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 8
vampiredreamer

hidden chambers under the great sphinx

755 posts in this topic

I'm with you kmt!! That's hilarious. lol-052.GIF

Edited by Qoais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Reuter, December 10, 2010

From our correspondent in Cairo, Egypt.

Brian Johnson reports:

"Mummy of Cheops finally found, stuck on a toilet in a cavern right below the Sphinx.

The hieroglyphs on the gold plated door of the small stone closet, according to Zahi Hawass, the leading Egyptologist at the site, said something like, "Fck off, Im crapping"

But the literal translation went like, "Oh Horus, I beg Thee !! Be mercifull!! I will need the rest of my lifetime to give birth to these bricks."

Thanks Abe, I can now explain to my colleagues why I burst out laughing. Good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my colleagues have already called for the ambulance from asylum when they have seen me laughing non stop....gotta hide :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Sphinx area is defined as "anything within 100' of the Sphinx then the odds of hitting a 10' by 10' enclosure underneath by drilling infinitely deep holes

is a 1 in 1,060.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that a hall of records has been .0943% disproven since the placement of the holes is such that it appears they were trying to miss anything

important and they drilled to only 75'.

Of course six holes would be about .5% likely to hit a chamber.

Nothing has been proven or disproven.

How did you calculate these numbers cladking? I have some background in these types of calculations. Your previous reference to the game Battleship suggests that these numbers are unlikely to be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Gabriel's pictures are interesting, but the shapes draws are just based off of pareidolia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you calculate these numbers cladking? I have some background in these types of calculations. Your previous reference to the game Battleship suggests that these numbers are unlikely to be correct.

They are very conservative as is the definition of the Sphinx.

200' (+200')x 65' (+200). I cut some corners and figured only one

chamber could be hit per hole and figured holes as lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Gabriel's pictures are interesting, but the shapes draws are just based off of pareidolia.

I agree Shadow. Abe gave me a lesson in it quite recently. Pareidolia aside is it the cave he claims? If so is it typically egyptian practice to make such carvings? Then, could a few of the ones he picks out be genuine or could someone make such pictires out of any old cave?

The one with the reptoid head looked photoshopped to me, your take? Like I need to ask. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cave photographed by Richard Gabriel is the same one

found and discussed by Andrew Collins. It's been about a

year now and there is still no word by the powers that be.

They won't say if they are exploring the cave or even if it

exists.

I wonder what they're afraid of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cave photographed by Richard Gabriel is the same one

found and discussed by Andrew Collins. It's been about a

year now and there is still no word by the powers that be.

They won't say if they are exploring the cave or even if it

exists.

I wonder what they're afraid of.

I don't expect that anyone will be running to explore those caves based on this Richard Gabriel's 'observations'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Shadow. Abe gave me a lesson in it quite recently. Pareidolia aside is it the cave he claims? If so is it typically egyptian practice to make such carvings? Then, could a few of the ones he picks out be genuine or could someone make such pictires out of any old cave?

The one with the reptoid head looked photoshopped to me, your take? Like I need to ask. :lol:

You had asked me to comment on this, too, Slim. I have to agree with Shadow. To be honest I have a hard time understanding what exactly this web page is supposed to be inferring, but in all cases as demonstrated I think the author is seeing what he wants to see. Or he is just looking really hard to see something, anything, and is letting his imagination get away with him. So, yes, pareidolia.

It was not generally the practice for the Egyptians to carve random pictures onto rock faces. Even in prehistory, rock paintings usually belong to coherent contexts. Would the occasional random rock picture appear here and there? Sure, but this guy is seeing images on practically every surface. In other words, it's silly bull-flop.

The photos do seem to be of the same location as presented by Andrew Collins. To date, however, even Collins has not demonstrated conclusively that the caves in his photos actually lie below NC2 (his "Tomb of the Birds"). And if they do, to my knowledge he has yet to present accurate measurements and mapping to make sense of the subterranean features. In other words, we have nothing reliable by which to assess his claims.

The cave photographed by Richard Gabriel is the same one

found and discussed by Andrew Collins. It's been about a

year now and there is still no word by the powers that be.

