Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Paul Hai

Giza Pyramid construction

1,175 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Vaz
2 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

According to Dunn's detailed scientific analysis the microwaves were clearly directed upwards, emerging 200 ft up the pyramid at about 45°.  So unless your hippopotami are flying hippos your idea is just silly.

ON THE OTHER HAND...  I haven't seen any of you self-proclaimed so-called experts prove that hippos never flew.  So it remains possible that the Atlanteans trained bomb-laden hippos to fly at Egyptian (or their anonymous ancestors') monuments during the Great Mediterranean War of 11963 BC, so the Egyptians (or their anonymous ancestors) developed microwave cannons to shoot them down.  

Of course some of you will mock this notion, saying there is no evidence for it.  But there is no evidence that the Sun is hot - have you ever been there?  There is no evidence that the Earth is round, or America exists, or penguins like rhubarb, but we all accept these as facts.  So why not simply accept the evidence of the pyramids?  Why else would the microwave beam point into the sky?

Put it this way Tom I'm far more likely to listen to a precision engineer like Dunn who has studied the GP, has the measurements and has carried out all necessary analysis than your goodself.  He has thebackground and you don't.  No disrespect intended.

Has anyone on this thread really studied the pyramid?  If so how come no one appears to regard it any differently to a say a Roman Road?  

Is everyone here seriously lacking the necessary knowledge I wonder?

People here talk about:

  • The pyramid wandering through tectonic plate movement yet the calcs indicate this to be miniscule
  • Drunken builders
  • Hardly any granite used.
  • 'Stacking rocks'
  • No precision in the build. Try looking at the descending passageway for a starter.
  • Copper tools
  • Built as a tomb

In short the ravings of people who are desperate to stick to a party line at any cost to protect the status quo, totally oblivious to truth and reality.

Not an impressive situation.

Cheers

Edited by Vaz
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
7 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Certainly there would have been a scandal

.... what you present as an argument is far from convincing.

 

 
SC: You’re arguing against your own position here, Hermione. That Vyse felt comfortable enough to challenge Caviglia’s accusations makes us wonder why he appears to have totally ducked those made against him by Pückler-Muskau. He’s happy to challenge Caviglia but not Pückler-Muskau —yes, telling indeed.
 
If you think that, then, quite simply, you haven't followed the argument. 
 
SC: You’re talking about the 1839 Athenaeum article. At best that article is ambiguous so it’s perfectly understandable why that less clear accusation wasn’t taken seriously. But not so the 1845 accusation which is wholly unambiguous and cannot be mistaken.
 
It was a letter - and no more ambiguous than the book.  You are making excuses.
 
SC: His 1845 book makes it perfectly clear who he was targeting with his accusation, Hermione.
 
Perfectly clear would be "Oberst Wyse hat die Hieroglyphen gefälscht!"  No such wording appears.
 
SC: It’s not a falsehood, Hermione. Go back and read the Preface in your own book. Any reader reading that Preface who was unfamiliar with the recent history of this issue would reasonably conclude  your book would not be using any material from Vyse’s private journal. There are no caveats or qualifiers to Stower’s statement. He did not go on to say, for example: “However, after some considerable time analysing Vyse’s scrawl, I was eventually able to read some of the more important pages.” But there’s nothing like that. So, as I said, any reader unfamiliar with the subject will get the impression that you gave up trying to read the private journal. Now, from my point of view, I, of course, know that Stower has been able to read a few passages from the private journal. However, my impression is that those few passages is all he has been able to read because your Preface gives the impression that you gave up trying to read any more and thus didn’t find any new important insights. So, Hermione—this is not a falsehood on my part. It’s what I have seen, what I have evidenced from you both. Perhaps making Stower’s statement clearer in your book’s Preface might help clarify your position on the private journal.
 
You cannot possibly know what Martin Stower did and thought in 1998 on this subject.
 
SC: “Have you?” This is pure deflection from my question, Hermione. I’m going to tell you right now that you haven’t any such empirical evidence to support your conjecture about Walter Allen embellishing his 1954 logbook. There—I’ve thrown down the gauntlet for you. Prove me wrong. But you won’t—because I’m right.
 
