Secret Caves under the Pyramids

[back to earth]

You're correct. The casing blocks have been removed. My belief is that they were washed off. Why do you say it does not appear that was the cause of the block's removal?

because there is little evidence of such an occurrence

Conversely we have evidence of removal. Even in the 12th century m ost of the outer surface stones still existed ,m as witnessed and recorded by Abd al-Latif. The after that, the outer stones started to be removed bit by bit and used in Cairo for mosques and houses (and we know how some Muslims have no problem at all defacing and destroying ancient monuments (its probably happening right now actually ! ). Even in 1639 John Greeves wrote that the whole face of Khafre's pyramid (except the southern side ) was still intact but Khufu's pyramid had the stones removed.

Now .... un less there has been a massive biblical flood since 1693 ......

[back to earth]

All the religions and all the cultural mythologies seem to contain stories of a flood and other natural disasters.

Of course they do. Most religions and cultures have been effected by floods and other natural disasters .... they also have a proclivity to announce that the area of the world they know of, is the whole world. And their culture is THE culture.

Your 'ALL' is a bit of a claim isnt it ...

Traditional ancient cultures here do not have 'biblical / epic / ultimate destruction / flood stories like that ... they have stories of a prolonged and gradual sea rise that displaced people.

But then again, they never had a bible, lived by a single giant river or between two rivers on a flood plain

Edited May 14, 2015 by back to earth

[back to earth]

Do you often speculate based on a total absence of evidence? That seems counter-productive at best.

--Jaylemurph

Well ... there are ideas that some of us like ... and you (and people like back to earth and others) poo-poo them .

Shame on you for spoiling my fun !

[back to earth]

BUT that's the fun sort of speculation, that way you don't have to worry about pesky things like facts and citations!

And when one challenges the others 'knowledge' (or its source) one can just ignore and not answer those pesky questions as well

[back to earth]

Kmt, Kenemet, and Hans have already addressed a number of your questions regarding the radiocarbon dating of the Old Kingdom monumental structures. A few additional points:

• The number of samples extracted from (for example, G1) and submitted for dating, combined with their provenience, adds notable confidence to the calibrated dating results.
  
• As you have observed in the report by Bonani et al (1995) numerous Old Kingdom structures were subject to testing. It is worthy of note that the temporal sequence of the returned dates is consistent with the previous understandings.
  

As to your 12900 BP "calamity", you may be confusing the onset of the YD with some form of grossly devastating event. While the onset of the YD did result in a cooling period lasting until ~11600 BP, there is no indication of "discernible impact on people, plants, animals, or landscapes" (Holliday 2015). Thus, your speculations in this regard are not supported by the data.

As to the YDIH, it would be personally advised that you do research a bit deeper than a "Wiki" reference. There are numerous problems with the hypothesis that have come to light in the course of current research. These include (but are not limited to):

• Insufficient dating accuracy (see Meltzer et al 2014).
  
• The lack of presence of YDIH "indicators" at a number of Clovis-era sites.
  
• Debatable genesis of the framboids and MMSps's.
  
• Debatable genesis of the microspherules.
  
• Etc.
  

.

Also, it appears, regional variations . It may have greatly effected some ( like in the early Avestas it specifically mentions this period of climate change hardship.

It still happens today 'global warming' is not a constant 'application' everywhere eg. my location ( 30 deg S ) shows no significant change. Tasmania does, in the last 15 years, many days in summer it is actually cooler here than in parts of Tasmania 42 deg S ).

[robinrenee]

because there is little evidence of such an occurrence

Conversely we have evidence of removal. Even in the 12th century m ost of the outer surface stones still existed ,m as witnessed and recorded by Abd al-Latif. The after that, the outer stones started to be removed bit by bit and used in Cairo for mosques and houses (and we know how some Muslims have no problem at all defacing and destroying ancient monuments (its probably happening right now actually ! ). Even in 1639 John Greeves wrote that the whole face of Khafre's pyramid (except the southern side ) was still intact but Khufu's pyramid had the stones removed.

Now .... un less there has been a massive biblical flood since 1693 ......

Thanks, you all have convinced me that the stones were not washed off by a tsunami. I stand corrected. See... I have no trouble changing my mind when a better idea or the truth comes along.

[Hawken]

I don't know about aliens but it could be possible that the ancients could have been more advanced then given credit.

If our civilization was destroyed by an asteroid which caused a major depopulation, it could take eons for humanity to

rebuild back to a more technological society. Our descendants could only speculate on how we lived because a lot

would have been lost.

[Hanslune]

I don't know about aliens but it could be possible that the ancients could have been more advanced then given credit.

If our civilization was destroyed by an asteroid which caused a major depopulation, it could take eons for humanity to

rebuild back to a more technological society. Our descendants could only speculate on how we lived because a lot

would have been lost.

However, the archaeological and other records would give a good indication of our technology even if we lost some capacity due to population loss. If however the only survivors were the Sentinelese or the Mascho-Piro tribe then we'd pretty much be starting over and it would be a long haul back up but once that civilization regained an ability to do archaeology the picture would become clearer to them. If New Zealand survived intact civilization would come back much quicker if with a funny accent.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashco-Piro_people

[jaylemurph]

Well ... there are ideas that some of us like ... and you (and people like back to earth and others) poo-poo them .