They won't say if they are exploring the cave or even if it

exists.

I wonder what they're afraid of.

The SCA recently excavated and examined this tomb, cladking. I'm sure you're as aware of this as I am. The SCA officially stated that there was nothing unusual to report. There is your answer. If you choose to disbelieve it, that is your choice, but please stop complaining that there's been "no word." It's just not the kind of "word" you wanted to hear. One cannot blame the SCA for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Shadow. Abe gave me a lesson in it quite recently. Pareidolia aside is it the cave he claims? If so is it typically egyptian practice to make such carvings? Then, could a few of the ones he picks out be genuine or could someone make such pictires out of any old cave?

The one with the reptoid head looked photoshopped to me, your take? Like I need to ask. :lol:

My thing would be that none of this looks like what we know of Egyptian art.

They didn't do a lot of foreshortening or perspective drawings, their art is predominantly flat and 2d.

Kmt_Sesh will probably correct me, but I just don't know of anything.

For that matter, some of these I think the guy is just kidding.

Like the group of pots or side corridor, makes me wonder if maybe he's just making it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you calculate these numbers cladking? I have some background in these types of calculations. Your previous reference to the game Battleship suggests that these numbers are unlikely to be correct.

I agree with you Stereologist.

I make the area to be 31415 sqft.

If the "hall" is 10x10 (100 sqft,) then there's technically room for 314 of them in cladking's assume vicinity (this counts underneath the sphinx itself.)

If 6 holes were drilled randomly, I calculate a probability more along the lines of 2%.

Not great, but more than was posted.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get 200' + 200' = 400'

X

65' + 200' = 265'

=

106,000 ft ^ 2

/

10' X 10' = 100 ft ^ 2

=

1: 1060

=

.0009433

=

.094% chance per hole.

X 5 holes

=

~.5% chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SCA recently excavated and examined this tomb, cladking. I'm sure you're as aware of this as I am. The SCA officially stated that there was nothing unusual to report. There is your answer. If you choose to disbelieve it, that is your choice, but please stop complaining that there's been "no word." It's just not the kind of "word" you wanted to hear. One cannot blame the SCA for that.

Yes! You're quite right but this information in a vacuum is misleading.

He announced there was nothing there before Gabriel took the photos and

referred to the wrong tomb. This was also before they put a gate over it

to keep people out.

He also said at the same time that there were no caves at Giza while he

had mud under his fingernails from a cave he was exploring... ...well...

...at Giza; in the Osiris Shaft. If this weren't confounding enough it

was about two days later that he announced that everything was known about

Giza and there were "other unscientific theories" floating around on the

net.

Common sense says all these statements are meaningless due to either con-

tent or context. For practical purposes they have been mum on anything

related to caves under Giza except he has said he's building a better ro-

bot to explore the cave in the Osiris Shaft (that doesn't exist).

Ya' just gotta love egyptology and egyptologists. ;)

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! You're quite right but this information in a vacuum is misleading.

He announced there was nothing there before Gabriel took the photos and

referred to the wrong tomb. This was also before they put a gate over it

to keep people out.

He also said at the same time that there were no caves at Giza while he

had mud under his fingernails from a cave he was exploring... ...well...

...at Giza; in the Osiris Shaft. If this weren't confounding enough it

was about two days later that he announced that everything was known about

Giza and there were "other unscientific theories" floating around on the

net.

Common sense says all these statements are meaningless due to either con-

tent or context. For practical purposes they have been mum on anything

related to caves under Giza except he has said he's building a better ro-

bot to explore the cave in the Osiris Shaft (that doesn't exist).

Ya' just gotta love egyptology and egyptologists. ;)

Love 'em or hate 'em, they're the people who know what they're talking about. You have decided to ignore the official position after the report was made, and then you complain no report was made. And then you complain about the report that was made. You're unhappy with the conclusions because they do not meet with your own personal, preconceived notions. That's all it is.

