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

You DO go on.

The above (bolded) is patently absurd. A spiral ramp would hardly extend past the footprint of the pyramid, and then only on one side.

No. Read Petrie. Or look at the photo. It is very narrow.

These would have been completely filled by a spiral ramp.

So now most ramp proponents will say they couldda used a straight ramp and we'll be right back where we were. When you shoot dowbn the straight ramp it's spiral again. MC Escher couldn't keep up with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. This is the nature of all ramps. They can only access the pyramid at the point they

join the pyramid. This is virtually true by definition.

Of course in theory you can bury the entire thing under a mountain of ramp and then re-

carve the ramp to access all points but in practice it would be a nightmare. And you still

have the pyramid hidden under a mountain of ramps.

You just can't make it work.

Yeah. It might take YEARS to do the whole thing right.

Even if they did the cladding on the way up, that proves nothing. Aligning the pyrmaids corners is still easy. It can be done in almost the same manner as they used to lay out the base so accurately. Unless you want to argue that the Sun moved differently over the 20 years, or that they somehow got a lot stupider over the construction of the pyramid.

Cladding on the way down is not only impossible because of the nature of the cladding

it is also impossible due to the nature of ramps. It can't have happened. Study the pictures

of the G2 top and this should become clear.

egypt-x-2.jpg

Also look at the picture of the intact cladding stone on G1.

If the block below supports the one above, making cladding on the way down impossible, then what is holding that cladding Up? Wouldn't taking the lower cladding off make the upper cladding fall right off? That is your arguement, right?.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Read Petrie. Or look at the photo. It is very narrow.

These would have been completely filled by a spiral ramp.

So now most ramp proponents will say they couldda used a straight ramp and we'll be right back where we were. When you shoot dowbn the straight ramp it's spiral again. MC Escher couldn't keep up with it.

Maybe they used these hidden caves to drain the water? :w00t::innocent:

The AE were able to put culverts under walls, roads and entire buildings, so why couldn't they have put drainage under a ramp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

376 and 377 come from utterance 269, a censing prayer, and in full it reads -

The fire is laid, the fire shines;

The incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

Your perfume comes to me, O incense;

May my perfume come to you, O incense.

Your perfume comes to me, you gods;

May my perfume come to you, you gods.

May I be with you, you gods;

May you be with me, you gods.

May I live with you, you gods;

May you live with me, you gods.

I love you, you gods;

May you love me, you gods.

I put incense in bold just to emphasise that what is written about here is the smoke from incense, not a body, this is why it is a censing prayer.

And in 2053, well, it is better to read from 2051. Notice the part about embalming.....

Utterance 684, An ascension text.

This King ascended when you ascended, O Osiris; his word and his double are bound for the sky, the King's bones are iron and the King's members are the imperishable stars. If the King be caused to be embalmed, the Great One will fall before the King, for the King's mother is Nut, the King's father is Shu, the King's grandmother is Tefnet, they take the King to the sky, to the sky, on the smoke of incense. (not any burning body)

Each translation of the PT is getting further and further away from geysers and more and more

like the book of the dead. There are even scholars I've been reading who complain of the same

thing. But like everything it is critical that you maintain a single perspective to observe it. Many peo-

ple mistakingly believe that an airplane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt running the opposite

direction because when they think about it their perspective changes around over ands over. Some

simply don't understand the nature of a wheel so will miss it. 60% of aviation engineers miss this

question where if they flipped a coin only half would miss it.

You can't simply get rid of geysers by using other tranlations because they appear in all of the trans-

lations. Generally I'm not not going to address other translations because I understand the PT only

in terms of Sethe's and Mercer's. I could do Faulkner if I worked on it but I've never worked on it. The

one you've chosen here has almost exactly the same meaning as Mercer though.

The fire is laid, the fire shines;

The incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

Your perfume comes to me, O incense;

May my perfume come to you, O incense.

Your perfume comes to me, you gods;

May my perfume come to you, you gods.

May I be with you, you gods;

It never says only the incense is in the fire, merely that the fire is made. It says the odor of the incense

comes to the (dead king). Then it says that the odor of the dead king goes to the incense. Why are you

jumping to the conclusion that the king isn't in the fire? The odor of the king and incense then goes to

the gods (in heaven).

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;

376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.

377a. Your fragrance comes to N., O ye gods; the fragrance of N. comes to you, O ye gods.

