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 -
egyptian lad

The Giants of ancient egypt are fact

531 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Abramelin

You are free to consider whatever you like. I'm glad you think it matters. Given that you seem to think it's still 1999 and resorting to calling someone a "midget" or a "troll" at the first instance is the way to shine in Internet debates rather renders the whole point mute... :tu:

Add something substantial.

You haven't yet.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
egyptian lad

Your posts indicate that you don't think average sized humans could build the pyramids. I gave an example of one average sized human building with blocks that were heavier on average than those in the pyramids. I even indicated that no machine lifters were used and that only pulleys and levers were used in it's construction

The average weight of the pyramid blocks are 2 1/2 tons. That is not the weight of each block but just the average weight.

You say that giants did all the work because the blocks were too big and heavy for average men to move and put in place. I have showed where that conclusion is invalid with my comparison to Coral Castle. However let us add one further thing. The following image is a depiction of one of the large statues being moved by men of average height, and in the lower left one of the large pieces of stone being moved by average sized men. So based on that we can see that average sized men did the work.

SLH11-Colossal-statue-being-dragged-on-a-sled.png

Its good you put this image of moving colossal statue from some tombs, There were people of our size in the same age of giants.........Just have a look at this image

Giant king and small servants around him:

post-132711-0-14608000-1348617191_thumb.

Plus,this art is about moving a colossal statue, Not the construction and original decoration is distorted too:

Compare this image with image of rekhmire tomb:

You gonna grasp that The sculptor giants existed.

Explanation for this image anyway, there are some probability:

As i always say , Ancient egypt is not some years , its thousands of years

1- perhaps, Giants used some people of our size in pulling some works???

2-Perhaps, After era of giants was over, Guys in our size like the pharaohs came to take things from the work left from giants and they did move some statues as u see in this image?

The construction of pyramids and obelisks by people of our size is completely false and impossible:

they put lies about usage of 100 thousand workers at pyramids......complete lies from their delusions

one of the archaeologists's lies too:

They discovered some graves around the giza pyramids,containing some skeletons of people of our size, So they rushed to call them>>>> workers of pyramids.

LOL, if i buried my father in a grave beside the pyramids? that means My father built the pyramdis?

if some nations on ancient times after pyramids era, lived around the pyramids and had graves place to bury the deads, that means they built the pyramids?

The calamity, they brainwash us with delusional theories from their sick minds.

They claim there 100 thousand workers of pyramids,and been buried around the pyramids.

Where are the 100 thousand skeletons of workers?

Where are the 100 thousand tools of workers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
egyptian lad

Assuming for a moment that the work was done by giants, where is the evidence for them?

You see art (be it stonework or funerary illustration or simple paintings) is never a good indication of what did exist, we've had an imagination as a species for as long as we've had a language (given that you need an imagination to understand what "don't go over there, it's dangerous" means without actually going over there to see why it's dangerous), and imagination finds it's freest expression in art.

So, giants would need giant things. giant tools, giant homes, giant knives and forks etc.

Now homes being mudbrick can easily be lost to history. And tools remade time and again ... but surely in all the archaeological detritus we dig up and store, we'd have found one chisel too big for a mundane human to wield? One hammer that even Thor himself would have had trouble with? One scrap of solid evidence.

Legend and myth are ripe with tales of giants. Usually they're violent and hungry for manflesh.

Could that be a race memory of a time when we were neighbours with Neanderthals? Could it be that there were isolated pockets of giants across the globe that were valiantly wiped out by people generations before oral legend became written history? I stress that bit across. the. globe. There are legends of giants from across the world, everyone seems to have tales of nasty neighbours but not a shred of evidence exists for most of them, and what evidence there does exist often as not falls under the "giant eagle" banner of cryptohistory - we all saw the photos but noone can find them anymore.

Hello!

Actually the variety of arts, do prove a lot of things

In saqqara arts: there is a record for statues construction, The small seated statues,sculptors of our size were doing this work.

In rekhmire arts, thebes: records of colossal statues construction, it were not small sculptors who do the work but giants.

Comparison in this image:

post-132711-0-79689300-1348618739_thumb.

I mean by this comparison, They were accurate about the depicted scenes of how things were done.

If you find the arts not enough proof, well no problem, actually the variety of arts.

You refer to the Giants Tools, The archaeologists in egypt actually run big conspiracy, so the huge tools of giants will not be revealed for people..................they hide the huge tools of giants, and Giant mummies, and high accounts of giant skeletons.

In each archaeological location in egypt, They make a store for artifacts and stuff of ancient people, They only show from this store, what fit their lies.

