The Pyramids are older than 2600 B.C., page 11

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:35 AM

link

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

KW: in fact we're all still waiting to see if you have any evidence that you haven't either misunderstood, misconstrued or deliberately falsified

claiming you refuse to answer on the grounds that you feel insulted is a cop out when the insult was justified and proven.

SC: Perhaps in your mind - I know of no one else who shares your view that I have falsified anything. My work is entirely transparent and available for anyone to check. Math don't lie, sweetheart!

KW: the edfu codex does not in any way mention pyramids.

SC: The Edfu inscription does not in any way mention the word 'Temple' either. The word 'Temple' is mentioned only by Aldred and only in the context of what he was writing at that point in his book, 'The Egyptians'. Do you understand this difference? Furthermore, the Edfu inscription is not (as you have stated above) a codex - it makes reference to a codex that contained architectural plans that 'fell from the heavens' at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. And lo and behold - what do we find at Saqqara? The first pyramid built by none other than Imhotep!! I do not think it is a great stretch of the mind to conclude that the architectural plans in this 'Saqqara codex' bequeathed to Imhotep as referenced in the Edfu inscription contained the design for a PYRAMID. Are you seriously attempting to suggest that this is an impossible connection?

KW: even Robert Bauval doesn't give your claims any credence at all and coming from a pseudohistorian who's ideas you have based your own pseudo history on thats really saying somehting.

SC: First of all, Robert Bauval is not the arbiter of my work. Secondly, why do you think Robert Bauval should give any credence to my work when much of what I present actually challenges his own ideas? And finally, show me any citation where Robert Bauval explicitly disagrees with my work.

SC

Scott Creighton

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:35 AM

link

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

KW: in fact we're all still waiting to see if you have any evidence that you haven't either misunderstood, misconstrued or deliberately falsified

claiming you refuse to answer on the grounds that you feel insulted is a cop out when the insult was justified and proven.

SC: Perhaps in your mind - I know of no one else who shares your view that I have falsified anything. My work is entirely transparent and available for anyone to check. Math don't lie, sweetheart!

KW: the edfu codex does not in any way mention pyramids.

KW: even Robert Bauval doesn't give your claims any credence at all and coming from a pseudohistorian who's ideas you have based your own pseudo history on thats really saying somehting.

kerkinana walsky

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:20 AM

link

Graham Hancock 19-Apr-07
"Hi Rob,

I think this is the ref you are looking for. It's from the Edfu Building Texts, and cited in Margaret Murray, Egyptian Temples, page 163. The relevant inscription states that Edfu's orientation "lay from Orion in the south to the Great Bear in the north."

Murray also cites a related inscription (p. 162) which states that the temple was built according to a plan "which fell from heaven".

I quoted these in Heaven's Mirror, p. 67, but can't find my copy of Murray in my bookshelves (which have become muddled since we moved house!) to double check.

Warm wishes,
Graham

Scott Creighton 12th october
Quote:

"They [the temples] were built according to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep."

- Aldred 'The Egyptians', P32"
:

Scott creighton 05-Nov-07
"As for the 'cultural context' - the 4th Dynasty AEs built Giza in accordance with an ancient codex. That they built pyramids from such a codex is attested to by an inscription on the collonade in the Temple of Horis at Edfu.

"They were built according to an architectural plan that was supposedly revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep." And where do we see the first pyramid built? At Saqqara for the Pharaoh Djoser - built by Imhotep. "

so what we have here is Graham Hancock pointing out that the inscription at the edfu temple refers only to the edfu temple

then we have you scott creighton pointing out that the inscription at the edfu temple refers only to the edfu temple

then we have you scott creighton claiming that the edfu inscription actually refers to pyramids and pretending that it had all along. this was where you were dishonest. Its also where you showed your complete misunderstanding of Egyptian cosmology as well, see Scott Egyptian heaven isn't up there in outer space, thats Judaeo-christian heaven. Egyptian heaven is between the peaks of Mt Manu and Mt Baku and is depicted in the Akhet (horizon) Hieroglyph

which funnily enough matches the design of the edfu temple

it even has the sun disc between the columns and those gods on the facing are the Egyption gods of heaven

this is a claim that is at best unsupported speculation and at worst a complete fabrication on your part. this was pointed out to you and what did you do
did you incorporate the new information into your thesis and admit you had been mistaken
nooo you didn't did you scott
what you did was pretended that you hadn't heard this information as you are doing now in front of scores of witnesses you put your fingers in your ears and you started screaming LALALALALALALALALALALA

it is because your claims are all made on evidence that is unsupported that you haven't had a shred of support for any of your work from anyone qualified in the year or so that you have been hoiking it around the internet

were you to adopt an approach of realistic research then that might change
but as you are now apparently attempting to sell more copies of your book by publicising it at a conspiracy forum I don't see it happening do you

as for your claims about Bauval, do you really want me to post your original sycophantic attempts to get him on your side and then show that when he rejected your theories as "contrived" you attempted to blacken his in return.
Somehow I don't think I'll bother, you had your time in the limelight Scott and nobody bought what you were shovelling
have a nice slide into obscurity won't you and don't give up the day job

Scott Creighton

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:03 AM

link

reply to post by kerkinana walsky

All I see here are the misguided rantings of someone totally unable to cope emotionally and intellectually with a theory that has the potential to completely undermine their entire dogmatic belief system. All I see here is the usual orthodox tactic that if you can't defeat a theory, attack its originator. How pathetic, how sad.

Some honest advice for you - just be careful your ill-mannered outbursts don't get you barred from this site, too.

SC

kerkinana walsky

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:48 AM

link

so once again you have completely failed to address the facts

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
misguided rantings

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
unable to cope emotionally and intellectually

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
How pathetic,

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
how sad.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
ill-mannered outbursts

I have reported these personal attacks to the mod team

btw you don't have a theory
you have an unsupported hypothesis

[edit on 4-12-2007 by kerkinana walsky]

masqua

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:54 AM

link

Please read Courtesy is mandatory

www.abovetopsecret.com...

St Udio

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:34 AM

link

reply to post by Hanslune

trying to get an image of this 'new evidence' ,
i came on this report---which is little more than your links in information

see; www.sis.gov.eg...

what makes this report noteworthy is the lack of astonishment at the discovery of glyphs, illustrations, inscriptions on the sarcophagus which
are supposed to be revolutrionary as to how the pyramids were constructed...
the back slaps & atta-boys were focused on the Egypt & German unity
and support with one another...

so, from my viewpoint, the sarcogaphagus was a good find, however the pyramid building techniques were already known and quite unremarkable in bringing to light any unknown 'mystery' of pyramid construction.

i reckon that even cameras are banned from the expensive museum tours so the 'mystery' of pyramid construction may continue, instead of being caught on film with images from the mummy's painted crypt, err... sarcogaphagus

Elhardt

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link

Like most threads, this one is way too long to read what's been said, so I hope I'm not repeating info already given. But one interesting tidbit about an alternate pyramid date was given by Graham Hancock. Organic matter trapped between the pyramid blocks when being built was carbon dated to about 1000 years earlier than the assumed date. That means the potential they are about 5500 years old instead of about 4500, but that could only be if the hieroglyphs in red paint found above the Kings chamber referring to Khafre are forgeries.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Elhardt]

Hanslune

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link

Howdy Elhardt

I'd recommend you look at this site which goes into details about the pyramid radiocarbon dating. Your premise is not correct. The date you are referring to came from the an earlier study - and such problems were why they did a newer bigger one in 1995

www.aeraweb.org...

Cythraul

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link

Kerkinana, you are clearly knowledgable in the field, but why the hostility? I don't understand it. Your tone is somewhat defensive - hardly the cool-headed talk I would expect from someone who is absolutely confident in their argument. Clearly, you strongly disagree with Scott's theories, but in my opinion, your credibility is damaged when you allow your contempt for Scott's work to get the better of you.

I, for one, am glad to have had such great input from both sides here on ATS. It allows for us outsiders to get a fantastically objective, unbiased view of the possiblities.

metaldemon2000

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link

reply to post by Scott Creighton

All I see here are the misguided rantings of someone totally unable to cope emotionally and intellectually with a theory that has the potential to completely undermine their entire dogmatic belief system. All I see here is the usual orthodox tactic that if you can't defeat a theory, attack its originator. How pathetic, how sad.

Don't bother, Walsky is a paid disinfo agent. Walsky comes to all the alternative history threads, interrupts the discussions and tirelessly rants on and on about how wrong you are without actually telling you what it is that makes him the authority on the subject. The only objective that i seen that Walsky has in not to educate, but rather cause disinterest on a thread untill it is no longer posted on and its OP taken seriously by any newcomers.

A very vicious poster with a clear objective.

And now a question for Walsky.

Say for a second that you hate pizza, do you browse the net looking for pizza lovers forums just to post on how pizza is gross and nobody should eat it and then find every shred of info on how it is bad for you? I seriously doubt it.

The fact is that for any other topic other than this and UFO theories, you dont get these relentless non believers seeking the destruction of the belief. I used to post on video game threads and you didn't see this kind of behavior.

Cythraul

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link

reply to post by metaldemon2000

I think you may be absolutely correct. I just did a quick google search for 'kerkinana walsky' and all that came up were pages and pages of search results linking to threads on forums like this. From the test-selection I clicked on, all had two things in common:
1) All were concerned with challenges to orthadox history.
2) All entries in the threads by Kerkinana were attempts at debunking, belittling and often outright demonising of other contributors, or most often, high-profile figures who promote such unorthadox ideas.

Perhaps 'Kerkinana' operates under other screenames too. No background info, no variation in topic, and nothing positive to say. Very suspicious.

Harte

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link

Originally posted by metaldemon2000

...Walsky is a paid disinfo agent. Walsky comes to all the alternative history threads, interrupts the discussions and tirelessly rants on and on about how wrong you are without actually telling you what it is that makes him the authority on the subject. The only objective that i seen that Walsky has in not to educate, but rather cause disinterest on a thread untill it is no longer posted on and its OP taken seriously by any newcomers.

