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 6
dreamland

Secret Caves under the Pyramids

969 posts in this topic

Ok this is what is making me think,why Hawass is a liar.

At 50 sec of the video,author says that they bring cameras for the first time into this tomb. Thats a lie. Collins and his team were there before them and they had cameras with them.

At 9:35 Hawass said,he never made an adventure like this before. That means he never been there. So how he can say that he know everything he needs to know about pyramids,sphinx and surrounding areas.

Guys i am sure they missed something. If i would ever had a chance to go there and see this cave,,,i would check every corner.

Edited by dreamland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

Ok this is what is making me think,why Hawass is a liar.

At 50 sec of the video,author says that they bring cameras for the first time into this tomb. Thats a lie. Collins and his team were there before them and they had cameras with them.

At 9:35 Hawass said,he never made an adventure like this before. That means he never been there. So how he can say that he know everything he needs to know about pyramids,sphinx and surrounding areas.

Guys i am sure they missed something. If i would ever had a chance to go there and see this cave,,,i would check every corner.

Hawass made the statement that there were no caves in 2009. It was later he was

taken into the caves. Dr. Hawass is an educated person and it's most highly impobable

he would make the same statement today. He is one of the world's leading scholars

regarding the Giza Plateau and certainly values such a reputation.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the cave exists so why would he commit fraud and film a different cave?

I thought that was pretty clear... money. Money is the reason to commit fraud.

How can you possibly know what was removed to make the Osiris Shaft? You can only see the hole they left and can't know if there was a natural void already there. It's irrelevant in any case since there are caves at Giza including one right in the Osiris Shaft itself. Giza's old name in the builders' time meabnt "Mouth Of Caves".

The drawings and pictures of the chambers all look squared out, but, I would have to admit that the actual shafts could have been natural at first and then expanded upon.

How do you know that the old name is the Mouth of Caves? Oh yeah... archeologists determined that.

They have done no science at Giza in decades. What would possibly lead you to believe this will change if they just get around to it? It won't happen unless they are pressured to stop wasting time on a failed paradigm and to start investigating anomalies and measuring the artefacts.

That is just your opinions. Do you have a hotline to what gets done in Egypt? If not, then how can you say such thing? Operating in ignorance, you simply are making stuff up.

I think that you don't understand my reasoning goes to show you really don't understand how archeology works, even at the common sense level. Clearly they have to schedule things and provide resources of personnel and equipment. Personnel and equipment that is already somewhere else doing something else.

What are they to do? Every time someone thinks there is another place to dig in Egypt, that thirty more skilled/trained/educated/experienced people are hired by the goverment and another million dollars of gear just is drawn out of a gigantic warehouse of stored goods? It does not... can not... work that way.

They spent this past summer building a computer model to prove ramps could have been used. I don't even need to see the model to dispute it and far more importantly it doesn't matter if they could have used ramps or not. It matters what evidence and what anomalies exist on the plateau and these things haven't been studied in over a quarter century.

YOU did not see the need?? OK, well then... the next time that the Department of Antiquities is on the line with me, I'm going to bring that up.

They haven't been studied because they don't need to be studied. You would have the doctors test and treat you for smallpoxs, when all you have is a heat rash. Because in your opinon the evidence points at smallpox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawass made the statement that there were no caves in 2009

Thats a lie. He reminds me with famous 1947 roswell ufo crash. Us army said there was a weather balloon,not a ufo, and then world find out the real truth. I dont believe a word Hawass says about pyramids ,caves and sphinx. This is one big cover -up thing. There is subterranean chamber under the great pyramid,side sphinx entrance that goes under the sphinx,also there is on top.Caves. Come on guys...dont you make you think..that there must be something underground? I believe that whoever build great pyramid..had to leave behind their knowledge,who they were, how they did it...and staff like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that the old name is the Mouth of Caves? Oh yeah... archeologists determined that.

When a pig finds a truffel it's not because he planted it and I'm sure it

wouldn't claim to have created it from effort. It is just there and a pig can

grunt them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just your opinions. Do you have a hotline to what gets done in Egypt? If not, then how can you say such thing? Operating in ignorance, you simply are making stuff up.

No it isn't. I keep up with them pretty closely and have eyes everywhere.