377b. May N. be with you, O ye gods; may you be with N., O ye gods.

377c. May N. live with you, O ye gods; may you live with N., O ye gods.

p. 91

378a. May N. love you, O ye gods; love him, O ye gods.

This is what it says. It says the king isn't really burned up by the flame but that it merely

delivers him from the bandages. You can dispute the interpretation all you want but the

literal meaning of the entire PT is consistent, doesn't suggest grammatical errors, and

fits with the actual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. It might take YEARS to do the whole thing right.

Even if they did the cladding on the way up, that proves nothing. Aligning the pyrmaids corners is still easy. It can be done in almost the same manner as they used to lay out the base so accurately. Unless you want to argue that the Sun moved differently over the 20 years, or that they somehow got a lot stupider over the construction of the pyramid.

Yes. I've thought of this before and rejected it on the basis of quite a bit of evidence.

Chiefly is that it would be exceedingly difficult to level it using water each time unless

they had a water source. Also keep in mind that there are over 200 courses so in twenty

years they'd have to stop and lay it out again at least ten times per year. This is no sim-

ple matter of waving a wand but meticulous stellar observations. Also remember that

doing it this way would cause errors to be cummulative and this isn't what we see in the

course layout. They'd have a small error accumulate and then they would correct it. This

would be almost impossible if the pyramid were hidden under piles of ramps. They ex-

pended a huge amount of effort to layout the corners and doing this on each level would

be far more difficult and get increasingly difficult with height. Don't forget too that this is

an eight sided structure.

If the block below supports the one above, making cladding on the way down impossible, then what is holding that cladding Up? Wouldn't taking the lower cladding off make the upper cladding fall right off? That is your arguement, right?.

There are a few things holding it up. And it is almost proof of all my contentions.

The pyramids were built in steps but they had to be cladded from the top down due to the nature

of the way they were finished. Don't get me wrong here; almost every cladding stone was laid on

one below but the to[p steps were completed first. in order to place a cladding stone on the step

bottom without a cladding stone below took some extra effort. Namely each step was topped off

with a thinner course. This allowed them to build up the base of the step and insert a large clad-

ding stone as the base for the cladders on that step. When the top step was done they did the

same thing on the 4th step and when they got to the top there was a thin gap between the cladding

of the top and second to top steps. The bottom stones of the higher step weren't really resting on

the cladding stones below but they still filled in these gaps with 22" high partial cladding stones for

strenght and cosmetic reasons. I believe this job was done by the "Necklace Stringers" as they were

called. This was a simple yet exotic and dangerous rigging job.

The stones are hanging on up there primarily because most of it is balanced on special stones made

for that purpose and visible in some photos. This is consistent with Herodotus' accout that says the

pyramids were built from the top down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they used these hidden caves to drain the water? :w00t::innocent:

The AE were able to put culverts under walls, roads and entire buildings, so why couldn't they have put drainage under a ramp?

Yes, if it were only a single ramp they could have put a drain under it. A spiral ramp would

completely fill the water collection device though so it could serve no purpose during construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know my "interpretation" of the PT and culture is unique. This doesn't prove it's wrong.

Nor does it prove it right

If you eliminate the PT because Egyptology can't find proof that it existed earlier than

there is simply no evidence at all. Yes, to exercise perfect methodology and logic we

probably should simply say we don't know anything at all (other than experimental re-

sults). This means no ramps, no tombs, no cultural context, nothing.

I don't have a problem with this really but you need to realize that all the physical evi-

dence supports my contention as well. This means that they "mustta used geyser". Pick

your poison. You also need to realize that it was the PT that led me to most of the phys-

ical evidence; the two are mutually consistent as well as internally consistent.

There is physical evidence of ramps in the form of ramp remains. What physical evidence do you have of actual geysers?

If I really understand the PT then it's irrelevant when they were written because they still

say the pyramids were built with geysers. Sure it's heads I win tails you lose but this is the

the evidence that was left for us.

It's not irrelevant at all. Let us assume for discussions sake that earlier versions existed and were written about 3000 BCE. They would not be referring to the pyramids in any way since they would have been written hundreds of years before the first pyramid was built.

It is your understanding of the PT but you have yet to prove that your understanding is correct. Until such time, if ever, that it is proved correct, making a statement of fact that the pyramids were built with geysers is little more than wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The water was caught at the top of its trajectory at 81' 3".

