Inventory Stela

[Psycho]

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-12-2004 08:11 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catastrophe,
I sure as heck am not taking my work from Mr. Stitchin either. I've only read a few pages of "the 12th Planet" myself. Soon as I realized the guy believe that humanity was a "genetically engineered slave race by aliens from the planet Nimburi" I was outta there! I do have my standards.
 


As for Graham, he's done some interesting work but I don't think he's even trying to pose himself as an authority himself, rather simply a person "raising questions." The Egyptologists are trying to pose themselves as experts so, in my opinion anyway they should be held to a higher standard.

They date the pyramids at Giza to a certain period of time, so why don't they prove it? I notice they did carbon 14 dating on material they found in them in both the late 1980's and 1998.

* the late 1980's dating (which Mark Lehrner was involved with, back when he was working for, oh my gosh, Edgar Cayce people) showed a date of at least three hundred years before the current one they give it.

* I can't find any results from the 1998 carbon dating at all, which, as I understand it, was done off some organic material found with the mortar. Anyone with any better information...Peter perhaps..?

Let's kick some science into the discussion, people!

Catastrophe,

As I asked yesterday, can they carbon date ochre paint..?

 


[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 08-12-2004).]


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

[Psycho]

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-12-2004 08:19 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I note with interest that an Egyptian mythology thread has now been started under "Atlantis." One of the entries refers to the "Emerald Tablets of Thoth" in which he states he is an Atlantean. Not having done much in the way of actual research on Mr. Thoth, I defer the question to the rest of my Egyptology friends.
* In what maner were these tablets discovered..?

* Are they considered frauds as well..?

I am fairly certain that I know the answer but would like to consider the arguments, both pro and con.

 


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

[Psycho]

 
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-12-2004 08:32 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been under the impression that the GP of Cheops was the most exquisite of all. If in fact they are referring to the GP and that the "art of building steadily declined from the days of this great architect." what is the truth and implication that one draws from this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absonite raises an interesting point I have yet to pose to you gentlemen yet. Namely:

Why do so many of the pyramids dated after the Giza pyramids now lay in rubble..? One would think they would have gotten better at the craft, not worse!

Here is an interesting passage from "How old Are the Pyramids?"


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WERE THE THREE GIZA PYRAMIDS MODELS FOR EGYPT’S "PYRAMID AGE"? Expanding our sphere of inquiry to now include all three of the Giza Pyramids, we find that an interesting historical conundrum arises regarding their "accepted" construction. If, as conservative scholars surmise, the three Giza Pyramids were built in the Fourth Dynasty by the succession of three Pharaohs-Khufu, Khafre and Menkhare- what we find regarding the sizes of the three pyramids in association with the three reigns is inconsistent with what we would have expected to have happened. First, Khufu ruled and supposedly constructed the Great Pyramid. Khafre followed Khufu, and in order to be politically and religiously "correct," we would have expected him to have erected a pyramid larger than Khufu’s. To do otherwise would have seriously reflected on his being inferior to his predecessor. Generally speaking, a ruler could not afford for his people to think that their Pharaoh was weaker in power and less blessed by the gods and goddesses than the ruler before him. After Khafre, Menkhare next took the throne of Egypt, and in order to be in continued good political and religious form, we would have expected him to build the largest pyramid of all, dwarfing those of Khufu and Khafre in order to make sure he was not to be outshone by either of his predecessors. Yet what we find at Giza is exactly opposite the expected scenario: Supposedly Khufu constructed the largest pyramid, Khafre built his slightly smaller than Khufu’s, and Menkhare erected a pyramid only a third the size of the other two. If what actually happened contradicts what should have happened if the three Giza pyramids were built in the Fourth Dynasty, then this can only mean that something is fundamentally wrong with the accepted scenario. Instead of the three Pharaohs building the three Giza pyramids, what if the pyramids were already present, old with age, and in the Fourth Dynasty the three succeeding rulers simply claimed possession of the structures, doing repair work on them, and building only the minor subsidiary pyramids around them for themselves and their families-just as the Inventory Stele describes Khufu did. What would we expect would have happened? Khufu, first on the scene, would naturally have laid claim to the largest pyramid for himself, or the Great Pyramid. His successor, Khafre, now left with only two pyramids to choose from, would have taken possession of the second largest. Menkhare, the last to reign, would have had to be content with the last pyramid available, the smallest of the three. Such a scenario best fits the actual facts, for this is exactly the succession of pyramids the Pharaoh had jurisdiction over, each in their turn. Clearly, what this suggests is the Giza pyramids came first,then the Pharaohs ruled, not the other way around. According to conservative scholars, the Giza Three were supposed to represent the "height of accomplishment" in the Egyptian age of pyramid building, from the Third to the Thirteenth Dynasties, 2700 to 1800 B.C. But if the Giza Pyramids are in reality 12,000 years old, then they instead must have served as the models the Dynastic Egyptians repeatedly tried to copy and emulate. If we recognize this greater antiquity for the Giza Three, then many mysteries surrounding the design and construction of Egypt’s other pyramids find their solutions. The conservative view purports that the early pyramids along the Nile developed by stages of "evolution."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 08-12-2004).]


