Showing how the first pyramids of ancient Egypt may be 19,000 years old

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

I agree. ISIS needs to be stopped. They are destroying priceless artifacts and structures. What a travesty.

As promised, I have now uploaded this video onto youtube. You can watch it here (youtube link):

The 19,000 Year-Old-Pyramids

SC

originally posted by: ancientAntares
Cool thread. Been reading this site for a while, but decided to sign up. This is my 2nd post.

I fully believe that our history goes back much further than what we currently know. While I don’t think ancient mankind had anywhere near the same level of technology and knowledge that we do today, I do think they knew more than we give them credit. I’d say a lot of our assumptions about them are widely off and that their knowledge and technology was based on some other factors than ours. Early mankind’s ‘stone-age’, was still a stone age, but they did wonders during that time. All of our myths and basic religious stories formed during this era and most try to recall what happened. However, the factual truth has been forgotten, largely by being retold over centuries, embellished, or changed purposely to hide what really went down.

So my personal theory timeline: (sorry this is long, but there’s so much to cover)

+/- 50K BCE The Beginnings
Mankind moved from hunter-gatherer to settler/farmer to civilization much sooner than we think. As early man crossed over the entire globe, setting up new communities in various spots, they didn't just forget about the others out there. A grand networked civilization grew, one with some form of technology developed (one that our current form of technological evolution isn't part of). I like the theories that it may have been sound or sonic-based. I think that seems very feasible. I think sound and spoken word was very important and may be the reason why man didn’t (have to) invent written language until much later. These various societies shared one language, communicated, traded stories and resources, as well as knowledge, with each other. It's for this reason that we see shared styles and attributes in stone cutting methods in ancient ruins all over the globe. This was a very local, but global society.

+/- 20K BCE The Golden Age
I think it’s during this time that some of the relics and ruins we see were originally built. The remnants of massive stone ruins in Bolivia, Asia, India and in Egypt speak to an advanced masonry and a society with a mathematica and astrological mindset.

+/- 19K - 10K BCE The Cataclysm
Some cataclysm, or period of upheaval, radically changed the world and their civilization. Perhaps the ice age ended, widespread destructive flooding occurred, volcanoes, pole-shift, who knows.

If there was a grand civilization all over the world, it most likely would have existed along the coastlines and other waterways. With even slight flooding, say 300 feet worth, that would have demolished most of those city/settlements. Perhaps in some cases the technology was corrupted and destroyed these cities and lands.


+/- 9K BCE Survival
The survivors who managed to escape the destruction basically started over. The high technology is forgotten or lost. I could easily imagine that it would have rested with the elite, perhaps a priesthood, and not with regular joes and janes. It’s at this point that our ‘current’ understanding of civilization forms and matches up with what happened.

The people scatter from where those original main cities existed. With lowlands and coastlines flooded, these people settle new areas (areas that now exist along present day coastlines. Some areas are dramatically different climate-wise.

I could also imagine, very quickly, that these various individual survival communities would then think that they were the only ones to survive. Think about it. Suddenly there’s no more trading, no more stories from the people across the sea; nothing.

Perhaps they would believe that the Gods were punishing mankind for their wickedness. That mankind had fallen. Paradise is over. But, because they had survived, they see themselves are being spared for some reason. Something in them was redeemable. The others, the ones they don’t hear about anymore, well...God must’ve wiped them out. They must’ve were more wicked. The ruins that still existed were then buried on purpose to hide the shame of the past. They blame their old Kings. The technology that was abused is cursed and soon completely forgotten.

+/- 4K BCE (Re)Birth of Civilization
Civilizations starts slowly forms again. In various parts of the globe the survivors build anew. However, because of the destruction and the hardships of starting over, these societies are now very suspect of other groups. Resources are perhaps more scarce and prized. The communal aspects that once existed between these spread out global ‘cities’, are long gone. And that mixed with the notion of “God spared us, the chosen peoples, but destroyed the wicked ones”, theres a small sense distrust now.

