Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Harsh86_Patel

Great Pyramids VS Egyptian Pyramids

580 posts in this topic

Thanks for making my point by ignoring the 20+ pages on the other thread explaining why its is Khufu's with detailed examples and learned discourse on one side and you and Sitchin on the other.

I was talking about posititve evidence of the great pyramid being built by Khufu. No need to drag Sitchin into this or what he thought the Hill Fascmile looked like.

We don't need Sitchin's testimony to doubt the Graffiti in the pyramid.

THe reason more then 20+ pages were dedicated to discussing what Sitchin claimed about hill fascmile is a different debate. I am asking about what other positive proof exists to tie the great pyramids with Khufu? other then the easily forgible cartouche's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I looked up more information about Schoch I learned that the group examining the so-called Bosnian pyramid are quite upset with Schoch as are the group at the so-called underwater pyramid in the pyramid. Here are two groups claiming pyramids and Schoch says no. He says they are natural features. These folks are seething especially the Bosnian pyramid group.

The dating of the Sphinx boils down to erosion rates and the types of erosion that occurred. The problem is that there are different ideas on the types of erosion and the rates. Salt recrystallization is a powerful force as people learned when they tried to put fence posts into salty soils in the American West. The wood "explodes" at ground level. Transfer of minerals due to flow of water through pores in rocks can cause the surface to spall off or a hard patina to be formed.

Schoch has selected an erosion method and an erosion rate. Other geologists disagree. It seems to me that Schoch needs to solidify his claim by checking his 2 pieces: 1) erosion type 2) erosion rate. If either of these is wrong, then Schoch is wrong.

This reminds me of a rate problem back in the 1960s. A researcher went to the top of a high mountain and collected dust they believed was influx from space. The data suggested that the Moon might be covered in 12 to 15 meters of dust. A satellite checked the dust in space and found it to be lower than the terrestrial check and sure enough the Moon is covered in a few centimeters of dust as the satellite indicated. That has not stopped creationists from using the terrestrial rate to show a young Earth.

Similarly, we have a rate, time, distance problem. Schoch wants to adjust the time and keep the rate. Maybe the time is correct and the rate needs to be adjusted.

The alternate explaination you speak about is Holoclasty,now to attribute the errossion patterns observed by Scoch to haloclasty would be wrong as then the errossion would be much for uniform through out the base of the sphinx. The vertical errosion marks observed are difficult to explain by any other source then rain errossion.

Scoch and quite a few other geologists have investigated these marks and many have reached the same conclusion as Scoch ,independently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you sit behind your computer laughing when you make these replies...

Anyway, The sarcophagus of Hatshepsut is very similar except for the inscriptions

5be889f6ae26.jpg

What we see in the GP is a sarcophagus, there are no rational explanations.

I am dead serious when i made the reply. Look at the pic of the sarcophagus that you posted and look at the bath tub in the GP. A lot of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the GP, from another of the 'ancient port' articles recently posted:

http://cosmiclog.nbc...d-in-egypt?lite

Sometimes grave goods indicated a tomb of the earlier kings. Sometimes tags/labels with their names or partial inventories of contents and always they were located within a necropolis. Your complaint concerning the Gizamids is much like someone trying to claim that just because one finds a pine box buried in the ground in a churchyard it must not be a casket. That's willful ignorance.

cormac

Again, the reported of the find suggests that since Merrer was making trips to the quarry he was building the pyramids, also was he building the GP or the other small pyramids that are present there in the vicinity.

If you can expand more on this. i.e the poriton of the script that describe the GP building.

It is also not prudent to interpret different things in the same context just becasue they are found in the same geographic location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't the other monuments and grave markers that reference Khufu count as evidence? What about the dating? The pyramid and Khufu both date to approximately the right time.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am dead serious when i made the reply. Look at the pic of the sarcophagus that you posted and look at the bath tub in the GP. A lot of difference.

