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: 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

The obvious being of course that it was all due to some deities of which we have no reference until 1000 years AFTER the time, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I may be wrong and am more than willing to admit so if it can be showed to me. This is what I have found.

Indications he is on the kings list

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

http://www.narmer.pl/tur/turyn_en.htm

Statue with his name on it

http://www.khufu.dk/article/name-family.htm

Reliefs

Reliefs

http://www.answers.com/topic/khufu-cheops

Khufu is depicted in several relief fragments found scattered in his necropolis and elsewhere. All reliefs were made of finely polished limestone. Some of them originate from the ruined pyramid temple and the destroyed causeway, where they once covered the walls completely. Others were found re-used in the pyramid necropolis of king Amenemhet I at Lisht and at Tanis and Bubastis.[9][19] One of the relief fragments show the cartouche of Khufu with the phrase: "Building of the sanctuaries of the gods". Another one shows a row of fat oxes decorated with flowers – they were obviously prepared as sacrifices during an offering procession. The guiding inscription calls them "beautiful bulls of Khufu" and "bawling for Khufu". A third one shows the earliest known depicting of royal warfare: the scene is called "archer's prepare", since it shows archers drawing their bows. And a fourth example shows the king with the double crown and impaling a hippopotamus.[27][28]

At the Wadi Maghareh in Sinai a rock inscription contains Khufu's names and titles and reports: "Hor-Medjedu, Khnum-Khuf, Bikuj-Nebu, the great god and smiter of the troglodytes, all protection and life are with him". The work-off of the relief is likewise to that of king Snefru. In one scene king Khufu wears the double-crown, nearby the depiction of the god Thoth is visible. In another scene, close by, Khufu wears the Atef-crown while smiting an enemy. In this scene the god Wepwawet is present.[17][29]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

cormac

Now cormac, what did I tell you about trying to be a good boy?

If I have to, I'll take your pants down right here in front of everybody and smack your bottom. And I don't care if anyone sees your "little man".

You cannot make assumptions in support of orthodoxy while demanding evidence and explicit proof for every claim made for an alternative narrative. Which seems to be your main talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong and am more than willing to admit so if it can be showed to me. This is what I have found.

Indications he is on the kings list

http://en.wikipedia....Turin_King_List

http://www.narmer.pl/tur/turyn_en.htm

Statue with his name on it

http://www.khufu.dk/...name-family.htm

Reliefs

[/background][/left][/color]

SC: So we have gone from the absolute statement "...his name is on the Turin King's List..." to the tentative statement "...indications he is on the king's list...". Alas, the links you present simply do not crack it. Like I told you - more research required.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

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.

...

Goodness, Alcibiades9. Sometimes you're soundly logical and at other times you stretch the limits of reason. To the latter is your earlier amusing comment that the beetle in the second boat pit might have awakened from some sort of stasis 4,500 years later. I can only hope you were joking with that one.

And now there's this. In your efforts to tarnish two centuries of sound scholarship you're claiming we have no evidence that a king named Khufu even lived. Would you care to reconsider?

I'm away from home for the holidays and have no access to my library to cite sources, so I'll pull general details from memory. Other posters have touched on this. First and foremost we have the Great Pyramid complex itself. Khufu's name, in a cartouche, appears in its two forms in the relieving chambers, as does his Horus name. Khufu's temples are in ruins but enough fragments have been recovered to clarify the plentiful attestation of his name in those constructs, too. His name in a cartouche has even been found in the masonry of a Dynasty 12 pyramid on a chunk of relief carving originally taken from the Great Pyramid complex. Moreover, his name appears throughout the complex, in a cartouche, in the tombs of family members and officials of his court.

Other attestations have been found in oases of the Western Desert, on the little statue of the king found at Abydos, in the turquoise mines of Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai, and as I recall also in certain archaeological contexts of the Levant.

Furthermore, and very important, are royal annals, particularly the Palermo Stone and Turin canon.

That said, there is no possible, logical reason to doubt a king named Khufu reigned in ancient Egypt. The evidence is unarguable. And in recounting such evidence from memory, I have no way of knowing for certain how much evidence I am not recalling and have skipped over. I've repeatedly stressed the importance of a cartouche because in the Old Kingdom starting in Dynasty 3, and only in uncommon examples thereafter, did the name of anyone other than a king appear inside a cartouche.

