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

Fun discussion Clad! Please don't feel like I am trying to be rude or angry. I like the discussion for the discussions sake, but also love learning new stuff and talking about it.

They've made no announcements concerning scheduling this work or any preliminary

results or investigations whatsoever.

Perhaps you have failed to read the news coming out of Egypt in the last 2 years? Revolution? People (Americans/Europeans/Christians) being killed/targeted?

It would be amazing if anything new/noteworthy was being done right now.

It's the nature of the beasts. They are applying about the same tactics to studying the great

pyramids that they applied to everything else. These tactics work elsewhere. They do not work

when there is a virtual vacuum of information and much of what does exist is believed (by them)

to be irrelevant.

I just don't see it that way. The study of the physical structure of the Great Pyramids and the surrounding geology/geography, are clear evidence that the pyramids were built just like they appear. And there exists numerous bits of evidence that point at ramps being used, at least at the base level of the pyramid. Ramps at higher levels are just theoretical. But the nearby quarry contains enough fill material for large ramps for all 3 of the great Giza pyramids. If not ramps, then what was all that fill material for? Why would they make fill material and put it into the quarry for no reason? Landscaping?

Every theory makes predictions by its very nature. If you believe the stars rise and set because

the earth is spinning then you must revise your theory if you see the planets moving in the opposite

direction.

I guess you are correct that predictions, or suppositions, are going to be part of a good theory. But, even though a theory should predict what kind of evidence should support it, it does not mean that a lack of the predicted evidence in one area out of many areas is confirmation of failure of a theory.

Evidence = Proof of Theory

Lack of Evidence =/= Fail of Theory

The way to proove failure of a theory is to Prove a competing theory, using evidence.

They also knew how to pound their chests and howl at the stones. It is believed they knew how to

chant and make incantations at the stones. What we don't know is how they lifted them.

The problem being that chanting at stones has never moved a single stone, yet ropes and ramps are used to this day to move heavy objects into place.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egyptologists might only be right about who built it and why it was built if they are correct

about how it was built. That they refuse to investigate all theories related to building and

refuse to gather basic evidence that might prove their own "theory" reflect poorly on them.

This is a bass-akwards approach. "How" it was built won't determine "who" built it, particularly since there is no evidence for a civilization in Egypt prior to the Dynastic Period. And the earlier cultures that did exist in Egypt were not of a significant size nor technological level to match what we do know of AE. And since we also know that Khufu's name is located in areas of the relieving chambers that couldn't have gotten there by any other means than the builders placing the blocks as they did at the time, there's no reason to doubt the AE are responsible for its construction.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math does not prove ramps.

You are right again. Math does not prove anything in this case. It only shows that using ramps is Plausible.

Yet combined with the physical evidence of ramps used in various locations on Great Pyramids, math points to ramps being the Most Likely way they built the pyramids.

Of course it is simple. Anyone properly trained in second grade science could lead it. You

simply start at what is known and try to expand on this. The first things you investigate are

anomalies.

I am not sure that is proper scientific method. Usually the anomolies are discounted till a theory of the general data is built and then the anomolies are attempted to be inserted, and they may make adjustments to the first theory as exceptions or as a change to the whole theory.

The most glaring question of all is why would the builders leave evidence they

pulled stones up the side as demonstrated by Bui's scans if they had used ramps. This in-

dicates you immediately commission another more complete gravimetric scan with the latest

in technology; preferably employing Bui again if he's available.

There you go making an assumption. You are already convinced that the marks are there from dragging stones. When they could be there for any number of reasons. Perhaps from looters taking the limestone, perhaps for aesthetic reasons, perhaps because the designer was insane, perhaps because of some construction method.... Immediately commissioning a scan is also bad science. Good science would be examining all the choices and then examining all the testing that might need to be done, and then coming to agreement on the testing schedules. Then examining the data to see what choice/theory was correct. Immediately going to testing off of opinon is bad science.

Simultaneously you immedi-

ately allow infrared imaging to occur with the proviso that it is done on a continuing basis and

the results are made public in real time. You do the easy stuff like a chemical analysis on the

water in the Osiris Shaft.

So who is going to pay and perform these tests? That is part of archeology... Coming up with resources and experienced people. What if Bui is not available? What if he and none of his people are available for 2 years? What then? What if he needs a 100,000 dollar grant to do the testing, and the Antiquities commission only has 20,000 set aside for remote scanning, so it takes 5 years to pay for the scan? Organizing all this stuff takes time and money. That is why it takes so long to get things done.

Stop all other work that might interfere with bringing 21st century

technology to Giza. Do a photographic study including all light spectra of G1 to determine

the nature of the marking. Do a chemical analysis of these lines. Do a barometric study of

the Bent Pyramid to determine the source of the air movement in it. Do a forensic stiudy of G1.

Same comments to these remarks. Who, when and How?