It was then collected in large counterweights and when these fell over the side they lifted a load of stone on the other side to which they were attached.

Two problems with your counterweights:

1 - The geyser is next to the pyramid and shoots straight up. The counterweight sits on the level the stones are to be raised to. In the beginning the water could be caught in a counterweight. However, as the pyramid rises, each succeeding level moves towards the center and gets farther from the base. How does the water from the geyser get into the counterweight that is 25, 50 or 100+ ft from the base and the geyser?

2 - 18 tons of stone has just been lifted with the counterweight system. How do the workers empty 18 tons (4300+ gallons) of water out of the counterweight so it can be used again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is physical evidence of ramps in the form of ramp remains. What physical evidence do you have of actual geysers?

7-62sup.jpg

I just don't know understand how much evidence people need. There is repotedly carbonated water under

the plateau and Temple says this is percolating.

Frankly I always figured if I got you a picture of a geyser you'd believe me. Now I think if a geyser stood up

today on the plateau people would call it a remarkable coincidence.

It's not irrelevant at all. Let us assume for discussions sake that earlier versions existed and were written about 3000 BCE. They would not be referring to the pyramids in any way since they would have been written hundreds of years before the first pyramid was built.

The PT aren't about pyramids. They are about the rituals involved with getting him to heaven.

It is your understanding of the PT but you have yet to prove that your understanding is correct. Until such time, if ever, that it is proved correct, making a statement of fact that the pyramids were built with geysers is little more than wishful thinking.

I don't care how the pyramids were built. I merely want to know how they were and it seems

that most everyone else has their minds made up. Egyptologists generally don't even care how

they were built and won't investigate. Hawass wouldn't even explore a cave that he swore

didn't exist. Egyptologists just wanrt everyone to accept it must have been rampsso they can

get on with talking about the Egyptians. But their version of Egyptians disn't exist and will evap-

orate faster than a bucket of water on a dust dry ramp if they ever explore the caves or do any

simple science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two problems with your counterweights:

1 - The geyser is next to the pyramid and shoots straight up. The counterweight sits on the level the stones are to be raised to. In the beginning the water could be caught in a counterweight. However, as the pyramid rises, each succeeding level moves towards the center and gets farther from the base. How does the water from the geyser get into the counterweight that is 25, 50 or 100+ ft from the base and the geyser?

2 - 18 tons of stone has just been lifted with the counterweight system. How do the workers empty 18 tons (4300+ gallons) of water out of the counterweight so it can be used again?

Two problems with your counterweights:

1 - The geyser is next to the pyramid and shoots straight up. The counterweight sits on the level the stones are to be raised to. In the beginning the water could be caught in a counterweight. However, as the pyramid rises, each succeeding level moves towards the center and gets farther from the base. How does the water from the geyser get into the counterweight that is 25, 50 or 100+ ft from the base and the geyser?

No problem at all. Early structure were built with the geyser in the center probably but this

didn't apply to the great pyramids. These wells were very carefully and expertly drilled. The

Pt describes how the water sprayed up at various pressures. At low pressure the water was

went up at an angle toward the SE, as it built it switched to the SW until it was almost straight

up when seated in the eye of the device above that caught it. This device was built at the exact

same time as the pyramid and grew with it until it reached 81' 3". The water was transported the

approximately 80' in a canal. The device was made out of tura limestone so it could be recut in-

to cladding stones as the project was winding down.

No effort was wasted. Everything that went up stayed up or its weight was used to lift something.

2 - 18 tons of stone has just been lifted with the counterweight system. How do the workers empty 18 tons (4300+ gallons) of water out of the counterweight so it can be used again?

Surprisingly the PT are almost mum on this topic. There are numerous ways it could be done. The

PT probavbly doesn't mention it largely because this water was a "god" (the phenomenon of ballast,

named Seker). But it was also the "wdn.t-offerring" of the king.