As to when Khufu reigned, the royal annals are quite clear on this, too. Khufu's positioning as second king of Dynasty 4 also rests there on sound and plentiful archaeological grounds. Khufu followed Sneferu and preceded Djedefre. I can't think of any realistic, working evidence that would contradict this.

1 person likes this

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:

I had to return to this. I'm still chuckling over the beetle somehow waking to life after 4,500 years of "hibernation." You acknowledged the likelihood of some sort of opening, so why would you stress the scientifically implausible over the logical?

Enough said on that.

The idea that this sort of limestone-lined pit was sealed absolutely perfectly is not very realistic. It would be no more true than thinking all of the tombs were perfectly sealed and impervious to insects. The fact is, regardless of how well something was blocked over in antiquity, insects will find their way inside. Look at KV63 discovered and excavated only several years ago. It was deep underground with access via a shaft cut through the bedrock and subsequently packed solid with sand, rubble, and fill. Nevertheless, down through the centuries countless armies of termites had dug their way down there and all but consumed most of the coffins.

All it takes is a tiny opening, perhaps an edge or corner of masonry that wasn't fully dressed. I remember years ago when they drilled a hole through the masonry capping the boat pit and sunk a fibre-optic camera down there. One of the first things they noticed was a little beetle crawling about. Obviously it had gotten down there somehow. It probably enjoyed munching on the boat.

I have to ask, why is this even a question?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: So we have gone from the absolute statement "...his name is on the Turin King's List..." to the tentative statement "...indications he is on the king's list...". Alas, the links you present simply do not crack it. Like I told you - more research required.

SC

Indications from indicate - to show or shows Indications he is on the king's list = shows he is on the kings list. Nothing tentative about it.

No comments about the statue with his name on it or the inscription at the oasis? Oh that's right, they actually support Khufu being a king of Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, Alcibiades9. Sometimes you're soundly logical and at other times you stretch the limits of reason. To the latter is your earlier amusing comment that the beetle in the second boat pit might have awakened from some sort of stasis 4,500 years later. I can only hope you were joking with that one.

And now there's this. In your efforts to tarnish two centuries of sound scholarship you're claiming we have no evidence that a king named Khufu even lived. Would you care to reconsider?

I'm away from home for the holidays and have no access to my library to cite sources, so I'll pull general details from memory. Other posters have touched on this. First and foremost we have the Great Pyramid complex itself. Khufu's name, in a cartouche, appears in its two forms in the relieving chambers, as does his Horus name. Khufu's temples are in ruins but enough fragments have been recovered to clarify the plentiful attestation of his name in those constructs, too. His name in a cartouche has even been found in the masonry of a Dynasty 12 pyramid on a chunk of relief carving originally taken from the Great Pyramid complex. Moreover, his name appears throughout the complex, in a cartouche, in the tombs of family members and officials of his court.

Other attestations have been found in oases of the Western Desert, on the little statue of the king found at Abydos, in the turquoise mines of Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai, and as I recall also in certain archaeological contexts of the Levant.

Furthermore, and very important, are royal annals, particularly the Palermo Stone and Turin canon.

That said, there is no possible, logical reason to doubt a king named Khufu reigned in ancient Egypt. The evidence is unarguable. And in recounting such evidence from memory, I have no way of knowing for certain how much evidence I am not recalling and have skipped over. I've repeatedly stressed the importance of a cartouche because in the Old Kingdom starting in Dynasty 3, and only in uncommon examples thereafter, did the name of anyone other than a king appear inside a cartouche.

As to when Khufu reigned, the royal annals are quite clear on this, too. Khufu's positioning as second king of Dynasty 4 also rests there on sound and plentiful archaeological grounds. Khufu followed Sneferu and preceded Djedefre. I can't think of any realistic, working evidence that would contradict this.

No need to go overboard kmt_sesh, the key word there was conclusive. Do I personally think Khufu existed? Yes, probably. Do I accept it as an established fact, in the way that I would accept Rameses III as an established fact? No. The evidence is still too inconclusive.

