China: Ancient Pyramids + Explosions: "Underground Forests in Mystery Holes of Guangxi"

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
It was your information that you just posted, it said the wood is dated older than the pyramid, like 500 yrs...

That was an answer to what, specifically?

^You posted information that included that the piece of wood, was dated 500 years OLDER than Khufu, and so 500 years older than the pyramid, which the wood was found in.

And I just remarked that it might suggest that all the dating is wrong, in general, because that's a strange aspect of the whole situation.







-- It means that if the wood was sealed within the pyramid, at the time the Great Pyramid was built: Then it was already 500yr old wood at that point. It's absurd.

-- It also means that if the wood was broken off the tip of a stick, used by explorers, then they were using a stick which was probably a lot older than 500 years old. For example, if the explorers' stick broke off that piece, about 500 years AFTER the pyramid was built... that would mean their stick was 1,000 YEARS OLD. It's absurd.

It's absurd either way, this ancient piece of wood that predates the pyramid by 500 years. I think it suggests that the overall dating of the entire area, is f*cked.





And from what I've seen, it's a rough chunk of wood. It wasn't some weird heirloom that would have been saved for 500+ years, either by the pyramid builders, or by the explorers with their sticks. Either way, the wood is too old, and it doesn't make sense for either scenario, i.e. the ancient wood being sealed by the builders, nor does it make sense that the primitive explorers were using ancient sticks. Both scenarios are absurd imo.

And it should be a question, why the wood is dated older than the pyramid, how that really makes sense, either way.

If the wood was a carving, then this entire idea would make a lot more sense (if the wood was a carved message, or a carved statue). But it's not. It's a gross, natural piece of wood, that was clearly not a preserved heirloom by anyone, and its older date doesn't make sense with the pyramid date (or the idea of explorers breaking their ancient stick).

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I lost clarity of whether you're saying if rocks & rock structures, are directly dated, or not. Your post kinda sounds like you're 1st saying that rocks do get dated, and then it sounds like ur saying that they don't get dated.

Rocks can be dated, but what is done with them cannot, and that applies also to things like wood.

For example, if I pick up a 2 million years old rock and break it in half, although they can date the rock, they cannot date when it was broken in two.

The same thing can happen with living creatures and C14 dating. If they find a dead animal stuffed with sand, they get a date for when the animal died and maybe even a date for the sand, but they cannot get a date for when the sand was put inside the animal. The materials can be dated directly, the actions cannot.

Alright well we were talking past each other a little bit apparently; I appreciate the information, and this is basically what I've always understood, that there's not a practical way that rocks can be dated -- not in a way that relates to human history.

They can be dated billions of years old but that doesn't really relate to human history at all.

Whereas organic matter obviously CAN be dated with some accuracy, apparently, within a human history timeline.




So while rock can be dated billions of years old, there's still effectively no dating of rocks, in a human timeframe, including rock structures like the pyramids. They effectively can't be dated.




And so there's my skepticism that any ancient rock structures, pyramids, temples, are ever really being dated correctly at all.

I'm not convinced that these things are EVER being dated correctly by anyone.






Fundamentally the pyramids and other ancient rock structures, are just undateable, and that's it.

And the above discussion of the wood fragment being 500yrs older than the pyramid that it was found in, that just indicates that the pyramid was dated wrong. And probably the entire area, dated wrong.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

Read this.

Also, as it looks like you are not aware of it, the text below came from here.

Radiocarbon dating
Mortar was used generously in the Great Pyramid's construction. In the mixing process ashes from fires were added to the mortar, organic material that could be extracted and radiocarbon dated. A total of 46 samples of the mortar were taken in 1984 and 1995, making sure they were clearly inherent to the original structure and could not have been incorporated at a later date. The results were calibrated to 2871–2604 BC. The old wood problem is thought to be mainly responsible for the 100–300 year offset, since the age of the organic material was determined, not when it was last used. A reanalysis of the data gave a completion date for the pyramid between 2620 and 2484 BC, based on the younger samples.

In 1872 Waynman Dixon opened the lower pair of "Air-Shafts", previously closed at both ends, by chiseling holes into the walls of the Queen's Chamber. One of the objects found within was a cedar plank, which came into possession of James Grant, a friend of Dixon. After inheritance it was donated to the Museum of Aberdeen in 1946, however it had broken into pieces and was filed incorrectly. Lost in the vast museum collection, it was only rediscovered in 2020, when it was radiocarbon dated to 3341–3094 BC. Being over 500 years older than Khufu's chronological age, Abeer Eladany suggests that the wood originated from the center of a long-lived tree or had been recycled for many years prior to being deposited in the pyramid.