In all probability the track which the counterweight traveled merely curved up at the end and the water

came out the top. This is hardly certain though and the counterweight did have a means to dump the

water while it was upright represented by the "tail of the bull of heaven" by which the king "could bail

out the henu-boat. I believe this was used only in emergencies however. The counterweifght had a

quick disconnect on it called the "tie of isis" so it's even possible they could just disconnect it and attach

the ropes to an already empty counterweight when the rope went slack. It just doesn't matter but they

had so many bells and whistles and automatic devices that I'd guess they used the easiest means

possible that required no effort at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't know understand how much evidence people need. There is repotedly carbonated water under

the plateau and Temple says this is percolating.

hi clad,

we seen robert temple flaw logic in claims of 3 giza kings of the great pyramids being buried absolute 100 percent being there without providing any evidence to prove that to be a fact, and actually he mentions a 4th king being buried there as well.

clearly with the giza plateau and its limestone and sea life that was once there, one is surely expected to see minerals in the water, but all that sewage water that been reported around and under the sphinx.

i think robert temple isnt telling people about the all that sewage water around and under the sphinx that was doing so much damage and the effects it could have.

can you supply a link for robert temple claim its percolating,im surprise he didnt take a sample to test, or perhaps he knew it was polluted waters, i like to read and see if i can find more flaws in his statements.

Edited by samspade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be more inclined to believe in a older civilization then aliens building the pyramids..

Ancient Aliens.. sorry.. I honestly feel the people who believe that pap.. have no faith in there own ancestors

You consider AA to be pap? interesting.

In our galaxy, our solar system and planet earth of course, are realtively young. There surely are solar systems that are 5 billion years older than ours, -

that is not million, it's 'B'-illion with a B.

With that said, any planet hosting intelligent life in this galaxy of 300 billion stars will soon realise with some exacting timeframe, that either their own star or a neighboring star will soon go supernova. That spells death for everyone on their planet. It will become essential to scour the galaxy looking for another host planet to live on. "Survival of the species" is the most important thing to any species. I am sure that this scenerio is more than idle speculation.

With that said, I would think it reasonable that planet earth would have been visited many many times billions of years ago and beyond.

It's the logical path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the evidence isn't supposed to closely fit the facts.

*snip* nevermind.

Edited by Fstop
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi clad,

we seen robert temple flaw logic in claims of 3 giza kings of the great pyramids being buried absolute 100 percent being there without providing any evidence to prove that to be a fact, and actually he mentions a 4th king being buried there as well.

clearly with the giza plateau and its limestone and sea life that was once there, one is surely expected to see minerals in the water, but all that sewage water that been reported around and under the sphinx.

i think robert temple isnt telling people about the all that sewage water around and under the sphinx that was doing so much damage and the effects it could have.

can you supply a link for robert temple claim its percolating,im surprise he didnt take a sample to test, or perhaps he knew it was polluted waters, i like to read and see if i can find more flaws in his statements.

"A closeup of the very strange hole opening into the southern so-called ‘water drainage channel’ in the Sphinx Temple. The massive limestone block lying on top makes access and proper inspection of this channel difficult for anyone larger than a rodent, and although I know some people who might qualify for that description, I would not trust their judgement. The bizarre red, white, and yellow mineral encrustations here are puzzling, and I cannot explain them. I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers. Perhaps the ‘efflux of Osiris’ is leaking upwards!

"

http://www.egyptiandawn.info/chapter7.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we seen robert temple flaw logic in claims of 3 giza kings of the great pyramids being buried absolute 100 percent being there without providing any evidence to prove that to be a fact, and actually he mentions a 4th king being buried there as well.

clearly with the giza plateau and its limestone and sea life that was once there, one is surely expected to see minerals in the water, but all that sewage water that been reported around and under the sphinx.

i think robert temple isnt telling people about the all that sewage water around and under the sphinx that was doing so much damage and the effects it could have.

can you supply a link for robert temple claim its percolating,im surprise he didnt take a sample to test, or perhaps he knew it was polluted waters, i like to read and see if i can find more flaws in his statements.

I don't support Robert Temple's conclusions but he is a clear thinker, good researcher, and

good writer. I can recommend his work and just don't support all of his conclusions. His new

book is "Egyptian Dawn" but I believe it's a couple years old now. I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You consider AA to be pap? interesting.

In our galaxy, our solar system and planet earth of course, are realtively young. There surely are solar systems that are 5 billion years older than ours, -

that is not million, it's 'B'-illion with a B.

With that said, any planet hosting intelligent life in this galaxy of 300 billion stars will soon realise with some exacting timeframe, that either their own star or a neighboring star will soon go supernova. That spells death for everyone on their planet. It will become essential to scour the galaxy looking for another host planet to live on. "Survival of the species" is the most important thing to any species. I am sure that this scenerio is more than idle speculation.