Now, when you set yourself up as a debunker of alternative theories, demanding of them the highest level of proof for every point they argue, then you must furnish your own orthodox claims with the same high level of proof. Which in the case of Khufu, you can't. He is no more proven to be real than King Arthur. That does not mean he was not real. It just means that we cannot talk of him - as cormac did - as though it were an established fact.

Now, as for the beetle, again it was just a case of logic and evidence. It is much more likely that there was a hole though which the beetle got in than it is that we have a 4500 year old beetle scuttling about. But the existence of the beetle and our belief that a beetle cannot live for 4500 years does not mean there is a hole. There may not be a hole. The beetle may have lived for 4500 years. The beetle may have fallen out into the pit out of someones hat rim. Until we find the hole, though, we cannot state as fact that there is a hole. Again, you cannot simply make assumptions simply because you are on the orthodox side of the argument. All this "well the beetle must've done this" or "the beetle must've done that" as long as the beetle isn't serving an "alternative" narrative doesn't cut it with me. And neither does making rock solid conclusions about Khufu based on the flimsiest of historical sources, particularly primary sources.

I'm not undoing any scholarly research, I'm just setting the bar at the same height for orthodox explanations as I do alternative explanations.

Now, go back and enjoy your holiday and have a nice Christmas. :santa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to go overboard kmt_sesh, the key word there was conclusive. Do I personally think Khufu existed? Yes, probably. Do I accept it as an established fact, in the way that I would accept Rameses III as an established fact? No. The evidence is still too inconclusive.

Now, when you set yourself up as a debunker of alternative theories, demanding of them the highest level of proof for every point they argue, then you must furnish your own orthodox claims with the same high level of proof. Which in the case of Khufu, you can't. He is no more proven to be real than King Arthur. That does not mean he was not real. It just means that we cannot talk of him - as cormac did - as though it were an established fact.

I'm no authority on King Arthur and have no more background on him than watching the average Hollywood movie, but if memory serves he lives entirely within the realm of mytho-history. In other words, outside the pages of literary fiction, there's no real proof the man existed.

Much more can be said about Khufu. While Khufu himself was the subject of mytho-history fiction by the time of the Middle Kingdom (see the Westcar papyrus), the man's name is attested on physical objects from the Levant to the Sudan. He is in the formal annals as a living king. The brief rundown of places where his name can be found, not the least of which is within and around the Great Pyramid, more than establishes conclusively (yes, conclusively) that he was real. Come to think of it, it would be decidedly odd for the Egyptians of the Early Bronze Age to have not only built a massive pyramid for him if he was mytho-historical, but also for dozens of very powerful and elite people to have erected their tombs adjacent to his and make a point of it to include his name within their tombs.

His family was even buried right there, so I see no reasonable doubt that he was anything but real.

It's also odd to me that you're also now placing suspicion on the existence of Ramesses III as a real king—a man who is exponentially better attested than Khufu and about whom we know extensive details (everything from his parentage to the legal papers surrounding the harem conspiracy at the end of this life).

Now, as for the beetle, again it was just a case of logic and evidence. It is much more likely that there was a hole though which the beetle got in than it is that we have a 4500 year old beetle scuttling about. But the existence of the beetle and our belief that a beetle cannot live for 4500 years does not mean there is a hole. There may not be a hole. The beetle may have lived for 4500 years. The beetle may have fallen out into the pit out of someones hat rim. Until we find the hole, though, we cannot state as fact that there is a hole. Again, you cannot simply make assumptions simply because you are on the orthodox side of the argument. All this "well the beetle must've done this" or "the beetle must've done that" as long as the beetle isn't serving an "alternative" narrative doesn't cut it with me. And neither does making rock solid conclusions about Khufu based on the flimsiest of historical sources, particularly primary sources.

This merely falls within the realm of logic. Beetles do not go into stasis and spring back to life 4,500 years later. The covering slabs have been removed from the boat pit so it's not likely they will ever be examined for holes or poor fitting, not that any researcher would bother to do so. It's a friggin' bug, for goodness sake.

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

I'm not undoing any scholarly research, I'm just setting the bar at the same height for orthodox explanations as I do alternative explanations.

Then you of course should not ask me to furnish a high level of proof. This is an ongoing problem I have with folks who question orthodox history merely for the sake of questioning things. It's also why I no longer tend to provide a lot of substantive material and citations. Most people who question orthodoxy don't even care to dig into the research and attempt to understand its veracity for themselves. They just want to question it. That doesn't strike me as either fair or reasonable. It strikes me as a copout.

