Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Manwon Lender

Taking a new look at life and death in Giza: how the pyramids built Egypt: Updated 22 September 2021

124 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Manwon Lender

For more than 4,000 years the Great Pyramid has drawn people to Giza. The largest pyramid currently standing anywhere in the world has borne numerous names across the millennia and inspired countless stories. For two Arab authors, writing after the 3rd or 4th century AD, it was a monumental repository raised by the legendary King Surid to safeguard the wealth and wisdom of Egypt from flood and fire. A few hundred years earlier, Greek and Roman tourists celebrated it as a wonder of the ancient world, while the historian Herodotus offered a damning verdict on the antics of its builder, whom he called Cheops. Perhaps the most prosaic writings concerning the pyramid are also the earliest. These take the form of funerary inscriptions, graffiti, and even a journal penned by those toiling to construct it in the 3rd millennium BC, during the reign of Pharaoh Khufu.

Taking a new look at life and death in Giza: how the pyramids built Egypt | The Past (the-past.com)

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

It is interesting to me that some still believe the GP was not entered before modern times. Its believed that it was opened and the sealed up several times. Strabo even said there was a easily lifted stone door in his time to allow "tourists" inside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

Quote

Looting
Authors Bob Brier and Hoyt Hobbs claim that "all the pyramids were robbed" by the New Kingdom, when the construction of royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings began.[193][194] Joyce Tyldesley states that the Great Pyramid itself "is known to have been opened and emptied by the Middle Kingdom", before the Arab caliph Al-Ma'mun entered the pyramid around 820 AD.[129]

I. E. S. Edwards discusses Strabo's mention that the pyramid "a little way up one side has a stone that may be taken out, which being raised up there is a sloping passage to the foundations". Edwards suggested that the pyramid was entered by robbers after the end of the Old Kingdom and sealed and then reopened more than once until Strabo's door was added. He adds: "If this highly speculative surmise be correct, it is also necessary to assume either that the existence of the door was forgotten or that the entrance was again blocked with facing stones", in order to explain why al-Ma'mun could not find the entrance.[195] Scholars such as Gaston Maspero and Flinders Petrie have noted that evidence for a similar door has been found at the Bent Pyramid of Dashur.[196][197]

Herodotus visited Egypt in the 5th century BC and recounts a story that he was told concerning vaults under the pyramid built on an island where the body of Khufu lies. Edwards notes that the pyramid had "almost certainly been opened and its contents plundered long before the time of Herodotus" and that it might have been closed again during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt when other monuments were restored. He suggests that the story told to Herodotus could have been the result of almost two centuries of telling and retelling by pyramid guides.[45]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It is interesting to me that some still believe the GP was not entered before modern times. Its believed that it was opened and the sealed up several times. Strabo even said there was a easily lifted stone door in his time to allow "tourists" inside.

 

 

Some thought needs to be paid to the chevron blocks where the original entrance must have been. It's always been glaringly obvious that these blocks are far more than is needed to support the weight above the entrance, which at the ouside edge of the pyramid is far smaller than over the Queen's and King's chambers. We know from the 2017 scans that there is a passageway behind the blocks, so it may well be the case that these blocks extended further out from the pyramid than they do now, and the video shows this, and that there may well have been a very visible door of some description.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Some thought needs to be paid to the chevron blocks where the original entrance must have been. It's always been glaringly obvious that these blocks are far more than is needed to support the weight above the entrance, which at the ouside edge of the pyramid is far smaller than over the Queen's and King's chambers. We know from the 2017 scans that there is a passageway behind the blocks, so it may well be the case that these blocks extended further out from the pyramid than they do now, and the video shows this, and that there may well have been a very visible door of some description.

 

The passage was very highly predictable which is why I spent so manty years trying to get the infrared study done which was finally done in 2015.  But they still refuse to release the results.  Interestingly there appear to be actual results in the video at the 6:10 mark. I find these just a little surprising if they are real.  That the heat would be to the east is a gimmee but that it's so high up is surprising.  There was obviously structure extending to the north at the point of the entrance and the chevrons were to protect this structure and anything that might be conveyed from it.  Somehow it doesn't seem likely that after all these years that Egyptology cares about what was here or why there are anomalous results all over the pyramid as I predicted even before the testing.  