With that said, I would think it reasonable that planet earth would have been visited many many times billions of years ago and beyond.

It's the logical path.

100 billion stars within our galaxy.. and so far 100 billion galaxies can be seen from earth..

yes I believe in life out there.. just do not believe it has been here.. there is no proof at all that they visited us in the past.. or are still visiting us..

really we are in the backwash of our own galaxy.. chances of intelligent life finding us.. are.. you could say.. extremely remote..

(Corrected a spelling mistake.. damn new keyboard)

Edited by DingoLingo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 billion starts within our agalxy.. and so far 100 billion galaxies can be seen from earth..

yes I believe in life out there.. just do not believe it has been here.. there is no proof at all that they visited us in the past.. or are still visiting us..

really we are in the backwash of our own galaxy.. chances of intelligent life finding us.. are.. you could say.. extremely remote..

Everytime I go to Wal-mart my disbelief that we have ever been visited by ET is reinforced. Seriously, why would an advanced race (one capable of interplanetary travel) give a rat's fat a$$ about us. we are galactic turds.

I believe is numerically likely there is other life out there. I just can't imagine that they would ever be even remotely curious about us. Get over your bad-selves people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A closeup of the very strange hole opening into the southern so-called ‘water drainage channel’ in the Sphinx Temple. The massive limestone block lying on top makes access and proper inspection of this channel difficult for anyone larger than a rodent, and although I know some people who might qualify for that description, I would not trust their judgement. The bizarre red, white, and yellow mineral encrustations here are puzzling, and I cannot explain them. I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers. Perhaps the ‘efflux of Osiris’ is leaking upwards!

"

well here mentions he cant explain them, but the white and red seem too be do be obivious since i know abit about what minerals and stuff known around the giza area.

i recall somewhere else red showing up.

the white crust is the salt after water makes contact.

the yellow is sewage in part if not all of it.

im surprise he didnt mention any black with the soot and pollution and dirth and earth.

anyhow the other part he mentions perhaps :) ,

so he is speculating and not claiming it to be 100 percent fact.

personally i think robert temple bringing attention to certain things is good,

like the sirius mystery and other things, its good to point out certain things if others arent aware.

i just frown when people speculate, which in itself is a good tool,

but when they speculate and claim its 100 percent fact without giving proof to prove its true i have a hard problem with.

"Egyptian Dawn" was released in 2010.

Edited by samspade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well here mentions he cant explain them, i think the red and white can be explain with minerals known around the area, i recall somewhere else red showing up. white crust is the salt after water makes contact. and the yellow is sewage in part if not all of it. im surprise he didnt mention any black.

anyhow the other part he mentions perhaps :) so i wont bash him for that, still hes just speculating and not claiming it to be 100 percent fact.

I've never heard of a sewage geysaer and don't believe in them. The only way something

extremely soluble like salt could possibly accumulate is if there is almost no water flow at all.

Temple implies he either saw or heard the water meaning salt is a near impossibility unless

the event is higly episodic and he just coincidentally happened to be there. I don't believe

in coincidences either and this goes a hundred times over with anecdotal evidence.

You'll just have to take my word on it until an Egyptologist goes out there and does his job;

This is mostly calcium carbonate coming up from the carbonated water still existing under the

Giza Plateau. Refusing to do basic science like sampling this ben ben stone or clearing the

caves doesn't make ramps more likely. It makes it even more likely that their opinions are

wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of a sewage geysaer and don't believe in them. The only way something

extremely soluble like salt could possibly accumulate is if there is almost no water flow at all.

Temple implies he either saw or heard the water meaning salt is a near impossibility unless

the event is higly episodic and he just coincidentally happened to be there. I don't believe

in coincidences either and this goes a hundred times over with anecdotal evidence.