Stop digging for the average internet twaddle and unsubstantiated fringe tripe, and listen more carefully to the facts as presented in published reports. You constantly harp on Zahi Hawass, so stop complaining and go looking for articles and papers and reports written by other Giza archaeologists. You and others seem to think he's the final word on Giza. Good lord, you have no idea how far from reality that is. You're looking for a needle in a haystack but you're doing so from outer space--so far from the facts that you can't see them as anything more than a blur.

NC2 was locked and barred to keep more kooks and pot-hunters from entering. The SCA should be applauded for doing so. And in case you haven't noticed, hundreds of other tombs in the Nile Valley are likewise locked. They're locked for a reason, but to assume it's for the purposes of hiding "THE TRUTH" is lowering yourself to a level of juvenile paranoid nonsense, and you're better than that.

The SCA has submitted its findings on NC2. Accept that. No evidence exists to substantiate the notion that the substrata of Giza is riddled with extensive caves and "subways." Accept that, too. It exists on loony fringe websites but not in the real world. There's so much more to Giza and its environs. There is so much history and culture, but all you and others want to do is dredge up conspiracy theories. That's just sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which statement am I to believe?

You can't pick and choose what half of a contradictory statement

to believe any more than you can ignore facts that don't fit your

preconcieved ideas. All the facts count and all of an official

statement counts. Official statements before the fact are wholly

irrelevent. It doesn't matter if it's a day before or a century

before, when something new turns up it requires a new look and a

new answer or it's tantamount to no official response.

You suggest Mr Hawass is irrelevent to egyptology and I'm sure you

aren't that far off. But he does call the shots. If they aren't

exploring thjese caves it's because he personally doesn't want to.

If they aren't doing basic science like infrared imaging and mi-

croscopic analysis it's because he doesn't want to. He believes a

book of fiction written a thousand years after the great pyramids

were built contains clues to Khufu's treasure so he is too busy

looking for it while everyone else is too busy looking for ramps

to do even the most rudimentary science.

I wonder if anyone has even poked his head in the cave. I wonder

if Mr Hawass has noticed he said there were no caves at Giza while

he was exploring a cave at Giza. I'm sure he knows Giza means

"mouth of caves". This should provide a clue that even the most

focused egyptologist might note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which statement am I to believe?

You can't pick and choose what half of a contradictory statement

to believe any more than you can ignore facts that don't fit your

preconcieved ideas. All the facts count and all of an official

statement counts. Official statements before the fact are wholly

irrelevent. It doesn't matter if it's a day before or a century

before, when something new turns up it requires a new look and a

new answer or it's tantamount to no official response.

George Reisner and his team excavated the same three NC tombs in the 1930s. They set up one as a bomb shelter as tensions in Europe were building toward WWII. Few archaeologists in history were as polished and professional as Reisner--a man ahead of his time. And yet, even considering the maps and plans of the NC tombs that Harvard has in its archives as a result of these excavations, no mention of vast networks of caves. Now the SCA has gone in and performed its own excavations. And yet, no mention of vast networks of caves. Why isn't this enough? You're willing to believe some photos of unsubstantiated origin and word-of-mouth without any sort of corroboration, but professional archaeologists aren't good enough. Quite amazing, that.

You suggest Mr Hawass is irrelevent to egyptology and I'm sure you

aren't that far off.

Please don't try to represent me. It's neither appropriate nor acceptable. Nowhere in my previous post nor in any post I've ever written have I said that Hawass is "irrelevant to Egyptology." I have publicly stated my issues with Hawass and some of the things he has said, but that's another thing. I was stressing the fact that you constantly harp on Hawass as though he's some kind of boogyman, and what's more, the one and only word on Giza. Therefore, you do not understand the reality of professional excavations at Giza. All I said was "stop complaining and go looking for articles and papers and reports written by other Giza archaeologists." There are other archaeologists out there, you know.

I seriously doubt you're even familiar with Hawass's work. You troll websites as though they're the means for legitimate research. I rather doubt you've ever read one of his books, and I am quite certain you've never read one of his peer-reviewed papers. It's easier for you just to use him as a whipping-boy, which is something all too many posters at UM do. It's quite tedious.

But he does call the shots.