Sorry, but I strugle to see your reasoning. A bath tub is a bath tub, the obvious sarcophagus in GP is obviously a sarcophagus. What next, will you say that the giant sarcophagus for Apis bulls was an ancient jacuzzi or plunge pool....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am dead serious when i made the reply. Look at the pic of the sarcophagus that you posted and look at the bath tub in the GP. A lot of difference.

Sorry if I appear to be making mockery of you, but bwahahaha ca24c574a575.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about posititve evidence of the great pyramid being built by Khufu. No need to drag Sitchin into this or what he thought the Hill Fascmile looked like.

We don't need Sitchin's testimony to doubt the Graffiti in the pyramid.

THe reason more then 20+ pages were dedicated to discussing what Sitchin claimed about hill fascmile is a different debate. I am asking about what other positive proof exists to tie the great pyramids with Khufu? other then the easily forgible cartouche's.

The discussion which you are dismissing included the information that much of this graffiti was placed in such a way that it must have been done before all the blocks were in place. I assume you missed this point as this alone refutes the forgery idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am dead serious when i made the reply. Look at the pic of the sarcophagus that you posted and look at the bath tub in the GP. A lot of difference.

Something that does not get into the brains of people who don't understand timelines. The Egypt of 1500 BC had as much in common with Egypt of 2700 BC as the Europe of 1000 AD has with the Europe of 2000 AD. There were new technologies, new believes, new scientific advances and, while still similar, a completely different culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't the other monuments and grave markers that reference Khufu count as evidence? What about the dating? The pyramid and Khufu both date to approximately the right time.

.

Existence of Khufu is not being questioned,The dating is highly dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that does not get into the brains of people who don't understand timelines. The Egypt of 1500 BC had as much in common with Egypt of 2700 BC as the Europe of 1000 AD has with the Europe of 2000 AD. There were new technologies, new believes, new scientific advances and, while still similar, a completely different culture.

We were debating whether the bath tub in the GP is a sarcophagus or not.If the bath tub is to be considered a sarcophagus,some evidence for the same has to be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unable to continue, brain turning into mush, darkness gathers, madness! madness! 33d6982891b8.gif

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were debating whether the bath tub in the GP is a sarcophagus or not.If the bath tub is to be considered a sarcophagus,some evidence for the same has to be there.

Which tells me that you really do not know a bit about sarcophagus in the 4th dynasty or ignore the existence of other similar ones (prince Kawab comes to mind) of the same period and that the same model was used until the 11th dynasty (see Shoshenq 111 who actually stole his out of a 11th dynasty tomb he had his people raid as demonstrable by historical record).

My recommendation: read some actual history books and then compare that to the construct you are trying to sell us here, or tell us why they are wrong. But please, with knowledge of the subject, not with conjectures made do to the lack of factual knowledge.

But the again, it might be that the great pyramid was in reality a royal bathhouse... as well as about 100 other tombs. Just very cleanly these dead Egyptians...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the reported of the find suggests that since Merrer was making trips to the quarry he was building the pyramids, also was he building the GP or the other small pyramids that are present there in the vicinity.

If you can expand more on this. i.e the poriton of the script that describe the GP building.

It is also not prudent to interpret different things in the same context just becasue they are found in the same geographic location.

You really DO have an English Comprehension problem, don't you? Since the article specifically says:

One papyrus is said to detail the daily activities of an official named Merrer, who was involved in building the Great Pyramid.

"He mainly reported about his many trips to the Turah limestone quarry to fetch block for the building of the pyramid," Tallet told Discovery News.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17767610-4500-year-old-harbor-structures-and-papyrus-texts-unearthed-in-egypt?lite

We probably won't know any more until these papyri are fully analyzed and catalogued by trained professionals, but the above relates specifically to the Great Pyramid so your question was answered from the start.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that does not get into the brains of people who don't understand timelines. The Egypt of 1500 BC had as much in common with Egypt of 2700 BC as the Europe of 1000 AD has with the Europe of 2000 AD. There were new technologies, new believes, new scientific advances and, while still similar, a completely different culture.

You're making the assumption that we know what the Egyptian beliefs were in 2700 BC.

They could have been the same as 1500 BC for all we know.