You'll just have to take my word on it until an Egyptologist goes out there and does his job;

This is mostly calcium carbonate coming up from the carbonated water still existing under the

Giza Plateau. Refusing to do basic science like sampling this ben ben stone or clearing the

caves doesn't make ramps more likely. It makes it even more likely that their opinions are

wrong.

i never hear of a sewage geyser, but that fact that sewage water was rising and causing damage under and around the sphinx is fact,

as reported by dr Hawass and scientists. And salt and water played a factor at damage under and around the sphinx, im surprise you were not aware of that but perhaps you forgot.

clearly with limestone coming in contact with water there will be some carbonated water, its simple chemistry when one understands the elements. i recall reading some pdf and the quarries and makeup and effects, you can search for it, its well known stuff.

as we seen again with robert temple, he didnt know the basics and thats the problem. and he goes off and mentions that speculation about osiris which i know for most of egyptologists who would probably think he is crazy for making that suggest when one knows the sewage problem. i think most of them dont give him to much thought after he mentioning aliens in the sirius mystery, For me i like he brings certain information, and from there one can decide whether its good or bad.

Edited by samspade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never hear of a sewage geyser, but that fact that sewage water was rising and causing damage under and around the sphinx is fact,

as reported by dr Hawass and scientists. And salt and water played a factor at damage under and around the sphinx, im surprise you were not aware of that but perhaps you forgot.

clearly with limestone coming in contact with water there will be some carbonated water, its simple chemistry when one understands the elements. i recall reading some pdf and the quarries and makeup and effects, you can search for it, its well known stuff.

as we seen again with robert temple, he didnt know the basics and thats the problem. and he goes off and mentions that speculation about osiris which i know for most of egyptologists who would probably think he is crazy for making that suggest when one knows the sewage problem. i think most of them dont give him to much thought after he mentioning aliens in the sirius mystery, For me i like he brings certain information, and from there one can decide whether its good or bad.

A great deal of ground water and even ancient water in the world doesn't have CO2 in it. I know

of no chemical process that would necessarily impart CO2 by limestone. Most stone is quite stable

and while water will dissolve anything it can't dissolve CO2 unless it's present.

I believe we are dealing with two different water sources. There's the dirty ground water and there

is ancient water flowing to the north that still has a lot of CO2 in it (like Perrier). This water is crystal

clear and has been used as drinking water for centuries. It is the water in the siris Shaft that the powers

that be can't be troubled to test. I suspect this water is risising and pushing up the dirty ground water

above it. Hawass' pumping this water out from the Shinx area has allowed the ancient water to take its

place and now it is percolating up creating a ben ben stone.

This is the most logical explanation for all the evidence. As time goes on geysers will continue to make

accurate predictions and explain news events. Ramps are debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Another thing I don't know is why the powers that be won't simply prove me wrong and be done with it.

The argument that they aren't even aware of it holds no water since Hawass referred to the theory in 2009

yet never did a little simple testing to prove it wrong. What I don't know is why there is so much resistance

to a simple crackpot idea that fits the evidence. There's more and more evidence to support this every day

and now that many peoiple are looking for evidence of water it just comes flooding in faster and faster.

This theory is going to stand of time even though it is far-fetched.

You've kind of answered your own question, although I don't like to refer to people I know as crackpots. The world of academia is unlikely ever to take the world of the fringe seriously, for the simple reason that fringe arguments are not realistic and do not adhere to evidence or research protocols. When someone writes something based entirely on his opinion and presents ideas that are not vetted or peer-reviewed by anyone but the writer who came up with the ideas in the first place, said ideas are not reliable. It's that simple. It's unlikely to change anytime soon.

Some professional researchers have commented on specific fringe ideas but only to show how far off the mark these ideas are. For the most part, professional researchers are incredibly busy in their own work and have very tight budgets, thus little time or desire or need to take the fringe seriously. I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm merely stating how it is.

You're taking it a bit far by saying Hawass commented on your geyser theme. Chances are Hawass and most (or all) other Egyptologists have no idea it exists because so few of these people have the time or desire to visit internet message boards. I know of only a scant handful of exceptions. Hawass was more likely commenting on the standard fare of internet nuttiness like the websites put up by Graham Hancock, Erich von Döniken, Zecharia Sitchin, J.A. West, et al.

Moreover, there are certain realities you have to understand. First, the Great Pyramid is not the only interest in the study of ancient Egypt. In fact, most Egyptologists don't even include it in their own specialties of study. This was an incredibly long-lived civilization, and the Great Pyramid represents but one tiny point in time in that civilization. As interesting as the Old Kingdom is, the later periods like the New Kingdom were fundamentally more important in the development and progress of the civilization. As it is in current research, it's rare that an Egyptologist would even study the Great Pyramid and nothing more. As with the work of the GPMP, research is more useful and purposeful when it incorporates the larger view—hence, current research would focus not just on the Great Pyramid but on Giza as a whole. It might irritate you, cladking, but exactly how the Great Pyramid was built is not fundamentally important to our fuller understanding of the Egyptian civilization. The ancient Egyptians built a magnificent civilization and the Great Pyramid is only one tiny part of the whole.

