Forbidden Egyptology

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Giza Tunnels

I would like to submit you further details concerning Giza Tunnels.

As known by anyone visited Egypt, it is possible sometimes to visit forbidden areas when you give some dollars to guides. Those guys are ready to supply you any kind of information (even Zahi Havass' private life) and to bring you anywhere you want. (pay attention when you are alone!)

During one of my visits to Egypt (in 1996 I think) I was guided by a local guide (although I hate to be disturbed by the guides around) and he said he would show something special if I gave him $20. We went to a special area near to the Pyramids but at the bottom of the plateau where the Pyramids are situated.

We entered through a hole by paying $5 to the guard there (you may see the pic in www.hermetics.org) and I was extremely surprised to see a lot of
gates openening to endless tunnels. I saw also many statues as you may see on the pictures. (It is strictly forbidden to take pictures but you may take some if you pay to the guard, as I did)

It seems to me that thse tunnels are very old but also used in later times as I saw some sacrophages which seem to be from very late periods.

I've been in Egypt several times but this was the first and the last time I saw those tunnels, as it was forbidden to go there.

I do not know if we are talking of the same tunnel system or not but I'm sure that those tunnels must have some explanation. But as you know , it is impossible to understand what's going on in Mr. Zawi Hawass mind. (If you remember his extraordinary discovery in March 2000, the Osiris's tomb. In fact it was a part of the initiation hall. But he only discovered (!) one
part.)

I'm ready to supply you further information , if you want

Anybody know why the pictures dissappeared and where I might find them?

These tunnels have been explored and are in no way being kept secret.

The locals used to swim in them when they were children, but since then the water level has gone down so that they are no longer filled with water.

They lead to the Oseirion Hawass found under the Causeway.

More needs to be done in them, but for all I know, it already is being done.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

These tunnels have been explored and are in no way being kept secret.

I cant seem to find images of them, nor much information.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hi Skyfloating,

This may be what you are looking for.

The Osiris Shaft

Enjoy.

cormac

On one of my trips I got into part of that system, don't think I got to any important part. It was summer and it was cool is my main recollection. It was the same day I got to ramble and climb over Menkaure's pyramid - and that is what sticks in my mind.

reply to post by Hanslune

Hanslune,

I will try to address each and every point/question you have presented.

Hanslune: There is a great deal of "solid" in the data but you don't want to accept it.

PE: A great deal of "solid" evidence huh? I disagree. And yah I fully accept the dates, ALL of them (or at least the ones that I've been able to find; from my understanding not all of the results have been released).

What I don't accept is the manner in which this data has (hasn't) been divulged with almost NO mention at all of the out of range dates. What I don't accept is the usage of this data (particularly for the Great Pyramid et al of Giza) as so called "solid accurate evidence" to prove that those structures were built when mainstream had initially speculated. And I think you know that radiocarbon dating is not an accurate tool and can be quite wrong sometimes (as in this case), but you won't admit it.

Hanslune: What does it show, that most of the dates from the data are within the expected time frames while a minority are not.

PE: Then I guess you've seen ALL of the results from both tests? Care to point us in the direction of where we can find this info? As a side note here, Google Scholar is not a great tool as I have never been able to find free information there.

And are we to just ignore the results which fall outside of your expected range? Do you just throw those out or consider those "bad" because they don't fit within your chronology? Why won't these be addressed?

Hanslune: So do we throw out the entire chronology or take the average?

PE: No we shouldn't throw them out. And we shouldn't just settle with an average (what kind?) either, as this is very misleading to what was actually found. Each result should be examined individually, recognized within the whole and plotted as such. The anomalous dates should be considered just as important as the rest and not cherry picked out. To ignore these few results should negate the entire sample.

Hanslune: It is only one point of data for the current chronology.

PE: Yes it is, and a very important one at that, as it throws a wrench into your whole chronology.

==>

Hanslune: How many samples were taken?

PE: This is a very general question and can't be answered entirely being that not all of the results, as I understand it, have been released.

Hanslune: How many of these samples tested outside the expected range?

