It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zahi Hawass Storms out of Debate with Graham Hancock

page: 8
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Peeple

I know I know, I'm sure those are like all of his sources, too. You get to the bibliography and all of the sources are Creighton pieces, right? Maybe a couple of Hancock and Sitchin references thrown in for good measure...

Seriously though, if I had written a paper in support of a few of the simple opinions I had stated and had that paper posted online, I would probably just post a link to it instead of rewriting it in a discussion forum. Everybody has their own way of doing things though, I suppose.


... the pyramids ... Actually seems to be an alignment to Heliopolis. Through every pyramid in egypt not just giza. But thats for another time. ..


SC: The claimed orthodox Heliopolis alignment:



Hardly convincing.

SC


Alignments all depends on which rocks you use you of all people should know that. I don't believe they could have been near precise enough to pinpoint helipolis. But it has as much eve fence as assuming pyramids line up with stars which means 0. So at least with Helipolis their is some reason this could be possible. At least an Italian archeologist thinks so. And as you have proved you can get things to line up to almost anything depending on how you draw your lines.




posted on May, 3 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Dr Hawass on radiocarbon dating:

Interesting that you seem to accept what Hawass says when he apparently supports you. But actually, he doesn't. Quote mining at it's finest. Why did you omit this statement from Hawass? In your own source.

“Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”


SC: As you will have no doubt noticed, in my post I provided the link to the full article, including Hawass's full remarks. That Hawass remarks, "Carbon-dating has a margin of error of 100 years" is simply Hawass stating conventional science's view of radiocarbon dating. That much is self-evident by Hawass's later remarks where he unequivocally states:


""Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Hawass


SC: If Hawass truly believed that radiocarbon dating could consistently and reliably date ancient artifacts to within 100 years he would give his eye-teeth for such a reliable dating method and would not be describing the science in the manner he does. Do not kid yourself.

Hawass has most likely sent more ancient artifacts to be C14 dated than any other archaeologist in the history of C14 dating. That he finds "carbon dating results imaginary" is quite telling and revealing of the ambiguous results he most likely would have received back from C14 labs and is probably the reason why he prefers to rely on other dating methods as the article also states.

SC
edit on 3/5/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Peeple

I know I know, I'm sure those are like all of his sources, too. You get to the bibliography and all of the sources are Creighton pieces, right? Maybe a couple of Hancock and Sitchin references thrown in for good measure...

Seriously though, if I had written a paper in support of a few of the simple opinions I had stated and had that paper posted online, I would probably just post a link to it instead of rewriting it in a discussion forum. Everybody has their own way of doing things though, I suppose.


... the pyramids ... Actually seems to be an alignment to Heliopolis. Through every pyramid in egypt not just giza. But thats for another time. ..


SC: The claimed orthodox Heliopolis alignment:



Hardly convincing.

SC


Alignments all depends on which rocks you use you of all people should know that.


SC: Oh indeed I do and I used the very "rocks" (pyramids) that the Egyptologists use. If you doubt me, check it yourself.


DR: I don't believe they could have been near precise enough to pinpoint helipolis.


SC: Not precise enough? It's not even close! Yes, they can align their moments to near perfect true north but they couldn't align them to Heliopolis.

Something doesn't add up.



DR: So at least with Helipolis their is some reason this could be possible.


SC: As shown, there is no Heliopolis alignment. It can't "be possible" if the alignment does not exist.


DR: At least an Italian archeologist thinks so.


SC: And who clearly doesn't know how to use Google Earth.


DR: And as you have proved you can get things to line up to almost anything depending on how you draw your lines.


SC: So, when someone finds an alignment YOU find acceptable, that's just fine. Okay--now I understand.

SC
edit on 3/5/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh way to play off a casual mention of another theory i made. See your trying to cheat people you make the line you want continue out and go see it doesnt match(in that theory its each pyramid nice try), I only Mentioned it because your alignment theory isnt the only one theres heliopolis alignment the orion alignment you seem fond of and theres a cygnus alignment. Which by the way does match with 2500bc. Your alignment you have to turn the pyramids around and in 10500 BC where you believe they align they dont. currently there is a 38 degree variance between the stars of orions belt. But you and other totally forgot about precision of the earth. This would have given the same group of stars a 50 degree angle. Meaning are pyramids are just in the wrong place. Maybe the egyptians could calculate angles right? There is a gorilla in the room that everyone ignores when it comes to pyramid placement. Simply the view from the nile this was their life blood their transportation there first view of the pyramids would be from the nile. When viewed from the nile they are in line perfectly spaced so one doesnt block the view of another. Even better terrain tells us why Menkaures pyramid had to be smaller. The giza plateau is built on a escarpment Menkaures pyramid could not have been larger there wasnt the room.

