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.

 

Carson: Joseph built pyramids for grain storage.

page: 18
38
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Scott, thanks for your reply. Honestly, I'm saddened to know that you did make a Templar/Pyramid connection, even in passing, as that seems to verify the several other evidence-based critiques made in that article I mentioned. I admire your independent outlook and self-confidence, but based on the fact that the "Pyramid as storage" theories actually date back into the medieval period and have been roundly disproved by standard research methods and tons of physical evidence, I'll exercise my own independent outlook on this one and stick to sound scientific reasoning rather than interesting suppositions.

No hard feelings then, and thanks for your time.




posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Scott, I must defer to your supplied information as I have very little knowledge of what was actually found in the pyramids. Massive amounts of grain may be an exaggeration however since as I understand it, the vast majority of the composition of these structures is that of solid or stacked rock with very little open space.

Now it just seems to me that there must have been a huge effort and massive amounts of time involved with the building of these structures and the end result is that there is not a whole lot space for grain. I would think those who commissioned the work, that would be Joseph according to the Dr., would be somewhat disappointed in the result. But then by the time the pyramids were completed, unless it was a super rush job, those that started them would have long been dead and the vast amount of grain taken from the seven years of bounty would have all been eaten.

I guess they said, “Oops. But it’s such a nice building, I’m going to bury my dead ass in there.”.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: okyouwin






the vast majority of the composition of these structures is that of solid or stacked rock with very little open space.


very little space compared to what?

compared to the whole pyramid yes it is small but compared to granaries I am not sure how much smaller.

the biggest question of all is have we entered the entire complex of every pyramid and measured?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66






have been roundly disproved by standard research methods and tons of physical evidence

go ahead and tell us what info has you so convinced about your theories



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Just for kicks, I checked how many bushels the known chambers and passageways in the Great Pyramid would hold if one were to put grain in them.
It is just shy of 10,000 bushels.
For the record, I am not saying that this is a lot of grain and I am not saying that it is just a little bit of grain.

I am just saying that according to the figures that I found in a Smithsonian article, that is what it would appear to hold.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy
The size difference between the pyramid and the chamber is the same difference between the distance of the sun and moon from earth.

Definitely 10,000 bushels would be plenty to start the crops again.

The pyramid would have made great protection for anyone looking to loot the stash


edit on 9-11-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: okyouwin
a reply to: Scott Creighton

...Massive amounts of grain may be an exaggeration however since as I understand it, the vast majority of the composition of these structures is that of solid or stacked rock with very little open space.

... Now it just seems to me that there must have been a huge effort and massive amounts of time involved with the building of these structures and the end result is that there is not a whole lot space for grain...


Hi okyouwin,

SC: The first giant pyramids, as I have stated elsewhere in this thread, were not 'granaries' in the conventional sense but rather 'recovery vaults' or 'seed vaults'. The idea of storing all manner of seeds (and other useful items) within them was not about feeding the entire population of ancient Egypt but rather to allow the survivors of an anticipated cataclysm (the AEs believed their kingdom would be destroyed in a great flood) the means by which to 'reboot' the civilisation. Our own civilisation did something similar with the opening of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in 2008. As a 'recovery vault' you only need enough storage capacity to store enough seed types (in a highly visible, secure structure) that will allow you to re-seed the kingdom as opposed to feeding an entire population.

The first 19 pyramids (16 completed) built by the AEs formed, imo, part of this 'Project Osiris' (Osiris being the AE god of agriculture and rebirth). The combined chamber storage capacity of these 16 pyramids far exceeds that of our own Svalbard Global Seed Vault which is about re-seeding the world should some unforeseen disaster occur on Earth.

The 'Granaries of Joseph' may simply be a metaphor or a 'memory' of the original 'seed vault' function of the pyramids because they most certainly could not perform the function of a conventional granary although the barrel shaped roofs in some of the pyramid chambers are reminiscent of the traditional AE granary. We do know that some of the earliest Christian writings refer to the Egyptian pyramids as 'Arks' rather than tombs. I should add that I absolutely do not discount the possibilty that these first pyramids could have been repurposed as tombs by later AE dynasties but this categorically simply could not have been the intended function of these first pyramids. I concede also that, as the Osirian religion rose to prominence in ancient Egypt, the whole idea of a pyramid as the means to 'rebirth' would be adopted as a funerary rite of the king (for his Ka only, not the actual body) where once it was merely a perfunctory 'device' that would ensure the 'rebirth' of the kingdom. The 'womb' of the kingdom would, in time, become the tomb of the king.

Here are some other links to my research that you may find of some interest:

10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory' (in case you missed the earlier link.

(The above paper presents a variety of evidence which demonstrate how the first pyramids simply could not have functioned as an effective tomb for an AE King).