All the evidence is continuing to support hydraulics and deny ramps. Very

little in terms of science has been done sice Bui did the gravimetric scans in

1986. My calender calls that over a quarter century.

They're still doing some first rate archaeology just not basic science. This

means they can't even take basic measurements of things we can measure

in the here and now!

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

Ok this is what is making me think,why Hawass is a liar.

At 50 sec of the video,author says that they bring cameras for the first time into this tomb. Thats a lie. Collins and his team were there before them and they had cameras with them.

At 9:35 Hawass said,he never made an adventure like this before. That means he never been there. So how he can say that he know everything he needs to know about pyramids,sphinx and surrounding areas.

Guys i am sure they missed something. If i would ever had a chance to go there and see this cave,,,i would check every corner.

That is a really cool video. It seems to proove that the tunnels are really there. Maybe as long as Collins actually tried to map. And it appears they might even be natural. And it shows the bats too.

It appears clear that Hawass thought these were Roman dug tunnels, and not natural until he was talking about it with the one guy on the show. Probably why he said there was no caves.

I've been caving a number of times and it is possible that side tunnels could open off those and not be easily seen. They will need to go in there and map it and slowly dig it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a pig finds a truffel it's not because he planted it and I'm sure it

wouldn't claim to have created it from effort. It is just there and a pig can

grunt them out.

So.... you're saying that the name Mouth of Caves is known because.... it has always been known? Can you point to where the name came from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. I keep up with them pretty closely and have eyes everywhere.

All the evidence is continuing to support hydraulics and deny ramps. Very little in terms of science has been done sice Bui did the gravimetric scans in 1986. My calender calls that over a quarter century.

They're still doing some first rate archaeology just not basic science. This means they can't even take basic measurements of things we can measure in the here and now!

Perhaps what you consider science is different then what they are doing? I thought Egyptology was itself a science.

You made me LOL with your comment, "Eyes everywhere".

You interpretation of evidence is opinion, and that is definately a Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... you're saying that the name Mouth of Caves is known because.... it has always been known? Can you point to where the name came from?

No!!!

I'm saying that except for the condition of there being a truffle growing in

the earth, a pig can't snort it out. It was 500 years of science and google

that sniffed it out. The determination of the ancient name was part of this

science.

I suppose the confusion was my fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Egyptology was itself a science.

Not really.

It is more a specific archaeology that primarily uses logic and deduction to tie

together the few pieces of the past. For later epochs that is ample evidence but

almost nothing survives from before the 5th dynasty. Based on this logic and

deduction they direct the gathering of information and determine the most re-

warding places to assign resources. Certainly many of the means they use to

explore these various things are highly "scientific". The means by which they

carry them out can be very scientific and dependent on modern technology, but

true science doesn't operate this way. True science doesn't build high tech

robots to go looking for treasure that might be implied to exist by a work of fiction

written a thousand years later. True science is observation. True science seeks

to understand and investigates anomalies.

Perhaps part of this definition applies more today than it did 25 or 50 years ago.

Real Egyptological knowledge of the pre-5th dynasty is extensive but the physical

evidence is scarce. However all this knowledge will not stand the test of time be-

cause it is derived from false assumptions.

Even if I'm right about everything it should be remembered that with the tiny bit

of evidence that exists it's easy to see how it was overlooked.

Most people do not understand science. "Never before have so many known so

little about so much".

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think LRW got booted because of his incessant Christian bashing and his linking everything and everyone to what he called Christendom even if this wasn't in the slightest correct.

No, he was using the same alphabet as the Pope and, as such, he was judged unworthy for being too Christian.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.

It is more a specific archaeology that primarily uses logic and deduction to tie

together the few pieces of the past. For later epochs that is ample evidence but

almost nothing survives from before the 5th dynasty. Based on this logic and

deduction they direct the gathering of information and determine the most re-

warding places to assign resources. Certainly many of the means they use to

explore these various things are highly "scientific". The means by which they

carry them out can be very scientific and dependent on modern technology, but

true science doesn't operate this way. True science doesn't build high tech

robots to go looking for treasure that might be implied to exist by a work of fiction

written a thousand years later. True science is observation. True science seeks

to understand and investigates anomalies.

