Pyramids Around the World

[louie]

Good observation: by the exact same (il)logic, Calculus /had/ to be given to us by a higher source, since it was independently discovered by Newton and Leibnitz. But that's demonstrably not true.

I agree with you 100% that ideas like these come from people who just haven't taken the time to study these cultures -- and I don't consider reading lunatic fringe website for 20 minutes two afternoons in a week "study" -- in detail.

--Jaylemurph

My ideas do not come from 20 minutes a week browsing fringe websites,

It comes from visiting, Newgrange and the surrounding mounds and many stone circles in Ireland. Visiting Stonehenge, Guimar pyramids on the Canary islands, The Giza plateau. Maeshowe.Swedish Stonehenge, Carnac france, and some sites in South america at the end of this year, also conversing with the resident professionals on the sites, and a book i wrote on this very subject which will be published sometime next year with the backing of all the museums who have information on the sites listed, apart from the Egyptan museum.

so dont presume anything.

face it we dont know half of what we think we know about our past. and more and more profesionals are supporting the idea of advanced peoples before we thought they should have been around.

[kmt_sesh]

Maeshowe.Swedish Stonehenge, Carnac france, and some sites in South america at the end of this year, also conversing with the resident professionals on the sites, and a book i wrote on this very subject which will be published sometime next year with the backing of all the museums who have information on the sites listed, apart from the Egyptan museum.

so dont presume anything.

Visiting and chatting. Hmm, sounds touristry.

Methinks you're stretching things a bit. No professional historian is going to believe your premise that all architectural knowledge stems from one source. That flies against logic.

Writing a book doesn't mean much. Anyone can do that and have it published themselves. It's easily done today. Chatting with an archaeologist (who was probably actually a weekend tour guide) doesn't mean much, either. Has your work been vetted by professional historians, and if so, which historians?

I am not impressed by such claims. I work among professional historians at two different museums, and I am familiar with how the process works, although I've never written a book of history myself. Talking with an historian is one thing. Even submitting a paper doesn't mean much, unless you gain the support of the historian whose sponsorship you are hoping to get.

For instance, not long ago a member of UM was quite self-satisfied by the fact that he had submitted his theory on how wood rockers were used to build the Great Pyramid. The scholar to whom he submitted his paper was Dieter Arnold. A good choice, that. Arnold is one of the leaders in the field. However, evidently this poster wasn't aware that Arnold flatly discounts this particular usage of rockers. Arnold says it plain as day in his book Building in Egypt. I didn't point this out to the poster because I wasn't in the mood to argue with him, but it's there in Arnold's book for everyone to see.

Just an example. Publishing a paper or book doesn't mean much. Look at all the ridiculous, juvenile garbage out there, from the likes of Sitchin to Gadalla. Whoopee. What would impress me is if you can provide clarification on which respected and vetted scholars support your theories. And by scholar I don't mean the writer of a lunatic fringe website. That's not scholarship--it's delusional flop.

Rather, spend your time in that building filled with books jaylemurph so eloquently described.

[kmt_sesh]

HEY! I work in one of those places. They don't have all the fancy pictures and graphics you see at a really good 'lunatic fringe' website. But you gave me a good idea. I'm gonna hang up my old felt 'black light' Led Zeppelin and Doors posters to try to get that effect.

Lapiche

I've been to plenty of those places myself but they're never quite as exciting as jaylemurph's description. Well, all right, I've seen people napping, but that other thing? LOL Can't say I've ever seen that! I should be paying more attention.

I like your ideas, Piney. Yours will be the most popular library around after you're done with your interior decorating.

[louie]

Visiting and chatting. Hmm, sounds touristry.

Methinks you're stretching things a bit. No professional historian is going to believe your premise that all architectural knowledge stems from one source. That flies against logic.

Writing a book doesn't mean much. Anyone can do that and have it published themselves. It's easily done today. Chatting with an archaeologist (who was probably actually a weekend tour guide) doesn't mean much, either. Has your work been vetted by professional historians, and if so, which historians?

I am not impressed by such claims. I work among professional historians at two different museums, and I am familiar with how the process works, although I've never written a book of history myself. Talking with an historian is one thing. Even submitting a paper doesn't mean much, unless you gain the support of the historian whose sponsorship you are hoping to get.

For instance, not long ago a member of UM was quite self-satisfied by the fact that he had submitted his theory on how wood rockers were used to build the Great Pyramid. The scholar to whom he submitted his paper was Dieter Arnold. A good choice, that. Arnold is one of the leaders in the field. However, evidently this poster wasn't aware that Arnold flatly discounts this particular usage of rockers. Arnold says it plain as day in his book Building in Egypt. I didn't point this out to the poster because I wasn't in the mood to argue with him, but it's there in Arnold's book for everyone to see.