But if there is a celestial alignment cygnus makes much more sense since that was associated with Sokar. Evidence for the cult of Sokar in and around Giza goes back to the beginning of dynastic Egypt about 3100 BC. But im not going to further confuse people since what do all these have in common? Speculation We cant prove this is what the egyptians were doing we can only guess. You think a guess can be proved as fact saying see we can get them to align even though i pointed out your wrong. But that aside i could show alignments in washington DC to orion if you would like geometry is fun like that.

So please stop trying to convince people of an alignment that your only proof of it is saying look at my map i made see that proves it. You have a theory with no proof to back up your claims But yet you try to sell it as fact. You draw maps and decieve people because they assume you have them correctly oriented when you dont. When that is mentioned suddenly you argue well we have to look at it from a 3 dimensional model remove the earth and see its a match. Problem is without the earth what we see in the sky looks alot different it is the fact we live on a globe that makes the constellations look like they do. I have been trying to leave you alone but you continue to keep posting when i comment so now feel free to distort anything i said here thanks again.
edit on 5/3/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

If Hawass truly believed that radiocarbon dating could consistently and reliably date ancient artifacts to within 100 years he would give his eye-teeth for such a reliable dating method and would not be describing the science in the manner he does. Do not kid yourself.
It is not I who is kidding oneself. It is not I who is taking statements out of context and running with them. Hawass says that radiocarbon can be used to a scale of 100 years, but not less. Perhaps in your quote mining efforts you missed what the article is actually about:

However, the results obtained by Ramsey’s team suggested a different chronology for the New Kingdom. With an average calendrical precision of 24 years, the new carbon dating results indicate the kingdom came into existence a decade before the convetional date of 1550 BCE.
www.egyptindependent.com...

It is talking about a shift of 10 years in the chronology. 10 years! If you weren't so intently quote mining you would realize that. Hawass (and others) does not believe that radiocarbon dating is accurate enough use for such dating. That is what he was talking about. That is what he said.

 



That he finds "carbon dating results imaginary" is quite telling and revealing of the ambiguous results he most likely would have received back from C14 labs and is probably the reason why he prefers to rely on other dating methods as the article also states
Actually, there is no "probably" required. He quite explicily states why he prefers other methods when it comes to fine dating, 14C is not accurate enough.


Here is a little bibiliography for you. Do you really think that Hawass thinks 14C dating is useless? He seems to have done a bit of research using it. Just not for accuracy of less than 100 years.
radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu...
www.jstor.org...



edit on 5/3/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not taking side's here I have my own idea's.

There are a number or thing's which can effect carbon dating as you also know phage but dependent upon what exposure the sampled material has and to what it is exposed, biological contaminatin from bacteria or mold is one, atmospheric contamination such as smoke is another and there are many more factor's, background radiation level's may also have negligable impact upon the carbon isotope's decay ratio.

The real problem though with Isotopic analysis is that it may be based on ration decay rate's which are more variable than usual nuclear physic's would predict, remember the whole polonium in deep rock strata argument a while back that is still raging as accepted theoretical analysis of the ratio of decay would suggest the rock is very young but arguments have arisen as to the exact interpretation and analysis of the data.

The same problem does occur for the relatively accurate (within a thousand years and dropping off over that) Carbon dating and the longer range, less accurate stone surface Argon/Krypton isotopic absorbtion dating methods.

I always remember the scandal of the Turin shroud dating and the dying statement of the guy who led the team responsible for claiming it was medieval in which he actually said he believe there dating was flawed as they had inadvertantly taken material sown in by nun's who repaired the shroud after the fire and of course that was indeed medieval.

I think therefore relying on carbon dating for or against is far from catagorical evidence though it may be regarded more correctly as supportive evidence.

It is normal human nature to assume data that fit's our view must be accurate and in that respect the creationists are very valuable as without them the science that does indeed have flaw's would often go unchallenged.
This helps to refine the science to higher level's of competance and accuracy to it is actually invaluable in this respect regardless of even the proponant opinion's.