The huge tools of giants exist in ancient egypt:

Diorite stones were used in some works as hammer stones to split and cut the granite rock:

Look at this huge diorite stone:

post-132711-0-17121300-1348619511_thumb.

The archaeologists only show the small diorite stones around quarries and pyramids, But the Huge diorite stones are banned to be shown, in order to not support the giants theory at all:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

I

They claim there 100 thousand workers of pyramids,and been buried around the pyramids.

Where are the 100 thousand skeletons of workers?

Where are the 100 thousand tools of workers?

Point of clarification,

They say there were 100 thousand workers, (or how ever many they actually say)

They say there are workers buried near the pyramids.

They do not say there are 100 thousand workers buried near the pyramids.

To say otherwise assumes either a 100% mortality rate or every former pyramid worker was dragged back to Giza after they died. Neither supposition is reasonable.

It follows also that If only a fraction of the workers are buried at Giza, then only a fraction of their tools remain, which is precisely what we find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
egyptian lad

Assuming for a moment that the work was done by giants, where is the evidence for them?

You see art (be it stonework or funerary illustration or simple paintings) is never a good indication of what did exist, we've had an imagination as a species for as long as we've had a language (given that you need an imagination to understand what "don't go over there, it's dangerous" means without actually going over there to see why it's dangerous), and imagination finds it's freest expression in art.

So, giants would need giant things. giant tools, giant homes, giant knives and forks etc.

Now homes being mudbrick can easily be lost to history. And tools remade time and again ... but surely in all the archaeological detritus we dig up and store, we'd have found one chisel too big for a mundane human to wield? One hammer that even Thor himself would have had trouble with? One scrap of solid evidence.

Legend and myth are ripe with tales of giants. Usually they're violent and hungry for manflesh.

Could that be a race memory of a time when we were neighbours with Neanderthals? Could it be that there were isolated pockets of giants across the globe that were valiantly wiped out by people generations before oral legend became written history? I stress that bit across. the. globe. There are legends of giants from across the world, everyone seems to have tales of nasty neighbours but not a shred of evidence exists for most of them, and what evidence there does exist often as not falls under the "giant eagle" banner of cryptohistory - we all saw the photos but noone can find them anymore.

Large food pots and plates are left too:

post-132711-0-51194600-1348619939_thumb.

Large basins are left too:

post-132711-0-23437500-1348620257_thumb.

Signs of cutting on the rocks,it means a huge tools were used to make it.

post-132711-0-35550200-1348620316_thumb.

The egyptologists rushed to brainwash us that there was lost technology in ancient times and those remains of cutting signs were work of some advanced tools or machines.

I will give you complete proof from The unfinished obelisk signs too, its Giants who were working on the obelisks and cut them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
egyptian lad

Large food pots and plates are left too:

post-132711-0-51194600-1348619939_thumb.

Large basins are left too:

post-132711-0-23437500-1348620257_thumb.

Signs of cutting on the rocks,it means a huge tools were used to make it.

post-132711-0-35550200-1348620316_thumb.

The egyptologists rushed to brainwash us that there was lost technology in ancient times and those remains of cutting signs were work of some advanced tools or machines.

I will give you complete proof from The unfinished obelisk signs too, its Giants who were working on the obelisks and cut them

The unfinished obelisk:

lot of signs left on it, prove it was not work of people of our size

thats an image of how some guy claim suggest how the obelisks were cut:

post-132711-0-82108400-1348621172_thumb.

If obelisks were cut like that?

Why the long carving lines that was made from up to down, to even reach under the stone:

Look at the long carved lines, whats your analyzes for it? If people of our size were cuttin the obelisks , How could they cause and leave these signs?

post-132711-0-00102300-1348620973_thumb.

Thats what i do believe, A giant arms were working by diorite stones into round motion and by this work , Those long carved lines were left!

post-132711-0-70525100-1348621122_thumb.

Its all signs about giants work, whatever they try to make things up, No explanations for except that.

Note also, The carved line size was big......A large diorite stone was used, Not the small diorite stones they put around quarries.......Different larger diorite stones were on this work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Well, as you can read from what you quoted from my post, nobody is hiding any remains of 'giants' :

http://www.unexplain...05#entry4475545

I mean the Homo Heidelbergensis remains from South Africa.

I see what you mean but I don't really consider Homo Heidelbergensis to be quite on a par with the giant Philistines or the red-headed giants in Nevada.

but you point is valid

EDIT:

Let me try to clarify....