A new elite (Kings, priesthood) forms to protect and rule these individualized societies. They speak of the old world, how mankind fell, how God destroyed the world because of man’s wickedness. Some claim to be chosen from God to rule. Or even descended from the gods themselves. The knowledge of the past is retold as myths and a new written language is formed. (Starting as a system to catalog prized resources and taxation)

In some cases these societies reclaimed the the ancient ruins as their own. The elite carved their own names into the ancient stone. Or attempted to copy what was built. Or built on top of them again.

And then that brings us to what we know currently. Thinking through all of that, I think it’s easy to see how various religious stories match up or can be loosely formed upon real events. While I don’t believe in those religious explanations as pure fact, (I’m an Atheist) I can see how they might be based on a series of real events. Something that instilled fear and wonder, and inspired them to remember.

Very sound theory, I like it and it does and can fit. They want to make sure that we even they don't ever dig into the past anymore and bring back what could have aided in their destruction. When in reality it was the comet strike that hit the icesheets back in 10,500 BC that ended the ice age and caused massive flooding. They still believe that it was something else except general fate.

originally posted by: kako187
Sir, I encourage you to learn who the OP is and read some of his research. Scott Creighton has done some great and in my opinion ground breaking research on the Pyraminds. This is not a case of a conspiracy theorist "watching a video and believing it" Scott MADE this video to support his research. A lifetime of on going research. Head over to his website or read one of his books.

With no legitimate degrees or peer-reviewed studies to back him up, here's a good article that goes into detail about Mr. Creighton's "scientific" research, including using third-hand repetitions of medieval hoaxes as a foundation for it:
Review of Scott Creighton's "The Secret Chamber of Osiris"

a reply to: Blue Shift

Hi Blue Shift,

I think you are perhaps relying too heavily on second-hand opinions of my work and suggest that you may take a different view if you actually read for yourself my recent book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids'. You never know--you might actually find yourself disagreeing with Mr Colavito's impression of my work.

Regards,

SC

Hi Scott,

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

I think you are perhaps relying too heavily on second-hand opinions of my work and suggest that you may take a different view if you actually read for yourself my recent book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids'.

Wouldn't be these, would they?

originally posted by: Hooke
Hi Scott,

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

I think you are perhaps relying too heavily on second-hand opinions of my work and suggest that you may take a different view if you actually read for yourself my recent book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids'.

Wouldn't be these, would they?

Hi Hooke,

I read of this discovery but it is not what I am referring to in the title of my previous book. What I am refering to in my book is this.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hi Scott,

I have now read your book.

I liked the motif of the long walk around the ultimately impenetrable perimeter fence; and the format of the bibliography As for the rest: sadly, I find myself in full agreement with Jason Colavito.

Kind regards,

Hooke

a reply to: Hooke

Hi Hooke,

Thank you for taking the time to read my book, "The Secret Chamber of Osiris". I do appreciate it. I have to admit to being a little disappointed that you didn't find my work of more interest to you but given your comment (above) about Mr Colavito who, from what I have seen of his writings, seems somewhat preoccupied in trying to debunk almost anything that does not sit well or conform to his mainstream Egyptological world view, I am hardly surprised by your opinion.

I am, however, encouraged that this is not the reaction by many other people of a less fixed mindset and who disagree with Mr Colavito's opinion. Like, for example, this post:

"Hi Patricia,

I haven't checked the number of years, but Scott has been posting on these subjects for many many years--and has discussed the literature over and over. He's looked at most published things over and over and over, so his superficial referencing in this book is a really picky point.

A great deal of his [Scott's] work depends on detailed featural physical analyses, not any literature at all, and requires problem solving skills. Other work is collaborative, with a co-author. Scott doesn't really fit in with either a "new age" or an Egyptologist perspective--that's one of the things that make him so interesting. Colavito just wants to debunk.

Remember, Patricia, one can debunk most anything--but it doesn't necessarily mean much."

