Inventory Stela

[Psycho]

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-30-2004 08:27 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something else to "chew on", kind sir! I am aware that you already addressed the chemical composition of the salt surrounding the base of the Great Pyramid in the "Which Pyramid was First?" thread. Feel free to address it again, for the record, but there are other elements I would also like you to consider in the following quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, as the Mediterranean Sea began to fill and rise due to higher ocean levels from melting northern glaciers, its waters for a brief period also flooded the lower Nile valley. These, geologists are certain, are the last major flood events in Egypt’s fossil history, before the sea retreated and the Nile settled down to today’s relatively peaceful, winding flow. Yet, knowing this, geologists are hard pressed to explain why there existed a fourteen-foot layer of silt sediment around the base of the Pyramid, a layer which also contained many seashells, and the fossil of a sea cow, all of which were dated by radiocarbon methods to 11,600 B.P. (Before Present) plus or minus 300 years. Legends and records likewise speak of the fact that, before the Arabs removed the Pyramid’s outer casing stones, one could see water marks on the stones halfway up the Pyramid’s height, in about the 240-foot level, which would be 400 feet above the present Nile level. The medieval Arab historian Al Biruni, writing in his treatise The Chronology of Ancient Nations, noted: "The Persians and the great mass of Magians relate that the inhabitants of the west, when they were warned by their sages, constructed buildings of the King and the Giza Pyramids. The traces of the water of the Deluge and the effects of the waves are still visible on these pyramids halfway up, above which the water did not rise." Add to this the observation made when the Pyramid was first opened, that incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. Most of this salt is natural exudation from the chambered rock wall, but chemical analysis also shows some of the salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. Thus, during the prehistoric Flood, when waters surrounded the Great Pyramid, the known and unknown entrances leaked, allowing seawater into the interior, which later evaporated and left the salts behind. The locations where the salts are found are consistent with the monument having been submerged half-way up its height. If the floodings of 10,000 B.C. were the last major catastrophic water events in Egypt, and the Pyramid exhibits signs of having been subjected to them, it means the Pyramid must date from a period before the flooding occurred. Though most Egyptologists today have yet to accept such a necessary "radical" revision of their dating of the Pyramid, there have been other discoveries that have forced them to at least realize that their preconceived theories of any early Dynastic age for the structure is no longer tenable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, feel free to address the "salt" issue once again if you wish. But, more importantly, please address the Arab accounts of the appearance of Great Pyramid, pre-limestone removal, which, I note, were not taken up in the other thread. Unless we are going to keep picking and choosing which ancient accounts we are going to believe (which seems to be the case for the poor Inventory Stela), this would seem to be a problem...
 


[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 08-30-2004).]


 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004 

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 08-30-2004 10:50 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Incidentally, do you believe these boats were functional or merely ceremonial..?"
I don't know. Probably ceremonial since they were disassembled. But, if reassembled, probably could have been functional.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002

[Psycho]

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-31-2004 03:20 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it, nothing about the water..?
By the way, how many miles is the Giza complex in from the shores of Egypt..? I'm wondering how much speed a thousand foot tsunami would still have by the time it hit the pyramids! Not much by that time, I'll wager!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   

[Psycho]

 
bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 08-31-2004 04:50 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm.... hi guys.
Didn't we finish with the water/limestone/salt/seashell business in the other thread?

I thought it was settled???



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1626 | From: Queensland, Australia | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP:
 

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-01-2004 12:46 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By the way, how many miles is the Giza complex in from the shores of Egypt..?"
About 80 miles. But there is little to funnel a tsunami - it would spread sideways as well so I don't believe it would get within 50 miles of Giza.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   

[Psycho]

 
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 09-01-2004 12:05 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Bluducky, it's not quite finished. While Catastrophe quite articulately descibed the proccess of crystallization, there was also this little question posed there:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you have not done is address the main area of salt water flooding in the GP and the lack of a 'waterline' so produced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which I now give this neat little reply:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legends and records likewise speak of the fact that, before the Arabs removed the Pyramid’s outer casing stones, one could see water marks on the stones halfway up the Pyramid’s height, in about the 240-foot level, which would be 400 feet above the present Nile level. The medieval Arab historian Al Biruni, writing in his treatise The Chronology of Ancient Nations, noted: "The Persians and the great mass of Magians relate that the inhabitants of the west, when they were warned by their sages, constructed buildings of the King and the Giza Pyramids. The traces of the water of the Deluge and the effects of the waves are still visible on these pyramids halfway up, above which the water did not rise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, this could all be "hearsay" and we never know what those Arab historians are drinking, but wouldn't this seem to suggest there was a waterline?

And no, I'm not advocating the theory of a worldwide flood, but maybe a bigger than average-sized flood..?

Hmm, 80 miles from the shore to Egypt..! I guess that does dismiss the idea of a tsunami...even one of those 6,000 feet tall tsunamis, I imagine...?
 

[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 09-01-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   
 

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-02-2004 02:12 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... One of the first things I checked," writes Tom Valentine, in
his recent book 'The Great Pyramid: Man's Monument to Man'... "When I
visited the Great Pyramid... (Chan) Thomas(cataclysmologist) had been told a watermark exists all the way around the masonry ... about 200 feet up from the base. I've never read any mention of such a thing," Tom adds, "and it seems to me that (Pyramidologists- Pyramid Explorers (Charles P.) Smythe, (William)Petrie, and (David) Davidson would have noticed (the watermark if) it had existed. "no such watermark was there..."
What seems to get forgotten is that the water level was much lower then and rose towards its present level on melting of land born ice sheets. You must look much lower for 'watermarks'.

Leonard Woolley, archaeologist in 1927-28, made some important excavations on the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. IIRC Woolley found an eight foot thick layer of clay formed by sedimentation from surface waters 40 feet below ground-level.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-02-2004 02:29 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.vliz.be/Vmdcdata/imis2/Ref.php?show=html&refid=27419
Salt-water intrusion in the limestone bedrock of South-Western Scania

Even if there were a watermark (which there isn't) it could be formed by other means. Ground water could seep upwards through the porous limestone dissolving any salt on its way. The salt solution would move upwards by capillary action. On reaching the surface the water would evaporate leaving the salt as efflorescence - just like you see sulphate efflorescence on bricks. (This is treated, btw, with barium salts so insoluble barium sulphate forms and remains in the brick.)

The level of such a 'watermark' would br governed by the hydrostatic pressure supported by the nature of the porosity.

Since limestone is sedimentary (sediments out of water) it would not be surprising if salt were found nearby if the water were salt water. Since the limestone came from nearby quarries there could well be salt nearby also. I will have a look.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-02-2004 02:37 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go ...
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic27-02-002_4.html
"The decay pattern observed in the sculptures from around Cairo (Giza and Saqqara) is one of pitting, powdering and some flaking, the body of the stone being firm and undeteriorated. The relative soundness of these sculptures is thought to be attributable to several factors, including the presence of only low levels of nitrate, despite relatively high levels of chloride (see Table 2)."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   

[Psycho]

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 09-02-2004 08:42 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catastophe,
We are almost, but not quite, talking about the same thing. I'm not suggesting that there is a watermark now, or in the recent past, simply that, according to Arab lore, that there was one before the casing blocks were taken away.

(Do you know which year that was projected to be, by the way..?)

Here is the quote again:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legends and records likewise speak of the fact that, before the Arabs removed the Pyramid’s outer casing stones, one could see water marks on the stones halfway up the Pyramid’s height, in about the 240-foot level, which would be 400 feet above the present Nile level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see the mark was much higher according to the legend. Would such a mark seep through the stones? The casing blocks were purported to be made of limestone, I've heard anyway. The salt could have existed within the pyramid for the reasons you suggested in the other thread, on the other hand, we also know that the pyramids are not "waterproof." None of this seems to be able to prove or disprove things one way or another, as far as I'm concerned (and I haven't even brought up the salty cow carcass, you'll note)

Science seems to be especially failing when it comes to the pyramids:

*We cannot date the ochre paint on the inscriptions.
*We cannot date the pyramids themselves because we cannot carbon date a block of stone.
*The carbon dating that has been done on the mortar in the pyramid is dicey at best, and the dates can be just as easily attributed to the suggested "repair work" performed in the age of Khufre.
*The ancient accounts for the making of the pyramids differ sharply than the ones that Egyptologists frequently give them credit for.

(Sorry, I know that last one was more to do with opinion than science, but I couldn't resist throwing that one in there!}

Wasn't Leonard Woolley the famous Egyptologist who once measured the Great Pyramid in a tutu..? That's what I heard anyway.
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   

[Psycho]

 
bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 09-02-2004 06:03 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a tutu? hmm.... All Egyptologists are a weird bunch! (don't tell Peter i said that!)
Ok, you may be able to explain away the salt, and you may believe what you wish about that issue, but something more interesting:..

SEASHELLS!!

When is someone going to discuss them?!

I'll get you started. search out my first long post in that other thread (there's a link on this thread somewhere...)

Look for Emile Baraize's 11-year seashell clearing expedition in the early 1900's.

Also note Fredrich Norden's 1700's account of the MASSIVE amount of shells.

Ok, we have figured out that there WAS salt, and we have figured out that there WAS a water mark, (some even suggesting it is visible in modern photographs) and now, we must deal with SEASHELLS.

Is anyone connecting the dots here?

watermark, salt, shells?

I'll let you decide what you think it means. not everybody sees through the same glasses.

( I had posted a reply before PSycho's last, but, unfortunately, it was lost in cyberspace... my connection speed sometimes slows right down and the pages don't load... it can be dangerous when posting...{my first posta always have the best content too.... so sad})



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1626 | From: Queensland, Australia | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: 
 

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-02-2004 11:50 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like you've missed something:
What seems to get forgotten is that the water level was much lower then and rose towards its present level on melting of land born ice sheets. You must look much lower for 'watermarks'.

Leonard Woolley, archaeologist in 1927-28, made some important excavations on the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. IIRC Woolley found an eight foot thick layer of clay formed by sedimentation from surface waters 40 feet below ground-level.

Seashells next.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-03-2004 12:01 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limestone
"Carbonate sedimentation often involves animals or plants, and especially micro-organisms. These change the local chemical environment, transforming tiny carbonate crystals (generally the mineral aragonite) into carbonate muds on shallow sea beds. A wide range of organisms - from the microscopic, single-celled foraminifera to reef builders (such as coral)and gigantic vertebrates (for example, dinosaurs and whales) - remove calcium from their surroundings to build their shells and bones (the latter are made of calcium phosphate). Following death, carbonate remains may accumulate in sufficient quantities to form sediments such as ocean bed muds and reef limestones."

In other words, any remains are part of the rock. If you find dinosaur remains in the limestone it dates the rock not the pyramid.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-03-2004 12:08 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rogersgroupinc.com/ourcommunities/rockology/Non-MetallicRocksandMinerals.htm
"Corals, snails, clams, and one-celled organisms use calcite to make shells. When the organisms dies, the shells settle to the bottom. Thick layers of shells build up and harden into limestone."

That does not make the pyramids 400 million years old (see link).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 09-03-2004 12:12 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://people.ku.edu/~stalder/KS-limestone.html
"Limestones consisting mainly of animal shells.The shells of many animals, those that live either in the sea or in freshwater, consist of calcium carbonate (calcite and aragonite). When the animals die, their shells are left on the ocean floor, lake bottom or river bed where they may accumulate into thick deposits."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002