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

I've only realized recently that I've got enough evidence and deduction to start reverse

engineering how their science was invented. They had pretty much all the things we have

now but some of their fields would be very much different. For instance in optics everything

they knew could be written on a single page and most of it was learned through the refrac-

tion of light through water. "Ecology" is largely the rediscovery by modern man that all life

on earth is interrelated. This was probably the very basis of most ancient science or to say

it another way it was almost more metaphysics rather than science.

It's likely to be a while before I feel confident enough to write a post on the subject.

Edited to add that it appears "knowledge and writing" is a poor translation for Thot. A better

one would be "human progress". The books of Thot were something analogous to an encyclo-

pedia. If we had a scrap of one of these it would look a lot like all their writing. The "Book of

Thot" might have been a compilation of the knowledge a scientist or craftsman would need

everyday and would be analogous to "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics". If we had a

scrap of this it would likely be lists and tables.

Ecology-I dont know about this. I mean Egyptians last long. They obviously knew about eco system because if they dont they would vanished soon then they were.

Take example of Vikings on Grenland. Or Khmers and their Angkor Wat in Camobodia. They vanished in 15 century due their complex canals of drinkink water, water for corps, and toilet water. Those canals were not checked often. Because of the canals they have had drinkin water, fine crops and clean city. Population suddenly become larger and garbage become larger. Garbage started to shutting toilet canals and toilet water created small lakes which start entering directly into clean water canals. Plus earth become filthy and with help of rain that filthines eneter the rivers and underground tanks from where we often get drinking water. So diseases spread and they vanished. If they knew better about ecology they wouldnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clad do you know principle of Reflexology? Some suggests that AE preformed this. I can provide more info on it. It just theory but amazing.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what do you say about this below. Could it be that Auriteans were in fact Auliteans? Atlanteans were foreigners to Egyptians.

Auriteans is the name given by the ancient writer Manetho to the first kings to rule over Egypt during the “reign of the gods”. R. Cedric Leonard comments on this on his website and in his books(a)[130][131].

“Plato described Atlantis as being ruled by ten kings before its demise. Egyptian king-lists going back thousands of years before Plato (we will look at one example here) establish four important facts, which we should note:

Egyptian tradition begins with the “reign of the gods”

In all there were ten of these so-called “god-kings”

They were said to have reigned in a foreign country

From all appearances they were called “Atlanteans”

This last statement will be challenged by scholars, so let’s take a closer look at the Egyptian king-lists. One noticeable fact is that Manetho (250 B.C.) calls the first series of kings who ruled during the “reign of the gods,” Auriteans. This seems to be nothing more than a corruption of the word “Atlantean”. Let me explain.

Egyptian hieroglyphics only approximate real sounds: for instance, a hieroglyphic “k” must be used to represent the hard “g” sound. The hieroglyph that Manetho transcribed as r can equally be transcribed as an l. Thus the “Auriteans” of Manetho’s king-lists could just as well be “Auliteans”: phonetically almost identical to “Atlanteans”. This idea obtains credible support from the fact that the ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon (1193 BC) calls these very same kings “Aleteans” [714]( B). Isn’t it likely that Aleteans=Atlanteans?”

In spite of this valiant attempt to equate the Egyptian king lists with the kings of Atlantis, it must be pointed out that the ten Atlantean kings noted by Plato were brothers and so reigned concurrently over different part of the empire, whereas the king lists cited by Leonard relate to kings that reigned successively.

http://atlantipedia....ples/auriteans/

See cormac's Post 1514 for a more level-headed explanation for the derivation of Auriteans (e.g., =Eritrea).

For one thing, consider the source. Cedric Leonard is neither an historian nor a reliable researcher. He is instead an avid Atlantis advocate and believer in ancient aliens, so that pretty much defines the level of his credibility.

The mytho-historical period during which the gods are said to have ruled is preserved in fragments in monuments and texts like the Palermo Stone and Turin canon. I have no idea where Leonard got the idea that such documents say the gods "reigned in" a foreign country. Indeed, the very concept would be alien to the minds of ancient Egyptians, whose gods were purely and solely of the Nile Valley. It's a silly notion.

The information on hieroglyphs is flawed for the most part. They do not approximate real sounds but very much represent real sounds, namely consonants and weak consonants. The hieroglyph for "K" (V31), a basket with handle, does not represent a "G" but, of course, is sounded as a "K" as in the word "keep." The hard "G" sound (as in the word "go") is represented by the jar stand (W11). They're two completely different glyphs representing two different and distinct sounds in the ancient language. That the "L" sound can be represented with the "R" glyph is true, in the manner I explained in my previous post. All in all, however, it's clear Leonard does not understand ancient Egyptian scripts, so you obviously should neither trust in nor rely on his interpretation of the subject.

