Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: peacefulpete

.

The one question I wonder, for you, is that if the pyramids are funerary sites, then how come they don't contain tombs?

AFAIK all tombs & mummies have been found in surrounding structures, but not inside the pyramids, right?

Is the idea that the pyramids were just empty markers for the gravesites around them?

Well remains were found

pyramidengeheimnisse.de...

Only three Pharaoh's tombs out of around 300 were not completely destroyed, two were looted Tut and Shoshenq II (whose tomb and been moved in with the next guy) and one survived intact that of Psusennes I.

OK but at a glance, the list is talking about small scraps of body-parts found... and some of the descriptions are from so long ago, that they could have been made-up stories, by the explorers... Like do we really trust stories from over 100 yrs ago, if someone said they found a gold sandal or whatever, lol. I'd consider such stories as inconclusive...

Plus there's the idea that common people might have put their dead in the pyramids, whether it was the original purpose or not...

What would an accurate statement be? That there's never been a verified, proper burial found in a pyramid?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

A thousand years is a long time.

Thousands is way longer.

Right, but what's your point? The Egyptian pyramids are commonly referred to as thousands of years old... even in mainstream archaeology lol

a reply to: peacefulpete

Yes.
The point is that over thousands of years thieves (and archeologists) have many opportunities. There isn't much that can be called pristine. After thousands of years of people living someplace.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

What would an accurate statement be? That there's never been a verified, proper burial found in a pyramid?

All known Egyptian pyramids tombs were looted in antiquity.

You can also look at the sarcophagus' in them and mortuary temples associated with them and the fact that there are usually lots of burials around them and they are on the west bank and never the east and the hieroglyphic for tomb was - oddly enough:



Later ones after Unas had the pyramid texts placed in them - magic incantations to help the dead get to heaven odd thing to put in a non-tomb eh?

Plus if the Pharaohs weren't placed into pyramids - where did they go? Pre-dynastic they went into mastabas after the pyramid era they went into rock cut tombs near a pyramid shaped hill.

The usual response to this is for the fringe to claim 'yes the later pyramids were tombs' but the Giza ones were [insert wild idea].

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

Yes.
The point is that over thousands of years thieves (and archeologists) have many opportunities. There isn't much that can be called pristine. After thousands of years of people living someplace.

As noted of 300 (approximately) Pharaohs only one tomb survived un-plundered:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: LABTECH767

Great video. The pyramids and Sphinx were obviously built a long time ago and before the great flood, but sometime after the continents shifted since the pyramids are so accurately lined up with certain stars. It's a huge time window, but it's a good place to start. However, much older than we're told.

a reply to: Hanslune

Plus if the Pharaohs weren't placed into pyramids - where did they go?

Apparently buried in the surrounding temples & structures... which is where all of the pharaohs have been found. None found in the pyramids themselves.

You're kind of implying that they must have been buried in the pyramids, but that doesn't stand. Maybe they were all buried in surrounding temples & structures. We don't really have a reason to think they were buried in the pyramids in the first place (afaik).

Your mention of the hieroglyphic of "tomb" as a pyramid is compelling... if you believe that modern day, we have a grasp on actually understanding hieroglyphics... which I'm very skeptical of.

The Rosetta Stone, even if accurately translated, still leaves a great bulk of other hieroglyphics that seems are just guessed at their meaning, imo.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: LABTECH767

Great video. The pyramids and Sphinx were obviously built a long time ago and before the great flood, but sometime after the continents shifted since the pyramids are so accurately lined up with certain stars. It's a huge time window, but it's a good place to start. However, much older than we're told.

Yeah that is a fascinating aspect of it. However ancient they may be, the 3 famous pyramids still line up with Orion's belt, supposedly...

And the Great Pyramid still lines up as the center of Earth's land mass, for example, so apparently Earth's landmass didn't change very much, since they were built...

Also for the question of what massive stones are impossible for modern man to move with our modern tech:

The Stone of the Pregnant Mother is a pretty good contender. It used to be called the largest hand-cut stone, but apparently now it's 3rd largest.

It's said that moving stuff like this would require dozens of cranes, all lifting at the same time. So imagine like 24 cranes trying to collectively lift this, lol.




Also here is the bigger, 2nd-largest ever found hand-cut stone, in the same area:



I didn't see pics of the very largest one, it might be still buried, I'm not sure.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

Apparently buried in the surrounding temples & structures... which is where all of the pharaohs have been found. None found in the pyramids themselves.

Really can you point to such a burial excavation please?