PE: Again I can't provide a complete answer, but here's what I've found:

From G1-> 15 samples; range of dates-> 2853 bc-3809 bc
From G2-> 7 samples; range of dates-> 2723 bc-3196 bc
From G3-> 6 samples; range of dates-> 2085 bc- 2746 bc

Hanslune: What is the percentage of samples outside of the range?

PE: Can't be determined, unless you can provide all of the information.

Hanslune: Do you understand that the dating dates the wood and not the pyramids?

PE: Absolutely. When did I ever come across that I didn't?

Hanslune: Do you understand that some older wood may have been used in making the pyramids and other structures (Scott covered this too) so at worse case the pyramid maybe four hundred years older than determined by other methods, which I believe is an error of less than 9%

PE: Absolutely Hanslune. Have you read any of my posts in this thread or in Scott's thread regarding this particular subject??

Hanslune: Please explain the effect on Egyptology if one pyramid is 400 years older than expected?

PE: Won't a pyramid that's older than the reign of it's supposed builder by some 400 years (at least) have an effect on Egyptology in some way? Wouldn't this automatically prove the mainstream's chronology of the Pharaohs to be incorrect? Doesn't a Great Pyramid date of 3000 bc place it way out of range for Khufu?! I must be the only one who sees it this way...

Hanslune: My own solution - that an existing temple/structure at the site was torn down and the wood reused in the replacement structure ( the pyramid). The Egyptian have had a history of reusing materials. Even better to make tomb out of scarced materials from an earlier religious structure.

PE: Well yes it's a possible explanation (not necessarily a solution) as to why little charcoal bits found in the mortar dated so old. Interesting though, how they would've used "sacred" material as wood to burn in fires to make mortar. And isn't it generally accepted that Khufu didn't respect the sacred temples of his time?

Hanslune: Er how many times have you had this same discussion?

PE: A few times here on ATS if you must know.

reply to post by Hanslune


One other thing that I meant add to my last post in response to this:

Hanslune: Do you understand that the dating dates the wood and not the pyramids?

It's sort of an ironic question in my mind because you guys use it to date the pyramids.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Part of an old scroll, Greek play from 1500BC, depicting a great Egyptian King wiping out the previous ruins and making it look like it was his doing.

They were making plays, for entertainment, about that back then.

I used it in another thread a year ago, I did have the reference some where.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by win 52]

reply to post by win 52


Hi win 52,

Hard to believe the Greeks had a play from 1500 BC as there is no evidence of Greek plays/tragedies until around 1000 years later. Would be interested in your source/reference on this.

The Mycenaeans did have myths from around 1500 BC that the later Greeks used in many of their later plays/tragedies.

cormac

[

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Hanslune

 

It's sort of an ironic question in my mind because you guys use it to date the pyramids.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by PhotonEffect]

I'm not an Egyptologist PE. No one dates the pyramids. The acceptance is based on consensus.

The studies were paid for and done to prove that the pyramids were dated around 10,000 BC, they weren't. The second study was done to show the first study was wrong. It wasn't.

Unlike the American SW where they have used tree rings to recalibrate C14 so it is more accurate.

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Volume 109, number 2, March-April 2004

That is is not possible in Egypt. The dates you are looking at are averages within ranges with error factors ranging from 1-250 years. However if you find the original reports you can personally recalculate all the averages yourself.

Without the moderation from tree ring knowledge the SW dates from C-14 would ALSO BE TO OLD. Hmmmm that sounds important

Lets say it again

Without the moderation from tree ring knowledge the SW dates from C-14 would ALSO BE TO OLD. Don't believe me? Look up a chart in the reference above, page 7 of 33.

Link

from my understanding not all of the results have been released

Hans: Huh? Please explain? I do hope this isn't going to be a short trip to conspiracy land?

What I don't accept is the manner in which this data has (hasn't) been divulged with almost NO mention at all of the out of range dates.

Hans: Then how do you know about it? LOL The data is shown in the chart – remember there are TWO studies, the second study stands on it OWN it doesn’t incorporate the data from the first. I think this is what you are misinterpreting?