^The linked article about the ancient script that was found, it sounds convincing except I still do have a general skepticism that anyone can genuinely read / make sense of, ancient Egyptian writing, in the 1st place.

2nd, there's really an impression that the script's contents sound... "too good to be true." Which doesn't automatically make it false, but it raises the question. (I mean really, they just happened to find a text with all the missing information that was needed to finally, conclusively nail down the timeline of the pyramids, for the 1st time ever... it absolutely raises the question if it's "too good to be true.")

3rd, I've generally not heard positive things about the one guy involved in the project, that one Egypt expert. So I'm skeptical of his involvement/ his analysis. I always heard about him forcing a conservative interpretation of historical findings, and it looks exactly like that, maybe. I've also always heard accusations of him manipulating findings, I don't know either way but I'm skeptical of him. At one point I thought he was also removed from his government position, but apparently he's back now.

...But see he's a government agent, he has the govt. interests in mind. And Egypt's interest (and Egypt's collective ego) is for: Claiming a direct-connection (and direct ancestry) to... all the ancient ruins in its borders... stuff like that...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
-- It means that if the wood was sealed within the pyramid, at the time the Great Pyramid was built: Then it was already 500yr old wood at that point. It's absurd.

Why?

-- It also means that if the wood was broken off the tip of a stick, used by explorers, then they were using a stick which was probably a lot older than 500 years old. For example, if the explorers' stick broke off that piece, about 500 years AFTER the pyramid was built... that would mean their stick was 1,000 YEARS OLD. It's absurd.

You were the one talking about "explorers".

And from what I've seen, it's a rough chunk of wood. It wasn't some weird heirloom that would have been saved for 500+ years, either by the pyramid builders, or by the explorers with their sticks.

Why do you keep on talking about "heirloom"? Why do you get so attached to baseless ideas like that of the wood being a "heirloom"?
About the wood, do you know the age of all pieces of wood in your house?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
They can be dated billions of years old but that doesn't really relate to human history at all.

Whereas organic matter obviously CAN be dated with some accuracy, apparently, within a human history timeline.

Don't mix things, rocks can be dated with some accuracy too.

So while rock can be dated billions of years old, there's still effectively no dating of rocks, in a human timeframe, including rock structures like the pyramids. They effectively can't be dated.

The rocks can be dated, the actions performed on the rocks (or on anything else) cannot (usually) be dated directly.

And so there's my skepticism that any ancient rock structures, pyramids, temples, are ever really being dated correctly at all.

Archaeologists are not stupid, they know how to use the available tools for their job. Nobody in their right mind would try to date a house based on the date of the marble used on the entrance, in the same way nobody will use a piece of wood found in a house to date the house as being older than it.

Again, the way you talk about scientists makes you look like someone that hates science unless it supports your preconceived ideas.

I'm not convinced that these things are EVER being dated correctly by anyone.

Can you date them?

Fundamentally the pyramids and other ancient rock structures, are just undateable, and that's it.

If you read a record of a building having been built in the 1920s is the building dated or not? Do you think they date buildings by the date of the rocks used to make them?

And the above discussion of the wood fragment being 500yrs older than the pyramid that it was found in, that just indicates that the pyramid was dated wrong. And probably the entire area, dated wrong.

Wrong.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
2nd, there's really an impression that the script's contents sound... "too good to be true." Which doesn't automatically make it false, but it raises the question. (I mean really, they just happened to find a text with all the missing information that was needed to finally, conclusively nail down the timeline of the pyramids, for the 1st time ever... it absolutely raises the question if it's "too good to be true.")

They found more than that, and what they found is not the only clue to the date of the pyramid.

3rd, I've generally not heard positive things about the one guy involved in the project, that one Egypt expert. So I'm skeptical of his involvement/ his analysis. I always heard about him forcing a conservative interpretation of historical findings, and it looks exactly like that, maybe. I've also always heard accusations of him manipulating findings, I don't know either way but I'm skeptical of him. At one point I thought he was also removed from his government position, but apparently he's back now.