There was at least one source that claimed the opening to the pyramid was not visible.  It is sometimes suggested that Al Mamuum couldn't see the entrance so tunneled in from below but others believed he tunneled to remove something and the most likely object was the "sarcophagus" lid. 

Until Egyptology begins adopting the usage of empirical evidence rather than studying the pyramids with their backs to them we might never know anything.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
1 hour ago, cladking said:

The passage was very highly predictable which is why I spent so manty years trying to get the infrared study done which was finally done in 2015.  But they still refuse to release the results.  Interestingly there appear to be actual results in the video at the 6:10 mark. I find these just a little surprising if they are real.  That the heat would be to the east is a gimmee but that it's so high up is surprising.  There was obviously structure extending to the north at the point of the entrance and the chevrons were to protect this structure and anything that might be conveyed from it.  Somehow it doesn't seem likely that after all these years that Egyptology cares about what was here or why there are anomalous results all over the pyramid as I predicted even before the testing.  

There was at least one source that claimed the opening to the pyramid was not visible.  It is sometimes suggested that Al Mamuum couldn't see the entrance so tunneled in from below but others believed he tunneled to remove something and the most likely object was the "sarcophagus" lid. 

Until Egyptology begins adopting the usage of empirical evidence rather than studying the pyramids with their backs to them we might never know anything.  

Chuckle. The experienced readers/contributors to these pages are rather familiar with your level of appreciable impact upon credible research.Such notably misplaced hubris.

.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Swede said:

Chuckle. The experienced readers/contributors to these pages are rather familiar with your level of appreciable impact upon credible research.Such notably misplaced hubris.

.

Whether they did the infrared testing or not on my say so is not the relevant point and would be an absurd contention.  What is relevant is that I knew many years ago there was a passage right here and said so many times long before they even did the infrared scans that they are currently hiding from the public and peers alike.

"The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan."

 

Post #342

I knew this because the builders said it was there and the physical evidence corroborated it.  

 

Am I supposed to apologize for being correct about everything?  

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Hi Clad. You said the infrared proves your point on a tunnel, but didn't you also say they refuse to release the data?

How can we say you are correct if the data proving so isn't public record?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Hi Clad. You said the infrared proves your point on a tunnel, but didn't you also say they refuse to release the data?

How can we say you are correct if the data proving so isn't public record?

I've made many predictions about the results of an infrared study and others as well.  The first mention of an heat anomaly under the chevrons was an offhand comment by Hawass back in '15 when he also said the largest anomaly on the east side persisted throughout the day.  It was later mentioned by the team that found the passage at the entrance.  There is a depiction of what is purported to be the actual data in the video above.  

They did the infrared testing ostensibly to test Houdin's claims that the pyramids were built with internal ramps but it's quite apparent these were disproven or they would have released the data showing it.  The fact that these data exist is sufficient to know that there is a heat source under the NE corner as I predicted and that they do not conform to Egyptological expectations.  So long as they keep sticking endoscopes in every anomaly we can make lots of deductions.  The passage mentioned by Wepwawet shows up on several infrared scans as well as two muon scans.  Any passage through the pyramid and near the surface MUST show up on the infrared and this goes several times over if it's in the NE corner where the gravimetric scan implies the pyramid is built right on top of something large.  They could have gotten much closer to this passage under the chevrons, in the ascending passage under the grand gallery but for some reason never did so.  

Even the thermal anomaly on the east side in the middle conforms with one of my linked predictions.  My guess is all or most of them will.  If there were a passage going to the "notch" as I had hoped but never predicted, it would have shown up as well.   It is still vaguely possible that such a passage could have been configured in such a way as to not show up readily but this would entail chambers at higher altitude than the notch itself. Even then it would probably show up on a long term scan.  

Some bits and pieces of the data have been released but the meat of it has not.  If Hawass keeps talking we'll know a lot more.  Dassault Systems must feel used to have funded all this and then to not even have Egyptologists allowed to see the results because the results don't conform to expectations.  