PE: Then I guess you've seen ALL of the results from both tests? Care to point us in the direction of where we can find this info?

Hans: You’ll have to go to a college library that has the published records. The 1985 report is not (AFAIK) on line.

And are we to just ignore the results which fall outside of your expected range? Do you just throw those out or consider those "bad" because they don't fit within your chronology? Why won't these be addressed?

Hans: First of all PE don't use phrases like, "which fall outside of your expected..". I was not part of this study. I am simply trying to explain what the data shows. I don't have a chronology, I'm not an Egyptologist. Try not personalizing the discussion of facts. Okay?

They are addressed, they are in the report, they are in the chart. I don’t see your point. Please explain to us what you think the reports should say – instead of what they do say. What to you would be an accurate observation of this data?

PE: No we shouldn't throw them out. And we shouldn't just settle with an average (what kind?) either, as this is very misleading to what was actually found. Each result should be examined individually, recognized within the whole and plotted as such. The anomalous dates should be considered just as important as the rest and not cherry picked out. To ignore these few results should negate the entire sample.

Hans: No it doesn’t – why did they take multiple samples? Answer to get an average. so why not use the average since that was the point?

Hanslune: It is only one point of data for the current chronology. PE: Yes it is, and a very important one at that, as it throws a wrench into your whole chronology.

Hans: Please explain how it does that – let reverse the situation. You have one point of data and you say it’s more important than all the other – so what happens to all the other data? Oh and again it is not my chronology.

Hanslune: How many samples were taken?

PE: This is a very general question and can't be answered entirely being that not all of the results, as I understand it, have been released.

Hans: With your great interest in this why can’t you answer it? Answer you then would realize that your one odd result is in a pretty big pool.

Hanslune: Please explain the effect on Egyptology if one pyramid is 400 years older than expected?

PE: Won't a pyramid that's older than the reign of it's supposed builder by some 400 years (at least) have an effect on Egyptology in some way? Wouldn't this automatically prove the mainstream's chronology of the Pharaohs to be incorrect? Doesn't a Great Pyramid date of 3000 bc place it way out of range for Khufu?! I must be the only one who sees it this way..

Hans: And the affect of that would be? (if one "PE's" the data throws away all data EXCEPT the one old date)

Hanslune: Er how many times have you had this same discussion?

PE: A few times here on ATS if you must know.

Hans: Why do you keep going over and over the same data – I presume you get the same answers back each time? So your point is? You seem obsessed with this and are trying to personalize the discussion. If you want Egyptologists to yell at go over to the Hall of Ma'at - there are Egyptologist there!

Originally posted by Hanslune

Hans: Huh? Please explain? I do hope this isn't going to be a short trip to conspiracy land?

Not everything happens out in the open for all the public to see. Not everything is known.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Hanslune

Hans: Huh? Please explain? I do hope this isn't going to be a short trip to conspiracy land?

Not everything happens out in the open for all the public to see. Not everything is known.

True and everything could be a conspiracy, couldn't it Skyfloating? Yep everything can be faked, hidden and destroyed by the evil dudes.

So basically there is nothing to talk about.....LOL

reply to post by Harte



Harte, you seem like a really smart guy. Why do you buy into these things when there is so much out there to discredit it. I saw your posts on another egypt thread to day and I see you thread all the over at UM. You spend A LOT of time on here.


Im gettting pretty suspicious of you

Well Howdy Midtown

Im gettting pretty suspicious of you

Oh my, well Midtown I'm not all suspicious about you.

Hey Skyfloating

Let me make point here, let me ask you a question - and yes there is a point.

Do you believe the story that your alleged parents told you about the time, place and circumstances of your birth?

How do you know what they told you is true?

Think thru it

[edit on 14/5/08 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hey Skyfloating

Let me make point here, let me ask you a question - and yes there is a point.

Do you believe the story that your alleged parents told you about the time, place and circumstances of your birth?

How do you know what they told you is true?

Think thru it

Yes. The basic factor is trust. A sane mind will trust some things, others not.

I liked your H-avatar better by the way.

So...what are you getting at?