To me, Homo Heidelbergensis is nothing more than a big Yetti, a real big hairy ape.

But when the bible speaks of Nephilim, or Enoch speaks about giants in his "Book of Giants" we imagine beings that are just like people only bigger.

They make and use sophisticated tools, they make buildings/abodes, they wear clothing of some sort, and the SPEAK like a human. They fight in wars using sophisticated weapons.

Those are the types of so-called "giants" that are not se easily evidenced, of course.

Also, I would like to say that I don't ncessarily believe in giants at all. it may be after all, that the red-headed giants of Nevada, like Homo Heidelbergensis, were just big hairy apes of some kind, too. We'll likely never know

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
egyptian lad

Point of clarification,

They say there were 100 thousand workers, (or how ever many they actually say)

They say there are workers buried near the pyramids.

They do not say there are 100 thousand workers buried near the pyramids.

To say otherwise assumes either a 100% mortality rate or every former pyramid worker was dragged back to Giza after they died. Neither supposition is reasonable.

It follows also that If only a fraction of the workers are buried at Giza, then only a fraction of their tools remain, which is precisely what we find.

The mad guy herodotus suggested that 100 thousands slaves or workers were used on the great pyramid, most egyptologists repeat what he said

They already claimed that the workers were buried around the pyramids, What im trying to tell.......if someone was buried around the pyramid, it could be no connected to the pyramid at all.

they dont say some, i have watched many flims, they claimed that high accounts of graves around the pyramids........the cheaters also show some fosslized bones of fishes and claim that workers were eating fish to give them protein and power LOOOOOOOOOOOL

What if some guys from 500 years, eat some fishes around the pyramids or on ancient times some people were sitting around pyramids and eating fishes.

sorry, its all bull........When i watch the egyptologists and their talks, They dont speak up to sane people, they only speak for blank headed people which cant ask or realize or wonder things up

for their tools, how come its only few things were found? wheres that major ones and high number of tools??

Small tools of workers made these carved lines at giza quarries too???

post-132711-0-49839300-1348622721_thumb.

The whole thing about pyramids is pure lies and not related to the truth at all.

The pyramids were not tombs, but according to archaeologists it were tombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

Large food pots and plates are left too:

post-132711-0-51194600-1348619939_thumb.

Large basins are left too:

post-132711-0-23437500-1348620257_thumb.

Signs of cutting on the rocks,it means a huge tools were used to make it.

post-132711-0-35550200-1348620316_thumb.

The egyptologists rushed to brainwash us that there was lost technology in ancient times and those remains of cutting signs were work of some advanced tools or machines.

If huge containers are evidence of huge users, then every brewery in the world must've been built by giants.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--M_3l0PGJ1w/TUwZ4ZeIseI/AAAAAAAAfxw/3kHPtO85Hb0/s800/EXP_6.jpg

http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Knight-LondonVolIV/013-giant-beer-barrel-q75-422x500.jpg

And apparently you're unfamiliar with the fine art of mortising.

http://www.howellfarm.org/farm/barns/phillipsbarn/restoration/restoration%20chronology/hb_resources/secor_pre_cp_mortise_cut.jpg

http://www.startwoodworking.com/sites/startwoodworking.com/files/uploads/taunton/images/6-mortise-tenon.jpg

And it's funny but the last time I looked, it sure wasn't the Egyptologists insisting that advanced technology was used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
egyptian lad

workers stayed thousands of years to

If huge containers are evidence of huge users, then every brewery in the world must've been built by giants.

https://lh6.googleus.../s800/EXP_6.jpg

http://www.fromoldbo...q75-422x500.jpg

And apparently you're unfamiliar with the fine art of mortising.

http://www.howellfar...mortise_cut.jpg

http://www.startwood...rtise-tenon.jpg

And it's funny but the last time I looked, it sure wasn't the Egyptologists insisting that advanced technology was used.

you compare something from modern age to the far ancient times where people were very primitive.

Its like we going to compare some modern tower with the pyramids and say did giants build those modern towers?

In the modern ages, there were technology and small pieces were used to make big things.

The ancient egyptians recorded everything everything about their lifes, they dont forget anything....all things were recorded, if there was technology..........they would record it.

Some people still dont know that the pyramid construction was recorded, and go behind egyptologist theories.

the fine art of mortising, you put, its in the WOOD! not in the solid granite rocks.

View this image from rekhmire tomb, Work of stone cutters, the art of mortising:

post-132711-0-72505900-1348623429_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

The mad guy herodotus suggested that 100 thousands slaves or workers were used on the great pyramid, most egyptologists repeat what he said

They already claimed that the workers were buried around the pyramids, What im trying to tell.......if someone was buried around the pyramid, it could be no connected to the pyramid at all.