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Straight from the Hancock's mouth:


After years of travelling, exploring archaeological sites and rummaging through puzzles in ancient myths and legends I have found many reasons to suspect that the orthodox theory of human prehistory - the one that is taught in all our schools and universities - is seriously in error. The theory takes many different local forms with endless variations, but the backbone in all cases is the same: an entrenched belief system about the human condition and about our collective past in which modern advanced civilisation is seen as the product of thousands of years of linear social and technological evolution - "onwards and upwards," as my friend John West likes to caricature the orthodox view, "from stupid old cave men to smart old us".

I write my books to try to show that an alternative view can fruitfully be considered. Human society may indeed have evolved in a straight and essentially unbroken line from primitive to "smart" - just as the historians say - but it is also possible that there could have been major discontinuities in the record which have severely distorted and "edited" the data about the past that historians work with. For some reason that I have honestly never been able to understand properly, historians bitterly resent any such suggestion. They insist that although they may have made some mistakes in the minor details they are undoubtedly correct in the overall picture that they paint for us of history and prehistory. I've tried to show how seriously wrong this attitude could be and to gather together as much evidence as possible to support the view that a great "lost" civilisation could have flourished far back in remote antiquity and that it could have been so completely destroyed that its very existence was eventually forgotten.

Although I try to give thorough documentation, in the form of footnotes, to support every stage of my arguments, I would like to make it absolutely clear what my books are and what they are not.

If you want a slavishly "balanced" and objective account of "both sides of the argument" then I'm the wrong author for you!

I operate on the assumption that our education system, media and indeed our entire society today combine to give massive support and unquestioned acceptance to the orthodox side of the argument. Until I and a few of my colleagues like John Anthony West and Robert Bauval began to speak out there was really no counterbalancing view at all! And even now, although we've managed to get some people's attention - and some television time - we're still in every sense outnumbered and outgunned.

So the way I see it it's not my job to be "balanced" or "objective". On the contrary, by providing a powerful, persuasive single-minded case for the existence of a lost civilisation, I believe that I am merely restoring a little balance and objectivity to a previously unbalanced situation. There exists a vast array of academic "experts", on comfortable and secure salaries, with the resources of full university departments behind them, whose life's work is to churn out endless refinements and confirmations of the orthodox theory of prehistory. These scholars, and their many fans and chums in the quality media, do not hesitate to mount Doberman-like attacks on any who try to argue in favour of a lost civilisation. The Dobermans also systematically ignore all forms of evidence that cast doubt on the established view (for example the implications of the astronomical alignments of the Pyramids of Giza) while at the same time accusing us "alternative historians" of being "pseudo-scientists" who dishonestly "select" only evidence that supports our case and who ignore or even misrepresent contradictory data.

Readers will have to make up their own minds about such attacks. Meanwhile my own definite feeling, in such a hostile climate, is that it's my job - and a real responsibility to be taken seriously -- to undermine and cast doubt on the orthodox theory of history in every way that I can and to make the most eloquent and persuasive case that I am capable of making for the existence of a lost civilisation. If I'm wrong ... fine! Let the Dobermans prove me wrong, or persuade the public that I am wrong. Whatever the outcome I'm glad to have played a part in forcing an intellectual elite - historians, Egyptologists, archaeologists - to defend their previously unquestioned theories and speculations about prehistory and to confront a well-worked-out alternative theory presented to a mass public in a series of bestselling books.

The outcome is indeed uncertain. Nevertheless, the evidence that orthodox scholars ignore and misrepresent has mounted up over the years and stands quietly in the shadows, refusing to go away. Each piece forms part of a larger pattern, and that pattern begins to suggest very different origins to history than those taught to us in school. In this alternative past the civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and Pre-Columbian America might not have arisen spontaneously - almost out of nowhere - as the historians would have us believe. Instead we must consider the possibility that they could have benefited from a shared legacy of culture and knowledge handed down to them from an earlier civilisation - lost to memory - that was ancestral to them all.

In one way or another all my books published during the 1990's have addressed this theme: The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, Keeper of Genesis (Message of the Sphinx in America), The Mars Mystery, and Heaven's Mirror(click-on the book cover in each case for further information). My research has led me to the conclusion that we human beings could indeed have forgotten a major episode of our own history. I have argued that at around the end of the last Ice Age - earlier than 12,000 years ago - it is possible that a culturally advanced maritime civilisation flourished around the globe, primarily inhabiting protected coastlines close to the oceans. This culture was then effectively wiped out by the rapid sea-level rises - which would have been experienced as a series of cataclysmic floods - that accompanied the meltdown of the vast ice sheets that had covered millions of square miles of northern Europe and North America up to a depth of three miles thick for approximately the previous 100,000 years.