This is ultimately the question everytime we discuss this subject; what were these beliefs.

The fact that the first sentence from a piece of paper has been translated doesn't give

us total knowledge of the subject.

(and yes, we know the year of the reign but not the date)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making the assumption that we know what the Egyptian beliefs were in 2700 BC.

They could have been the same as 1500 BC for all we know.

This is ultimately the question everytime we discuss this subject; what were these beliefs.

The fact that the first sentence from a piece of paper has been translated doesn't give

us total knowledge of the subject.

(and yes, we know the year of the reign but not the date)

No, they could not, many mainstream cults of 1500 were just being created in the 4th dynasty, about which we have written constance. And among them was Khufu as one of the most creative believe system inventors. AE culture did not start with the pyramid text, broaden your horizon a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe there was something inscribed on it. The first man known to have busted in

here just happens to be the origin of the Emerald Tablets of Hermes!!!

From the Al-Khitat of Al-Maqrizi (1364-1442 CE):

Abu Abdallah Muhammed bin Abd ar-Rahim al Kaisi, in his book The Present of Hearts, reports that...

SNIP

Al-Ma’mun opened the largest of the pyramids located in Fustat, (EDIT - Fustat is now part of Cairo - ) entered the corridor of the building and went into a chamber square at the base and arched at the top, very large, and in the middle of which was dug a well 10 cubits deep. This well was square and the men found on each side a door leading down to a large room filled with dead bodies, each of which was wrapped in a shroud longer than one hundred dresses sewn end to end. Time has altered these bodies, and they have become black; these bodies, which are not larger than ours, have lost nothing of their tissue or their hair. There are no bodies of old men with white hair. These bodies were still solid, and nobody could detach even one member. However, they were extremely light, for time had made them as heavy as some dry straw. In this well were four rooms filled with corpses and huge bats. The ancients buried animals in the sand, and as for me, I found a roll of fabric forming a large volume more than a cubit thick. The fabric was worn by time, but having held it, I found it to be a piece of linen as intact as a turban, white with traces of red silk, and finally, in the interior, a dead bird. It lacked neither feathers nor any part of its body, as if it had died recently. In the inside of the pyramid is another door that leads to the top of the monument. The corridor has no stairs and is almost five spans wide. It is said that a man who entered in Al-Ma’mun’s time discovered a small room therein where there was a statue of a man in stone green as dahang. This statue was brought to Al-Ma’mun. It had a lid that could be removed, and within they found the body of a man wearing a gold breastplate encrusted with all kinds of jewels. On his chest lay a sword of inestimable price, and near the head was a red ruby ​​the size of a hen’s egg which shone like a flame, which Al-Ma’mun took for himself. The statue within which this dead man was encased was put up near the door of the king’s palace in Cairo where I saw it in the year 511 (1138 CE).

Source

This book is the only record we have of what Caliph Al-Ma'mun and his crew, the first people in historic times to enter the Great Pyramid, found.

Note also:

The Emerald Tablet, also known as the Smaragdine Table, or Tabula Smaragdina, is a compact and cryptic piece of Hermetica reputed to contain the secret of the prima materia and its transmutation.

SNIP

The text of the Smaragdine Tablet gives its author as Hermes Trismegistus ("Hermes the Thrice-Greatest"), a legendary Hellenisticcombination of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth Despite the claims of antiquity, it's believed to be an Arabic work written between the sixth and eighth centuries. The oldest documentable source of the text is the Kitāb sirr al-ḫalīqa (Book of the Secret of Creation and the Art of Nature). This volume is attributed to "Balinas" (or Pseudo-Apollonius of Tyana) who wrote sometime around the eighth century.

Source

So, will you now show that Balinas is Al-Ma'mun?