There are many reasons for the various conclusions in Strange Journey.  However, if you've chosen not to read the book, you won't know what they are.
 
However: your "empirical" evidence warrants treating the logbook as evidence?  But of course, when you're doing it, different standards apply.
 
Where, for that matter, is the "empirical" evidence supporting your conjecture that the royal names are forgeries?  We were promised "recent chemical analysis of the marks" - remember?
 
SC: Hermione—remember when I PROVED to you (with documentary evidence) that the date in the chamber was the chamber’s opening date and not Hill’s painting date? You accepted my PROOF of that. So yes—I have proved some of my argument beyond reasonable doubt. So yes, there are points that can be proved (beyond reasonable doubt) and others where the alternative view stretches credibility to breaking point; where it breaks the bounds of simple common sense. Is it realistic, for example, to suggest that Mr Hill didn’t know what day of the week it was? Is it realistic to suggest that Mr Hill did not consult with Vyse about the inscription to be placed on the chamber wall? Is it realistic to suggest that Mr Hill could have misremembered a 6 into a 9? (Perhaps—but then this is contradicted by other evidence where he clearly didn’t misremember. Can you point to any evidence that shows Mr Hill had a poor memory?). Is it realistic that if this were a genuine mistake that it would not have been corrected? Is it realistic that Mr Hill could get this inscription wrong when he got all the others correct? Is it realistic that he would not take great care in getting an important inscription absolutely correct?
 
Sorry, no.  But I see you've provided a link ...
 
SC: Given the above then, on the balance of probability, in my opinion, Mr Hill made no mistake.
 
I've presented my argument to you Hermione (with supporting evidence) that, as far as I am concerned, gives "a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition." Yes, where necessary, some assumptions have been made but I don’t think any of them are unreasonable. Here's my argument, Hermione.
 
So not commenting is deemed now to be acceptance?  Sorry to disabuse you, but no.
 
SC: To counter my argument (presented above) you make the claim that Mr Hill merely made a "minor mistake" because he was fallible, he “misremembered”. You give no supporting evidence in support of your counter-claim. Nothing.  Given what I have offered in my own argument, I have to say, what you present as an argument is far from convincing.
 
What kind of evidence do you imagine there could be in such a case?  A transcript of Hill's thoughts?  Demanding evidence where there could be none is merely a ploy.  As I wrote earlier, the evidence in the case is the evidence of human fallibility.
Edited by Windowpane
missing word
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

The letter by Pückler-Muskau, published in The Athenaeum, September 21, 1839

...

SC: Oh, I will. And more besides...

 

SC: It most certain IS in question in his later book published in 1845. Let me run this past you again:
 
Quote

The hieroglyphics, said to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse, in the interior of the Great Pyramid, are not carved in the stone, but only traced, as with a finger dipped in paint, and have perhaps been lately pencilled on the wall. - Prince Pückler-Muskau, 1845.

SC: Notice what he has written in his opening sentence there, Hermione: “...The hieroglyphics said to have been discovered...” The short phrase “said to have” is very revealing, Hermione, as it qualifies his further comment about Vyse’s ‘discovery’. This short qualifying phrase is here to cast doubt upon what Vyse ‘discovered’. It’s like saying, “The hieroglyphics, alleged to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse...” or “The hieroglyphics, believed to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse...”  He then goes on to spell out for us precisely the nature of his doubt i.e. that the hieroglyphics said to have been (ahem) ‘discovered’ by Vyse “...have perhaps been lately pencilled on the wall.”

We've read it, Scott, thank you  ...  Along with a great deal else besides.
 
For instance, there's the letter published in the Athenaeum (which I see you've chosen to dismiss out of hand).  Let me remind you that in it we read of "[t]he hieroglyphics discovered by Colonel Vyse in the interior of the great pyramid": no caveat, no disclaimer.  We may be sure that at the time he was not accusing Vyse of anything.
 
And then in the very book you're citing, we find this (in the original German and in English translation):
 
Quote

I have confidence in the gallant and worthy Colonel Howard Vyse

 - although "the gallant and amiable Colonel Howard Vyse" would probably be truer to the original.

