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

Mastaba 3038:

djo14-Mastaba-3038-The-inspiration-for-the-Step-Pyramid-questmark.jpg

Prior to Imhotep, mastabas and other structures were constructed with sun-baked mudbrick, wood, and other organic materials. But in Djoser’s Step Pyramid complex, stone was cut to the same size and dimensions as mudbrick. Stone pillars were designed to look as if they were fashioned of bundled stems and tree trunks. Stone beams were made to resemble wooden logs. Stone walls were carved to have the appearance of reed mat coverings. Stone surfaces were painted to resemble mudbrick and plant materials.

-

Imhotep’s idea for the design of Djoser’s pyramid may not have come quite out of the blue. Mastaba 3038, constructed some 200 years earlier during the reign of King Anedjib, was situated on a mud-brick step mound which looks remarkably like the beginnings of a step pyramid, albeit on a much smaller scale.

http://emhotep.net/2009/08/21/locations/lower-egypt/djosers-step-pyramid-the-gem-of-saqqara/

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Abramelin. Great link! I never came across that one before

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh's basic premise and the essence of his post is

"The Pyramids before the Great Pyramids had lot of images, carvings etc in them, But the great pyramids do not have any or very less in them.

So, are the Great Pyramids built by the same people /or same nationality as those who had built the earlier pyramids."

Good Question, But he isnt thinking beyond this question. And since he doesnt accept anything about the subject from orthodox academia or their records, he is still wondering.

There is ample evidence of the change in architectural style from the old Pyramids to the new Pyramids. They built it smaller, but put more efforts in graphical repsentation in forms of paitnings, cartouches, inscriptions etc. But when the Mine should be bigger than eveyone elses thought seeped inot their heads, they built huge and understanding the monumental construction requirements, logisitcs and time, they dropped the idea of decorating the pyramids.

(Just for a moment, forget about the aliens built it or the atlanteans built it or an older civilisation built it or the erosion marks on the sphinx etc. just forget about it all)

To you Harsh - The question - putting aside all the stuff in the (brackets) : since there have been recorded history of some kind, about the royalty from the time of the 1st pyramid to the Great pyramids, are there any other reason other the one I wrote above, that makes you think that the GP could have been built by others??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that all sounds very hopeful and optimistic, and I'm not the one to doubt optimism, but to substantiate such a theory, you must supply logical and evidential evidence, something of which you are lacking...

I know exactly what the pharaohs were considered as, and to add to my bountiful knowledge, I know exactly how to spell *Pharaoh*. :yes:

As for the rest you have written, it has sincerely bewildered me aka :unsure2:

On the contrary, I would love to see some persuasive evidence...

You don't know exactly how to spell Pharoan as mainstream egyptology is only certain of the consonants and guesses the vowels.(Maybe you didn't know this)

I just mentioned a few evidences regarding what i believe but i guess you missed the indication.

Since we can both bewilder each other lets continue doing so. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Harsh's basic premise and the essence of his post is

"The Pyramids before the Great Pyramids had lot of images, carvings etc in them, But the great pyramids do not have any or very less in them.

So, are the Great Pyramids built by the same people /or same nationality as those who had built the earlier pyramids."

Good Question, But he isnt thinking beyond this question. And since he doesnt accept anything about the subject from orthodox academia or their records, he is still wondering.

There is ample evidence of the change in architectural style from the old Pyramids to the new Pyramids. They built it smaller, but put more efforts in graphical repsentation in forms of paitnings, cartouches, inscriptions etc. But when the Mine should be bigger than eveyone elses thought seeped inot their heads, they built huge and understanding the monumental construction requirements, logisitcs and time, they dropped the idea of decorating the pyramids.

(Just for a moment, forget about the aliens built it or the atlanteans built it or an older civilisation built it or the erosion marks on the sphinx etc. just forget about it all)

To you Harsh - The question - putting aside all the stuff in the (brackets) : since there have been recorded history of some kind, about the royalty from the time of the 1st pyramid to the Great pyramids, are there any other reason other the one I wrote above, that makes you think that the GP could have been built by others??

That is the confusing part that you expect me to believe that the size and scale decreased as the art of Pyramid building advanced.

Again just to point out to all of you, your opinions and my opinions or the mainstream opinions of why these things were missing in the great pyramids are all theories without any empirical proof.