Just an example. Publishing a paper or book doesn't mean much. Look at all the ridiculous, juvenile garbage out there, from the likes of Sitchin to Gadalla. Whoopee. What would impress me is if you can provide clarification on which respected and vetted scholars support your theories. And by scholar I don't mean the writer of a lunatic fringe website. That's not scholarship--it's delusional flop.

Rather, spend your time in that building filled with books jaylemurph so eloquently described.

lets get one thing straight here, i never never said my theory states it stems from one source they are your words not mine. my theory is a series of links connecting the sites.

Oh yeah the weekend tour guides archelogists you mentioned, yeah i dont think so, every site was submitted to the museum of its region for fact checking and a outline of the book and asked if i could use them as source in the book, amongst some of the museums The british museum, national history museum of ireland. many of the museums in capital cities in South america and some in north america.

as for my sources i will not name them as the book isnt published yet hence i dont get paid till it is, when its done ill send you a message you can buy it and read the profesionals names who verified the facts and allowed thier name to be associated with the book and its theory.

by the way all the sites an facts on the sites are 100% true and factual im not printing anything on the fringe, this theory is correct an only presented to opens peoples eyes to a far deeper history of mankind.

so please stop refering to it as such. im not claiming anything just presenting facts.

[itsnotoutthere]

The only thing I dislike more than the fake UFO videos and sightings is the mythology around the pyramids in Egypt and elsewhere but especially in Egypt. I've seen psychics like Sylvia Browne claim that aliens built them and such mumbo jumbo. However if you really look at the history of the Egyptian Pyramids at Giza, the evidence shows they are clearly built by men and built as tombs for the Pharaohs. They found tombs of the people who actually designed and built the Giza Pyramids. All the mythos came about because they just didn't know how they built them. The Egyptians built thousands of Pyramids and you can clearly see how they got more and more advanced. I saw a Discovery Channel Documentary where they actually used a small group of men to move one of the huge stones they did it with simple tools and didn't need an army. I don't know what it's motivated by but why can't they give credit to the HUMANS who built the pyramids at Giza?

Hitman

Agreed, & if the pyramids were built by aliens it would show them up to be a pretty backwrd bunch. I mean, they can build advanced interstellar space craft, but still build in stone & presumably hadn't invented windows....DOH.

[jaylemurph]

Well, all right, I've seen people napping, but that other thing? LOL Can't say I've ever seen that! I should be paying more attention.

It's not quite as bad where I work now than any of the places I studied at before, but it still happens more than I'd like. It's disheartening to be puttering around look for some obscure treatise and bumble into some graduate students (always grad students) puffing away.

as for my sources i will not name them as the book isnt published yet hence i dont get paid till it is, when its done ill send you a message you can buy it and read the profesionals names who verified the facts and allowed thier name to be associated with the book and its theory.

You know, when you said you were getting a book published, I thought, "Hope you pay your copy editor and/or ghost writer well" because your posts suggest they'd be working overtime forging your prose into something printable. But when you say the bolded part, you sort of hint that you don't even know how the publishing industry -- even the tiniest houses -- works. I think I can safely put your book into the same category as Draconic Chronicler's, "soon to be published for several years now" or, as I call it, the Macbeth category, TBD "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow."

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

lets get one thing straight here, i never never said my theory states it stems from one source they are your words not mine. my theory is a series of links connecting the sites.

Louie, note the bolded portion above, from your most recent post; then, note that below is a quote from one of your earlier posts:

an dont you think its funny that people all over the globe having the same idea and using the same principles and similar structures, when they were supposed to be remote. personally i belive some peple were travelling the globe and sharing mathmatics, building and astronomy of a very advanced level.

I thought perhaps I had misstated the facts, so to be responsible I went back and perused past posts. It appears I was correct in my assumption. You're back-pedaling. Also be sure to read jaylemurph's previous post, about the printing industry. I am also well acquainted with this industry, on a professional basis. I would have to agree wholeheartedly with his summary of your situation: "'soon to be published for several years now' or, as I call it, the Macbeth category, TBD 'tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.'"

As I said, anyone can publish a book on any topic. No big deal, as long as you can afford it, and it can be done very cheaply. I don't like to be mean, louie, but you're stating things contrary to commonly known fact, and your historical theory is what an orthodox historian would call fringe. My area of study is the ancient Near East, and in over twenty years of study and research, I personally have never come across anything that would support your claim of a "common origin."