 

All we really know is what is already available like the gravimetric scan et al.   But this information is still all pointing the same way.  These are five step pyramids built a step at a time.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
17 hours ago, cladking said:

Whether they did the infrared testing or not on my say so is not the relevant point and would be an absurd contention.  What is relevant is that I knew many years ago there was a passage right here and said so many times long before they even did the infrared scans that they are currently hiding from the public and peers alike.

"The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan."

Post #342

I knew this because the builders said it was there and the physical evidence corroborated it. 

Am I supposed to apologize for being correct about everything?  

1) No, you did not. Your 2015 "prediction" was for a "heat transfer spot" (Clad, 7-25-15, #342). The apparent void would actually act as an insulator.

2) The apparent void was defined by muon tomography (muography).

3) No, they did not. Your record of Pyramid Text butchery is hardy credible evidence.

4) You have yet to demonstrate any degree of accuracy on anything pertinent to your delusions.

.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
Quote

1) No, you did not. Your 2015 "prediction" was for a "heat transfer spot" (Clad, 7-25-15, #342). The apparent void would actually act as an insulator.

I'm not sure I could explain the physics to you because you already think you understand it.  But just as people in that thread were telling me the pyramid would have no heat signature because it is a solid mass the thermal scans prove I was right and each of them were wrong just as you are now.  Heat passes through objects dependent primarily on their density but it is not a one to one correspondence.  There are heavy things that pass heat more poorly than light things.  however there are various ways heat can pass from point to point and air currents is one of those means.  The heat from inside the pyramid can circulate in the horizontal corridor behinds the chevrons bringing the heat to the outside as is shown.  We know putting the muon detectors in the descending passage was a bad choice because the passage shown by the heat can't be sloped upward.  Heat only rises in air (it does in solids as well to a lesser degree) so any heat at one end must mark the high spot.  

A "heat transfer spot" means the exact same thing as "thermal anomaly" except I knew it was there so it is no anomaly.  Look up the word "anomaly".  It is something that is unexpected or incongruous with current thinking.  It corresponded exactly to my prediction.  No anomaly.  

If you have any questions I'd be happy to try to answer them but it is very difficult to explain some things.  

Quote

2) The apparent void was defined by muon tomography (muography).

Well...   It wasn't much definition and did not show that the passage was horizontal ort descending like the infrared scan shows.  This is probably why they put the detectors in the wrong place the second time.  

Quote

3) No, they did not. Your record of Pyramid Text butchery is hardy credible evidence.

There is ample physical evidence to support the presense of a "lobby" to the north of the Great Pyramid as is suggested in the video.  If you look closely, for instance, you'll see all the ends of the stones on the west side line up.  This is where the structure I predict existed and I call the "m3t-wt.t cow" once stood.    You can call it a "lobby" and ironically, it really was.  

Quote

4) You have yet to demonstrate any degree of accuracy on anything pertinent to your delusions.

So read the post again.  I predicted all four of the published heat transfer spots.  I said they would be on the CL's and at multiples of 80' and two of them are.  I said one would be under the chevrons and one of them is.  And I predicted that they would be at multiples of 80' and the most dramatic one of all is 160' from the NE corner.  I can tell you exactly what else is in the data that isn't being released.  I've made other predictions as well and not one has been disproven yet.  

When this data was first released Hawass issued a call for Egyptologists to come up with explanations for it but nobody has.  I predicted it and they call them "anomalies".  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, cladking said:

I'm not sure I could explain the physics to you because you already think you understand it.  But just as people in that thread were telling me the pyramid would have no heat signature because it is a solid mass the thermal scans prove I was right and each of them were wrong just as you are now.  Heat passes through objects dependent primarily on their density but it is not a one to one correspondence.  There are heavy things that pass heat more poorly than light things.  however there are various ways heat can pass from point to point and air currents is one of those means.  The heat from inside the pyramid can circulate in the horizontal corridor behinds the chevrons bringing the heat to the outside as is shown.  We know putting the muon detectors in the descending passage was a bad choice because the passage shown by the heat can't be sloped upward.  Heat only rises in air (it does in solids as well to a lesser degree) so any heat at one end must mark the high spot.  

