Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016

[Hanslune]

7 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Your evidence can speak for itself. The scientific evidence for dating the pyramids and related monuments to c. 2550 BCE is on very solid ground, so go with that. I know Scott disagrees with it, but that doesn't affect our overall scientific understanding of the facts. In other words, the scientific approach is not overturned by how Scott sees things. However, the gist of my warning is ridicule. There's been too much of that here. Inferring that Scott lied or deceived does not present a solid argument in favor of orthodox understanding. It's merely ridicule.

Everyone here has good arguments. The best example, in my opinion, for confronting Scott's views has been Kenemet.

Yes high praise for Kenemet!

[Harte]

5 hours ago, stereologist said:

Surprised that some arrangement of features in Egypt are not claimed to be evidence of the AE knowing genetic markers and the structure of DNA.

Have you looked for such a claim?

I bet you could find one.

Harte

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Yes high praise for Kenemet!

A suggestion for Kenemet. When you make a fact based observation and it is countered with a made up fact. counter-counter that with the Runcible papyrus. Its one Rupert has in his metaphysical procession. Oddily it has on it a clear denunication of whatever counter opinion was made up. It consists of seven and thirty parts, one what we would call an appendixes, a proem (spelled correctly), three illustrations, and four magic incantations plus a recipe. Within in that all answers are provided

[Hanslune]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

Have you looked for such a claim?

I bet you could find one.

Harte

Oh second thought there probably is some claim in the new age mysticism about the AE having such knowledge not sure if anyone connected it to dots in the sky, on the ground or somebody's left thigh.

[kmt_sesh]

17 minutes ago, Harte said:

Have you looked for such a claim?

I bet you could find one.

Harte

I'm almost positive I've come across such claims. They're perhaps even more ridiculous than the highly popular and ever-amusing claims about the Egyptians extracting the pineal gland for it's all-important pineal juice. This from a culture that demonstrably did not understand the function of the brain.

[kmt_sesh]

14 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

A suggestion for Kenemet. When you make a fact based observation and it is countered with a made up fact. counter-counter that with the Runcible papyrus. Its one Rupert has in his metaphysical procession. Oddily it has on it a clear denunication of whatever counter opinion was made up. It consists of seven and thirty parts, one what we would call an appendixes, a proem (spelled correctly), three illustrations, and four magic incantations plus a recipe. Within in that all answers are provided

How in the hell does Rupert fit all of that in a can of Hormel chili, even without the beans?

Oh, metaphysical possession.

[Jarocal]

7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

In a way it does work, the real professionals quickly determine the person is off base and ignore them while usually a few die hards continue to slug it out with them until they too get bored with it. You can see that clearly at the Hall of Ma'at.

When a new idea is posted the professionals answer but if the replies are clearly delusional they quickly bail out.

Quitters! Those professionals clearly fear anything that could prove the worth of their work and that of their mentors as less than the paper they printed it on....

[Scott Creighton]

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

 

Kmt_Sesh: The scientific evidence for dating the pyramids and related monuments to c. 2550 BCE is on very solid ground, so go with that.

SC: If you refer to RC14 dating then I beg to differ. The Inventory Stele informs us that Khufu saw/repaired the Sphinx and other monuments at Giza. I suggest also G1 was repaired/repurposed at this time. The pyramid is Osiris (PTs). The Inventory Stele refers to Isis as 'Mistress of the Mountain'. Which mountain? The mountain that is G1, Osiris - Mistress of Osiris. It was already there. If RC14 dating can be relied upon (Hawass apparently has doubts) then I suggest the dates are as a result of this repair/repurpose work at Giza by Khufu at this time.

Furthermore - have you ever been caught in a Kamseen wind? It blows everything up from the desert floor, whips it around in all directions, including ash and burnt wood embers from the plateau floor, into crevices within the GP core stonework. Major contamination possibility. FGS - birds flying over the GP (and other tested pyramids) could have been dropping all manner of twigs, bird-plop, grass, seeds or whatever on top of it.

Yes - RC14 MAY be scientific (with a fair number of caveats) but it is only as good as the sampe it takes and tests.

Kmt_Sesh: I know Scott disagrees with it

SC: For good reason. See above.

Kmt_Sesh: .... but that doesn't affect our overall scientific understanding of the facts.

SC: Assuming you're still talking  about RC14 then the FACTS are easily disputed - see above. Unless samples are taken from deep within the INTERIOR of the GP and NOT its exterior then the RC14 tests to date are highly suspect. You may disagree but that's the way I see it. And, I might also say, the way I think most reasonable and impartial folks would see it too.

