The mainstream view of the Egyptian pyramids

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


Well, hello. Nice to meet up with you again in the warped world of ATS.

And I mean that with due respect since I feel thought alone, is the product being peddled here. The ability for many to discuss, debate, discover, and divulge in a collective and civil manner, so that others may, if they opt to, utilize the information being presented on the many various topics found in this site.

I am in agreement with you my friend. But I do also find some of which you are expressing as an indicator that this process IS WORKING. We can't all agree.


If your views about a subject, are something you are comfortable with, and you have a come to accept these as the Truth, by your understanding, NOTHING I ever present will change your view on the Subject.

I have preconceived concepts of a reality, that Hanslune doesn't. He has his own. That's the wonder called ATS to me.


Absolutely, and I agree. Though any preconceptions that I hold, are resolutely flexible, which is an indicator that MY processes are working. None of us should ever get so stuck in the mud that we are immune to new information, however far it may turn our ideas on their head. So, with that in mind, it is a shame that you feel unable to present your ideas. Truth, after all, simply is, it is only 'facts' that sometimes need updating and redacting.

And nice to cross your path again too.




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I like the theory of the 'inner ramp' by Jean-Pierre Houdin which appears to have a very sound basis. A rock-penetrating x-ray appears to substantiate his theory.
However, the problem has always been the placing of a block every 3 minutes or so over 20 years as well as the placing of the final facing slabs which, when finished, had a slightly concave finish which was purportedly synonymous with the curvature of the earth. This alone is mind-boggling stuff as the facing slabs completely sealed the pyramid leaving no entrance/exit and no outlets whatsoever.
It has always baffled me when the Egyptians were so meticulous in their hieroglyphic carvings recording major events and ceremonies yet did not make any depictions of the finished pyramid (which would have shown the hieroglyphics on the outside telling us what we want to know) nor any depictions showing how it was actually built.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


That's not what I requested, I ask for your link to your listing of mainstream evidence, I mean you did list all mainstream evidence didn't you? Once I have completed listing all mainstream information I'll look at the various fringe interpretations
edit on 7/8/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzTiger
I like the theory of the 'inner ramp' by Jean-Pierre Houdin which appears to have a very sound basis. A rock-penetrating x-ray appears to substantiate his theory.
However, the problem has always been the placing of a block every 3 minutes or so over 20 years as well as the placing of the final facing slabs which, when finished, had a slightly concave finish which was purportedly synonymous with the curvature of the earth. This alone is mind-boggling stuff as the facing slabs completely sealed the pyramid leaving no entrance/exit and no outlets whatsoever.
It has always baffled me when the Egyptians were so meticulous in their hieroglyphic carvings recording major events and ceremonies yet did not make any depictions of the finished pyramid (which would have shown the hieroglyphics on the outside telling us what we want to know) nor any depictions showing how it was actually built.


Yes Houdin's theory may prove to be correct. You may wish to look at different calculations that lower the number of total stones.

They used a technique to avoid the appearance of the straight lines bending over distance, very clever

The covering stones didn't cover the entrance and the pyramid was entered by that way in ancient times until - at some point it was jammed

Not early on they changed their culture (just look at their abandoning pyramdis as tombs and going to rock cut underground tombs later on)

Very little has come down to us from the period of time. I don't think you'll find any descriptions of how St Peters was built engraved into that structure either



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I was requesting his link to his list of all mainstream evidence. Which he didn't provide

We'll look in detail at the counter-arguments, alternative, fantasy and fringe after I get all the mainstream evidence listed



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 



And to my Friend, Hanslune

I have noted on a few occasions lately, you are a good researcher. The information you amass and present is full of detail.

Your OWN materials clearly indicate several things about this specific subject, and any conflict you have addressed is directly from the supportive materials you have offered. This is the thing I don't understand here though.

You premise the need to affirm, in some manner, the Mainstream View, which I expect you feel you have done. I will agree in some cases, the evidence does seemingly support the premise, but again, I qualify that by reaffirming, IN SOME CASES, and SEEMINGLY.