Is this the kind of thing one writes about someone one is accusing of serious wrongdoing?  
 
However, how credible and serious a source is Prince Pückler-Muskau himself?  He tells us here:
 
 
Quote

... as I am no learned archaeologist who looks for discoveries, I endeavour only to give the reader a true and intelligible picture of the whole, conformably [sic] to the individual impression which it produced on me, ...

 

He himself got no further than Davison's Chamber; he was not there when the other chambers were opened.  He was not a witness; he has no inside information to offer.

SC: His ‘thoughts’ were certainly ambiguous in the 1839 article where your co-author has made the “unwarranted supposition” of what was meant. The 1845 book entirely clarifies his position.
 
On the contrary, the warrant is the words which Pückler-Muskau wrote, quoted verbatim.
 
Or is your exegesis above - your exposition of what Prince Pückler-Muskau meant - equally unwarranted?
 
SC: Comprehension? Go back and look at what your co-author thought Pückler-Muskau was meaning in his 1839 then compare with my interpretation of his 1845 statement. I think it is perfectly clear who has better understood Pückler-Muskau and it’s categorically not the co-author of your book. Seems like this might be something else you’ll have to revise in your book.
 
Your mere assertion that something is "perfectly clear" is not an argument.
 
SC: BREAKING NEWS: Staunch defender of Colonel Vyse rejects witness testimony accusing the Colonel of fraud.
 
(Now it's back to the imaginary courtroom?  Someone on another forum did this so much better ... )
 
You have in any case failed to understand the point.  Pückler-Muskau's theory that the pyramid passages are tunnels dug by (or for) the "priests" is a non-starter - or do you say otherwise?
 
SC: Hermione, in 1839 Pückler-Muskau explored “...every part [of the Great Pyramid] which was open...” He observed the inferior work of Vyse’s tunnelling to access the upper chambers. He absolutely would have known Vyse was first into those chambers. Your line of argumentation here is simply absurd.
 
In 1839?  You might want to check that date again ...
 
See my quote above, in which Pückler-Muskau disavows expert status.
 
SC: Now go to his updated 1845 comment, Hermione. (Incidentally, in spite of what you imagine, his 1839 comment does not make an explicit causal link between the chamber hieroglyphics and his belief in the priests digging passages. It simply doesn’t.)
 
Neither did he explicitly accuse Vyse of forgery, but it hasn't stopped you striving feverishly to give that impression.
 
SC: See above. He was at the scene of the crime, Hermione. He knew perfectly well that Vyse was first into those chambers. FGS – his own book was published 5 years after the publication of Operations so he would have had plenty of time to familiarise himself with the pertinent facts. And his published account clearly demonstrates he had perfect understanding of the chambers and passages that Vyse had created. Your attempting to gloss over this obvious fact is the only desperation on display here.
 
I see "would have" again.  So, anyone who ever walked down a certain street in Dallas was "at the scene" of Kennedy's assassination?  They couldn't have just been on their way to the Museum Gift Shop, or the Aquarium ...
 
SC: Oh, I will. And more besides...
 
Regrettably, this does not give the impression of quiet confidence that I'm sure you intended.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
19 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Yes the main problem is that not only is there no sign of the IC at the time the pyramids were built but before and afterwards too. I would wonder what the microwaves would have been used for - stunning hippopotami perhaps?

Cooking frozen burritos obviously. Even the ancient egyptian aliens had to eat!

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
10 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Cooking frozen burritos obviously. Even the ancient egyptian aliens had to eat!

You would learn a very great deal from this.  The meat of the lecture begins around 17:00

 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Quote

 

People here talk about:

       The pyramid wandering through tectonic plate movement yet the calcs indicate this to be miniscule

       Drunken builders

       Hardly any granite used.

       'Stacking rocks'

       No precision in the build. Try looking at the descending passageway for a starter.

       Copper tools

       Built as a tomb

 

In order: 

At no point in history has the Great Pyramid EVER been at 30N, the evidence has never supported your contention. 

Just a name of a work gang. Who cares?

