Great Pyramids VS Egyptian Pyramids

[Harsh86_Patel]

Rational! you do not know the meaning of the word. This constant evasion by you is ridiculous way beyond the point of any rational thinking. Nobody needs to write a entire book on this forum to prove that KV62 body is actually Tutankhamun. All the evidence, all the books written, all the archeology and study done, all of it shows that KV62 mummy is Tutankhamun. For my proof I quote all the hundreds of books, thousands of articles written about this matter. There is no book or article, nothing, that disputes reality. You stand alone and want me, or anybody else here to essentially write a book as proof to satisfy you. Listen, it won't happen. You don't like reality, then you prove reality wrong, go ahead, I dare you. Or see some sense and stop making yourself look very foolish, and trollish....

It's ok i don't want all the material jist give me the jist of the undeniable evidence.

All the books written is not evidence.

Like i said you will resort to opinions from Egyptologists, there is no other undeniable proofs that you have.

When you don't have undeniable proof for a major belief then you should not call others names for doubting it.

[The_Spartan]

Like i said you will resort to opinions from Egyptologists, there is no other undeniable proofs that you have.

And..what will you resort to?

Sithin, Hancock, Daniken as reference for your claims?

What data do you have to back your claims?

What undeniable proofs/evidences do YOU have to back your claims??

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

It's ok i don't want all the material jist give me the jist of the undeniable evidence.

All the books written is not evidence.

Like i said you will resort to opinions from Egyptologists, there is no other undeniable proofs that you have.

When you don't have undeniable proof for a major belief then you should not call others names for doubting it.

No, and as I have stated several times before, you play a game for your own amusement. I am 100% confident that I, and the rest of the world is right about this affair. You will not give evidence when the onus is on you to provide evidence. You twist comments by other posters. You blatantly turn reality on it's head. I do not see much difference between your modus operandi here and that of a troll. We all can have some fun and say ridiculous things at times,but you have taken this so far that I see no other rational explanation for your bizarre behaviour. Laugh all you like, post whatever nonsense you like below this post. I have a life to live and have no further time to engage with you in this farce. To me you are now

[Harsh86_Patel]

No, and as I have stated several times before, you play a game for your own amusement. I am 100% confident that I, and the rest of the world is right about this affair. You will not give evidence when the onus is on you to provide evidence. You twist comments by other posters. You blatantly turn reality on it's head. I do not see much difference between your modus operandi here and that of a troll. We all can have some fun and say ridiculous things at times,but you have taken this so far that I see no other rational explanation for your bizarre behaviour. Laugh all you like, post whatever nonsense you like below this post. I have a life to live and have no further time to engage with you in this farce. To me you are now

Still i don't see any undeniable evidence of why it has to be TUT.

Since you like using fallacies, appeal to majority and appeal to authority are both fallacies. You are giving no other evidence.

I am 100% sure and most of the experts are a 100% sure that it is not beyond doubt that the mummy is Tut, this is the reasons that tests are being carried out still.

It is an unproven myth till date. If it was certain that the mummy has to be Tut's then there was no need for more analysis.

[Harsh86_Patel]

talk about the GP. Keep Sphinx aside.

Evidence please?

How wonderful of you trying to plug in something smelling of ancient indians with the PITAH/Father stuff and link it to the Ancient Egyptians.

Soon, will you claim link between every god in the Hindu Pantheon with the Egyptian pantheon.??

I guess, naturally, you will be at it soon.

In Egyptian mythology, Ptah (pron.: /pəˈtɑː/;^[1] Egyptian: ptḥ, probably vocalized as Pitaḥ in ancient Egyptian ^[2])

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

And answer to your other question is right, i will compare the pantheons of different ancient civilizations. I have been doing that since quite some time.

Not only the Hindu Pantheon but even with pantheons of other civilizations.

Seems like you have an issue. Do you?

