Forbidden Egyptology

I'm new to the thread, and may have missed some content in skimming 33 pages - Did you ever cover the subject of tunnels beneath Egyptian structures?? This is what I am most interested in.

Howdy Bryd

Yep the Ancient Engineers by Spraque is one of my favorites also - my copy is falling apart from over use!

Skyfloating stated:

And we´ve only been seriously looking for it since 200 years. Contrast that with 12 000 years

I love how you casaully explain things away then, quickly, move away from the questions that make you unconfortable.

So lets look at it again:

How much do we have from ancient civilizations?

Tens of thousands+ of artifacts

How much do we have from before 12000 BP?

I'd estimate 110,000-150,000 items (a very conservative estimate)

Lewis and Clark moved over territory only once or twice yet we can detect where they went. But they were recent.

The Norse were in North America for a brief time but we can find there trace. Only a thousand years old, to recent

We can find thousands and thousands of artifacts from Neanderthals and early Homo Sapiens - even art - thousands of pieces. From 80,000-25,000 years ago.

So why nothing, nothing at all from these other "civilizations"?

Originally posted by Hanslune
How much do we have from ancient civilizations?

Tens of thousands+ of artifacts

How much do we have from before 12000 BP?

I'd estimate 110,000-150,000 items (a very conservative estimate)

How did you reach this estimate for the "ancient civilizations"?

For example, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo holds 120,000 items, according to Wiki. If you add the Greek/Roman section of the British Museum to that, you'd probably double the number.

Keep in mind that much of history is lost because we have built upon it. Finding skeletons in the middle of the desert isnt a problem. Trying to dig beneath a city to find an older city is.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by merka]

reply to post by cormac mac airt

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
There is also strong evidence that the heavy rains didn't stop until the beginning of the fourth millenia, end of the third millenia with intermittent heavy rains into the sixth dynasty.

Ok, so IOW the heavy rains stopped before the conventional date ascribed to the Giza Necropolis which you seem to deem viable. What then is the purpose of you pointing this out?

And yes from what I've read it's generally believed that intermittent rains carried into the 5th/6th dynasty. However, it would take alot more than intermittent rain showers to degrade the rock formations to the extent that they are seen today.

And it's also contested that chemical weathering (or wet sand erosion) couldn't in of itself cause the extensive erosion we see around the Sphinx and in other areas of the necropolis.

Doesn't rule Khafre out.

Not sure why you mention this here in the context of your reply, but never the less I'm glad you bring Khafre up. More on that later...

If they weren't technologically capable of building the GP, then they couldn't have taken it apart to the level of the relieving chamber.

When did I ever suggest that the Great Pyramid was taken apart? What a preposterous idea. I merely have a problem with the fact that the only scribble found is in these chambers and nowhere else on the inside portions of stone which were only later exposed after tunneling and explosions by dynamite.

There are not only mentions of Khufu, but of the names of some of the work gangs responsible for various areas of construction.

Allegedly.

One would expect any markings to be facing inward, concealed to the onlooker as they would serve no purpose to anyone else.

You clearly misunderstood or just plainly ignored what I originally asked. So Ill ask again. Why, if these were quarry marks designating which group was supposedly responsible for moving the stone to its spot, weren't similar marks found on the interior portions of stone that were subsequently exposed after the boring of a tunnel by Caliph Al-Mamoun or the explosions performed by Vyse to the side of the GP?

Also, as relates to the Sphinx, where do you think the material excavated from around it went to. The Valley Temple which was built by Khafre.

Yep, among other places too if I remember correctly. (Allegedly built by Khafre )

You can't take one item and separate it from everything else. They are all inter-related.

I'm not and I agree, they are all inter-related, as you will see in a forthcoming post...

[edit on 21-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by Byrd


Hi Byrd,

Just a couple of questions for you.

Originally posted by Byrd
It's not easy to say because the technique was used elsewhere (so we don't know who started it.)

I assume the technique you mention is of the concavities seen on G1 and G3. Do you know where else(or if) this technique was used prior to Giza?

Actually, we can't say about the other pyramids. Many of them are in a state of great disrepair and we don't know what their casings looked like. Of the 10 or so smaller pyramids there around the foot of the other pyramids, there aren't any such features... but they're in a very ruined state.

Fair enough, but my guess is that they didn't have this feature.

Actually, the problem (as is explained further down in the article) is that resources were scarce in the Old Kingdom and they didn't have as extensive a trade network, hence they reused material. If a temple or house or something else was falling down, rather than get new wood (extremely scarce) or cut new stone, they would use the material to repair other structures or build new ones.