Perhaps part of this definition applies more today than it did 25 or 50 years ago.

Real Egyptological knowledge of the pre-5th dynasty is extensive but the physical

evidence is scarce. However all this knowledge will not stand the test of time be-

cause it is derived from false assumptions.

Even if I'm right about everything it should be remembered that with the tiny bit

of evidence that exists it's easy to see how it was overlooked.

Most people do not understand science. "Never before have so many known so

little about so much".

Science collects data. Isn't that what Egyptology is about, at least in part? Digging and collecting data points? Unless the archeologists go looking for data, they will never observe anything new.

I guess you are at least partly right however because Egyptology is partly a study of the ancient peoples and thus a Humanities study.

So, it seems to be not a Hard Science, like Physics, or Optics, but it is a Soft Science, like Behavioral Sciences and Genetic and Neural Sciences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....snip

Even if I'm right about everything it should be remembered that with the tiny bit

of evidence that exists it's easy to see how it was overlooked.

Most people do not understand science. "Never before have so many known so

little about so much".

Is that quote from James Burke, Clad?

No, he was using the same alphabet as the Pope and, as such, he was judged unworthy for being too Christian.

Harte

Which is what actually struck me as funny, the guy know "christendom" better than myself and a few others and didn't see the irony in using the Roman alphabet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science collects data. Isn't that what Egyptology is about, at least in part? Digging and collecting data points? Unless the archeologists go looking for data, they will never observe anything new.

No. Science is observation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion now days. People simply

mistake the results of this process, technology, for science. In ancient times I believe science

had a very complitated metaphysic but this is not yet truly proven. But modern metaphysics

is exceedingly simple. It is merely the definitions of terms as well as the axioms that together

with the process of science determines its nature and the nature of alkl the resullts. We lose

sight of what the results mean because metaphysics are not taught even to the scientists. We

have ended up with all sorts of thought experiments about the nature of reality because we have

mistaken technology for science. Technology is essentially just the ability to remove a labora-

tory experiment into the real world and is in no way indicative of our knowledge or reality. The

concrete world still exists outside of the lab and the real world still doesn't give up her secrets.

Real scientists are people like Richard Feynman. Real scientists don't take much of anything

for granted and when they see an anomaly of any sort thy investigate it. Almost all human pro-

gress as well as discoveries and inventions are serendipitous. They are the result of a person

who sees and investigates an anomaly. In order for a real scientist to be in control at Giza he

would necessarily be performing observations, experimenting, taking measurements, and in-

vestigating anomalies. None of this is actually occuring. This doesn't mean that these people

are using voodoo or casting tea leaves but it is not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that quote from James Burke, Clad?

Yes, I guess it is. I just heard it yesterday for the first time ansd was repeating it. Google says the exact quote is;

"Never before in history have so many known so little about so much of the world around them."

The error was probably my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

So, it seems to be not a Hard Science, like Physics, or Optics, but it is a Soft Science, like Behavioral Sciences and Genetic and Neural Sciences.

Technically, no, neither Egyptology nor any other field of history is a hard science. "Soft" science is a more accurate description. Nevertheless, in practice Egyptology falls within the realm of science because its approach to study follows the scientific method and its research is governed by stringent protocols. Moreover, Egyptology does regularly employ numerous fields of hard science, be it geology or genetics or physics or satellite imaging, et cetera. Modern Egyptology is a cutting-edge field of inquiry today.

Generally those who like to defame the field of Egyptology are those who are not familiar with it from the start, and who are not familiar with modern research methodology in general. A lot of these folks like to try to brush aside modern research so that there is a more comfortable fit for the myriad of their bizarre fringe and alternative themes, but in the end it's still like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole because the whimsical approach of alternative and fringe proponents is absent almost any noticeable avenue of proper research methodology.

I'll stick with that proper research methodology and the conclusions achieved from it. As I like to say, to this day alternative and fringe proponents have not managed to put a scratch into even the most basic principles of orthodox scholarship. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science collects data. Isn't that what Egyptology is about, at least in part? Digging and collecting data points? Unless the archeologists go looking for data, they will never observe anything new.

I guess you are at least partly right however because Egyptology is partly a study of the ancient peoples and thus a Humanities study.

