Scientists reveal hidden corridor in Great Pyramid of Giza

[cormac mac airt]

10 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Of course it is estimated, that is a given, but even the most conservative credible estimates, taking these several things into account which is why the block count is lowered, are around 2,000,000. So if your argument is: 

"Two, while the average weight of GP blocks is given as 2.5 tons that’s just the average and NOT each blocks true weight as depending on actual size many would have weighed well less than half that."  

Does it really matter if its 2.3 or 2.0 million? Or how about 1.5 or 1.0 million?  

Its interesting though that you accept the 2.5 ton average which is based on this 2.3 million yet not the total estimate itself which if less blocks this means what for this 2.5 ton average? Is it higher...? 

No, it's really not. According to Petrie and taking into account his size of internal massif and the fact there's only so much material can be placed within an object the size of the GP his actual estimate minus internal rooms, massif, etc. would be more like 1,917,471 blocks; Eyth's estimate at 1,731,300 blocks, Dormion's estimate at 1,975,481 blocks and Raynaud's with a 20 meter internal massif at 1,421,015 blocks. NONE of these are 2,000,000. So YES it would matter as it would mean there was more time to place significantly less blocks together for the GPs construction. 

I only accept that it's an average and not a true determination of what the blocks weighed. 

cormac

[+joc]

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

You have over 27,000 posts here. How can you still be this ignorant? 

I have never had much of an interest one way or the other about Pyramids.  I understand there are groups out there who believe the Pyramids were built by ET or a Lost Civilization.  I honestly don't know much at all about the Egyptian Dynasties.   So my ignorance on the subject is due to my lack of interest.  It doesn't therefore mean that I am becoming a fringe believer.  I did a little research this morning though, didn't take all that long.

The most interesting, and informative writing I  encountered, is the following, where he explains how if there was a Lost Civilization, they would have left a footprint of some kind and according to his and others 'on site' research there just isn't.

MARK LEHNER, Archaeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, and Harvard Semitic Museum
NOVA: How do we know how old the pyramids are?

Pyramids LEHNER: It's not a direct approach. There are people coming from a New Age perspective who want the pyramids to be very old, much older than Egyptologists are willing to agree. There are people who want them to be built by extraterrestrials, or inspired by extraterrestrials, or built by a lost civilization whose records are otherwise unknown to us. And similar ideas are said about the Sphinx. And in response to the evidence that we have for the time in which the pyramids are built, the criticism is often leveled at scholars that they're only dealing with circumstantial information. It's all just circumstantial. And sometimes we smile at that, because virtually all information in archaeology is circumstantial.

Rarely do we have people from thousands of years ago who are writing, who are signing confessions. So there's no one easy way that we know what the date of the pyramids happens to be. It's mostly by context. The pyramids are surrounded by cemeteries of other tombs. In these tombs we find bodies. Sometimes we find organic materials, like fragments of reed, and wood, wooden coffins. We find the bones of the people who lived and were buried in these tombs. All that can be radiocarbon dated, for example. But primarily we date the pyramids by their position in the development of Egyptian architecture and material culture over the broad sweep of 3,000 years. So we're not dealing with any one foothold of factual knowledge at Giza itself. We're dealing with basically the entirety of Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology.
Now the point is this. That it's not just this crevice or that nook and cranny or that deposit underneath this temple, but all over Giza, you find this kind of material. And as I say in looking for our carbon-14 samples, climbing in the pyramids you find the same material embedded in the very fabric of the pyramids, in the mortar bonding the stones together. So back to the question, is there an earlier civilization? Well, as I say to New Age critics, show me one pot shard of that earlier civilization. Because the only way they could have existed is if they actually got out with whisk brooms, scoop shovels and little spoons and cleared out every single trace of their daily lives, their utensils, their pottery, their wood, their tools and so on, and that's just totally improbable. Well, it's not impossible, but it has a very, very low level of probability, that there was an older civilization there.
 

