It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Ancient Aliens Debunked?

page: 52
132
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by TheLegend

Harte: "I don't see how it's related, forgive my small attention span."
Legend: "Well, the east/west parallel that crosses the most landmass and the north/south meridian that crosses the most land intersect in two places on the earth, one is the Great Pyramid."

Only on a flat map. And not even on a flat map, if you want to be factual about it.

Harte: "How is that possible to know when the Earth is a sphere?"
Legend: "Harte, you silly boy... www.e-education.psu.edu..."
Harte: "Man, you are blowing my MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIND!"
Legend: "Calm down, you'll be ok, It's called spherical geometry. With it we can then get a 2D image of a 3D sphere (in this situation, Earth): mirror-us-ga1.gallery.hd.org... You see, there's multiple forms of geometry, not just 1 as you said."

As I said, I teach geometry. Your assumption that I know of "only one" stems from the shallowness of your perception.

Try your little "center of mass" (a fallacious statement in itself) exercise on a globe.

Harte: "Holy...in all my years of faking being a geometry teacher, I never thunk it possible. I'm sorry for implying Youtube was a bad thing btw. I now realize it's just a medium of public information."
Legend: "Haha, that's ok, we all have our setbacks. *Looks at the camera* and you kids out there just remember, eat your fruits and stay in school! us.123rf.com..."

Youtube is (mostly) a bad thing because people like you believe everything you see on it.

Note: This story is based on actual events (kinda). Names (AND FACTS) may have been changed in order to protect the identity of those involved (but not really). This story contains very graphic content (but not really). Viewer discretion is advised (if you're a toddler).
edit on 1-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

There. I fixed that for you.

Harte
edit on 3/2/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by MasonicFantom

Originally posted by Harte
And you are developing a "renown" for ignoring certain facts that negate your claim of a Vyse forgery. To wit - nobody (at that time) knew the version of Khufu's name that Vyse found in the G.P. Ignore this, and sure, you can slander Vyse. But it is factual, so, sorry, but you are simply incorrect here.

The Westcar Papyrus discovered in 1823 contained Khufu's cartouche in Hieratic, 14 years before Vyse's "discovery" (1837).

The discovery date is correct. However, no Egyptologist saw it until about two tears after Vyse's discovery.

When Vyse made the discovery, it was thought that hieratic developed at least a century (or more) after Khufu.

Originally posted by MasonicFantom

If you mean Sitchen, then I see where you're getting your erroneous ideas.

You missed the point which is you're subscribing to Sitchin equivalents (aka egyptologists).

There's absolutely no evidence the ancient Egyptians built the GP. There's no physical evidence, written records of the GP constructing process, or even logical reason why they would invest decades of blood, sweat, tears, life, and an unimaginable amount of resources into constructing something in a desert which ultimately served no purpose--Khufu's tomb is not inside, there are no hieroglyphs, no treasures, and not even an entrance into it.

There is an entrance to it, there are hieroglyphs in it, and a great many royal tombs have been found around Egypt with no treasure inside.

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
There's even impossible parts, like supposedly ferrying 70+ ton stones across the Nile (proven literally impossible to do using barges) and highly illogical parts, like 3.5 ft tall "passageways" (I'm sure the average Egyptian was not that short).

Please show your evidence that 70 tons cannot be carried on a barge.

Please provide evidence of any "passageway" in the GP that is only 3.5 feet tall.

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
A bronze age people undertaking such a pointless (and sophisticated) feat is simply absurd.

What is absurd is an argument from incredulity. Your personal inability to believe that a culture could accomplish the relatively easy task of floating some large stones on a barge has no effect on the reality of the situation.

The fact that you didn't even know that there is actually a real entrance to the Great Pyramid illustrates that you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Harte

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 01:11 PM
This terribly misinformed individual has an excuse for everything, I bet there's a handbook for generating excuses (probably written by an Egyptologist).