Zahi Hawass? He wasn't "involved in the project", his name appears only because of a comment he made.

a reply to: ArMaP

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
-- It means that if the wood was sealed within the pyramid, at the time the Great Pyramid was built: Then it was already 500yr old wood at that point. It's absurd.

Why?

-- It also means that if the wood was broken off the tip of a stick, used by explorers, then they were using a stick which was probably a lot older than 500 years old. For example, if the explorers' stick broke off that piece, about 500 years AFTER the pyramid was built... that would mean their stick was 1,000 YEARS OLD. It's absurd.

You were the one talking about "explorers".

And from what I've seen, it's a rough chunk of wood. It wasn't some weird heirloom that would have been saved for 500+ years, either by the pyramid builders, or by the explorers with their sticks.

Why do you keep on talking about "heirloom"? Why do you get so attached to baseless ideas like that of the wood being a "heirloom"?
About the wood, do you know the age of all pieces of wood in your house?

I don't know why you're responding that way. The dating is apparently what's wrong, not my acknowledgment of it.

And for goodness sake, how old is the wood in anyone's house. Do you have 1,000 year old chunks of wood, or 2,000yr old chunks of wood. I don't.


If you go outside and pick up a stick, it will not be a thousand or two thousand yrs old.

Why is the wood in the pyramid older than the pyramid, how does that make sense for any possible interpretation. The wood was NOT a preserved artifact, and it makes no sense to be 500+ years older than the pyramid.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
And for goodness sake, how old is the wood in anyone's house. Do you have 1,000 year old chunks of wood, or 2,000yr old chunks of wood. I don't.

Maybe not 2,000 years old, but in my shop I sell wooden furniture that was made over 200 years ago.

My house was built in the 1990s. But if it's buried in a catastrophe and dug up in 5,000 years time and they find the remains of early Victorian furniture, would that imply my house was actually built in the 1830s?

a reply to: ArMaP

Don't mix things, rocks can be dated with some accuracy too.





The rocks can be dated, the actions performed on the rocks (or on anything else) cannot (usually) be dated directly.

^Correct. Rocks can be dated, but not dated in a way that relates to a human timeline.

And right, the actions on rocks can't be dated, like cutting stones and building pyramids, can't be dated.






And it basically means that rock structures, just can't be dated directly at all. This would include ancient temples, pyramids, etc. (although u mentioned the mortar in Egypt and I still have to look at that).

Again, the way you talk about scientists makes you look like someone that hates science unless it supports your preconceived ideas.

No, it's the established leaps-of-faith, which I dislike:

The wood chunk being dated directly, 500yrs older than the pyramid... it should be a sign that the pyramid is just obviously dated wrong.

Fabricating ideas of why / how that wood-chunk-anomaly, might make sense, is not really science, it's a leap of faith, in the face of obvious evidence that the entire established timeline is wrong.

And I think it's worth considering how absurd the wood-chunk anomaly, really is.

It's absurd if it was sealed inside the NEW pyramid, as a 500-yr old chunk of wood, that's absurd.

And probably all the more absurd if you imagine that the wood came from people sticking holes into the pyramid, and they were using sticks that were thousands of years old, that's absurd too.

...Like I said earlier, if the wood-chunk-explorers actually broke off that chunk, only 500yrs after the Great Pyramid was built, then that already means that their stick was literally A THOUSAND YRS OLD, and that's just ridiculous.

Plus not to mention if the wood came from researchers who were there, at a LATER date.

So if the wood chunk came from researchers/explorers, who were... 1,000 yrs after the G. Pyramid was built... then they were poking a stick that was 1,500 years old.

I can't really take it seriously that anyone doesn't think this explanation is nonsense, the wood is just too old for the established time-placement of the entire pyramid.

Can you date them?

No. But I can acknowledge that if the Great Pyramid was dated accurately then there shouldn't be a chunk of rough wood, sitting inside, that's 500+ yrs older than the entire structure. As discussed above.






And for the earlier discussion of Impact sites, well the established timeline again just looks very arbitrary.

Just looking at physical characteristics: The Libyan sand-glass field... shares fundamentally the same traits... as the relatively-nearby site, in the neighboring country. The outward characteristics would suggest that BOTH sand-glass fields, were probably / quite possibly, just the same results from the same event.

Yet they're supposedly dated to completely different impacts. In that case, the outward physical traits of both sites, are more convincing than anything, and the shared traits would suggest a shared relationship & commonality, between the sites.