 

[Tom1200]

2 hours ago, joc said:

Well, it's not impossible, but it has a very, very low level of probability, that there was an older civilization there.

This is an absolutely fundamental point.  It's invariably impossible to say with absolute certainty "this happened then for that reason" but we can make educated inferences and reach sensible, albeit incomplete, conclusions. 

It's relatively easy to dismiss the fringe woo theories that have extremely low probabilities of being correct. e.g. a link I saw in another thread suggests that the ancients worshipped Cygnus because they understood DNA-enhancing cosmic rays emanate from there.  bat**** cookoo-brained garbage: probability ten to the minus several zillion.

Clever fringe woo authors like Handcock are harder to dismiss, not because their ideas are any more credible but because, when subjected to rigorous scrutiny, they actually don't make many statements that can be tested.  Their arguments are fluid, and change so rapidly it's impossible to keep up or know what their latest preposterous claims are.

Is it possible that an older civilization built massive stone pyramids yet left no other archaeological trace?  Of course it’s possible.  But is it likely?  Is it more probable that the AEs developed the skills and techniques through trial and error, over many centuries, developing mastabas into stepped mastabas into stepped pyramids into smooth pyramids?

As for this new discovery: well done to everyone involved.  It's a crying shame it appears to be an empty void and not full of treasure.  (I'm with @Skulduggery (#13): it might not appear to us to serve a structural need, but perhaps the builders thought otherwise?  I'd rate that as quite possible.)  Let's hope the bigger upper void is more exciting!  

[Hanslune]

6 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Is it possible that an older civilization built massive stone pyramids yet left no other archaeological trace?  Of course it’s possible.  But is it likely?  Is it more probable that the AEs developed the skills and techniques through trial and error, over many centuries, developing mastabas into stepped mastabas into stepped pyramids into smooth pyramids?

A great many fringe ideas are based on the concept of 'possibility', since most things are but they tend to fail when you consider the other two Ps, probability and plausibility. Like in Egypt we have found numerous cultures in that area going back 40,000 years and the evidence that the Naqada & Waadi cultures evolved into the ancient Egyptians is high, being not only possible but probable and plausible. The question of how a civilization could arise, build the pyramids then disappear without leaving a trace is possible just not probable or plausible.

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

No, it's really not. According to Petrie and taking into account his size of internal massif and the fact there's only so much material can be placed within an object the size of the GP his actual estimate minus internal rooms, massif, etc. would be more like 1,917,471 blocks; Eyth's estimate at 1,731,300 blocks, Dormion's estimate at 1,975,481 blocks and Raynaud's with a 20 meter internal massif at 1,421,015 blocks. NONE of these are 2,000,000.

No, it really is. 

On what planet is 1,917,471 and 1,975,481 not "around 2,000,000"? You even put it in bold. 

Who says "more like 1,917,471"? No one accepts Eyth and where does Raynaud et al give this number of blocks? They give a volume of the hillock at 23% of the total volume so where does this 1,421,015 number come from? And keep in mind this estimate is speculative at best. Let me get you started:

Quote

Kheops Pyramid: The external observations are insufficient to establish, as for Khephren, a three-dimensional representation of the hillock. However, combined with the internal height of 12.5m reported by Eyth, they enable us to propose a reconstitution of the topography of the carved outcrop . It also reveals a very good match of the level lines of the original hill with the level lines of the site. (Fig.19). On this basis the minimum volume of the outcrop can be estimated at 600,000m3, and corresponds to 23% of the volume of the monument.

 And lets understand what this is actually. They are relying on the measurements of others, not their own, which they cherry pick Eyth because he is the largest value which fits their theory. 