I have not completed the information, I also provide all information even if it might seen to contradict. I’m going for truth not adversarial truth, ie I'm presently what I believe is the information that the mainstream uses for the basis of their theory



NONE of the Fourth Dynasty where Egyptians at all, and the Greatest Monument on this planet, was not constructed by Egyptians. Your own materials confirm, this.


No, not really, it shows that the pyramids were there. In Manetho you have to look exactly at what he was writing. I would suggest you look at a direct translation of Manetho and how he looks at ‘race’.

Link to a PDF on Manetho



NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA WHEN THE GREAT PYRAMID WAS CONSTRUCTED. You present details which indicate to separate times, 4800 BC and 2500 BC (approximately).


Sure they do, the C-14 dates and the chronology gives us more than a clue, we do know it was after the AE invented writing for one thing….


And the Chronologies have a strange indicator that the Builder, WROTE the Sacred Book, and took it with him when they moved to the Judean Hills, and built Jerusalem.


We get Manetho from mentions in other texts, to include those wishing to reinforce their own view….especially the Jewish and Christian writers

Didn't respond to your bible quotes, wasn't sure what the point was, perhaps you could explain further as to how it pretains to the mainstream view of the AE pyramids



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I'll look forward to it...sounds like it could be fun!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


That's not what I requested, I ask for your link to your listing of mainstream evidence, I mean you did list all mainstream evidence didn't you? Once I have completed listing all mainstream information I'll look at the various fringe interpretations
edit on 7/8/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


Hello Hans,

I know what you asked for - evidence. The evidence I cite in my paper is considered by ALL sides of the debate, including advocates of the pyramid tomb theory (PTT). It rather seems to me that what you are actually seeking from me (and others) is the presentation only of orthodox INTERPRETATIONS of the body of evidence that is available to us and are not at all interested in other interpretations of that body of evidence. In short, it is not 'evidence' you seek but rather 'INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence' that agrees with your own view that you seek. As I said in my previous post to you - the body of evidence is neutral. It is the particular INTERPRETATION one places upon that body of evidence that brings about the differences and divisions.

I use the SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE and present the SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE that you do but I place that body of evidence within a slightly different context; a slightly different interpretation that is at odds with the context believed by others, including ancient alien advocates, pyramid pump advocates and tomb theory advocates.

You are asking for INTERPRETATIONS (of the extant body of evidence) and are only willing to consider and accept any interpretations of the available evidence that agrees with your own opinion of that evidence. Do you not see the flaw in your thinking? That's like the cardinals telling Galileo to put away his telescope for they are only interested in receiving evidence that supports their (flawed) view of the solar system. What exactly do you hope to achieve by seeking only interpretations of evidence that supports what you already believe? What exactly do you hope to achieve by ignoring other facts/evidence that contradicts your settled opinion?

Good science is about finding the means to falsify a particular hypothesis/theory by empirical experiment or observation. I think you might find it more fruitful to try and determine and put in place such tests and see how well the tomb theory stands up after such scrutiny.

ATS is a DISCUSSION board. If you do not wish discussion and wish only to present your opinion without objection or dissent, perhaps you might be better writing a blog.

Regards,

SC



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans

thanks for the confirm on the ONE pyramid with a corpse in it. If it weren't for all the lettered Egyptologists writing about the pyramids being tombs this one exception would be considered just that, the exception. That is insanely weak evidence for the academics to base their confidence on.

As for the mainstream view, carry on posting. It is hardly above top secret, we all know the mainstream view. any kid knows it from watching kiddy shows on King Tut, who was found in a hole in the ground, but most believe he was found in a pyramid.

If you have seen how the step pyramids work, which out number the geometric ones, you will have a clue how Cheops works. However, until you have felt a structure working it is almost impossible to conceive of the aim of Cheops. It took me a year to grasp something of that scale and I still have my doubts. At least it is in line with the other structures and allows for the Idiot Lord Intrusions, which so much is made of. History is written to support the views of the present, red herrings, misdirection, textbooks and nonsense. It is amazing the lengths cultures will go to to maintain its faiths.