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Somebody else please take this on, if anybody can stomach it. Perhaps mention Tutankhamun's name on cartouches on all manner of funeral goods, the shrines, the coffins, the mummy bands. And perhaps explain that there are no investigations on his mummy to test his identity, as it is known. But have fun trying to "proove" that a name in a cartouche indicates that the person is a king as it seems this is also in doubt. As is perhaps the "fact" that the Earth circles the Sun, or night follows day. All highly contentious I'm sure........

Edited May 6, 2013 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[Harsh86_Patel]

And..what will you resort to?

Sithin, Hancock, Daniken as reference for your claims?

What data do you have to back your claims?

What undeniable proofs/evidences do YOU have to back your claims??

Which claims? I usually rely on material archaeological and cultural evidence for most of the possibilities i put forward.

Though i like Graham and Cremo and Sitchin to varying extents. The mere opinion of these people is not proof of anything.

I like to debate more on material and cultural evidence when it comes to History.

[The_Spartan]

In Egyptian mythology, Ptah (pron.: /pəˈtɑː/;^[1]Egyptian: ptḥ, probably vocalized as Pitaḥ in ancient Egyptian ^[2])

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

And answer to your other question is right, i will compare the pantheons of different ancient civilizations. I have been doing that since quite some time.

Not only the Hindu Pantheon but even with pantheons of other civilizations.

Seems like you have an issue. Do you?

Ptah is Ptah. Nowhere is it stated that ptah is "Father"

It is you who is bringing the Father link to ptah.

So there is an intent that cant be denied.

Thats so firnge of you.

Edited May 6, 2013 by The_Spartan

[The_Spartan]

Which claims? I usually rely on material archaeological and cultural evidence for most of the possibilities i put forward.

Though i like Graham and Cremo and Sitchin to varying extents. The mere opinion of these people is not proof of anything.

I like to debate more on material and cultural evidence when it comes to History.

Where?????

We all have asked you for references but have you provided any such Archaeological and cultural evidence when requested for?

Edited May 6, 2013 by The_Spartan

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Hmmm, my final shot here.

So "Material evidence". Tutankhamun's prenomen (throne name) was nb-ḫprw-rˤ rendered in latin as Nebkheperura. This is the name he would have been known as when he was King. On his body this scarab necklace was found. The elements spell out the name Nebkheperura. But of course this must be fake, put on his body by Carter, or even the AE themselves to hide the "true" identity of the body........

Edited May 6, 2013 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[Harsh86_Patel]

Somebody else please take this on, if anybody can stomach it. Perhaps mention Tutankhamun's name on cartouches on all manner of funeral goods, the shrines, the coffins, the mummy bands. And perhaps explain that there are no investigations on his mummy to test his identity, as it is known. But have fun trying to "proove" that a name in a cartouches indicates that the person is a king as it seems this is also in doubt. As is perhaps the "fact" that the Eath circles the Sun, or night follows day. All highly contentious I'm sure........

The name in the cartouche's can be a second name of a different Pharoah. Is it possible? Is it observed that the same pharoah had different names and cartouches?

But leaving this aside, what is the undeniable proof that the mummy is TUT's beyond any reasonable doubt?

I can check for myself if the Earth rotates around the Sun, using controlled experiments. Same goes for night follows day. Is there a controlled experiment to prove that the mummy is undeniably Tut's.

Here is more for you to cast a doubt:

1.

Tutankhamun's tomb had been entered at least twice, not long after he was buried and well before Carter's discovery. The outermost doors of the shrines enclosing the king's nested coffins were left opened, and unsealed. It is estimated that 60% of the jewellery which had been stored in the "treasury" was removed as well. After one of these ancient robberies, embalming materials from KV62 are believed to have been buried at KV54.

OMG the tomb had been entered before and all the material was not found insitu in the same tomb.

2.