...

In point of fact Herodotus does claim this, stating the work on the Great Pyramid went on in three-monthly shifts and each shift contained 100,000 men (II:124). This adds up to a hell of a lot of men.

But is Herodotus correct? No, of course not, any more than he was correct about stating hieroglyphic inscriptions on the bottom of the pyramid related the quantities of food stuffs paid to workmen (II:125). Any more than he was correct about his account that Khufu sold out his daughter as a prostitute to help finance the building of the pyramid (II:126). I mean, for goodness sake, all of this is just beyond ridiculous. The application of critical thinking alone ought to remind readers of Herodotus that he knew practically nothing substantial of the events of the pyramid's construction over 2,000 years before his time, and the same is practically the same for those native Egyptians he would've interviewed.

Egyptologists do not rely on Herodotus, in fact. As entertaining and interesting as his The Histories is, it's obvious his accounts are riddled with errors and loaded with examples of Greek bias for the consumption of his Greek audience.

The fact that workmen had been buried nearby the pyramid field is not mentioned in any surviving ancient Egyptian text. Nor is it mentioned in Herodotus' accounts, in so far as I'm aware. It was only conjectured for a great many years by modern historians because of the obvious logic behind the theory, until theory was proven as fact when the workmen's cemetery and the principal workmen's village were found. Both continue to be excavated. The graffiti inside and outside the Giza pyramids as well as inscribed monuments in the workmen's cemetery underscore their purpose as builders. The principle workmen's village unquestionably represents an infrastructure that could feed and equip many thousands of workmen at any one time.

Current theory is that a work force of approximately 20,000 men would have been more than adequate to build the Great Pyramid, at least until the pyramid exceeded its midpoint and the mass of the structure began to decrease exponentially; at that point, fewer workmen would've been needed. It's only when one factors in all of the support staff (administrators, bureaucrats, foremen, bakers, brewers, metalsmiths, physicians, et cetera) that the entire work force might have reached or exceeded 100,000 people.

And none of them were giants. Nor was Khufu. His sarcophagus alone proves that, but so do the entrances to all chambers and passageways inside the pyramid. Even squatting down, a giant would have really had to work at it to fit through the entrances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

The mad guy herodotus suggested that 100 thousands slaves or workers were used on the great pyramid, most egyptologists repeat what he said

I've seen the number fluctuate in both directions depending on who's talking.

They already claimed that the workers were buried around the pyramids, What im trying to tell.......if someone was buried around the pyramid, it could be no connected to the pyramid at all.

There is an actual worker's cemetary nearby with actual workers buried in it, with appropriate job titles and injuries. It seems reasonable to assume they worked on something in the immediate area.

they dont say some, i have watched many flims, they claimed that high accounts of graves around the pyramids........the cheaters also show some fosslized bones of fishes and claim that workers were eating fish to give them protein and power LOOOOOOOOOOOL

What if some guys from 500 years, eat some fishes around the pyramids or on ancient times some people were sitting around pyramids and eating fishes.

Not just a few bones but an entire fish processing facility, along with a bakery, a brewery (those vats you so kindly pointed out) and barracks. I suppose it was all just an ancient summer camp, perhaps abandoned after a brutal murder spree by a khopesh-wielding maniac?

sorry, its all bull........When i watch the egyptologists and their talks, They dont speak up to sane people, they only speak for blank headed people which cant ask or realize or wonder things up

for their tools, how come its only few things were found? wheres that major ones and high number of tools??

Where are the same tools for your giants? And who just up and leaves all their tools laying there anyway? Also, flint tools have been found on site demonstrated as capable performing all the necessary work. These same tools are the sort that would've been worn down to a nothing in cource of use.

Small tools of workers made these carved lines at giza quarries too???

post-132711-0-49839300-1348622721_thumb.

Who said small workers have to use small tools for every job?

The whole thing about pyramids is pure lies and not related to the truth at all.

The pyramids were not tombs, but according to archaeologists it were tombs.

I'd ask for evidence But I think I know what you're going to say.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

workers stayed thousands of years to

you compare something from modern age to the far ancient times where people were very primitive.

Its like we going to compare some modern tower with the pyramids and say did giants build those modern towers?

In the modern ages, there were technology and small pieces were used to make big things.

