Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory?

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Hi ATS,

Often it is the smallest of insights that present to us the most profound realisations; small discoveries that can turn an entire paradigm quite literally on its head.

For the best part of 200 years, Egyptology has presented the case that the sliding portcullis slabs within the Ante Chamber of the Great Pyramid were installed to present a final barrier to the King's Chamber. When the king's body was finally laid to rest in the King's Chamber, the portcullis slabs would be lowered, one by one, sealing the burial chamber forevermore. Of course, simple common sense would have told the builders that anyone who could bypass the three massive granite plugs at the bottom of the Ascending Passage would find this final obstacle to the King's Chamber a relatively minor inconvenience.

Various Egyptologists and other theorists have, over the centuries, presented a number of theories to explain the peculiar features of the Ante Chamber in a bid to describe how the sliding portcullis system would have worked in practice after the king's mummified remains had been laid to rest in the King's Chamber. Invariably they describe a system using ropes to suspend the three portcullis slabs. These ropes would be suspended from three wooden beams fixed above each of the three slabs. There is a fourth granite slab, the so-called 'granite-leaf' which also slides in grooves but, unlike the three portcullis slabs, does not slide to the floor, its grooves terminating a few feet from the floor as though serving as some kind of counter-weight. The means by which all of these features would come together to work seems to have perplexed the greatest minds in Egyptology. As Egyptologist, J.P. Lepre wrote:


Yet although the several parts come together rather cohesively, there is a very serious flaw in this hypothesis - a missing piece of the puzzle - which contradicts the supposed validity of the theory. For while the semi-hollows supposed to have received the wooden rollers are indeed present at the top of the west wainscot, they are missing on the east wainscot. The ledge of this east wainscot is entirely flat and therefore could not have received the edges of the rollers said to have spanned the width of the chamber. Not only this, but the west wainscot is nearly 9 inches higher than the ledge of the east wainscot.

These facts seem to negate the only logical theory for the interaction of the various components of this strange little compartment. For how could rollers be used when one side of those rollers would have had no semi-hollows within which to be set and they would furthermore be tilted to such a degree as to make the manipulation of the portcullis slabs a quite impossible task? Why the master architects designed the elements of this chamber in such a contradictory manner presents a unique and puzzling problem for all serious pyramid scholars. - J. P. Lepre, The Egyptian Pyramids, p.88


Now, it seems to me that the reason the Egyptologists have such trouble in explaining the mechanics of the Ante Chamber is simply because they are looking at the problem the wrong way around; they assume the mechanics of the Ante-Chamber were designed to systematically LOWER each of the three granite portcullis slabs thereby sealing the King's Chamber. However, when looking at the problem the other way around, taking the view that the mechanics of the Ante-Chamber was designed to RAISE the portcullis slabs, the convoluted mechanics of this enigmatic chamber suddenly make sense.

See attached Powerpoint presentation: Re-evaluating the Ante-Chamber Portcullis System.

Of course, this raises a very obvious and awkward question for mainstream Egyptology: if the architect went out of his way to include a mechanism within the Ante-Chamber that would allow for the easy raising of the portcullis slabs, what does that say about the protection of the king's remains? In short, putting in place a system that allows for the easy access to the so-called burial chamber places a serious question mark over the theory that the King's Chamber was intended for the mummified remains of the king which, if orthodoxy is to be believed, would require these portcullis slabs to protect the king. This is not achievable with a system that allows their easy removal.

Regards,

Scott Creighton




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Very interesting theory.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but I have a question.

I do not see a way to access the area where the ropes used to raise/lower the slabs are attached and detached. How would they go about accessing this area to change which slab the ropes where attached to?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Very beautiful Power Point presentation. I have no knowledge on Egypt studies at all but, you made it very clear for me.


What if they lifted the doors open to let the "soul" out on a certain day of the year during a ceremony? Didn't they build the pyramids facing directions where the sun traveled down a tunnel on certain days of the years?

Please pardon my lack of understanding on the matter. I think I have found that I now need to go back and read through your threads, as I am becoming fascinated.
edit on 20-6-2012 by Doodle19815 because: oops



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet
Very interesting theory.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but I have a question.

I do not see a way to access the area where the ropes used to raise/lower the slabs are attached and detached. How would they go about accessing this area to change which slab the ropes where attached to?


Hi Mileysubet,

I envisage ropes (probably two for each portcullis slab} to rise up and extend across the three wooden beams and come to rest just in front of the granite leaf counter-weight. This is to say that the two ropes for the slab nearest the KC entrance will rise up and pass over all three wooden beams and come to rest at the granite-leaf counter-weight. The ropes of the second (middle) slab will rise up and pass over two beams and come to rest at the granite-leaf counter-weight. The rope of the third and final slab will simply pass over one wooden beam to reach the counter-weight.

Of course, the point to take from all of this is that there is absolutely no need whatsoever to have the counter-weight, the wooden beams or the ropes if the portcullis is simply to be lowered one time and one time only. The counter-weight, the beams and the ropes strongly suggest that the slabs were to be raised again after having been lowered which raises some serious questions with regards to the tomb theory.

