The Great Pyramid according to Jim Marrs.... I want your opinion!

reply to post by Kandinsky


Thanks for lesson.

I will read the link you gave, thanks. I dont remember saying I am right and they are wrong as actually they are usually right.

In my opinion, and I am allowed to have one I think that the established views had an easy time of it and that the theories coming from the out of the box thinkers have made them work a little harder and on a few occasions expanded the knowledge after first being labeled crackpot.

Politics and religion has and still does play a part on both sides of the argument throughout this subject. I base my judgement on some pretty biased theroies I have read and that is why I do understand to a point Hawass's stand even if he is annoying.

The OP asked for opinions, that is what I have given.

Edit
Below is a case in point. No mention of any other reason than an offering when that ammount of cash would have meant they could buy food and not have to worry about the gods of the harvest. To me it happens far to often and is an assumption based on nothing. Sitting back in my chair I could come up with quite a few other reasons for the cache. Truth is they dont know.

Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...

The coins span 40 years from AD253 to AD293 and the great majority are 'radiates' made from debased silver or bronze.
The hoard was the equivalent of four years of pay for a Roman legionary - and could now fetch at least £250,000. Weighing 350lb, the coins may have been buried as an offering for a good harvest or favourable weather.

reply to post by zeta55


wasnt that a hoax?

reply to post by colin42
Thanks for the link. Reading the article, the weight of the coins and jar were upwards of 300Ib and the jar over 2" high. In this light, the jar would probably be partially filled and carried to the site to be buried. I suggest 'partially' because the jar would be unlikely to survive being carried with ~300Ib inside it or be practical from the human pov.

Where the guys have suggested it being an offering is due to the cooperation and organisation involved in the burial. It's still possible that it was a response to a regional threat or instability...a stash 'n' dash.

Whatever, the finder will be having a great Christmas with his Treasure Trove reimbursement!

Ok again , the thread started out interesting and then just went downhill from there , ehh. Getting back on the topic , would Harte or anybody that considers himself knowledgeable about this subject tell me if the Sphinx has such water erosion or not ? I do not care about personal attacks on Jim or Graham if they are McDonald employees or nuclear physicists , I would like answers to the questions that they are stating I am not saying I believe everything they or people like them are saying , but sometimes even a gas station clerk might have some interesting questions and observations .

reply to post by Kandinsky


The jar could just as easily have been buried empty, infilled and the the coins put in after. An empty jar could probably be managed by one person who may have been trying to hide his money until after his divorce was finalised but the wife demanded trial by combat, he lost and the cache remained buried.

Thats my point, if they dont know then they should not be scared to say it instead of dragging out the tired old religous nonsense almost every time.

Hi guys

This is quite an interesting thread.

A year ago I was told that I would do well joining the mason's. At first I was
not intrested at all but then started to get a tiny bit of information off the person
who asked me to join. I asked him about the pyramids and who built them, not
that I asking him as a mason but more as just a friend. His reply was "If you joined
the masons you will find out very quickly as that is insignificant compaired to what
you will learn in the grand scheme of thing"......

This got my mind working over time.

Maybe this is where the masons got there skills from to build great structures?

reply to post by Blue Shift

Here's my question. Everybody always says how remarkable it is that the Great Pyramid is lined up perfectly to the compass points.

But... if it was created a really long, long time ago, wouldn't there be some kind of variation from true North, etc., that accounts for the slight change in North from the Precession of the Equinox (axial precession of the Earth)? That creates a variance of approximately 1.38 degrees a century, and takes approximately 26,000 years to complete. If they used Polaris as a guide, then in order for it to be lined up now, it would have had to been built approximately 26,000 years ago. And almost nobody wants to go that far out on the dating limb. Humans were barely out of caves at that point.

True North has nothing to do with Polaris. It is the point where the axis of rotation intersects the surface of the earth. The axis precesses or wobbles with respect to the orbit the earth takes around the sun, north does not move with respect to the earth's surface.. if it did, the angular momentum required to change the axis of the earth's spin would have produced observable effects.. like the total annhilation of everything on the earth's surface. Pointing to Polaris is just a coincidence, not a definition of true north.