And it suggests that the dating of the 2 sites is apparently arbitrary and wrong, when it's at odds, with the self-evident characteristics of the sites, which would seem to obviously suggest that the sites are probably closely related, more likely than not.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman
And for goodness sake, how old is the wood in anyone's house. Do you have 1,000 year old chunks of wood, or 2,000yr old chunks of wood. I don't.

Maybe not 2,000 years old, but in my shop I sell wooden furniture that was made over 200 years ago.

My house was built in the 1990s. But if it's buried in a catastrophe and dug up in 5,000 years time and they find the remains of early Victorian furniture, would that imply my house was actually built in the 1830s?

oh boy, yet another sh.thole of a thread going forever.

don't waste your breath, he's acting like that chunk of wood had to grow up inside the pyramid and couldn't be something that was already hundreds of years old when it was brought inside the pyramid when it was built. you won't find intelligence in his claims, only trolling.

a reply to: ArMaP

If you read a record of a building having been built in the 1920s is the building dated or not?

There's not a record of the G. Pyramid being built. The recently-linked text that was found, is probably what u think is the record of it being built. Well, yeah at face-value, it looks that way. It would be the one, only, perfect record, ever found, which perfectly ties up everything.

That's the face value interpretation, while I'm not convinced automatically about it, not yet.






Otherwise there's no other record either.

The Khufu "grafitti" found in the interior, that's at best unconvincing that it was even a real thing, i.e. not a sloppy forgery by the team, who felt the need to force an important discovery. Most info I've seen about it has been skeptical that it's even really ancient Egyptian writing, and that it far more resembles a sloppy forgery. Personally I haven't poured time into this one specific thing, enough to make a definite conclusion (on the Khufu "grafitti").

But yet, I can say that both above examples are UNCONVINCING of anything. The Khufu thing was most likely fake, by the frustrated archeological team.

And the newly-found script sounds perfect, and maybe too-good-to-true, so it's at least not automatically 100% convincing, quite yet.

As I've mentioned, I'm still doubtful of ancient Egyptian being readable genuinely, by anyone, and that would be at least one possible reason of the new script not being really so perfect, after all, maybe. In other words, it might be a very overly optimistic translation, which ties up all the knots. More out of the overly optimistic translation, rather than its original substance, maybe.

I haven't poured into this one specific topic yet, to make up my mind yet (about the newly found text). But so I've just explained why hearing about it, at first, is not automatically fully convincing imo.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I don't know why you're responding that way.

Why do you say that the wood being is older is absurd?

The dating is apparently what's wrong, not my acknowledgment of it.

What's wrong is your interpretation of the facts, as you are ignoring two of the three possibilities.

If the wood was dated as being 500 years older than the pyramid that could mean:
- The dating is correct in both cases and the wood is 500 years older than the pyramid;
- The dating of the wood is incorrect;
- The dating of the pyramid is incorrect.

And for goodness sake, how old is the wood in anyone's house. Do you have 1,000 year old chunks of wood, or 2,000yr old chunks of wood. I don't.

I don't know either. I have three old clocks and I don't have the slightest idea of how old they are. I have an African spear one of my mother's grand-uncles bought in an auction. I have one old chest made from African wood. The only certainty is that all of those things are older than the first time I saw them.

If you go outside and pick up a stick, it will not be a thousand or two thousand yrs old.

Most likely not, but the above is a good example of how you treat things that you see as being in "your side" in one way and the things you see as being in the "other side" in a different way. We are talking about that piece of wood that is supposedly 500 years older than the pyramid, and you talk about finding wood that is "a thousand or two thousand years old". Why the exaggeration?

Why is the wood in the pyramid older than the pyramid, how does that make sense for any possible interpretation. The wood was NOT a preserved artifact, and it makes no sense to be 500+ years older than the pyramid.

As I said before, the Egyptians used measuring rods made of wood. Is it that farfetched to think of a specialised worker that had a measuring rod that had been in his family of specialised workers for a long time?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
And right, the actions on rocks can't be dated, like cutting stones and building pyramids, can't be dated.

And it basically means that rock structures, just can't be dated directly at all. This would include ancient temples, pyramids, etc. (although u mentioned the mortar in Egypt and I still have to look at that).

You left out the fact that wood structures or objects cannot be dated either, the only thing that can be dated is the wood, not the actions done to the wood.