So, it seems to be not a Hard Science, like Physics, or Optics, but it is a Soft Science, like Behavioral Sciences and Genetic and Neural Sciences.

No. Science is observation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion now days. People simply

mistake the results of this process, technology, for science. In ancient times I believe science

had a very complitated metaphysic but this is not yet truly proven. But modern metaphysics

is exceedingly simple. It is merely the definitions of terms as well as the axioms that together

with the process of science determines its nature and the nature of alkl the resullts. We lose

sight of what the results mean because metaphysics are not taught even to the scientists. We

have ended up with all sorts of thought experiments about the nature of reality because we have

mistaken technology for science. Technology is essentially just the ability to remove a labora-

tory experiment into the real world and is in no way indicative of our knowledge or reality. The

concrete world still exists outside of the lab and the real world still doesn't give up her secrets.

Real scientists are people like Richard Feynman. Real scientists don't take much of anything

for granted and when they see an anomaly of any sort thy investigate it. Almost all human pro-

gress as well as discoveries and inventions are serendipitous. They are the result of a person

who sees and investigates an anomaly. In order for a real scientist to be in control at Giza he

would necessarily be performing observations, experimenting, taking measurements, and in-

vestigating anomalies. None of this is actually occuring. This doesn't mean that these people

are using voodoo or casting tea leaves but it is not science.

Sure......

But, I don't see how that disagrees with my statement....

Egyptologists MUST dig stuff up to observe it. You can't disagree with digging the stuff up. That is where the datapoints come from. It is how that data is interpreted that you've always had a problem with Orthodox Egyptology.

I'm practically agreeing with you and you're still trying to cut my feet out from under me and have it all your own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure......

But, I don't see how that disagrees with my statement....

Egyptologists MUST dig stuff up to observe it. You can't disagree with digging the stuff up. That is where the datapoints come from. It is how that data is interpreted that you've always had a problem with Orthodox Egyptology.

I'm practically agreeing with you and you're still trying to cut my feet out from under me and have it all your own way.

Yes. Indeed, I wrote out a long post to contradict Kmt_Sesh as well but realized the

difference here is largely semantical.

I suppose what I find so disturbing is that most people misapprehend the nature of

science rather than the way the term is applied. "Science" is merely observation>

hypothesis> experiment> conclusion but people don't understand this. There are

some definitions and axioms that go with it but people today have forgotten all this.

This means almost every single time modern people make a statement about nature

or about our puny tool, science, they say something false. This is the norm and call-

ing Egyptology "science" is about akin to saying the sun will rise in the morning. It's

not really "science" and the sun doesn't really rise.

It's not that I'm trying to be a stickler for accuracy and I never intentionally argue

semantics; it's merely disturbing that people will consider Egytological opinion to have

some scientific and testable basis when it does not. It is opinion, considered opinion

derived from centuries of hard work and genius but it is mere opinion. They can't or

won't test the paradigm so they commission studies. A few of these studies are laugh-

able but most really are the best our modern understanding of nature based on science

can show.

Nothing is set in stone and that includes science. But the Egyptological paradigm is

not founded on science but rather highly educated opinion. It galls me a little to hear

it called "science" even though it probably does fall within the accepted meaning of

the term as it is used today. At the risk of being involved in a semantical argument I'm

forced to concede the point with the preceding caveats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

it's merely disturbing that people will consider Egytological opinion to have some scientific and testable basis when it does not. It is opinion, considered opinion derived from centuries of hard work and genius but it is mere opinion.

....

But the Egyptological paradigm is

not founded on science but rather highly educated opinion.

Everything is based on opinion. Science is basically just the basing of opinion on validated facts. The proof of a hypothosis is based on the opinion (usually on many opinions) believing the the data supports or does not support the hypothosis.

I think you simply think that the opinions of Egyptology Orthodoxy is wrong, because you have a different opinion on the existing evidence. That does not make their Science wrong, it only means that the conclusions drawn from the data is in dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is based on opinion. Science is basically just the basing of opinion on validated facts. The proof of a hypothosis is based on the opinion (usually on many opinions) believing the the data supports or does not support the hypothosis.