Ah yes, "the old wood problem". I love how they just casually mention this at the bottom of the article. It's actually a major problem if you ask me. Forget about the fact that the dating of the itty bitty pieces of wood (or charcoal) from the mortar of the GP shows dates as old as 3800 bc which would not only undermine the entire test and the conventional theory BUT it also implies ( if you buy into the conventional dates of the GP) that they used wood that was 1200-1300 yrs old.

My issue with the wood is the scarcity of it. How is it even possible that these ancient people could've constructed these huge pyramids over a period of 70 yrs with a limited energy source?

Wood would've been their only source of fuel back then. Fuel that fed the fires necessary to forge and repair tools, to bake bread for the thousands upon thousands of workmen, to build huge boats and barges and to make large amounts of mortar ( Im sure Im leaving out a couple); and all over a continuous time span of 70 yrs (give or take). Think about that.

Not to mention the villages(or towns) outside of Giza that would've also needed fuel to sustain normal daily life. Now that's a lot of wood.

And as you said, and as I suspected, there wasn't any organized trade where they could've acquired an immense amount of wood from somewhere else. Although I do remember reading somehwere that they did get some of the finer woods (maybe used for boats) from Lebanon or someplace like that, but even if they had extensive trade routes set, what was the Egyptian commodity?

And yeah I'm sure they reused some old wood where they could find it, but still that couldn't have been enough.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by Hanslune

Originally posted by Hanslune
I love how you casaully explain things away then, quickly, move away from the questions that make you unconfortable.

Oh come on Hanslune, play fair now. I directly posted to you in response to some statements you made, (Here's the post for your convenience:this post by PhotonEffect) which you may have not seen or just plainly ignored.

Either way I find you guilty of your own accusation, sorry.

So why nothing, nothing at all from these other "civilizations"?

Very simple. It's all buried underneath. We build upon previously lived upon grounds, we've been doing it for ages. Imagine what could be buried underneath the Necropolis a bit further down or under the sands within that nicely cordoned off area courtesy of Hawass.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Ive said it before and I´ll say it again:

I will gladly participate in an official "Challenge Match" in the ATS-Debate Forum...a debate to be anonymously judged by a panel of judges know how to look at the facts. So much so, that Ive lost several debates (but also won several).

The title/topic I am willing to debate is: "Researching Atlantis is justified" vs. "Researching Atlantis is a waste of time". I would argue the pro position, you the con position.

This adress goes out to all "mainstreamers" out there...Harte, Hanslune, cormac, Byrd...or whoever else thinks this might be interesting.

Unfortunately nobody has ever taken me up on the offer...although I could easily loose. I wonder why?



[edit on 21-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Very simple. It's all buried underneath. We build upon previously lived upon grounds, we've been doing it for ages. Imagine what could be buried underneath the Necropolis a bit further down or under the sands within that nicely cordoned off area courtesy of Hawass.

I now this doesn't apply as much to Egypt, but if any of these ancient civs existed previous to an ice age, over so many thousands of years of glacial erosion there is good chance that most evidence would be wiped out, buried.

It is as if all the people asking where the evidence is forget that the earth can go through massive changes over thousands of years. Continental drift, perhaps drastic continental change due to massive events, ice ages, natural wear over thousands of years.

Anyhow, convincing mainstream paradigm proponents of alternative viewpoints is one of the most daunting tasks ever. Sometimes it is better to focus on those that are willing to look at the evidence from an open mindset.

reply to post by Byrd


thanks Byrd for the history lesson. I knew your vast knowledge and research abilities would reason this out for me. It was just an idea that I had not seen expressed yet

respectfully

reluctantpawn

While I have to respect Byrd for some of the great finds he has made the temple room and dimensions web page is not one of them.

A web bot spider hound as I used to be,that is not true study that encompasses the entire group of works and in this case its all still bound paper. Books they call them.

I will state that the rather small dimensions of the room are because it is only the entry and a series of tunnels goes out under the area terminating in a full size temple structure underground. This is in the Lewis work on the manuscripts he copied in Tibet and India. The air shafts for this temple went up into other structures and ultimately caused the tunnels to fill from centuries of sand storms.

Again still respect to Byrd for helping clean up a lot of misinformation in other topics.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The title/topic I am willing to debate is: "Researching Atlantis is justified" vs. "Researching Atlantis is a waste of time". I would argue the pro position, you the con position.

This adress goes out to all "mainstreamers" out there...Harte, Hanslune, cormac, Byrd...or whoever else thinks this might be interesting.

Unfortunately nobody has ever taken me up on the offer...although I could easily loose. I wonder why?

Probably because we didn't see the offer. And in my case, I don't do debates unless really pressed. I can hop in and give quick answers, but attention to a debate is harder because of my situation (I work two jobs and I'm a full time grad student and parent/grandparent.)

