancients who seemed to build their monuments as a glorifying celebration of the beauty of the cosmos.

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.

They might be teaching it and propogating it as truth, but they will never ever be able to duplicate the great pyramid with primitive ramps, pulleys and primitive copper chisels and man-power. They would not have a clue where to start and their methods and tools would fail them. Using the argument that they had thousands of years to hone their skill is junk science in my opinion. It does not take thousands of years to learn a skill if the knowledge is given to you by something superior.

Edited by LRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Show us HOW you know they have twisted things.

Bloody SHOW us some sort of 'proof', and you will be taken seriously.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show us HOW you know they have twisted things.

Bloody SHOW us some sort of 'proof', and you will be taken seriously.

I don't need to show you anything. You show your video footage of Khufu building a pyramid and designing it?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're nothing but a boring troll, and I would have kicked your butt long time ago if you had been posting on my site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're nothing but a boring troll, and I would have kicked your butt long time ago if you had been posting on my site.

Then ignore my views if you think i'm boring. Also, i find it strange as to why you would call someone a troll for expressing "alternative history and mystery opinions on an alternative history and ancient mystery discussion forum", you should know exactly it is you are.

I am also not on your site, am i? nor do i want to go there, with you as an administrator the place must be intolerant of alternative views being discussed.

I also see that you have not provided any video proof of Khufu building the pyramid? all you have is other peoples interpretations of dodgy artifacts and ancient heiroglpyhs, papyrus scibes, ornaments, monuments etc. Egyptologists theory is no better than the next persons theory. Their evidence is only an opinion, not a fact as far as i am concerned.

You might think its cool to silence alternative views being expressed, but i think its fun how hard you try to deride them, it just makes it feel that my theory is all the more believable given how your aggressive reaction is to it. You can not debate in a civil manner, you resort to calling people a "troll" if you do not agree with their opinions or back up your own theory.

Egyptologists when translating heiroglyphs are only expressing an opinion as am i, when i look at them.

Edited by LRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I find to be an interesting coincedence? That since LRW has been posting his flexible fact theories we have heard but very little from our old friend Harsh_Patel. I smells a proxy :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I find to be an interesting coincedence? That since LRW has been posting his flexible fact theories we have heard but very little from our old friend Harsh_Patel. I smells a proxy :D

I am not Harsh_Patel.

Its a big conspiracy now, if someone else agree's with some of my views on a different thread?

If that is the way you play, then one could say that you're Ambramelin. are you? Get real.

Please stick to the topic of the pyramids. I do not see the reason why you and Ambramelin want to derail the thread because you disagree with my views as like Ambramelin you also said i was trolling on another thread. I am not, i am only expressing opinions and views like others.

Edited by LRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not Harsh_Patel.

Its a big conspiracy now, if someone else agree's with some of my views on a different thread?

If that is the way you play, then one could say that you're Ambramelin. are you? Get real.

Please stick to the topic of the pyramids. I do not see the reason why you and Ambramelin want to derail the thread because you disagree with my views as like Ambramelin you also said i was trolling on another thread. I am not, i am only expressing opinions and views like others.

Actually I've yet to discern by any of your writings what your views actually are - other than the fact that you think that Egyptology is anathema. Your guesses with regards to anything else are sort of indistinct. I can't say I dislike anything other than your rather floppy views on the nature of truth and fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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.

Forgive me for being quite blunt, LRW, but I've been reading a number of your posts lately, and the more you post, the more scattered you seem. The above is a very good example. Please share with us the training you've undergone to transliterate and translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and to comprehend the ancient language.

Well, allow me to answer that: you have no training, and therefore your understanding of this topic is demonstrably weak.

The monument you found happens to be one of the best ones I've seen in some time for the spelling of one of the ancient names of Egypt. You see a bird, indeed, but do you know how it functions? I thought not. It is a monoliteral representing the "m" sound, in this instance. The hillock in front of it represents a "k" sound. The small bread loaf behind the owl represents a "t" sound. So, put them together in the proper order: k + m + t = kmt, an ancient name for the country of Egypt. The circle glyph behind the owl is a semantic determinative representing a physical place, land, or location, which reinforces the meaning behind kmt.

That is how one properly interprets this particular grouping of glyphs. I honestly don't understand what you're hoping to achieve with your fit over calling the pharaonic Egyptians "ancient Egyptians." Why do you think this term is used, considering "Egypt" is in fact not one of the names for the ancient country? How many laypeople are going to understand terms like Kemet, or Tawy, or Ta-mery, or rekhyt, or other terms the ancients themselves used to describe their nation and themselves? There's a reason a certain lexicon is employed. No reason, really, to throw a fit over it.