In 1907, just before his discovery of the tomb of Horemheb, Theodore M. Davis's team uncovered a small site containing funerary artifacts with Tutankhamun's name. Assuming that this site, identified as KV54, was Tutankhamun's complete tomb, Davis concluded the dig. The details of both findings are documented in Davis's 1912 publication, The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatânkhamanou; the book closes with the comment, "I fear that the Valley of the Kings is now exhausted."^[2] But Davis was to be proven spectacularly wrong.

OMG the funerary texts having Tut's name were found elsewhere.

3.

Some of the treasures in Tutankhamun's tomb are noted for their apparent departure from traditional depictions of the boy king. Certain cartouches where a king's name should appear have been altered, as if to reuse the property of a previous pharaoh—as often occurred. However, this instance may simply be the product of "updating" the artifacts to reflect the shift from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun. Other differences are less easy to explain, such as the older, more angular facial features of the middle coffin and canopic coffinettes. The most widely accepted theory for these latter variations is that the items were originally intended for Smenkhkare, who may or may not be the mysterious KV55 mummy. This mummy, according to craniological examinations, bears a striking first-order (father-to-son, brother-to-brother) relationship to Tutankhamun.^[11]

OMG There are manipulated cartouches. Much of the material is reused or recycled and belonged to other Pharoahs originally.This establishes the possibility that a later pharoah may have been buried in Tut's tomb instead of Tut.

This sarcophagus was constructed in granite ([a] in the cross-section). Each corner of the main body and lid were carved from stone of different colours. It appears to have been constructed for another owner, but then recarved for Tutankhamen; the identity of the original owner is not preserved.^[10] In each corner a protective goddess (Isis, Nephthys, Serket and Neith) guards the body.

OMG There is serious evidence that the Tomb was for a different owner.But it was recarved for TUT, but no answers to why it has to be TUT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV62

4.

Tutankhamun was buried in a tomb that was small relative to his status. His death may have occurred unexpectedly, before the completion of a grander royal tomb, so that his mummy was buried in a tomb intended for someone else. This would preserve the observance of the customary seventy days between death and burial

OMG it seems that there were Pharoahs that were buried in tombs designed for other Pharoahs.So there is a chance that we are mistaken about the identities of many of these ancient nobilities.

5.

His tomb was robbed at least twice in antiquity, but based on the items taken (including perishable oils and perfumes) and the evidence of restoration of the tomb after the intrusions, it seems clear that these robberies took place within several months at most of the initial burial. Eventually the location of the tomb was lost because it had come to be buried by stone chips from subsequent tombs, either dumped there or washed there by floods. In the years that followed, some huts for workers were built over the tomb entrance, clearly not knowing what lay beneath. When at the end of the 20th Dynasty the Valley of the Kings burials were systematically dismantled, the burial of Tutankhamun was overlooked, presumably because knowledge of it had been lost and his name may have been forgotten.

OMG there is a chance that it wasn't a robbery that occured but a different Pharoan or noble man may have reused the tombs for the burial of his family members. This can be a reason why it was also restored.Robber's leaving out a 114 KG gold mask seems rather unlikely.

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

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

You cannot even take a hint. This conversation is closed as you will not behave in a rational manner and refuse to provide ANY evidence that the body is not Tutankhamun's. Finis!

[The_Spartan]

Its a futile attempt to straighten a dog's tail.

So is trying to debate with a fringie.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Ptah is Ptah. Nowhere is it stated that ptah is "Father"

It is you who is bringing the Father link to ptah.

So there is an intent that cant be denied.

Thats so firnge of you.

Ptah is the creator god par excellence: He is considered the demiurge who existed before all things, and by his willingness, thought the world. It was first conceived by Thought, and realized by the Word: Ptah conceives the world by the thought of his heart and gives life through the magic of his Word. That which Ptah commanded was created, with which the constituents of nature, fauna, and flora, are contained. He also plays a role in the preservation of the world and the permanence of the royal function.

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

He was masculine and a creator of all, sounds a lot like a father to everything.