There is no recorded history of Khufu building the great pyramids, it is at best an assumption made by the mainstream based on a fraud by Vyse.

Also i would like to know your opinion of the rain errosion marks on the sphinx, how do you fancy that they got there? How old is the sphinx?

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know where to post this, but as this is one of the 200 threads about the Egyptian pyramids, it will do as well as in any other pyramid thread.

As far as I know, no one has ever posted about the theory of Italian researcher Elio Diomedi (and yes, I have searched for his name on UM).

OK, here is a video from UFO-TV, but no worries, it's not about aliens, giants, Atlantis or all that:

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-did-egyptians-build-the-great-pyarmid/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is the confusing part that you expect me to believe that the size and scale decreased as the art of Pyramid building advanced.

Again just to point out to all of you, your opinions and my opinions or the mainstream opinions of why these things were missing in the great pyramids are all theories without any empirical proof.

-snip-

So what empirical proof do you have exactly, for your own hypothesis?

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So what empirical proof do you have exactly, for your own hypothesis?

I am not the one making the claim that Khufu build the Great Pyramids.

I am trying to present why logically this does not seem to be the case to me.i.e Khufu did not build the great pyramids.

Please read the post you are quoting where i clearly mention that my own opinion though sceptical is not based on empirical proof, but since i am not the one making the claim the burden of proof lies on the people making the claim, i am just being a sceptic.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know exactly how to spell Pharoan as mainstream egyptology is only certain of the consonants and guesses the vowels.(Maybe you didn't know this)

I just mentioned a few evidences regarding what i believe but i guess you missed the indication.

Since we can both bewilder each other lets continue doing so. :yes:

However your "evidence", does not fit into either category of persuasive or factual, in fact your own evidence contradicts itself :lol: ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However your "evidence", does not fit into either category of persuasive or factual, in fact your own evidence contradicts itself :lol: ...

How does my "Suggestion" counter itself?. You still continue to bewilder me.

I never presented any evidence, i am a Sceptic demanding more evidence.

My logic might not be persuasive for you, but you are a strange fellow so i will excuse my logic for the time being.

Now are you trying to counter your own bewilderment by giving blanket statments on my logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are really sinking deep with our bewilderment, though excuse me, you have bewildered me furthermore...

Quote

I just mentioned a few evidences regarding what i believe but i guess you missed the indication.

Now you are claiming that, quote

I never presented any evidence, i am a Sceptic demanding more evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never presented any evidence, i am a Sceptic demanding more evidence.

well, Harsh, isnt that a bit too tacky on your side??

Skeptic?

really???? Seriously???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, Harsh, isnt that a bit too tacky on your side??

Skeptic?

really???? Seriously???

I am modestly claiming to be a better skeptic then many out here at UM, as i am skeptical of all unverified information from fringe as well as the mainstream.

I can't be selectively skeptical only of Fringe theories, as then i wouldn't be a true skeptic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am modestly claiming to be a better skeptic then many out here at UM, as i am skeptical of all unverified information from fringe as well as the mainstream.

I can't be selectively skeptical only of Fringe theories, as then i wouldn't be a true skeptic.

Only if there were to be a *face slaps* emotive, available on this forum... :mellow:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are really sinking deep with our bewilderment, though excuse me, you have bewildered me furthermore...

Quote

Now you are claiming that, quote

So then if you know what evidences i was talking about to support the idea of an ancient lost global civilization i.e great cities structures around the world build in antiquity and some lying underwater currently then why would you ask me again. I specifically also mentioned Gobekli Tepe, Gulf of Khambat Dwarka, The Stone cities in the mountains of South America... all these are indicative of ancient civilizations which may have been global in nature or interactions.

I thought you were asking me for evidence for my theory that "We don't really know who built the great pyramids?" for which i don't need to put any evidence.

Also i would like to know, which of my suggestions contradict themselves according to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if there were to be a *face slaps* emotive, available on this forum... :mellow:

Lol.. i guess your bewilderment arises because a "Skeptic" shouldn't question the mainstream according to you. Am i right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For all intents and purposes question "mainstream" concepts and theories, though in doing so, provide explanations and adequate evidence, to support and maintain your own concepts...