(From here).

And this one:

" Patricia,

If the "scholars" you refer to are really academic scholars, they'll be at least as scathing in their evaluation of Calavito as Creighton. From the scholarly perspective you've been describing in these nit picking threads, Calavito would fare no better than Creighton. Calavito debunks most anything without actually spending his days at digs or museums. How much travel has he done abroad?

I have a pretty clear idea of how much Egyptology Calavito was/is exposed to in his part of New York state.

Ray"

(From here).

Anyway--thanks once again for reading my book. I do hope that you will, perhaps, find my next offering of more interest to you--'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co, 2016).

Regards,

SC

Hi Scott,

Thanks for this. I thought the links you sent were interesting ... and the responses even more so: here, here, and here.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Anyway--thanks once again for reading my book. I do hope that you will, perhaps, find my next offering of more interest to you--'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co, 2016).

I've no doubt that Great Pyramid Hoax - The Evidence will be every bit as interesting as its predecessor.

Regards,

Hooke

originally posted by: Hooke


Hi Scott,

Thanks for this. I thought the links you sent were interesting ... and the responses even more so: here, here, and here.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Anyway--thanks once again for reading my book. I do hope that you will, perhaps, find my next offering of more interest to you--'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co, 2016).

I've no doubt that Great Pyramid Hoax - The Evidence will be every bit as interesting as its predecessor.

Regards,

Hooke

Hello Hooke,

You better believe it.

But I do appreciate, nevertheless, you taking the time to read my previous book and come here and tell everyone how disappointed you were by it. Of course, one immediately has to question why you even bothered to read a book that you knew from the outset was so contrary to your personal beliefs of our ancient history? What on earth were you expecting to find in the book? What were you seeking or hoping to find? Confirmation of your own Egyptological beliefs? Of course not because that is not what I write. So why even bother to take the time of day with such a book that you would fundamentally disagree with from the outset?

Very odd.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton


I guess because it is interesting to see what snake-oil salesmen are selling...much like I have read the Bible, but I knew from the outset that it was contrary to my beliefs.

It's not actually that odd to read things you disagree with, in fact, many academics do just that.


Good luck, keep trying, there's one born every minute...

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I too believe we as a race are much older than we are being told.

It isy belief we had at one time in the past more advanced technologies than we are taught.

Maybe rivaling our own today.

Good threat star and flag.

I can watch the movie until later.

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

I personally think that the biggest conspiracy in history is a huge coverup going on in the archaeology fields. They keep finding artifacts that are so far out of line with the accepted timeline that it just doesn't make sense.

Not just artifacts, but entire cities.

They claim that humans came out of caves around 5,000 BC, and immediately started farming all over the world, and immediately started domesticating animals all at the same time.

Then they find an entire city that has been proven to be at least 17,000 years old, made of blocks that would be extremely hard to manufacture using today's technology.

So if we came out of caves 7,000 years ago, and were building mud huts, how were we building massive cities 10,000 years before that?

Also, temples have been found pre dating the last ice age.

a reply to: babybunnies

yep...seems the norm in lots of countrys. Alot is hidden here in my country,hence my handle.......

a reply to: hiddenNZ


You could provide some evidence to this ongoing thread then, couldn't you?

Personally, I haven't witnessed any archaeological covers-up. In fact, I've seen acknowledgement of getting things wrong and revisiting using better techniques.

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: Scott Creighton


I guess because it is interesting to see what snake-oil salesmen are selling...much like I have read the Bible, but I knew from the outset that it was contrary to my beliefs.

SC: But you can learn of the content simply from listening to the blurb or reading the label on the bottle. You don't actually have to take the "snake oil". You read the blurb and put it down if it is not something that is to your liking. At least, that is what most normal people would do, in my experience.

If you don't like the contents of the bottle, fine. Put it down and move along.

