Which Pyramid Was 1st?

[Phoenix]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 05-27-2004 11:27 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not take a genius to understand ...
Well, perhaps you will explain to me how the water is bound?

"The wadsleyite does not contain liquid water, but the elements needed to make water bound up in crystals in solid form."

To help you, it can be described either in a formula like hydrated (MgFe)2SiO4 or in another form such as:

Mg1.71Fe0.177Al0.01Si0.965H0.332O4.

Perhaps you will explain the dynamics of water of crystallisation being converted into liquid water?

I await with interest.



[This message has been edited by Catastrophe (edited 05-27-2004).]


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

[Phoenix]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 05-27-2004 11:36 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile here is some chemistry for you:
"Water of crystallization

When a solution of copper sulphate in water is concentrated and allowed to crystallize, clear blue crystals are obtained which have the molecular formula CuSO4.5H2O. Each molecule of copper sulphate crystallizes with five molecules of water. ... It is important to realise that water of crystallization is not present in the liquid form in which we normally regard water, but as individual molecules of water each of which plays its part in building up (during crystallization)the regular structure which characterizes the crystalline state."





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

[Phoenix]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 05-27-2004 11:45 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot blame you for a rather inadequate knowledge of thermodynamics (to be fair, thermodynamics is not everyone's favourite subject, so that is understandable) in confusing liquid water and water of crystallization and the thermodynamic interchange between them in relation to 'the flood'.
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.

If you are trying to relate 'THE FLOOD' to the 'saline flood' then you have to explain the thermodynamics of how this could happen at the peak of an ice age.


"These things just cannot be ignored any longer."


[This message has been edited by Catastrophe (edited 05-27-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Catastrophe (edited 05-28-2004).]


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

[Phoenix]

Smiley4554

Administrator
Member # 332

  posted 05-28-2004 04:44 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm, so what you are saying is that the Flood could not have been a salt water flood?
It would appear to me that the Great Flood would be a mixture of all waters of the Earth - Fresh & Salt. Depending upon whether the waters under the Earth were saline or not, this would make a great difference. While you can mix the 2, if the waters were more fresh than salt, then there would be a dilution of the saline in the salt waters.

So, I guess to answer it we need to ask if the ground waters of the Earth are fresh water or salt water, or even a combo of both.

Interesting thought.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5916 | From: Arkansas...USA | Registered: Jan 2001   

[Phoenix]

 
Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 05-28-2004 11:13 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your "ground water" is water of crystallisation and thus H2O locked in a crystal.
You can't eat your cake and have it.

Check out the science!



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

[Phoenix]

 
Peter V

Member
Member # 71

Member Rated:
   posted 05-29-2004 01:32 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flood didn't happen. Period.
I feel sorry for people who base their entire belief system on simplistic childern's stories.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4450 | From: Canada | Registered: Dec 1999   
 

[Phoenix]

Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 05-29-2004 11:19 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the excavations at Nineveh more than 25000 clay cuneiform tablets were found.
"The tale of the flood told in the tablets forms part of the epic of Gilgamesh. Though written long before the bible, its parallels with the old testament story are startling. The gods prepare to destroy mankind in a mighty deluge, but decide to spare the hero of the tale. He tears down his house and builds a boat, into which he brings his family, his craftemen, and a host of animals, both wild and domesticated. When the terrible storm is over, his boat is left grounded on a mountain top, and he sends first a dove, then a swallow, then finally a raven to see if the waters have abated."

So the bible story is just a half regurgitated copy of what they brought back from captivity.






------------------
We think ourselves unhappy when a comet appears, but the misfortune is the comet's
Bernard de Fontenelle
The Plurality of Worlds (Paris 1686)



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

[Phoenix]

bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 05-30-2004 04:03 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, here is something I typed up the other day, but was unable to post it:

The book of the dead records that Thoth was the designer & builder of the Great Pyramid.
Elements of that same story were found in the Pyramid texts dated to around 2450BC and are presented in the context that they were extremely old even then.
Yet, Orthodox Egyptologists constantly insist that Khufu was the GP’s builder.

