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 5
Harsh86_Patel

Great Pyramids VS Egyptian Pyramids

580 posts in this topic

Gentleman, i suggest you stick to debating the topic and not whether i look like carlton (who ever the hell he is) or not.

I agree.

I shamefully (though somewhat in attempt to flatter) called The Spartan a Carlton. It is not bad. He is a great American actor. Like John Wayne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am following my own quote. Zips my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... that was ... shall I dare say it ... uhmmm ... Interesting ... ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok people, let's let it be...we're all good looking adorable people!

Back to discussing the subject at hand (in a civil/polite manner).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am following my own quote. Zips my mouth.

im somewhat offended that you changed your picture in attempt to disassociate yourself from carlton. again my sincerest apologies.

will you kindly accept this olive branch ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. No . I prefer to have a display pic matching my user name.

I should be coming up with a retort, but why stoke the fire, since you are a not a person who can understand common forum deocrums or etiquette.

So, as i said before, No comments.

And i would prefer you to stick to the debate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

uhhh no. just my own eyes and the images of the subjects themselves. what more proof need be? i dont believe half the so called theories out there on history.

...

With respect, what you "believe" is irrelevant. The fact that you do not find favor with prevailing academic theories does not affect or alter the legitimacy and veracity of those theories one bit. If you do not regard academia's conclusions as correct, the only thing that matters is for you to produce verifiable and properly analyzed evidence to prove that academia's conclusions are wrong. One's personal opinions don't matter if the evidence is not properly understood or addressed in the first place.

For example, to provide an open-ended question I would ask: do you understand what was happening in Egypt later in the Old Kingdom, what the status of the government was, the changes in the socio-political environment kings of Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6 were facing? Why the pyramids of these last two dynasties in the Old Kingdom were considerably smaller is no mystery, when the situation is studied in the proper context. I don't think you're familiar with the proper context in the first place. Looking at photos of pyramids is not exactly a useful way to approach the situation—it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

The_Spartan brought up very valid points. Are you well versed in the evolution of pyramid building? It's not as though pyramids all of a sudden just popped up. Spartan listed several pyramids in the chain of royal monument building leading up to Giza, but there were also unfinished pyramids such as Sekhemkhet's that must be likewise considered. Moreover, proper analysis of Sneferu's three pyramids at Meidum and Dashur clearly show how Khufu borrowed from his father's architectural and engineering features when he set down to erect the Great Pyramid. In actuality there is very little about the engineering principles of the Great Pyramid that one would call "unique." It's just larger.

Are you familiar with some of the science that has been applied to the Old Kingdom monuments? Carbon dating of them conducted in two different analyses has confirmed that these monuments date to the periods conventional historians has always thought, although it's possible monuments like the Great Pyramid might be around a century older than conventionally thought. Nothing surprising there. Now, I don't know to be honest if you're trying to argue that the Giza pyramids are significantly older than conventionally believed, so I don't want to put words in your mouth. However, if you are promoting this, science has already answered the question.

Also, have you studied the pyramids of the Middle Kingdom, specifically Dynasty 12? They're not much larger (if at all) than most of the smaller pyramids of Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6, and yet there were significant changes in the state religion by this time and the cultural overall was undergoing developments. Are you familiar with this period and what was going on? The smaller pyramids of Dynasty 12 certainly have nothing to do with a weaker period because Egypt of the Middle Kingdom was a much wealthier and stabler state than Egypt of the Old Kingdom. Several Dynasty 12 kings, especially Senusret III, were significantly more powerful than Khufu had been, and yet they didn't erect pyramids as large as Khufu's—although they certainly could have, if they so wished.

You have to address these situations with a much more concerted effort in understanding what was going on historically and culturally.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think my sarcasm has gone out of style Ill try to adapt.

I happen to have this. my apologies for the link bold but it was forwarded this way.

It is quite extensive but nonetheless worth the read .

disreguard the above link, click the one here,

http://www.google.co....45960087,d.dmg

Edited by Sheep Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my sarcasm has gone out of style Ill try to adapt.

I happen to have this. my apologies for the link bold but it was forwarded this way.

Link doesn't work.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I corrected it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my sarcasm has gone out of style Ill try to adapt.

I happen to have this. my apologies for the link bold but it was forwarded this way.