You can at least tell us the publisher which is printing your book. There are no proprietary issues in that (nor would there be in telling us the names of some of the historians, if this is to be an actual printed book). I have seen a number of fringe books in museums, so I'm not saying it's impossible.

And if you do get it published, do provide all of us the link for purchase so we can at least consider it.

[louie]

Louie, note the bolded portion above, from your most recent post; then, note that below is a quote from one of your earlier posts:

I thought perhaps I had misstated the facts, so to be responsible I went back and perused past posts. It appears I was correct in my assumption. You're back-pedaling. Also be sure to read jaylemurph's previous post, about the printing industry. I am also well acquainted with this industry, on a professional basis. I would have to agree wholeheartedly with his summary of your situation: "'soon to be published for several years now' or, as I call it, the Macbeth category, TBD 'tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.'"

As I said, anyone can publish a book on any topic. No big deal, as long as you can afford it, and it can be done very cheaply. I don't like to be mean, louie, but you're stating things contrary to commonly known fact, and your historical theory is what an orthodox historian would call fringe. My area of study is the ancient Near East, and in over twenty years of study and research, I personally have never come across anything that would support your claim of a "common origin."

You can at least tell us the publisher which is printing your book. There are no proprietary issues in that (nor would there be in telling us the names of some of the historians, if this is to be an actual printed book). I have seen a number of fringe books in museums, so I'm not saying it's impossible.

And if you do get it published, do provide all of us the link for purchase so we can at least consider it.

yeah sure ill send you the info where you can purchase it.

Btw read where you highlighted my second post i said SOME people not 1 group not 1 civlisation some people, maybe i should have said some peoples as in diffrent groups scattered around as we know nothing of them, same as we know nothing of the builders of stone henge, newgrange, carnac, and many many other sites. and dont tell me the beaker people its reckgonised now stonehenge was there before them.

anyway tired of going round in circles.

[louie]

It's not quite as bad where I work now than any of the places I studied at before, but it still happens more than I'd like. It's disheartening to be puttering around look for some obscure treatise and bumble into some graduate students (always grad students) puffing away.

You know, when you said you were getting a book published, I thought, "Hope you pay your copy editor and/or ghost writer well" because your posts suggest they'd be working overtime forging your prose into something printable. But when you say the bolded part, you sort of hint that you don't even know how the publishing industry -- even the tiniest houses -- works. I think I can safely put your book into the same category as Draconic Chronicler's, "soon to be published for several years now" or, as I call it, the Macbeth category, TBD "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow."

--Jaylemurph

AAhhh the published work is fine , im normally in transit when posting here so i never really watch my grammer, p, qs an all that. just you were so hostile i dident want to bother going into glorious detail for you, if you choose to believe there were no intelligent peoples existing outside of the historical timeline we have now. well good for you, but mark my words you will be proved wrong an i hope it happens in your lifetime, i dont mean by me, itll become common knowledge in time.

good day.

I have a stone circle in denmark im going to see tomorrow.

http://www.rundetaarn.dk/engelsk/observatorium/archaeoas.htm

[cladking]

The only thing I dislike more than the fake UFO videos and sightings is the mythology around the pyramids in Egypt and elsewhere but especially in Egypt. I've seen psychics like Sylvia Browne claim that aliens built them and such mumbo jumbo. However if you really look at the history of the Egyptian Pyramids at Giza, the evidence shows they are clearly built by men and built as tombs for the Pharaohs. They found tombs of the people who actually designed and built the Giza Pyramids. All the mythos came about because they just didn't know how they built them. The Egyptians built thousands of Pyramids and you can clearly see how they got more and more advanced. I saw a Discovery Channel Documentary where they actually used a small group of men to move one of the huge stones they did it with simple tools and didn't need an army. I don't know what it's motivated by but why can't they give credit to the HUMANS who built the pyramids at Giza?

It's true we don't know how they were built but they don't really get increasingly

advanced; far from it. They stopped building one of the great pyramids right in

the middle and all subsequent pyramids are a small fraction of the size. Many

of the later ones are made of mud brick as well.

There's also no conclusive evidence that the great pyramids were built as tombs.

There are no mummies from the era and no findings of treasure. The culture said

these pyramids were "instruments of ascension" and served as a ladder to heaven.

They did not say anyone was buried in them.

Were they moving blocks upward? It is very easy to move even the largest weights

if you aren't lifting them. There are no known short cuts to lifting. It takes a great

deal of work in every single case. Ramps merely extend extend the time you apply

the work. Machinery is simply a means to let someone else do the work. But you

can't shield or reduce gravity and it must be fought and overcome to raise anything.