Now, go back and enjoy your holiday and have a nice Christmas. :santa:

In all honesty, the same to you. Season's greetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

Simple, if a bug survives 4500 years that thing ain't no boat pit, it is the fountain of eternal youth!

Wish that 3/4 of the fringe would bury themselves into a boat pit as autoexperiment. The other 1/4 can stay around as intermission clowns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

I think it simply a variation on a theme. For boat pit read pin-head, for beetle read angel, for what alternaviks say is dialouge read distraction technique. And anybody else start to see this thread as some weird manifestation of Schrödinger's Cat, or perhaps GP is the box for the cat, or perhaps............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no authority on King Arthur and have no more background on him than watching the average Hollywood movie, but if memory serves he lives entirely within the realm of mytho-history. In other words, outside the pages of literary fiction, there's no real proof the man existed.

Much more can be said about Khufu. While Khufu himself was the subject of mytho-history fiction by the time of the Middle Kingdom (see the Westcar papyrus), the man's name is attested on physical objects from the Levant to the Sudan. He is in the formal annals as a living king. The brief rundown of places where his name can be found, not the least of which is within and around the Great Pyramid, more than establishes conclusively (yes, conclusively) that he was real. Come to think of it, it would be decidedly odd for the Egyptians of the Early Bronze Age to have not only built a massive pyramid for him if he was mytho-historical, but also for dozens of very powerful and elite people to have erected their tombs adjacent to his and make a point of it to include his name within their tombs.

His family was even buried right there, so I see no reasonable doubt that he was anything but real.

It's also odd to me that you're also now placing suspicion on the existence of Ramesses III as a real king—a man who is exponentially better attested than Khufu and about whom we know extensive details (everything from his parentage to the legal papers surrounding the harem conspiracy at the end of this life).

This merely falls within the realm of logic. Beetles do not go into stasis and spring back to life 4,500 years later. The covering slabs have been removed from the boat pit so it's not likely they will ever be examined for holes or poor fitting, not that any researcher would bother to do so. It's a friggin' bug, for goodness sake.

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

Then you of course should not ask me to furnish a high level of proof. This is an ongoing problem I have with folks who question orthodox history merely for the sake of questioning things. It's also why I no longer tend to provide a lot of substantive material and citations. Most people who question orthodoxy don't even care to dig into the research and attempt to understand its veracity for themselves. They just want to question it. That doesn't strike me as either fair or reasonable. It strikes me as a copout.

In all honesty, the same to you. Season's greetings.

Just a couple of points -

King Arthur may have been real, a local English king circa 500AD, though of course the knights and the round table and all that other romantic nonsense was a back projection from the middle ages. Another subject of course, but an example of something in history we are not quite sure about.

As for Rameses III, I must not have expressed myself properly because I was holding him up as an example of someone I would say we do have conclusive proof about, and I wouldn't argue you with you for a moment about the finer details of his life or indeed the vast majority of AE history which was not only well documented within, but which has many surviving corroborative sources.

The problem with Giza, the only real reason it is here in the realms of "unexplained mysteries" being subjected to every loony tunes, aliens, and power plants interpretation going is the lack of the same kind of conclusive, corroborated evidence that would shut these theories down at a stroke.

There is a gap in our knowledge, and I for one am not looking for some outlandish, exciting, earth shattering relevation about ancient aliens or power plants (all of which I believe to be nonsense) to fill that gap... but I am not prepared to paper over the huge cracks with what we think we know, and most of all - this is an extremely important point to me when it comes to history - it is not acceptable to back-project what we know about a later time onto what we don't know about an earlier time.

You believe the pyramids were built as tombs. I think that's a workable theory, but based on the evidence I don't know for sure and I don't regard it as a fact. Scott thinks they were recovery vaults. Again, I think that's a workable theory, but the same available evidence won't allow me to regard that as a fact.

