Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Excerpt#1 From My New Book

originally posted by: anti72

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
.edit.

“Muhamed ibn Ishaq Ibn al-Nadim, quoted by Ahmad ibn Ali al-Maqrizi, writes “…A passage pierces this pavement…; the arch is made of stone and one sees there portraits and statues standing or resting and a quantity of other things, the meaning of which we do not understand.” And Ibrahim Wassif Shah writes: “…In the eastern pyramid [Great Pyramid], chambers had been built in which the stars and heavens were depicted, and in which was amassed what Surid’s forebears had Accomplished in the way of statues.” - A. Pochan, The Mysteries of the Great Pyramids: The Luminous Horizons of Khoufou, (Avon, 1978).

If Surid placed the bodies of his ancestors within the pyramid (the Big Void) then each of those ancestors would require a Ka double (statue) as a surrogate for the king's ka should his actual mummified body become too badly decomposed or otherwise destroyed.

SC

yes, thats you believe and conclude for yourself.

I still am working on understanding the architecture as this has to be planned and build first.

much later early christian, arabic or coptic texts are not sufficient, at least for my taste.
Erich von Däniken also cited arabic fairy tales for his book ' eyes of the sphinx'.

and I'm sick of those lies. His and other ..authors.

How do you know this Coptic tradition is "fairly tales"? Are you suggesting that I am lying?

Do explain.

SC

I was referring to Däniken, in his '91 book eyes of the sphinx, p.255.
he is a nut and I dont have to explain to you.
but for sake of it, eg he referres to ( p 264 ) Sitchin as ' american orientalist', he believes ( or at least uses ) his writings about Vyse 's alleged hoax and selling it in his book ( swiss/german) :

he calls Sitchins writings ' scharfsinniges, kriminologisches Meisterstück', meaning 'astute, criminalistic, masterpiece'.

'Aufgrund von Daten, Aussprüchen und Tagebuchaufzeichnungen, doch insbesondere wegen eines orthografischen Fehlers, der dem Fälscher unterlief, zerpflückt ZS das Gaunerstück des Duos Vyse/ Perring.''

Vyse/ Perring are 'Gauner' ('crooks' and 'rogue').
and on page 265 etc
arabic fairy tales p 255, referrs to Hitat of Muhammed al-Makrizi ( 1364-1442)..too long to quote by hand.

also the ideas of the deluge and the pyramids and other BS.
the professionals debunked all those lies long ago.

pyramidengeheimnisse.de...
www.sitchiniswrong.com...

quote from the first page:

''Arabian sources are the first choice for mysterious legends around the pyramids. But as we have seen on the last page, we cannot trust them blindly. Although they may have a true core, they contain much fantasy around it. Other sources used in the Hitat are not much better than al-Kaisi. Most obvious are the exaggerations which are visible in comparing their descriptions with observable archaeological facts, like pyramid or stone block dimensions. In one often used source al-Makrizi writes about 30 treasure chambers in Kafres pyramid, containing weapons of the gods and foldable glass. Needless to say that this is one centrepiece used by alternative authors to explain some cover up and conspiracy theories. But in the same chapter Makrizi describes the interior of the pyramid as giant column hall - which definitively isn't there and has never been there. So why trust the description at all? From those reality-challenged tales in the Hitat we can conclude another thing: most authors featured in the Hitat have never been at or inside the pyramids, and have never seen the things they describe with their own eyes, contrary to their own words ("Then I went down into the pyramid..."). An uncritical use of those stories is therefore impossible. ''


in the 90s Däniken was kind of a loner with this and got away and is considered today as a kind of 'classic' but the lies have just become more popular since Fox' ancient aliens series.

All of which actually has little to do with my own theory.

It seems logical to look for the origin of the elements of the [Sūrīd] legend in the Egypt of the Hellenistic and the Pharonic Age. . . . The frame-story, containing the dreams, merges Egyptian elements with motifs taken from Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. The prophecy uses the general topoi of the Hermetic Asclepius but in the Sūrīd legend, since they are closely associated with a definite king and definite events, they gain a more concrete meaning. The Christian influence transferred the emphasis to the Biblical Flood; the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history. . . . - Sandor Fodor, Origins of the Arabic Legends, 350, 362–63.