A "heat transfer spot" means the exact same thing as "thermal anomaly" except I knew it was there so it is no anomaly.  Look up the word "anomaly".  It is something that is unexpected or incongruous with current thinking.  It corresponded exactly to my prediction.  No anomaly.  

If you have any questions I'd be happy to try to answer them but it is very difficult to explain some things.  

Well...   It wasn't much definition and did not show that the passage was horizontal ort descending like the infrared scan shows.  This is probably why they put the detectors in the wrong place the second time.  

There is ample physical evidence to support the presense of a "lobby" to the north of the Great Pyramid as is suggested in the video.  If you look closely, for instance, you'll see all the ends of the stones on the west side line up.  This is where the structure I predict existed and I call the "m3t-wt.t cow" once stood.    You can call it a "lobby" and ironically, it really was.  

So read the post again.  I predicted all four of the published heat transfer spots.  I said they would be on the CL's and at multiples of 80' and two of them are.  I said one would be under the chevrons and one of them is.  And I predicted that they would be at multiples of 80' and the most dramatic one of all is 160' from the NE corner.  I can tell you exactly what else is in the data that isn't being released.  I've made other predictions as well and not one has been disproven yet.  

When this data was first released Hawass issued a call for Egyptologists to come up with explanations for it but nobody has.  I predicted it and they call them "anomalies".  

          1)  Because you do not understand the subject matter. This is followed by a confused bit of babble in an attempt to justify your delusion. Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (680 F, 200 C).

       2)  Wrong. The muography was utilized because thermography was inadequate for the task at hand. Do you even understand how muography technology functions?

      3)  Fabricating yet again?

4)   Lehner does not agree.

5)   Because you do not understand the subject matter.

6)  https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/02/12/45EFFCFB00000578-5040093-image-a-39_1509625835993.jpg

      7)   More butchery.

      8)   More fabrication.

          9)  Your pronouncement is not consistent with the evidence. See reference above.

1    10)   Only in your dreams. Some 15 years of disjointed, empty rhetoric and your consistent practice of ignoring credible data do not constitute a valid argument.

Edit: Format.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
13 minutes ago, Swede said:

          1)  Because you do not understand the subject matter. This is followed by a confused bit of babble in an attempt to justify your delusion. Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (680 F, 200 C).

 

...

 

I think you must have lost track of the subject here because your words don't fit it.  

 

The subject was and is the passages and whether or not I predicted them so let's go back to post #342 where I predicted all of the anomalies exactly;

"I'm not really hoping to see anything but am predicting there will be heat transfer spots at 81' 3" and at 162' 6"

This was borne out by the heat anomaly on the east side 160' south of the NE corner.

"These spots will be right on the centerlines."

There is a heat anomaly right on the CL on trhe east side and another on the N side.

"The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan."

This is the specific passage in question that DieChecker brought up.  For whatever reason it exists I predicted it right here and Egyptologists issued an urgent plea for Egyptologists to guess what it was for when it was found. They called it an "anomaly" because "anomaly" means unknown or unexpected. This proves they don't know why it is there though I predicted its existence and then campaigned for many years to get them to prove it.  I believe I know exactly why it IS right here and the fact it is here SUBSTANTIATES my theory while contradicting Egyptological theory.  

I predicted many other things in the post and not a single one of them has been proven false.  I have only been shown to be correct.  Indeed, I can make far more predictions like the presence of copper hydroxide in trace amounts all over the north side of the pyramid in well protected areas.  This chemical soaked the entire north side of G1 and is nearly insoluble in water.  It will still exist in cracks  where water rarely permeates.   I can make literally hundreds of predictions and every bit of data that comes back will allow me to make two more.  When was the last time Egyptology made a good prediction?   

 

If you'd like to talk about any of this or anything else related to the subject or someone's post be sure to bring it up.  You say I don't understand but it appears to be you who doesn't understand.  Now if you had said what I don't understand or actually explained what you know this would be different but anyone can use semantics and gainsaying to obfuscate and this is all you have done.  Say something specific like why doesn't heat rise in a passage sloping up so it doesn't show up at the chevrons.  You can't make such an argument because you know it is wrong so you ignore the statement and tell me I don't understand.  I know you know better.  I know your ploy will work but it is still a ploy and NOT a logical argument.  To sum up, my predictions came true while Egyptologists called them all "anomalies".  