Exactly! Now you're catching on! Because that's exactly the way you're mis-applying your logic, to assume that the size of the construction must correlate to the size of the constructor and as our modern examples show or even other ancient and near-ancient examples show, that simply isn't the case.

The ancient egyptians recorded everything everything about their lifes, they dont forget anything....all things were recorded, if there was technology..........they would record it.

Really. Tell me, what are the rules for playing senet?

Some people still dont know that the pyramid construction was recorded, and go behind egyptologist theories.

Do tell. Where and how exactly?

the fine art of mortising, you put, its in the WOOD! not in the solid granite rocks.

View this image from rekhmire tomb, Work of stone cutters, the art of mortising:

post-132711-0-72505900-1348623429_thumb.

Same technique, different material. Questionmark has an entire thread devoted to handwork in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Egyptian Lad said: "The pyramids were not tombs, but according to archaeologists it were tombs. "

I agree, there never was a Pharoh or Queen found in any such King's/Queens chamber or in any pyramid at all in Egypt, including ones that escaped detection by the graverobbers

BUT... I believe I learned that from an archeologist.

why many still insist on calling the pyramids "burial chambers" is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

I see what you mean but I don't really consider Homo Heidelbergensis to be quite on a par with the giant Philistines or the red-headed giants in Nevada.

but you point is valid

EDIT:

Let me try to clarify....

To me, Homo Heidelbergensis is nothing more than a big Yetti, a real big hairy ape.

But when the bible speaks of Nephilim, or Enoch speaks about giants in his "Book of Giants" we imagine beings that are just like people only bigger.

They make and use sophisticated tools, they make buildings/abodes, they wear clothing of some sort, and the SPEAK like a human. They fight in wars using sophisticated weapons.

Those are the types of so-called "giants" that are not se easily evidenced, of course.

Also, I would like to say that I don't ncessarily believe in giants at all. it may be after all, that the red-headed giants of Nevada, like Homo Heidelbergensis, were just big hairy apes of some kind, too. We'll likely never know

There are a couple of problems with your speculation Earl.Of.Trumps. First as a member of the genus Homo, Heidelbergensis is considered human, although obviously not a modern human (HSS). Second, there's this from a recent article:

Since the most fitting race or ecology for these human beings was unknown, scientists used multiracial and multigender formulas to estimate the height for the entire population in order to reduce the error margin and get a closer insight on the reality. As Carretero Díaz points out, "we calculated an overall average for the sample and one for each of the sexes. The same was done with the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon fossils."

The results suggest that both men and women in the Sima de los Huesos population were on average slightly higher than Neanderthal men and women. "Neither can be described as being short and both are placed in the medium and above-medium height categories. But, both species featured tall individuals," assured the experts.

The height of these two species is similar to that of modern day population of mid-latitudes, like in the case of Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606075323.htm

So apparently they weren't the giants they're being presented as.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Your argument has little merit logically or artistically.

Of the 8 images presented, 4 are from tut's actual tomb. 1 and 2 are his funerary mask and sarcophagus respectively. One was found inside the other. 4 and 6 are from his funerary temple at Luxor. (Egypt, not Las Vegas, and later effaced and claimed by Horemheb BTW) 8 is a modern reconstruction of his face and 7 is his freaking mummy. Of these, 1, 2, 4 and 6 are not that different from each other.

...

I'm trying to make up for the unnecessarily negative post I wrote in Post 53, so I'm plumbing this discussion for things to comment on. I had intended not to get involved at first, but then that logical mantra popped into my head: Why the hell not? Well, that and the fact that I continue to think it's important to strike a balance when a particularly misinformed fringe theme is presented.

I noticed this post of yours, Oniomancer, and wanted to elaborate. I think I'll be disagreeing with you on some minor points, but please don't take this as disrespectful. I'm working toward a relevant point here. But here again is the image of egyptian lad's on which you made comments:

Tut-Images.jpg

The items are identified as such:

  1. Tut's funerary mask, found in his tomb (KV62)
  2. One of four golden coffinettes in which Tut's mummified organs were stored, and as such found in his tomb
  3. One of two colossal statues found in what was probably supposed to be Tut's mortuary temple on the west bank of Thebes, prior to his untimely death
  4. A wooden, life-sized mannequin bust (chest to head) found in his tomb
  5. One of a pair of gilded-wood guardian statues flanking the door to Tut's burial chamber, and as such found in his tomb
  6. (The statue immediately below #5) I am not positive on this one but I'm reasonably certain it is the other of the pair described in #3
  7. (To the right of #5) Tut's mummy, of course
  8. (Below the mummy) The forensic bust of Tut produced by Elisabeth Daynes, of Paris

So you were almost dead on, Oniomancer. The interesting point is, not four but five of these objects were sealed inside Tut's tomb 3,300 years ago and not seen again until 1922, when Howard Carter discovered and excavated KV62. Obviously they were produced specifically for him, with the possible exception of the mannequin bust, which is pretty generic and uninscribed.