"Ptah was assimilated by the Greeks to the god Hephaistos and then by the Romans to Vulcan."

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

The second statement Spartan,is based on cultural evidence and nothing else.A comparison of Pantheons my friend.Is it Fringe? The mainstreamers are talking about Pantheons being merged by different civilizations, Tell me isn't this Fringe?

How can they say that the Greeks and Romans adapted a Egyptian God, they must be Fringe looneys, don't you think?

There are a lot of similarities between the Greek theonyms and Ancient Hindu Theonyms, Is this not indicative of a Cultural connection between the two?If so couldn't the Indians and egyptians be connected by the Gods they worship?

Here is a Fringe link for you Spartan:

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

[Harsh86_Patel]

You cannot even take a hint. This conversation is closed as you will not behave in a rational manner and refuse to provide ANY evidence that the body is not Tutankhamun's. Finis!

What a waste of time you are. Didn't get an ounce of the undeniable evidence for the mummy being Tut, the way you were getting riled up i thought you would come up with more and i would finally be convinced that the mummy is TUT. But no sir, conversation with you was an excercise in futility. You can consider this discussion ended now.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Its a futile attempt to straighten a dog's tail. So is trying to debate with a fringie.

Purely ad hominem and frustration, no notions of intelligent debate. This pretty much defines you.Go paint "Fringe" on some wall and blast it with dynamite, that might help your condition.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Where????? We all have asked you for references but have you provided any such Archaeological and cultural evidence when requested for?

For what? Which claim of mine are you asking for evidence? I think you have been out in the Sun for too long.

[The_Spartan]

Purely ad hominem and frustration, no notions of intelligent debate. This pretty much defines you.Go paint "Fringe" on some wall and blast it with dynamite, that might help your condition.

never Ad Hominem.

its a observation that was borne out of futile attempts for debate.

never Ad hominem.

go figure!

Edited May 6, 2013 by The_Spartan

[Harsh86_Patel]

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

More names for Tut at the end. This is one more mystery, how the Egyptologist have narrowed down on all the different names to represent TUT. Since it is mentioned in many places that the Pharoah was almost forgotten.He is not even in the King's list made by the same AE to remember and commerate their Kings.

T

he ancient Egyptians believed that for one’s soul to live on in the afterlife,

one’s name must be spoken by the living. Today, Tutankhamun may be the

best known of any Egyptian pharaoh but his name was nearly lost forever.

It was even left off of the lists of kings made by the ancient Egyptians to remember

their own history! In fact, before the discovery of his tomb in 1922, Tutankhamun

was almost completely forgotten.

Even though we know King Tutankhamun by his Son of Re name, it was his throne

name, Nebkheperure, that was incorporated in motifs on his jewelry. In ancient

Egyptian, Nebkheperure means “Lord of the forms of Re.” When written in hieroglyphs, this name consisted of a sun disk (A), a basket (, and a beetle © with three

dashes underneath (D). King Tutankhamun’s throne name is enclosed in one of two

cartouches on a golden fan in the exhibition. What name do you think appears in

the other cartouche?

http://carlos.emory.edu/PDF/Classroom_TUTorial_Names_of_Tut.pdf

[The_Spartan]

For what? Which claim of mine are you asking for evidence? I think you have been out in the Sun for too long.

• In one thread you stated that the Ram Setu /Adam's bridge was a man made construct/artificial. You were asked to provide evidence to back your claim. You never did provide anything.
  
• In another thread, you claimed that Dwarka is the cradle of civilization. You were asked to provide evidence to prove that the Dwarka that was "dredged" up was indeed a sunken city. You couldn’t provide any evidence except link to some WebPages on Hancock’s website.
  
• In yet another thread you claimed that India was the origin of the Aryans, but couldn’t prove that the Urheimat of the Indo European or Proto Indo European language was in India.
  
