Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
The Puzzler

Great Pyramid not built by Khufu?

593 posts in this topic

Probably we have. I can't keep track. But you seem to be the only one asking this, and I'm willing to bet you have a similar skill set as most of the rest of us. I myself cannot claim to have the skills to reproduce such an artifact, and to be honest, neither would I have the interest to do so. In other words, how many of us here are professional stone masons? Realistically, how many here could craft such an object?

But obviously it can be done because...it was done. And it was done 5,000 years ago.

Oh...do stone masons opinions count now then ?

Apart from working with the stuff every single day of the week, I thought they didn't know what they where talking about as they didn't possess the the skill set of working with the ancient tool box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To date fringe authors have not once forwarded an idea that can put even a scratch in the simplest principles of orthodox research.

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC

Already put these doubts out in my previous posts,but most egyptologist do not consider the psychological aspects behind why the pyramids were built and a comparative study leads to a lot of refutation of commonly accepted circumstantial evidence.Good article though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC

...Scott are you willing to answer some general quetion about your view on AE?

which number?

A number of so-called sarcophagi have been found in modern times completely

intact having been undisturbed since first being placed in the chamber. When these

‘sarcophagi’ were opened they were found to be empty. The conventional answer to

this conundrum posited by mainstream Egyptology is that the king was perhaps killed

in battle or was otherwise unavailable at the time of burial. But this still does not

explain why the ‘sarcophagus’ or ‘burial chamber’ should have been found empty

since it is known that the ancient Egyptians in situations where the dead king’s body

was in absentia, would fashion a ‘Ka Statue’ of the king made of wood or stone and

place this within the sarcophagus of the tomb or within the tomb itself. We have to

ask then, why were no ‘surrogate’ Ka Statues of the king found in these undisturbed

‘sarcophagi’ or ‘burial chambers’?

Any idea?

e. These early giant pyramids seem to have been

constructed with some other, grander purpose in mind.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Scott are you willing to answer some general quetion about your view on AE?

which number?

A number of so-called sarcophagi have been found in modern times completely

intact having been undisturbed since first being placed in the chamber. When these

‘sarcophagi’ were opened they were found to be empty. The conventional answer to

this conundrum posited by mainstream Egyptology is that the king was perhaps killed

in battle or was otherwise unavailable at the time of burial. But this still does not

explain why the ‘sarcophagus’ or ‘burial chamber’ should have been found empty

since it is known that the ancient Egyptians in situations where the dead king’s body

was in absentia, would fashion a ‘Ka Statue’ of the king made of wood or stone and

place this within the sarcophagus of the tomb or within the tomb itself. We have to

ask then, why were no ‘surrogate’ Ka Statues of the king found in these undisturbed

‘sarcophagi’ or ‘burial chambers’?

Any idea?

e. These early giant pyramids seem to have been

constructed with some other, grander purpose in mind.

Hi L,

I may start a new thread to answer your questions (above). I see little point in taking the current thread too far off-topic.

Regards,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC

A well-written and articulate paper, Scott. You're a good writer. You're still incorrect, but you're a good writer. I read the paper and it seems to be a rehashing of pretty much everything you've brought to us before. Repeating mistakes does not correct them. I am not interested in debating your points, however. Not only does it not belong in this topic, but it's been done to death at UM already, several times.

I'd be more impressed if you could present a paper of similar length authored by an experienced and respected, professional historian supporting your beliefs. Citing yourself doesn't count, as you should know.

I'm still hoping to receive an answer to my question in Post 100. I'm genuinely curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have been through all this haven't we lol.....I'm not the one claiming it can be done am I :)

No, you just yaddah something about: "It can't be done" and therein lies the sense of your life. Pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KMS: A well-written and articulate paper, Scott. You're a good writer.

SC: Patronising to the end. Obviously just can't help yourself.

KMS: You're still incorrect, but you're a good writer. I read the paper and it seems to be a rehashing of pretty much everything you've brought to us before. Repeating mistakes does not correct them.

SC: Of course it doesn’t—the facts I present are correct regardless of how many times they are repeated. They're facts. If they were wrong then they couldn't be facts. And I will continue to bring these facts to UM time and time and time again until one beautiful day, the little bubble the Egypt apologists around here bounce about in finally bursts and the serious flaws in their silly Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT) is exposed for the buffoonery that it clearly is. They were not tombs. Period.

KMS: I am not interested in debating your points, however.

SC: Why am I underwhelmed?

KMS: Not only does it not belong in this topic, but it's been done to death at UM already, several times.