There's hypocrisy in stating anyone is using an argument of incredulity when you yourself assert such a position (to make it worse, you also use false/unverified premises to make conclusions) and there's hypocrisy in accusing anyone of "arguing from a position of ignorance" when you are blatantly doing so. www.gizapyramid.com...
The height of both the ascending and descending passageways are only 1.2 meters. I'm sure you're a smart guy (being a "teacher" and all) and can calculate that into feet.
It's common knowledge that the passageways are only 3.5-4 feet tall. You're also misinformed if you think any tomb was discovered. Last I checked, a "tomb" is a repository for deceased remains...and no such physical remains were found in the GP. Last I also checked, there is no proof of a NATURAL entrance, there's only one that was created by removing stones/excavating and another made using explosives. These are not official entrances. That is like taking a mountain, drilling a hole into it, then saying it's a natural entrance that has always been there. You clearly don't know anything about the physical Pyramids themselves (which I actually been to). @the barge, it has never been shown how they could get 80+ ton stones across the Nile. No experiment has successfully replicated this using Egyptian technology. The only fact know is that an Egyptian barge could not sustain such weight.
##SNIPPED##

edit on 2-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by TheLegend
This terribly misinformed individual has an excuse for everything, I bet there's a handbook for generating excuses (probably written by an Egyptologist).

There's hypocrisy in stating anyone is using an argument of incredulity when you yourself assert such a position (to make it worse, you also use false/unverified premises to make conclusions) and there's hypocrisy in accusing anyone of "arguing from a position of ignorance" when you are blatantly doing so. www.gizapyramid.com...

Please provide a quote of my incredulity.

You know, such as:

There's even impossible parts, like supposedly ferrying 70+ ton stones across the Nile

or:

A bronze age people undertaking such a pointless (and sophisticated) feat is simply absurd.

Regarding the arguments from ignorance you constantly make, please provide a quote from me stating anything at all that you can provide any evidence at all against.

Such as:

Last I also checked, there is no proof of a NATURAL entrance, there's only one that was created by removing stones/excavating and another made using explosives.

First return out of 1,040,00 at google:

After the Great Pyramid was initially sealed, it's original entrance was hidden and faced with smooth limestone. Because this blended in so well with the surrounding casing, the opening was invisible. Around 820 AD, Abdullah Al Mamun mobilized men to bore a tunnel into the pyramid to search for chambers and treasure. Due to the difficulty of the task of breaking up the hard rock, fires were built to heat the rock and then cold vinegar was poured over the heated rock. Battering rams were used to pound away the weakened rock and clear a tunnel. Eventually, a passageway was found which descended into the lowest chamber of the pyramid. Following this passageway back upward, the original entrance was finally located.

"Last you checked?

Have you ever actually checked?

Checking with David H. Childress doesn't count.

The height of both the ascending and descending passageways are only 1.2 meters. I'm sure you're a smart guy (being a "teacher" and all) and can calculate that into feet.
It's common knowledge that the passageways are only 3.5-4 feet tall. You're also misinformed if you think any tomb was discovered. Last I checked, a "tomb" is a repository for deceased remains...and no such physical remains were found in the GP. Last I also checked, there is no proof of a NATURAL entrance, there's only one that was created by removing stones/excavating and another made using explosives. These are not official entrances. That is like taking a mountain, drilling a hole into it, then saying it's a natural entrance that has always been there. You clearly don't know anything about the physical Pyramids themselves (which I actually been to).

This pic shows Adam Rutherford examining masonry in the upper part of the Descending Passage:

Dude's a midget, eh?

@the barge, it has never been shown how they could get 80+ ton stones across the Nile. No experiment has successfully replicated this using Egyptian technology. The only fact know is that an Egyptian barge could not sustain such weight.

Regarding the barges:

There are chronicles on papyrus [2], where ships are listed, which transported sandstone blocks from the quarries of Gebel Silsila to the Ramesseum. Calculations [1] show, that five to seven stone blocks (of 1 to 5 tons) resulting in a total of 15 to 20 tons were loaded on each ship and that daily about 64 stone blocks arrived from the quarries. When Franz Löhner calculates that 69 stones arrived daily in Giza by ship from the quarries in Tura this is actually very realistic.

Read the entire page to see how they could have increased capacity to 90 tons.

BTW, there is another theory concerning how these granite beams were loaded and off loaded. You wouldn't believe it so why should I tell you?

In your 3,000+ posts, try and find an example where you concede to being wrong. Otherwise it seems pretty clear you engage discussions with the preconceived notion you're correct.

You at least have shown a glimmer of perception here.

You see, unlike you, if I don't know something, I don't post concerning that subject.