I think you simply think that the opinions of Egyptology Orthodoxy is wrong, because you have a different opinion on the existing evidence. That does not make their Science wrong, it only means that the conclusions drawn from the data is in dispute.

No. Science is real and does have real results can do disclose nature and how things work.

It's true there's never a final answer but but the results of experiments are conclusive within

the metaphysics. If we brought back an ancient Egyptian and he proved to be a stinky footed

bumpkin then the issue would be settled. If he said the last he remembered was dragging a

stone hither and yon then that would be settled as well. Of course, we don't have any sort of

determinative experiment that can be done right now but that means we have to go with the

evidence that actually exists until such time as an experiment can be devised. I believe that

evidence is pretty conclusive that Egyptologists are wrong but all that matters is what I can show

and what they can show.

One of the things I can show pretty dramatically is that the paradigm has failed the test of being

predictive. This is the very nature of nature; its understanding leads to accurate predictions. I

said years ago that all the news will support hydraulics and deny ramps. These caves are news

even while they're being covered up by the powers that be. They remain caves if they're excava-

ted or not. They support all of the hydraulic theories and take away from the muscle based theor-

ies and this would be true even if the plateau didn't have the ancient name "Mouth of Caves".

I believe the modern sense of isolation and rootlessness is the result of science and our misun-

derstanding of it. Ancient science was down to earth and brought people into the whole of both

nature and society. Language itself was the metaphysic. People were closely connected to every-

thing that flew or walked as well as to all natural processes. People didn't even think to question

their senses except as an exercise where many modern people question their very existence. We

question everything now and then try to throw our support to the one thing we think is solid; obser-

vation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion never realizing that it's this causing our disconnectedness.

And it's our misunderstanding causing us to lose touch with our real roots which is the metaphysics

partially preserved in religion. We are confused and rootless. We have come to believe no one is

responsible so we're on a collision course with the effects of the greed that has taken over everything.

Even this belief that people aren't responsible is the result of psuedo science; freudianism.

We need off of this treadmill. We need to reevaluate our beliefs but more to the point we need to do

the simple science that will tell us the basic things about the great pyramids.

I don't pretend to know the solutions but I know viscerally that people make the best decisions when they

have all the facts. We need facts and we aren't getting them. I believe it is critical for these and several

orther reasons. The human race has been on a 4000 year detour and it probably can't go on as it is.

Meanwhile, all we get is talk about maybe one day they'll do the science that should have been done way

back in the 1970's. This would be unacceptable at any place and at any time in history so why do we tol-

erate it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need off of this treadmill. We need to reevaluate our beliefs but more to the point we need to do

the simple science that will tell us the basic things about the great pyramids.

What if people did reevaluate and even.... with lots of discussion and open mindedness, and tossing about of even the most imaginative things that they can think of, plus soliciting possibilibies from anyone and everyone, and then analysing everything with the current evidence.... even then...... the concensus was on Ramps and Orthodoxy being the best supported theory?? What would you say to that?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if people did reevaluate and even.... with lots of discussion and open mindedness, and tossing about of even the most imaginative things that they can think of, plus soliciting possibilibies from anyone and everyone, and then analysing everything with the current evidence.... even then...... the concensus was on Ramps and Orthodoxy being the best supported theory?? What would you say to that?

It won't.

But it's the evidence that must be followed no matter where it leads. This is basic to

sentience itself. Anything else is inhuman and evil.

This isn't really a matter for discussion. Don't get me wrong discussion is a powerful

tool in the right hands and two heads are better than one but it's facts, evidence, data,

and experiments that are needed more than more talking or "peer review". Orthodoxy

is wrong and what's right could be figured out by a sharp engineering intern in a matter

of months if not weeks.

I don't really care what the answer is but I believe I stumbled on the answer and it just

happens to be very very important if I'm right. It needs to be studied systematically right

now and all anomalies investigated now. What is everyone so afraid of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys..can you have some mercy please? this is like reading a book... and it's all off-topic again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I guess it is. I just heard it yesterday for the first time ansd was repeating it. Google says the exact quote is;

"Never before in history have so many known so little about so much of the world around them."

The error was probably my own.

Na mate is was trying to be sure as to whom said this. I didn't point out that is was misquoted, because in essence the quote was correct.

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.