Forbidden Egyptology

Originally posted by Hanslune

I was contacted by a professional only a few days after this thread opened. He should his credentials and asked to have the tapes mentioned at the beginning of the thread. I passed copies of the tapes along.

I seem to have missed this could you please Link to the post with tapes mentioned, I didn't see anything on the first page. What evidence do you have that a "professional" past this material to you? Do you accept that anyone skeptical will take your claim with a large grain of salt?

Just for the sake of reducing what seems to be a tense exchange, would this be tapes of A. