Mysteries of The Great Pyramid Explored...

a reply to: Another_Nut

Hi Another_Nut,

You beat me to it. I asked Harte to present evidence to back up his/her statement, it gets ignored and the question gets turned around for me to back up one of my own statements. Mainstream Egyptology cannot answer a simple question about their own theory. And if I do then back up my own statement I then get accused of derailing the thread with my own theories. You see how this works.

Regards,

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Another_Nut

Hi Another_Nut,

You beat me to it. I asked Harte to present evidence to back up his/her statement, it gets ignored and the question gets turned around for me to back up one of my own statements. Mainstream Egyptology cannot answer a simple question about their own theory. And if I do then back up my own statement I then get accused of derailing the thread with my own theories. You see how this works.

Regards,

SC

You have many, many question awaiting you Scott that you ran from, on this forum and others. Why not answer those first or are you saying you have the specific right to ignore everyone elses questions but we or anyone has to answer yours?

Doesn't work that way.

If you want a Mainstream Egyptologist answer to that question why not ask one? I mean when people ask you about Schoch's material which you use to support you ideas you always tell them to ask Schoch.....

If you want to expound on your new theories start a thread on it - or is it - as it has been in the past - impossible for you to do so? Do you see how that works? lol

a reply to: Hanslune

Hans: You have many, many question awaiting you Scott that you ran from, on this forum and others. Why not answer those first or are you saying you have the specific right to ignore everyone elses questions but we or anyone has to answer yours?

SC: Where possible I answer peoples’ questions. The issue I suspect is that you just don’t like the answers. And—in case it has escaped your attention—I am not in this thread to discuss my own work. A statement was made in this thread by Harte which I questioned and which I think a lot of people reading this thread would probably like Harte to answer.

Hans: Doesn't work that way.

If you want a Mainstream Egyptologist answer to that question why not ask one?

SC: In other words, you (and Harte) don’t actually have the answers to my questions. In other words, Wiki can only take you so far. I am not interested in promoting the mainstream view of Egyptology—YOU are. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you, when struggling with a question posed to you, to ask mainstream Egyptologists for the answer. You never tire of making it appear to the board members here that you are the fount of all knowledge on matters of mainstream Egyptology. You really have to do better—answer my simple questions.

[snip] The thread isn’t about me or my theories.

And "LOL" certainly won't crack it as an answer.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

SC: Where possible I answer peoples’ questions. The issue I suspect is that you just don’t like the answers.

Except of course in those many cases where you don't answer and run away - you do that alot

And—in case it has escaped your attention—I am not in this thread to discuss my own work.

Then don't, easy or you want to go right ahead, however don't put out information then say....oh wait I'll cover that in my book so I won't say it now. You have my permission to speak...lol

A statement was made in this thread by Harte which I questioned and which I think a lot of people reading this thread would probably like Harte to answer.

Take it up with Harte and their are questions you were asked in this thread which I think a lot of people reading this thread would probably like you to answer - but you won't.

SC: In other words, you (and Harte) don’t actually have the answers to my questions. In other words, Wiki can only take you so far. I am not interested in promoting the mainstream view of Egyptology—YOU are. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you, when struggling with a question posed to you, to ask mainstream Egyptologists for the answer. You never tire of making it appear to the board members here that you are the fount of all knowledge on matters of mainstream Egyptology. You really have to do better—answer my simple questions.

You seem to have a deep emotional need to get answers from mainstream Egyptologist, you have these deep issues with that whole group of people - so go find one that will talk to you - won't that satisfy you? Oh wait few if any will talk to you, you have a certain reputation........lol. Sorry the only person here who takes on the appearance of a pseudo expert in Egyptology is yourself, I've never made that claim - it would seem you are making stuff up again. Again and I'll say it very, very slowly, go answer the questions you have run away from on this and other websites. Until you do that I'm just going to laugh at you....lol

And "LOL" certainly won't crack it as an answer.

L O L, actually it does because you won't try and answer those questions ..... and we know why don't we?

a reply to: Hanslune

Hans,

[snip] SC: Obfuscation and irrelevant to the thread.

It seems neither Harte or yourself are willing to answer my very simple questions. Let me remind you of them again:

1) What hard, empirical evidence is there that proves the pre-5th dynasty pyramids were conceived and built for the purposes of burying ancient Egyptian kings?

2) What hard, empirical evidence is there that proves the stone containers found in just a few of these pre-5th dynasty pyramids were sarcophagi and not, for example, neb-ankh (i.e. what modern Egyptologists refer to as 'Osiris Beds')?

3) Present evidence of an intact, original (not intrusive) burial from one of these pre-5th dynasty pyramids.

I do not actually think it is a case of your unwillingness to answer these simple questions. I think the truth of the matter rests more in your inability to answer them because--and here's the simple fact of the matter--there simply is no hard, empirical evidence to support this mainstream view of these structures. THAT is the truth. And it seems it is a truth you cannot even admit to yourself let alone to anyone reading this thread. Were Harte or you, or anyone else, able to present such evidence we can be absolutely certain that you would both be tripping over yourselves to present it; tripping over yourselves to prove yourselves right. Well, you aren't doing that, are you? Which means we can safely conclude that you have no evidence to prove the mainstream view of these pyramids.

If you want the tomb theory to be taken seriously with regard to these structures, then you know what you have to do. I suggest you get to it.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Answer my questions and those of others you have avoided - pretty easy to do eh?

lol

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Answer my questions and those of others you have avoided - pretty easy to do eh?

lol

SC: Your evading answering these questions is duly noted.

Now, if you have genuine questions for me then by all means raise a thread in 'Scott Creighton Forum' and I shall have a look. If I consider your questions are sensible and relevant to my own research then I shall address them as best I can. If you are simply intent on LOLing your way through the discourse then your comment will be treated accordingly.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Answer my questions and those of others you have avoided - pretty easy to do eh?

lol

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Answer my questions and those of others you have avoided - pretty easy to do eh?

lol

Hans,

It seems to me that you are intent in taking this discourse around in circles. I can tell you now, that is not going to happen. If you can't answer some simple questions, fine--no one is going to hang you for it.

Now, what answers can I offer you? Only answers to my own theories, I'm afraid. And you can find just about every answer with regard to my work here and here. All that is required is for you to expend a bit of your time to go through all the information there. It's all free, of course. (I know how you really grudge paying for books by alternative thinkers/writers). But please--do let me know if there are any questions relating to my research you have which are not answered in those links--I will be glad to help you if I can.

Best wishes,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

[yawn]....[/yawn]

Answer my questions and those of others you have avoided - pretty easy to do eh?

lol

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

[yawn]....[/yawn]

Answer my questions and those of others you have avoided - pretty easy to do eh?

lol

u realize some questions dont have answers that can be googled ?

and people spend their entire carrers on a single one

and still dont have an answer

but they still plug away at it

while others think wiki holds all the truth and knowledge ever gained

i pretty sure i can put scott in the first catagory

and at least two other posters in this thread in the second....

Hey members,

to get this thread back on track and away from the boring direction that Hans demands it to go.....

has anyone read the book.....The Great Pyramid, The Inside Story....by Robert Carson.....2013....

its an engineers point of view on the GP and how it was built and why the inside chambers are the way that they are..
and it has nothing to do with mistakes or changes of mind mid-construction....

I find an engineers point of view much more interesting than non-Engineers....hey ....I don't ask a plumber about electrical things....do you????....

I'm sure that Hans is very good in a hole with a paint brush and a trowel examining pot shards....but that doesn't mean that he is the great authority on the old kingdom methods of pyramid construction.....

maybe the reason that people keep asking the same questions over and over again and these topics keep getting brought up.... flogged to death as Hans and Harte love to profess......is that so far.... no satisfactory answers have been forthcoming over the last 100 yrs...
slave ramps...changed their mind mid-construction in regards to internal structures...queens chamber[ when the queens pyramid is outside, next door]....no original burials or remains of such found inside....

give me an engineers point of view over some soft hand academic any day....

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: 131415

You appear to be dismissing the Wadi al-Jarf papyri - why is that?

Question: you seem to be hinting around that your are some form of Velikovskian Saturnist?

well to start Wadi al-Jarf is not a papyri its a port

u are refering to a papyri found there called the diary of Merrer

The majority of these documents date to the 27th year of Khufu's reign and describe how the central administration sent food and supplies to Egyptian travelers.

and for some reason i cant find a copy or even a full translation of it

just assertions by mainstrean magazines (aka attributions on wiki to magazines)

the only academic attribution is here
and possibly here

and it mentions nothing about the diary

perhaps Tallet is hiding something

if u can provide a translated text or really any copy of this diary ill listen

but i dont think u can

o wait i found this here

“Although we will not learn anything new about the construction of Cheops monument, this diary provides for the first time an insight on this matter,” Tallet said.

and an excellent reply by scott here

Until we can see the full text of these papyri and the context
> in which certain things are said, it is all conjecture.

so ...yea . so far u have only listened to wiki

and that means squat in the real world

but nice parrot job

originally posted by: tri-lobe-1

has anyone read the book.....The Great Pyramid, The Inside Story....by Robert Carson.....2013....

its an engineers point of view on the GP and how it was built and why the inside chambers are the way that they are..
and it has nothing to do with mistakes or changes of mind mid-construction....

I find an engineers point of view much more interesting than non-Engineers....hey ....I don't ask a plumber about electrical things....do you????....

So what did he say?

I'm sure that Hans is very good in a hole with a paint brush and a trowel examining pot shards....but that doesn't mean that he is the great authority on the old kingdom methods of pyramid construction.....

You see here's the problem you are making stuff up - but don't let me interfere with your embarrassingly inaccurate fantasies. Is it fun to make up stuff about people and act like it real? Just wondering........lol

maybe the reason that people keep asking the same questions over and over again and these topics keep getting brought up.... flogged to death as Hans and Harte love to profess......is that so far.... no satisfactory answers have been forthcoming over the last 100 yrs...slave ramps...changed their mind mid-construction in regards to internal structures...queens chamber[ when the queens pyramid is outside, next door]....no original burials or remains of such found inside....

It get brought up all the time because it has become 'fringified' (when something becomes this way everyone tries to pile on and make it support whatever oddball theory is current that day). There are lots of satisfying answers - but given the general lack of data there are a LOT of holes and in those holes people try to make the pyramids in Alien beacons, 'energy' machines and all kinds of weird stuff. Another thing that fringe does, is try to isolate and remove the pyramids from the context of AE culture. They also spend enormous amounts of time desperately trying to cast doubt on what few facts we do have so they can make up and apply their own.

give me an engineers point of view over some soft hand academic any day....

So gain what did this engineer with extensive hands on experience in ancient construction methods say?

a reply to: Another_Nut

Because a complete translation has not been completed, it will probably be a year or 18 months before we see it. However as you noted some bits and pieces have been commented on.

Sorry I've never read the wiki on it I read the reports, sorry to point out that you were wrong.

Where may I ask did you get your information on the material from the Wadi from?

Scott said that because the materials may undermine his long held contention that the pyramids were built by those from Atlantis or as he took to calling it a few years ago the Unknown or lost civilization, I believe he holds that the AE just repaired them. Once the translation is out he will then spend a great deal of time trying to show - what ever it says - that it is either faked, doesn't apply or somehow supports his position.

a reply to: Another_Nut

No one of us like to control the conversation and what is said, almost like a script. When the subject goes off said script Scott bolts for the door. Until said gentlemen answers my questions I will not engage him in his scripted conversations.

Hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

a reply to: Hanslune

i got it from two links i posted in my reply

one to a pdf from the British museum

and one from academia.edu

neither mentions the diary

instead of just reading the wiki entry try a little follow up from where that info came from

all references to the papyri are linked to magazines not any scientific studies

just regurgitated nonsense based on Tallets hopes dreams and mainstream bias

and all the scientific reports mention nothing of the papyri besides some was found

see how when u research u learn something?

o and did u find that translation yet?

Eta u must have if u got all your info from "reports"(read main stream magazines lol ) and not wiki... Care to link it?

so now u admit u are asking scott for evidence that (u admitted) wont be available for another year or more?

thats good stuff. lol@u

a reply to: Another_Nut

A report is a news report or from another site like you used AFAIK no PRP have been written on the subject which I stated before.

So I see you are already preparing to deny whatever the translations say?

Why not deny them before they are presented - it will save time, lol

a reply to: Hanslune

ask wiki lol

im willing to look at the translations

u on the other hand seem to know exactly what they say

seeing as u are trying to use them as proof of something

You appear to be dismissing the Wadi al-Jarf papyri - why is that?

how can u dismiss (or accept as you seem to have done...because it backs your wiki conclusions)something that hasent been published or peer reviewed?

it does seem one of us has made up their mind...

again lol@u

a reply to: Another_Nut

Because the initial reports from the finders said what they said, we will now wait for the translations so you can deny them.

So wouldn't it save time if you just pre deny them?

Let's say besides mentioning what we mentioned before they say something like, we are gathering materials to build the tomb of Khufu.

Would you believe that or would you automatically cry out that it was fake?