8000 tons of granite in a structure that utilized an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks averaging 2.5 tons or 5,750,000 tons total; 500,000 tons of mortar; and a further estimated 200,000 casing stones makes the amount of granite used in the GP NEGLIGIBLE at less than 0.00128%

Imprecise cardinal point direction, imprecise construction considering the counter-clockwise twist the AE had to correct for with cladding, glop-factor using mortar to fill in areas between blocks which were NOT all of the same dimensions most blocks weren't even touching side to side or back to back, and placed nowhere near 30N "precisely". 

Evidence of copper tools of which can be seen on many of the blocks is indeed extant. 

It even has Khufu's names located in places that no one could reach without having constructed the GP to begin with. If the AE couldn't build it then they couldn't have taken it apart to place Khufu's name in said places and then "rebuild" it. :rolleyes:

If ignorance is bliss then you must be ecstatic. 

cormac

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, Vaz said:

In short the ravings of people who are desperate to stick to a party line at any cost to protect the status quo, totally oblivious to truth and reality.

Prove it. Build a operable machine. Show evidence of the past civilization. Until you do, this is nothing more than self projecting.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, Vaz said:

You would learn a very great deal from this.  The meat of the lecture begins around 17:00

 

Yes we learn that fellows doesn't know a whole lot. YOU must listen to him a great deal.

Accuracy. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn174-pyramid-precision/

The equivalency of holding up a thick string at arm's length - which is darn good - Vaz what is the accuracy of G2?

All three pyramids exhibit the same manner of error; they are rotated slightly counterclockwise from the cardinal points which is why they had to twist the GP back a bit why is that? Why is the error in their alignment the same Vaz?

There aren't 2.3 million that was an earlier estimate later one's - depending on how much slop, mortar and rubble you want to equal 500-590,000. I'd put in links but you don't seem to read them.

Now why should we believe what this fellow says?

Also why should we listen to you since you are ignoring the gigantic elephant in the room? The total lack of evidence for the invisible civilization - if there was nobody there except the AE its a tad childish to insist 'those invisible folks' built it.

You keep trying to attack the existing evidence - don't you think its odd that your fringe gurus don't just lay out all the evidence for the invisible civilization?  Scott's a good example: in his early days he was producing PowerPoint about Atlantis and talking about proving the existence of the 'Invisible Civilization' but like so many 'researchers' before him he couldn't find anything and instead to prop up his ego he decided to concentrate on a tiny bit of trivia that won't - even if he were right - show the AE didn't built the pyramids.

For Dunn to be right there has to be an Invisible Civilization but there ain't one. That is what the evidence - or lack of evidence - shows.

Don't you agree?

 

 

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
4 hours ago, Windowpane said:
 
I am not going to comment in detail on your fanciful palaeography.
 
I merely note that changes in handwriting are not comparable to rolling out a new piece of software.  Wrong paradigm ...

Your paradigm. Not mine.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

In order: 

At no point in history has the Great Pyramid EVER been at 30N, the evidence has never supported your contention. 

Just a name of a work gang. Who cares?

8000 tons of granite in a structure that utilized an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks averaging 2.5 tons or 5,750,000 tons total; 500,000 tons of mortar; and a further estimated 200,000 casing stones makes the amount of granite used in the GP NEGLIGIBLE at less than 0.00128%

Imprecise cardinal point direction, imprecise construction considering the counter-clockwise twist the AE had to correct for with cladding, glop-factor using mortar to fill in areas between blocks which were NOT all of the same dimensions most blocks weren't even touching side to side or back to back, and placed nowhere near 30N "precisely". 

Evidence of copper tools of which can be seen on many of the blocks is indeed extant. 

It even has Khufu's names located in places that no one could reach without having constructed the GP to begin with. If the AE couldn't build it then they couldn't have taken it apart to place Khufu's name in said places and then "rebuild" it. :rolleyes:

If ignorance is bliss then you must be ecstatic. 

cormac

 

http://illuminate10.tripod.com/SPECIALTOPICS.htm

Another estimate of the number of stones - 590,712

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
5 hours ago, Vaz said:

You would learn a very great deal from this.  The meat of the lecture begins around 17:00

Heavens. Bauval is a construction engineer:

He has spent most of his engineering career living and working in the Middle East and Africa as a construction engineer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bauval

Who claims to be an Egyptologist/archaeologist:

Egyptologist Robert Bauval

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Genesis-Prehistoric-Origins-Ancient/dp/159143114X

In addition, as per the above, he further associates himself with other fringe authors. Not to mention his rather questionable "cultural interpretations". And a very poorly informed argument.