Edited July 14, 2008 by cladking

[kmt_sesh]

They stopped building one of the great pyramids right in

the middle and all subsequent pyramids are a small fraction of the size. Many

of the later ones are made of mud brick as well.

Cladking, exactly which unfinished pyramid are you referring to? There are quite a few. I know you've mentioned this same thing several times but are you referring to the Mastabat el Fara’un of Shepseskaf at South Saqqara?

Although a lot of the later pyramids do contain a bulk of mudbrick, remember that a number of them from Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6 also contain a lot of stone on the exterior and interior, and some of those stone blocks and slabs are massive. The smaller pyramids may not be as grand as those from Dynasty 4, but most were well built and also employed significant masonry.

The culture said

these pyramids were "instruments of ascension" and served as a ladder to heaven.

They did not say anyone was buried in them.

LOL Who or what else is going to be doing the ascending?

[cladking]

Cladking, exactly which unfinished pyramid are you referring to? There are quite a few. I know you've mentioned this same thing several times but are you referring to the Mastabat el Fara’un of Shepseskaf at South Saqqara?

According to this site;

http://www.world-destiny.org/or/marklehner.htm

It's Nebka Zawiyet el-Aryan. I'm really not in the least familiar with it.

Although a lot of the later pyramids do contain a bulk of mudbrick, remember that a number of them from Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6 also contain a lot of stone on the exterior and interior, and some of those stone blocks and slabs are massive. The smaller pyramids may not be as grand as those from Dynasty 4, but most were well built and also employed significant masonry.

Yes. But the fact is that what makes large pyramids hard to build is their

height. It's getting that top up there that's the hard part. Certainly getting

massive stones up even lesser heights is an achievment but getting massive

weights up at great altitude is much tougher. Of course the volume of the

great pyramids is impressive as well and represents a great deal of quarry-

ing.

LOL Who or what else is going to be doing the ascending?

I hesitated to use the sentence since I know you disagree but this seems to

be one thing in all the versions of the Pyramid Texts which is indisputable; the

king needed to ascend to heaven and "pyramid" means "instrument of ascen-

sion". While everyone else seems to think he voyaged out at night through

his pyramid it certainly appears the Pyramid Texts say he ascended outside

the pyramid to the top.

Of course if you think about it, if he can ascend through solid stone there's no

need to make the pyramid in the first place. If he can't ascend through stone

then why build a pyramid.

A pyramid is a great deal of work for a nonsequitor whether you're building in

Egyptian or in English.

[kmt_sesh]

According to this site;

http://www.world-destiny.org/or/marklehner.htm

It's Nebka Zawiyet el-Aryan. I'm really not in the least familiar with it.

Well, there's not a hell of a lot to be familiar with. I've seen this web page before and methinks the author of it is trying to make something nefarious out of Lehner's line drawing. A big ado about nothing, really. Lehner places the king to whom this Unfinished Pyramid is attributed, to a position between Khafre and Menkaure. Most Egyptologists don't seem to agree with that, but there's so little of the pyramid that was prepared that it's riddled with mystery.

Even the name of this ephemeral king gives people fits. Lehner calls him ?Nebka, Dodson calls him Seth?ka, and Verner calls him Baka(?). The question mark is there because the first glyph in the king's name, which was found on mason marks of the stones at this site, is practically unreadable. And other than these mason marks, this king is unknown.

Early scholars believed the Unfinished Pyramid dated to Dynasty 3 but that argument has been discarded. Dynasty 4 is now almost universally agreed, but when in Dynasty 4 is still being argued. Almost nothing of the pyramid was ever built except for the substructure and part of the perimeter foundations, so there's little to go on. However, the parts that were prepared are practically identical typologically to the ruins of Djedefre's pyramid at Abu Rawash. We know Djedefre followed Khufu, so based on style and typology most argue that this unknown king's pyramid followed Djedefre and preceded Khafre. I think it was Rainer Stadelman who argued that this king was in fact Baka, who we know was a son of Djedefre's.

Why the Unfinished Pyramid is unfinished is obvious. After ascending to the throne, ?Nebka/Seth?ka/Baka(?) must have died very suddenly. The next king to ascend, be he Khafre or Menkaure, was not about to complete 99% of the work remaining on Baka(?)'s pyramid when he had his own pyramid to build. Many kings' tombs were never finished, including in the Old Kingdom. Plenty of scholars argue that Djedefre's pyramid was uncompleted, and the evidence supports that (despite the History Channel's entertaining but misleading recent special, The Lost Pyramid). It's possible even Menkaure's pyramid was not completely finished, and we know the associated temples weren't (they were hurriedly finished in mudbrick).