As I understand the current situation, there is no professional historian studying just the Great Pyramid. Many other questions that remain unanswered are a lot more important for us to answer.

Second, and the last point I'll make, the current political situation also is a huge factor nowadays. The toppling of the Mubarak regime and the election of the Muslim Brotherhood into power, has created all sorts of issues and problems for archaeologists and historians working in Egypt. Excavations and research still go on, of course, and in fact a very important Dynasty 19 tomb was only recently discovered. But as a whole the pace of research within Egypt has significantly slowed because of the political situation. Egypt is still unstable. Uprisings and protests still occur every month. It seems to be a tendency of Middle Easterners to toss out one despot and replace him with another, so it's going to be awhile—how long, no one can say—before the former pace of excavations and research resumes.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A closeup of the very strange hole opening into the southern so-called ‘water drainage channel’ in the Sphinx Temple. The massive limestone block lying on top makes access and proper inspection of this channel difficult for anyone larger than a rodent, and although I know some people who might qualify for that description, I would not trust their judgement. The bizarre red, white, and yellow mineral encrustations here are puzzling, and I cannot explain them. I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers. Perhaps the ‘efflux of Osiris’ is leaking upwards!

"

http://www.egyptiand...o/chapter7.html

There are a couple of problems here. First, you're relying an awful lot on Robert Temple. I'm aware of the other discussion involving his "theory" with a dead Dynasty 4 king buried in practically every crevice and depression near one of his imagined "cable channels." I didn't have time to take part in that discussion and see that it's already grown a bit stale, and at the moment I have no desire to resurrect it. But I did watch the entire video. I really enjoyed the photos but Temple is not exactly an adroit researcher. He's one of those who likes to try to force the evidence to fit his ideas, which is the failing of pretty much all fringe writers. Indeed, I've noticed where you yourself have called him to task about his conclusions in that discussion, so it seems a bit too convenient for you to be jumping on his bandwagon just because you like the lump of mysterious crud he photographed.

And second, about that crud-lump: doesn't it strike you as odd that he and his merry band were dancing around the Plateau and taking samples of this and that and the other, but he took no samples of the crud-lump? Much ado about nothing, perhaps? We have no idea what the crud-lump might be. As others have stated, it might merely be the remains of a stump, hence the shaft of log evident in the masonry behind it. Or it might be an accretion. Who knows? The point is, don't wed yourself to something about which no one knows anything. It might very well come back to bite you.

Temple's conclusions in general were grossly in error and his video was packed with misinformation and disinformation. He seems to want his viewers to think that he's studied the temple more carefully than anyone before and that archaeologists have never seen the things he was pointing out. Come now, do you (or anyone else for that matter) honestly believe he's right?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's unlikely to change anytime soon.

Dr Hawass specifically referred to "other unscientific theories on the net". This implies he was aware

of the theories on the net.

Until there is publkic pressure to do the science that should have been done 50 yearsa ago

it is unlikely anything will chjange.

I am very sensitive to the difficulties in Egypt and wish the people all the best but this has been

going on (or not going on) for half a century now. At some point there aren't any more excuses

and action is required. I'm also aware the new administration there has barely had time to unpack

their bags but this will very soon be their failure as well if they continue not to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we are dealing with two different water sources. There's the dirty ground water and there

is ancient water flowing to the north that still has a lot of CO2 in it (like Perrier). This water is crystal

clear and has been used as drinking water for centuries. It is the water in the siris Shaft that the powers

that be can't be troubled to test. I suspect this water is risising and pushing up the dirty ground water

above it. .

the problem is the sewage water has been around for soo many years flowing into the area, and recent years even worst with a canal with sewage leakage as well flowing into the area from I believe it was 10km away.

the fact the polluted water is all around the the sphinx and area, and the salt problem causing damage to the sphinx. also water seeping into ground, surely one would expect if c02 was present, the CL from salt and water and c02 would mix abit to create a acid solution - i think certainly the water would have a acidity to it.

Edited by samspade

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.