 

"Anomaly" means "unexpected" or "surprising".  I predicted them proving they were not anomalous to me.  English seems to be a lost language but here it is anyway.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
7 hours ago, Swede said:

          1)  Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (680 F, 200 C).

I have been in several pyramids including G1 of course and all I can say is 68 degrees my ass. Can anyone find the primary source for this claim? That G1 maintains a relatively constant 68 degrees? The other half of this claim is that it is also the average "internal temperature of the earth". My guess is that someone using this imposed this fact on G1 [and the rest of the pyramids] without ever having been inside or doing actual measurements and has been uncritically repeated so many times it is now a "fact". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
11 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I have been in several pyramids including G1 of course and all I can say is 68 degrees my ass. Can anyone find the primary source for this claim? That G1 maintains a relatively constant 68 degrees? The other half of this claim is that it is also the average "internal temperature of the earth". My guess is that someone using this imposed this fact on G1 [and the rest of the pyramids] without ever having been inside or doing actual measurements and has been uncritically repeated so many times it is now a "fact". 

At least one source would be:

Smith, Piazzi

1874, 1880, 1891 Our Inheritance In the Great Pyramid.

The 1874 edition refers to the stability but the 1880 (and possibly 1891) edition goes into more detail including the 680 F figure. Various mentions are made on pages 219, 251, 252, and 256 amongst others. He refers primarily to the sealed pyramid with focus on the King’s Chamber. He also bemoans the effects on the temperature of passageways and chambers that were resulting from the opening of the passageways, increased human activity, and the frequent use of torches. These latter factors likely reflect your own experiences. The degree of effect of these factors on the main mass of the structure is debatable.

 

.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
41 minutes ago, Swede said:

At least one source would be:

 

Smith, Piazzi

 

1874, 1880, 1891 Our Inheritance In the Great Pyramid.

 

The 1874 edition refers to the stability but the 1880 (and possibly 1891) edition goes into more detail including the 680 F figure. Various mentions are made on pages 219, 251, 252, and 256 amongst others. He refers primarily to the sealed pyramid with focus on the King’s Chamber. He also bemoans the effects on the temperature of passageways and chambers that were resulting from the opening of the passageways, increased human activity, and the frequent use of torches. These latter factors likely reflect your own experiences. The degree of effect of these factors on the main mass of the structure is debatable.

 

 

.

Actually the difference would be that the pyramid is now ventilated.  More specifically air is drawn out of the kings chamber and fresh air from the outside replaces it.  This air is much warmer than the interior hence warming the interior.  I believe the constant ventilation didn't begin until about 1980.  Pictures of it suggest about a 1 HP electric fan using the technology of the time.  It would have been replaced after all these years.  

The pyramid in the middle (SW of the middle) at about 20' elevation is really a great deal cooler than 68 degrees and should be only about 60 degrees.  This region will show little seasonal variation because the cold and heat don't have time to penetrate to this depth.  The actual variation would be of extreme interest because it would closely correlated with the density of the interior of the pyramid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
12 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I have been in several pyramids including G1 of course and all I can say is 68 degrees my ass. Can anyone find the primary source for this claim? That G1 maintains a relatively constant 68 degrees? The other half of this claim is that it is also the average "internal temperature of the earth". My guess is that someone using this imposed this fact on G1 [and the rest of the pyramids] without ever having been inside or doing actual measurements and has been uncritically repeated so many times it is now a "fact". 

This GP visitor seems to dispute the general claim about the temperature in the pyramid.

This source (5) gives the present-day Queen's Chamber temperature as 25°C (5), the same temperature as Jomard found in the lower part of the GP "Well."

It seems possible that the temperature inside the GP might have altered over recent centuries.  As Swede says, Smyth (1874: 170-1) discusses various factors that might have brought about changes by the late 19th century.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Swede said:

At least one source would be:

Smith, Piazzi

1874, 1880, 1891 Our Inheritance In the Great Pyramid.