I'm not an enthusiast of ancient mysteries, I can't be bothered with mumbo jumbo or applying complicated interpretations onto what is probably very simple motives. My main interest in history is very down to earth and the only real "alternative" streak I have in me is a suspicion that we have probably - as humans - achieved and lost certain levels of civilisation prior to 6000BC, the facts of which are yet to be discovered... but it won't bother me if I'm completely wrong on that score, and the lack of evidence so far indicates that I am.

As for Giza, as Cladking often and rightly points out, these people were not the "bumpkins" they are often made out to be. They certainly set out to achieve something monumental in every sense and they succeeded, and we are arguing about their intentions 4500 years on. No matter how much we would love to think we know all the answers here, we simply don't yet. I accept and respect every reasonable assumption you make if it matches the evidence, but we are simply not in a place where we can state certain things (who, when, how and why) as fact. I am happy to admit that given the available resources I still don't know what to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple, if a bug survives 4500 years that thing ain't no boat pit, it is the fountain of eternal youth!

Wish that 3/4 of the fringe would bury themselves into a boat pit as autoexperiment. The other 1/4 can stay around as intermission clowns.

Aww... now where is all this anger coming from?

Did Erich Von Daniken trick you as a child?

Did you see something nasty in the woodshed?

Feel free to share....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww... now where is all this anger coming from?

Did Erich Von Daniken trick you as a child?

Did you see something nasty in the woodshed?

Feel free to share....

Anger? Humanity ha enough stupid superstitions that we don't need brain amputated to create some more. Anger has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indications from indicate - to show or shows Indications he is on the king's list = shows he is on the kings list. Nothing tentative about it.

No comments about the statue with his name on it or the inscription at the oasis? Oh that's right, they actually support Khufu being a king of Egypt.

SC: Less misinformation from you and more actual fact would be good. Like I keep telling you - you need to do much more research. And FTR - I have never stated anywhere that Khufu never existed nor have I ever claimed anywhere that he was not a king of ancient Egypt. Furthermore, if you look back through my posts you will clearly find that I am consistent in my view having always accepted that Khufu was responsible for having had the Great Pyramid built (although I dispute the consensus Egyptology mantra that it was built on his orders to function as his eternal tomb).

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it simply a variation on a theme. For boat pit read pin-head, for beetle read angel, for what alternaviks say is dialouge read distraction technique. And anybody else start to see this thread as some weird manifestation of Schrödinger's Cat, or perhaps GP is the box for the cat, or perhaps............

I presume you've made an early start on the Christmas eggnog? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. There's simply no doubt someone we call "Khufu" was king about the

time G1 was built however there is much more doubt that the Egyptians called

him "Khufu", that it was anywhere near 2550 BC, or that he ordered the pyramid

as his tomb. Indeed almost everything here is assumptive and based on fairly

little and somewhat contradictory evidence.

We know there was an individual whom we call "Khufu" and he was king.

Egyptology has done a superb job of ferreting out the evidence and learning

enough about the language to read lists and identify a great number of words.

The problem is that they leap to conclusions that are not accurate or could be

accurate but are interpretation and assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This merely falls within the realm of logic. Beetles do not go into stasis and spring back to life 4,500 years later. The covering slabs have been removed from the boat pit so it's not likely they will ever be examined for holes or poor fitting, not that any researcher would bother to do so. It's a friggin' bug, for goodness sake.

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

We shouldn't study the beetle because of what it might tell us about beetles. There's nothing

wrong with studying any specific beetle and this one is as good as any but there are billions of

beetles and only hundreds of scientists to study them. What are the odds.

Scientists are supposed to be able to see anomalies and have enough curiousity to want to

understand them. Scientists are not supposed to jump to conclusions. Any uneducated bump-

kin can see a beetle in a sealed boat pit and say "oh, it must not have been sealed after all". But

when you stick a camera into a pit you believe has been sealed for 4700 years and a bug comes

out to see what's going on you should wonder at least a little about that specific bug (did you see

the film?). Not because he looked so healthy or even because he looked so curious but simply

because so far as you know he's still out of place and shouldn't exist. If you scan the desert and

there's suddenly a 6 1/2 million ton pile of stone you don't just come to the conclusion people

mustta built it with ramps and forget about it. You study it. This means you measure it six ways

from Sunday and you seek anomalies to try to understand. One of those anomalies might be a

beetle in a sealed boat pit.