Edited by Nefer-Ankhe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to think, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:

  • (a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
  • (B) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
  • © the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

In philosophy, scepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:

  • (a) an inquiry,
  • (B) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
  • © the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
  • (d) the limitations of knowledge,
  • (e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

whut ?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Harsh is a person who doesnt like OCcam's Razor or selectively uses Occam's Razor when he finds it fit for his claims and theories, i cant accept his claim of being a skeptic.

A skeptic who doesnt like OCcam's Razor???

Naah. Thats a fictious charachter!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am modestly claiming to be a better skeptic then many out here at UM, as i am skeptical of all unverified information from fringe as well as the mainstream.

I would say that you are being a scoffer and not a skeptic. One comment you have used several times is to claim that this is "based on a fraud by Vyse." The evidence against that claim is overwhelming as you were shown in the thread about that topic.

Even one of the fringe authors agrees that the relieving chamber hieroglyphics are genuine. Graham Hancock states:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/features/trenches-p4.htm

Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.. i guess your bewilderment arises because a "Skeptic" shouldn't question the mainstream according to you. Am i right?

This is the problem.

They just made a bunch of assumptions about the great pyramids and their builders and

most of the time most Egyptologists and their followers are incapable of an examination of

those assumptions. All Egyptological knowledge and expertise rests on the assumptions

so examining them at this point is akin to physicist questioning Euclid or a computer pro-

grammer doubting ones and zeroes.

They don't have an actual opinion on ideas that don't accept the assumptions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem.

They just made a bunch of assumptions about the great pyramids and their builders and

most of the time most Egyptologists and their followers are incapable of an examination of

those assumptions. All Egyptological knowledge and expertise rests on the assumptions

so examining them at this point is akin to physicist questioning Euclid or a computer pro-

grammer doubting ones and zeroes.

They don't have an actual opinion on ideas that don't accept the assumptions.

You should watch the video I posted here:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=246498&st=30#entry4746183

And then you will hear Hawass say it was the most sane theory he knew of for the construction of the GP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have an actual opinion on ideas that don't accept the assumptions.

You are absolutely wrong.

They have opinions. we have opinions.

All they and we ask of you is to back your assumptions with evidences.

can you do that???

What happened to your Geyser theory??

Didnt it fizzle out just because every evidence you brought up in support of it was proved to be un-evidence.

So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely wrong.

They have opinions. we have opinions.

All they and we ask of you is to back your assumptions with evidences.

can you do that???

I can cite evidence all day long that the people of Egypt changed between the time the

great pyramids were built and when the language of the PT was translated. You can't

show any evidence they didn't change other than a continuity of occupation and a sim-

ilarity of language and "religion". If I try to argue this with an Egyptologist it proves im-

possible because they can't argue without the assumption that there was no change. They

have a good feel and lots of evidence about the later people but all they have for earlier

folks is interpretation.

It almost has to be this way because Egyptology excludes anyone who doesn't accept the

assumptions. They each interpret all the evidence in terms of the paradigm and there is

a paucity of solid determinative evidence. Almost everything "known" by Egyptology con-

cerning the great pyramid builders is derived directly or indirectly from the paradigm. They

think and view things from the perspective of the paradigm. Before an argument gets well

underway they will jump to the conclusion based on the assumptions.

This is just the way it is.

What happened to your ... theory??

Didnt it fizzle out just because every evidence you brought up in support of it was proved to be un-evidence.

So?

Guess again.

I'm still working on it .

I have mentioned numerous new things predicted by my theory in several threads recently.

It is imperative that I stay on topic no matter how far a thread strays.

Of course opinions vary but in my opinion I've won every argument on the subject other than

some which have caused me to amend the theory to better fit the evidence. There might be

virtually no evidence at all but everything that does exist points to the simple fact that they used

water to pull stones up the side.

These were simply not the same people who wrote the book of the dead. They may not have

been aliens or lived 10,000 years ago but they were very much different than later people. Un-

til actual science is done at the pyramids there's very little that can be positively ruled out by

the existing evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can cite evidence all day long that the people of Egypt changed between the time the

great pyramids were built and when the language of the PT was translated.

Well that's a moot suggestion, rather, perhaps you can cite all day long, evidence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians changed (aka species? race? people?) immediately after the completion of the great pyramids of Giza? After all, that is, what this topic was originally and ultimately about...

Here's a documentary, I thought I would just add, about the great pyramids of Giza, which may interest a few...

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUq--NJRPC8[/media]

Edited by Nefer-Ankhe

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.