Regards,

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke


Hi Scott,

Thanks for this. I thought the links you sent were interesting ... and the responses even more so: here, here, and here.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Anyway--thanks once again for reading my book. I do hope that you will, perhaps, find my next offering of more interest to you--'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co, 2016).

I've no doubt that Great Pyramid Hoax - The Evidence will be every bit as interesting as its predecessor.

Regards,

Hooke

Hello Hooke,

You better believe it.

But I do appreciate, nevertheless, you taking the time to read my previous book and come here and tell everyone how disappointed you were by it. Of course, one immediately has to question why you even bothered to read a book that you knew from the outset was so contrary to your personal beliefs of our ancient history? What on earth were you expecting to find in the book? What were you seeking or hoping to find? Confirmation of your own Egyptological beliefs? Of course not because that is not what I write. So why even bother to take the time of day with such a book that you would fundamentally disagree with from the outset?

Hi Scott,

So now you're telling your readers not to waste their time reading your books? Could this be an indication that even their author now suspects that it's a waste of time writing them?

And why do you ask me what I was "hoping to find" in the book? Since we're always being told that we should" keep an open mind" and "draw our own conclusions," surely you would have expected me - and, presumably, all your other readers - to approach the book in a spirit of objective intellectual enquiry?

Or did you mean that I should have been so put off by the content of some of your replies to various questions here and elsewhere that I shouldn't read any of your books?

Regards,

Hooke

a reply to: Hooke

Hooke: So now you're telling your readers not to waste their time reading your books? Could this be an indication that even their author now suspects that it's a waste of time writing them?

SC: No, Hooke. That is not what I am saying and I am quite certain you know that is not what I am saying. I just find it curious that people such as yourself who are very much of a mainstream mindset where it comes to matters Egyptological would take the time to read a book that they know is entirely contrary to everything they believe.

Hooke: And why do you ask me what I was "hoping to find" in the book? Since we're always being told that we should" keep an open mind" and "draw our own conclusions," surely you would have expected me - and, presumably, all your other readers - to approach the book in a spirit of objective intellectual enquiry?

SC: And therein lies the rub—I do not actually think you have approached my book at all with an open mind. My own view, and I am talking from much experience, is that mainstream ‘believers’ such as yourself only read such books not with an open mind but simply to debunk them. Such fixed minded people are not interested in the actual alternative theories contained within such books but merely seek to debunk them. And with such an exercise they reaffirm their own world view.

Hooke: Or did you mean that I should have been so put off by the content of some of your replies to various questions here and elsewhere that I shouldn't read any of your books?

SC: I am not that disturbed whether you read my books or not. That is, of course, entirely your choice. What I would expect, however, is to receive an honest appraisal of the theories contained therein and not simply an affirmation of someone else’s review which, if you had properly read that person’s review and had properly read my book, would know that Mr Colavito’s review is factually incorrect in some areas and in most other areas offers nothing more than a lazy, slipshod appraisal.

Let me give you just a few examples of what I am talking about here:

JC: After this Creighton offers some linguistic claims in which the Scotsman argues that he understands hieroglyphs better than all of the assembled experts in the world.

This is hogwash, Hooke. I make no such “linguistic claims” and it is an indisputable fact that Egyptologists disagree as to what ‘Akhet Khufu’ really means and what it refers to. Some Egyptologists think it is the name of the Great Pyramid, some think it is the rising setting point of the sun on the horizon whilst others still think it refers to Giza as a whole or has something to do with the soul. I offer a very reasonable and contextually appropriate alternative interpretation precisely because Egyptologists cannot decide what Akhet Khufu truly means. So, contrary to Colavito’s assertion (and you will know this if you have indeed read my book) I make no such claim.

Colavito further writes in his review:

JC: Creighton devotes a chapter to trying to prove Zecharia Sitchin was right about the quarry marks in the Great Pyramid being fakes, which is frankly irrelevant to any of the arguments in this book since Surid is, by the evidence of the texts he cites, the builder of the Great Pyramid and also Khufu. This side trip seems to exist solely to imply the existence of a conspiracy—though later Creighton will admit that he thinks the pyramids are 7,000 years old rather than 4,500 as in standard chronology.