Of course on the very first day you sample the caves to see if you can begin immediate exca-

vation. You immediately begin excavating the bottom of the Osiris Shaft.

OK, so this is relevant to this thread at least....

Why dig up the caves? What is that going to prove? If you want resources put toward digging, you have to have a reason.

Even if there are tunnels under the plaeau, that does not show water movement, or anything about building a pyramid.

There are numerous other studies that can be run concurrently (such as C14) but by the time

these are ready to be startewd in just a few weeks there will be new more important anomalies

coming in from the science actually geting done that need to be studied first. A real scientist

needs to coordinate this work. The trult ironic thing is that there will be hundreds of millions

of dollars saved becayse drilling holes, desicrating graves, and troweling for ramps is much

more expensive and labor intensive than actual applied science. This isn't rocket science or

magic and we aren't going to ever find the answers with rocket science or magic unless, of course,

levitation or incantation affects the stones permanently somehow.

I'm not sure that actually doing higher tech scientific data gathering is less expensive. I'd think that having Grad Students out trowling around is almost free. And it is the Graves that is at least part of the data set that You say shows current paradym is incorrect.

Do you have a good link to gravimetric scaning? I can't seem to find anything that I like/trust. What would be the cost?

From what I've read Egypt is in bad financial shape with huge budget issues and lack of funds to even keep up the museum and inventory what they already have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/middleeast/revolution-brings-hard-times-for-egypts-treasures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bass-akwards approach. "How" it was built won't determine "who" built it, particularly since there is no evidence for a civilization in Egypt prior to the Dynastic Period. And the earlier cultures that did exist in Egypt were not of a significant size nor technological level to match what we do know of AE. And since we also know that Khufu's name is located in areas of the relieving chambers that couldn't have gotten there by any other means than the builders placing the blocks as they did at the time, there's no reason to doubt the AE are responsible for its construction.

There seems little doubt that the human beings in Egypt at the time the great pyramids were built

were the individuals who actually built it. But the question remains; who were these individuals and

what were their beliefs. Germany was a different place with different people in 1939 than are there

today or were there in 1913. We can't possibly understand dauchau or auschwitz without under-

standing these differences. This isn't to say that the Egyptians can't be understood without knowing

how they built the pyramids but at the current point in time there are no facts that can be cited to de-

fine their beliefs or the reasons they would build pyramids. It is my belief that knowing how the pyra-

mids were built might show who these people were and what they believed. It is my belief that their

claim that the gods built the pyramids would shine a very bright light on who they were. But this is all

impossible until we know something like how they built them. We know Nazi Germany because we re-

member adolph hitler but we don't know who built the pyramids because all the writing looks like non-

sense to us. All the writing is open to interpretation so what these people believed is open to interpre-

tation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet combined with the physical evidence of ramps used in various locations on Great Pyramids, math points to ramps being the Most Likely way they built the pyramids.

There is no evidence any ramp was ever used to lift any stone on any great pyramid. You've had

plenty of chance to cite evidence and none has been forthcoming. Even if it were true that ramps

are most likely the point is irrelevant until such time as they have been established by evidence and

this is very far from being. They will never be established because they were not used and they are

still debunked.

I am not sure that is proper scientific method. Usually the anomolies are discounted till a theory of the general data is built and then the anomolies are attempted to be inserted, and they may make adjustments to the first theory as exceptions or as a change to the whole theory.

Applied science is not the same as theoretical science. If we ever apply modern science to Giza

there probably will be aspects of true science involved but for the main part applied science is about

measurement and the observation of anomalies and the unexplained.

Good science would be examining all the choices and then examining all the testing that might need to be done, and then coming to agreement on the testing schedules. Then examining the data to see what choice/theory was correct. Immediately going to testing off of opinon is bad science.

Science isn't about committees. We've delayed doing the obvious for decades, how much longer

must we delay?

Why dig up the caves? What is that going to prove? If you want resources put toward digging, you have to have a reason.

You dig up caves because they are there and you can't see them.

Even if there are tunnels under the plaeau, that does not show water movement, or anything about building a pyramid.

You can't know until you dig them up.

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems little doubt that the human beings in Egypt at the time the great pyramids were built

were the individuals who actually built it. But the question remains; who were these individuals and

what were their beliefs. Germany was a different place with different people in 1939 than are there

today or were there in 1913. We can't possibly understand dauchau or auschwitz without under-

standing these differences. This isn't to say that the Egyptians can't be understood without knowing

how they built the pyramids but at the current point in time there are no facts that can be cited to de-

fine their beliefs or the reasons they would build pyramids. It is my belief that knowing how the pyra-

mids were built might show who these people were and what they believed. It is my belief that their

claim that the gods built the pyramids would shine a very bright light on who they were. But this is all

impossible until we know something like how they built them. We know Nazi Germany because we re-

member adolph hitler but we don't know who built the pyramids because all the writing looks like non-

sense to us. All the writing is open to interpretation so what these people believed is open to interpretation.