Harte

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:58 PM
@your incredulity, there's no solid physical evidence the Egyptians built the Great Pyramids, yet you dismiss the AAH due to that same lack of evidence. There ya go.
@your ignorance, pick out any post of yours. However, I'm going to point out your ignorance in this post here too, so stay tuned.

@barges, you link a site of someone with no background (Franz Loehner) where the only information on him is found from HIS own site (and he apparently wrote a single, unsuccessful book). But the fun doesn't stop there. His barge theory derives from an amateur German AUTHOR (G. Goyon) who made NO attempt to prove his own theory and gives 0 scientific reference to how an "Egyptian barge could carry 40 tons" (because the only person who makes that claim IS him and with no experimentation done to prove that premise). You, yet again, are the equivalent of those who reference Sitchin or unknown people who grab "facts" from the air in attempt to find "evidence" to support your preconceived notions.

Here's another example of your inability to admit when you're wrong (+ you proved yourself wrong but don't even realize it, I'll point it out in #3 below): The passageway is only 3.5-4 feet tall. So, what do you do to prove it otherwise? You search for a single photo to show it's not, however:
#1) The site I referenced is an official site for the Great Pyramid (even according to your beloved Egyptologists).... www.gizapyramid.com...
#2) 3.bp.blogspot.com...
#3) The single pict you scrambled for was taken at the "upper part of the descending passageway" where they excavated/removed stones in order to create the "entrance" to the Pyramid (which you just quoted them doing above!).
www.gizapyramid.com... You're so focused on not being proven wrong that you're not even paying attention to the things you're stringing together anymore.

You see, unlike you, if I don't know something, I don't post concerning that subject.

So you think you're correct on 3000+ posts? There's some deep-rooted psychological issues there.
With just this post of mine (or any post I made in response to you) I have proven you wrong or that you make use of the same arguments from ignorance which you accuse others of on this site. It's too bad you lack common sense and insight, otherwise I'd might have a sense of satisfaction from highlighting your error.
edit on 2-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:05 PM

Don't go away folks! Round 6 coming up and what a wonderful encounter. Best contest on these boards for yonks between two very informative posters with neither contender giving an inch. I'd say the Harte v Legend battle is even on points with neither delivering a knock-out blow. More to come.
Seriously, this is very entertaining as well as informative debate. Please do not stop!

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by TheLegend
@your incredulity, there's no solid physical evidence the Egyptians built the Great Pyramids, yet you dismiss the AAH due to that same lack of evidence. There ya go.

Your claim of "no evidence" here is imaginary.

You have to first make the completely unfounded claim that Vyse "forged" all the glyphs he found, that he somehow knew the name "Khufu" before the name was ever discovered, that he stupidly wrote the glyphs in a script that the entire Egyptological world considered to be centuries out of date, and that the two seperate radiocarbon dating investigations on the mortar from over a hundred spots in the GP was somehow completely incorrect in every measurement.

What I've not mentioned in this thread previously is the fact that the glyphs can be seen continuing deep into spaces betwen the stones. This fact was attested to by none other than Graham Hancock so you can' blame that on some amorphous "Archaeological Conspiracy." Anyone with an operational cortex can see that your claim that "there's no physical Evidence" is a figment of your own personal warped worldview.

Originally posted by TheLegend
@your ignorance, pick out any post of yours. However, I'm going to point out your ignorance in this post here too, so stay tuned.

@barges, you link a site of someone with no background (Franz Loehner) where the only information on him is found from HIS own site (and he apparently wrote a single, unsuccessful book). But the fun doesn't stop there. His barge theory derives from an amateur German AUTHOR (G. Goyon) who made NO attempt to prove his own theory and gives 0 scientific reference to how an "Egyptian barge could carry 40 tons" (because the only person who makes that claim IS him and with no experimentation done to prove that premise). You, yet again, are the equivalent of those who reference Sitchin or unknown people who grab "facts" from the air in attempt to find "evidence" to support your preconceived notions.

Perhaps the casual reader will note, then, that you made the claim that no Egyptian barge had the necessary capacity, yet declined to reference your claim in any way whatsoever.

My link was simply to show you that it is certainly possible, when you had claimed it was "impossible."