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

[Psycho]

 
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-12-2004 08:43 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the same article:

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least this finally lays to rest the theory that the Great Pyramid is not "waterproof," Peter & Zawi.





[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 08-12-2004).]


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

[Psycho]

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-12-2004 08:59 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, here is some material regarding carbon 14 dating, although it doesn't seem to clearly support anyone's case. Bear in mind, since we can't carbon date a block of stone, we have to make do with the mortar around it:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 In 1983 and 1984, prehistorian Robert J. Wenke from the University of Washington, and president of the American Research Center in Egypt, was given permission to collect mortar samples from various ancient construction sites, including the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx Temple. The mortar contained particles of charcoal, insect matter, pollen, and other organic materials which could be subjected for carbon-14 dating analysis. Using two different radiocarbon dating laboratories-the Institute for the Study of Man at Southern Methodist University, and the Institute of Medium Energy Physics in Zurich-the samples revealed a number of curiosities. For the Great Pyramid samples, the tests performed at the two labs initially gave very different clusterings of dates, off by several thousands of years. When certain "adjustments" in the data were applied, the resulting time frame narrowed to 3100 B.C. to 2850 B.C.-which is still 400 years earlier than when most Egyptologists believe the Great Pyramid was built. Even more anomalous, the dates obtained from mortar used near the top of the Pyramid were a thousand years older than those obtained from mortar nearer the Pyramid base. The researchers, if they were to fully believe these findings, would have to propose that the Pyramid had somehow been built from the top down. What makes the datings further unacceptable is that all of them were taken from areas of previously exposed surfaces. We know from such sources as the Inventory Stele that the Giza monuments were time and time again subjected to many reconstructions and repair work, inside and out. Therefore the radiocarbon dates can only give us clues as to when the time frame was for the repair work, not the actual construction of the Great Pyramid. If the dates are to be believed at all, they at least tell us that reconstruction work was done on the monument in a time period long before the "accepted" building was done, which means the Pyramid itself must be from an even earlier period, farther distant in the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meaning, of course, that even if we take the most conservative date, it is still four hundred years too early to be dated the time that Egyptologists currently date it. Is it any wonder that Egyptologists so seldom use carbon 14 dating to make their case..?

   


[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 08-12-2004).]


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

[Psycho]

TomB

Member
Member # 482

Rate Member   posted 08-12-2004 10:11 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do so many of the pyramids dated after the Giza pyramids now lay in rubble..? One would think they would have gotten better at the craft, not worse!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've addressed this a few times before.
You've heard the expression "They don't build them like that anymore" right? Usually, that phrase is used to note how much sturdier or of percieved higher quality older buildings, such as houses, are when compared to those built today. But is this the result of a decline in technology? Are today's buildersless capable than yesterday's? Are the materials available to us inferior?

No. What has changed are the design criteria and the ability of engineers and architects to come to within closer tolerance of the minimum structural needs. (With better engineering models you have to do less overengineering, thus saving materials and money.) We no longer see a house or building as something that will be there forever. Other things, such as cost and construction speed, have become more important in our design criteria.