No, it's the established leaps-of-faith, which I dislike:

The wood chunk being dated directly, 500yrs older than the pyramid... it should be a sign that the pyramid is just obviously dated wrong.

No, it's just a sign that the wood is older than the construction. Why do you ignore all the other things that point to the construction date of the pyramid?

Fabricating ideas of why / how that wood-chunk-anomaly, might make sense, is not really science, it's a leap of faith, in the face of obvious evidence that the entire established timeline is wrong.

The only sure thing is that the wood was dated to 500 before the date of the construction of the pyramid.

And I think it's worth considering how absurd the wood-chunk anomaly, really is.

It's absurd if it was sealed inside the NEW pyramid, as a 500-yr old chunk of wood, that's absurd.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

And probably all the more absurd if you imagine that the wood came from people sticking holes into the pyramid, and they were using sticks that were thousands of years old, that's absurd too.

Where did you get that idea of "people sticking holes into the pyramid" from? And why "thousands of years old"?
You keep on creating scenarios that have no relation to the mainstream opinions as if they base their opinions in your strange ideas.

...Like I said earlier, if the wood-chunk-explorers actually broke off that chunk, only 500yrs after the Great Pyramid was built, then that already means that their stick was literally A THOUSAND YRS OLD, and that's just ridiculous.

Plus not to mention if the wood came from researchers who were there, at a LATER date.

So if the wood chunk came from researchers/explorers, who were... 1,000 yrs after the G. Pyramid was built... then they were poking a stick that was 1,500 years old.

As usual, you leave out another possibility, as if it didn't exist: that a piece of wood 500 years old was left inside the pyramid during the construction.

I can't really take it seriously that anyone doesn't think this explanation is nonsense, the wood is just too old for the established time-placement of the entire pyramid.

Your "explanations" are worse than the alternative that you keep on ignoring.

No. But I can acknowledge that if the Great Pyramid was dated accurately then there shouldn't be a chunk of rough wood, sitting inside, that's 500+ yrs older than the entire structure. As discussed above.

Again, why "there shouldn't"? What makes it impossible for a 500 years old piece of wood to be left inside the pyramid during its construction?

And for the earlier discussion of Impact sites, well the established timeline again just looks very arbitrary.

Just looking at physical characteristics: The Libyan sand-glass field... shares fundamentally the same traits... as the relatively-nearby site, in the neighboring country. The outward characteristics would suggest that BOTH sand-glass fields, were probably / quite possibly, just the same results from the same event.

Not really. Sand-glass is created by the melting of the sand, not by the melting of the object that supposedly hit the sand. That's why sand-glass from the Libyan desert looks different to the Syrian sand-glass.

And as any object with enough energy can create sand-glass, assuming the same object created all the sand-glass is not a good choice.

Yet they're supposedly dated to completely different impacts.

Because they know what they are doing.

In that case, the outward physical traits of both sites, are more convincing than anything, and the shared traits would suggest a shared relationship & commonality, between the sites.

Only to people that ignore part of the facts.

And it suggests that the dating of the 2 sites is apparently arbitrary and wrong, when it's at odds, with the self-evident characteristics of the sites, which would seem to obviously suggest that the sites are probably closely related, more likely than not.

What "self-evident characteristics"?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
There's not a record of the G. Pyramid being built.

That's not what I meant, sorry for not being clear.

What I meant is that a written record is an undirect way of dating something, and there are several undirect ways of measuring the pyramid's date that point more or less to the same period.

The Khufu "grafitti" found in the interior, that's at best unconvincing that it was even a real thing, i.e. not a sloppy forgery by the team, who felt the need to force an important discovery. Most info I've seen about it has been skeptical that it's even really ancient Egyptian writing, and that it far more resembles a sloppy forgery. Personally I haven't poured time into this one specific thing, enough to make a definite conclusion (on the Khufu "grafitti").

You don't like it, you call it a forgery. OK.

As I've mentioned, I'm still doubtful of ancient Egyptian being readable genuinely, by anyone, and that would be at least one possible reason of the new script not being really so perfect, after all, maybe. In other words, it might be a very overly optimistic translation, which ties up all the knots. More out of the overly optimistic translation, rather than its original substance, maybe.

Several years ago there was an ATS member that had a daughter that knew how to read ancient Egyptian. Unfortunately, she left ATS and I haven't had any contact with her for several years.