Originally posted by TheLegend
Here's another example of your inability to admit when you're wrong (+ you proved yourself wrong but don't even realize it, I'll point it out in #3 below): The passageway is only 3.5-4 feet tall. So, what do you do to prove it otherwise? You search for a single photo to show it's not, however:
#1) The site I referenced is an official site for the Great Pyramid (even according to your beloved Egyptologists).... www.gizapyramid.com...
#2) 3.bp.blogspot.com...
#3) The single pict you scrambled for was taken at the "upper part of the descending passageway" where they excavated/removed stones in order to create the "entrance" to the Pyramid (which you just quoted them doing above!).
www.gizapyramid.com... You're so focused on not being proven wrong that you're not even paying attention to the things you're stringing together anymore.

The pic I linked showed a grown man standing upright inside the descending passage. While the passage is only about a meter and a half in height, it is at an angle that allows any normal-sized person to walk upright, or slightly stooped, while descending or ascending.

Your measurment is perpendicular to the floor. You cannot walk in the passage while perpendicular to the floor. You would fall down. The floor (ceiling) is at an angle.

Of course, that is a fact you have to ignore if you want to preend that the passageways aren't passageways.

More later.

Harte

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:07 PM
I'll pretend to be a lawyer, let's see how well your "evidence" holds up in a court of law:

@Vyse, your claim "he knew Khufu's name before it was discovered" is factually incorrect. Khufu's name was witnessed 14 years prior to Vyse's discovery (Westcar Papyrus). So, is it possible Vyse, or someone he knew, looked it over? Yes.
@The form of script used, 1) See the point above 2) You're making an unverifiable premise that Vyse "knew" something. That is called "heresay" 3) Given the HIGHLY exploratory nature of Egyptology, whatever Vyse "discovered" within the Great Pyramid would then become the new standard anyway. What this means is that regardless if he forged it or not, if the writing is believed to be true, then it would become "official" that such script existed during Khufu's reign.
@Radiocarbon dating mortar, it's considered "uncertain" by multiple research institutes after 50 years of testing: pubs.acs.org... Do you rely on..."uncertain" results, Mr. Harte?
@Barges, referencing an unprofessional person's site, who didn't even test his radical theory derived from a random author, does not constitute evidence. So far, no experiment has successfully shown it is possible, therefore it's not incorrect to say it's impossible until proven otherwise (especially in a physical scenario containing a set # of variables which can't be exceeded, e.g. no metals harder than cooper may be used, etc.). I suggest you review your own signature for additional details.

-----------------------------
Seems I have to cover the Descending Passageway once more.
You use that photograph for your argument, but here's what the caption says:

"(4) Ada Rutherford examining masonry in the upper part of the Descending Passage"

In case you're unaware, the Descending Passageway leads to the exit. The "upper part" is where this exit was forcefully created and it's larger than the natural passageway. So, sorry (but your clever nonsense to cover up your error was quite creative). The bottom section of the passageway (an untouched part) contains no slant: www.scottcreighton.co.uk...
And the entire midsection (the part officially measured for the overall height) is not suitable for a man "standing upright": 3.bp.blogspot.com...
The "Passageway" was clearly not built for a human to use in any practical manner.

"Queen's Chamber" guardians.net...
Mmm, she sure was spoiled, just look at that extravagant room! Too bad her body wasn't found.
"King's Chamber" www.delange.org...
Wow, that sure looks like a "tomb" fit for a great Egyptian King (who apparently had no body to be found either)!
"Grand Gallery" emhotep.net...
Wow, check out all the amazing artwork and relics in this "gallery"!
"Descending Passageway" www.scottcreighton.co.uk...
Man...I bet I could just run through this amazing, giant "passageway".

/sarcasm.
Point is, Egyptologists are deceptive (even in naming the parts of the Great Pyramid). You imply how "person X is a charlatan" but don't see that the best charlatans are the ones protected and hidden by the mainstream. Exhibit A: Al Gore.
edit on 3-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:50 AM
The video below is for all the people claiming that the History Channel is promoting this ancient astronaut crap simply because its profitable, or so the proponents of the theory can make money. It is in fact a heavily censored show, pushing a very specific point of view for a specific agenda.