Finally, consider the fact that Manetho was not even writing in his own native Egyptian language. His work, Aegyptiaca, was commissioned either by Ptolemy I or Ptolemy II in the third century BCE. These were Macedonian kings living Greek lifestyles in the land of Egypt, and promoting all things Greek. Manetho was writing in Greek for a Greek audience.

Leonard's Lego linguistics in trying to pretend he knew what Manetho was thinking, or even what his sources may have been, do not stack up to reality. I would dismiss the entire line of thinking.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kmt. You and cormac are helpful as always. And many others.

What do you thinl about my post 1517 and One of seven points being hemp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

102 pages in, and we still haven't reached any convincing conclusions here... despite the input of the very best minds the internet can throw up... :whistle:

Orthodoxy spouts the usual threadbare, unproven tombs theory and the alternatives offer tantalising - sometimes entirely reasonable - interpretations that sadly lack a vital smoking gun.

No wonder the Sphinx still has that smug, enigmatic look on its face after 4500 years.

Or should that be 12,500 years? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

102 pages in, and we still haven't reached any convincing conclusions here... despite the input of the very best minds the internet can throw up... :whistle:

Orthodoxy spouts the usual threadbare, unproven tombs theory and the alternatives offer tantalising - sometimes entirely reasonable - interpretations that sadly lack a vital smoking gun.

No wonder the Sphinx still has that smug, enigmatic look on its face after 4500 years.

Or should that be 12,500 years? :w00t:

Unfortunately someone left those spouting the threadbare theories in charge. They won't

even look for smoking guns and probably wouldn't notice one after they shot themselves in

the foot with one.

After reading almost everything I could find on the scientific examination of the second boat

pit back a few years ago (it has been subsequently destroyed), not one single source ever

bothered to mention that they found a living beetle (and apparently very healthy) in it!! I saw

it on a TV program of all places. It's simply incredible that they would give so much informa-

tion about the conditions inside and not mention life. I suppose when they destroyed the pit

recently some workmen simply reached out and smashed the dirty little bug.

Coleopteras are even mentioned in the Pyramid Texts but people now days don't notice things

like this and would draw no connection. Nobody cares what's crawling around in the Pyramid

Texts anymore than they care what's crawling around in a pit sealed 4700 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading almost everything I could find on the scientific examination of the second boat

pit back a few years ago (it has been subsequently destroyed), not one single source ever

bothered to mention that they found a living beetle (and apparently very healthy) in it!!

Weren't Mitt Romney's tax returns down there too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't Mitt Romney's tax returns down there too?

Are you suggesting beetles reign supreme where death and taxes go to die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately someone left those spouting the threadbare theories in charge. They won't

even look for smoking guns and probably wouldn't notice one after they shot themselves in

the foot with one.

After reading almost everything I could find on the scientific examination of the second boat

pit back a few years ago (it has been subsequently destroyed), not one single source ever

bothered to mention that they found a living beetle (and apparently very healthy) in it!! I saw

it on a TV program of all places. It's simply incredible that they would give so much informa-

tion about the conditions inside and not mention life. I suppose when they destroyed the pit

recently some workmen simply reached out and smashed the dirty little bug.

Coleopteras are even mentioned in the Pyramid Texts but people now days don't notice things

like this and would draw no connection. Nobody cares what's crawling around in the Pyramid

Texts anymore than they care what's crawling around in a pit sealed 4700 years ago.

"There seems to be less volume of wood compared to the first pit, not because the boat is smaller but because there is more degradation. We did not see any evidence for termites, but one of the first things that we saw actually was a large beetle. So there is an opening somewhere that lets the insects come and go," Ward said.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/25/egyptian-boat.html

Which means, obviously, that the pit wasn't completely sealed. This is not exactly the "mystery" you're trying to make it.

As is more often the case your "smoking guns" are apparently a childs cap-gun without caps.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://dsc.discovery...ptian-boat.html

Which means, obviously, that the pit wasn't completely sealed. This is not exactly the "mystery" you're trying to make it.

It doesn't mean that at all. You are simply choosing to conclude that. They found a beetle, but they did not find an "opening somewhere". Find the opening, and you solve the mystery. Until then, you have a mystery... perhaps even the bizarre possibility that a beetle was preserved alive somehow for thousands of years.

As it is, I too would assume that there is probably an opening, but we have to go by the evidence, not mere supposition. Evidence, cormac, evidence. Odd that you regularly storm on here with that ridiculous puffed up attitude of yours, and yet you don't even play by your own rules... you know, the ones you demand cladking plays by.

Ho ho ho :santa:

Edited by Alcibiades9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean that at all. You are simply choosing to conclude that. They found a beetle, but they did not find an "opening somewhere". Find the opening, and you solve the mystery. Until then, you have a mystery... perhaps even the bizarre possibility that a beetle was preserved alive somehow for thousands of years.