And some of my relevant ATS Forum links:

The Birth of Osiris

(The above thread shows how the first 16 or so pyramids along the banks of the Nile perhaps, in time, came to form the basis or outline of the classic Osiris figure).

The Recovery Vault Theory

(Some cultural elements which support the theory along with evidence of what was actually found in the pyramid complex).

Great Pyramid Explosion

(Presents evidence from the Great Pyramid of a massive grain dust explosion in antiquity within the structure).

I am not saying Ben Carson is right about 'Joseph's Granaries' but if you follow the links above you will find that it is an indisputable fact that massive amounts of grain was indeed stored in these structures. It would not be at all surprising to find that the original function of these structures to store grain would later become conflated and embellished with perhaps an entirely separate account of Joseph building actual granaries, hence why we have the confused story today of the pyramid's as 'Joseph's Granaries'. Joseph may well have built some conventional granaries but these were not the pyramids. The pyramids were 'seed vaults' to be opened and used only after the worst effects of the anticipated cataclysm (the Flood of Thoth) had passed.

Regards,

SC
edit on 9/11/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/11/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: MystikMushroom

As a nonpartisan, I personally don't see any significant difference in the irrationality of Carson and Obama. They both believe that God put a baby in Mary's uterus with magic. Since Obama believes that



I would be interested in what proof you have that Pres. Obama believes that? Perhaps you are unaware that the Christian faith is diverse, with many followers interpreting the biblical tales as spiritual metaphor rather than literal truth?

Are you aware that the President ahs discussed his faith?


OBAMA:

So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

And so, part of my project in life was probably to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe – I’m 42 now – and it’s not that I had it all completely worked out, but I’m spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values.

...

And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.


www.patheos.com...

Notice the distinction?...not comfortable with language that implies a "Monopoly on truth"? "Religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt"?




If democrats want to hold this up as an example of Carson's failings, I think they need to be prepared to do the same with candidates representing their own party.


Certainly. Would you kindly cite a democratic presidential candidate that suffers similarly from Faith Derangement Syndrome?


edit on 9-11-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

What church or denomination believes that the bible is just metafours.

Obama accepts his churches views on these topics.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Indigo5

What church or denomination believes that the bible is just metafours.


Most Christian denominations have branches of "literalism" and "modernism"...faith is diverse.

But more to the point you are intentionally confusing a church with it's followers. How many Catholics strictly ascribe to the proclamations of the Catholic Church?





Obama accepts his churches views on these topics.



Rather than claim things, you would serve yourself better by searching for answers.

See my post above.
edit on 9-11-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
I think it's time to just admit Ben Carson isn't playing with a full deck...

...Is this the kind of guy you want running the country??? Seriously???


Ben Carson's house: a homage to Ben Carson

I would say that he is, indeed, a can or two short of a six pack, a sandwich short of a picnic...


originally posted by: Scott Creighton

As for publishing in academic journals - I don't need to nor do I want to. I do my own research and draw my own conclusions from that research. I then write and publish my books and people are entirely free to accept or reject my conclusions. That's how it works. I have no burning desire to have my research 'accepted' by mainstream Egyptology or, indeed, mainstream anything.

I do my own thing and I am perfectly content with that.

SC


Is this because you know, deep down, that you wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny and so are far more content to make money off half-baked ideas (i.e. you website advertises your books, you link to your website and your books constantly on this site) and people's love for mystery?

Surely if you really believed what you were writing and had a lust for disseminating the 'truth' you would have no problem with peer review....except you do, don't you:


We then move on to claims that there are secret chambers at Giza, and here the weaknesses in Creighton’s research start to show. 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. He then cites the Arab pyramid legend of Surid, which he quotes from J. Davies’ 1672 English translation of the French edition of the twelfth-century author Murtada ibn al-Afif (Murtadi ibn Gaphiphus), likely from this website due to some tell-tale OCR errors (e.g., Sahaloe for Sahaloc) that don’t appear in print editions, and without citing the translator at all. The same story is given also in Al-Maqrizi and Al-Idrisi, as well as in the earlier Akhbar al-zaman. He then reports on Al-Maqrizi’s accounts, but secondhand again, this time from Mark Lehner’s summary of them in The Complete Pyramids. Given that I’ve made the text available in English since 2012, there isn’t really an excuse for not knowing the original.


Source


In the final analysis, Creighton claims to have ideas that will change our understanding of history but bases them on secondhand research, cherry picking, and appeals to conspiracy. It’s appropriate that Creighton is so interested in trying to prove medieval legends true since his own book is just as dependent on secondary summaries, excerpts, and ignorance as the worst texts of the Middle Ages.


It's a pretty damning review. Makes you seem a bit like Ben Carson: whack-eyed crazy!



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

SC: I let the actual evidence do the talking.