• In yet another thread, you claim that the Ancient Indians had either cultural exchange with South American Civilizations like the Incans/Mayans based on word play (for e.g. Inti raimi being linked to diwali and rama etc) and was asked to provide evidence like DNA traces etc to link them ansd couldnt deliver.
  

So, what have you delivered???

Archaeological And Cultural Evidence??

Where?

[cladking]

There have been several good posts by "fringies" yet they aren't being addressed. I believe,

some of them could be, but as usual "skeptics" prefer other tactics than addressing evidence.

Apparently it could be, since the cladding at the peak of G2 is still pretty much there and it hasn't fallen off. Or are you going to try to tell me it's held there by "sky-hook"?

I sympathize with your holding the mistaken view that the cladding might have been applied from

the top down. I briefly held the same opinion before I knew more about the nature of the cladding.

While it may not be literally impossible that it was installed from the top down it seems practically

impossible for this to be the case. That there is cladding on the top of G2 certainly only shows that

it's possible for the cladding to collapse from the top down. Indeed, it more likely shows that the clad-

ding was installed from the bottome up in six segments starting at the top as is in the record.

Edited May 6, 2013 by cladking

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Well, after a drink, I have decided, against my better judgement, to continue. I cannot allow this matter to be left hanging like this, for it to be seen in any way that there are two sides in a rational debate about the mummy in KV62. There is no debate, nobody except the OP has ever put forward the idea that KV62 is not Tutankhamun. There is no "fringe" theory to say this is not Tutankhamun, at least none that I ever came across. I know that other posters here and the many lurkers certainly can tell reality from complete nonsense and will have an opinion on what is true and what is false here. I will not engage in any point by point rebutal, I have partially done that on another post. The reason is that in many cases I do not even understand the point the OP is making, as his reasoning is so fractured because he tries to defend the indefensible. It does not matter to me what anybody believes or disbelieves, but it does matter if a public statement is made that defies all rationality and reality, and that statement is then never backed up by a single fact.

I had thought this was offtopic, but it is the OP himself who has pushed this issue. Besides, it is on a parralel as it involves a false identity, whether it be a pyramid or a person. The OP gives no evidence other than some "feeling" that KV62 is not Tutankhamun, and makes use of some genuine puzzles about the Armarna period, though these are all red herrings. It is not a mystery about Tutankhamun's name missing from the king lists, for we know that all the Armarna kings were removed for the reasons that anybody familiar with Armarna knows, and that is the Aten "heresy". This fact seems lost on the OP and he ascribes it to some "mystery", quite....

However, I posted a photo of a scarab necklace found on Tutankhamun's body, along with many others. This scarab has Tutankhamun's throne name built into it. Yet which of his names it had is not relevant, for what is relevant is that this piece of jewelry with his name is found with his body. If KV62 was a murder scene, then I think no reasonable person would dispute that with so many of the occupant's names all over the place, and particulary on his body, then this is the body of the person named. For it not to be opens the gates of madness, for why would anybody have a different body surrounded, so personally, with the various names of Tutankhamun. The OP gives no reason for this except some vague nonsense trying to say there is something "mysterious" about the intrussions into his tomb shortly after burial. There is no "mystery" here, as has been very well documented by kmt_sesh, though this is totaly ignored by the OP. Also it has been well pointed out the reasons for Tutankhamun's burial equipments to be second hand, again, there is no "mystery" about this, nobody disputes the reason, only who the original quipment was for. This in no way casts doubt on the identity of the occupant of KV62. An anolagy of the importance of various "bling" with any of the names of Tutankhamun, is that if the body of a soldier was found, perhaps from WW1, and it's identity disks were found with the body, then nobody would dispute that identity of the body. Yet Tutankhamun was buried with his name all over the place, so it is very sirprising that this is not seen as sufficient evidence of his identity. Indeed, it is the most compelling evidence, yet is insufficient for the OP and he writes some bizarre and difficult to understand nonsense suggest some "mystery" about Tutankhamun's names. He posts links to sites that in no way cast any doubt about the identity of KV62. I was, to save time, going to post the link to Tutankhamun's wiki and ask the OP to say it was all nonsense and the body is another person, a person he cannot give a name to of course. Yet he himself posts this link, a link that destroys his own argument. I suspect that the OP has made a throwaway comment about this affair, but now it has flown, his ego does not allow him to retract his ridiclous and completely false statement. I probably missed some things here, but otherwise I rest my case. So, KV 62 is Tutankhamun, or not, you dear readers can decide.