Also... the Earth's magnetic pole wanders all over the place. If they used a compass to create their "perfect alignment," again, they'd be pretty lucky to have built the Pyramid at the same time when the magnetic North Pole just happens to be in the same place it is today.

So you have just established that the builders of the pyramids probably didn't use compasses to find true north, but that was never suggested as a possibility. Red Herring

So either it was built -- very well, of course -- a long time ago at a time when the alignments just happen to be occurring again. Or they were maybe built a little closer to our own time, and the change hasn't been enough to really make a difference in the measurements. People who measure the pyramids are known to fudge things a bit to get the numbers in their favor. Decay has made the pyramids a little fuzzy around the edges, making that a little easier.

1. If the pyramid is a "little fuzzy" around the edges, then what basis do you use for suggesting that the numbers are biased by people in their favor? How would you get an accurate measure of the real values to use as a basis of comparision to show the other numbers aer wrong?

2. The fuzziness around the edges, even if it were as you say, would not alter the basic alignment of the pyramid with respect to the cardinal points of the compass.

3. Who fudges the numbers? It's easy to throw out a general accusation like that (sort of the FOX news "some say that.."), but back it up with some examples and I'll take it seriously, other than that, it's just name calling.

reply to post by Thill

Getting back on the topic , would Harte or anybody that considers himself knowledgeable about this subject tell me if the Sphinx has such water erosion or not ?

Harte's busy right now.

Does the Sphinx have any water erosion? The Giza Plateau (the sphinx is part of) is slightly below the modern water table which means that it is vulnerable to water erosion from below. It's been that way for a long time. It's that bad that water pumps are operating 24/7 to protect the monuments and temple complexes from deterioration.

I'm guessing the water erosion question is in relation to dating the sphinx? If so, the erosion of specific layers of the Sphinx is less to do with 'water' than it's to do with weather (aeolian erosion) and the structure (hardness) of the limestone bedrock.

Limestone isn't a consistently hard or soft rock. Some layers are harder than others and erode at different rates through different causes. For example, the contrasting temperatures of day and night involve contraction and expansion of the stone. This can cause softer, more porous layers to flake off in minute particles that over centuries is significantly harmful to the Sphinx. When this is combined with the abrasive elements of wind blown sand, erosion can become evident quite quickly.

The Sphinx has been carved from the bedrock of the Giza Plateau and the layers that make up the bedrock are different in hardness and softness. They erode at different rates. Also the Sphinx has been buried in sand to various depths over the centuries and that also becomes a factor in the rate of erosion.

When the Sphinx was carved out, the surrounding stone was used to build the Sphinx enclosure and temple complex. Using (iirc!) microscopy and luminescence techniques, it's possible to identify from where limestone blocks have been quarried and from which layer. Micro fossils of crustaceans are a good comparison. Knowing that the blocks have come from the layers of limestone that the Sphinx is carved from means we can use the dates of those blocks to work out the date of the Sphinx.

I'm going off recall here and may be mistaken, but iirc a block inscribed with the name of 'Khafre' was found underneath part of the Sphinx enclosure. The enclosure was built from the stone carved from the Sphinx and the named block was under the foundations of this enclosure. This is strong evidence that the Sphinx was built during (or near) the time of Khafre. As Khafre is known to have reigned somewhere around the 2500BC period...it dates the Sphinx to a similar period.

reply to post by colin42

The jar could just as easily have been buried empty, infilled and the the coins put in after. An empty jar could probably be managed by one person who may have been trying to hide his money until after his divorce was finalised but the wife demanded trial by combat, he lost and the cache remained buried.

Thats my point, if they dont know then they should not be scared to say it instead of dragging out the tired old religous nonsense almost every time.

It could have been. The thing is that these guys are immersed in the history and have experience of the archaeological record first hand. They've spent long days with a brush and trowel scraping away and recording the contents of each layer surrounding the find. They notice colour and consistency of the earth. They refer to the geography, geology and historical records.

The sheer amount of reference points they refer to is remarkable. If they speculate on the possible reasons for the burial of a cache like this, it's through informed experience and subject knowledge.

“The pot was enormous, there is no way that anyone could have carried it, which we think makes it unlikely that the money was hidden by someone who intended to return to it. The pot has been carefully placed in the ground using packing material such as reeds and grass, so we think it could be a ritual offering.”