I can point to the evidence that proves the stone boxes in these pyramids were Nebankh and NOT Qrsw (sarcophagi). There is a very clear and obvious difference between 'Nebankh' containers and 'Qrsw' containers but Egyptologists simply lump them all together and refer to them all as 'sarcophagi'. A stone box filled with earth is NOT a sarcophagus. But hey--don't let the facts get in the way of the actual truth, eh?

I can point to the primary evidence of massive amounts of grain and tens of thousands of storage vessels that have actually been discovered in-situ. This massive cache goes way beyond 'grave goods' of which only small symbolic amounts would be taken--a few bowls, pots or vases. At the Step Pyramid we are talking about people literally walking through underground passages shin deep in grain. There are literally kilometres of passages and numerous galleries below the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. Furthermore, an AE king would be serviced daily by his priestly cult giving offerings of food, wine and so forth so there was little need for the king to take anything let alone a massive cache like that below the Step Pyramid into his Afterlife. Indeed, the king's priests could even use magic--a simple drawing of grain, cattle or whatever upon a tomb wall and, with a few magic utterances, the king would have all that he needed in the Afterlife. It didn't have to be actual physical items at all.

Show me an original burial of an AE king from any one of these pyramids. On second thoughts, don't trouble yourself as you won't find any because not a single one was ever found. Unlike the grain, unlike the Nebankh, unlike the Osiris Corn Mummies.

As I said--I let the actual physical evidence do the talking. There are many, alas, who do not like what the actual evidence has to say and who prefer to imagine dead kings lying in stone boxes.

Regards,

SC
edit on 9/11/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/11/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The scanning of the pyramids project

www.linkfast.com.tw...



Egypt detects 'impressive' anomaly in Giza pyramids

news.yahoo.com...

CAIRO (AP) — Two weeks of new thermal scanning in Egypt's Giza pyramids have identified anomalies, including a major one in the largest pyramid, the Antiquities Ministry announced Monday.

Antiquities Minister Mamdouh el-Damaty and technical experts working on the project showed the thermal differences in the pyramid in a live camera presentation to journalists.

The scanning showed "a particularly impressive one (anomaly) located on the Eastern side of the Khufu pyramid at ground level," the ministry said in a statement. The largest of the three Giza pyramids is known locally as Khufu and internationally as Cheops.

The thermal scanning was carried out during sunrise, as the sun heats the structures from the outside, and then during sunset as the pyramids are cooling down. The speed of the heating and cooling phases was used to uncover "hypotheses" such as empty areas in the pyramids, internal air currents, or different building materials used.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: aorAki

SC: I let the actual evidence do the talking.

I can point to the evidence that proves the stone boxes in these pyramids were Nebankh and NOT Qrsw (sarcophagi). There is a very clear and obvious difference between 'Nebankh' containers and 'Qrsw' containers but Egyptologists simply lump them all together and refer to them all as 'sarcophagi'. A stone box filled with earth is NOT a sarcophagus. But hey--don't let the facts get in the way of the actual truth, eh?

I can point to the primary evidence of massive amounts of grain and tens of thousands of storage vessels that have actually been discovered in-situ. This massive cache goes way beyond 'grave goods' of which only small symbolic amounts would be taken--a few bowls, pots or vases. At the Step Pyramid we are talking about people literally walking through underground passages shin deep in grain. There are literally kilometres of passages and numerous galleries below the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. Furthermore, an AE king would be serviced daily by his priestly cult giving offerings of food, wine and so forth so there was little need for the king to take anything let alone a massive cache like that below the Step Pyramid into his Afterlife. Indeed, the king's priests could even use magic--a simple drawing of grain, cattle or whatever upon a tomb wall and, with a few magic utterances, the king would have all that he needed in the Afterlife. It didn't have to be actual physical items at all.

Show me an original burial of an AE king from any one of these pyramids. On second thoughts, don't trouble yourself as you won't find any because not a single one was ever found. Unlike the grain, unlike the Nebankh, unlike the Osiris Corn Mummies.

As I said--I let the actual physical evidence do the talking. There are many, alas, who do not like what the actual evidence has to say.

Regards,

SC
don't say "show me" you show us! You're making claims . . . and did you really just read website descriptions, not the actual sources???



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


SC: I let the actual evidence do the talking.





If that is so, and you're so certain of the evidence, then you wouldn't shy away from peer review, would you?

Don't you want to have an impact on AE scholars by providing watertight, evidence-based research? For, surely, if they are stubborn and wrong, you have the chance to change their minds by letting the evidence do the talking?

I don't get it. What are you afraid of if you submit to peer review, if you're so certain?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

no i am not ok with hitting you mother with a hammer



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


SC: I let the actual evidence do the talking.