Kmt_Sesh: In other words, the scientific approach is not overturned by how Scott sees things.

SC: I'm not here to overturn science. I am here merely to remind the good folks here that science should be applied properly in order to obtain accurate results. And in this instance, the result is only as accurate as the purity of the test sample. Call me old-fashioned but if a job is worth doing then it's surely worth doing right. As things stand, the results of the two RC14 projects carried out cannot tell us if the work on the GP (and other pyramids) was repair work to an already ancient structure nor can they be guaranteed, imo, to pass the contamination question. (See my earlier comment re the RC14 testing of the supposed remains of Djoser).

Kmt_Sesh: Everyone here has good arguments. The best example, in my opinion, for confronting Scott's views has been Kenemet.

SC: Certainly Kenemet has conducted her/himself here with better grace than some by sticking to the subject matter but I honestly fail to see how any of the points Kenemet raised have not been adequately countered in my responses. Conversely, I am awaiting answers to many of the questions I have raised in my responses. Perhaps I just ask questions that are just too darned difficult to answer within the 'tomb paradigm'?

SC

Edited December 2, 2017 by Scott Creighton

[mstower]

55 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh: The scientific evidence for dating the pyramids and related monuments to c. 2550 BCE is on very solid ground, so go with that.

SC: If you refer to RC14 dating then I beg to differ. The Inventory Stele informs us that Khufu saw/repaired the Sphinx and other monuments at Giza. I suggest also G1 was repaired/repurposed at this time. The pyramid is Osiris (PTs). The Inventory Stele refers to Isis as 'Mistress of the Mountain'. . . .

No, Scott, it does not.  All you are doing here is recycling Sitchin’s prevarication, including his bogus “translation”.

55 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

. . . Which mountain? The mountain that is G1, Osiris. It was already there. If RC14 dating can be relied upon then I suggest the dates are as a result of this owrk at Giza by Khufu at this time.

Furthermore - have you ever been caught in a Kamseen wind? It blows everything up from the desert floor, whips it around in all directions, including ash and burnt wood embers from the plateau floor, into crevices within the GP core stonework. Major contamination possibility. FGS - birds flying over the GP (and other tested pyramids) could have been dropping all manner of twigs, bird-****, grass, seeds or whatever on top of it.

If it were this bad, Giza would be a notorious biohazard.  All you are doing (again) is recycling the ad hoc evasions of Audrey Mulertt and “Doctor” Philip Femano.  Readers with saintly patience may read what they had to say on GHMB, along with some criticism of it:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1032680,1041129#msg-1041129

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1058447,1059054#msg-1059054

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1085536,1085663#msg-1085663

M.

Edited December 2, 2017 by mstower
To add more links.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I'm almost positive I've come across such claims. They're perhaps even more ridiculous than the highly popular and ever-amusing claims about the Egyptians extracting the pineal gland for it's all-important pineal juice. This from a culture that demonstrably did not understand the function of the brain.

The best drink in the AE bar was the pineal colada.

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh: The scientific evidence for dating the pyramids and related monuments to c. 2550 BCE is on very solid ground, so go with that.

SC: If you refer to RC14 dating then I beg to differ. The Inventory Stele informs us that Khufu saw/repaired the Sphinx and other monuments at Giza. I suggest also G1 was repaired/repurposed at this time. The pyramid is Osiris (PTs). The Inventory Stele refers to Isis as 'Mistress of the Mountain'. Which mountain? The mountain that is G1, Osiris - Mistress of Osiris. It was already there. If RC14 dating can be relied upon (Hawass apparently has doubts) then I suggest the dates are as a result of this repair/repurpose work at Giza by Khufu at this time.

Furthermore - have you ever been caught in a Kamseen wind? It blows everything up from the desert floor, whips it around in all directions, including ash and burnt wood embers from the plateau floor, into crevices within the GP core stonework. Major contamination possibility. FGS - birds flying over the GP (and other tested pyramids) could have been dropping all manner of twigs, bird-plop, grass, seeds or whatever on top of it.

Yes - RC14 MAY be scientific (with a fair number of caveats) but it is only as good as the sampe it takes and tests.

Kmt_Sesh: I know Scott disagrees with it

SC: For good reason. See above.

Kmt_Sesh: .... but that doesn't affect our overall scientific understanding of the facts.

SC: Assuming you're still talking  about RC14 then the FACTS are easily disputed - see above. Unless samples are taken from deep within the INTERIOR of the GP and NOT its exterior then the RC14 tests to date are highly suspect. You may disagree but that's the way I see it. And, I might also say, the way I think most reasonable and impartial folks would see it too.

