Evidence of past visitation? Or merely man made structures?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Again, don't know I have not tried, I just remember seeing a program where at spots on the pyramids the stone was close together not even talking fillers that you couldn't slip paper in there. Never been there to try. Just examples. I'm sure people at ats have all the factual answers without question. I do not. There seems to be a lot of complex math, astronomy, etc. I just find it amazing that people that weren't very advanced in some aspects were so advanced in others. Glad I can come here and get the undeniabled facts. Thanks

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: kellyjay
a reply to: Klassified

ive never heard that theory before obout two layers of engravings, could you give me more info on that?

Quick search. So you may want to do a little digging yourself. There are more scholarly sources out there. But in brief...

In the days of the pharaos, some hieroglyphics were recarved as time went by. This, re- or over-carving sometimes kept 'left-overs' of the old text still visible. Egyptologists know that this was done many times. Well, and that's exactly what did happen with the carving in the temple of Abydos. No UFO, no helicopter just what you could call an ancient "typo". On the pictures below you can see the original pictures of the carvings at Abydos. Note the colour difference, and the clearly visible hieroglyph in front of the 'heli'. On the drawing you can get a clearer view of how the process of recarving influenced the carvings found on the Abydos cartouche...

Link

Some folks express doubt that this explanation accounts for what could be seen as 4 different types of craft in the image. I'll leave that determination to you.

excellent thankyou.

Just FYI, the glyphs are, as was said, a palimpsest where Ramesses II had his father's (Seti I) royal titulary plastered over and replaced by his own.

Here's a pic of the pertinent portion of Seti I's titulary (part of the Nebty Name portion, if you read the above link about the various names):



Compare to the panel usually shown:



It's not really a "theory" that it is two different royal titularies. You can see for yourself that it is absolutely certain that it is.

BTW, don't be afraid to post stuff like this. It's been going on for decades here and I see this same pic posted at least two or three times a year. So don't let anyone tell you to "check first" or whatever. Lots of other posters doing it.

But be aware that people will correct you on most of these old and specious claims. Please don't take it too personally.

Harte