PS: I found some more information about the mortar here.

a reply to: ArMaP

Why do you say that the wood being is older is absurd?

Alright I had to take a breather, away from the thread, and I literally haven't read past the above quote yet.

But I think I can see where this is going. You are doing the Socratic method, i.e. asking several questions repeatedly, why do I think it's an anomaly.

So I expect that the rest of the posts, you are going to explain how the wood from a tree can be older than... the time that the wood is actually used.

I get it.



But here's the thing. The G. Pyramid's chunk-o-wood, is a disgusting rough chunk. We are going to have to embed images in the thread.

So there's really no indication that it's something that would have been so much older... and I have to double check, but I think your info actually said that the wood was even older than 500yrs (older than the pyramid). I think it said that it was dated something like 800yrs older and the actual official date of the pyramid was shifted, a few hundred yrs, because of the wood IIRC. (Again I'm referring to the info u posted, and I have to double check, so that's IIRC.)




...So I think you're just not acknowledging the obvious anomaly of it. Check it out, if u go outside and pick up a stick that fell from a tree... the branch will be dated around the same time. (I'm talking small branches that fall off trees, because the smaller parts are the newer growth...).

So while I understand that chopping down a tree is going to expose some OLDER wood: I understand, but even then, most lumber isn't usually ANCIENT. It's not usually trees that are thousands of years old.

I'd expect most lumber is going after trees that at the oldest might be a few hundred yrs old, that's my guess, but this is not just baseless conjecture, because the newer/younger trees are actually going to be more manageable, easier to cut down etc.

Just think of cutting down a crop of trees that are relatively young -- maybe in a range of 100 to 300 years old -- which is what I'd expect to be ideal, for lumber. Such younger trees would have some substantial wood, but also, they would be small enough that they'd be manageable to cut down, and chop up.

Alright so the comparison is, the ANCIENT giant trees that are famous, for being a couple thousand years old, on the west coast of the United States. These are the size of BUILDINGS. They are protected now, but imagine the pointless difficulty of trying to cut down a BUILDING-SIZED tree. I believe they are dated back about 2,000 years old, IIRC.




So I think you're just overlooking the obviously anomaly of the stick being something like 800 years too old (again, referring to your info and I need to go double check again).

But so it's kind of absurd if the pyramid was built with a random piece of wood that was almost 1,000yrs old at that time, for example.

And then the hypothetical of the wood being broken-off a stick from researchers: Depending on the timeline of the people who actually broke their stick... it's several thousand years old, a stick, that they were poking around with, it really is absurd.

I'd expect a poking-stick to probably be around the same time as when it was used, like I described how nature's twigs and sticks are small growth and relatively close to the time that they're used. Even trees are usually within a few hundred years of age, for lumber, as far as I know. But there's a self-evident truth that ANCIENT giant trees, the size of buildings, are needlessly impossible work, for lumber, when there are always smaller newer trees that are much easier to cut and to manage, for lumber.

So I do think it's realistic to expect lumber to usually be from within a few hundred years, the same age, as when it's cut and used. (Usually not thousands of years old wood being used.)

originally posted by: JamesChessman
But I think I can see where this is going. You are doing the Socratic method, i.e. asking several questions repeatedly, why do I think it's an anomaly.

I asked because you didn't give a clear explanation.

But here's the thing. The G. Pyramid's chunk-o-wood, is a disgusting rough chunk. We are going to have to embed images in the thread.

Here they are.

As first reported, in 1873 (the year after the discovery).
(click for full size)

A close up on the remains of the piece of wood.
(click for full size)

In this photo we can see the size of pieces of wood.

...So I think you're just not acknowledging the obvious anomaly of it.

Is it impossible for a piece of older wood to have been used during the construction of the pyramid?

And then the hypothetical of the wood being broken-off a stick from researchers: Depending on the timeline of the people who actually broke their stick... it's several thousand years old, a stick, that they were poking around with, it really is absurd.

You have been talking about that, but I never saw one reference to that being considered a possibility.

In the post this one refers to you talk about chopping down younger trees because they are more readily accessible and easier to work.

We are talking about building the great pyramid.

I doubt a few old trees would be a significant roadblock to construction considering they built the thing.

Could the wood have been deposited during a pause in construction, or even between construction stages, by a natural event? Something that required memorialising but showed the frailty of human civilisation to starkly to be permanently recorded.

Then again perhaps uniform lumber was essential and younger trees presented an obvious source.