If anyone wants to debate Egyptology as per the topic of this thread, I'm sure several here can respond.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Illahee
I will state that the rather small dimensions of the room are because it is only the entry and a series of tunnels goes out under the area terminating in a full size temple structure underground. This is in the Lewis work on the manuscripts he copied in Tibet and India. The air shafts for this temple went up into other structures and ultimately caused the tunnels to fill from centuries of sand storms.

I believe your source is mistaken. There's a small (not human sized) chamber under the front paws, but no evidence of tunnels.

I also doubt Lewis' finds -- it's just TOO coincidental that he comes up with this stuff and nobody else has seen it. A number of archaeologists and anthropologists and others have had access to the temples and manuscripts in that area (as well scholars born in those countries) -- and yet Lewis is, apparently, the only one to see these documents.

It's very similar to things like the Book of Mormon or the Emerald Tablets, where one person gets to see them and says "trust me -- it's there and this is what it says." I don't find that sort of thing very believable -- do you?

reply to post by Byrd


Yes I sensed you´d be someone who is willing to debate but who is pressed for time. Thats fine.

I believe one of the names mentioned will eventually respond.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Illahee
I will state that the rather small dimensions of the room are because it is only the entry and a series of tunnels goes out under the area terminating in a full size temple structure underground. This is in the Lewis work on the manuscripts he copied in Tibet and India. The air shafts for this temple went up into other structures and ultimately caused the tunnels to fill from centuries of sand storms.

I believe your source is mistaken. There's a small (not human sized) chamber under the front paws, but no evidence of tunnels.

I also doubt Lewis' finds -- it's just TOO coincidental that he comes up with this stuff and nobody else has seen it. A number of archaeologists and anthropologists and others have had access to the temples and manuscripts in that area (as well scholars born in those countries) -- and yet Lewis is, apparently, the only one to see these documents.

It's very similar to things like the Book of Mormon or the Emerald Tablets, where one person gets to see them and says "trust me -- it's there and this is what it says." I don't find that sort of thing very believable -- do you?

Here is where your going to hear the flip side of the argument. Since neither of us has done an excavation and no one should trust data previously connected to the ground scans, This view is more valid than an attempted debunk, because there are multiple evidential elements available to support it. Debunk has nothing to support it except, well it has nothing, but it should be proposed just for checks and balances.

Lewis' work is in about a 20th printing now years after his death. He was accompanied by over 20 witnesses and it contains an open challenge for anyone to prove it wrong. Many others worked on the translations.

The very link you posted indicates there are known tunnels. They are choked closed with sand as they should be. Did you not research the link?

Here is the next issue in your supposition of inaccuracy. There are black and white news reels of the Nazi hunt for the documents as well as the cataloging and measurements of the physical features of the people in each region. After the Nazi visit the records were no longer in the libraries in each of the regions.


Now we need to move on so we are back to the topic. The very reason it is forbidden to search any further is that the evidence carved inside the entry and at the end of the tunnels proves beyond any doubt neither the Sphinx or the temple was constructed by Egyptians or Arabs of any kind. It was in use by whites of aryan descent Known as Essenes. This is the reason the Nazi's spent huge amounts to send out parties all over the world to recover the documents. Had Rommel been successful, the world would have seen a different history book than what it has now. During the process of repairing the feet the front was covered with a tent and tarps for over 30 days, during which time there was an excavation secretly done. The good doctor in charge of the complex knows the truth and if its ever revealed the pride of his people will go from high to low in minutes.

This is why its even forbidden to study these things. The good doctor also knows his sham will be exposed as soon as other corroborating evidence come to light, but he is banking on the Nazis doing his dirty work for him.

Whew! Man I usually don't go there but in order to understand the Why of the world no longer being able to clean, take care of or explore these areas, people need to know that there are secrets that have to be kept by people like the good doctor.

Originally posted by Byrd
It's very similar to things like the Book of Mormon or the Emerald Tablets, where one person gets to see them and says "trust me -- it's there and this is what it says." I don't find that sort of thing very believable -- do you?

As an aside and to give you good credit for the check and balances, I don not tend to trust in anything I cannot see and touch. Some things yes, but for the most part no when it comes to things I can not test myself.

Here is a tip. When debating the work of a person such as Lewis, one should immediately go to the works of their rival, for clues to the larger picture. Her is an assist from Dr Clymer, his mortal enemy in life. Dr Clymer is listed in the whos who of america and was in life the worlds most outstanding authority on the Occult with over 50 full size Oct 8 volumes to his name. Some rather thick and most in small type to reduce their size so you could say 75-100 volumes worth bound in 50.

Dr Clymer formally warned against the work known as Yogism. He rejected the teachings of India and Tibet as the lowest forms of occultism with no working models or basis other than fable. He noted in one of his volumes that after an extensive intercontinental search that in no place in any of those regions was found a true initiate, let alone a master.