Howdy Skyfloating

Oh the H got taken off by the mean people here. I like my cat.

Ah you got it, trust, you trust your parents not to have told you a story or that the powers that be didn't con your mother or father. If you dug into this trust you'd find at the bottom probably the nugget of "lack of motivation, or no motive".

So considering that and the fact the C-14 dating was commissioned by the Cayce foundation. What motivation would there be to "hide" the date of the pyramids being 400 years older? Oh wait they didn't hide it they published all the data. That showed (gasp) a wide range of dates.

Hmmmmm, why not come out with dates that are dead on?

Motivation- what is it exactly and then where is the organization to coordinate and do this dastardly deed, not once but twice and with different personnel.

At some point the logic should kick in.

Originally posted by midtown5dw
reply to post by Harte

 

Harte, you seem like a really smart guy. Why do you buy into these things when there is so much out there to discredit it. I saw your posts on another egypt thread to day and I see you thread all the over at UM. You spend A LOT of time on here.

Im gettting pretty suspicious of you

Midtown,

We've never spoken (unless you have a different username), so I don't mind going over this again.

I used to believe in a lot of this stuff myself. When I finally tried to look deeply into it, I was really trying to find conclusive evidence that it was true. What I found, after a considerable amount of trouble, is that I'd swallowed a large package of lies, half-truths and mischaracterizations all formulated in such a way as to remove significant portions of hard-earned legal tender from my wallet.

I took that sort of personally.

At any rate - I post what I do on the internet because of the vast amount of work it takes to even find some small amount of information concerning any aspect of the scientific perspective on most of these subjects.

In short, I post what I post for people in the future that are running internet searches trying to get both sides of these stories so that they can make up their own minds.

I didn't start out this way - it was just a hobby once the internet got going that I would look for more info on the claims I'd read about. But places like ATS and Unexplained Mysteries and The Hall of Ma'at kept turning up and several times I'd been able to find links to the info I was looking for at such sites. So, I took the plunge and joined a couple of forums and started posting what I'd learned and links to where I'd learned it.

As I said, it's really so that some poor sucker in the future won't have to wade through ten thousand Google search returns in favor of (for example) flash frozen mammoths (one of my favorite examples of hooey) in order to find the information that shows that the tired old flash frozen mammoth story was basically simply made up almost out of thin air.

BTW, this is also true of an absolutely astounding number of other such claims.

It still pisses me off to think about it!

Anyway, suspect all you want. I'm a high school math teacher, not a Masonic NWO disinfo agent, regardless of what Freight Thompson says!

Harte

My bad, 205 BCE.

None the less, the reference is there, and there is no reason to doubt this is a natural human trait. We still see that trate surface today.

Quite likely the Pyramids date back to previous civilizations, who knows how far back. The opening of the hidden chambers will tell the story.

the reference to the play

Why not say that dating process dated every time people were active in that structure? It is probably more accurate than trying to pin down when they were constructed. I believe the Pyramids were recycled several times, and claimed by new tenants as being their handy work. Thus the mystery.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by win 52]

Ah ha Win, very funny!

Amazingly this may be evidence of time travel by members of Monty Python.

The Palin Papyrus

Recently an interesting fragment of papyrus was discovered in Eleusis near Alexandria. Dubbed the Palin Papyrus, it contains the partial text of a comedic play written during the reign of Ptolemy V (205-180 BCE). The group of actors who apparently staged the play was mentioned on an ostricon found nearby. They went under the curious name of Monti Cobra's Flying Sed Festival. Following is the text of the papyrus:

However I am not (really) amused

reply to post by win 52


Sorry win 52, but I believe you've been duped.

From the author of your links home site under Interesting Diversions, I believe.

The Palin Papyrus, a recently discovered satirical papyrus, is best read on 1 April.

April 1st is April Fool's Day.

The reference, in the alleged papyrus, to "Monti Cobra's Flying Sed Festival" is clearly a sendoff to the British comedy show Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Hanslune, looks like we were thinking along the same lines.

cormac


[edit on 14-5-2008 by cormac mac airt]