He does not. He and the agency he heads does have the power to govern who and which agencies conduct excavations and research in Egypt, but he does not control either the excavations or the research. The controlling body is the university, museum, or institute by which the archaeologist or researcher is employed. Hawass and the agency he heads also controls site conservation and protection, and to put it in plain English, to berate the SCA for keeping a tomb locked is simply just absurd. Stop looking for boogymen and shady conspiracies and at least try to understand the reality of the situation!

If they aren't exploring thjese caves it's because he personally doesn't want to.

Or it's because there are no caves. Or if there are caves, it's because they show no sign of human presence or effect and are therefore not germane to archaeology and the human history of the Plateau. Stop inventing conspiracies.

If they aren't doing basic science like infrared imaging and mi-

croscopic analysis it's because he doesn't want to.

Infrared imaging may or may not be practical. There is no pressing need to use infrared right at this moment in time. Other archaeological issues are considerably more important. No professional archaeological institution, up to and including the SCA, is going to fund and plan its projects based on the fantasies, desires, and whims of fringe fanatics. Why on earth should we expect them to? Stop inventing conspiracies.

Microscopic analysis is used every day in Egyptology. It's been conducted on many of the monuments at Giza for years. If you knew anything whatsoever about Egyptology, you would understand this. Many, many times you have stated that Egyptologists still adhere to a nineteenth century methodology, which glaringly reveals how little you know about the field of Egyptology.

He believes a

book of fiction written a thousand years after the great pyramids

were built contains clues to Khufu's treasure so he is too busy

looking for it while everyone else is too busy looking for ramps

to do even the most rudimentary science.

I'm not sure what book you're talking about. Herodotus? I don't know what you mean. And neither Hawass nor any other archaeologist working in Egypt spends much time at all looking for ramps. You obsess over ramps probably more than all Egyptologists combined. Much more important to Egyptology is what the Great Pyramid meant to the Egyptians of Dynasty 4. In the end, of course, this question is considerably more important. You ought to understand this but you're obsessed with ramps.

I wonder if anyone has even poked his head in the cave. I wonder

if Mr Hawass has noticed he said there were no caves at Giza while

he was exploring a cave at Giza. I'm sure he knows Giza means

"mouth of caves". This should provide a clue that even the most

focused egyptologist might note.

"Mouth of caves" refers to the entrance to the underworld. It doesn't necessarily refer to any actual cave. You would understand this if you would close your browser and pick up a decent book on ancient Egyptian religion. And I don't know of any caves at Giza that Hawass has explored. He crawled into a tunnel that had been carved into the Sphinx. Not a cave. He headed up the excavation of the Osiris shaft. Not a cave. These are all manmade features, the latter of which almost certainly doesn't even date to Dynasty 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Reisner and his team excavated the same three NC tombs in the 1930s. They set up one as a bomb shelter as tensions in Europe were building toward WWII. Few archaeologists in history were as polished and professional as Reisner--a man ahead of his time. And yet, even considering the maps and plans of the NC tombs that Harvard has in its archives as a result of these excavations, no mention of vast networks of caves. Now the SCA has gone in and performed its own excavations. And yet, no mention of vast networks of caves. Why isn't this enough? You're willing to believe some photos of unsubstantiated origin and word-of-mouth without any sort of corroboration, but professional archaeologists aren't good enough. Quite amazing, that.

Please don't try to represent me. It's neither appropriate nor acceptable. Nowhere in my previous post nor in any post I've ever written have I said that Hawass is "irrelevant to Egyptology." I have publicly stated my issues with Hawass and some of the things he has said, but that's another thing. I was stressing the fact that you constantly harp on Hawass as though he's some kind of boogyman, and what's more, the one and only word on Giza. Therefore, you do not understand the reality of professional excavations at Giza. All I said was "stop complaining and go looking for articles and papers and reports written by other Giza archaeologists." There are other archaeologists out there, you know.

I seriously doubt you're even familiar with Hawass's work. You troll websites as though they're the means for legitimate research. I rather doubt you've ever read one of his books, and I am quite certain you've never read one of his peer-reviewed papers. It's easier for you just to use him as a whipping-boy, which is something all too many posters at UM do. It's quite tedious.