Coincidently, NOTHING that offers evidence of the life and times of Khufu conclusively links him to the construction of the Wonder. In fact the opposite applies:

A stele in the form of a huge stone scarab symbolizing Khepra was found during excavations near the Great Pyramid in June 1954. The inscription carved upon it’s back stated the Khufu was buried NEAR the south face of the Great Pyramid.

This artifact supports what Egyptian priests had told Herodotus 2400 years ago:…’ The Nile water was introduced through an artificial duct and surrounds an island where the body of Cheops is said to lie’ – Although wishing to be interred in the Great Pyramid, He never was.

A century ago, A.P. Sinnett, a British journalist and one of the few Europeans to ever become a pupil of a Himalayan Mahatma, left some extraordinary notes about what he had learnt during his research trip to the Great Pyramid.
He said that documents he witnessed recorded that Pharaoh Cheops simply restored some external portions of the Great Pyramid, closed secret chambers and left his cartouche. That information is supported by Herodotus, but Egyptologists use that account of renovation work as evidence that Khufu actually BUILT the Pyramid.

Herodotus cites SPECIFICALLY that the stones Cheops used were, ‘None of them LESS than thirty feet in length… that only POLISHED stone was used… fitted together with the utmost care’.
This is a description of the huge casing stones, NOT the smaller stones that make up the main internal body. This contrast in stone sizes clearly indicates that Cheops’ stones were the polished exterior casing.

Cheops IS responsible for some small royal pyramids to the East of the Great Pyramid, however. They’re often debased in shape and faulty in proportion.
This information is recorded on a stele belonging to his relatives, and the smaller mastabas and some temples surrounding the GP were conclusively linked to Cheops’ period.
HOW could a builder of imperfect structures all of a sudden build the perfection that is the Great Pyramid? Even today’s GP is better than anything this man could build!

Herodotus also claims to have been initiated at the Great Pyramid, which he said had no apparent entrance from the outside.
In a later time, AFTER Herodotus’ initiation there, a mention is made to the GP having a hole hewn out of it’s side. In a biblical writing called ‘The Pastor of Hermas’, there is this:
“… and in the middle of the sand, he showed me a great white rock, which had risen out of the plain, and the rock was higher than mountains and angular so as to be able to point to the whole world; but that rock was old, having a hole hewn out of it, and the hewing seemed to me to be recent”.

This record shows that some 300 hundred years after Herodotus, an attempt had been made to enter the GP.
How then, had Herodotus been initiated there?

Another proof showing that the GP wasn’t Khufus, is the oft disregarded ‘Inventory stele’.
It was discovered at Giza in the 19th century by Auguste Mariette, and it’s text clearly indicates that both the Great Pyramid AND the Great Sphinx (as well as other structures on the plateau) were ALREADY in existence LONG BEFORE Khufu came to the throne.
It also refers to Isis being the ‘Mistress of the Pyramid’, indicating the GP’s dedication to ISIS, NOT Khufu at all.

Quarry marks were mentioned by Doc:
The ‘Discoverer’ of the quarry marks was a Colonel Howard Vyse during excavations in 1837.
The marks were, as Graham Hancock says: ‘“… found on the walls and ceilings of the top four of these cavities (small, narrow, ‘relieving chambers’, which lay directly above the ‘King’s Chamber’) and said things like this:

The craftsmen-Gang, how powerful is the white crown of Khnum-Khufu
Khufu
Khnum-Khufu
Year seventeen.

… One would have thought that a discovery of this nature would have settled conclusively any lingering doubts over the ownership and purpose of that enigmatic monument.
But the doubts remained, largely because, from the beginning, ‘a certain smell’ hung over Vyse’s evidence:

1) It was odd that THE MARKS WERE THE ONLY SIGNS OF THE NAME KHUFU EVER FOUND ANYWHERE INSIDE THE GREAT PYRAMID.
2) It was odd that they had been found in such an OBSCURE, OUT-OF-THE-WAY CORNER of that immense building.
3) It was odd that they had been FOUND AT ALL in a monument otherwise DEVOID OF INSCRIPTIONS OF ANY KIND.
4) And it was extremely odd that they had been found ONLY IN THE TOP FOUR of the five relieving chambers. Inevitably, suspicious minds began to wonder whether ‘quarry marks’ might also have appeared in the lowest of the five chambers had THAT chamber too, been discovered by Vyse. (rather than by Nathaniel Davison seventy years earlier)
5) Last but not least, it was odd that several of the hieroglyphs in the ‘quarry marks’ had been painted UPSIDE DOWN, and that some were UNRECOGNIZABLE while others were MISSPELLED or USED UNGRAMMATICALLY.’ (Emphasis mine)
Was Vyse a FORGER? (Hell yes, I say…)

So, this makes it quite clear that It is NOT Khufu’s, regardless of personal opinions, that much is sure.