Various seriously informed contributors to these pages have already presented you with a brief array of factual data and reference material. As previously mentioned, the full corpus is notably more detailed and extensive. However, it would appear that you personally choose to ignore said information in favor of pursuing unsupported fantasies. This does not speak well of your true interest in the subject matter.

Edit: Format/limit waste of band width.

.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

http://illuminate10.tripod.com/SPECIALTOPICS.htm

Another estimate of the number of stones - 590,712

And let's not forget my old thread: 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/200920-blocks-in-the-great-pyramid/

And it should be pointed out that that was BEFORE the Diary of Merer was translated which suggests that it was more like Khufu's 27th year that the GP was still being worked on versus Herodotus' claimed 20 year length. 

cormac

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And let's not forget my old thread: 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/200920-blocks-in-the-great-pyramid/

And it should be pointed out that that was BEFORE the Diary of Merer was translated which suggests that it was more like Khufu's 27th year that the GP was still being worked on versus Herodotus' claimed 20 year length. 

cormac

True and we don't know when they started. Many years ago it was suggested by 'x' that they started cutting limestone at Giza well before they started on the pyramids perhaps directed by Khufu's father (Sneferu) when his son was born...speculation of course

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 11/2/2019 at 4:42 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You mean a rival to Vyse, someone from a nation with an inherent desire to see thr British knocked down a peg or three alludes to a potential forgery? 
I am shocked. Shocked I say. 
They said the same of Champollion you know....

Actually, all he said was that the hieroglyphs had been painted by finger or brush, as opposed to being carved.  He did not imply that Vyse forged them.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

And let's not forget my old thread: 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/200920-blocks-in-the-great-pyramid/

And it should be pointed out that that was BEFORE the Diary of Merer was translated which suggests that it was more like Khufu's 27th year that the GP was still being worked on versus Herodotus' claimed 20 year length. 

cormac

In a relieving chamber of G1 there is a worker's mark that notes the 17th cattle count which would make it either the 17th or 34th year of Khufu's reign. This means it took Khufu either 17 or 34yrs to build up to the RC. The Merer diary notes the 13th cattle count (27th year) of supposedly Khufu's reign which they were still hauling limestone to Akhet-Khufu for work on something. Oddly we accept the 17th cattle count to be 17yrs as 34yrs make no sense yet the 13th cattle count is accepted to be the 27th year. Uh, ok. Regardless, if it really was for G1 as some Egyptologists suggest, this would mean they were still working on G1 for at least 10 more years after getting to the relieving chamber. Keep in mind that at that point around 90% of the pyramid would have been completed. 
stonelayers.gif
If it took 10yrs to complete the last 10% how long did it take to do the other 90% which would have comprised all of the largest stones (except casing stones) and granite work...? Hmm. 

Also, how many years after the fact did it take to build the mortuary temple, mastabas, mastaba temples, queen's pyramids, boat pits ect? The queen's pyramids were also cased in Tura limestone as were some of the mastabas of which all are part of "Akhet-Khufu" which in reality refers to the necropolis as a whole and not necessarily just G1.  

Ankhhaf (son of Sneferu), mentioned in Merer's Diary, is an interesting fellow who it appears died sometime during the reign of Khafre. A reassessment of the building of his mastaba G7510, the largest at Giza, suggests it was begun at the end of Khufu's reign in which construction continued though the reign of Khafre. The date given associated with the Merer Diary, the 13th cattle count, or "27th year of Khufu's reign", does not actually does not mention Khufu by name and does not come from Merer's Diary, but rather some administrative document fragments found nearby. According to Tallet:

Quote

“This diary,” write Tallet and Marouard, “found in the same archaeological context as the administrative accounts dating to regnal Year 27, highlights two major facts: it confirms that Ankh-haf was effectively vizier and in charge of some of the final steps of the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza, and it verifies that the pyramid was clearly at a final stage of the construction project at the very end of the Khufu’s reign.”