You're kind of implying that they must have been buried in the pyramids, but that doesn't stand. Maybe they were all buried in surrounding temples & structures. We don't really have a reason to think they were buried in the pyramids in the first place (afaik).

Other than the AE saying so what would you accept as evidence? Why are sarcophagi found in pyramids?

Your mention of the hieroglyphic of "tomb" as a pyramid is compelling... if you believe that modern day, we have a grasp on actually understanding hieroglyphics... which I'm very skeptical of.

Look it up if you doubted it: here you go - I am amazed you would have never made the effort to just look up the AE word for tomb - you do know that fringe site avoid real knowledge like the plague right?

www.um.es...

Page 160

The Rosetta Stone, even if accurately translated, still leaves a great bulk of other hieroglyphics that seems are just guessed at their meaning, imo.

So you can read them huh, which I'm very skeptical of .....

originally posted by: peacefulpete

Great video. The pyramids and Sphinx were obviously built a long time ago and before the great flood, but sometime after the continents shifted since the pyramids are so accurately lined up with certain stars. It's a huge time window, but it's a good place to start. However, much older than we're told.

Great flood? Really....

Yeah that is a fascinating aspect of it. However ancient they may be, the 3 famous pyramids still line up with Orion's belt, supposedly...

close but no cigar

And the Great Pyramid still lines up as the center of Earth's land mass, for example, so apparently Earth's landmass didn't change very much, since they were built...

nope that is something that was made up a century or two ago.

The center of mass of land is = In 1973, Andrew J. Woods, a physicist with Gulf Energy & Environmental Systems in San Diego, used a digital global map and calculated the coordinates on a mainframe system as 39°00′N 34°00′E, in modern Turkey, 1,000 km north of Giza.[6][unreliable source?] In 2003, a refined result was yielded by Holger Isenberg: 40°52′N 34°34′E.[7] In 2016, Google Maps marked Isenberg's result of 40°52′N 34°34′E as the geographic center of the world.

www.hurriyetdailynews.com...

This link explains how that particular myth came about; en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Also for the question of what massive stones are impossible for modern man to move with our modern tech:

The Stone of the Pregnant Mother is a pretty good contender. It used to be called the largest hand-cut stone, but apparently now it's 3rd largest.

It's said that moving stuff like this would require dozens of cranes, all lifting at the same time. So imagine like 24 cranes trying to collectively lift this, lol.

The Roman's never moved them - probably because it would have been very expensive and highly difficult to do.

List of the biggest cut stones that were moved and not moved:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Hanslune

Well I'm skeptical that we understand the hieroglyphics, as much as we think we do. Of course there are translation dictionaries out there... But I don't think anyone really understands hieroglyphics, anyway; I think it's mostly guessing the meanings.

At most, I could believe that we understand the hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone, but beyond that, nope, imo.

...

I didn't mention the great flood; that was someone else.

...

Why is it inaccurate that the pyramids line up with Orion's belt? That's a mainstream idea.

...

About the Great Pyramid at center of landmass: I'll read your links, but I have seen it diagrammed and it looked pretty convincing lol.

But along those lines, we might as well also keep in mind that shorelines & landmasses do change over time, of course. So maybe they get a little wiggle-room due to changing shorelines and tectonic plates? Maybe it was the exact center, a few thousand yrs ago?

I'll respond after I read ur links...

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Also for the question of what massive stones are impossible for modern man to move with our modern tech:

The Stone of the Pregnant Mother is a pretty good contender. It used to be called the largest hand-cut stone, but apparently now it's 3rd largest.

It's said that moving stuff like this would require dozens of cranes, all lifting at the same time. So imagine like 24 cranes trying to collectively lift this, lol.

The Roman's never moved them - probably because it would have been very expensive and highly difficult to do.

List of the biggest cut stones that were moved and not moved:

en.wikipedia.org...

I think you're saying that the Romans cut the stones and then left them, because they were too big...

I mean, it makes sense for a mundane explanation... Alternately, the Romans could have simply found the stones there, from the distant past... The Romans were not known for monolithic structures; they were known for smaller, yet impressive structures (like aqueducts, statues, human-size temples, etc.).

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: Hanslune

Well I'm skeptical that we understand the hieroglyphics, as much as we think we do. Of course there are translation dictionaries out there... But I don't think anyone really understands hieroglyphics, anyway; I think it's mostly guessing the meanings.

Sorry but that is rather lame denial of knowledge and I will ignore your opinion on it.

At most, I could believe that we understand the hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone, but beyond that, nope, imo.