Well, it heartens me that more and more scientists are now beginning to realise and accept that there may very well be kernels of truth in our ancient 'myths', including the Coptic Legend of Sūrīd (it's not an Arabic legend btw - they merely interpreted what the Copts told them and then almost certainly embellished this with some of their own ideas).

SC

originally posted by: anti72
the idea that the notches on the sidesteps of the GG maybe for statues is absurd, the GG makes only sense as a construction room, it does not at all look like a ceremonial room. The steep incline of it is technical, also the notches.

The angle of the GG's incline is 50% percent grade, for each cubit of height you extend 2 cubits horizontally.
Never have so many huge and long 60+ tonnes of rose granite slabs ( 43) been transported so high into the body of a pyramid, 140 feet, Hemeniu and his teams had to address this anew. All the more after the experiences with his fathers builds.

many architectural/ engineering details of the GG are addressed by JP Houdin that many fail to address and actually explain. At the moment no one else has an almost complete building theory that makes sense except his.

i think houdin is wrong he assumes the entire pyramid was built out of cut stone reality is they didn't have enough stone cutters for that. See in any quarry you are limited on how much stone you can cut by how many faces you have in the quarry. I suspect the insides are mostly sand and small rocks whatever rubble they could collect. You basically build the walls and as you fill in the pyramid insides that becomes the ramp to continue higher. Eventually, you would have to cover your ramp so thats how the grand gallery was created.

a reply to: dragonridr

ne, he doesn't say that.
the two outer rows or so are tura limestone, precut to always ensure correct alignment till the top..
only the parts with internal structures ( GG, KC, QC etc) have strentghend 'streets'.
the inner is ruble, stones and cement..as we can see today..and the inner ramp of course.
(and of course the rest of the bedrock hill inside).

maybe you mean the pictures of the animations? yes they look a bit strange ( movie Khufu Revealed )..

cheers

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

It seems logical to look for the origin of the elements of the [Sūrīd] legend in the Egypt of the Hellenistic and the Pharonic Age. . . . The frame-story, containing the dreams, merges Egyptian elements with motifs taken from Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. The prophecy uses the general topoi of the Hermetic Asclepius but in the Sūrīd legend, since they are closely associated with a definite king and definite events, they gain a more concrete meaning. The Christian influence transferred the emphasis to the Biblical Flood; the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history. . . . - Sandor Fodor, Origins of the Arabic Legends, 350, 362–63.

Well, it heartens me that more and more scientists are now beginning to realise and accept that there may very well be kernels of truth in our ancient 'myths', including the Coptic Legend of Sūrīd (it's not an Arabic legend btw - they merely interpreted what the Copts told them and then almost certainly embellished this with some of their own ideas).

" ... the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history ... (Fodor 361)"

What Fodor is saying here is that the Sūrīd legend ascribes the Flood to "a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history."

Fodor is not saying that this legend is evidence of there really being a Flood that actually occurred in a particular place at a particular time.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

It seems logical to look for the origin of the elements of the [Sūrīd] legend in the Egypt of the Hellenistic and the Pharonic Age. . . . The frame-story, containing the dreams, merges Egyptian elements with motifs taken from Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. The prophecy uses the general topoi of the Hermetic Asclepius but in the Sūrīd legend, since they are closely associated with a definite king and definite events, they gain a more concrete meaning. The Christian influence transferred the emphasis to the Biblical Flood; the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history. . . . - Sandor Fodor, Origins of the Arabic Legends, 350, 362–63.

Well, it heartens me that more and more scientists are now beginning to realise and accept that there may very well be kernels of truth in our ancient 'myths', including the Coptic Legend of Sūrīd (it's not an Arabic legend btw - they merely interpreted what the Copts told them and then almost certainly embellished this with some of their own ideas).

" ... the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history ... (Fodor 361)"

What Fodor is saying here is that the Sūrīd legend ascribes the Flood to "a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history."

Fodor is not saying that this legend is evidence of there really being a Flood that actually occurred in a particular place at a particular time.