Kmt_Sesh: In other words, the scientific approach is not overturned by how Scott sees things.

SC: I'm not here to overturn science. I am here merely to remind the good folks here that science should be applied properly in order to obtain accurate results. And in this instance, the result is only as accurate as the purity of the test sample. Call me old-fashioned but if a job is worth doing then it's surely worth doing right. As things stand, the results of the two RC14 projects carried out cannot tell us if the work on the GP (and other pyramids) was repair work to an already ancient structure nor can they be guaranteed, imo, to pass the contamination question. (See my earlier comment re the RC14 testing of the supposed remains of Djoser).

Kmt_Sesh: Everyone here has good arguments. The best example, in my opinion, for confronting Scott's views has been Kenemet.

SC: Certainly Kenemet has conducted her/himself here with better grace than some by sticking to the subject matter but I honestly fail to see how any of the points Kenemet raised have not been adequately countered in my responses. Conversely, I am awaiting answers to many of the questions I have raised in my responses. Perhaps I just ask questions that are just too darned difficult to answer within the 'tomb paradigm'?

SC

No. On the Great Pyramid alone, there were around forty samples collected. These samples came mostly from mortar, and from all over the pyramid. Once the mortar had dried, it didn't continue to absorb ash or other radiological contaminants.. Therefore, the contents of the mortar (biological specimens from firewood) are fixed in time and place. And the full analysis with calibration is consistent. The findings are not questioned by the scientific or historical world. The only unusual finding, if it can be called unusual, is that the pyramid might have been erected around a century earlier than thought. And no one was shocked by that.

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, mstower said:

...

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1032680,1041129#msg-1041129

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1058447,1059054#msg-1059054

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1085536,1085663#msg-1085663

M.

Those are quite entertaining. It seems to me, just in general, that refutations of radiocarbon dating are made primarily by folks who don't understand radiocarbon dating.

I'm not familiar with “Doctor” Philip Femano. What is his doctorate in?

[Harte]

10 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Those are quite entertaining. It seems to me, just in general, that refutations of radiocarbon dating are made primarily by folks who don't understand radiocarbon dating.

I'm not familiar with “Doctor” Philip Femano. What is his doctorate in?

Doctor of Thinkology.

 

Harte

 

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Harte

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh: The scientific evidence for dating the pyramids and related monuments to c. 2550 BCE is on very solid ground, so go with that.

SC: If you refer to RC14 dating then I beg to differ. The Inventory Stele informs us that Khufu saw/repaired the Sphinx and other monuments at Giza. I suggest also G1 was repaired/repurposed at this time. The pyramid is Osiris (PTs). The Inventory Stele refers to Isis as 'Mistress of the Mountain'. Which mountain? The mountain that is G1, Osiris - Mistress of Osiris. It was already there. If RC14 dating can be relied upon (Hawass apparently has doubts) then I suggest the dates are as a result of this repair/repurpose work at Giza by Khufu at this time.

Furthermore - have you ever been caught in a Kamseen wind? It blows everything up from the desert floor, whips it around in all directions, including ash and burnt wood embers from the plateau floor, into crevices within the GP core stonework. Major contamination possibility. FGS - birds flying over the GP (and other tested pyramids) could have been dropping all manner of twigs, bird-plop, grass, seeds or whatever on top of it.

Yes - RC14 MAY be scientific (with a fair number of caveats) but it is only as good as the sampe it takes and tests.

Kmt_Sesh: I know Scott disagrees with it

SC: For good reason. See above.

Kmt_Sesh: .... but that doesn't affect our overall scientific understanding of the facts.

SC: Assuming you're still talking  about RC14 then the FACTS are easily disputed - see above. Unless samples are taken from deep within the INTERIOR of the GP and NOT its exterior then the RC14 tests to date are highly suspect. You may disagree but that's the way I see it. And, I might also say, the way I think most reasonable and impartial folks would see it too.

Kmt_Sesh: In other words, the scientific approach is not overturned by how Scott sees things.

SC: I'm not here to overturn science. I am here merely to remind the good folks here that science should be applied properly in order to obtain accurate results. And in this instance, the result is only as accurate as the purity of the test sample. Call me old-fashioned but if a job is worth doing then it's surely worth doing right. As things stand, the results of the two RC14 projects carried out cannot tell us if the work on the GP (and other pyramids) was repair work to an already ancient structure nor can they be guaranteed, imo, to pass the contamination question. (See my earlier comment re the RC14 testing of the supposed remains of Djoser).