For reasons that I set out in my books, I regard it as almost beyond doubt that it is vivid and terrifying memories of the end of the last Ice Age - and of no later event - that are preserved in more than 600 myths and legends from all around the world referring to super-floods that rose up to the height of mountains and that brought about the virtual extermination of mankind.

Today archaeologists are beginning to find evidence of sites of previous human occupation far out to sea, where once there was dry land. It is here that I believe the incontrovertible remains of a lost civilisation are most likely to be found.


www.grahamhancock.com...

That's Hancock's primary argument, from his website. Really doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Notice there is nothing in his statement about ancient aliens.
edit on 4-5-2015 by engineercutout because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: engineercutout

Just out of curiosity which part did you like?? What I read is he's bias towards his results. Doesn't feel he needs to look at the other side of an argument or challenge his theories. He said things hasn't changed from his early books they indeed have as he realized how in acurate they were.so which part? ?



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: engineercutout

Since you appear to be looking for information, you may also find this paper of mine of some interest: 10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT)

Regards,

SC

ec: Thanks again for the link, Scott, I enjoyed the paper. I noticed and thought I should mention for the readers that you cited several sources for your material with the paper, as would be expected of any competent researcher. Of course one of the sources was Bauval, so I guess some of you should dismiss the whole thing offhand, if that is your preference. I personally like to approach every topic with an open mind and evaluate the information based on its own merits. Bauval's theories are fascinating for sure. I think people should take a look for themselves and make up their own minds.

I also read and enjoyed your paper "The Giza Genesis Plan". The pyramids as cataclysm recovery arks, markers for materials caches? Perhaps...interesting theory nonetheless, fun to ponder the possibility. I've noticed you take a somewhat different tack in your approach to alternative archaeology/egyptology than Hancock. Where do you differ from the major researchers in the field on your theories in general? Where do most of you agree on alternative theories, and where do you tend to disagree with the rest or see flaws in their logic, or they see flaws in yours?

Thanks,
ec



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

... if there is a celestial alignment cygnus makes much more sense ...


No it doesn't

SC



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: engineercutout

Hi engineercutout,


engineercutout: I've noticed you take a somewhat different tack in your approach to alternative archaeology/egyptology than Hancock. Where do you differ from the major researchers in the field on your theories in general? Where do most of you agree on alternative theories, and where do you tend to disagree with the rest or see flaws in their logic, or they see flaws in yours?


SC: Where to begin? I think the first thing to say is that I think all alternative researchers such as Hancock, Bauval, Alford and even Sitchin are correct to some degree with their various theories. In terms of my own views, I am probably nearer in my thinking to the late great Alan Alford than any other alternative historian.

In short, I take the view that there were two quite distinct pyramid-building periods in ancient Egypt separated by tens of thousands of years. The first 16 pyramids (the giant pyramids), imo, were constructed by the Very Ancient Egyptians (VAE) in a much earlier epoch ca.17,000 BCE whilst the much smaller and quite inferior pyramids were built by the dynastic ancient Egyptians. Although Hancock and Bauval often quote the date 10,500 BCE as the AEs 'Zep Tepi' or 'First Time', they take the conventional view that these first pyramids were constructed around 3,000-2,400 BCE (i..e.during the 3rd and 4th dynaties of the Old Kingdom). The Giza pyramids clearly present the ca.17,000 BCE date and it is my view that a much earlier civilisation in Egypt constructed the giant pyramids at that time, possibly originally as Step Pyramids rather than true pyramids. Some of them may have been repaired and converted into true pyramids in the 4th Dynasty. There is evidence of Sneferu having done this. There is also evidence of Khufu making extensive repairs to various monuments at the Giza site.

Whilst other researchers, by and large, reject the tomb theory, they do not really state what these first pyramids were built for. That is probably the biggest differences between the various theories sicne I do actually offer an alternative, evidence-based purpose for the first 16 pyramids. Rather than me explaining that here, you can have a look at some short videos I have prepared:

The 19,000 year-old pyramids.

Project Osiris - The remarkable plan to safeguard the ancient Egyptian civilisation

I do not insist that any of the above is correct. I do, however, consider that it is better evidenced than the mainstream Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT).

Hope that helps you better understand my thinking.

Regards,

SC



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

... if there is a celestial alignment cygnus makes much more sense ...