Shame on you for spoiling my fun !

Speculation without fact is called fiction. Which is fine, if/when you can appreciate it on its own merit. Speculation with fact is called history. It's when people can't appreciate -- or deliberately refuse to accept such a difference is important and extant, as a certain number of people of this form regularly engage in -- that things become problematic. Or more exactly, foolish.

--Jaylemurph

[Hawken]

However, the archaeological and other records would give a good indication of our technology even if we lost some capacity due to population loss. If however the only survivors were the Sentinelese or the Mascho-Piro tribe then we'd pretty much be starting over and it would be a long haul back up but once that civilization regained an ability to do archaeology the picture would become clearer to them. If New Zealand survived intact civilization would come back much quicker if with a funny accent.

http://en.wikipedia....tinelese_people

http://en.wikipedia....hco-Piro_people

Our descendants might be accurate in some details but it won't be 100%. They'll be off by a good margin

unless they invented a time machine to go back and observed.

[aquatus1]

Speculation with fact is called history.

And speculation "based on a true story" is Hollywood, and closer to fiction than history.

[Hanslune]

Our descendants might be accurate in some details but it won't be 100%. They'll be off by a good margin

unless they invented a time machine to go back and observed.

Archaeology and other methods can only provide a skeleton of what happened in the past not a full reconstruction.

In the present you KNOW you had a paternal great great grandfather but you may know very little about him other than he must have existed - unless he kept a detailed diary or his life was remarked on by others you'll only have the barest of bones of knowledge about him.

[Jarocal]

Speculation without fact is called fiction. Which is fine, if/when you can appreciate it on its own merit. Speculation with fact is called history. It's when people can't appreciate -- or deliberately refuse to accept such a difference is important and extant, as a certain number of people of this form regularly engage in -- that things become problematic. Or more exactly, foolish.

--Jaylemurph

I thought speculation without fact was called the "phringe theorist speaking circuit". Which is in my opinion a more applicable label than fiction as fiction also includes invented narratives never intended to be speculation about anything.

"Cladking's Ramp Abatement Proposal"

"Geyser Operated Openair Funicular Yarn"

Where would you pit these speculations considering all the evidence that has been submitted to support the speculation?

[kmt_sesh]

Greetings kmt_sesh, your knowledge of ancient Egypt is impressive. And thank you for the radiocarbon source material. I feel satisfied with the Old Kingdom datings. They used things like straw in the bricks. However, when it came to the structures that I feel are so much older, they used charcoal. It seems to me that charcoal could have accumulated from any bonfires in the cavernous structures at anytime during their history.

Carbon dating is not precise in very old samples, but when dating artifacts from the Early Bronze Age (such as the Great Pyramid) carbon dating is usually accurate to within a century (artifacts from later times are even more accurate, such as +/- 50 years for the New Kingdom). Accuracy is especially confident when many samples are taken from the same object, and more than forty samples were used for the Great Pyramid alone.

What was specifically tested was the mortar that was slathered between the blocks of masonry 4,500 years ago, and which subsequently hardened into and around them. The charcoal is inside the mortar, therefore fixed in time and place. Mark Lehner, who headed the carbon dating analyses, has noted what he calls the "old wood problem," which can affect C14 results. Given the scaricty of wood around Giza, the Egyptians would've reused as much wood as possible, and this includes in the fires from which the mortar was prepared. There's your charcaoal source. So if a lot of the wood was already old by the time the Egyptians were burning it to produce mortar, it might have thrown off the C14 results to a slightly older period. But one would not expect a vast difference, and the results of the carbon dating bear that out.

I'm aware that there is zero evidence. But I can't help speculating. I've always questioned authority if it doesn't make sense to me. It's gotten me in trouble many times, but I've surely learned a lot more than if I had kept quiet.

Speculation can be useful and is sometimes necessary, of course. Professional historians sometimes speculate, too. They have to. But what's important is that the speculation be guided by extant evidence in all matters of historical inquiry. If a line of speculation departs sharply from what existing evidence has already told us, the speculation is apt to be misleading and unreliable. There is a significant amount of research into the prehistoric periods of the Nile Valley, so the question to ask yourself is: Is my speculation and my questioning of authority in line with what the evidence already shows, and if not, what tangible informaion can I offer to challenge the existing evidence?

I believe that the Old Kingdom structures carbon dated to around 3000 BCE had not been built when my alleged great catastrophe struck. I have rudimentary knowledge of the Giza Plateau, but I believe the Great pyramid and the Bent pyramid were built to withstand... and they did. Something happened at the end of the last Ice age, and I believe the Great Pyramid and a few others on the Giza Plateau were the only structures on earth that survived it.