In other words, the equation by which success is measured has changed.

Pyramid construction/design criteria would logically evolve as well.

In terms of longevity, it is true that the later pyramids were inferior. But in terms of construction time and cost they are actually of superior design.

So did the design criteria for the pyramids change? Maybe. Did the later pharoahs have the absolute power that Khufu did or would twenty years of an expensive (and esentially useless) construction project have met resistance? Was the money available or was the government expected to use its revenues for things like roads, schools, temples, food, etc. to a greater degree than in Khufu's time? Did the Pharoah's start spending their money more on things they would enjoy while alive rather than death?

Any or all of these things can lead to a change in design criteria. Instead of emphasizing size, maybe you would focus on how ornate the decorations are. Maybe the mortuary temple would become more important. How long did the later pyramids last? If they outlive the king or the next few generations, is that long enough? Did the pyramid builders see the pyramids collapse or did they pretty much outlive the period in which they were built? If they outlasted the builders, isn't that long enough?

Exactly why would these be seen as inferior in the eyes of those who built them? I don't think they were. I just think the criteria changed.

-Tom


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3240 | From: Illinois | Registered: Jul 2001   

[Psycho]

Peter V
unregistered


  posted 08-12-2004 12:44 PM                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow.
That quote wasn't even from Han****. It was from Frank, a friend of mine, and the link was posted. I know effort isn't something you guys make when "researching", but all you had to do was click on the link. Instead, you just rhyme off nonsense displaying your ignorance in full view.

My god, research this just a little, please. The fact that ochre was and is available is of no concequence WHATSOEVER. Dispite the fact that the marks are daubed in areas which are TOTALLY unaccessable, they contain Khufu's Horus Name. End of story. They are genuine.

Also laughable was the statement that the Egyptians kept clear records of their history. Please pick up any book (square objects with paper inside called "pages") on ancient Egypt and turn to the sections devoted to the First and Second Intermediate Periods.

I've yet to see anyone post anything that might suggest that the Inventory Stela shows signs of being copied from an earlier piece of work. This whole thread reads like bad, bad book report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[Psycho]

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-12-2004 02:19 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that ochre was and is available is of no concequence WHATSOEVER. Dispite the fact that the marks are daubed in areas which are TOTALLY unaccessable, they contain Khufu's Horus Name. End of story. They are genuine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa, Peter! Settle down, my levitating little friend..! You make it sound like you just offered indisputable proof whilst once again you only made referred to your indisputable brilliance!

(By the way, you spelled "dispite" wrong, I believe it is "despite")

 

I have yet to see what anyone says when they say "areas totally unaccessable." (which, incidentally, my learned friend should also read "inaccessible,"). Pictures, please..?

Even if the markings do contain Khufu's "Horace name" there is no evidence that he was the one that put it there, had it put there, or indeed that he didn't simply "place" it there when he "found" the pyramid. Evidence, not opinions, please!

Another thing, why is everyone always picking on the poor markings..? Haven't they suffered enough abuse..? I suppose if Khufu would have managed to wriggle his way into a nook and cranny of the Hoover Dam he'd somehow get credit for that, too, by that logic? It's made of stone, too, and hence, incapable of being dated!

The only evidence that my friends in Egyptology seem to offer as proof that Khufu was the builder is the markings and their own learned opinions of them.

I would like, for a change, someone to address the other issues I raised today and other days, namely, the evidence of flooding around the pyramid, the illogical sequence with which they were built, the discrepancies regarding the carbon dating and other matters all of which you'll find above us in bold print.

Peter! More passion on your part at least today!  Is Thursday the day the check for the bribe money comes in from Zawi..? 

On your own book report, I give you a 'B-' for the effort and a 'D' when it comes to the misspelling...and I'm being lenient! I was expecting more actual substance from you! I'm still waiting to see it..!

You guys, quit making Pete levitate, he's suffered enough!
 

 


[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 08-12-2004).]