He does not. He and the agency he heads does have the power to govern who and which agencies conduct excavations and research in Egypt, but he does not control either the excavations or the research. The controlling body is the university, museum, or institute by which the archaeologist or researcher is employed. Hawass and the agency he heads also controls site conservation and protection, and to put it in plain English, to berate the SCA for keeping a tomb locked is simply just absurd. Stop looking for boogymen and shady conspiracies and at least try to understand the reality of the situation!

Or it's because there are no caves. Or if there are caves, it's because they show no sign of human presence or effect and are therefore not germane to archaeology and the human history of the Plateau. Stop inventing conspiracies.

Infrared imaging may or may not be practical. There is no pressing need to use infrared right at this moment in time. Other archaeological issues are considerably more important. No professional archaeological institution, up to and including the SCA, is going to fund and plan its projects based on the fantasies, desires, and whims of fringe fanatics. Why on earth should we expect them to? Stop inventing conspiracies.

Microscopic analysis is used every day in Egyptology. It's been conducted on many of the monuments at Giza for years. If you knew anything whatsoever about Egyptology, you would understand this. Many, many times you have stated that Egyptologists still adhere to a nineteenth century methodology, which glaringly reveals how little you know about the field of Egyptology.

I'm not sure what book you're talking about. Herodotus? I don't know what you mean. And neither Hawass nor any other archaeologist working in Egypt spends much time at all looking for ramps. You obsess over ramps probably more than all Egyptologists combined. Much more important to Egyptology is what the Great Pyramid meant to the Egyptians of Dynasty 4. In the end, of course, this question is considerably more important. You ought to understand this but you're obsessed with ramps.

"Mouth of caves" refers to the entrance to the underworld. It doesn't necessarily refer to any actual cave. You would understand this if you would close your browser and pick up a decent book on ancient Egyptian religion. And I don't know of any caves at Giza that Hawass has explored. He crawled into a tunnel that had been carved into the Sphinx. Not a cave. He headed up the excavation of the Osiris shaft. Not a cave. These are all manmade features, the latter of which almost certainly doesn't even date to Dynasty 4.

You do realize don't you that your recent posts have quite likely fallen on deaf ears? AGAIN.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get 200' + 200' = 400'

X

65' + 200' = 265'

=

106,000 ft ^ 2

/

10' X 10' = 100 ft ^ 2

=

1: 1060

=

.0009433

=

.094% chance per hole.

X 5 holes

=

~.5% chance.

Your area was rectangular. I went circular with the center at the center of the sphinx.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize don't you that your recent posts have quite likely fallen on deaf ears? AGAIN.

cormac

A repeating pattern, eh? I know, I know, I must be attracted to pain. Why not join in? It's rather like banging your head against the wall, which is ever so much fun!

In truth, I can't help myself. When I see obvious inaccuracies and misrepresentation of facts, I am compelled to strike the necessary balance. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A repeating pattern, eh? I know, I know, I must be attracted to pain. Why not join in? It's rather like banging your head against the wall, which is ever so much fun!

In truth, I can't help myself. When I see obvious inaccuracies and misrepresentation of facts, I am compelled to strike the necessary balance. :yes:

I have to wonder, is it possible to beat the remains of a dead horse, ON THE SUB-ATOMIC LEVEL?

Besides, why would I wish to deprive you of being a glutton for punishment. Besides, we all know that a few years of inconsequential/poor research on the part of a few trumps your 20 years of knowing what the hell you're talking about. :w00t:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder, is it possible to beat the remains of a dead horse, ON THE SUB-ATOMIC LEVEL?