What has always struck me is how recognizable Tut's monuments are, even to the modern eye. And to my eye, based on facial representation alone, objects #1, #2, #3, and the other colossal statue are definitively Tutankhamun. Object #5, the guardian statue, was meant to have been a servant of the king inside his tomb, so there need not have been any direct resemblance with Tut. The colossal statue identified as #3 is at the Oriental Institute, so I am well acquainted with it. Egyptian lad is correct that it doesn't bear Tut's name; the cartouches were first recarved for Aye and then for Horemheb, whose names are still on them. Nevertheless, consensus is nearly universal that on style alone the statue was originally carved for Tut.

So we can compare the two colossal statues with the actual human remains of the boy-king. Was Tut around 20 feet tall? Of course not. His mummified human remains reveal that he probably stood at about 5'6"—which was fairly tall for a man of that time, but not exactly giant.

The same approach can be applied to one of the greatest pharaohs in Egyptian history: Ramesses II. He was one of the most prodigious builders of all pharaohs. One of his most recognizable monuments is the temple of Abu Simbel, with its 60-foot statues. So, are we to suppose that Ramesses II was a giant? Of course not. His mummified human remains reveal that he probably stood at about 5'9"—which was damn tall for a man of that time, but not exactly giant.

To paraphrase Coleridge:

Giants, giants, nowhere

Nor the slightest hint of one

Giants, giants, nowhere

The fantasy in favor is done.

With apologies to Coleridge, of course. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Wow, how absurd.

Anyway, as an evolutionary biologist myself, I can say for certain that even if there were giants in ancient Egypt (which you've presented a pitifully poor argument for, incidentally; ergo, there probably weren't), evolutionary theory would be affected in no way. Evolutionary science would have no comment on the presence of giants in ancient Egypt, if they existed, apart perhaps from noting the gene flow which would have yielded such specimens. Unfortunately for your little conspiracy theory, there are no specimens. At all. End of story.

Edited by Arbitran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiskatonicGrad

martin-luther-king-memorial-barack-obama-washington-mall-101611jpg-30890990aeb3f677.jpg

MLK was a giant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

I'm trying to make up for the unnecessarily negative post I wrote in Post 53, so I'm plumbing this discussion for things to comment on. I had intended not to get involved at first, but then that logical mantra popped into my head: Why the hell not? Well, that and the fact that I continue to think it's important to strike a balance when a particularly misinformed fringe theme is presented.

I noticed this post of yours, Oniomancer, and wanted to elaborate. I think I'll be disagreeing with you on some minor points, but please don't take this as disrespectful. I'm working toward a relevant point here. But here again is the image of egyptian lad's on which you made comments:

Tut-Images.jpg

The items are identified as such:

  1. Tut's funerary mask, found in his tomb (KV62)
  2. One of four golden coffinettes in which Tut's mummified organs were stored, and as such found in his tomb
  3. One of two colossal statues found in what was probably supposed to be Tut's mortuary temple on the west bank of Thebes, prior to his untimely death
  4. A wooden, life-sized mannequin bust (chest to head) found in his tomb
  5. One of a pair of gilded-wood guardian statues flanking the door to Tut's burial chamber, and as such found in his tomb
  6. (The statue immediately below #5) I am not positive on this one but I'm reasonably certain it is the other of the pair described in #3
  7. (To the right of #5) Tut's mummy, of course
  8. (Below the mummy) The forensic bust of Tut produced by Elisabeth Daynes, of Paris

Ah. nuts. I fubared it because i didn't pay attention to his cockeyed numbering system. The odds are all right but the evens are inverted.

24974543.jpg

But I'm shocked, shocked I say, at your insensitive attitude toward the remains of our hapless boy-king here. Hasn't the feminist revolution taught us the error of objectifying people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Hello!

Actually the variety of arts, do prove a lot of things

In saqqara arts: there is a record for statues construction, The small seated statues,sculptors of our size were doing this work.

In rekhmire arts, thebes: records of colossal statues construction, it were not small sculptors who do the work but giants.

Comparison in this image:

post-132711-0-79689300-1348618739_thumb.

I mean by this comparison, They were accurate about the depicted scenes of how things were done.