SC: More complete bunk. Show us where the ‘Osiris Bed’ has been discussed before on UM? Show on UM where there is a discussion of the function of the Ka statue. Show on UM where there is an in-depth discussion of the Granite Leaf of the Great Pyramid and how this feature could have been used for raising the portcullis slabs in the Ante Chamber. I could go on.

“Done to death” – you’re dreaming, dear boy.

KMS: I'd be more impressed if you could present a paper of similar length authored by an experienced and respected, professional historian supporting your beliefs. Citing yourself doesn't count, as you should know.

SC: I’m not here to impress you—just to present actual FACTS from the hallowed halls of consensus Egyptology that contradict what the Egyptologists are themselves trying to argue. This is an argument from your own back yard, dear boy, and has nothing to do with Fringedom.

Fringedom—it’s a great place you know, as I’ve told you before. You see, out here in Fringedom, we have an edge because, well, because we are out here on the edge. And being out here on the edge, affords us a much broader perspective; being out here on the edge allows us to see things the Egyptologists completely miss because they are too close to their own flawed assumptions and misdirection. Out here on the fringe we can see where they have gone wrong. It’s brighter here on the fringe, on the horizon where the sun rises. You can see all sorts of things here on the edge, on the fringe. You should try and take some time out; spend some quality time here on the fringe. You’d love it!

KMS: I'm still hoping to receive an answer to my question in Post 100. I'm genuinely curious.

SC: I’m sure you are. You’ll find the answer in my last book. Too convoluted to go into here and would most definitely take the thread off-topic.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: What typical Egypt apologist nonsense. Time to get your head out of that really dark place where it has obviously become stuck.

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

SC

Can you please tell me where your paper has been submitted and what the peer review process was like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fringedom—it’s a great place you know, as I’ve told you before. You see, out here in Fringedom, we have an edge because, well, because we are out here on the edge. And being out here on the edge, affords us a much broader perspective; being out here on the edge allows us to see things the Egyptologists completely miss because they are too close to their own flawed assumptions and misdirection. Out here on the fringe we can see where they have gone wrong. It’s brighter here on the fringe, on the horizon where the sun rises. You can see all sorts of things here on the edge, on the fringe. You should try and take some time out; spend some quality time here on the fringe. You’d love it!

Most fringies are not on the edge but have gone over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most fringies are not on the edge but have gone over.

SC: Which gives them an even broader perspective. They know what's on the other side - WOW!

SC

Can you please tell me where your paper has been submitted and what the peer review process was like?

SC: Peer review process? You're funny.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of stating the obvious the problem is that most theories address all the known

information, or at the least, all the known information considered relevant to that theory.

"Egyptology" is a set of beliefs that fit together and employing as much of the known evi-

dence as it considers relevant and adherents of these beliefs are never shy to tell others

their assumptions about what evidence is relevant and how they want toput it together. They

simply can't see the fact that other theories can put the same evidence together in perfectly

logical ways. Their attitude is "well, the guy who discovered this specific fact believed in

barefoot bumpkins therefore it supports Egyptological beliefs". It doesn't matter one whit

what the fact is merely that an Egyptologist discovered it. This allows the adherents (apolo-

gists) to dismiss things like caves because they were found by a "fringe" writer and Hawass

has said there are no caves at Giza. This allows them to dismiss even evidence found by E-

gyptologists because the finder didn't believe it was relevant.

Of course they believe their paradigm is always relevant in a thread because it is truth. Those

who disagree with any aspect of this paradigm are off topic. Whether the topic is the religion

of the builders or thje age of the pyramid the entire paradigm gets whipped out and used to

beat others over the head. The paradigm can't be used except in its whole because it is based

onm assumptions and interpretations and doesn't have enough evidence to address arguments

that don't accept the assumptions.

This being said I do tend to agree with Kmt_Sesh that the subject is drifting somewhat. But if I

went back and looked I'd bet it drifted because of orthodox paradigm and an adherent bringing

it up to back a point. Without tombs, ramps, and changeless bumpkins there is no orthodoxy

so each of these assumptions will tend to appear in any discussion about the pyramids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Patronising to the end. Obviously just can't help yourself.

SC: Of course it doesn’t—they are correct regardless of how many times they are repeated. And I will continue to bring these points to UM time and time and time again until one beautiful day, the little bubble the Egypt apologists around here bounce about in finally bursts and the serious flaws in their silly Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT) is exposed for the buffoonery that it clearly is. They were not tombs. Period.

SC: Why am I underwhelmed?