SC: That is pretty much all Mr Colavito has to say about an entire chapter in my book which presents considerable evidence of fraud having been perpetrated in the Great Pyramid. How is this not relevant? Well it wouldn’t be relevant to Mr Colavito because he thinks I am saying the pyramids are 7,000 years old when I don’t—I am saying they are 19,000 years old. And if they are 19,000 years old and Khufu is only 4,500 years old then how is it we find Khufu’s name in hidden chambers of the Great Pyramid? But even if (as Colavito erroneously thinks) I had said the pyramids were 7,000 years old then Khufu’s name still shouldn’t be in those chambers because he wouldn’t exist for thousands of years yet. Contrary to Covalito, the fraud chapter in my book is very relevant as others in his discussion forum asked:

” Thanks for reviewing this book by Scott Creighton. I have not seen it as yet, though I have been following his posting on other forums. I wish you had delved into Scott's "Vyse forgery" claims with a little more detail…”

To which Mr Colavito replied with:

JC: ”His claims wasn't really relevant to the book, but if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this: (a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts, and (b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth.”

Be honest now, Hooke. You have read my book—are Mr Colavito’s comments (above) a true and honest reflection/assessment of the Vyse fraud chapter in my book? Really? I think if you were to be honest with yourself then you would agree with me that he in no way, shape or form gave that chapter a fair and objective appraisal. And I say that of him about most other chapters in the book.

For every negative review you want to present, Hooke, I can present you with one that is favourable. In short, Hooke, I am interested in YOUR opinions/criticisms and not links to a critique by someone else whose review lacks true objectivity and, as a consequence, is of little relevance to this or any discussion, imo.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

a reply to: Hooke

What I would expect ... is to receive an honest appraisal of the theories contained therein and not simply an affirmation of someone else’s review which, if you had properly read that person’s review and had properly read my book, would know that Mr Colavito’s review is factually incorrect in some areas and in most other areas offers nothing more than a lazy, slipshod appraisal.

(snip)

I think if you were to be honest with yourself then you would agree with me that he in no way, shape or form gave that chapter a fair and objective appraisal. And I say that of him about most other chapters in the book.
For every negative review you want to present, Hooke, I can present you with one that is favourable. In short, Hooke, I am interested in YOUR opinions/criticisms and not links to a critique by someone else whose review lacks true objectivity and, as a consequence, is of little relevance to this or any discussion, imo.

Hi Scott,

OK. You asked for my unbiassed opinion. So let’s see where this takes us.

First, comments from Jason Colavito:

He cites Edgar Cayce, of course, but also cites the Hellenistic Kore Kosmou and Marcellinus’ late Antique Roman History(22.15.30), but both secondhand. He has never read either—he cites a website’s discussion of them as the source.

[snip]

I guess Creighton didn’t read that part… or any part… of the texts he claims support his views.

[snip]

... Origen, in Genesis Homily 2, which Creighton has not read and knows only from a brief secondhand reference,

And from another forum:

... where Scott failed -- he didn't read some of the source material (only relied on conversations about the material) and he failed to notice when the material he did read was created. And he didn't check the older sources.

That's basic journalism: check your sources when you write about something.

In your chapter “Gunpowder and Plot,” I found an example of the sort of thing that the various reviewers were criticising.

You quote from Vyse, Operations I: 225

A slanderous paragraph, intended to be inserted in the English newspapers, was this day shewn to me, which accused Colonel Campbell of having improperly laid himself under obligations to the Pacha by obtaining the firmaun; and which implied that the Colonel and myself intended to make our fortunes under the pretence of scientific researches.