Regards

Chris



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



It rather seems to me that what you are actually seeking from me (and others) is the presentation only of orthodox INTERPRETATIONS of the body of evidence that is available to us and are not at all interested in other interpretations of that body of evidence.


Scott, you can play around with the words all day, but the thread is titled 'the mainstream view' and the OP clearly defines it as presenting the mainstream view of the Egyptian pyramids. You can call it Hans' 'opinion of the evidence' and yet you're wilfully misinterpreting the title and OP.

I heard about hoof-beats over at Hamilton Park...horses, trolls or zebras?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretsofthesunsects
As for the mainstream view, carry on posting. It is hardly above top secret, we all know the mainstream view.


If only that were true.

I've seen the mainstream view misrepresented here at ATS (as part of the multitude of straw-man arguments here) so many times that it's almost uncountable.

It's certainly the norm here that a poster is unaware of the evidence that has led to the mainstream view. It might even be the norm that a poster here doesn't actually know what the mainstream view is.

Harte



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



It rather seems to me that what you are actually seeking from me (and others) is the presentation only of orthodox INTERPRETATIONS of the body of evidence that is available to us and are not at all interested in other interpretations of that body of evidence.


Scott, you can play around with the words all day, but the thread is titled 'the mainstream view' and the OP clearly defines it as presenting the mainstream view of the Egyptian pyramids. You can call it Hans' 'opinion of the evidence' and yet you're wilfully misinterpreting the title and OP.

I heard about hoof-beats over at Hamilton Park...horses, trolls or zebras?


Hello Kandinsky,

Nice to hear from you - it has been a very, very long time. And nice to see you also rally to Hans' defense although I am quite sure that Hans is more than capable of handling my riposte by himself.

Alas, I am categorically not "willfully misinterpreting" anything. What has been presented by Hans is NOT "Hans' opinion of the evidence" as you have stated. Rather what we have is Hans merely regurgitating but ONE interpretation of the available evidence; that interpretation proposed by Egyptologists. There are other interpretations.

However, in his OP, Hans sought "mainstream evidence".

"Mainstream evidence"? There is NO SUCH THING as 'mainstream evidence'. And neither is there such a thing as 'alternative evidence'. All we have is 'evidence' and the evidence is neutral. There is, however, 'INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE' but that is a completely different thing. I do hope you appreciate the difference?

I have seen, on countless occasions on this Board and others, alternative ideas regarding the Egyptian pyramids being presented (with supporting interpretations of the evidence) only to have them dismissed by pseudo-skeptics who then go on to insist that their own interpretation of the evidence is correct, including (but not limited to) proponents of the Pyramid Tomb Theory (PTT).

If Hans wants to present an interpretation that suggests the PTT is correct and to be accepted as fact then, on a discussion board such as ATS, it is perfectly correct and right for anyone to question his interpretation of the evidence and to present their own alternative interpretations - just as the Egypt-apologists do each and every time they come across a thread that questions their own interpretation of the evidence.

Yes, by all means present your interpretation of the evidence but be prepared to respond to the interpretation that contradicts what you believe. If you wish to challenge other theories about the pyramids presented in other threads, then be prepared to have your own beliefs challenged when you present them.

Regards,

SC
edit on 7/8/2012 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I was always given to understand that when the pyramid was finished it was completely covered with no entrance whatsoever. The final covering had hieroglyphics (which we know by the odd remnant found in or on buildings in Cairo which were taken and used for this purpose after an earthquake) which nobody knows what they said or what they depicted. They would have surely shone some light on the purpose of the pyramid. No record of this has been found.
These hieroglyphics were not what I was referring to regarding the actual building of the pyramid. What I was asking was why, after all the other hieroglyphic references we have to the Egyptian way of life, there are none whatsoever showing how the pyramid was built. I find this very unusual after all the other references we have by a race that was so meticulous with leaving us with depictions of everything else.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


Hello Hans,

I know what you asked for - evidence. The evidence I cite in my paper is considered by ALL sides of the debate, including advocates of the pyramid tomb theory (PTT).


Nope darling I asked for your list of mainstream evidence, this is a thread and list of all mainstream evidence, please go back up to the first post, read it and if you are still struggling with the concept, ask you mum for help....



