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.

 

Forbidden Egyptology

page: 47
108
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Typical obfuscation and confusion from insiders coveing something up. Raise then dash hopes enough times and people lose interest, and a potential proof leak becomes just another forgotten maybe

see this is why I think there is a coverup. How can you be an egyptologist and NOT want to open a hidden door found inside the GP? how can you NOT want to test wood found inside? you can spout all the ridiculous excuses about rules regulations politics etc etc you want, but the fact of the matter is this is obviously a cover up, as far as I'm concerned.




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Hi cormac mac airt, thanks for your opinion.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 


Hi diablomonic,

I'd have to agree with you in so far as Hawass taking his sweet time completing the investigation of the shafts. I also don't see why he would object to testing the wood in the GP. If it turned out to be from the same time period as from other tests done, I doubt the fringe would believe it anyway.

I would have to say that what you seem to be suggestioning sounds alot like Heinrich Schliemann's destruction of the context of much of Troy just to prove himself right.

We deserve answers, we just don't deserve rushed or incorrect ones. Still, I would also like to see these questions answered.

cormac



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


agreed on the rushed thing, but on the other hand leaving it decades (or however long its been) is hardly appropriate either (especially since it gives conspiracy theorists like me ammunition for claims of evidence tampering, something I'd prefer to be without)

as to the troy thing, care to elaborate slightly? perhaps I should just read up on it, maybe point me in the right direction?

cheers



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Hawass has openly refused to date pieces of wood that were discovered in the shafts of the GP. There is wood (pieces of a rod that's become part of the Dixon Relics) that is still lodged there. The small pieces recovered by Dixon went missing in England (go figure) and then were traced to a museum in Aberdeen in 2001, but it hasn't been located yet...(go figure)

On the remaining piece that's still there Hawass had this to say:
Some suggest that carbon dating the wood would allow accurate dating of the Pyramid because wood must have been left in the shaft when the Pyramid was constructed (given that the shaft was sealed) but I contend that this is not absolute. Wood may been placed in the shaft after construction via the shaft’s exit, if one exists.
In his own words.

Why not date it anyway just to be sure? Prove his assumption right why don't he....He relies on the highly anomalous results from the dating of itty bitty pieces of wood/charcoal from the outside of the GP to promote his case, but dating wood found inside a sealed shaft is suddenly not absolute? Bogus.

From another site: Here
He (Gantenbrink) discovered a long wooden rod whose shape and general appearance seemed identical to that of the shorter piece found by the Dixons in 1872 at the bottom of this shaft. The wood could, of course, be carbon-14 dated and provide further insight as to the age of the Great Pyramid. So far the wooden rod has not been retrieved by Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Director-General of the Giza monuments, in spite of the many requests for him to do so.

Why not? What's he waiting for? What's he hiding?

As a side note: I brought this up in one of Scott Creighton's recent threads, and he said he'll look into any possible results from tests conducted on any wood taken from inside the GP. Waiting to hear back. As such I haven't been able to locate any of these results, even on Google Scholar.





I am re-posting this as a quote since the debunkers here have a tendency not to respond to a selected number of posts.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte
See if you can find out before you blame Hawass, that's all I'm saying.


Well Harte, what you saying here is fair enough for me so I try to find out.

And after searching for the “some reason” why Gantenbrink was banned from resuming the exploration and opening the door in the shaft I found this.
The first link doesn’t work in the reply but this one does.
There are very interesting remarks in this article, true or not, I can’t proof it of course.
If this is the way it really happened, I come to the following conclusions.
That it looks that the blame I put on Hawass is wrongful.
But that I was right about the reason of secrecy, in a way “Forbidden Egyptology”, because there was indeed an attempt to a cover-up by others named in the paper in my opinion.
But I hope you and others will read it too and give also an opinion about it.


The only problem I have with that quote is that it comes (apparently) from Graham Hancock - a person I know to be a prevaricator.

Like Cormac, I remember the story of Hawass being fired for a reason someone gave as theft of some statuette.

I also remember the story being refuted, though I don't remember where or by whom.