Kmt_Sesh: Everyone here has good arguments. The best example, in my opinion, for confronting Scott's views has been Kenemet.

SC: Certainly Kenemet has conducted her/himself here with better grace than some by sticking to the subject matter but I honestly fail to see how any of the points Kenemet raised have not been adequately countered in my responses. Conversely, I am awaiting answers to many of the questions I have raised in my responses. Perhaps I just ask questions that are just too darned difficult to answer within the 'tomb paradigm'?

SC

Nope, the C-14 dates all fall within a predictable range if they weren't good they would be all over the place. We've been over this before Hawass said what he said about using RC to date when dynasties began and ended - it is not accurate enough for that. Plus while the fringe holds Hawass to be 'Egyptology' he is not. The consensus is and the science for RC is good. So your dates for the pyramids have no support.

Care to comment about the dating of AE pottery. Could you tell us how much 13,000 year old pottery has been found on the Giza Plateau?

Perhaps you should answer all the questions you've been running from for years also you could try to talk without making stuff up?

lol

Edited December 2, 2017 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Quitters! Those professionals clearly fear anything that could prove the worth of their work and that of their mentors as less than the paper they printed it on....

No they know not to waste time on irrational people who ideas are delusional and NOT based on science.....chuckle.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Hanslune

[kmt_sesh]

28 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

...

Care to comment about the dating of AE pottery. Could you tell us how much 13,000 year old pottery has been found on the Giza Plateau?

...

That's an excellent question. Thermoluminescence is a tried and proven method for dating pottery, among other methods. How come people in the alternative camp don't try to challenge thermoluminescence?

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's an excellent question. Thermoluminescence is a tried and proven method for dating pottery, among other methods. How come people in the alternative camp don't try to challenge thermoluminescence?

I don't think they know about it. It all sciency and none of the fringe gurus have come out against it yet. The RC stuff came originally from the creationist crowd - those paragons of scientific knowledge!

Trivia question I wonder what the oldest pottery known in NW Africa is, I wonder when they started using Nile silt ware?

Edited December 2, 2017 by Hanslune

[kmt_sesh]

6 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I don't think they know about it. It all sciency and none of the fringe gurus have come out against it yet. The RC stuff came originally from the creationist crowd - those paragons of scientific knowledge!

Trivia question I wonder what the oldest pottery known in NW Africa is, I wonder when they started using Nile silt ware?

I really don't know what the oldest might be. I suppose it depends on the culture and how far back it dates. In our Egyptian exhibit the oldest is more than 6,000 years.

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, mstower said:

No, Scott, it does not.  All you are doing here is recycling Sitchin’s prevarication, including his bogus “translation”.

If it were this bad, Giza would be a notorious biohazard.  All you are doing (again) is recycling the ad hoc evasions of Audrey Mulertt and “Doctor” Philip Femano.  Readers with saintly patience may read what they had to say on GHMB, along with some criticism of it:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1032680,1041129#msg-1041129

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1058447,1059054#msg-1059054

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1085536,1085663#msg-1085663

M.

Howdy mstower

Since Scott argument leads him to believe he is right and Egyptology is absolutely intellectually bankrupt on this and other subjects why hasn't he sued the UK government for giving money to Universities and therefore to British Egyptology to spend on promoting what he views as scientific fraud?

Why hasn't Scott step up with all this evidence and sued the government to stop this waste of money by British Egyptology? I mean he claims that his arguments are right so he should have no problem showing a court how the money is being used fraudulently by British Egyptologist.

Why isn't his argument strong enough to do this?

If the situation was reversed and the British government was funding his research I would (my wife actually who is British) would sue them to stop wasting money on this bogus' research'.

[Kenemet]

16 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: These weren’t granary stores. And they weren’t designed to merely store grain/seeds. They would store anything the AEs believed would be necessary to reboot their civilisation after the waters of the deluge had abated.

Item: I do not find any evidence that any of the early Egyptians believed there would be a global catastrophe.  The last global catastrophe (a very slow one) took place at the end of the last Ice Age.  What is your evidence - from the early dynasties - (other than your saying "these are recovery vaults!  See?  Empty.  Therefore they MUST be recovery vaults") that these are recovery vaults.  Josephus, etc, do not count.  They're 2,500 years later.

Item:  Any tools they had took only a few hours to make (at most).  Explain why they would put rock and stick tools in a small and lightless place - when they'd have to have rocks and sticks (hammers and pounders and chisels and light) just to get into the pyramid in the first place.  IF they knew where to get in, that is. 