Besides, why would I wish to deprive you of being a glutton for punishment. Besides, we all know that a few years of inconsequential/poor research on the part of a few trumps your 20 years of knowing what the hell you're talking about. :w00t:

cormac

Damn straight! :lol:

In all honesty the length of time one commits to research and study is, in the end, not so important as the sources one uses. I've been highly impressed with the knowhow of some docents I've trained at the museum who have been studying ancient Egypt for only a few years. It's a pleasure to work with them. We have one new young fellow who didn't know squat about ancient Egypt but was simply interested. He's turned to very good sources and he's coming along great. He also happens to be a good-looking guy, so he's very popular with the females on the staff. :devil:

But when your sources do not extend beyond the internet and perhaps the occasional very basic reference book of coffee-table variety, you're not going to know a hell of a lot. It's even worse when you gobble up fringe books, which are guaranteed to lead you astray. You and I have both seen that all over UM. Worst of all is when you think you don't need to study at all and seem to think you already have the answers. Sad, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Reisner and his team excavated the same three NC tombs in the 1930s. They set up one as a bomb shelter as tensions in Europe were building toward WWII. Few archaeologists in history were as polished and professional as Reisner--a man ahead of his time. And yet, even considering the maps and plans of the NC tombs that Harvard has in its archives as a result of these excavations, no mention of vast networks of caves. Now the SCA has gone in and performed its own excavations. And yet, no mention of vast networks of caves. Why isn't this enough? You're willing to believe some photos of unsubstantiated origin and word-of-mouth without any sort of corroboration, but professional archaeologists aren't good enough. Quite amazing, that.

If Hawass were to announce tommorow that there are no caves

in the Tomb of the Birds I would not hesitate to believe him.

Of course it can't be part of a sentencve that says that con-

tradicts it or containing a contention that he's always known

everything. It has to be specific to the topic and noncontra-

dictory. Anything else means nothing. He has not done this

yet.

Please don't try to represent me. It's neither appropriate nor acceptable. Nowhere in my previous post nor in any post I've ever written have I said that Hawass is "irrelevant to Egyptology." I have publicly stated my issues with Hawass and some of the things he has said, but that's another thing. I was stressing the fact that you constantly harp on Hawass as though he's some kind of boogyman, and what's more, the one and only word on Giza. Therefore, you do not understand the reality of professional excavations at Giza. All I said was "stop complaining and go looking for articles and papers and reports written by other Giza archaeologists." There are other archaeologists out there, you know.

I have no problem with Mr Hawass. He seems like a nice enough

person. He also seems reasonably competent but I don't believe

he's a good leader. There's also the fact that he's setting back

a field that's already 150 years behind.

I seriously doubt you're even familiar with Hawass's work. You troll websites as though they're the means for legitimate research. I rather doubt you've ever read one of his books, and I am quite certain you've never read one of his peer-reviewed papers. It's easier for you just to use him as a whipping-boy, which is something all too many posters at UM do. It's quite tedious.

Well, I'm more familiar with the work he has not allowed than what

he has. I do not approve of all of the work he does such as drill-

ing holes in the pyramid.

Stop looking for boogymen and shady conspiracies and at least try to understand the reality of the situation!

I have never seriously suggested there is a conspiracy. I have said

repeatedly that everyone's mind is already made up. When you know

something it's no longer necessary to look at everything.

Or it's because there are no caves. Or if there are caves, it's because they show no sign of human presence or effect and are therefore not germane to archaeology and the human history of the Plateau.

Until caves are searched, mapped, and understood it's impossible to

say what is germaine and what is not. I give Hawass credit for ex-

ploring the cave in the Osiris Shaft but his resoponsibility doesn't

end there simply because he doesn't think caves are relevent. Until

there are answers we don't know what's relevent.

Infrared imaging may or may not be practical.

How is it possible that it isn't? Regular cameras won't be practical

next.

There is no pressing need to use infrared right at this moment in time.

I have a lot of respect for your opinion but you're way off base here.

There's always a pressing need for all data and this goes a million times

over for data related to current theory and fundamental knowledge. Men

didn't fight their way out of the cave in order to hide their eyes from

the truth. We didn't invent infrared cameras to not use them.

Other archaeological issues are considerably more important. No professional archaeological institution, up to and including the SCA, is going to fund and plan its projects based on the fantasies, desires, and whims of fringe fanatics. Why on earth should we expect them to? Stop inventing conspiracies.