At any rate, Spacevisitor, you have shown yourself to be a person that is at the very least interested in arriving at the truth, unlike many of the conspiracy theorists and fringe "believers" here.

You should be congratulated for this.

Thanks.


Originally posted by diablomonic
see this is why I think there is a coverup. How can you be an egyptologist and NOT want to open a hidden door found inside the GP? how can you NOT want to test wood found inside? you can spout all the ridiculous excuses about rules regulations politics etc etc you want, but the fact of the matter is this is obviously a cover up, as far as I'm concerned.


I don't see how anyone could jump to the conclusion that this small slab is some kind of working "door."

It's approximately 8 inches by 8 inches, after all. If it is supposed to be a door, I'd sooner believe it is just a representation of a door, and not an actual door. Likely representing a doorway into some portion of the afterlife that the King's soul was to pass through.

Like Cormac, I also think any organic materials found under such circumstances should be subject to some sort of dating process.

Harte



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 


Heinrich Schliemann's methods of excavation were unscientific to say the least. Basically, tear through the site like a bat out of hell and damn the consequences, destroying many layers of history in the process.

cormac



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


ah.
erm no, I would not suggest that. If however professional archeologists are prepared to undertake proper careful excavations/etc, there should be very good reasons for not letting them...(and scratching a small sample of wood off the "pole" for testing could hardly be compared to digging up and destroying a town?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 


Agreed. One question though as relates to excavations.

With all the theories on a given site, how many excavations do you think would be enough? I ask because I firmly believe that there are many conspiracy/fringe theorists who wouldn't stop until they had either proven their theory right or irreparably destroyed the object/area they were excavating.

If you were excavating an area and your theory didn't pan out, would you stop? Just curious.

cormac



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Hey cormac,



If it turned out to be from the same time period as from other tests done, I doubt the fringe would believe it anyway.


Maybe so, but I guess it can be agreed that there's no good reason for not dating this material. It could certainly help his case an maybe even convert some fringe to the dark side (hehe) if the results were inline with what egyptologists have assigned the GP.



We deserve answers, we just don't deserve rushed or incorrect ones. Still, I would also like to see these questions answered.


I agree with all of this. This is why we're here discussing this. It's about time we stop accepting some of the "rushed answers" that have become the basis for some (important) aspects of egyptology.

Cheers



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 





Maybe so, but I guess it can be agreed that there's no good reason for not dating this material. It could certainly help his case an maybe even convert some fringe to the dark side (hehe) if the results were inline with what egyptologists have assigned the GP.


I agree with your first sentence. As to the second, there are some fringe that could never be converted, as they see conspiracies everywhere.

cormac



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Cormac

Is the wood in question the material found in the explored "airshafts" or the water logged stuff from elsewhere?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Wood found in the air shafts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't waterlogged wood throw off a C-14 test?

While I'm not sure it qualifies as a conspiracy, there are a few things I wish Hawass would get on with.

cormac



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
"I'm going from memory here so correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't these the shafts that were opened in modern times? "

Answered my own question: 1610 and 1872, perhaps Hawass considers these to items from modern exploration?

Three artifacts were discovered inside the shafts: a small bronze grapnel hook, a bit of cedar-like wood, and a "grey-granite, or green-stone" ball weighing 8.325 grains thought to be an Egyptian "mina" weight ball.


[edit on 11/4/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Wood found in the air shafts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't waterlogged wood throw off a C-14 test?

While I'm not sure it qualifies as a conspiracy, there are a few things I wish Hawass would get on with.

cormac

Depends on why they are waterlogged.

Rainwater or freshwater by itself won't cause a problem.

It's when calcium carbonate, or other water-soluble carbon-containing compounds are soaked into the wood for a long time that you might get a reading that indicates a much older age than is the case.

Harte



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Thanks Harte, but be aware of my personal take on certain matters, because many are convinced that they are the view of a conspiracy theorist or fringe "believer".
However, my goal is always to try to find the real truth of those matters, but by experience I also know that that isn’t easy at all.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I found this very interesting link on Rudolf Gantenbrinks site.
It contains very good computer drawings of the items below.
Hope it isn’t posted already.