Then there is no argument as to 'who' built the GP.

Your 'belief', twice stated above, is irrelevant to what we do know of the Ancient Egyptians.

Speak for yourself. Just because you don't remotely understand the knowledgebase we've obtained from 200+ years of ongoing investigations into the AE doesn't mean no one else does. We don't have to know down to the last block laid exactly how the GP was constructed to know the AE did it. That's about as ignorant as claiming that just because you've never seen an A-Bomb constructed, in full, that it's impossible for anyone to have done it. It almost sounds like someone has to hold your hands and explain things to you in one-syllable words, in order for you to know anything. :rolleyes:

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is no argument as to 'who' built the GP.

Your 'belief', twice stated above, is irrelevant to what we do know of the Ancient Egyptians.

Speak for yourself. Just because you don't remotely understand the knowledgebase we've obtained from 200+ years of ongoing investigations into the AE doesn't mean no one else does. We don't have to know down to the last block laid exactly how the GP was constructed to know the AE did it. That's about as ignorant as claiming that just because you've never seen an A-Bomb constructed, in full, that it's impossible for anyone to have done it. It almost sounds like someone has to hold your hands and explain things to you in one-syllable words, in order for you to know anything. :rolleyes:

You're not so far off. One syllable words are much easier to understand viscerally and this is where

all knowledge actually exists. It is a fact that virtually nothing survives from the great pyramid building

age and the little that does survive is dependent on interpretation in order to understand. Have I ever

mentioned that I believe orthodox interpretation is wholly in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not so far off. One syllable words are much easier to understand viscerally and this is where

all knowledge actually exists. It is a fact that virtually nothing survives from the great pyramid building

age and the little that does survive is dependent on interpretation in order to understand. Have I ever

mentioned that I believe orthodox interpretation is wholly in error.

You've also admitted that your comprehension and knowledgebase concerning AE are practically non-existant. This does not speak well for you.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've also admitted that your comprehension and knowledgebase concerning AE are practically non-existant. This does not speak well for you.

No. I've said I've avoided reading or trying to understand orthodox interpretations of anything at all.

Even this is no longer completely true since for about two years now I have followed their understanding

of the gods. They are always wrong but since they are usually correct in a left handed sort of way it is

still helpful to me. Besides they do know a few things I don't and have access to a great deal more than

what I have access to. I should have done it a year or two earlier in hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I've said I've avoided reading or trying to understand orthodox interpretations of anything at all.

Even this is no longer completely true since for about two years now I have followed their understanding

of the gods. They are always wrong but since they are usually correct in a left handed sort of way it is

still helpful to me. Besides they do know a few things I don't and have access to a great deal more than

what I have access to. I should have done it a year or two earlier in hindsight.

That's what I said "practically non-existant". So basically you're left with "Oh woe is me. I don't remotely understand pretty much any knowledge gained in the last 200+ years of Egyptology, yet everyone else is wrong." :tu: Thanks for the confirmation.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I said "practically non-existant". So basically you're left with "Oh woe is me. I don't remotely understand pretty much any knowledge gained in the last 200+ years of Egyptology, yet everyone else is wrong." :tu: Thanks for the confirmation.

You might want to break out the old dictionary and look up some terms.

"Interpretation" is not data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence any ramp was ever used to lift any stone on any great pyramid. You've had

plenty of chance to cite evidence and none has been forthcoming. Even if it were true that ramps

are most likely the point is irrelevant until such time as they have been established by evidence and

this is very far from being. They will never be established because they were not used and they are

still debunked.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the ramps are not there, because they were taken down and dumped into the quarry. No one leaves scaffolding hanging on the outside of their building after it is built. So your arguement is illogical. If you are waiting for conclusive proof, such will not be coming, unless someone invents faster then light movement. Then we could effectively look into the past and see what they did, but since that is not going to happen, we can only guess, and the best guess is ramps. The Egyptians had ramps, and needed to elevate stone... the end.

Science isn't about committees. We've delayed doing the obvious for decades, how much longer

must we delay?

I beg to differ. Science requires oversight and confirmation, and funding, resources and personnel. All of which require organization, which means beuracracy/committees.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vase of lotus blossoms on a stand mis-interpreted as an alien. A palimpsest which has been mis-interpreted as vehicles which didn't exist in Ancient Egypt and an AE stela that's been misrepresented to say something it doesn't. All that's missing is a quack like Von Daniken or Sitchin. :w00t:

cormac

You left out Giorgio Tsoukalos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out Giorgio Tsoukalos.

Centauri wannabe's don't count. :w00t:

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to break out the old dictionary and look up some terms.

"Interpretation" is not data.