Seashells on the Pyramid was also mentioned, and Catastrophe insisted that “Limestone is made with organic matter, and petrified oysters are visible on the stones” ( well, to that effect, anyway…).

This does not explain the masses of seashells that lay in the sand also, even during Norden’s time in the 1700’s. When Norden visited the Pyramids some 2100 years after Herodotus time, there were still seashells on the Pyramid plateau. He was surprised to find in the sand a ‘great number of shells and petrified oysters, which is so much more surprising, as the Nile never rises high enough to cover this plain; Besides that, though it should reach there, it could not be considered as the cause of them, since the river never has, nor did it EVER have, shellfish. Although there are no shellfish in the Nile, yet they abound in the Red sea. It might be asked, from whence came these shells such as one finds on the Pyramids themselves?’


(A slight digression from Tony Bushby, author of ‘The secret of the Bible’, explaining the former positioning of the Giza monuments)

“Herodotus once asked the Priests if the Nile Delta was originally an inlet of the sea, subsequently filled by the silt brought down by the river during the annual inundation. The priests answered in the affirmative and added that the whole region above Memphis lying between the two ranges of hills at one time formed a gulf to sea. Aristotle added that the Red sea, the Mediterranean and the area now occupied by the Delta, once formed one sea.
The Egyptian priests told Herodotus that,’ The sea came almost to the Fayum, and except the province of Thebes, and the whole country was a pestilential swamp’.
The Mediterranean once reached to the foot of the sandy plateau on which stands the Pyramids, and formed a wide gulf where now stretches plain beyond plain of the Delta’.

To conclude; The tradition of the ancient Egyptian Priesthood and the research of historians reveals that the pyramids at Giza were originally built by the edge of the Mediterranean sea.”

In 1925, a massive 11-year project began under Emile Baraize. Hundreds of workers under Baraize cleared sand away from the Sphinx, and, at the same time, removed large alluvial sand and seashell build-ups against the bases of all pyramids.

How did it get there? It obviously wasn’t the Nile.
Some claim that it was a huge, worldwide flood, others claim a local flood, heck, some may even believe that someone was having a ‘seashell fight’ and the shells weren’t picked up.
In any case, the fact remains that there WAS seawater covering the Plateau at some time, and the water level rose to approximately 2/3 way up the face of the Great Pyramid (and obviously remained for quite a time, hence the erosion and clear watermark on the Pyramid).

Did I miss anything?



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

[Phoenix]

Tom Hebert
Member
Member # 999

  posted 05-30-2004 07:20 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blu,
These are very interesting observations. I would like to research them more. Can you give us some references, either books or websites?

Tom



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 813 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2002   

[Phoenix]

Peter V

Member
Member # 71

Member Rated:
   posted 05-30-2004 09:21 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blu,
Your very first statement is wrong. So is most of the rest of your post. You obviously have not read the book of the dead, or bothered to study the ancient Egyptians in any light. The book of the dead does not, in any way, mention the great pyramid.

Your ramblings on Vyse are also garbage statements. The pyramid has no inscriptions because it was built during a time before inscriptions were part of the pyramid. There are no grammatical errors, and there is no way Vyse could have forged them.

There are shells in the sand because limestone erodes.

Are you basing your posts on dreams you've had, or what?

INANE.


[This message has been edited by Peter V (edited 05-30-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4450 | From: Canada | Registered: Dec 1999   

[Phoenix]

johnee

Member
Member # 1580

  posted 05-30-2004 10:35 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bluducky
"and the whole country was a pestilential swamp?".