Hawass turned down Houdin. If you want to make a conspiracy out of this

so be it. There is a great deal of basic science not being done. One thing

it all has in common is that it can disprove ramps. The commonality of the

investigation that is going on is that it could prove ramps. (Of course there

is nothing whatsoever that can prove what never existed)

Microscopic analysis is used every day in Egyptology. It's been conducted on many of the monuments at Giza for years. If you knew anything whatsoever about Egyptology, you would understand this. Many, many times you have stated that Egyptologists still adhere to a nineteenth century methodology, which glaringly reveals how little you know about the field of Egyptology.

I never claimed to know everything.

I rely on people who know to set me straight. My point isn't that no one

in Egypt is familiar with a microscope, my point is there's never been a

systematic microscopic examination of the Great Pyramid. My understanding

is that it has never even been totally excavated. There are various holes

which haven't been cleaned out. I know there's at least one just north.

I'm not sure what book you're talking about. Herodotus? I don't know what you mean. And neither Hawass nor any other archaeologist working in Egypt spends much time at all looking for ramps. You obsess over ramps probably more than all Egyptologists combined. Much more important to Egyptology is what the Great Pyramid meant to the Egyptians of Dynasty 4. In the end, of course, this question is considerably more important. You ought to understand this but you're obsessed with ramps.

Well, technically you're right. But the fact remains that the assumptions

are still well entrenched. The pyramids are tombs built with ramps and the

PT are magic.

How can you know what the pyramid meant to the Egyptians if you mistakingly

believe they were tombs? How much farther from a good understanding can there

be? Why are the assumptions sacrosanct except that without them it's back to

square one?

You say I'm obsessed with ramps but effectively ramps have been disproven and

the fact doesn't seem to have an effect on the assumptions. Very few people

even care how they were built because they're too busy building on the assump-

tions. I believe all these assumptions are wrong.

I don't know the name of the book but a statue of an alligator turns into a

living animal. To me this means itr's a work of fiction but it might mean

something else to egyptologists.

"Mouth of caves" refers to the entrance to the underworld. It doesn't necessarily refer to any actual cave. You would understand this if you would close your browser and pick up a decent book on ancient Egyptian religion. And I don't know of any caves at Giza that Hawass has explored. He crawled into a tunnel that had been carved into the Sphinx. Not a cave. He headed up the excavation of the Osiris shaft. Not a cave. These are all manmade features, the latter of which almost certainly doesn't even date to Dynasty 4.

Maybe you're right.

But the fact is that the only thing left to us by the

pyramid builders doesn't seem to agree with you. I'm

sorry but when it comes to the word of even the most

learned egyptologist or the guy who built it I'm going

with the word ofthe guy who built it every single time.

Of course he might have meant it metaphorically but this

is for modern people to show and there has been no co-

herent word on the subject from the field.

This is why I say leadership is lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder, is it possible to beat the remains of a dead horse, ON THE SUB-ATOMIC LEVEL?

Yes, but you have to be able to create, maintain, accelerate and precisely control an oaton beam.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hawass were to announce tommorow that there are no caves

in the Tomb of the Birds I would not hesitate to believe him.

Doubt it on both counts. First there is a cave at the end of the tomb of the bird, about 30 feet long and at its widest 6 feet wide. That cave has been mapped since the 1830s and figures in all catalogs of the Giza plateau since 1936. Which really shows how much a certain Mr. Collins knew about the subject matter when he claimed to have "discovered" it. Or how much he wants to mislead his readers... which really would be low. In any case, that alone discredits him and his Swiss Cheese theory.

In fact that is not the only cave there, many tombs ended in a cave or were started from a cave. Caves are a normal occurrence in limestone. But they are mostly very small and short, sometimes not even high enough to crawl in them. Any significant shaft in the Giza limestone would be in constant danger of collapse due to the weight on it, especially if under any of the pyramids.

Large caves constantly "cave in" causing tremors, especially the kind that is eroded by water or have to carry a high weight on them. Did you ever bother to check the seismic record of the Giza plateau? Thought so. There are more tremors due to mine shaft collapses in West Virginia then in Giza. Which is something to consider before running wild on a theory.

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 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.