Quote

Several authors show a surelevated rock outcrop inside Kheops pyramid (Fig. 17). Petrie [Petrie, 1883] observed the rock in the inner descent at an height of 8m above the level of the esplanad. For Eyth [Eyth, 1908] the maximum height of the rocky platform is 12.5m, for Dormion [Dormion, 2004] it reaches only 6.60m

And this 20m-its just a made up number based on assumptions made from other sites and the belief that the measurements constitute a minimum which they tack an another 7.5m just for the heck of it. So lets not pass any of this off as "facts". And we note that Eyth, writing in 1908, gives a maximum of 12.5m and Dormion in 2004 a number nearly half that at 6.60m. That is quite the difference which considering Dormion is a lot closer to Petrie's 8m than Petrie's 8m is to Eyth's 12.5m. 

Quote

So YES it would matter as it would mean there was more time to place significantly less blocks together for the GPs construction. 

Come on now. This is not what you said. You original comment had nothing to do with how long it took or how many blocks there were but rather the weight:

"Two, while the average weight of GP blocks is given as 2.5 tons that’s just the average and NOT each blocks true weight as depending on actual size many would have weighed well less than half that." 

So, no it does not matter as to what we are actually talking about which to repeat myself:

"Does it really matter if its 2.3 or 2.0 million? Or how about 1.5 or 1.0 million?"  

Quote

I only accept that it's an average and not a true determination of what the blocks weighed. 

Average of what? If these block totals are so much less then this is an average based on false assumptions and could produce significantly different results. 

And ironically, regardless the actual amount of blocks, the smaller the blocks the more are needed so at best a wash.  

[Scott Creighton]

If we accept the ancient Egyptian Saurid Legend as to why the pyramids were built as being based more in fact than legend, then the answer as to the purpose of this enigmatic space behind the original entrance of G1 becomes self-evident.

Egyptology, however, is – by and large – quite unwilling to consider such. Yes, G1 is a ‘tomb’. Just not in the way Egyptologists imagine.

 

SC

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, joc said:

I have never had much of an interest one way or the other about Pyramids.  I understand there are groups out there who believe the Pyramids were built by ET or a Lost Civilization.  I honestly don't know much at all about the Egyptian Dynasties.   So my ignorance on the subject is due to my lack of interest.  It doesn't therefore mean that I am becoming a fringe believer.  I did a little research this morning though, didn't take all that long.

The most interesting, and informative writing I  encountered, is the following, where he explains how if there was a Lost Civilization, they would have left a footprint of some kind and according to his and others 'on site' research there just isn't.

That's quite the turn around from only yesterday:

Quote

 

First of all, we are 'assuming' that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid.  To my knowledge there is no real way to know that was the case.  I also see absolutely no reason why the Egyptians would have...even if they could have, and I don't think they could have... built such a thing.

It seems more likely to me that the Egyptians 'inherited' the Great Pyramid from someone else.  The Egyptians simply did not have the technological means to build the Great Pyramid...and no real reason to.  I don't buy any of that BS about the Pharaohs wanted them built for when they died.   

 

Life After Lost Civilization

[Thanos5150]

6 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

If we accept the ancient Egyptian Saurid Legend as to why the pyramids were built as being based more in fact than legend, 

Scott. We don't. You know we don't. No one does except for a very few kooks and or religiously motivated types.  

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Average of what? If these block totals are so much less then this is an average based on false assumptions and could produce significantly different results. 

And ironically, regardless the actual amount of blocks, the smaller the blocks the more are needed so at best a wash.  

Average weight of blocks per Petrie’s own estimate of size for each at a claimed 50 x 50 x 28 inches, which itself isn’t actually in evidence based on the blocks one can see within the outer 203 levels. The whole thing is based on false assumptions starting with Petrie’s and including your own. 
 

Considering the use of mortar in the GPs construction as well there is no way, specifically, to know the overall number of actual blocks used. Material, yes. Blocks, no. 
 

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Scott. We don't. You know we don't. No one does except for a very few kooks and or religiously motivated types.  

Indeed, Lee. Hence my, “Egyptology, however, is – by and large – quite unwilling to consider such.”