Item: Your timeline seems quite confused.  If I understand it, you're saying that the pyramids somehow were built/grew/dropped down from heaven by Odin or someone BEFORE the Egyptians and they pottered around until suddenly they decided to build something like it (and failed miserably for three dynasties until they got it right in the fourth) and then once they know how to build pyramids they turn them into "recovery vaults"?  

Item:  You said that the reason the floor plans varied so was that they were "trying to get it right"... so this means that they couldn't actually get into the GP and the others until the 4th dynasty?  Because there's nothing particularly difficult about building descending and rising passages and square rooms.

Item:  In temples, they labeled storerooms and kept track (they loved bureaucracy and records) of everything they had and everything that was donated.  Where's the evidence of the original donations?

 

(I'm breaking this into several parts.  This  is just "questions about the idea of 'recovery vault')

 

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's an excellent question. Thermoluminescence is a tried and proven method for dating pottery, among other methods. How come people in the alternative camp don't try to challenge thermoluminescence?

According to this site, Egyptian pottery is at least 10,000 years old: https://www.ancient.eu/pottery/

[Jarocal]

5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

No they know not to waste time on irrational people who ideas are delusional and NOT based on science.....chuckle.

Rationalize away Orthodoxy's fears however you must.

[mstower]

8 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Those are quite entertaining. It seems to me, just in general, that refutations of radiocarbon dating are made primarily by folks who don't understand radiocarbon dating.

I'm not familiar with “Doctor” Philip Femano. What is his doctorate in?

Physiology, with chemistry, computer science and engineering, apparently:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/philip-a-femano-ph-d-6297a67/

Every time I read his stuff, I am astonished that he ever gained a doctorate.  He is in my estimation the most prominent pseudoscientist on GHMB.  I first encountered him on Guardian’s board, where he likewise styled himself “Philip A. Femano, Ph.D.” and was pushing something in the Piazzi Smyth line about British units of measurement in the Great Pyramid.

One of his ploys is faulting archaeologists for not observing the standards of disclosure prevalent (and mandatory) in the big-bucks medical world, hence the nonsense about the Kochs.

More than you would likely wish to know:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="philip+a+femano+ph+d"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="philip+a+femano+phd"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="philip+a+femano"

I see to my alarm that he has published fairly recently in the radiology press.

M.

[Harte]

9 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's an excellent question. Thermoluminescence is a tried and proven method for dating pottery, among other methods. How come people in the alternative camp don't try to challenge thermoluminescence?

Because they assert that the GP was built so long before the Egyptians that the advanced ceramics such a supercivilization would have had have long since been eroded into dust.

What do they care of Egyptian pottery?

They don't credit the Egyptians with building the GP.

Harte

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh: The scientific evidence for dating the pyramids and related monuments to c. 2550 BCE is on very solid ground, so go with that.

SC: If you refer to RC14 dating then I beg to differ. The Inventory Stele informs us that Khufu saw/repaired the Sphinx and other monuments at Giza. I suggest also G1 was repaired/repurposed at this time. The pyramid is Osiris (PTs). The Inventory Stele refers to Isis as 'Mistress of the Mountain'. Which mountain? The mountain that is G1, Osiris - Mistress of Osiris. It was already there. If RC14 dating can be relied upon (Hawass apparently has doubts) then I suggest the dates are as a result of this repair/repurpose work at Giza by Khufu at this time.

Furthermore - have you ever been caught in a Kamseen wind? It blows everything up from the desert floor, whips it around in all directions, including ash and burnt wood embers from the plateau floor, into crevices within the GP core stonework. Major contamination possibility. FGS - birds flying over the GP (and other tested pyramids) could have been dropping all manner of twigs, bird-plop, grass, seeds or whatever on top of it.

Yes - RC14 MAY be scientific (with a fair number of caveats) but it is only as good as the sampe it takes and tests.

SC

This just shows that your interpretation of anything conflicting with the RC dating is wrong. Please take the time to understand that your interpretations of things such as the inventory stela are quite flawed.

The RC dating method is sound and the samples were sound. Those collecting samples are well aware of the issues of contamination. Pointing out the possibility of contamination and sources of possible contamination has nothing at all to do with the samples. It has nothing at all to do with the people that carefully collected the samples. The results of the RC dating are consistent. The results are dates consistent with other dating methodologies.

This leaves us with your conflict. That conflict is your interpretation of a stela vs RC dating. Since the dating is sound and you objections are vague and unrelated to any of the actual samples and work that was done, it is clear that your interpretation of the stela is flawed.

As they say in the computer industry, "User error. Please correct the input and resubmit."