The 1874 edition refers to the stability but the 1880 (and possibly 1891) edition goes into more detail including the 680 F figure. Various mentions are made on pages 219, 251, 252, and 256 amongst others. He refers primarily to the sealed pyramid with focus on the King’s Chamber. He also bemoans the effects on the temperature of passageways and chambers that were resulting from the opening of the passageways, increased human activity, and the frequent use of torches. These latter factors likely reflect your own experiences. The degree of effect of these factors on the main mass of the structure is debatable..

Instead of noting his musings why the temperature might be different, as if this number were valid in the first place, maybe it is more relevant to understand how he came up with this number at all. The lead in to this 68 degree business is his belief in G1 numerology which he largely made up, including the number 5, coming up with the temperature of 68 degrees because he says it is 1/5th between freezing and boiling. 

He says Jomard (18th century) measured 71.6f (Fahrenheit) in the King's Chamber with him adding the commentary that this was "unnaturally raised" by means you note above. Vyse came up with 75f. Then he goes on to say that Well took a temperature measurement at the Citadel of Cairo, a medieval Arab church some 15 miles away, "at the same latitude and height", using watery vapor no less, too much in Smyth's opinion, and came up with  62.6-64.4f. Etc, etc. Put it all in a numerology blender and Smyth gets "nearly a mean" of 68f which he makes sure to note again is the desired 1/5th.

As we can see, quite bogus. A non-fact repeated so many times it is now a "fact". 

And if you keep reading it gets even worse which ultimately what Smyth is after is making a number that is 1/5th of something which he has settled on the point between freezing and boiling which he then incorporates into several other numerology schemes.

When I was in G1 my wife and I were the only people in there for about 30min and this after it had been closed with no tourists inside for probably an hour or so and at a time when the modern ventilation systems were installed. It was hotter than a mother______, not even close to 68f, though I would say, though still well above this magic number, the KC is notably cooler. The Red Pyramid, again we were the only people inside, probably one of the few people who had been in there at all that day, and it too was hotter than a mother______. Plugging up its entrance and letting it sit is not going to magically drop the temperature on average 20-30 degrees. 

Edited by Thanos5150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
59 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

This GP visitor seems to dispute the general claim about the temperature in the pyramid.

I don't see the "seems" part. Regardless, I am a GP visitor who literally just disputed this claim in the very post you replied to as would any GP visitor. Have none of you been there? 

Quote

 

This source (5) gives the present-day Queen's Chamber temperature as 25°C (5), the same temperature as Jomard found in the lower part of the GP "Well."

 

Which would be 77 degrees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
23 hours ago, cladking said:

..I think you must have lost track of the subject here because your words don't fit it.  

The subject was and is the passages and whether or not I predicted them so let's go back to post #342 where I predicted all of the anomalies exactly;

"I'm not really hoping to see anything but am predicting there will be heat transfer spots at 81' 3" and at 162' 6"

This was borne out by the heat anomaly on the east side 160' south of the NE corner.

"These spots will be right on the centerlines."

There is a heat anomaly right on the CL on trhe east side and another on the N side.

"The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan."

This is the specific passage in question that DieChecker brought up.  For whatever reason it exists I predicted it right here and Egyptologists issued an urgent plea for Egyptologists to guess what it was for when it was found. They called it an "anomaly" because "anomaly" means unknown or unexpected. This proves they don't know why it is there though I predicted its existence and then campaigned for many years to get them to prove it.  I believe I know exactly why it IS right here and the fact it is here SUBSTANTIATES my theory while contradicting Egyptological theory.  

I predicted many other things in the post and not a single one of them has been proven false.  I have only been shown to be correct.  Indeed, I can make far more predictions like the presence of copper hydroxide in trace amounts all over the north side of the pyramid in well protected areas.  This chemical soaked the entire north side of G1 and is nearly insoluble in water.  It will still exist in cracks  where water rarely permeates.   I can make literally hundreds of predictions and every bit of data that comes back will allow me to make two more.  When was the last time Egyptology made a good prediction?  

If you'd like to talk about any of this or anything else related to the subject or someone's post be sure to bring it up.  You say I don't understand but it appears to be you who doesn't understand.  Now if you had said what I don't understand or actually explained what you know this would be different but anyone can use semantics and gainsaying to obfuscate and this is all you have done.  Say something specific like why doesn't heat rise in a passage sloping up so it doesn't show up at the chevrons.  You can't make such an argument because you know it is wrong so you ignore the statement and tell me I don't understand.  I know you know better.  I know your ploy will work but it is still a ploy and NOT a logical argument.  To sum up, my predictions came true while Egyptologists called them all "anomalies". 