I come across as terse because I've grown weary of your presumptions that your opinions can match the level of knowledge represented by legitimate scientific and historical research. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor does mine. What matters are the conclusions reached by peer-reviewed research. You go on and on with opinions and try to paint some ludicrous conspiracy theory lurking behind the world of academia, which really only shows you have very little understanding of how the world of academia functions.

I can see why you post the way you do. You clearly don't understand the methodology of research, so you toss aspersions at the academic community and hope they'll stick. They do no stick. They fall flat and reflect very poorly on you.

Goodness.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I dislike anything other than your rather floppy views on the nature of truth and fact.

what truth and fact? show them please. Bring them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for being quite blunt, LRW, but I've been reading a number of your posts lately, and the more you post, the more scattered you seem. The above is a very good example. Please share with us the training you've undergone to transliterate and translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and to comprehend the ancient language.

Well, allow me to answer that: you have no training, and therefore your understanding of this topic is demonstrably weak.

The monument you found happens to be one of the best ones I've seen in some time for the spelling of one of the ancient names of Egypt. You see a bird, indeed, but do you know how it functions? I thought not. It is a monoliteral representing the "m" sound, in this instance. The hillock in front of it represents a "k" sound. The small bread loaf behind the owl represents a "t" sound. So, put them together in the proper order: k + m + t = kmt, an ancient name for the country of Egypt. The circle glyph behind the owl is a semantic determinative representing a physical place, land, or location, which reinforces the meaning behind kmt.

That is how one properly interprets this particular grouping of glyphs. I honestly don't understand what you're hoping to achieve with your fit over calling the pharaonic Egyptians "ancient Egyptians." Why do you think this term is used, considering "Egypt" is in fact not one of the names for the ancient country? How many laypeople are going to understand terms like Kemet, or Tawy, or Ta-mery, or rekhyt, or other terms the ancients themselves used to describe their nation and themselves? There's a reason a certain lexicon is employed. No reason, really, to throw a fit over it.

I come across as terse because I've grown weary of your presumptions that your opinions can match the level of knowledge represented by legitimate scientific and historical research. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor does mine. What matters are the conclusions reached by peer-reviewed research. You go on and on with opinions and try to paint some ludicrous conspiracy theory lurking behind the world of academia, which really only shows you have very little understanding of how the world of academia functions.

I can see why you post the way you do. You clearly don't understand the methodology of research, so you toss aspersions at the academic community and hope they'll stick. They do no stick. They fall flat and reflect very poorly on you.

Goodness.

Peer viewed research is only an opinion.

Do you admit that there is potential that Egyptologists could be wrong?

Also, i do not feel the need to boast about my credentials for attention and recognition like you and others.

I prefer to just talk about the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

...

This is quite amusing, and reinforces the necessary tone of the little tirade I had in my preceding post. Your unfocused rant against "AD/BC" aside (the correct terminology is now BCE and CE, by the way), your claims about the Bible stand out rather clearly. Other posters have already commented on it, but I'll take it a step further and advise that you consult a Bible very carefully right now. Tell us exactly where in the Bible, Old Testament or New, pyramids are even mentioned. I issue you this challenge.

I issue a further challenge that you consult professional Egyptological research from the last half century or so and show us clear examples of where an Egyptologist has used the Bible, Old Testament or New, as the primary source for any major paper, article, or book he or she has authored.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer viewed research is only an opinion.

Do you admit that there is potential that Egyptologists could be wrong?

Also, i do not feel the need to boast about my credentials for attention and recognition like you and others.

I prefer to just talk about the topic at hand.

What credentials? I have no Egyptological credentials, nor am I a professional historian. I never claimed to be one. I see no boasting in my previous post—I see only where I pointed out your obvious errors. Numerous other posters have done the same.

You clearly do not understand what peer-reviewed research is. True, fringies cringe at the mere mention of it because the methodology would sink their own ideas in a heartbeat, but you seem to be equating opinions with facts.

I can and do admit that Egyptology can be wrong. It is hardly a static discipline. No useful discipline can be static and continue to function. I could compose a lengthy post to describe old theories that have been discarded and other instances where Egyptology has been in error—and I can compose another long post explaining how extant evidence has pointed Egyptology in the right direction. It is a field of study that's been thriving for well over a century now, and the more time goes on, the more solid it becomes.

You cannot even begin to challenge it. That's clear to me. All you're doing is touting your opinions and claiming "conspiracy." This is not how one confronts real-world research. It's how one avoids confronting it. You appear to be one of those folks who claims to have special knowledge that can somehow place you in front of countless dedicated researchers and scientists. You see no problem in credibility with this?