If you find the arts not enough proof, well no problem, actually the variety of arts.

Interesting, however I'm one of those pesky adherents of Giles of Occam - what's the simplest explanation for those artefacts? For me, I think the explanation that they're big containers rather the big drinking vessels.

You refer to the Giants Tools, The archaeologists in egypt actually run big conspiracy, so the huge tools of giants will not be revealed for people..................they hide the huge tools of giants, and Giant mummies, and high accounts of giant skeletons.

Why?

One of the greatest mysteries of history is how the Pyramids were built. If someone has an answer, has proof of it why hide it? That's what I can't get. I understand why there might be a coverup of something like Nibiru, (ie it's a threat to humanity but one John Citizen can't do a thing about beyond panic) but an extinct race of giants? Why cover that up?

The huge tools of giants exist in ancient egypt:

Diorite stones were used in some works as hammer stones to split and cut the granite rock:

Look at this huge diorite stone:

post-132711-0-17121300-1348619511_thumb.

The archaeologists only show the small diorite stones around quarries and pyramids, But the Huge diorite stones are banned to be shown, in order to not support the giants theory at all:

Now that is interesting - what else could those obviously unweidly rocks be used for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alcibiades9

This is a good example of my above point. You've made a couple of foolish remarks about me that have come back to bite you, and you are riled that other posters might like me—both personally and academically. All this reflects is your own insecurity. It was highly unnecessary in the first place to write your Post 93, which served no purpose but to flame me and to take the discussion off course.

You just don't get it, do you? It's almost impossible to disagree with you in any real sense on any issue because you take it ALL personally. You turn ALL criticism or disagreement into a personal attack on you, and you always over-react accordingly... on an emotional rather than intellectual level. You have installed yourself here like some fussy old boiler hen, clucking and fussing, and ruling the roost in orthodox Egyptology, getting your way, being deferred to. That's what Post 93 was about - it wasn't a direct assault on your admirable and undeniable enthusiasm for mainstream Egyptology as such. But typically, when challenged, you squawk and lay an egg and play the victim.

Unfortunately your instinctive passive agressive approach doesn't work on me. You know - the part where you throw in a snide personal insult in a post, then tell the other poster to "move on" and deal with the issues rather than trading personal insults. I actually don't think you know you are doing it, you've been getting away with it for so long on here.

Then when people like Cladking or Scott Creighton come along, meeting you point for point on a real, researched, sources based level, you simply cannot handle it and you either eventually run away or you start accusing people of stalking you and being "creepy". Then after saying something as personal as that, you whine and say people are getting personal with you. You can dish it out but you can't take it. But if you are going to publish your opinion on an open forum, you have to be prepared to have it challenged - just as I knew I would be after Post 93. I knew exactly who on this board would reply to me, what they would say, and how they would say it. And they did. And as much as I'm gratified that Scott C has posted to agree with me, it doesn't matter if he agrees or not. I've been reading these boards long enough to know what I think.

The fact that a few choice truths is enough for some of you to start squealing "troll!" just goes to show how set in your ways you all are, how smug and secure here. I actually find your own black and white, enemy or friend, approach to people on this board - labelling people as "fringe" (bad) or not fringe (good) - as rather underhand and quite offensive. But I don't think you are a troll. That's just the way you see people on here. That's fine. But you reap what you sow.

People like me who come to this forum not because we are "fringe" or otherwise, but because we simply have an open, enquiring mind aren't going to be told what to think by anyone, on either side. I'm not going to be browbeaten into saying or not saying something simply because there's a resident gang of 8 or so hardcore members on here whose responses are as predictable as they are condenscending. And I don't need a subject rated or measured by how much YOU or anyone else are going to be pulling your hair out about it. Read up on your Galileo - the world does not revolve around you. Now, to be fair, it wasn't you who made the hair-pulling point but Cormac.... but you were delighted to have been - yet again - referred to in that way and promptly came in to dispense your "wisdom".

I think you'll find a look through the Graham Hancock forum to be quite enlightening. No, don't worry, Graham Hancock is not usually there himself - he won't lure you into his gingerbread house and try to force you to believe that the Great Pyramid was built by giant time travelling smurfs. You will find, however, that ALL sides of a debate - from purest orthodoxy to the wildest fringe and us guys in the middle - are represented well, and often taken forward at the highest standards not just by guys like Cladking or Scott but by scientists, archeologists, geologists and others who are experts in their fields. No matter how much you think you know about a given subject, someone tends to come along whose dedication to it - and mastery of it - is humbling. But that's what a forum should be. Not only a place to speak, but a place to listen and a place in which to learn. Sparks fly, yes. There are disgreements, certainly. But the debates move forward, and no one has to stop and worry about who will be tearing their hair out.