Dunno much but I can follow logic and compartmentalise imagination.

Following the conversation closely. Thanks for discussing

a reply to: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
But I think I can see where this is going. You are doing the Socratic method, i.e. asking several questions repeatedly, why do I think it's an anomaly.

I asked because you didn't give a clear explanation.

But here's the thing. The G. Pyramid's chunk-o-wood, is a disgusting rough chunk. We are going to have to embed images in the thread.

Here they are.

As first reported, in 1873 (the year after the discovery).
(click for full size)

A close up on the remains of the piece of wood.
(click for full size)

In this photo we can see the size of pieces of wood.

...So I think you're just not acknowledging the obvious anomaly of it.

Is it impossible for a piece of older wood to have been used during the construction of the pyramid?

And then the hypothetical of the wood being broken-off a stick from researchers: Depending on the timeline of the people who actually broke their stick... it's several thousand years old, a stick, that they were poking around with, it really is absurd.

You have been talking about that, but I never saw one reference to that being considered a possibility.

Thank you for posting images and info on the wood chunk.



For your questions at the end of your post, apparently we need to clarify things here.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly... there was only... one piece of wood, ever found in the G. Pyramid.




So first and foremost, that's a crazy anomaly, already.




It would make more sense if there were several pieces of wood laying around, but there's not. Only one piece ever found, if I recall correctly.




So this is not really a matter of being sealed in the pyramid when it was built, it would seem, because of the ridiculous anomaly of only one small chunk of wood, ever found.





That anomaly suggests that it was broken off a stick by researchers, meaning that there was simply no wood sealed in the pyramid, and some guy broke a piece off his stick one day, when he was poking around the pyramid.

I thought that was a well-known explanation for the origin of the wood chunk. And I apologize if I wasn't clear about it, because I thought everyone already heard that explanation, that the wood piece came from someone poking a stick and breaking it. (Long after the pyramid was abandoned.)

I thought that was a pretty universally understood explanation but if not, then I apologize for not explaining it.

But yeah I thought that was the normal explanation of the wood piece.

originally posted by: ArMaP

Also I always find it so striking and interesting, how the modern Egyptians are... so completely different, from the ancient Egyptians, although the modern folks do want to claim a direct ancestry to the ancient Egyptians... which is a matter of national identity, and ethnic pride etc.

So I understand that, and it's automatic that the modern folks in such a magic place as Egypt, they would automatically want to feel a direct connection to the ancients' ruins, all round them.





However let's be honest, the modern Egyptian folk are completely different people, I believe, and all respect to everyone.

But I think the fact is, that the modern folks are such thoroughly diff. people, that it's really self-evident that they are not descendants of the ancient Egyptians.




Culturally, the modern folks look like lovely people, and they are Muslim (which is obviously a different, unrelated tradition, with no connection to ancient Egyptian culture).

I don't think that these folks lost their ancient Egyptian culture, rather I just think these are different people altogether.





So that's the cultural disconnect between ancient and modern Egyptian people. There's also the obvious ethnic difference compared to ancient Egyptians' depictions of themselves, because they were quite clear in presenting themselves as dark brown-skinned people. I'm referring to almost any hieroglyphic with color, they were bronze-brown skin people.

I don't think that the ancients' dark brown skin lineage, in their hieroglyphics, even seems to exist anymore in Egypt because the modern folks don't resemble the ancient dark-brown hieroglyphics ancient Egyptians.




^So that's the cultural disconnect, and also, the ethnic / phenotype disconnect, I really just think the modern population seems a new people without a connection to the ancient Egyptians.


I think it's obvious if we're honest about it...

I mean, that's my impressions, from the web. I haven't BEEN to Egypt, but that's my impressions of what I've seen online.

originally posted by: Dalamax
In the post this one refers to you talk about chopping down younger trees because they are more readily accessible and easier to work.

We are talking about building the great pyramid.

I doubt a few old trees would be a significant roadblock to construction considering they built the thing.

Could the wood have been deposited during a pause in construction, or even between construction stages, by a natural event? Something that required memorialising but showed the frailty of human civilisation to starkly to be permanently recorded.

Then again perhaps uniform lumber was essential and younger trees presented an obvious source.

Dunno much but I can follow logic and compartmentalise imagination.

Following the conversation closely. Thanks for discussing

a reply to: JamesChessman

Thanks, I appreciate u.