Secret Chamber goes on to say:

Vyse makes no mention here as to the precise nature of the allegations being made against him. In what way did Colonel Patrick Campbell improperly obtain the firmaun (a permit, in this instance, for excavating in the Pyramids of Giza that had been issued in the name of Captain Giovanni Caviglia)? What was the extent of Vyse’s involvement? How exactly were the two men planning to make fortunes “under the pretence of scientific research” [sic]? Who was behind these allegations, and what evidence did they have?

Sitchin (whom you affect to scorn for his poor research) makes the very same accusation –

... for years thereafter, he [Caviglia] made “dishonourable accusations” against Vyse, whose nature Vyse’s chronicles do not care to detail. (Stairway, 261).

Hmmm ...

Did you not see this reply to a post of yours on exactly the same subject from April 2013?

You should read Howard Vyse entirely: you would have found the answer.

See Volume 2, page 152 to 176.

Here’s a link to Operations II.

In other words: Vyse did explain the nature of the “dishonourable accusations” at considerable length. The problem was that neither Sitchin, nor you, bothered to check.

What was that again about being “factually incorrect in some areas and in most other areas offer[ing] nothing more than a lazy, slipshod appraisal”?

And Jason Colavito’s:

I guess Creighton didn’t read that part… or any part… of the texts he claims support his views.

Are you getting my drift now, Scott?

As your critics point out: you didn’t read your sources; you didn’t check them; and you didn’t even take any notice when someone took the trouble to correct your mistake 2½ years ago.

And, after all this, you honestly expect people to take you seriously?

Regards,

Hooke

a reply to: Hooke

Hello Hooke,

Hooke: Are you getting my drift now, Scott?

Afraid not. You write:

Hooke: In other words: Vyse did explain the nature of the “dishonourable accusations” at considerable length...

Do show me where Vyse cross-references these two separate passages in his volumes i.e. the passage on p.225 of Operations Vol 1 with the Appendix p.152 of Operations Vol 2? There isn't a cross-reference, Hooke and, as such, these could be quite separate attacks made by different individuals with different agendas. Vyse himself states he and Colonel Campbell were subject to such "attacks" (plural) by "annoymous adventurers" (plural). You (and others) are jumping to the conclusion that Vyse, in these two passages, is referring to one and the same attack made by one and the same individual. It might well be, of course, but we cannot know that for sure and nor can we know who was behind it/them for the attacks (plural) were, according to Vyse, made by "annonymous adveturers". Caviglia can hardly be described as an annonymous adventurer.

These two passages in Vyse's volumes might not refer to the same incident/individual and I do not have the luxury of jumping to the conclusion that they were. We do not even know if it is Caviglia (or someone close to him) who was behind any such attacks. For all we know the "slanderous paragraph" could have been published in the English press by Huimphries Brewer (an Englishman) with nothing to do with Caviglia himself. If I had said these were definitely one and the same attack then I would surely have been criticised for having jumped to conclusions, as you are doing now.

We do not know if these are one and the same attack made by one and the same person and that is essentially what I am saying in my book. I cannot exoplicitly say these passages refer to one and the same incident/individual because Vyse doesn't say that i.e. Vyse does not cross-reference the two passages and he clearly talks of "attacks" (plural).

But either way, Vyse does not come out of this smelling of roses. Far from it.

We have linked to Vyse's side of the firmaun scandal (p.152 of 'Operations at Gizeh', Vol. 2) but for those interested in Caviglia's side of the story, here are translations of his letters published in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine (1837).

But this is all just a distraction from the more important material presented in the Vyse fraud chapter of my book. And I see you haven't answered my question to you in my previous post, Hooke. Let me repeat it here:

JC: ”His claims wasn't really relevant to the book, but if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this: (a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts, and (b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth.”

Be honest now, Hooke. You have read my book—are Mr Colavito’s comments (above) a true and honest reflection/assessment of the Vyse fraud chapter in my book? Really? I think if you were to be honest with yourself then you would agree with me that he in no way, shape or form gave that chapter a fair and objective appraisal. And I say that of him about most other chapters in the book.

Regards,

SC