As it is, I too would assume that there is probably an opening, but we have to go by the evidence, not mere supposition. Evidence, cormac, evidence. Odd that you regularly storm on here with that ridiculous puffed up attitude of yours, and yet you don't even play by your own rules... you know, the ones you demand cladking plays by.

Ho ho ho :santa:

Sorry, that excuse just doesn't wash:

The boat was removed from the pit to a nearby warehouse where the late master of restorers Ahmed Youssef spent more than 20 years reassembling it. It is now exhibited at the Khufu Solar Boat Museum near to the Great Pyramid. The second solar boat remained sealed in its pit until 1987 when the American National Geographic Society examined it in association with the Egyptian Office for Historical Monuments. The team penetrated the limestone ceiling and inserted a tiny camera ascertain the boat’s status, then sealing the pit again. Unfortunately the hole made leaked air into the pit, allowing insects to thrive inside and damage some part of the boat’s wooden beams.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/9/40/14861/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/Khufu%E2%80%99s-second-solar-boat-revealed.aspx

Merry Christmas to you too.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean that at all. You are simply choosing to conclude that. They found a beetle, but they did not find an "opening somewhere". Find the opening, and you solve the mystery. Until then, you have a mystery... perhaps even the bizarre possibility that a beetle was preserved alive somehow for thousands of years.

As it is, I too would assume that there is probably an opening, but we have to go by the evidence, not mere supposition.

Yes. I agree. They also said;

"Although the boat has been sealed in the pit for the last 4,500 years, it seems that in 1954 the archaeologist who discovered it opened a small hole, and insects were able to get inside. These insects may have caused some damage to the wood," Hawass said."

This is just more assumption. Insects need water, food, and air. To live for a protracted

period of time they either need to reproduce or to live a long time individually. It's hardly

reasonable to assume that insects live down here but go elsewhere for water. It's even

more implausible that they must go through a single small hole.

I'm hardly suggesting there must be some unknown mechanism at play, merely that real

scientists don't destroy evidence and make layered assumptions. The existence of a beetle

is somewhat surprising due to the arid conditions and probable very difficult egress (perhaps

even impossible before 1954). Simply stated if there is water and beetles here then why is

the boat still here. It is exactly mysteries of this sort that usually lead to new discoveries but

when you're hell bent on proving failed theories you tend not to notice the mysteries. Once

your mind is made up you only see what you expect and everything else is invisible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The team penetrated the limestone ceiling and inserted a tiny camera ascertain the boat’s status, then sealing the pit again. Unfortunately the hole made leaked air into the pit, allowing insects to thrive inside and damage some part of the boat’s wooden beam"

So a hole was made and insects made a bee-line for it? Forgive the pun. Insects rushed in (through the hole while it was open???), and then when it was sealed again they "thrived". On what? The ancient wood?

Not questioning your quoting of this at all, it just doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a hole was made and insects made a bee-line for it? Forgive the pun. Insects rushed in (through the hole while it was open???), and then when it was sealed again they "thrived". On what? The ancient wood?

Not questioning your quoting of this at all, it just doesn't make sense.

If they had a hole they could have thrived on anything.

Edit: and for certain insects, like mites, the simple skin scale of those in there before closing it again could have made whole colonies thrive, including the type of insects that prey on mites.

Edited by questionmark
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a hole was made and insects made a bee-line for it? Forgive the pun. Insects rushed in (through the hole while it was open???), and then when it was sealed again they "thrived". On what? The ancient wood?

Not questioning your quoting of this at all, it just doesn't make sense.

The only mystery I see here is how well the pit was sealed from 1987 to 2008. As they mention insects thriving in the pit during that time but only mention one insect found alive when it was reopened that would suggest to me that it wasn't air-tight.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a hole is made, bugs pour in, the hole is sealed, the creatures thrive for some time... but ultimately upon reopening there is only one beetle found left alive, the last bug standing. He sounds like one crazy dude. I wouldn't mess with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only mystery I see here is how well the pit was sealed from 1987 to 2008. As they mention insects thriving in the pit during that time but only mention one insect found alive when it was reopened that would suggest to me that it wasn't air-tight.

cormac

If I remember right from reading about it, when they drilled into the pit, they hoped to get samples of air from when the pit was first sealed. What they found was air only a few months old. If air can get in then insects can likely get in as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember right from reading about it, when they drilled into the pit, they hoped to get samples of air from when the pit was first sealed. What they found was air only a few months old. If air can get in then insects can likely get in as well.

http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/research/completed/egypt-khufu/

"A test to date the carbon dioxide gave an age of 2,000 years. This indicated that it was a mixture of ancient air and a modern counterpart."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bu.edu/re...ed/egypt-khufu/

"A test to date the carbon dioxide gave an age of 2,000 years. This indicated that it was a mixture of ancient air and a modern counterpart."