History Channel Censors Christian UFOlogists:

The History Channel seems to have an agenda. This shouldn't be all that shocking to most people interested in UFOlogy, as there usually is a peripheral knowledge of conspiracies intertwined within this field of research, yet the jagaloonery persists.

entire interview with L.A. Marzulli... vftb.net...

edit on 4-3-2012 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:39 AM
Everything on TV is in order to make a profit. You can't use that as an argument for infallibility unless you apply it to everything, including mainstream hypotheses and TV shows (along with textbook writers who are equivalent to AAH proponents who also write books). As far as editing goes, the news, documentaries and even scientific reports that go on TV are more often than not edited to support a specific agenda. I just watched 8 hours of "WWII in color" and guarantee they edited out things and took material out of context to spin everything favorably for what the Allies did (even the fvcking Soviets who killed millions of their own people). The other day I saw an ATS thread pointing out how even a News network edited in a fake applause at the end of an interview www.youtube.com...

Door swings both ways. Unfortunately everything is about \$\$ in the end.

Cheers,
Fantom
edit on 4-3-2012 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:20 AM
The only thing is how do you debunk a hypothesis.....that is all it is...it does not require debunking....you need not debunked that which has not even been proved....It i a guess as to what may have been....now when archeologists and historians present how the past was....It again is a hypothesis.....a best guess.....this or that my have or may not have happened......

as it stands there is no proof either way as to what has happened in our past....say 6000 years ago....and if we go back to the times when it is suspected the pyramids were built....Remembering it keeps changing by the very historians who say this is how it is.

I remember there was a time when the world was flat.......also remeber we used to be the center of the universe even though the ancients seemed to have know we were not....So who knew more or less than we do now...

Does the ancient astronaut theory bother some people so much that it needs disproving.....now we have been directed to places where people...look here this paper PROVES that was not the way it was...it was how this individual says it was....but then you read their findings....and yet again....another hypothesis of how it was.....No definites....this Debunked word is misused.

yes we know humans are capable of great things....just look how far we have come in a short time....and it is increasing exponentially.....but there is one thing we can still only speculate on.....that is our PAST.....It is all speculation.....when someone says...."i know how the pyramids were built" .....you know it is their best guess senario.....it was tens and thousands of slaves.....

It is a nice bunch of gathered THEORORETICAL work involved here at it's best.....jsut because it might go against what other theroretical work that was put forward it is no more legitimate than another until there is some way of providing definitive proof.....

but those light looking thingy ma gingies looks like eggplants.....lol.

but when i was in the valley of the kings.....what i did find interesting....was the lack of soot.....I know that others have said certain things....but i know myself how soot gets all over every thing...and if your doing artwork in these caves,passages and confined spaces....one would be producing a lot of soot.....heck just go down some of the welsh mines....where a man had to pay for the very candle they needed to work with.....guess what....you can still see where the soot from the candles got onto the cavern walls....

are all the ancient astronauts theries to be believed...HECK NO....but are there possibilities that some of them could be factual....There is just as much supporting it as there is supporting other experts....(trained to think a certain way) have in being considered in the right direction.....just because something does not seem logical does not make it untrue....does it seem logical that all the atoms holding and biding our molecules in place is actually full of vast amounts of empty space......seems to be fantasy to me.....but becuase i have seen experiments...and read lots on physics and looked into the world that is microscopic and invisible to us....it seems to fit.

Now if anyone says they want proof that the slaves built the pyramids aor they want proof that aliens did...or more intellectual humans did it.....THERE really isn't any is there.....It is as hypothetical as saying it was a race of insects that did......I have proof....you see anthills...therefore if ants can build those then there is no reason there was not a race of ants that built the pyramids.

Sorry folks....no debunking was done here....move along.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
Door swings both ways. Unfortunately everything is about \$\$ in the end.
Fantom
edit on 4-3-2012 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)

Yup. And for television, that means ratings. So, if people are going to get upset over this show I hope it's because sensationalism trumps fact, and not because it conflicts with their belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible being who created the whole universe, and who lives in another dimension called heaven.

When in fact, we all know the mysteries of the ancient past were created by our future time travelers.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:24 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
Everything on TV is in order to make a profit. You can't use that as an argument for infallibility unless you apply it to everything, including mainstream hypotheses and TV shows (along with textbook writers who are equivalent to AAH proponents who also write books).

You then go on to say that:

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
As far as editing goes, the news, documentaries and even scientific reports that go on TV are more often than not edited to support a specific agenda.