Oh sorry I deny your denial

Why is it inaccurate that the pyramids line up with Orion's belt? That's a mainstream idea.

No its a fringe idea that has been talked about a lot

About the Great Pyramid at center of landmass: I'll read your links, but I have seen it diagrammed and it looked pretty convincing lol.

Nope read the links

But along those lines, we might as well also keep in mind that shorelines & landmasses do change over time, of course. So maybe they get a little wiggle-room due to changing shorelines and tectonic plates? Maybe it was the exact center, a few thousand yrs ago?

Ah no...if you think that then explain how the AE surveyed the planet and determined it?

originally posted by: peacefulpete

I mean, it makes sense for a mundane explanation... Alternately, the Romans could have simply found the stones there, from the distant past... The Romans were not known for monolithic structures; they were known for smaller, yet impressive structures (like aqueducts, statues, human-size temples, etc.).

That is not what the evidence shows....see below:

I would suggest you go read the massive DAI report on Baalbek that took the Germans a century to complete. Here you go

www.bma.arch.unige.it...

www.daniellohmann.net...

a reply to: Hanslune

It's a lame denial of knowledge that I don't believe the hieroglyphics have ever been translated (beyond those on the Rosetta Stone)? Why?

The onus of proof is on the assertion that we DO understand them. I acknowledged the Rosetta Stone, which is the most tangible true translations... but beyond that, it all seems like guesswork. It's just guessing what weird drawings mean lol.

If the Orion thing isn't mainstream then I had the wrong idea... I swear it was the establishment idea though...

I read the links about center of landmass: Ok, well what can I say. I'll have to accept modern science saying that the center is in Turkey.

However, from your own link:

In 2007, Susan Wise Bauer claimed in her book Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome, that the theory that the Great Pyramid was the geographical center of Earth would only hold true if a Mercator projection is used as the map for Earth, which was "unlikely to have been a common practice of the ancient Egyptians".

So it does work out as center... on a Mercator projection map, right?

if you think that then explain how the AE surveyed the planet and determined it?

Obviously by flying around in spaceships and scanning the Earth with unimaginable advanced technology, of course. lol

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: peacefulpete

I mean, it makes sense for a mundane explanation... Alternately, the Romans could have simply found the stones there, from the distant past... The Romans were not known for monolithic structures; they were known for smaller, yet impressive structures (like aqueducts, statues, human-size temples, etc.).

That is not what the evidence shows....see below:

I would suggest you go read the massive DAI report on Baalbek that took the Germans a century to complete. Here you go

www.bma.arch.unige.it...

www.daniellohmann.net...

Dude the Romans were only building on top of monoliths that were already there...

Do you really believe the Romans were moving the largest cut stones on Earth? They're my own ancestors and I don't believe it.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: peacefulpete

I mean, it makes sense for a mundane explanation... Alternately, the Romans could have simply found the stones there, from the distant past... The Romans were not known for monolithic structures; they were known for smaller, yet impressive structures (like aqueducts, statues, human-size temples, etc.).

That is not what the evidence shows....see below:

I would suggest you go read the massive DAI report on Baalbek that took the Germans a century to complete. Here you go

www.bma.arch.unige.it...

www.daniellohmann.net...

Dude the Romans were only building on top of monoliths that were already there...

Do you really believe the Romans were moving the largest cut stones on Earth? They're my own ancestors and I don't believe it.

Of course they did. The same methods were used in Jerusalem, with slightly smaller ashlars - about 25% smaller.
Around the same time too.

Both are only retaining walls. At Baalbek, behind the "trilithon" is a honeycombed foundation exactly like others found all over the Roman Empire. In that foundation and under it are unused or broken Roman architectural features like column pieces.

What you got?
Personal disbelief?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

What you got? Personal disbelief?

Um, here's what I got.

1. Yes, personal disbelief lol.

2. I got this question: Can you please show me links for the info you just posted, because it's news to me, and I'd like to read about it. Re: Roman structures found under these monoliths. And what is a Roman honeycombed foundation.

I did quickly search these things and it's not easy to find info. In fact I searched your exact phrasing: "Baalbek, behind the "trilithon" is a honeycombed foundation" doesn't quite bring me info about that.

3. Are there are any records of Romans actually dragging around these monoliths? They were known for a lot of things but I've never heard them dragging stones the size of modern day buildings lol.

These are honest questions, I'm not arguing with you, I love the topic and I want to learn more about it.

Re: Why I haven't combed through this in detail yet: I've only had an up-to-date computer & internet connection, for about 3 years (lol) so I really haven't gotten around to it yet.