Interpretations from professionals in the field trump the unqualified opinion of some dude in Indiana whose knowledgebase is sorely lacking and who has a penchant for proclaiming some version of "Nuh uh" to pretty much everything that IS known. Solely because he doesn't understand it. BTW, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to break out the old dictionary and look up some terms.

"Interpretation" is not data.

:rolleyes: Quite rich, coming from you, who treats his own interpretation of the PT as the ultimate truth. Now is this a double standard or what?

Centauri wannabe's don't count. :w00t:

cormac

Centauri wannabe..... :clap: .... I hadn't realized how much he actually does look like one. Great one, cormac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not so far off. One syllable words are much easier to understand viscerally and this is where

all knowledge actually exists. It is a fact that virtually nothing survives from the great pyramid building

age and the little that does survive is dependent on interpretation in order to understand. Have I ever

mentioned that I believe orthodox interpretation is wholly in error.

Please explain how the existence of ramps, and chisel marks on the stones are dependent on interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how the existence of ramps, and chisel marks on the stones are dependent on interpretation

Ahr ... g'wan guv'nor

You're just egging 'im on aren't you, poking 'im with a stick ehr?

Stoking the fire as it were, ehr ... g'wan ... poke 'im agin

~I forgot how much fun it was around 'ere

What we need now is a bottle of Cognac and a couple of cigars, or pipes if you so please

a foot massage would be heavenly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahr ... g'wan guv'nor

You're just egging 'im on aren't you, poking 'im with a stick ehr?

Stoking the fire as it were, ehr ... g'wan ... poke 'im agin

~I forgot how much fun it was around 'ere

What we need now is a bottle of Cognac and a couple of cigars, or pipes if you so please

a foot massage would be heavenly

Sorry. All we gots is soda water.

You can thank Cladking for that.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. All we gots is soda water.

You can thank Cladking for that.

Harte

Osiris's effervescent efflux. Tasty!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osiris's effervescent efflux. Tasty!!

I prefer a good Sphinx Spritzer but they won't sell it to you unless you can say it three times fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer a good Sphinx Spritzer but they won't sell it to you unless you can say it three times fast.

1723b. when the great bread and this wine-like water were given to him.

130c. his food is among you, ye gods; the water of N. consists of wine like that of Rē‘,

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how the existence of ramps, and chisel marks on the stones are dependent on interpretation

There are no construction ramps. There are chisel marks and saw marks on stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretations from professionals in the field trump the unqualified opinion of some dude in Indiana whose knowledgebase is sorely lacking and who has a penchant for proclaiming some version of "Nuh uh" to pretty much everything that IS known. Solely because he doesn't understand it. BTW, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

"Interpretations", assumptions, and educated guesses can all be very valuable but they can all

be entirely wrong as well. This is why you have to investigate things. Well... ...this and because

you never know everything. Even after we know how the pyramids were built we still should inves-

tigate even if the anomalie in need of investigation implies ramps had been used.

Real science never stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out numerous times, the ramps are not there, because they were taken down and dumped into the quarry. No one leaves scaffolding hanging on the outside of their building after it is built. So your arguement is illogical. If you are waiting for conclusive proof, such will not be coming, unless someone invents faster then light movement. Then we could effectively look into the past and see what they did, but since that is not going to happen, we can only guess, and the best guess is ramps. The Egyptians had ramps, and needed to elevate stone... the end.

I beg to differ. Science requires oversight and confirmation, and funding, resources and personnel. All of which require organization, which means beuracracy/committees.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the ramps are not there, because they were taken down and dumped into the quarry. No one leaves scaffolding hanging on the outside of their building after it is built. So your arguement is illogical. If you are waiting for conclusive proof, such will not be coming, unless someone invents faster then light movement. Then we could effectively look into the past and see what they did, but since that is not going to happen, we can only guess, and the best guess is ramps. The Egyptians had ramps, and needed to elevate stone... the end.

In other words they must have used ramps.

If we knew what was in the quarry it might actually be sufficient to prove ramps. But we

don't know what is or was there so it's just hearsay. No scientific sampling has been done

and the anecdotal reports are conflicting. The same applies to the material building up the

northern cliff face. It's easy enough to say this equates with ramps but there's still no evidence

that they built them this way.

There's no reason that ramps wouldn't show up on the gravimetric or infrared scanning. After

all dragging them straight up the side DID in fact show up on the gravimetric scan so maybe we'd

see ramps on the infrared or ultraviolet. We won't ever know because they're afraid of the pyramid.

I beg to differ. Science requires oversight and confirmation, and funding, resources and personnel. All of which require organization, which means beuracracy/committees.

Human progress has always been the result of the efforts of a single individual in almost every single

instance. In fact, it is most of the time the result of serendipity or accident rather than genius.

"Congress" is the opposite of "Progress". ...And such it has always been.

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.