But that doesn’t make Egyptology (or you) right.  Yes, the Saurid narrative is (conveniently imo) disregarded by Egyptology as “legend” and, thus, dismissible as evidence. That’s not something I personally like to do because, if we have learned anything, it is that many a true fact is concealed in so-called ‘legend’.

But hey – knock yourself daft. Blinker yourself. Ignore what the AEs so-called Saurid ‘legend’ actually says as regards the purpose of the pyramids.

WoA Lee - consider ALL the evidence. You're an awesome researcher. But you hinder yourself by discounting particular evidence just because everyone else does. Consensus opinion isn't fact.

The Saurid 'legend' is supported by this enigmatic space.

SC 

Edited March 5 by Scott Creighton

[+joc]

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

That's quite the turn around from only yesterday:

Life After Lost Civilization

As Napoleon Hill said, Desire is the starting point for all achievement.  So, as I mentioned in a previous thread, I have been listening to You Tube shorts recently.  There are a lot of these 'fringers' pointing out this or that.  I'm pretty grounded in reality actually.  Information is so incredibly easy to find at this juncture.  So, I looked it up.  What Mark Lehner explained in his writings, and what you explained in  your writings in Life after LC....make perfect sense.   

Especially the part about how fast dirt and sand  cover things up.  

 

 

[+joc]

On 3/4/2023 at 1:53 PM, Abramelin said:

So, depictions of Egyptians constructing large structures do not convince you?

They, btw., dìd have the technology. Just not the kind of technology we would use to build such a large structure.

They also had a lot of time, ànd a lot of workers.

...and...it is not much harder to get a rock to the top of the pyramid.  You just have to move it more times.  just like moving a refrigerator, etc up the stairs.

[Unusual Tournament]

3 minutes ago, joc said:

...and...it is not much harder to get a rock to the top of the pyramid.  You just have to move it more times.  just like moving a refrigerator, etc up the stairs.

The great pyramid seems like a puzzle more than a tomb. 

[Thanos5150]

6 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Average weight of blocks per Petrie’s own estimate of size for each at a claimed 50 x 50 x 28 inches, which itself isn’t actually in evidence based on the blocks one can see within the outer 203 levels. The whole thing is based on false assumptions starting with Petrie’s and including your own.

I am not making any assumptions. 

Hopefully the readers will take a moment to understand the rest of what I wrote that you did not respond to. 

[Thanos5150]

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Indeed, Lee. Hence my, “Egyptology, however, is – by and large – quite unwilling to consider such.”

It is not an unwillingness. The information has been evaluated and has been summarily rejected because of its complete lack of merit.  

Quote

But that doesn’t make Egyptology (or you) right.  Yes, the Saurid narrative is (conveniently imo) disregarded by Egyptology as “legend” and, thus, dismissible as evidence. That’s not something I personally like to do because, if we have learned anything, it is that many a true fact is concealed in so-called ‘legend’.

It is fantasy, not legend, like much of the Arabian nights inter alia gobbledygook. 

Quote

But hey – knock yourself daft. Blinker yourself. Ignore what the AEs so-called Saurid ‘legend’ actually says as regards the purpose of the pyramids.

WoA Lee - consider ALL the evidence. You're an awesome researcher. But you hinder yourself by discounting particular evidence just because everyone else does. Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Thank you, but be fair to me and don't play these tired games Scott where if someone does not believe what you do this means therefore they are just "following the herd". I have not read any Egyptological opinion on the subject but have rather given you a fair shake, more than most I reckon, and read the information for myself-just a part of what makes me an "awesome researcher". Let me quote some of these responses to you:

Quote

[Thanos:]

There was no such thing as a Coptic-Egyptian until the Christians came in the late 1st century AD. The Flood spoken of in the later Arab legends of Surid is clearly of Biblical origin and not Egyptian tradition. The story of Surid at best, if at all, is thought to have originated at least several centuries after the arrival of the Christians which the only connection to the Copts in the first place is the claim from the Medieval Arab writers. My question is how did the Copts, presumably, or at least the Arabs come into possession of knowledge of Egyptian history unknown to the Egyptians themselves let alone the Greeks, Romans, or anyone else for that matter?