Per your own link:

Carbon dioxide might have been produced by degassing from the organic materials inside the pit or even by being driven off the limestone walls of the chamber.

Neither of which would be representative of the original air in the pit, but byproducts of wood decay or degradation of limestone.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither of which would be representative of the original air in the pit, but byproducts of wood decay or degradation of limestone.

There's no question the air is ancient probably. At least that it was half ancient can't be ruled

out by the evidence since the CO2 was half ancient. If beetles were eating the wood then some

or most of its carbon might have ended upin the pit and all that carbon would be ancient and this

could account for the ancient air; it was just the boat. But this seems improbable because the only

limitation on beetle population would be water availability. It doesn't seem reasonable to suppose

that in 4700 years there wouldn't be enough water for the beetles to consume the entire boat. The

implication being that we are misinterpreting the presense of the beetle.

What's needed are more facts but what are the odds that the beetles were counted, studied, or an-

alyzed? I'd guess it's very low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no question the air is ancient probably. At least that it was half ancient can't be ruled

out by the evidence since the CO2 was half ancient. If beetles were eating the wood then some

or most of its carbon might have ended upin the pit and all that carbon would be ancient and this

could account for the ancient air; it was just the boat. But this seems improbable because the only

limitation on beetle population would be water availability. It doesn't seem reasonable to suppose

that in 4700 years there wouldn't be enough water for the beetles to consume the entire boat. The

implication being that we are misinterpreting the presense of the beetle.

What's needed are more facts but what are the odds that the beetles were counted, studied, or an-

alyzed? I'd guess it's very low.

This is a faulty premise since there is no evidence the beetles were in the pit for c.4500 - 4600 years. At best they appear to have been there from 1987 - 2008. And no matter how many times you say "4700" it's not relevant to the reign of Khufu, which was in the 26th century BC/4600 BP.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reign of Khufu, which was in the 26th century BC/4600 BP.

cormac

We,, there's a faulty premise right there. We have no conclusive proof that Khufu reigned anywhere at anytime, no conclusive proof as to who he (or it) really was. You are making a huge supposition based on fragments and scribblings passed down to us, and I am amazed that you quote it as fact simply because it forms part of the orthodox narrative.

Again cormac you do not live up to the high standards you demand of everyone else.

I suggest you give yourself a little quiet time over Christmas and think about what a naughty, presumptive and pharisaical boy you've been this year... and hopefully Santa will still be good to you, especially if you have it in your heart to try to be better in the new year. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We,, there's a faulty premise right there. We have no conclusive proof that Khufu reigned anywhere at anytime, no conclusive proof as to who he (or it) really was. You are making a huge supposition based on fragments and scribblings passed down to us, and I am amazed that you quote it as fact simply because it forms part of the orthodox narrative.

Again cormac you do not live up to the high standards you demand of everyone else.

I suggest you give yourself a little quiet time over Christmas and think about what a naughty, presumptive and pharisaical boy you've been this year... and hopefully Santa will still be good to you, especially if you have it in your heart to try to be better in the new year. :yes:

Yes fragments and scribblings:

His name is on the Turin Kings List and on Damaged Reliefs in his Mortuary Temple. The duration of his reign found at the Dakhla Oasis. Yet those fragments do show he was a king and did reign. On the other hand, what evidence is there that ancient aliens were in Egypt or that advanced technology was used in building the pyramids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We,, there's a faulty premise right there. We have no conclusive proof that Khufu reigned anywhere at anytime, no conclusive proof as to who he (or it) really was. You are making a huge supposition based on fragments and scribblings passed down to us, and I am amazed that you quote it as fact simply because it forms part of the orthodox narrative.

Again cormac you do not live up to the high standards you demand of everyone else.

I suggest you give yourself a little quiet time over Christmas and think about what a naughty, presumptive and pharisaical boy you've been this year... and hopefully Santa will still be good to you, especially if you have it in your heart to try to be better in the new year. :yes:

We also have no conclusive proof that you're a living, breathing human being and not a program developed by a misanthropic recluse for the sheer satisfaction of annoying people, either. But it's assumed that your a person with something relevant to say.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His name is on the Turin Kings List and on Damaged Reliefs in his Mortuary Temple.

SC: I wonder how long it will take a consensus Egypt-apologist to come in and correct your misinformation in the above statement. They probably won't because that's how it seems to work around here. Turn a blind eye to the obvious mistakes of the consensus cotterie but woe-betide anyone in the Alternative Egyptology camp that makes a blatant mistake. Suggest you do some more research on this.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

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.