It is quite extensive but nonetheless worth the read .

disreguard the above link, click the one here,

http://www.google.co....45960087,d.dmg

Great, a rehash of Davidovits' claim which was shown to be incorrect by Professor Ioannis Liritzis in 2007. To whit:

Abstract

Mineralogical, petrological, XRF and radioactivity measurements were carried out on several Egyptian monuments (at Giza plateau and Abydos), as an integrated archaeological sciences project concerning Egyptian cultural heritage with a threefold aim: (a) the multifold analysis of construction material (granite, limestone, sandstone, gypsum), providing new data, (B) a detailed radioactivity survey of the monuments, and © the development of a new optical stimulated luminescence dating approach for limestone buildings. Regarding the aim (a), hypotheses that large building stones used in the monuments were cast, as opposed to carved out of natural stone, are not supported by (i) the presence of undamaged fossils, (ii) lack of zeolite peaks in X-ray patterns, which would be expected if CaO was used in making cement, and (iii) random emplacement and strictly homogeneous distribution of fossil shells in the whole rock in accordance with their initial in situ settling in a fluidal sea bottom environment. Moreover, statistical clustering of chemical composition indicated five rock sub-categories and XRF analysis reported inhomogeneity of rock composition. In aim (B) a detailed dose rate survey of the studied monuments and of the radioisotope content (U, Th, K, Rb) of specimens is reported that form a unique data-base for any undertaken dating project. Regarding aim ©, quartz separation from limestone powder presents a new way to date limestone blocks by the single aliquot Optical Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating protocol, and three indicative dating cases are presented.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1296207407001410

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cormac,

Im not saying one is right just yet, However, not everything is known hence why new discoveries are all so important.

Regards to my gritty opinions.

A very good amount of any archaeology is slanted in hopes of seeking donations for not only projects, but also educating people under assumed information on behalf of the interest so a college or Gov wants all while eluding any connections to those people funding it.

Have you taken any courses in deciphering and comprehending propaganda?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cormac,

Im not saying one is right just yet, However, not everything is known hence why new discoveries are all so important.

Regards to my gritty opinions.

A very good amount of any archaeology is slanted in hopes of seeking donations for not only projects, but also educating people under assumed information on behalf of the interest so a college or Gov wants all while eluding any connections to those people funding it.

Have you taken any courses in deciphering and comprehending propaganda?

I've had my share of deciphering and comprehending all sorts of things in the military. And still not reached the point of paranoia implied in the above. Your point?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had my share of deciphering and comprehending all sorts of things in the military. And still not reached the point of paranoia implied in the above. Your point?

cormac

but not propaganda. you made your point.

i believe paranoids need something to believe in. or else...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but not propaganda. you made your point.

i believe paranoids need something to believe in. or else...

And I believe that's the saddest way of life, bordering on the pathetic, but each to their own.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And I believe that's the saddest way of life, bordering on the pathetic, but each to their own.

cormac

my life is pretty damn fun. speak for others, as you do best. nice of you to shift subjects so fast.

Edited by Sheep Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I find most interesting is that the original entrances to the pyramids were quite high off ground level compared to the later dynastic attempts, with the 'facing' stones in place I can't help but wonder how they, the AEs got in or out of the structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I find most interesting is that the original entrances to the pyramids were quite high off ground level compared to the later dynastic attempts, with e 'facing' stones in place I can't help but wonder how they, the AEs got in or out of the......

internal ramp!

that seems to be answer , before one can even finish their question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

internal ramp!

that seems to be answer , before one can even finish their question.

Nahh .... the internal ramps were for the stones during the construction apparently ..... you suck !

:lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nahh .... the internal ramps were for the stones during the construction apparently ..... you suck !

:lol::P

here cometh the plastering of links.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here cometh the plastering of links.

I can feel the 'finger right click twitch' clicking right mouse button across the book marks encompassing the academic webs ...... :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how someone can derive paranoia from contentiousness is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can feel the 'finger right click twitch' clicking right mouse button across the book marks encompassing the academic webs ...... :tu:

Willful ignorance on the part of some just doesn't make it worth the effort. :no:

As to what you said here, in part:

with the 'facing' stones in place I can't help but wonder how they, the AEs got in or out of the structures.

With the outer casing in place they were never intended to be entered again, since the entrance itself would have been covered over.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~snip

With the outer casing in place they were never intended to be entered again, since the entrance itself would have been covered over.

cormac

That's one way of considering a solution to the conundrum I know ... but that will mean that Khufu was entombed before the completion ... so was the tomb waiting for Khufu or was Khufu laying in wraps waiting for the tomb ?

In terms of the construction phases we can't really tell as either propositions comes with its own sets of counter logic problems,

in terms of building the thing Sir cormac ... not the certain all too convenient speculative proposals from all parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

cormac,

you can not accept what is not backed by someone with a degree, nor can you accept the fact that despite every attempt at taking sharp shots, people dont agree with your views which by the way only reflect those who put them fourth. which is fine, except you are forgetting that the Giza pyramid itself is by far one of the most debated, controversial, and misunderstood subjects in existance. accusing one who opposes your opinions based on others of being paranoid is not cool.

so i suggest you pull your chin down a bit my friend because youre far from reining this thread by a longshot.

Edited by Sheep Smart
1 person likes this

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 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.