[Scott:]
> Alas, most Egyptologists dismiss this
> Coptic-Egyptian Sūrīd tradition as simply myth
> and legend, the wild imaginings of a primitive and
> superstitious people.

[Thanos]:

This is a strawman to make it seem as though the only reason we do not accept such tales is because of the jaded perception of experts which is not accurate on many levels. Can you quote Egyptologists making this specific claim? You also say "most" so there must be some that don't believe this so please quote them too. The are over 2 billion people today who still believe in Biblically derived myths and legends so what makes the Copts or Medieval Arabs any less primitive or superstitious than those who still believe the same today?

.....

 Just because the Copts are Egyptian does not mean the Egyptians are Copts. You are twisting the context to make it seem like the Copts are something they are not. "Copts" are Egyptians who became Christians in early AD times which at some time after this point, centuries, became a distinct religious ethnic group who eventually even spoke their own language. As you know full well, no scholar is going to equate "Copt" with "Egyptians" prior to the arrival of the Christians because before this they were just "Egyptians".

Their new found religious beliefs clearly distinguishes them from what they once were which over time the rest of indigenous Egypt as well, something that occurred over centuries in AD times. And regardless, the Arabs in Medieval times who wrote these stories were specifically reffering to the Copts, Christian Egyptians, of their day.

"The word Copt means Egypt."? There was no word "Copt" until the 17th century so what does this mean?

....

By the time the Arabs began to write the Coptic stories down, no doubt revised to fit their own religious and political sensibilities, not to mention the same caliber of "story" like what the[y] told Herodotus, the Coptic Christian religious group, which is what they are, had been around for over 1000yrs at that point.

 

The full conversations can be found:

HERE

HERE

HERE

My opinions have nothing to do with Egyptology nor does any of the information I cite. I have evaluated the claims for myself and reject them. It is not "consensus opinion" but the fact of the matter which just because you may choose to believe these stories anyways does not change these facts.  

Quote

The Saurid 'legend' is supported by this enigmatic space.

Sorry brother. It just doesn't. 

Edited March 6 by Thanos5150

[flying squid]

10 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

The great pyramid seems like a puzzle more than a tomb. 

[Scott Creighton]

8 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Sorry brother. It just doesn't. 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  IMO, the proof of this is pending and will only be conclusively proved one way or the other when we finally get an endoscopic camera into the Big Void.  There, imo, will be discovered not just one, but twenty-seven AE kings and their queens  - Saurid's (aka Suphis/Khufu's) ancestors. That's what the Saurid legend tells us was done. And it's why, Lee, we have found mummified AE kings from many later dynasties but none from the 3rd or 4th. It's why, Lee, in the 3rd and 4th we find the 'empty sarcophagi' phenomenon - they were relocated from their original burials and the original sarcophagi ritually re-sealed, vis-a-vis Khufu's mom Hetepheres I (and several others). It's why, Lee, we are told in some texts that there were once a number of statues standing in the Grand Gallery - 27 kings & queens - alternating and facing each other (that's what the 27 pavement notches and inset holes on each side were for). These were the Ka statues for each king and queen's mummified body that lay above in the Big Void.

And yes - the 'Little Void' played a vital part too in all of this.

But, hopefully, one day soon, we'll get to see if I'm right.

SC 

Edited March 6 by Scott Creighton

[docyabut2]

The discovery today tells us there is something important to be discovered soon under that tunnel, which could be the real burial chamber of Khufu,” Hawass said.?

 could be the Khufu  `s Canopic jars planted  ")

Edited March 6 by docyabut2

[jasmin_13]

I think there are more of them. 

[Abramelin]

On 3/5/2023 at 4:48 AM, Thanos5150 said:

That does sound convincing. Can you link to these pictures of Egyptians constructing large structures? 