CYBER DRAWINGS
Study the original CAD computer drawings of the UPUAUT PROJECT online
The technology connecting you directly to the UPUAUT database
is brought to you by CADViewer

CHEOPS SHAFTS
This drawing shows all the data gathered during the UPUAUT missions

CAVIGLIA TUNNEL
This 3D drawing gives the shaft data from within the tunnel
that was dug by Captain Caviglia in 1817

CHEOPS NICHES
The niches of the upper north shaft show that they
could not have served to hold a closure stone

BENDS 3D
This is a 3D drawing of the Cheops Pyramid giving additional data
on the bends of the shafts along their
North-South axis

www.cheops.org...



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
"I'm going from memory here so correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't these the shafts that were opened in modern times? "

Answered my own question: 1610 and 1872, perhaps Hawass considers these to items from modern exploration?

Three artifacts were discovered inside the shafts: a small bronze grapnel hook, a bit of cedar-like wood, and a "grey-granite, or green-stone" ball weighing 8.325 grains thought to be an Egyptian "mina" weight ball.


Just to clarify, the shaft being referenced here is the northern shaft of the 'queens chamber' inside the GP. Dixon and Grant discovered some artifacts in this shaft, which was hermetically sealed before they explored it. And yes one of the artifacts found, as you mentioned Hanslune, was a piece of cedar like wood which was part of a larger wooden rod of sorts. There is speculation that this could have been some type of measuring instrument.

The piece that Dixon recovered has gone 'missing' and the rest of this rod still remains inside the shaft. Hawass alleges that this rod is from modern exploration. This is complete and utter bull sh** and he knows it. So in this regard he won't date the wood. And while we're at it, I don't think he's dated any wood that's been found inside the GP. (Or maybe he has, and just hasn't made the results public...)

So here we all are at the mercy of Hawass and what he deems is worth looking into, or more importantly making public that which fits into his paradigm of mainstream egyptology.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Hey, here's some guys (at least 30 of 'em) trying to pull a 25 ton block of stone, hehe...
(I've included brief captions to each picture which are taken from the NOVA site- italicized portion)


Modern-day builders would employ a crane and a flatbed truck to move a heavy stone like this one. But an ancient Egyptian relief painting shows long lines of men pulling a monumental stone across land. The NOVA team, .... , rely heavily on the same energy the pharaoh's engineers employed: the collective power of human muscle.



To reduce drag and ease movement, a team member smears animal fat onto a wooden runner in the track along which workers will pull the 25-ton stone. Ancient Egyptians might have used slick wet clay to accomplish the same thing.

..........
Now here's the fun part...hehe.. there are about 32 (give or take that can be seen in the picture) men pulling those ropes...
..........


At first the ropes stretch, and the stone refuses to move. Then stonemason Roger Hopkins climbs atop the stone and chants "God is great!" in Arabic to coordinate the timing of the pulls and to inspire the men. Exerting a tremendous effort, the men drag the stone a mere 20 feet.

Man that looks tough...So it took shouts of "God is great!" to get the 30 or so men to pull this stone only 20 feet. Of course we all know the Egyptians weren't Muslim back then. So what was their motivational force?

Also there are a couple of details missing which have not been provided by the NOVA team:
-They didn't mention how many men were actually used.
-They don't mention how long it actually took to move that stone.
-Although they mention they barely moved it 20 feet, they don't say if that was the total distance that was attempted...

Now multiply that one stone by a few million. 2, 5, 10, 25, 75 ,100 tons....whatever

www.pbs.org...


[edit on 11-4-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


I'd like to believe I would try my hardest not to destroy ANYTHING important/ irreplaceable at a dig, for any reason... of course I'm human and impatient so, who knows? Lets just say I agree with your sentiment in asking the question, that you shouldn't destroy one layer of history to find another if possible, and that a dig should be undertaken carefully with proper almost excessive documentation of everything found, even if unrelated to initial expectations/target



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join