It is by studying anomalies that scientists really make almost every single one of our momentus

discoveries. Oh sure, it's hypothesis, experiment, results but it's observation that drives the en-

tire process and when we don't stumble on new discoveries through observation we tend to stum-

ble on new hypothesis through observation. It's not the mundane everyday things that lead to

new hypothesis but the unexpected anomalies that do.

Besides, I'm going to be very very curious about any bug, stone, or tree that seems to be cur-

ious about me. I'm funny that way. If a hummingbird comes up to me and watches I'm going to

observe it right back. I'm going to be forming testable hypotheses to beat the band.

Truth to tell I believe that the number one problem in Egyptology is they have their minds made

up and closed off. They won't even measure anything any longer. They gave up on the scien-

tific process long ago as nonproductive and believe the only possible solution is through digging

that they might find some proof of anything. All they'll find though are more pot shards of types

they've got mountains of already if they just keep digging in all the same places. Sure, eventually

there might be something pretty important but there's no need to wait for "eventually" because

people have this wonderful tool we call "science" that is very powerful in the right hands.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. There's simply no doubt someone we call "Khufu" was king about the

time G1 was built however there is much more doubt that the Egyptians called

him "Khufu", that it was anywhere near 2550 BC, or that he ordered the pyramid

as his tomb. Indeed almost everything here is assumptive and based on fairly

little and somewhat contradictory evidence.

Yes we have a name, and we are told from fragments of evidence that he was a king. He begins and he ends there. The rest is massive supposition, pinned onto his name and embellished... and all dictated more by a prevailing narrative and paradigm than any actual historical evidence.

Nennius's Historium Brittonum tells us that Arthur was a British king, and it details the battle he fought. The Annales Cambriae, written a century later, concurs. So there, we "know" from 9th and 10th century sources that there was a king called Arthur. And we know from 20th Century Fox that he had a round table, an army of chivalrous knights, a wizard friend called Merlin and a magical sword called Excalibur.

We have to stick to real facts, real evidence. Take out what we don't actually know, what is not conclusive, from the picture and we are left with some very bare bones indeed. But that's not a bad place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume you've made an early start on the Christmas eggnog? :unsure:

Would be very early start as Rozhdestvo is not for 16 days, and this eggnog, I googled and see it is some sort of drink for women, that? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shouldn't study the beetle because of what it might tell us about beetles. There's nothing

wrong with studying any specific beetle and this one is as good as any but there are billions of

beetles and only hundreds of scientists to study them. What are the odds.

Scientists are supposed to be able to see anomalies and have enough curiousity to want to

understand them. Scientists are not supposed to jump to conclusions. Any uneducated bump-

kin can see a beetle in a sealed boat pit and say "oh, it must not have been sealed after all". But

when you stick a camera into a pit you believe has been sealed for 4700 years and a bug comes

out to see what's going on you should wonder at least a little about that specific bug (did you see

the film?). Not because he looked so healthy or even because he looked so curious but simply

because so far as you know he's still out of place and shouldn't exist. If you scan the desert and

there's suddenly a 6 1/2 million ton pile of stone you don't just come to the conclusion people

mustta built it with ramps and forget about it. You study it. This means you measure it six ways

from Sunday and you seek anomalies to try to understand. One of those anomalies might be a

beetle in a sealed boat pit.

It is by studying anomalies that scientists really make almost every single one of our momentus

discoveries. Oh sure, it's hypothesis, experiment, results but it's observation that drives the en-

tire process and when we don't stumble on new discoveries through observation we tend to stum-

ble on new hypothesis through observation. It's not the mundane everyday things that lead to

new hypothesis but the unexpected anomalies that do.

Besides, I'm going to be very very curious about any bug, stone, or tree that seems to be cur-

ious about me. I'm funny that way. If a hummingbird comes up to me and watches I'm going to

observe it right back. I'm going to be forming testable hypotheses to beat the band.

Truth to tell I believe that the number one problem in Egyptology is they have their minds made

up and closed off. They won't even measure anything any longer. They gave up on the scien-

tific process long ago as nonproductive and believe the only possible solution is through digging

that they might find some proof of anything. All they'll find though are more pot shards of types

they've got mountains of already if they just keep digging in all the same places. Sure, eventually

there might be something pretty important but there's no need to wait for "eventually" because

people have this wonderful tool we call "science" that is very powerful in the right hands.