Link

Because of the weight of the coins and the fragility of the pot in which they were buried, the pot must have been buried in the ground before the coins were tipped into them. This suggests that this hoard is unlikely to have been buried because its owner (or owners) were concerned about the threat of invasion and, wishing to find a safe place to store their wealth, intended to come back and recover it later when the times were more peaceful. If that had been their intention, then they would have buried their coins in smaller containers which would have been easier to recover.

The only way anyone could have recovered this hoard would have been by breaking the pot and scooping the coins out of it, which would have been awkward. It is thought therefore most likely that the person or persons who buried this hoard entrusted it to the earth without intending to come back and recover it later. Perhaps it was the offering of an agricultural community for a good harvest or favourable weather.

HIstory of the Ancient World

In this light, you can see that they haven't pulled the idea of an 'offering' out of thin air. They could be wrong, but based on their knowledge and experience, the idea that the coins were an 'offering' is the one that makes the most sense.

its foolish for any king to associate themselves with having built the pyramids; especially after seeing the burial chambers of some kings. if the belief in the afterlife was a known fact and the aspect of realizing oneself in the duat was a goal to be achieved the placement of a kings body in a place full of "circles" with imagery of constellations is "bad business". if a "king" named khufu claims to have made the pyramid this does not ensure that his body will be placed in the kings chamber in the proper moment to catapult his soul to the duat directly; so it is foolish on his part to claim such for personal benefit.

the sad and natural tale about the pyramids; which is natural in the guise of events which occur in my field of perception naturally: is that when a person or group of people are subjected to another person or group of people, the principle functions that are acted upon if assimilated by the subjugating group always are perfectly changed and are perfectly similar in their changes to the original nature as per assimilation. that being said it is impossible to ascertain who an "egyptian" is, and the reasons as to why a person would be given the privilege of resting in the kings chamber in a proper moment in time that produces an effect.

i think the temple is a relic that is impossible to be utilized properly in a persons present; whose destiny does not allow such an interaction.i feel it is a relic to a person who; maybe small or great in their own time did something new and something that was not viewed as great in his own.because of this act i think the temple as well as persons or people who can be associated with its building have been the victim of captivity by persons who view the acts of "the creator" as great or small.

this small act of freedom has also created the many emotions that are repressed based on the focus of attention to a relic and the person who did right for himself and the many who did wrong to others to do right for self.

i also think the temple was completed and done by one person and the same person who did such did so without commission from others but desire for self.



the comments about water and salt and position can be attributed to temporal self observation based on a work that is an act of observation of self temporally.

the act of creating this temple and other temples like it are kind of funny and relative to how nothing changes; a person can "do for" centuries and have hundreds of children, and then they are nothing because everyone who is not a member of their nation knows the lowly person who spent his time doing for himself and not the act of image of doing for self that creates the imagery that a person is working. idle time is the devils work? yet the lowly creator is nothing in his own sight because he can not rite himself into his temple in the proper moment to fulfill his desire of fruitful enjoyment of his labors;a law regulating the functioning of a rite does not right lawfully into your temple.

Originally posted by Thill
Ok again , the thread started out interesting and then just went downhill from there , ehh. Getting back on the topic , would Harte or anybody that considers himself knowledgeable about this subject tell me if the Sphinx has such water erosion or not ? I do not care about personal attacks on Jim or Graham if they are McDonald employees or nuclear physicists , I would like answers to the questions that they are stating

I am not saying I believe everything they or people like them are saying , but sometimes even a gas station clerk might have some interesting questions and observations .

edit on 4/11/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)

There's no real reason to think that the Egyptologists are way off on their sphinx dates.

That being said, none of them were there at the time.

Regarding water erosion, not really, though it's not absolutely determinable.

Erosion of stone, especially in sedimentary stone, tends to cause shapes on the stone that are primarily based on the stone's morphology, and not on what forces caused the erosion.

Robert Schoch's theory about a much older sphinx is not really based on erosion patterns found on the carving. His dates are based solely on the results of seismic studies which he claims give a clear picture of subsurface weathering of the limestone bedrock.