A very vicious poster with a clear objective.

Perhaps you've noticed that Ms. Walsky has been banned. Had been before you replied?

Anyway, you (or anyone) is of course welcome to any opinion you may wish to hold concerning any member here. But I happen to know for certain that Ms. Walsky is not a paid disinfo agent (what a gig! Where do I sign up?)

I know Ms. Walsky personally. She is simply a very knowledgeable person (particularly, but certainly not exclusively, concerning Sumeria) that, like me, started out as you are - a "true believer" - but eventually came to realize, and (like me) resent, that she had been lied to by money grubbing conmen like Graham Hancock, Erich VonDaniken and Zechariah Sitchin.

It seems to have scarred her somewhat more than it did me.

But Ms. Walsky still (believe it or not) holds fast to several beliefs that are outside of what you would, and have here, called "orthodox."

It's just that she knows when she's being lied to, she knows when you're being lied to, and it still ticks her off.

Most of the vitriol you'll find in searching for her posts here and elswhere are the result frustration stemming from over a decade of trying to show people how they are being conned. It's very aggravating having to time and time again thouroughly and completely demolish the same old arguments.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000And now a question for Walsky.

Say for a second that you hate pizza, do you browse the net looking for pizza lovers forums just to post on how pizza is gross and nobody should eat it and then find every shred of info on how it is bad for you? I seriously doubt it.

Since kerkinana is no longer here, I'll presume to answer this for her.

You assume here that there is something that is hated. The fact of the matter is that kerkinana dearly loves the idea of an ancient unknown civilization having existed. She just hates the way you are (like she was) getting played by people that are lying and actually know they are lying to you in order to take your money.

Your question, properly phrased, should read "Say for a second that you love pizza, do you browse the net looking for pizza lovers forums just to post on how pizza made from spoiled cheese, ketchup and biscuit dough is not actually pizza and nobody should eat it and then find every shred of info on how it is bad for you?"

The answer to that would of course be "YES!!"

Originally posted by metaldemon2000The fact is that for any other topic other than this and UFO theories, you dont get these relentless non believers seeking the destruction of the belief. I used to post on video game threads and you didn't see this kind of behavior.

Don't get around to the 9-11 conspiracy area much, do you?

Ms. Walsky is an absolute saint compared to some of the mule-headed ranters over there.

Harte

[edit on 1/9/2008 by Harte]

AmmonSeth

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link

People spend so much time trying to work out how old the pyramids are,
It is not that hard to understand,
As with all buildings, they were built for a purpose,
Now the pyramids do have more than one purpose (granted)
But the simplest purpose is that they were built for the burial of a specific pharoah,
So you can work out down to an 80 year period of when they were built,
Going by which pharoah they were built to entomb

Cythraul

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link

reply to post by AmmonSeth

And I suppose that one little scribble of a heiroglyph saying "Khufu" inside the great pyramid proves beyond doubt that it was built for Khufu?

AmmonSeth

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link

Originally posted by Cythraul
reply to post by AmmonSeth

And I suppose that one little scribble of a heiroglyph saying "Khufu" inside the great pyramid proves beyond doubt that it was built for Khufu?

No, but there is an entire history of scripture and spoken history relating to the pyramid itself, most mythos, but originally most myths were based on a cultures understanding of fact,

if all else fails, carbon dating is also a good one,

pavil

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link

reply to post by AmmonSeth

Carbon Dating is only good for organic materials for the most part. Rock is Rock, a 2 Billion year old rock hewn out 4,000 years ago is still 2 Billion years old.

AmmonSeth

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by AmmonSeth

Carbon Dating is only good for organic materials for the most part. Rock is Rock, a 2 Billion year old rock hewn out 4,000 years ago is still 2 Billion years old.

inside the tomb,
analyse the dust,

Harte

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link

Originally posted by Cythraul
reply to post by AmmonSeth

And I suppose that one little scribble of a heiroglyph saying "Khufu" inside the great pyramid proves beyond doubt that it was built for Khufu?

Well, yes, it is enough anyway to show that the pyramid was built during, or after, the reign of Khufu.

It was found inside a sealed area that had never been opened since the construction of the pyramid.

So, are you saying it isn't enough?

Are you aware that the "scribble" you're talking about is a quarry mark, one of several in that chamber (more have been found since then, on surfaces of stones that do not face outward) that designates the name of the construction crew responsible for it's placement?

Originally posted by AmmonSeth

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by AmmonSeth

Carbon Dating is only good for organic materials for the most part. Rock is Rock, a 2 Billion year old rock hewn out 4,000 years ago is still 2 Billion years old.

inside the tomb,
analyse the dust,

The mortar between the stones contains organic materials as part of it's mix. This mortar has been dated, once several decades ago and again more recently. The age of the mortar corresponds quite well with the estimated date of construction.

Harte

[edit on 1/10/2008 by Harte]

AmmonSeth

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link

Originally posted by Harte

The mortar between the stones contains organic materials as part of it's mix. This mortar has been dated, once several decades ago and again more recently. The age of the mortar corresponds quite well with the estimated date of construction.

Harte

Well then, thank you for reassuring what i said