There again these are books. Real paper bound with covers of leather and guilt spines. Not internet links pulled from web ferret or web wolf.

I realize you are short on time and carry a heavy load so no worries. Talk again as time permits. Obviously a know it all like me could use a little balance and a check every time or two. That's me. Hard to hide.

Best to you,






Hey! I'm expecting some stars for admitting to being a know it all........cmon....you know their free......

[edit on 21-3-2008 by Illahee]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by Illahee]

Howdy PhotoEffect

My apologies - I was referring to Skyfloating not yourself

Most everything that archaeology finds is buried. What is interesting is that we can find large amounts of materials from earlier ages but nothing, absolutely nothing from these mythical civilizations. Does that mean they don't exist? Nope it means we haven't found anything from them and they might not exist. However this lack of evidence is a signal. The signal tells us that such a civilization either had a very small "foot print" or existed in an area we haven't explored well. In other words the one piece of evidence we do have, the writings of Plato appear to be inaccurate - no giant empire that controlled parts of the Med seems to have existed.

Howdy Skyfloating

Why would you want to debate that issue of why or not to look for Atlantis? It pretty much just an OPINION on what to to do. If you or anyone else wants to look for Atlantis you can do so. You might have difficulty if you want to dig in certain high value areas (like under the Sphinx), but other than that please feel free to arrange an expedition. There have been some. Discussion time is pretty much over for Atlantis, unless new evidence is found you're just going over and over the same materials endlessly. Time for action not talk.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Time for action not talk.

You recently returned from a trip to guatemala, no? What new information transpired on your trip? Do share so that we may learn.

reply to post by Hanslune


Hello Hanslune,

No need for apologies here. I knew you were referring to sky when you said that, but I felt that you were doing the same thing you were accusing sky of when you didn't address my post...

You also seem to corroborate what I said about the possibilities of lost civilizations (or remnants of )being buried underneath. You quite apparently have a strong knowledge of archaeology so it would seem to me that you would've already understood this to be the case, yet you question the fringe as to why nothing has been found.

There could have been a major natural catastrophe that wiped it all away, as suggested by ionized, or it's all buried waiting to be discovered... it's just a matter of time before we find it (as you suggested)...

I found the link you posted about the 400,000 yr old spears to be quite intriguing. Firstly, the fact that they were made of wood and remained preserved for so long was amazing not to mention that they were found buried deep underground.

But more importantly it's the other things that were found with those spears, like the animal bones in large amounts, that seems to suggest that whomever had those spears might've been hunting food in large quantities; possibly to bring back to a village. Could civilizations (on smaller scales) have existed 400,000 years ago?

[edit on 21-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Ok, so IOW the heavy rains stopped before the conventional date ascribed to the Giza Necropolis which you seem to deem viable. What then is the purpose of you pointing this out?

My purpose is that Robert Schoch originally called for a date of around 10,000 BC, currently he proposes a 5,000 - 7000 BC date and colleagues of his propose a 3000 to 3800 BC period. So the more time goes by, the younger time frame that's proposed. Also, wanted to point out that whereas much of the heavy rains stopped before the conventional date, they did not cease to happen, even intermittantly, until the 6th dynasty which you appeared to ignore.

However, it would take alot more than intermittent rain showers to degrade the rock formations to the extent that they are seen today.

I said nothing about rain SHOWERS. There were heavy rains and flooding.

And it's also contested that chemical weathering (or wet sand erosion) couldn't in of itself cause the extensive erosion we see around the Sphinx and in other areas of the necropolis.

Contested, but not disproven.

When did I ever suggest that the Great Pyramid was taken apart? What a preposterous idea. I merely have a problem with the fact that the only scribble found is in these chambers and nowhere else on the inside portions of stone which were only later exposed after tunneling and explosions by dynamite.

Granted, you specifically haven't suggested it, but it has been suggested many times on ATS. Also, some of the writing starts on seen parts of the relieving chamber, only to continue under the next, covered, slab. Not something that can be explained away.

You clearly misunderstood or just plainly ignored what I originally asked. So Ill ask again. Why, if these were quarry marks designating which group was supposedly responsible for moving the stone to its spot, weren't similar marks found on the interior portions of stone that were subsequently exposed after the boring of a tunnel by Caliph Al-Mamoun or the explosions performed by Vyse to the side of the GP?

Who's to say that they weren't destroyed during the various attempts to find an entrance. Or that every block had a mark. Taking the GP apart would be the only way to know for sure, not something I'd relish.

Quick question. Why do we always assume the stones for the pyramids were quarried? I know this sounds dumb because I jump to that same assumption with no answer other than I learned they were so I built on the work of others. Now what if there were many many stones already being used in buildings and the builders reused them and started quarrying for the rest? Recycling didn't start with weed and the WV van, its always been.