No it doesn't

SC


Yes it does you flipped cygnus around on your original plot to match orion. Doesn't work that way in other words you made a mistake or being deceitful. Suggest you look at the true orientation but 8n the end doesn't matter as I said it's a closer match but I already told you what I believe. It was the view from the nile.However you might want to correct your PDF we wouldn't want to mislead people would we.



Odd thing when dealing with stars you can get them to look the same even when they are not. When playing with geometry we can always be bias from one data set to another.

edit on 5/5/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Zahi Hawas is such a joke. He is clinging to old tales which are crumbling.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


DR: Yes it does you flipped cygnus around on your original plot to match orion.


SC: What matters is that BOTH sets of stars correspond to the same three pyramids. Did you even bother watching the presentation? Here it is again. Watch carfully - BOTH sets of stars represent the SAME three pyramids.

Orion v Cygnus Geo-Stellar Fingerprint Analysis (MS Powerpoint download).

Furthermore, the Cygnus constellation cannot explain the two sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids'' whereas Orion's Belt explains these structures simply and logically. These two sets of three pyramids present the two culminations (max & min) of the Belt stars (see link below).

Care to show us how the two culminations of the Cygnus wings correspond to the two sets of Queens?

Precession of the Orion's Queens

SC



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: dragonridr


DR: Yes it does you flipped cygnus around on your original plot to match orion.


SC: What matters is that BOTH sets of stars correspond to the same three pyramids. Did you even bother watching the presentation? Here it is again. Watch carfully - BOTH sets of stars represent the SAME three pyramids.

Orion v Cygnus Geo-Stellar Fingerprint Analysis (MS Powerpoint download).

Furthermore, the Cygnus constellation cannot explain the two sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids'' whereas Orion's Belt explains these structures simply and logically. These two sets of three pyramids present the two culminations (max & min) of the Belt stars (see link below).

Care to show us how the two culminations of the Cygnus wings correspond to the two sets of Queens?

Precession of the Orion's Queens

SC


Why would they have to see there's the problem.With geometry I can make any number of connecting points to show anything as long as I assume I'm right. You have what's called information bias you try to fit everything to your belief. That'd not the way archeology works. Archeology takes facts and fits them into a narative. In your case your taking the narative and trying to find facts. This is the main reason archeologists don't take this seriously.

Tell you what show us one thing that the egyptians wrote telling us the pyramids were o. A celestial alignment. What building features specifically tell us the location of the pyramids was to mimic the stars?? You are taking a blind guess and worse have to invert the stars just to get them to match. Yet in the face of the fact they don't match you make excuses to keep the theory alive. That's also just bad science.

Now about your data you use a data set on one your theory against another. This is an old trick in science I can manipulate angles so one or the other gives us correct orientation. Doesn't matter what applies to one doesn't apply to the other mostly because of scale. If you truly wanted to compare the two you would take them to the same scale using arc seconds. You didn't do that you took a general drawing said well in orion they are this far apart if cygnus was the same it would look like this. Meaning you lines up the stars to the same scale look at the map I showed you. Notice thediffrent distance for our stars. The reason you see it is both groups were scaled up to match. Both were not scaled up in your example you altered the data for comparison. Not to mention dliped cygnus orintation because you have to with orion you dont with cygnus do you?? meaning all that work was absolutely useless to compare the two.

The only true comparison you could do is map them by arc seconds and angle anything else is just playing with angles.
edit on 5/5/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


PS we didn't even get into the fact cygnus was the god at the time and that constellation happen to belong to him where at 2500 bc orion meant nothing to them
edit on 5/5/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So your going to ignore the mounds of information from the builders explaining why they built the great pyramid and just out right lie saying Egyptologists don't know what the pyramid wad used for??



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So your going to ignore the mounds of information from the builders explaining why they built the great pyramid and just out right lie saying Egyptologists don't know what the pyramid wad used for??


SC: Okay--until you accept that people are entitled to have different views from you without you then accusing them of lying, this discussion is over.

I do not care for your zealotry. People are entitled to have different views from you without being called a liar. You will do well to understand that.

This discussion is ended.

SC



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So your going to ignore the mounds of information from the builders explaining why they built the great pyramid and just out right lie saying Egyptologists don't know what the pyramid wad used for??


SC: Okay--until you accept that people are entitled to have different views from you without you then accusing them of lying, this discussion is over.

I do not care for your zealotry. People are entitled to have different views from you without being called a liar. You will do well to understand that.