-----

They had just about the same exact technology

Sorry for the late reply. Your post notification must have been lost among 20+ notifications.

Well, not exactly a picture of Egyptians constructing large structures, but a picture of Egyptians pulling a large statue:

----

The exact same technology?

We, nowadays, would use a lot of machines to build the same thing.

[Wepwawet]

11 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  IMO, the proof of this is pending and will only be conclusively proved one way or the other when we finally get an endoscopic camera into the Big Void.  There, imo, will be discovered not just one, but twenty-seven AE kings and their queens  - Saurid's (aka Suphis/Khufu's) ancestors. That's what the Saurid legend tells us was done. And it's why, Lee, we have found mummified AE kings from many later dynasties but none from the 3rd or 4th. It's why, Lee, in the 3rd and 4th we find the 'empty sarcophagi' phenomenon - they were relocated from their original burials and the original sarcophagi ritually re-sealed, vis-a-vis Khufu's mom Hetepheres I (and several others). It's why, Lee, we are told in some texts that there were once a number of statues standing in the Grand Gallery - 27 kings & queens - alternating and facing each other (that's what the 27 pavement notches and inset holes on each side were for). These were the Ka statues for each king and queen's mummified body that lay above in the Big Void.

And yes - the 'Little Void' played a vital part too in all of this.

But, hopefully, one day soon, we'll get to see if I'm right.

SC 

I can see why the idea of a cache of royal mummies in G1 is attractive, though I think the idea for this is based on the much later caches in the VoK and the communal burial for a few kings at Tanis. If there were a cache of OK, and even MK royals, then IMO it would have been created early in the 18th Dynasty, though I don't really think they would have done this as the reasons for the later caches were entirely monetary, not an issue for the 18th Dynasty kings, who probably sweated liquid gold, and if they had dandruff it would have been flakes of gold.

If 3rd and 4th Dynasty kings were cached in G1, what would be the point of Khafre building his own pyramid if he is going to be buried in G1, what purpose would G2 serve. If the GG originally contained 27 ka statues, would it not be expected that some remains of them would have been found, after all, they have no value and be of no interest to robbers.

[Thanos5150]

18 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  IMO, the proof of this is pending and will only be conclusively proved one way or the other when we finally get an endoscopic camera into the Big Void.  There, imo, will be discovered not just one, but twenty-seven AE kings and their queens  - Saurid's (aka Suphis/Khufu's) ancestors. That's what the Saurid legend tells us was done. And it's why, Lee, we have found mummified AE kings from many later dynasties but none from the 3rd or 4th. It's why, Lee, in the 3rd and 4th we find the 'empty sarcophagi' phenomenon - they were relocated from their original burials and the original sarcophagi ritually re-sealed, vis-a-vis Khufu's mom Hetepheres I (and several others). It's why, Lee, we are told in some texts that there were once a number of statues standing in the Grand Gallery - 27 kings & queens - alternating and facing each other (that's what the 27 pavement notches and inset holes on each side were for). These were the Ka statues for each king and queen's mummified body that lay above in the Big Void.

And yes - the 'Little Void' played a vital part too in all of this.

But, hopefully, one day soon, we'll get to see if I'm right.

SC 

Wow. Alrighty then. Can't wait. 

[Thanos5150]

9 hours ago, Abramelin said:

The exact same technology?

We, nowadays, would use a lot of machines to build the same thing.

What I said: "They had just about the same exact technology"

With a link to 19th century stone masonry which if one actually looks at the link they will see it is "just about the same exact technology". 

Edited March 7 by Thanos5150

[Abramelin]

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

What I said: "They had just about the same exact technology"

With a link to 19th century stone masonry which if one actually looks at the link they will see it is "just about the same exact technology". 

And I meant lorries, bulldozers, things like that.

[Frank_Hoenedge]

Granite would still gouge the surroundings when pushed/pulled along a ramp.