It rather seems to me that what you are actually seeking from me (and others) is the presentation only of orthodox INTERPRETATIONS of the body of evidence that is available to us and are not at all interested in other interpretations of that body of evidence.


Wow Scott you finally figured it out. Congrats, your reading comphrension has gone way up since Hall of Ma'at days eh?


In short, it is not 'evidence' you seek but rather 'INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence' that agrees with your own view that you seek. As I said in my previous post to you - the body of evidence is neutral. It is the particular INTERPRETATION one places upon that body of evidence that brings about the differences and divisions.


Nope collecting all evidence which might be deemed 'mainstream', remember I created the thread I know what its about - its not about what you want....okay?


I use the SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE and present the SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE that you do but I place that body of evidence within a slightly different context; a slightly different interpretation that is at odds with the context believed by others, including ancient alien advocates, pyramid pump advocates and tomb theory advocates.


That's nice I intend to do similar, but I'm not finished yet

(snip babble)


Good science is about finding the means to falsify a particular hypothesis/theory by empirical experiment or observation. I think you might find it more fruitful to try and determine and put in place such tests and see how well the tomb theory stands up after such scrutiny.


I think it might be more useful if you paid attention to what people write and not what you make up. Hey since you are into good science, you must believe in consensus? So whats the Egyptological consensus on your ideas?


ATS is a DISCUSSION board. If you do not wish discussion and wish only to present your opinion without objection or dissent, perhaps you might be better writing a blog.


Sure its a discussion board, we are discussing, but I haven't finished my thread setup but when I do I'll promise to give your ideas first place in 'failed alternative theories', or more PC 'ideas rejected by consensus by science', so you'll just have to be patient.....lol

Wink



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzTiger
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I was always given to understand that when the pyramid was finished it was completely covered with no entrance whatsoever. The final covering had hieroglyphics (which we know by the odd remnant found in or on buildings in Cairo which were taken and used for this purpose after an earthquake) which nobody knows what they said or what they depicted. They would have surely shone some light on the purpose of the pyramid. No record of this has been found.
These hieroglyphics were not what I was referring to regarding the actual building of the pyramid. What I was asking was why, after all the other hieroglyphic references we have to the Egyptian way of life, there are none whatsoever showing how the pyramid was built. I find this very unusual after all the other references we have by a race that was so meticulous with leaving us with depictions of everything else.


Howdy OzTiger

Some writers mentioned that but we don't know, as noted the AE never (as far as we have found) showed a pyramid, I'm not sure if they ever showed a mastaba either. They may have had a superstition about showing tombs, who knows. Well that observation has been one of the puzzles in understanding the AE and why they never showed this.

Now if they didn't build them and they were there 'before' (a bit hard considering how long they the AE were there along with there ancestors) why they didn't show them either, the puzzle cuts both ways!

An aside I wonder if the Greeks evershowed themselves building a tomb? Interesting search idea



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


"Mainstream evidence"? There is NO SUCH THING as 'mainstream evidence'.



....yawn....



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by secretsofthesunsects
As for the mainstream view, carry on posting. It is hardly above top secret, we all know the mainstream view.


If only that were true.

I've seen the mainstream view misrepresented here at ATS (as part of the multitude of straw-man arguments here) so many times that it's almost uncountable.

It's certainly the norm here that a poster is unaware of the evidence that has led to the mainstream view. It might even be the norm that a poster here doesn't actually know what the mainstream view is.

Harte


Howdy Harte

This is to be a list of the mainstream evidence - and as noted above rarely noted or understood by alternative and fringe posters.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretsofthesunsects


Hans

thanks for the confirm on the ONE pyramid with a corpse in it. If it weren't for all the lettered Egyptologists writing about the pyramids being tombs this one exception would be considered just that, the exception. That is insanely weak evidence for the academics to base their confidence on.


They don't the acceptance of the pyramids as tombs came well before that pyramid was found


As for the mainstream view, carry on posting. It is hardly above top secret, we all know the mainstream view. any kid knows it from watching kiddy shows on King Tut, who was found in a hole in the ground, but most believe he was found in a pyramid.