SC: More complete bunk. Show us where the ‘Osiris Bed’ has been discussed before on UM? Show on UM where there is a discussion of the function of the Ka statue. Show on UM where there is an in-depth discussion of the Granite Leaf of the Great Pyramid and how this feature could have been used for raising the portcullis slabs in the Ante Chamber. I could go on.

“Done to death” – you’re dreaming, dear boy.

SC: I’m not here to impress you—just to present actual FACTS from the hallowed halls of consensus Egyptology that contradict what the Egyptologists are actually trying to argue. This is an argument from your own back yard, dear boy, and has nothing to do with Fringedom.

Fringedom—it’s a great place you know, as I’ve told you before. You see, out here in Fringedom, we have an edge because, well, because we are out here on the edge. And being out here on the edge, affords us a much broader perspective; being out here on the edge allows us to see things the Egyptologists completely miss because they are too close to their own flawed assumptions and misdirection. Out here on the fringe we can see where they have gone wrong. It’s brighter here on the fringe, on the horizon where the sun rises. You can see all sorts of things here on the edge, on the fringe. You should try and take some time out; spend some quality time here on the fringe. You’d love it!

More of your inappropriate vitriol and grandiose self-promotion. This is not worth my time to reply to. Not only do you seem incapable of accepting sincere compliments (which mine were meant to be), you do not seem capable of accepting critiques or opposing viewpoints without resorting to incivility.

I desire a more mature discourse, so we'll leave the above at that.

SC: I’m sure you are. You’ll find the answer in my last book. Too convoluted to go into here and would most definitely take the thread off-topic.

SC

I'm sure you're perfectly aware that advertising a product constitutes spamming and is against forum policy (see 1a one this page). This is irritating to most people here. It is both inappropriate and presumptuous to expect that we're all going to buy your book just to understand something about which you've posted here. I think you can understand why this is against forum policy. Moreover, if you post something in the public forum but do not wish to explain it when questioned, you should not post it in the first place. At least be willing to explain it briefly, or even start a new discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...But if I went back and looked I'd bet it drifted because of orthodox paradigm and an adherent bringing

it up to back a point....

Hi CK,

You mean like when they use the Inventory Stela (from the much later Saite period) to prove that Khufu built the Great Pyramid but neglect to inform others who may be uninformed that the same stela also states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx which, of course, goes completely against the Egypt apologist mantra. That kind of thing?

Regards,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please tell me where your paper has been submitted and what the peer review process was like?

As Scott said, that's funny. Most fringe writers don't understand the need or purpose for peer-review, and all of them are terrified of it. Which is why they avoid it at all costs.

It's much easier to write whatever you want—corroborative sources be damned—because you don't have to worry about disagreements. It's an ego trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kmt_Sesh,

Do you find anything mysterious about Ancient Egypt? If so, what would that be? Can you point us(me) what you find unexplored area of Egyptology?

If I came to Egypt (in any time period when Pyramids were done) as a visitor at time what would be most striking to me? To my todays view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of your inappropriate vitriol and grandiose self-promotion. This is not worth my time to reply to.

SC: Then why are you?

KMS: Not only do you seem incapable of accepting sincere compliments (which mine were meant to be),

SC: I wasn't seeking compliments.

KMS:...you do not seem capable of accepting critiques or opposing viewpoints without resorting to incivility.

SC: Go back and read some of your own stuff, bub. If you dish it out, you can be absolutely certain that I'll dish it right back at ya--and then some.

KMS: I desire a more mature discourse,

SC: Then learn how to deal responsibly with sensible arguments and critique of your own position without resorting to chucking the toys out the pram, spitting the dummy and running to the moderators like you normally do when a discussion isn't going your way.

KMS: I'm sure you're perfectly aware that advertising a product constitutes spamming and is against forum policy (see 1a one this page). This is irritating to most people here. It is both inappropriate and presumptuous to expect that we're all going to buy your book just to understand something about which you've posted here. I think you can understand why this is against forum policy.

SC: No book was advertised, bub so you can climb down from your holier-than-though, sanctimonious high-horse. And no one, least of all me, said anything about having to buy any of my books either. Indeed, I am sure some poster here on UM previously posted links to where my latest book can be downloaded at no cost. Once again, you are spouting forth more rubbish. Another Egypt apologist tactic - if you can't beat the argument, try beating the poster.

KMS: Moreover, if you post something in the public forum but do not wish to explain it when questioned, you should not post it in the first place. At least be willing to explain it briefly, or even start a new discussion.