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was looking back at some of my notes and I found this to be interesting to me then :

311004_10151444416313165_1198125697_n.jpg311004_10151444416303165_1548009738_n.jpg

from Mark Lehners' book ...

anyone knows of any updated information about this ?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting short clip about this empty sarcophagus. Though mostly I post it for entertainment value for Hawass's pronounciation. And I notice that the sliding door seems designed to keep something in, not robbers out........ 10d2e2ef951b.gif

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was looking back at some of my notes and I found this to be interesting to me then :

311004_10151444416313165_1198125697_n.jpg311004_10151444416303165_1548009738_n.jpg

from Mark Lehners' book ...

anyone knows of any updated information about this ?

That thing looks like a 'coffin' from a Japanese capsule hotel, lol:

iY7ZEKknwXLs.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting short clip about this empty sarcophagus. Though mostly I post it for entertainment value for Hawass's pronounciation. And I notice that the sliding door seems designed to keep something in, not robbers out........ 10d2e2ef951b.gif

That's a sad story, about this Zakaria Goneim.

And why is the video subtitled? I can understand Hawass' English better than the English of many British and Americans, lol.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they could not, many mainstream cults of 1500 were just being created in the 4th dynasty, about which we have written constance. And among them was Khufu as one of the most creative believe system inventors. AE culture did not start with the pyramid text, broaden your horizon a little.

I'm not sure I understand your points here but if you believe that there is a steady

stream of evidence that they practiced their "religion" similarly from 2700 BC until

1500 BC then you are wrong. There is no evidence that doesn't require interpre-

tation about the nature of the "religion" before 2000 BC. All we have from this era

is the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts and neither of these is understood by anybody.

It's simply illogical to assume that you can understand a "religion" based on something

that is unintelligible and believed to be a book of magic. Since virtually nothoing else

survives and the little that does fits the same pattern all we can say is a lot of words

that were used in 2700 BC continued to be used in 1500 BC. We know what the words

meant in 1500 BC because meaning is apparent; it's spelled out. Meaning in the old-

er work has to be interpreted. Otherwise you are left with having to explain why the in-

terpretation fails to fit the literal meaning of the translation. You either have to accept

that we don't understand the "religion" or deal with the consequences of a claim to un-

derstand it. Things like "he, he is the pyramid, he protects" simply don't fit the interpre-

tation.

There is no continuity in the "religion" nor the culture to allow projection of later beliefs

or practices. It doesn't matter whether this discontinuity arose in the distant past or came

about more recently, it still exists. This means that whoever "khufu" was we don't really

know what he believed or even exactly when he lived. We really don't even know there

was a single entity called "khufu". Just because there is significant evidence that there

was a king named khufu at some point in the constuction of G1 does not allow us to make

broad conclusions about everything else. "He" was almost certainly king between shortly

after construction began to near the midway point but everything else seems poorly es-

tablished to my limited knowledge. Some assumptions seem obvious but then we tend to

forget they are assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Al-Khitat of Al-Maqrizi (1364-1442 CE):

Source

This book is the only record we have of what Caliph Al-Ma'mun and his crew, the first people in historic times to enter the Great Pyramid, found.

Note also:

Source

So, will you now show that Balinas is Al-Ma'mun?

Harte

By this late in history many things are starting to be well known. I've done quite a bit

of googling and following leads on this subject and still don't know too much, though.

I've read translation of a few Arabic texts and tracked down everything the best I could.

Mostly I worked from a single source;

http://www.the-book-of-thoth.com/content-157.html

I'm not suggesting that there's some certainty that the Caliphate bored a hole through

the pyramid to remove the Emerald Tablets on the lid of the "sarcophagus". I do believe

there is a surprising amount of support already existing for such an hypothesis. The only

real problem I see with it is that the ancient language was not translatable so there is an

implication that G1 was "inhabited" at least until after 2000 BC or so.

As with everything; I don't know. I am quite confident there's no evidence to deny it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A claim is a claim. The Al-Ma'mun claim at your source mentions that "it has been proposed" that Al-Ma;mun "finished" a later book containing a translation of the tablets.

It says nothing about him finding them, or even being involved in inserting the text of the tablet into the text of that later book.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That thing looks like a 'coffin' from a Japanese capsule hotel, lol:

~image snip

that's the old model ... you should see the updated ones ... pure Space Odyssey 2001 :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.