So it is these other indiscriminate documents that mention a "13th cattle count", which neither these documents of the Merer diary mention Khufu the person by name, with the only reason this is assumed to be Khufu's reign, for one, the "archaeological context" it is found which is ultimately the 4th Dynasty in general which I'd like to know what it is exactly that would place it specifically in Khufu's reign, but more importantly that it is also assumed the work performed at Akhet-Khufu, again the G1 pyramid complex and not the necessarily the pyramid itself, was being performed by Ankhhaf during Khufu's reign. The rub, however, is that there is no verification Ankhhaf was vizier under Khufu in which Reisner, among others, thought he was actually vizier under Khafre, perhaps as I would suggest the possibility under Djedefre as well. If we consider the year of the 11th cattle count in the Khufu I boat pit actually noting the reign of Djedefre, as some Egyptologists have suggested, it is no great stretch considering Ankhhaf was alive, perhaps as late as even working as a vizier under Khafre, that this may be reffering to the 13th cattle count of Djedfre's reign, not Khufu-a time when the boat pits and peripheral structures were being built after G1 had been completed.

Given the year of the 17th cattle count in the RC almost certainly refers to the 17th year of Khufu reign and not 34th, a single year for the cattle count and not two, it stands to reason the 11th year cattle count in the Khufu I boat pit, clearly associated with Djedfre, and the 13th year of the associated Merer diary documents, are also a single year count. All things considered, I suggest this speaks highly against these cattle counts belonging to the reign of Khufu, but rather to another pharaoh which the most likely candidate to me is Djedefre. . 

  
 

Edited by Thanos5150
Forgot the last bit.
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
10 hours ago, Piney said:

Prove it. Build a operable machine.

Ha!

That ought to shut him up fir a whike!

—Jaylemurph 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Your paradigm. Not mine.

SC

Not sure you're following, Scott.  

Rolling out a new piece of software is the paradigm to which you assimilate the changes in handwriting in ancient Egypt over time  - the model on which you base your understanding of that process.

Not a paradigm in the sense of Thomas Kuhn, and certainly not mine.
 
You are basing your pseudo-palaeography on assumptions imported from another field, assumptions which are just wrong in palaeography.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
15 hours ago, Vaz said:

Put it this way Tom I'm far more likely to listen to a precision engineer like Dunn who has studied the GP, has the measurements and has carried out all necessary analysis than your goodself.  He has the background and you don't.  No disrespect intended.

...

In short the ravings of people who are desperate to stick to a party line at any cost to protect the status quo, totally oblivious to truth and reality.

Hi again Vaz,

Thanks for reading my childish post #773 and taking the time to reply.  Now – is there any hope of you responding intelligently to my serious posts #494, #501 and #518 and #754?

Just to remind you: I have laid out a series of observations, based on simple scientific facts, arguing that Dunn’s theory is completely wrong.  To defend him all you have to do is point out where I’m making mistakes.

I’ve reproduced the diagram below as just one example of his appalling science. 

                                                                    1599679443_dunnacousticchamber1998.jpg.9bc88c71c3fe6c88302b234bb9b22549.jpg

Aside from the inclusion of parts for which there has never been the slightest hint of evidence, the simple fact is that sound waves do not interact with microwaves so this ‘acoustic filter’, whether it could work or not, serves no possible purpose.  Sound waves are longitudinal pressure waves in a physical medium.  (“In space no one can hear you scream.”)  Microwaves are electromagnetic disturbances in spacetime identical to visible light but with a lower frequency/longer wavelength.  One does not affect the other.  That’s why we’ve had to evolve different tools to detect each: eyes for electromagnetic waves and ears for pressure waves (sounds).  Sound does NOT amplify microwaves.