Like I said in my previous post, stop tossing out unsubstantiated allegations. Other posters have asked you to present something, anything, to corroborate your claims. I'm asking you to do the same.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I find to be an interesting coincedence? That since LRW has been posting his flexible fact theories we have heard but very little from our old friend Harsh_Patel. I smells a proxy :D

LOL "Flexible fact theories," I like that description. I might have to steal it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what truth and fact? show them please. Bring them on.

Well you seem to like to think that science and academia haven't identified anything approaching truth in your estimation. My good sir that is what science DOES. It attempts, through the process of hypothesis, research, experimentation, and peer review to establish truth and facts that are universal for us all. It succeeds mostly too. You are interacting with this website through a computer or phone interface - have you not paused to reflect on how much science, truth, and fact are wrapped up in your ability to post your opinions on these topics? How many disciplines and practitioners have to be speaking the same language to create a computer that does even the now simple task of internet browsing? The language they speak is the language of science.

If all those facts and truths were all open to interpretation as you say, do you really think that a cohesive, functional machine could ever be produced anywhere? It is because of the painstaking process that establishes scientific fact that modern civilization as we know it is possible. Its the glue that holds everything together.

If you wish to be a scientific anarchist, then please feel free. Perhaps you are some sort of visionary thinker. Many things are possible. It seems more likely however that you chose this tack because you have discovered that its way easier to say everyone is wrong and claim that the reason is because facts are malleable than it is to actually learn and understand those facts that you seek to undermine.

Wake yourself up to reality. You have been distant from it for long enough it would seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite amusing, and reinforces the necessary tone of the little tirade I had in my preceding post. Your unfocused rant against "AD/BC" aside (the correct terminology is now BCE and CE, by the way), your claims about the Bible stand out rather clearly. Other posters have already commented on it, but I'll take it a step further and advise that you consult a Bible very carefully right now. Tell us exactly where in the Bible, Old Testament or New, pyramids are even mentioned. I issue you this challenge.

I issue a further challenge that you consult professional Egyptological research from the last half century or so and show us clear examples of where an Egyptologist has used the Bible, Old Testament or New, as the primary source for any major paper, article, or book he or she has authored.

To your question about the bible, well, i have seen Egyptologists when being interviewed they will conflate the issue of biblical stories with their so called academic discipline that they refer to as "Egyptology" the latter of which is only a theory not definitive scientific truth in my opinion. I am also not going to bother searching the web for such interviews, but i frequently hear Egyptologists conflate the bible with their so called research, i am sure that i am not the only one who has noticed it.

Egyptology was established as an academic discipline through the research of Emmanuel de Rougé in France, Samuel Birch in England, and Heinrich Brugsch in Germany. In 1880, Flinders Petrie, another British Egyptologist, revolutionized the field of archaeology through controlled and scientifically recorded excavations. Petrie's work determined that Egyptian culture dated back as early as 4500 BCE. The British Egypt Exploration Fund founded in 1882 and other Egyptologists promoted Petrie’s methods. Other scholars worked on producing a hieroglyphic dictionary, developing a Demotic lexicon, and establishing an outline of ancient Egyptian history.

Petrie's study is not definitive proof of anything in my opinion. As he has not lived thousands of years ago, his assumptions is only a conclusion stemming from his own research and guess.

He is not the only one who researches the pyramids and the region of afar.

Parading around in the cloak of legitimate academic research that is heavily funded by institutions and private donations is not going to win you kudo's in my opinion. You'l have to try harder than that.

Edited by LRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egyptologists when translating heiroglyphs are only expressing an opinion as am i, when i look at them.

...And your opinion of the meaning of the translation is irrelevant according to many

people because only Egyptologists are qualified to read English!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly do not understand what peer-reviewed research is.

I can and do admit that Egyptology can be wrong.

Other posters have asked you to present something, anything, to corroborate your claims. I'm asking you to do the same.

I am fully aware what peer reviewed research is.

I am glad that you have admitted that Egyptology can be wrong.

Can you corroborate your claims that Khufu built the pyramid? By the way, if you think that its not in human nature for people to conspire? then i would say you are being naive. From what i have seen, "Egyptologists" are masquerading around in the cloak of academic research and applying false history to the ancient world, thats an opinion, i'm not able to prove it 100% but it is something i do believe strongly.

Also, just because something can not be proven, it does not necessarily mean there is not something there.

The earth was once considered flat, when in fact it was not.

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.