Cladking, I don't believe a beetle survived 4500 years and I'm sure you don't either.

To those confused about the relevance of the beetle issue, it's really about this:

1) Egyptologists often don't seem to have proper, enquiring scientific minds beyond a certain point. They often don't seem to want to find out anything new, but simply to confirm what they think they already know. So when they find a beetle - one beetle - in what is supposed to be a sealed pit, they don't question it. This shows a lack of imagination at best and the whole approach is very, very frustrating to those of us who want clear answers to old questions.

2) Those who habitually defend orthodoxy do so blindly, almost absurdly, using a logic all of their own. It doesn't matter what they say, as long as they are defending the orthodox narrative they will say anything. Even when they are trying to explain away the presence of a little beetle who shouldn't have been there. Again, very frustrating but also self-defeating because rather than defending orthodoxy they are making it look desperate and the very antithesis of the search for new knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we have a name, and we are told from fragments of evidence that he was a king. He begins and he ends there. The rest is massive supposition, pinned onto his name and embellished... and all dictated more by a prevailing narrative and paradigm than any actual historical evidence.

Nennius's Historium Brittonum tells us that Arthur was a British king, and it details the battle he fought. The Annales Cambriae, written a century later, concurs. So there, we "know" from 9th and 10th century sources that there was a king called Arthur. And we know from 20th Century Fox that he had a round table, an army of chivalrous knights, a wizard friend called Merlin and a magical sword called Excalibur.

We have to stick to real facts, real evidence. Take out what we don't actually know, what is not conclusive, from the picture and we are left with some very bare bones indeed. But that's not a bad place to start.

Not quite. We also have his name written in the relieving chambers of the GP along with work gangs associated with him. Some of these hieroglyphs of which are located in places that could only have come from the original builders. We can also match the timeframe he was said to have reigned with the timeframe of the GP's construction.

Nennius' writings, on the other hand, were written some 300 years after the mytho-historical Arthur was alleged to have lived. This is nowhere near contemporary to his time. And the mention of 20th Century Fox's interpretation on the tale is just laughable, to say the least. It would appear that what you claim we know and what we actually know are two different things.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the mention of 20th Century Fox's interpretation on the tale is just laughable, to say the least.

cormac

Yes. It was meant to be. Hopefully the elves are busy working on a sense of humour for you.

And as for Vyse's graffiti in the relieving chambers, well... the jury is still out on that one. You need to read the full story of Howard Vyse and his race to somehow link the GP to Khufu to get a meaured view of this. Even if the graffiti is genuine, "Khufu's gang" (as it is often translated) doesn't mean a damn thing. Khufu could have been the foreman of a work group... you know, Khufu, good boss, firm but fair, liked his beer. And out of the whole, massive structure of the GP this is the only written reference we have to who it is supposedly built for? Nope. No way. Get a grip Cormac.

Kilroy was here. But was Khufu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. It was meant to be. Hopefully the elves are busy working on a sense of humour for you.

And as for Vyse's graffiti in the relieving chambers, well... the jury is still out on that one. You need to read the full story of Howard Vyse and his race to somehow link the GP to Khufu to get a meaured view of this. Even if the graffiti is genuine, "Khufu's gang" (as it is often translated) doesn't mean a damn thing. Khufu could have been the foreman of a work group... you know, Khufu, good boss, firm but fair, liked his beer. And out of the whole, massive structure of the GP this is the only written reference we have to who it is supposedly built for? Nope. No way. Get a grip Cormac.

Kilroy was here. But was Khufu?

A foreman of an Egyptian work-team around 2500 BC could certainly NOT write. So, get a grip on yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A foreman of an Egyptian work-team around 2500 BC could certainly NOT write. So, get a grip on yourself.

What a ridiculous statement. I don't mind you trying to stick up for your little friend, but do try to choose the time and place and not embarrass yourself. You don't have a clue who could and couldn't write in 2500BC. Anyway, I didn't say it was the foreman who wrote it, did I? Do try to think before you bash angrily away at your keyboard.

You've been getting away with this type of nonsense on here for way too long. You're dealing with Alcibiades now, unfortunately. And you are out of your depth, believe me.

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.