SC: Like I said, and which you previous said yourself, the thread is going way off topic already. Let's respect the poster.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Which gives them an even broader perspective. They know what's on the other side - WOW!

SC

SC: Peer review process? You're funny.

SC

What's on the other side are all the fantasy characters mixed in with invalid and refuted hypothesis. Great place to be for fiction but not much else.

So there's no independent review of your hypothesis? Shame really, without an independent review your hypothesis will never make it to theory status and certainly can't be considered fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's on the other side are all the fantasy characters mixed in with invalid and refuted hypothesis. Great place to be for fiction but not much else.

SC: Not unlike cherry-picking, consensus Egyptology then.

Quaentum: So there's no independent review of your hypothesis? Shame really, without an independent review your hypothesis will never make it to theory status and certainly can't be considered fact.

SC: Not unlike cherry-picking, consensus Egyptology then.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I’m sure you are. You’ll find the answer in my last book. Too convoluted to go into here and would most definitely take the thread off-topic.

SC

It all boils down to one salient fact. Scott wants us to open our wallets and buy his book.

If you want to discuss the "facts" you can, But aint and you are pointing to the books.

of course a man has to live and for that he needs money.

But this is a discussion/debating forum. You discuss, not point towards your books hinting "buy my books and you will learn the "facts".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all boils down to one salient fact. Scott wants us to open our wallets and buy his book.

If you want to discuss the "facts" you can, But aint and you are pointing to the books.

of course a man has to live and for that he needs money.

But this is a discussion/debating forum. You discuss, not point towards your books hinting "buy my books and you will learn the "facts".

SC: No one has to buy anything. (see my post above). I'm sure UM has a search function. I suggest people use it.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read through Scotts 'paper', and while I can't lay claim to kmt-esque levels of Egyptological knowledge, I really don't perceive any great level of scholarship on Mr.Creightons part. The whole paper seems to be an attempt to illustrate every form of logical fallacy possible from cherry picked straw men to special pleading and beyond.

It is really just a masta-batory fantasy, and as has been noted above he (Scott) is certainly capable of ordered thinking, it is such a pity he cannot see why he is so wrong.

Edited by Jon101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... while I can't lay claim to kmt-esque levels of Egyptological knowledge... It is really just a masta-batory fantasy....

SC: Does anyone else see the obvious contradiction in the above?

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

SC: No book was advertised, bub so you can climb down from your holier-than-though, sanctimonious high-horse.

Goodness, such obfuscation, and so soon after your recent post. I seem to have touched some buttons. Understandable, but no book was advertised?

From your own Post 108:

SC: I’m sure you are. You’ll find the answer in my last book. Too convoluted to go into here and would most definitely take the thread off-topic.

This response clearly requires that we get your book to see your take on my earlier question of you.

And no one, least of all me, said anything about having to buy any of my books either. Indeed, I am sure some poster here on UM previously posted links to where my latest book can be downloaded at no cost.

I'm not aware of other posters providing links for your books. If it's happened, I've missed it. Whether or not a book is free, it still stands against policy to advertise your product on this forum. If you are not willing to discuss a point you yourself brought up, even if it is defined or discussed briefly, then don't bring it up at all. Spartan called you on this, too. It is an irritating and nonproductive practice.

Once again, you are spouting forth more rubbish. Another Egypt apologist tactic - if you can't beat the argument, try beating the poster.

I and many others have debated you in detail. Your arguments and themes have not survived scrutiny. That's not our fault, so please don't unload on me or anyone else for your own frustrations.

If I am able to restrain myself, this will be my last reply to you in this discussion, unless the content is relevant to the topic. You should start another thread to address some of the other things brought up, including my Khufu question (which does happen to be relevant to this thread). If you do not wish to do so, then don't mention things you're not prepared to or interested in discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all boils down to one salient fact. Scott wants us to open our wallets and buy his book.

If you want to discuss the "facts" you can, But aint and you are pointing to the books.

of course a man has to live and for that he needs money.

But this is a discussion/debating forum. You discuss, not point towards your books hinting "buy my books and you will learn the "facts".

Buying his book would be a waste of time and money for thinking people.

Non thinking people don't usually read.

He's stuck.

If anyone really wants his book, you should look in the bottoms of your neighbor's birdcages.

No, the book won't be there either, but a far more interesting collection will be.

His attitude precludes me from even the slightest consideration of even reading a review of one of his books, despite the fact that nobody (except Scott) has actually read any of them and thus no reviews exist. It is this attitude that is the reason I don't even read his posts anymore, as I am completely convinced that he has absolutely nothing of interest to say.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.