Enough of that. It's probably more than you wanted or cared to know. I'll just emphasize again that no one's in agreement on when Baka(?) reigned in Dynasty 4, but at the present time most place him between Djedefre and Khafre. That may change.

[kmt_sesh]

Hey, I just realized I now have 400 posts. Do I win anything?

[questionmark]

Hey, I just realized I now have 400 posts. Do I win anything?

a warm cyber handshake

[kmt_sesh]

Yeah, and I'll bet yours will come complete with one of those cyber joy-buzzers, right?

[questionmark]

Yeah, and I'll bet yours will come complete with one of those cyber joy-buzzers, right?

...now, now...that would be a hot handshake

[Harte]

well who constructed newgrange then which is aligned perfectly with the winter solicaste.

who built Stonehenge wich was aligned with the winter solicaste , are you saying the sumarians did it archelogists have made public statements quite recently there was thread on the front page where they said the mathmatics involved were hundreds of years older than the construction of the sites. so if the sumerians are the only civlisation older than the egyptans who and where did the same principles in construction an mathmatics come from. and if you care to search the sites on the list i gave you. you will see many mathmatical and construction similarties. from many diffrent ages and many diffrent countrys around the world.

many archelogists are now supporting the idea that people were travelling the globe long before we were supposed to have been. so if they were travelling im sure they were meeting an teaching each other new ways.

Whatever you wish to believe, Louie, you should be made aware that no "high level" mathematics is necessary for near-perfect alignment of stones with solar (or lunar - or any other heavenly body) positions in the sky.

All that is required is (at most) three sticks and a set of decent eyeballs.

These same materials are all that is required for a shaman to figure out the solstices and equinoxes (equini? - what's the plural, all you OCD sufferers out there?)

Harte

[jaylemurph]

Whatever you wish to believe, Louie, you should be made aware that no "high level" mathematics is necessary for near-perfect alignment of stones with solar (or lunar - or any other heavenly body) positions in the sky.

All that is required is (at most) three sticks and a set of decent eyeballs.

These same materials are all that is required for a shaman to figure out the solstices and equinoxes (equini? - what's the plural, all you OCD sufferers out there?)

Harte

Equinoctes.

I wasn't aware the ability to speak Latin was a mental disorder.

--Jaylemurph

[cladking]

Equinoctes.

I wasn't aware the ability to speak Latin was a mental disorder.

--Jaylemurph

...only the ability to speak it properly.

[jaylemurph]

...only the ability to speak it properly.

Ha! Great one!

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

Equinoctes.

I wasn't aware the ability to speak Latin was a mental disorder.

--Jaylemurph

No, not a mental disorder. It just reveals your geekiness.

Just kidding!

This is how I show that I'm envious of you. I tried to take up Latin when I was getting my first college degree but my advisor wouldn't hear of it. To this day I could kick him in the nads.

[cladking]

No, not a mental disorder. It just reveals your geekiness.

Just kidding!

This is how I show that I'm envious of you. I tried to take up Latin when I was getting my first college degree but my advisor wouldn't hear of it. To this day I could kick him in the nads.

I have even less excuse.

On the first day of high school only about a dozen of us were there

for Latin class. The teacher essentially told us it was up to us if the

school continued to offer Latin or not. Since I had misgivings any-

way I failed to show the kind of enthusiam which would have saved

it for the next three years. So did everyone else.

Pero hablo Espanol.

[jaylemurph]

No, not a mental disorder. It just reveals your geekiness.

Just kidding!

This is how I show that I'm envious of you. I tried to take up Latin when I was getting my first college degree but my advisor wouldn't hear of it. To this day I could kick him in the nads.

Ha! During most of the 1980s and 1990s*, I had the world use my liking of Doctor Who to do that for me.

--Jaylemurph

*And now I have to explain who Davros is to six-year-olds while their parents mock. Mixed pleasure, that.

[kmt_sesh]

I have even less excuse.

On the first day of high school only about a dozen of us were there

for Latin class. The teacher essentially told us it was up to us if the

school continued to offer Latin or not. Since I had misgivings any-

way I failed to show the kind of enthusiam which would have saved

it for the next three years. So did everyone else.

Pero hablo Espanol.

Wow, you're lucky. My high school didn't even offer Latin. I may well have taken it up then. I took French instead and was miserable at it. I did a lot better with German in college but to me studying ancient Egyptian is easier than French. It just doesn't sound quite as romantic. Nor does German.

Does this explain my lack of love life?