"Anomaly" means "unexpected" or "surprising".  I predicted them proving they were not anomalous to me.  English seems to be a lost language but here it is anyway.  

1)      Incorrect. The temperature aspect is directly tied to your thermography claims.

2)      Now, let us look at what you really said:

I'm not really hoping to see anything but am predicting there will be heat transfer spots at 81' 3" and at 162' 6". These spots will be right on the centerlines. If any appear at the corners it would be fascinating. If these exposures are sufficiently long terms there would also be the exact same segmentation into 81' 3" parts as is revealed in the gravimetric scan. The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan. (Clad, 7-25-21, #342).

·         This “prediction” is not supported by the muography.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/02/12/45EFFCFB00000578-5040093-image-a-39_1509625835993.jpg

·         This “prediction” is not supported by the muography.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/02/12/45EFFCFB00000578-5040093-image-a-39_1509625835993.jpg

The rest of your typical empty rhetoric is of little consequence.

.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
Posted (edited)
On 10/3/2021 at 2:30 PM, Swede said:

1)      Incorrect. The temperature aspect is directly tied to your thermography claims.

What does this sentence mean and how does it apply?   What is a "temperature aspect"?  

The only "thermography claims" of which I am aware is that I predicted the results of the infrared scan before they even announced they were going to do the test.  

Quote

·         This “prediction” is not supported by the muography.

Of course not.  I said "heat transfer spots" and these can not be seen by muography and ONLY by infrared or a thermometer.  This is EXACTLY what showed up EXACTLY where I said they would; in the infrared.  

Quote

The rest of your typical empty rhetoric is of little consequence.

The only "empty rhetoric" is your gainsaying my points and citing irrelevancies.  If your house is too cold you don't turn up the muography.  Gainsaying the cold doesn't make it warmer.  

 

I'm sure somewhere I predicted that the infrared scan would solve the means that was used to build the great pyramids no matter what means that actually was.  Now six years and a half  day later they still won't let us or Peers see the results.  What is wrong with this picture.  

Edited by cladking
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Instead of noting his musings why the temperature might be different, as if this number were valid in the first place, maybe it is more relevant to understand how he came up with this number at all. The lead in to this 68 degree business is his belief in G1 numerology which he largely made up, including the number 5, coming up with the temperature of 68 degrees because he says it is 1/5th between freezing and boiling. 

He says Jomard (18th century) measured 71.6f (Fahrenheit) in the King's Chamber with him adding the commentary that this was "unnaturally raised" by means you note above. Vyse came up with 75f. Then he goes on to say that Well took a temperature measurement at the Citadel of Cairo, a medieval Arab church some 15 miles away, "at the same latitude and height", using watery vapor no less, too much in Smyth's opinion, and came up with  62.6-64.4f. Etc, etc. Put it all in a numerology blender and Smyth gets "nearly a mean" of 68f which he makes sure to note again is the desired 1/5th.

As we can see, quite bogus. A non-fact repeated so many times it is now a "fact". 

And if you keep reading it gets even worse which ultimately what Smyth is after is making a number that is 1/5th of something which he has settled on the point between freezing and boiling which he then incorporates into several other numerology schemes.

When I was in G1 my wife and I were the only people in there for about 30min and this after it had been closed with no tourists inside for probably an hour or so and at a time when the modern ventilation systems were installed. It was hotter than a mother______, not even close to 68f, though I would say, though still well above this magic number, the KC is notably cooler. The Red Pyramid, again we were the only people inside, probably one of the few people who had been in there at all that day, and it too was hotter than a mother______. Plugging up its entrance and letting it sit is not going to magically drop the temperature on average 20-30 degrees. 

You requested a primary source and were provided with one. To address a few of your points:

1) Are you certain of Smyth's methodology? Given the commonality of thermometers by this period, there may a different cause and effect relationship. Do you have any documentation of Smyth's practices? It would be interesting.