The passageway might be effective at blocking sound of frequencies lower than approximately 300 Hz (D4 and below) BUT SO WHAT?  If there is a point to any of this then please tell me!  Don’t just say: “Dunn is clever, Tom is not.”  If this is a carefully designed machine then features identified by Dunn must serve a physical, mechanical purpose.

I could go through each part in turn – the non-existent ‘microwave input’, the futile ‘microwave output’, the useless ‘resonator hall’, the irrelevant ‘acoustic filter’, the simply-wrong ‘resonant quartzite chamber’, the utterly unworkable ‘feedback mechanism’, etc. – but what’s the point?  It wasn’t a machine!

I’ve made it clear that I’m not toeing any party line.  I’d dearly love you & Dunny to be right!  I’d love to learn that generations of scholars have got it wrong, and there’s a whole load more knowledge out there just waiting to be found.  But you can’t just invent explanations that make absolutely no sense. 

The Great Pyramid might have been a tomb for Pharaoh.  Or it might have been a monument celebrating his absolute authority.  Or it might be the tip of an even more enormous pyramid reaching miles into the earth.  Or it might be a visible marker guiding UFOs, like the Nazca Lines.  Or it might be any of a million other possibilities.  But one thing it certainly wasn’t was a power station.

Science = knowledge.  Every scientist makes mistakes; good scientists admit their mistakes and move on to learn more.  So tell me where I’m going wrong and I’ll be able to support you.

XxX

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
10 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

In a relieving chamber of G1 there is a worker's mark that notes the 17th cattle count which would make it either the 17th or 34th year of Khufu's reign. This means it took Khufu either 17 or 34yrs to build up to the RC. The Merer diary notes the 13th cattle count (27th year) of supposedly Khufu's reign which they were still hauling limestone to Akhet-Khufu for work on something. Oddly we accept the 17th cattle count to be 17yrs as 34yrs make no sense yet the 13th cattle count is accepted to be the 27th year. Uh, ok. Regardless, if it really was for G1 as some Egyptologists suggest, this would mean they were still working on G1 for at least 10 more years after getting to the relieving chamber. Keep in mind that at that point around 90% of the pyramid would have been completed. 
stonelayers.gif
If it took 10yrs to complete the last 10% how long did it take to do the other 90% which would have comprised all of the largest stones (except casing stones) and granite work...? Hmm. 

Also, how many years after the fact did it take to build the mortuary temple, mastabas, mastaba temples, queen's pyramids, boat pits ect? The queen's pyramids were also cased in Tura limestone as were some of the mastabas of which all are part of "Akhet-Khufu" which in reality refers to the necropolis as a whole and not necessarily just G1.  

Ankhhaf (son of Sneferu), mentioned in Merer's Diary, is an interesting fellow who it appears died sometime during the reign of Khafre. A reassessment of the building of his mastaba G7510, the largest at Giza, suggests it was begun at the end of Khufu's reign in which construction continued though the reign of Khafre. The date given associated with the Merer Diary, the 13th cattle count, or "27th year of Khufu's reign", does not actually does not mention Khufu by name and does not come from Merer's Diary, but rather some administrative document fragments found nearby. According to Tallet:

So it is these other indiscriminate documents that mention a "13th cattle count", which neither these documents of the Merer diary mention Khufu the person by name, with the only reason this is assumed to be Khufu's reign, for one, the "archaeological context" it is found which is ultimately the 4th Dynasty in general which I'd like to know what it is exactly that would place it specifically in Khufu's reign, but more importantly that it is also assumed the work performed at Akhet-Khufu, again the G1 pyramid complex and not the necessarily the pyramid itself, was being performed by Ankhhaf during Khufu's reign. The rub, however, is that there is no verification Ankhhaf was vizier under Khufu in which Reisner, among others, thought he was actually vizier under Khafre, perhaps as I would suggest the possibility under Djedefre as well. If we consider the year of the 11th cattle count in the Khufu I boat pit actually noting the reign of Djedefre, as some Egyptologists have suggested, it is no great stretch considering Ankhhaf was alive, perhaps as late as even working as a vizier under Khafre, that this may be reffering to the 13th cattle count of Djedfre's reign, not Khufu-a time when the boat pits and peripheral structures were being built after G1 had been completed.