I've not been able to find any academic willing to back this subsurface claim after looking at Schoch's data. Limestone weathering is pretty varied, and Schoch's assumptions about it in the floor of the sphinx enclosure are pretty slim, as far as I can tell.

FYI, Schoch's theory is that the front part of the sphinx was carved as much as 3,000 years before egyptology claims. He says he believes that the rear of the sphinx was carved out in the 4th dynasty.

If you read any other variation on his theory, you can be sure the writer doesn't know what he's talking about.

Harte

reply to post by Thill

Hello Thill,

Thill: would Harte or anybody that considers himself knowledgeable about this subject tell me if the Sphinx has such water erosion or not ?

SC: The issue of the Sphinx and the Sphinx enclusure weathering is rather complex as Kandinsky has already outlined. You may find this paper by geologist, Colin Reader, of some help with your question. What really has to be considered here is the general topography of the Giza plateau and its geomorphology.

Here is the article by Colin Reader discussing this: Khufu Knew the Sphinx.

An interesting aspect of the plateau which Reader points out is that Khufu quarried limestone blocks for the Great Pyramid from either side of Khafre's causeway possibly indicating that either the causeway (and by extension G2) already existed when he was quarrying these blocks or that by leaving the strip of limestone that would become Khafre's causeway, Khufu was perhaps working to a pre-defined, unified plan. As Colin Reader puts it:

Under the conventional sequence of development, "Khafre's" causeway (and the Sphinx), were undeveloped at the time of Khufu's quarrying. If this sequence is correct, why should the extent of the quarrying have been limited by a feature (the causeway) that was not developed until sometime after Khufu's reign? The conventional sequence of development requires us to accept that Khufu's workmen went to the trouble of opening up a second quarry to the south of the causeway, rather than remove a linear body of rock which, at the time, served no apparent purpose.

The common alignment of the causeway and the southern Sphinx exposure indicates that, like the excavation of the Sphinx and the construction of the Sphinx temple, the alignment of "Khafre's" causeway was established some time before the construction of Khufu's mortuary complex.Colin Reader: Khufu Knew the Sphinx

Hope this is of some use to you in you search.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Kandinsky


Hi I let the thread die a little as I felt I was beginning to railroad it a bit and it was not my intention. Just to answer your points which I can see have validity but.

The pot to me looks like it could be carried easily by one person. If not it could easily be rolled by one person for sure.

I like to see the people as us just that they lived in different times. Remembering this, the more people that knew the location the less likely the cache would have remained untouched. The fact that it did points to me that one person or at the most one family unit knew of its location.

Just in case you say ‘they would not want to upset their gods', even the Chinese emperors ended up putting a sign outside their tombs saying ‘don’t bother to rob this tomb, nothing of value inside’ and yet they were still looted.

Burying lots of small pots first would take longer and would be just as hard to retrieve and harder to remember the locations. I don’t accept the reasoning for the larger pot being anymore awkward to retrieve than smaller ones and with that amount of money who cares about breaking a pot.

Found this which I take was the guy on the coins found:

P. Licinius Egnatius Gallienus, son of Valerian I, was made co-emperor soon after his father's elevation. After the capture of Valerian I by the Sasanians, Gallienus became ruler of an empire subject not only to fierce barbarian attacks, but also rent by internal revolts, famine and plague. Much of the Roman East came under the control of Odenathus of Palmyra. Gaul, Spain and Britain were lost to the central government when Postumus established an independent empire.

Which may back up my thoughts on a rushed burial and that many coins would be hard to go on the run with. Even if it does not, it points to a very unsettled time and so hiding the money from a levy for raising an army, tax avoidance or hey even gods but the sure thing is no one knows.

The name of the archaeologist involved is not given and so how much experience or training he had is unknown. We cannot even be sure he gave the explanation.

I’ve dug a few holes in my time and yes you can gather clues as to how the land was used but you cannot tell what someone was thinking when he dug a hole no matter how carefully you brush away the layers. Despite all this the well trodden explanation of deity is rolled out.

Yes in many cases you can deduce religion being the factor but not in this case and not in many others it is used for.

Maybe unlike the other sciences the press clamour for a story for these finds and the archaeologists feel pressured to give a reason I don’t know. What I am sure of is that answer of 'don’t know' is a valid one and they should not be scared to use it.