Well, thanks for proving the point that I've been making all along for me. The History Channel isn't out to sell you a product, it is supposed to be a Channel about history, whatever that may be. It, like any news outlet, is a means of getting info, how that info is disseminated determines its intent. Contemplating that the History Channel , like all the rest of the media sources be they called 'mainstream' or 'alternative', is yet another major arm of government disinformation, then profit is only the means to pushing what you called yourself a "specific agenda". The door just swung back in favor of my argument, yet again.

edit on 4-3-2012 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2012 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:55 PM
Ratings produce profit. So the argument he made still remains. History channel's #1 goal, before telling history, is to get ratings (which you can say is a "product") which means they will push a specific agenda to GET those ratings (product) as YOU already revealed in the video you posted. This applies to any TV series or network you want to find. Fox news for example is the #1 Cable News network...and (not coincidentally) they also do the most editing on their material to get desired feelings/thoughts from viewers. I lol@ how many times they take Obama's words 99% out of context.
edit on 4-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:59 PM
52 pages! About History Channel content! Geezus!

"History" Channel is a misnomer to attract attention. In another universe we discussed the "History" Channel as providing content which one has to take with a grain of salt. It's not really history all the time. There is more speculation than history. Any documentary that uses the birth of christ as reference is full of it. Any documentary that uses dramatizations is full of it.

By now you get it; ergo, the "History" channel is full of it and it ain't history!

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:39 PM

please show your evidence that 70 tons of rock cannot be carried on a barge

70 tons of rock can easily be carried on a barge and the barge could be made of cement. A cement swimming pool, if left empty with ground water underneath it can float right out of the ground, even if it has water in the pool it still could as long as the ground water underneath was higher than the depth of water in that pool. So as long as the Nile was deep enough, floating 70 ton rocks down the river would have been easy

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:44 AM
The following, using two boats with a raft across, shows that it could (and was) done:

www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:11 AM

Originally posted by TheLegend
I'll pretend to be a lawyer, let's see how well your "evidence" holds up in a court of law:

@Vyse, your claim "he knew Khufu's name before it was discovered" is factually incorrect. Khufu's name was witnessed 14 years prior to Vyse's discovery (Westcar Papyrus). So, is it possible Vyse, or someone he knew, looked it over? Yes.

From the Westcar Papyrus:

From The Great Pyramid:

Not the same name.

Five minutes of checking would have indicated this to you.
Do you always shoot your mouth off without first considering the facts?

More later

Harte

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by OzTiger
The following, using two boats with a raft across, shows that it could (and was) done:

www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

1) That's never been tested 2) That pict shows a German author's theory (G. Goyon) who has no scientific or engineering credentials. Here's the full site www.cheops-pyramide.ch... which is also done by a man (Franz Loehner) who just wrote 1 book and has 0 background on the whole web except what's found on the site he owns above.
I can reference countless sites of equivalent sources to strengthen my argument, but such things are not substantial to find the truth (imo). I would really like to see an official experiment undertaken someday, maybe finance one myself.

Originally posted by Harte
Five minutes of checking would have indicated this to you.
Do you always shoot your mouth off without first considering the facts?

My mouth? I don't talk while I type. Plz refer to "@" point #2 on the post above, it's hard to grasp tho for those that believe everything they read from charlatans.

From Vyse's journal, which he meticulously drew Khufu's cartouche in: www.rickrichards.com...
A photograph taken LATER of the same symbol:
www.rickrichards.com...
They're not identical and don't have the same meaning. Why/how could he incorrectly draw a VERY simple depiction that would make him the most famous man of the time?
The discrepancy is easily explainable. Just before Vyse's "discovery" an academic book was published, "Materia Hieroglphyica" in which the name of Khufu was written incorrectly in the exact same way Vyse drew the symbol above. It's a known fact Vyse had this book with him. It was later known it was incorrect and that's when the photograph of Khufu's name was confidently taken (the red ochre paint was also still in use in 1837).

Nathaniel Davison discovered the first relieving chamber in 1765 (72 years before Vyse). No hieroglyphic or Hieratic inscriptions were discovered in this chamber. On the other hand, Vyse discovered all the chambers above Davison's, and oddly enough, they are the ONLY chambers with the ONLY inscriptions that have EVER been found inside the GP. There has never been any scientific dating of the paint in question either, which they should have no problem allowing...unless the results would say "it's approximately...200 years old".

Yes, I see you rely on strong "facts" here. Let's go skipping.
edit on 5-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

top topics

132