This discussion is ended.

SC



You said you have better evidence than the pyramid tomb theory but you neglect to tell people a out all the tombs and wrighting we have discussing pyramid construction. If you were at least fair you would tell him but you chose not to. PTT can actually be backed up with evidence not to mention the elephant on the room a huge sarcophagus sitting in it. Unless you know of another use they had for them. So far all we've ever found them used for is a dead pharaohs last resting place..
edit on 5/5/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
try thinking out of the square box you make for yourself
------------------------------------------------
12 72 240 600 1260 2352 4032
12 -411.65 -269.9 127 977.5 2536.75 5116.6 9085.6
72 -435.275 -411.65 -345.5 -203.75 56.125 486.1 1147.6
240 -438.583 -431.495 -411.65 -369.125 -291.1625 -162.17 36.28
600 -439.433 -436.598 -428.66 -411.65 -380.465 -328.868 -249.488
1260 -439.73 -438.38 -434.6 -426.5 -411.65 -387.08 -349.28
2352 -439.855 -439.132 -437.107 -432.768 -424.8125 -411.65 -391.4
4032 -439.916 -439.494 -438.313 -435.781 -431.140625 -423.463 -411.65
6480 -439.948 -439.685 -438.95 -437.375 -434.4875 -429.71 -422.36
9900 -439.966 -439.794 -439.313 -438.282 -436.391818 -433.265 -428.454
14520 -439.977 -439.859 -439.531 -438.829 -437.539876 -435.408 -432.128
20592 -439.983 -439.901 -439.67 -439.174 -438.265297 -436.762 -434.449
28392 -439.988 -439.928 -439.76 -439.401 -438.741864 -437.651 -435.974
41160 -439.992 -439.95 -439.835 -439.587 -439.132143 -438.38 -437.223
50400 -439.993 -439.96 -439.865 -439.663 -439.29125 -438.677 -437.732
65280 -439.995 -439.969 -439.896 -439.739 -439.452803 -438.979 -438.249

--------

12 72 240 600 1260 2352 4032
12 -311.35 -295.6 -251.5 -157 16.25 302.9 743.9
72 -313.975 -311.35 -304 -288.25 -259.375 -211.6 -138.1
240 -314.343 -313.555 -311.35 -306.625 -297.9625 -283.63 -261.58
600 -314.437 -314.122 -313.24 -311.35 -307.885 -302.152 -293.332
1260 -314.47 -314.32 -313.9 -313 -311.35 -308.62 -304.42
2352 -314.484 -314.404 -314.179 -313.696 -312.8125 -311.35 -309.1
4032 -314.491 -314.444 -314.313 -314.031 -313.515625 -312.663 -311.35
6480 -314.494 -314.465 -314.383 -314.208 -313.8875 -313.357 -312.54
9900 -314.496 -314.477 -314.424 -314.309 -314.099091 -313.752 -313.217
14520 -314.497 -314.484 -314.448 -314.37 -314.226653 -313.99 -313.625
20592 -314.498 -314.489 -314.463 -314.408 -314.307255 -314.14 -313.883
28392 -314.499 -314.492 -314.473 -314.433 -314.360207 -314.239 -314.053
41160 -314.499 -314.494 -314.482 -314.454 -314.403571 -314.32 -314.191
50400 -314.499 -314.496 -314.485 -314.463 -314.42125 -314.353 -314.248
65280 -314.499 -314.497 -314.488 -314.471 -314.4392 -314.387 -314.305



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So your going to ignore the mounds of information from the builders explaining why they built the great pyramid and just out right lie saying Egyptologists don't know what the pyramid wad used for??


SC: Okay--until you accept that people are entitled to have different views from you without you then accusing them of lying, this discussion is over.

I do not care for your zealotry. People are entitled to have different views from you without being called a liar. You will do well to understand that.

This discussion is ended.

SC

... the elephant on the room a huge sarcophagus sitting in it. Unless you know of another use they had for them. So far all we've ever found them used for is a dead pharaohs last resting place..


SC: It seems you are not aware that the AEs had different uses for these stone boxes within pyramids. The AEs used 'qrsw' which were indeed sarcophagi, ususally found in mastaba, rock-cut and shaft tombs. Only a few of the giant pyramids contained a stone box (the vast majority didn't) and the few that were found to contain a stone box were not 'qrsw' but rather 'neb-ankh'. Here, have a look:

Project osiris.

SC
edit on 5/5/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join