So open the henhouse door a crack. Let some light in. :yes:

Edited by Alcibiades9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harsh86_Patel

Interesting, however I'm one of those pesky adherents of Giles of Occam - what's the simplest explanation for those artefacts? For me, I think the explanation that they're big containers rather the big drinking vessels.

Why?

One of the greatest mysteries of history is how the Pyramids were built. If someone has an answer, has proof of it why hide it? That's what I can't get. I understand why there might be a coverup of something like Nibiru, (ie it's a threat to humanity but one John Citizen can't do a thing about beyond panic) but an extinct race of giants? Why cover that up?

Now that is interesting - what else could those obviously unweidly rocks be used for?

Reasons for covering up Nibiru etc can be political,relegious,geographical etc etc.Accepting it can spell doom for people whose entire career is based on the contrary.And it is often noted that the individual who first comes up with a alternative hypothesis is not the one who hides or supresses it but it is the peers who often discredit such hypothesis.

Introducing a major breakthrough which contradicts a previous well accepted theory can have a huge social impact (and at times also a economical impact).

Even throughout modern history people have been persecuted or crucified depending when they lived for suggesting or postulating radical ideas.(The Earth was never flat but the first person to suggest that in relatively modern history was threatened with capital punishment).

Edited by Harsh86_Patel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

There are a couple of problems with your speculation Earl.Of.Trumps. First as a member of the genus Homo, Heidelbergensis is considered human, although obviously not a modern human (HSS). Second, there's this from a recent article:

http://www.scienceda...20606075323.htm

So apparently they weren't the giants they're being presented as.

cormac

Those estimates were based on a group of Heidelbergensis living in Spain. So that doesn't rule out another group of these humans living in South Africa couldn't have been taller than average modern humans. The South African professor didn't base his conclusions on just one find, but on many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Reasons for covering up Nibiru etc can be political,relegious,geographical etc etc.Accepting it can spell doom for people whose entire career is based on the contrary.And it is often noted that the individual who first comes up with a alternative hypothesis is not the one who hides or supresses it but it is the peers who often discredit such hypothesis.

Introducing a major breakthrough which contradicts a previous well accepted theory can have a huge social impact (and at times also a economical impact).

How could anyone cover up Nibiru with all these amateur astronomers around the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alcibiades9

SC: Nitpick you personally? Get over yourself. I present valid counter-arguments and facts against the silly Consensus Egyptology you present. You see only one possible cultural context and that is your great undoing.

Ridiculing peer-reviewed Egyptological research? Just because something is peer-reviewed doesn't make it fact and it certainly doesn't prove anything. If you think otherwise then you are seriously deluded. Alcibides is right - you have some kind of axe to grind against anyone who thinks different to you. You play this passive-aggressive game but your complete hatred of fringe ideas and those who present them isn't hidden too well. Furthermore, you label all such people with the same "fringe" brush, hoping the mud will stick. My own research, as you well know, is very much rooted in the same evidence used by Consensus Egyptology, albeit I interpret some of it differently. You call that "fringe", others call it 'Alternative Egyptology'. But I guess you will have a hissy fit that others could remotely consider that my own research has anything at all to do with Egyptology. Heaven forbid! Such is your pomposity, dismissiveness and downright arrogance.

You hold up peer-review like a cop holds up a badge. There are bad cops out there.

SC

Hi Scott didn't mean to drag you into it, sorry. Nice to see you back on here setting the heather alight anyway, along with Cladking.

Just while you're here, you never did answer my question a few months back about the casing stones from the GP. They were, as I understand it, completely shaken off in an earthquake and carted off by the Arabs to build what is now Cairo back in the 8th or 9th Centuries AD.

One early (Roman?) report tells of a high water mark on the outside of the pyramid (when it had it casing stones) - very curious. But specifically, Herodotus reports that these casing stones had strange writing carved on them.

Now, surely, somewhere in modern Cairo there must be old buildings, mosques etc which - deep down in the foundations or crypts - where at least some of these casing blocks ended up? And on some of them there may still be that strange writing? I think that would be a tremendous discovery, as surely it might lay to rest once and for all this argument over the purpose of the pyramids at Giza.

My question was - and be honest here - what would your reaction be if they found a large casing stone, clearly taken from the GP, which said in clear hieroglyphs "THIS IS THE TOMB OF KHUFU"? :whistle:

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.