Given the year of the 17th cattle count in the RC almost certainly refers to the 17th year of Khufu reign and not 34th, a single year for the cattle count and not two, it stands to reason the 11th year cattle count in the Khufu I boat pit, clearly associated with Djedfre, and the 13th year of the associated Merer diary documents, are also a single year count. All things considered, I suggest this speaks highly against these cattle counts belonging to the reign of Khufu, but rather to another pharaoh which the most likely candidate to me is Djedefre. . 

 

Which relieving chamber specifically contains the 17th cattle count and what is the estimated height of the floor of same from the base of the GP?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
44 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Which relieving chamber specifically contains the 17th cattle count and what is the estimated height of the floor of same from the base of the GP?

cormac

Petrie (The Pyramids and the Temples of Gizeh, 1883) is the original source and confirmed by Hawass is 2001. I do not recall which chamber.  

If this interests you you could figure this out, say like by just picking a chamber, no? 

How do either of these relate to my post? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Petrie (The Pyramids and the Temples of Gizeh, 1883) is the original source and confirmed by Hawass is 2001. I do not recall which chamber.  

If this interests you you could figure this out, say like by just picking a chamber, no? 

How do either of these relate to my post? 

I thought perhaps you might have known the specifics, hence why I asked. Yes I can guesstimate an approximate location, and IMO that would likely be Campbell's Chamber, but based on calculations I've already done several years ago using Petrie's information including the massif the GP was built on/over the point where Campbell's Chamber is located in the GP (based on the oft-claimed 20 year construction time) would have been completed by approximately the middle of the 9th year. If one takes the 17 year count as single years then it took the AE nearly twice as long to get that far then my calculations which is easily doable. If one accepts the biennial count making it 34 years then the AE were, comparative speaking, slow-walking the construction. 

Incidental at best, just a personal curiousity. 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/2/2019 at 1:06 PM, Vaz said:

Yet no one else has seen this 'evidence'?

The reason why we are in this discussion is as follows:

You all seem to feel here that the GP is some random thrown together monument with little more significance than say a roman amphitheatre.  You talk about stacking rocks.  You make up silly claims about wandering land masses.  You make silly claims about copper cutting granite.  Drunken gangs,

Never will we see eye to eye until you see that pyramid for what it truly is.

I can't help you there.  You have to do this for yourself.  Although why I can't imagine because the information has been there for a very long time.

Could there be a more significant ulterior motive for your dismissal?  Are you a devotee to the superior achievements of modern man by any chance?  Dismissing all else that came before.

The notion that these are silly claims is just evidence of the uneducated nature of the poster.

If you don't understand something you should ask for assistance instead of this laughable nonsense you continue to spew.

You mention straw man arguments yet here you state: "the GP is some random thrown together monument with little more significance than say a roman amphitheatre"

That is a straw man argument you've pulled out of your backside.

You don't understand how stone is worked. We all know that is the case.

You don't understand plate tectonics. We all know that is the case.

You don't understand the comments about stacking rocks. We all know that is the case.

Here is another straw man just as poorly conceived as the others: "Are you a devotee to the superior achievements of modern man by any chance?"

 

 

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then ask for help. The posters here are quite knowledgeable.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/2/2019 at 1:08 PM, Vaz said:

I've already gone through this.  Different atmospherics, combined with thorough understanding of how to utilise natural energy.  Sound and light.  What else is there?

LOL. That's really funny. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I love this comment about natural energy. Oh please tell us more about this fiction story you are constructing.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/2/2019 at 3:57 PM, Vaz said:

So wait its moved from 29 58 45 N to now exactly 30N

So what now?  I haven't fallen off my chair yet.

Just when you thought that ignorance could not go lower it happens.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/2/2019 at 4:02 PM, Vaz said:

The GP was built as a functional machine.  Precision was the key, not adornment.  There isn't any to be seen in the GP even in it's original state.

A vital clue that it wasn't built by AE's

What machine. You've been talking about a machine. Oh please tell me what sort of machine it is.

Are you thinking of the machine in the Transformer movie?

Oh pray tell, what machine are you on about?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.