I never seen that claim before, but that might be true in some cases


If you have seen how the step pyramids work, which out number the geometric ones, you will have a clue how Cheops works. However, until you have felt a structure working it is almost impossible to conceive of the aim of Cheops. It took me a year to grasp something of that scale and I still have my doubts. At least it is in line with the other structures and allows for the Idiot Lord Intrusions, which so much is made of. History is written to support the views of the present, red herrings, misdirection, textbooks and nonsense. It is amazing the lengths cultures will go to to maintain its faiths.Chris


The ancient knew the pyramids to be tombs it isn't a modern view at all. I would remind you that you haven't presented your ideas yet, so referring to bits and pieces of them just leaves us going, huh?

Post up that theory of yours so we know what you point it - please



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Correction

In one of my posts I mentioned Manetho. Manetho comes in various colours, as it were. Not all translations are the same

Example




the 4th dynasty was supposed to have been composed of 'eight Memphite Kings of a different race'.


Race? I'd not come across that use of the word in Manetho for this line

I had seen instead


Link one

Other versions of Manetho translate the line as

‘Eight Memphite Kings of a different branch’
‘Eight Memphite Kings of a different line’
‘Eight Memphite Kings of a different family’

These seem more in line with the reality as no invasion of AE is noted at that time making it somewhat difficult for a 'race' to have gotten in. It is also possible that the AE might have been referring to that line having come from a mother who was not Egyptian or more probably from a cadet line or usurper.

Link two

The Turin Papyrus of Kings, page 17


I'm trying to find more information on the translation of that sentence and in particular the word in question
edit on 8/8/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Hans


''They don't the acceptance of the pyramids as tombs came well before that pyramid was found''

Amazing how little evidence there actually was before the mainstream followed the doomed tomb view. Gotta luv them for their persistence. Did you find that shin bone, surely that would a fair percentage of the actual evidence too.

I live in Cambodia and was here when the wise of the west decided that there was a possibility that the pyramids of Angkor were tombs. When the locals stopped laughing, they pointed out that Asians cremate there dead, but it does not stop the tenacious. They still try to inflict the tomb theory onto Angkor Wat because it points west as opposed to east. Rising versus setting sun, I am sure you get the symbolism from your study of the mainstream.
Anyhoo the locals allowed the wise of the west to continue to prattle on about the tombs of Angkor for as long as they liked. It made no difference because it was a cute idea and likely to draw the usual mob of folk who are fascinated by death. Tourist dollars are always welcome, even the morbid ones.

When I showed the academics how the wats actually worked it took the Culture department two days before they threatened to deport me. I wonder why? Maybe some things are a little different if you have actual ancient working knowledge. That is the sort of thing that is above top secret, not the mundane ramblings that the orthodoxy has been spouting for years.


''Post up that theory of yours so we know what you point it - please''
I am sure you will just spend your time trying to grapple with the way stiffs fit into the premise. A bit like Scott's ideas. He has picked up on vital aspect of the ancient ''religious'' centers that has kind of been glossed over. The modern religons point to these places for their origins. It would hardly suit the spiritual to be associated with the crop processors, cooks and grain distribution of the old world. Its all about the spirit after all
This is something the principled of the church initiated. The doomed tomb views and the religious mumbo jumbo that the orthodoxy spends itself mired in is a cover story to support today's faiths, what a laugh hey?.

Scott has taken a lot of flack, but essentially there were crop stores around the main sites. The ziggurats (step pyramids) of the middle east were famed storage spots. Whilst I appreciate the idea has been extended a little far into the recovery vault, it is more closely linked tot he real function of the pyramids than the absolutely pointless stiffs in the ground. Well pointless if you don't buy all the mainstream fluff. anything can be used to hold a corpse, shame the pyramids rarely did.

The Ancient solar Premise is simple enough Hans, Cheops is a little more complicated. You start there, I start with the 1000's of shrines all over the world that operate on the community scale. The step pyramids worked for a city wide area. They are the remnants of an ancient solar industry, we have a lot to learn from these people.

Regards

Chris






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join