2) Yes, in the 1880 edition, Smyth appears quite obsessed with temperature and barometric pressure and presents some rather fanciful extrapolations.

3) Would not be too concerned about the number of people involved. The foremost factor would be the now-open external air circulation. This presents quite a different scenario than Smyth's sealed-structure observations. Given the heat-retention properties of lithic materials, particularly when dealing with large masses, the pyramid would need to be resealed for an extended period of time for the temperature to normalize. As previously noted, am unsure as to the extent of the effect of the passageway/chamber temperatures on the main mass. Also bear in mind that during the period of Smyth's research, we were coming to the end of the Little Ice Age. Possibly a contributing factor, though the impact on the Giza Plateau was likely minimal.

.

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

When I was in G1 ... It was hotter than a mother______, not even close to 68f, though I would say, though still well above this magic number, the KC is notably cooler. The Red Pyramid, ... it too was hotter than a mother______.

Please help out a poor, ignorant non-Egyptologist: exactly how hot is a mother______ ?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
57 minutes ago, Swede said:

You requested a primary source and were provided with one.

And? 

Quote

 

To address a few of your points:

1) Are you certain of Smyth's methodology? Given the commonality of thermometers by this period, there may a different cause and effect relationship. Do you have any documentation of Smyth's practices? It would be interesting..

 

What "methodology" and what does this have to do with him taking Jomard and Well's measurements and just making up a number of 68 degrees? I don't think there is much more to it than described by Smyth himself.  Regardless, the claim which you have repeated as fact is:  "Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (68 F, 20 C)." It is readily apparent from Smyth's writings that he is the primary source which as we can see he just made up the 68 degrees number. If this is wrong by all means please quote Smyth. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infin8tee
2 hours ago, Swede said:

You requested a primary source and were provided with one. To address a few of your points:

 

Actually the primary source would be Jomard, since that is who Smyth relies on.  And from Jomard I give you two snips translated by google from Vol 4: Antiquités Mémoires II pg. 53.  

Quote

But already my light was on, my breathing more embarrassed; 
the Reaumur thermometer was above 25 degrees (2); 
and, although dressed in simple trousers and a linen jacket, I was covered with profuse sweat.

footnote 2: Every time I have visited the pyramids, I have constantly found 22 degrees of heat inside the Reaumur thermometer, although it was sometimes at 10 and sometimes at 25 degrees on the outside. 
 

 I'll let you figure out what the Reaumur thermometer and it's accuracy was. 

Quote

1) Are you certain of Smyth's methodology? Given the commonality of thermometers by this period, there may a different cause and effect relationship. Do you have any documentation of Smyth's practices? It would be interesting.

His methodology, as you call it, but what I would call  his deduction or assumption, is given in his book. All you have to do is read it and the page numbers were already given. 

Quote

The foremost factor would be the now-open external air circulation. This presents quite a different scenario than Smyth's sealed-structure observations. Given the heat-retention properties of lithic materials, particularly when dealing with large masses, the pyramid would need to be resealed for an extended period of time for the temperature to normalize. As previously noted, am unsure as to the extent of the effect of the passageway/chamber temperatures on the main mass. Also bear in mind that during the period of Smyth's research, we were coming to the end of the Little Ice Age. Possibly a contributing factor, though the impact on the Giza Plateau was likely minimal.

So you're saying the temperature recorded by Smyth and Jomard were not normal. But it was you who repeated the claim of a constant 68°. And now you're saying the 68° is not accurate for a couple of reasons. Not sure what the "end of the Little Ice Age" would have to do with the current desert climate of Cairo. A desert climate that has been in effect for how  many hundreds of years now? And what would the "heat retention properties" be of stone above ground  in a desert climate? I seriously doubt the passageways (whichever ones you refer to) would affect the interior temp.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

Please help out a poor, ignorant non-Egyptologist: exactly how hot is a mother______ ?

Apologies. Sometimes I forget there are some non specialists out there. Hotter than a mother_____ is the U.S. Customary unit of measure for any temperature hot enough to make one involuntary pause at regular intervals to utter short unintelligible phrases or exclamations largely comprised of cuss words and/or blasphemes often involving remarks about how hot it is. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.