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

[Psycho]

 
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 08-12-2004 03:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomB,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the Pharoah's start spending their money more on things they would enjoy while alive rather than death?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm all for that, my friend!   On the other hand, maybe the original ones served one purpose, their successors another. It is a judgment call as to which one would be more logical in a society that made such an affair of the afterlife:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several subsidiary pyramids around the Giza Three which were probably built by the Pharaohs, and today are almost in total ruins because of their greatly inferior construction. According to ancient stelae and legends, the Pharaohs also made repairs on the Pyramids-but had nothing to do with their actual construction. With Menkhare came the end of the Fourth Dynasty, and at the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty we are supposed to believe, according to the historians, that the Egyptians suddenly reverted back to the same old methods of design and greatly inferior construction techniques as seen in the pyramids prior to the Fourth Dynasty. The first Pharaoh, Shepeskaf, actually built nothing more than a mastaba for his burial place. He was then followed by Userkaf, whose pyramid was so badly made it today is only a heap of debris. Sahure, Nieswerre and Neferirkare came next, and between them at Abu Sir they attempted to erect three pyramids (again duplicating Giza), but these in no way approached the size or grandeur of the Giza Three, and today are nothing more than broken piles. The same can be said for the monuments of the Sixth through the Thirteenth Dynasties, after which pyramid building for the most part came to an end. In all, 23 major pyramids were erected following the Fourth Dynasty and in each single case, the work on them was done hastily, with little care of precision, and using blocks that were no more than roughly squared boulders. We may well ask, if the Giza Pyramids, in all their excellence, were supposedly built in the Fourth Dynasty, what happened to the advanced knowledge seen in their design and construction-why was it never used again, in not a single later pyramid?
Author William R. Fix concluded: "The many fundamental differences between the major Giza monuments and the rest of Egypt’s pyramids indicates that they do not fit into the contended chronology for dynastic Egypt. But if they do not belong to dynastic Egypt, there is only one direction in which they can be moved-not forward, but back into the past." In truth, the Giza Pyramids were not an integral part of the evolutionary development of the Egyptian pyramids. Instead, they were there from the very beginning, the motivation and influence which spurred the building of the Dynastic pyramids along the Nile.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This message has been edited by Psycho (edited 08-12-2004).]


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

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 08-13-2004 12:02 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho
Carbon date ochre paint?
http://webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/technical/brownochre.html

The pigment (iron oxide) no.

The binder, maybe gelatin, yes IF it is still present. Probably decomposed ages ago.



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

[Psycho]

 
Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 08-13-2004 12:08 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho
"Why do so many of the pyramids dated after the Giza pyramids now lay in rubble..? One would think they would have gotten better at the craft, not worse!"

Not necessarily. Look at Rome and what happened after it declined and the barbarians took over. They didn't even try to build a coliseum.

Look at the great cathedrals. Don't see many new ones like those. Priorities change.



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

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 08-13-2004 12:17 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho
"Were the pharoahs in the habit of displaying their markings in such a surreptitious fashion? Had I built the Great Pyramid ane been the pharoah at the time, believe me, my name would have been all over it!"

You miss the point. These were graphiti or notes to locate the block - not decoration or records.



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

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 08-13-2004 12:26 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho
"what we find regarding the sizes of the three pyramids in association with the three reigns is inconsistent with what we would have expected to have happened."

Had it occurred to you that the inconsistency could be in our expectation, not in their motivation or ability?

Look at the medieval cathedrals (again). Now there is not the motivation or the 'slave' labour or the ethos to make such buildings. The 'same' function is performed in your local corner church.


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

[Psycho]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 08-13-2004 12:30 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WERE THE THREE GIZA PYRAMIDS MODELS FOR EGYPT’S "PYRAMID AGE"?
That article is utter crap from beginning to end.



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

[Psycho]

Andrew Waters

Member
Member # 914

  posted 08-13-2004 12:44 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Psycho said,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Soon as I realized the guy [Sitchin] believe that humanity was a "genetically engineered slave race by aliens from the planet Nimburi" I was outta there! I do have my standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like to me Psycho you omitted a smilie on the end of your comments.

Isn't it more plausible to accept parts of the above quote from you as opposed to throwing some clay up in the air and striking it with a magic wand?   

A billionaire dabbling in fantasy perhaps.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2710 | From: Akron, Ohio, USA | Registered: May 2002