I am most interested in this detail of your post as I feel that this was the case, a 'reed sea' with 'reed boats', 'reed floats' and at least one 'reed island' could you please quote the original source in Herodotus if it's possible and not too much trouble.

On the Tools menu click "AutoCorrect" then the "AutoFormat as You Type".
Under "Replace as you type" uncheck "Straight quotes" with "smart quotes"
After doing this I lost all those confusing question marks that occurred when copying from word and pasting on the web. There were complaints from mars that my bad punctuation and spelling were 'wracking his nerves'. Damn cheek considering all the trite irrelevant twaddle that he is also inclined to post.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1534 | Registered: Jul 2003 

[Phoenix]

bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 05-30-2004 05:04 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I shall get references to you all as soon as I can find them...
Peter, I have, in one post, provided more evidence to back my claims than you have in this entire thread. If I am wrong, then show me where.
I have translated copies of the book of the dead, so yes, it is very possible that I am wrong in that respect. However, much of the rest is beyond debate.

You claim that limestone erodes, and THAT is why there was a clearing around the bases of the pyramids -- WHAT about the plateau?

No way Vyse could have forged them?! are you nuts?! The man spend some ten years looking for something that didn't exist, and all of a sudden, wham! grammatically incorrect, upside down inscriptions in what could be described as an 'air shaft'...

Oh yes, and Peter, -- INANE!



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

[Phoenix]

cleasterwood

Member
Member # 1620

Member Rated:
   posted 05-31-2004 08:31 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluducky,
I couldn't have said it better! Kudos for all the hard work. I've always said the GP wasn't a creation of Khufu and naturally they all scoff but the truth is there, buried on the south face of the GP somewhere underground. I based my fictional novel on exactly those theories and clearly stated that the GP didn't belong to Khemenkhufu as I do concur. Wonderful analysis!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 653 | From: FL US | Registered: Aug 2003   

[Phoenix]

 
bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 06-01-2004 03:14 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have invested a little time in locating my references for some of the above statements -- let this be a lesson to me to always have them handy...
First off:
The 'Pestilential swamp' reference: By Tony Bushby, quoting Herodotus, ''Histories' II, 4; XCIX

I studied Tony's work extensively, and many quotes stated were taken from his work 'The Secret In the Bible'.

Quarry marks & inventory stele: Graham Hancock - 'Fingerprints of the Gods', p. 320-322.


"mediteranean reaching to the foot of the sandy plateau" : 'The Dawn of Civilization' Prof Gaston Maspero, 1901, p.3.

To this quaint list, I would like to add a link which I (unfortunately) did not use as a reference. It is very well done, and the author (David Pratt) deserves a huge pat on the back:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/pyramid.htm

I ( and i'm sure we all) can disagree on a few, minor details, but what would be interesting without controversy?

Evidence speaks for itself...

Anything in particular anyone would like?



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

[Phoenix]

 
johnee

Member
Member # 1580

  posted 06-01-2004 07:41 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you bluducky

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 And they told me that the first man who ruled over Egypt was Min, and that in his time all Egypt, except the Thebaic canton, was a marsh, none of the land below Lake Moeris then showing itself above the surface of the water. This is a distance of seven days' sail from the sea up the river.
From the coast inland as far as Heliopolis the breadth of Egypt is considerable, the country is flat, without springs, and full of swamps.

The greater portion of the country above described seemed to me to be, as the priests declared, a tract gained by the inhabitants. For the whole region above Memphis, lying between the two ranges of hills that have been spoken of appeared evidently to have formed at one time a gulf of the sea.

Thus I give credit to those from whom I received this account of Egypt, and am myself, moreover, strongly of the same opinion, since I remarked that the country projects into the sea further than the neighbouring shores, and I observed that there were shells upon the hills, and that salt exuded from the soil to such an extent as even to injure the pyramids.

They said that when Moeris was king, the Nile overflowed all Egypt below Memphis, as soon as it rose so little as eight cubits. Now Moeris had not been dead 900 years at the time when I heard this of the priests; yet at the present day, unless the river rise sixteen, or, at the very least, fifteen cubits, it does not overflow the lands.


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


http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html
Could not google 'The Dawn of Civilisation', will have to get back to David Pratt as he makes some interesting points.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1534 | Registered: Jul 2003