Hope this clarifies this for you.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Scott,
Great PP! How does this theory dovetail with the "powerplant" theory, the idea that the great pyramid was a generator of some sort. In the original "Giza Power Plant" book the author suggests you can even see where it has been repaired with some sort of concrete after an initial blow out. If lowering the stones provided for a sealed chamber capable of withstanding a great force of generated power, or added to the "resonance" and integrity of the chamber, it would make sense that access was maintained for repair crews. I don't know if this theory makes any sense in the greater context of the chamber.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doodle19815
Very beautiful Power Point presentation. I have no knowledge on Egypt studies at all but, you made it very clear for me.


What if they lifted the doors open to let the "soul" out on a certain day of the year during a ceremony? Didn't they build the pyramids facing directions where the sun traveled down a tunnel on certain days of the years?

Please pardon my lack of understanding on the matter. I think I have found that I now need to go back and read through your threads, as I am becoming fascinated.
edit on 20-6-2012 by Doodle19815 because: oops

Hi Doodle,

Thanks for your post. The idea of these portcullis slabs - according to the orthodox tomb theory - is that they presented the final barrier to the King's Chamber where Khufu's mummified remains were supposedly interred. These granite slabs were supposed to be a security measure to prevent access to the tomb NOT to make it easy to gain access to the tomb. This counter-weight mechanism made it precisely that and we thus have to question the orthodox idea of these features - they simply do not make sense in terms of orthodox understanding as they were supposed to remain closed for all eternity. If they were intended to remain closed then why provide a means and mechanism that would allow anyone to easily open them again? The orthodox theory simply does not add up.

EDIT: With regards to the soul of the king - according to Orthodox commentators this would have been able to pass through stone with little problem even although 'soul-shafts' were supposedly provided for the King's Ba to leave and return to the tomb. Closed doors or open doors would have no effect of the king's soul to pass through and you see this in many temples where 'false doors' were provided for the soul to pass through.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton
edit on 20/6/2012 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Scott,

Great Powerpoint of your idea, I get it, but only after looking at the pictures. Star and Flag for you sir. It does not fit into old school thinking and this doc gets you thinking about what really was the need or want of such doors. Really its all speculation since the mechanism in question would not work with the wood only supported on one side, like you pointed out. Then I would also assume the old school thinking would just tweek the theory a little and say that they needed to open up the tomb once the kings were really buried --------- at the Valley of the Kings and once the next king died the same process repeats. If only Zahi was around to put a sign at the front of the Pyramid "First recorded funeral parlor, nothing more to see here."



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Some further thoughts on the Ante Chamber.


The short Flash presentation below demonstrates how the AEs could have better secured the Ante Chamber (thus the King's Chamber).

Better Securing the Ante Chamber

SC: As you can see from the presentation, once again it seems that the architects of this scheme within the Ante Chamber of the Great Pyramid are effectively inviting people into this chamber rather than doing everything in their power to prevent that from occurring. In light of these physical attributes of this chamber, it is highly improbable that the Ante Chamber was in any way designed as a security measure to prevent intrusion into the King's Chamber as maintained by mainstream opinion. As such it must call into question the entire premise that the Great Pyramid was built as a tomb.

Regards,

SC



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Scott,

Nice PP presentation. Star & Flag for you Sir.

The next stage must surly be a working scale model of this system in operation. While the PP presentation does indeed looks plausible, the reality of such ideas can easily fall down on just one, minor, yet unaccounted for detail. How many of us have tried to move an item of large furniture i.e a bed or large sofa into another room or up some stairs only to find its too big to squeeze between two corners or through the doorway without having to come up with a different method to achieve the desired goal. My first thought when I saw your presentation was how many people would it take to operate such a system of opening and closing these slab doors? I doubt the architects would want too many people knowing this secret should an invading army decide to invade Egypt as had already happened many times in Egypt's history.

Like many others here on ATS I too firmly believe that the Great Pyramid is not, nor was it ever, a grand tomb for a pharaoh or pharaoh's. It is only when we discard this notion that we can begin to unravel it's true purpose, which your PP presentation does at least, offer us a viable and purposeful question which is.

Why build an elaborate anti-chamber inside the biggest pyramid in the known world that could be re-opened at will 'easily' without having to damage or replace the original granite portcullis slabs. A tomb no matter how grand it's construction was specifically built to be sealed forever once the owner was buried along with their treasure.

schuyler mentioned that perhaps these slabs could have been used as 'blast doors' to contain a potential power source, it would makes sense in this case to allow re-access to this chamber should the need ever arrive for periodical maintenance etc while maintaining sufficient protection against any possible mishap. If these slabs can be proven without any doubt that they were designed to be specifically opened and closed like any reinforced door we may use today then this surly will strengthen the argument against this being a grandiose pharaoh's tomb and give alternative theory's a fair chance of being heard.

How does this, if at all, fit in with the Orion Correlation Theory. I havent yet read your recent book The Giza Prophecy.

-Freelancer



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Hi Scott
I wonder if you are still interested in this subject?
Great diagram.
You have made it simple to understand how it could work.
To me it now looks like a one way door.
You can get in, if you know how, ..... but the occupant can't get out, without the door being opened for them.
You can communicate with the prisoner while in the sunshine, via the Air Shafts.
No food though !

A Prison!
or a trap that could be triggered by the weight on the floor!

The 4 rope groves cut in the Granite on the South wall.....
are continued in the 100mm of limestone at the top ..... ?
Maybe it had a purpose while the roof was still not built? Interesting.

The answer will be simple for sure.





new topics
top topics
 
8

log in

join