You entirely miss the point. It's not about whether there really was a Flood or not. It's that Sūrīd's astronomer-priests believed such would occur some centuries in their future. Whether the foretold Flood actually came to pass or not is entirely immaterial. That Sūrīd seemingly believed it would happen is why, we are told in the Coptic tradition, Sūrīd built the pyramids and why he placed his ancestors within the Great Pyramid (most likely, for reasons explained elsewhere, in the Big Void).

And the second point here is that Fodor clearly believes there are elements to the Surid legend that are not from "...a dark, mythical age..." but, rather, are from "...a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history." In other words, there are elements to the Coptic Sūrīd tradition that are not legendary but history.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

It seems logical to look for the origin of the elements of the [Sūrīd] legend in the Egypt of the Hellenistic and the Pharonic Age. . . . The frame-story, containing the dreams, merges Egyptian elements with motifs taken from Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. The prophecy uses the general topoi of the Hermetic Asclepius but in the Sūrīd legend, since they are closely associated with a definite king and definite events, they gain a more concrete meaning. The Christian influence transferred the emphasis to the Biblical Flood; the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history. . . . - Sandor Fodor, Origins of the Arabic Legends, 350, 362–63.

Well, it heartens me that more and more scientists are now beginning to realise and accept that there may very well be kernels of truth in our ancient 'myths', including the Coptic Legend of Sūrīd (it's not an Arabic legend btw - they merely interpreted what the Copts told them and then almost certainly embellished this with some of their own ideas).

" ... the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history ... (Fodor 361)"

What Fodor is saying here is that the Sūrīd legend ascribes the Flood to "a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history."

Fodor is not saying that this legend is evidence of there really being a Flood that actually occurred in a particular place at a particular time.

You entirely miss the point. It's not about whether there really was a Flood or not. It's that Sūrīd's astronomer-priests believed such would occur some centuries in their future. Whether the foretold Flood actually came to pass or not is entirely immaterial. That Sūrīd seemingly believed it would happen is why, we are told in the Coptic tradition, Sūrīd built the pyramids and why he placed his ancestors within the Great Pyramid (most likely, for reasons explained elsewhere, in the Big Void).

And the second point here is that Fodor clearly believes there are elements to the Surid legend that are not from "...a dark, mythical age..." but, rather, are from "...a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history." In other words, there are elements to the Coptic Sūrīd tradition that are not legendary but history.

If Fodor “clearly believes” this, why doesn’t he say so? He says that an “element” of the legend “takes place” in “a chronologically determined period”: specifically, “the Flood.” He does not say that “the Flood” or any other element is “from” this period: he says that it “takes place” there. Contrary to what you allege, at no point does Fodor assert the historicity of the Sūrīd legend.

So, what's the bottom line to this new book? Does it offer anything conclusive that will be on CNN. Other than waffle about floods.

Any offerings by Osborn in it will also be a real blast imo, not sure that was a great idea considering his dot connecting with the binary code from an alleged space ship he has been busy with for over ten years and still hasn't figured it out. I guess to find out more , one will have to purchase the book then!

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

It seems logical to look for the origin of the elements of the [Sūrīd] legend in the Egypt of the Hellenistic and the Pharonic Age. . . . The frame-story, containing the dreams, merges Egyptian elements with motifs taken from Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. The prophecy uses the general topoi of the Hermetic Asclepius but in the Sūrīd legend, since they are closely associated with a definite king and definite events, they gain a more concrete meaning. The Christian influence transferred the emphasis to the Biblical Flood; the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history. . . . - Sandor Fodor, Origins of the Arabic Legends, 350, 362–63.

Well, it heartens me that more and more scientists are now beginning to realise and accept that there may very well be kernels of truth in our ancient 'myths', including the Coptic Legend of Sūrīd (it's not an Arabic legend btw - they merely interpreted what the Copts told them and then almost certainly embellished this with some of their own ideas).

" ... the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history ... (Fodor 361)"

What Fodor is saying here is that the Sūrīd legend ascribes the Flood to "a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history."

Fodor is not saying that this legend is evidence of there really being a Flood that actually occurred in a particular place at a particular time.

You entirely miss the point. It's not about whether there really was a Flood or not. It's that Sūrīd's astronomer-priests believed such would occur some centuries in their future. Whether the foretold Flood actually came to pass or not is entirely immaterial. That Sūrīd seemingly believed it would happen is why, we are told in the Coptic tradition, Sūrīd built the pyramids and why he placed his ancestors within the Great Pyramid (most likely, for reasons explained elsewhere, in the Big Void).