[cormac mac airt]

There have been several good posts by "fringies" yet they aren't being addressed. I believe,

some of them could be, but as usual "skeptics" prefer other tactics than addressing evidence.

I sympathize with your holding the mistaken view that the cladding might have been applied from

the top down. I briefly held the same opinion before I knew more about the nature of the cladding.

While it may not be literally impossible that it was installed from the top down it seems practically

impossible for this to be the case. That there is cladding on the top of G2 certainly only shows that

it's possible for the cladding to collapse from the top down. Indeed, it more likely shows that the clad-

ding was installed from the bottome up in six segments starting at the top as is in the record.

Not really since we know it was purposely removed from the Gizamids for use in the construction of Cairo. Also that the remnant casing is fairly uniform, from a horizontal perspective, which further suggests not being indicative of any kind of collapse.

cormac

[cladking]

Not really since we know it was purposely removed from the Gizamids for use in the construction of Cairo. Also that the remnant casing is fairly uniform, from a horizontal perspective, which further suggests not being indicative of any kind of collapse.

There is no reason to believe the stones were intentionally removed. Yes, it seems

likely, even probable, that at least some stones were removed either before or after

their collapse but all this is speculation. We know only that most of the stones were

carted off to rebuild "Cairo" after an earthquake. Egyptological opinion on the pre-

sent condition of the structure borders on the absurd. Rather than doing a proper

investigation with 21st century tools they write it off as unimportant because they've

already assumed all the answers. Some of the ideas out there by vetted Egyptolo-

gists are so far beyond the pale that they aren't even funny. They take virtually no

evidence at all and try to make it conform to their prejudices. Meanwhile the so-call-

ed "skeptics" enable them by not demanding simple answers. Rather than performing

the simplest experiments they hire engineers to confirm that ramps could have been

used. Here we're left with comments in this very thread like great pyramids were too

hard to build so they decided to make pale imitations glossing over tghe simple fact

that these pale imitations required less than 2% of the effort that was required for the

real pyramids. And they do this presumption with no real evidence at all except that

the ancients quit building real pyramids.

All this isn't to say orthodox opinion is necessarily wrong. This is to say that ortho-

dox opinion is founded on best guesses that might be wrong and they won't test any

of these assumptions so long as their apologists support this behavior. This is to say

that people are afraid of the facts. They are afraid of the pyramid. They would rather

play with their paradigm than determine if the paradigm might be wrong. They are afraid

they might find aliens or Atlantean or things that go bump in the night.

And the fact remains that nearly every single cladding stone on the great pyramids had

to be laid on top of existing cladding stones. My belief is that each step was cladded from

the bottom up starting at the top step.

[cladking]

I probably missed some things here, but otherwise I rest my case. So, KV 62 is Tutankhamun, or not, you dear readers can decide.

Thanks for the post.

I actually saw the king Tut exhibit many years ago in Chicago. It was fairly memorable

despite my lack of interest in anything (ancient) Egyptian at that time. Even since my

interest in ancient Egypt has emerged I've seen several things that seem highly corro-

boratinmg of your position; and this is despite my trying to avoid knowledge of later

Egypt. There was a great National Geographic article on the subject about three years

ago. It is a little difficult to believe that it isn't really who we know as Tut in light of how

much we do know. I am struck by the possibility, however, that rewrapping of mummies

might have been the result of the original having been cremated. This probably doesn't

apply in this case but I'll continue to read the arguments.