If that is so, and you're so certain of the evidence, then you wouldn't shy away from peer review, would you?

Don't you want to have an impact on AE scholars by providing watertight, evidence-based research? For, surely, if they are stubborn and wrong, you have the chance to change their minds by letting the evidence do the talking?

I don't get it. What are you afraid of if you submit to peer review, if you're so certain?


Hi aorAki,

SC: What you fail to understand here is that it is precisely because authors such as I are not subject to peer review that allows us the freedom to express new ideas, new thinking without fear of peer disapproval--to think outside of the Nebankh (or Qrsw) so to speak. It is precisely because I am not shackled with the need to peer review that allows me the total freedom to approach these questions of our ancient past with a different mindset than that of your average mainstream Egyptologist.

And there is a reason also why many important breakthroughs in many fields of study come from individuals who are on the outside, non-mainstream, of a particular field of study, from outside the ‘establishment’. Think John Harrison, think Michael Faraday, think Galileo, think Kepler, think Farnsworth, think Hedy Lamarr and think a thousand others. THAT is why it is important that people outside a discipline continue their own, unshackled research and write their own unshackled books. It is to be encouraged. For, if history has taught us anything, it is that original thinkers will not be shackled by narrow, self-serving peer review panels and that science is a graveyard of wrong and disproven ideas.

If an idea is sound and well evidenced then it will ultimately prevail regardless of what the ‘establishment’ presently thinks to be true. Peer Review – great idea in theory but not so much in practice where all it does is inhibit and suffocate new ideas and approaches. But don't take my word for it. Consider the words of an actual Egyptologist, Lorraine Evans, who knows the peer review process only too well and describes it thus:


"The fact that I had unearthed so many pieces of evidence, archaeological and historical, to show Egyptian settlement in the British Isles raised one question. Why had this all been ignored in academic circles? One of the main reasons, I felt, was that if such information was readily accepted then academia would rapidly have to rewrite huge chunks of history. This would throw certain traditional ‘historical facts’ into tremendous doubt. It is important to stress that many academics’ careers are based on these ‘facts’ and to disprove them overnight would make these people redundant. During the research of this book, I soon discovered that some academics were quite willing to share their work off the record, but when it came to committing it to print they soon backed down and a wall of silence greeted me. None of them, it appeared, wanted to put their jobs on the line, to tell the truth. The sad reality of the matter is that we are relying on these people to tell us our history, but they seem content to operate under a veil of academic censorship.” - Lorraine Evans, Kingdom of the Ark, p.286.


And Evans’ experience of the academic establishment is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As she rightly points out, peer review is nothing more than "academic censorship" where long-running rivalries fester unabated and academic snobbery and one-upmanship is the order of the day and all for nothing more than their personal lust for prestige and their personal pursuit of their place in history. That is no way to conduct science, to pursue historical truth. Historical truth is not subject to a show of peer review panel hands and I am perfectly happy and at ease with doing my research, writing and publishing my books on my own terms. Indeed, we should be thankful that we have alternative thinkers and writers outside of that dreadful, self-serving cabal that is the peer review panel. And neither you or anyone else needs a peer review panel to tell you how to think or what to believe.

Or perhaps some do?

I do not need nor do I desire the rubber stamp of peer review. As I stated earlier--I am not an academic. But neither am I dumb enough or naive enough to think that any of my theories would ever be favourably peer reviewed (see Evans' experience above) by academia. I much prefer the freedom to submit my work to a much bigger and more important jury--the population of the world and it is they who will, ultimately, decide who and what to believe.

I hope that clarifies my position for you.

Regards,

SC
edit on 9/11/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


I hope that clarifies my position for you.



Absolutely, thanks for your reply.

It's easier to sell dung to the credulous than to academia. Many of the comments made about academia are not what I have experienced, and are so often from snake oil merchants with something to sell, including Lorraine Evans and her fluffed-up low word count book..

You can dress it any way you want, and you'll get favourable responses from many here for it, but not from me.

Thanks for taking the time to reply



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


I hope that clarifies my position for you.



Absolutely, thanks for your reply.

It's easier to sell dung to the credulous than to academia. Many of the comments made about academia are not what I have experienced, and are so often from snake oil merchants with something to sell, including Lorraine Evans and her fluffed-up low word count book..

You can dress it any way you want, and you'll get favourable responses from many here for it, but not from me.

Thanks for taking the time to reply
instead of running away from acadamia, make acadamia look bad by proving it wrong with facts. if any ridicule, make them look ridiculous. Never try to sell books full of fluff for money.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
steves grain pyramid

To the average person they could care less about peers unless one can fish from them.

Either your idea has some truth or it does not but no one needs a group of aholes to pretend like they have all they answers. So much progress has been stifled by such groups it is pitiful.
edit on 10-11-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join