And the second point here is that Fodor clearly believes there are elements to the Surid legend that are not from "...a dark, mythical age..." but, rather, are from "...a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history." In other words, there are elements to the Coptic Sūrīd tradition that are not legendary but history.

If Fodor “clearly believes” this, why doesn’t he say so? He says that an “element” of the legend “takes place” in “a chronologically determined period”: specifically, “the Flood.” He does not say that “the Flood” or any other element is “from” this period: he says that it “takes place” there. Contrary to what you allege, at no point does Fodor assert the historicity of the Sūrīd legend.

Here's what Fodor says:

"The prophecy uses the general topoi of the Hermetic Asclepius but in the Sūrīd legend, since they are closely associated with a definite king and definite events, they gain a more concrete meaning. The Christian influence transferred the emphasis to the Biblical Flood; the Flood of the Sūrīd legend, however, takes place not in a dark, mythical age, but in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history. . . ."

Clearly Fodor here is differentiating between two different Flood traditions. The Flood of the Sūrīd legend which he clearly states as taking place ". . .in a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history. . . " as opposed to the Biblical Flood story which he infers takes place "...in a dark, mythical age...". That's my reading of this passage.

Fodor further states:

“Manetho names the second ruler of the IVth Dynasty Σοūφις [Sufis], and he is in fact Kheops . . . the name Σοūφις could easily have been misread by the translator or copyist as Σοūριδ, thus furnishing the base for the Arabic form Sūrīd.”

Here Fodor is identifying Sūrīd as possibly Suphis/Kheops and, in so doing, he is placing the Sūrīd legend within "...a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history..." How could it be otherwise?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Here Fodor is identifying Sūrīd as possibly Suphis/Kheops and, in so doing, he is placing the Sūrīd legend within "...a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history..." How could it be otherwise?

Sūrīd legend, Scott. Fodor is not saying that it really happened.

He is at most saying that a φ could have been misread as a ρ, and a ς as a δ. This is of course entirely speculative: we have no evidence of a copyist making these mistakes at any determinate time or place.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Here Fodor is identifying Sūrīd as possibly Suphis/Kheops and, in so doing, he is placing the Sūrīd legend within "...a chronologically determined period of Egyptian national history..." How could it be otherwise?

Sūrīd legend, Scott. Fodor is not saying that it really happened.

Who knew?

Fact of the matter is, though, that the study of geomythology (founded by American geologist, Dorothy Vitaliano), is one of the newest (relatively) fields of inquiry that is now emerging into full-blown mainstream scientific study. Geomythology essentially studies ancient myths and legends with a view to interpreting material therein that is often couched in deeply symbolic and often highly embroidered language into natural events of a geological, astronomical and even palaeontological nature that occurred in great antiquity. In the words of Vitaliano, ". . . [geomythology] helps convert mythology back into history."

Geologists have started to realize that there's actually information in some of humanity's oldest traditions and stories and that while it's of a different type of information than we tend to gravitate towards in contemporary science, it is still information”.

Despite the growth of geomythology, it is still seen as “flaky” by some academics. “Probably an element of stodginess on the part of scientists and historians still figures!” says Mayor. “But geomythological stories are expressed in poetic metaphors and mythic or supernatural imagery, and descriptions of catastrophic events and natural phenomena can be garbled over millennia, and because of this scientists and historians tend to miss the kernels of truth and rational concepts embedded in their narratives.”

Nunn puts this argument more strongly. “I'm a conventionally trained geologist and I can tell you that a lot of other conventionally trained geoscientists really don't like this kind of thing. There's a lot who are curious about it, but by and large, it's something that is considered so radical that people really don't want to consider it.
In the end, geomythology challenges our way of thinking about our past, and our future. “Geomythology challenges the belief that all myths and legends are only fictions and fantasy,” says Mayor. “Geomyths are treasuries of information and details for the physical sciences that would otherwise be missed.” - from here.

It is my opinion that within our ancient legends there is likely a kernel of truth. You are, of course, at liberty to take a different view.

SC