But the pyramids you yourself have mentioned date to the Old Kingdom. They were included in the carbon dating and the science confirms they belong in the third millennium BCE. I don't know of any "great catastrophe" for that time or before in the Nile Valley, an area that was never severely affected by the ice ages in the time of humans. The most direct effect might have been the gradual drying out of northern Africa, from savannah to desert, but this was indeed very gradual, took place in fits and bursts, and concluded thousands of years before Egypt even emerged as a kingdom. Recall that half a millennium passed between the founding of the Egyptian state and the building of the first pyramid.

By the way, the Bent Pyramid is not at Giza but at Dashur. This is about 40 miles to the southwest of Giza. The Bent Pyramid belongs to Sneferu, father of Khufu, and was the first monument the Egyptians attempted from the ground up to build as a true pyramid (smooth sides instead of steps). It looks so odd only because they made the lower slopes too steep and encoutnered many structural problems, including the cracking of inner load-bearing stones. They finished it off with a gentler slope.

Please don't be offended. I really do appreciate your scholarship. Maybe just think of me as a doddering old lady and humor my flights of fancy.... and tell them to do another carbon dating on the Great Pyramid with something other than charcoal.... something organic that was built into the structure... you know?

I'm not the least offended. It's all part of debate and discussion.

[Hanslune]

Here is the actual report on the use of c-14 dating:

https://journals.uai...wFile/3874/3299

Below is the key table which is explained below

Edited May 14, 2015 by Hanslune

[robinrenee]

Carbon dating is not precise in very old samples, but when dating artifacts from the Early Bronze Age (such as the Great Pyramid) carbon dating is usually accurate to within a century (artifacts from later times are even more accurate, such as +/- 50 years for the New Kingdom). Accuracy is especially confident when many samples are taken from the same object, and more than forty samples were used for the Great Pyramid alone.

What was specifically tested was the mortar that was slathered between the blocks of masonry 4,500 years ago, and which subsequently hardened into and around them. The charcoal is inside the mortar, therefore fixed in time and place. Mark Lehner, who headed the carbon dating analyses, has noted what he calls the "old wood problem," which can affect C14 results. Given the scaricty of wood around Giza, the Egyptians would've reused as much wood as possible, and this includes in the fires from which the mortar was prepared. There's your charcaoal source. So if a lot of the wood was already old by the time the Egyptians were burning it to produce mortar, it might have thrown off the C14 results to a slightly older period. But one would not expect a vast difference, and the results of the carbon dating bear that out.

Speculation can be useful and is sometimes necessary, of course. Professional historians sometimes speculate, too. They have to. But what's important is that the speculation be guided by extant evidence in all matters of historical inquiry. If a line of speculation departs sharply from what existing evidence has already told us, the speculation is apt to be misleading and unreliable. There is a significant amount of research into the prehistoric periods of the Nile Valley, so the question to ask yourself is: Is my speculation and my questioning of authority in line with what the evidence already shows, and if not, what tangible informaion can I offer to challenge the existing evidence?

But the pyramids you yourself have mentioned date to the Old Kingdom. They were included in the carbon dating and the science confirms they belong in the third millennium BCE. I don't know of any "great catastrophe" for that time or before in the Nile Valley, an area that was never severely affected by the ice ages in the time of humans. The most direct effect might have been the gradual drying out of northern Africa, from savannah to desert, but this was indeed very gradual, took place in fits and bursts, and concluded thousands of years before Egypt even emerged as a kingdom. Recall that half a millennium passed between the founding of the Egyptian state and the building of the first pyramid.

By the way, the Bent Pyramid is not at Giza but at Dashur. This is about 40 miles to the southwest of Giza. The Bent Pyramid belongs to Sneferu, father of Khufu, and was the first monument the Egyptians attempted from the ground up to build as a true pyramid (smooth sides instead of steps). It looks so odd only because they made the lower slopes too steep and encoutnered many structural problems, including the cracking of inner load-bearing stones. They finished it off with a gentler slope.

I'm not the least offended. It's all part of debate and discussion.

Thank you, kmt_sesh. Your patience, painstaking logic, reason, and extensive knowledge of ancient Egypt has convinced me that the Great Pyramid was built 4500 years ago.

[Gaden]

I was going to chime in yesterday, but others had already covered the points I was going to make, save one.

The carbon dating is just one method of determining a date. As has been mentioned charcoal from the mortar in many different locations within the GP points to about 4500-4600 years ago. Then we have the graffiti that says,essentially "we built this for Khufu". We have a written record of what pharaoh ruled at what time. And we have pottery shards excavated from the site, the design of which and the markings on them changed over the years and can thus be very accurately dated. All of the dates match. There is actually more evidence, but I think the point is made.

When the fringe people (I hesitate to use the word 'scientist') claim a date older than what Egyptology agrees on, they usually just mention the carbon dating and not all of the other corroborating evidence. It's not really hard to figure out why.

[kmt_sesh]

Thank you, kmt_sesh. Your patience, painstaking logic, reason, and extensive knowledge of ancient Egypt has convinced me that the Great Pyramid was built 4500 years ago.

Thanks for the kind words, robinrenee. Glad I could be of some help.

[regeneratia]

Actually dreamland brought this up almost three years ago. Not quite synchronicity, I guess.

I listen to dreamland.

Sometimes. Do not subscribe.

Edited May 19, 2015 by regeneratia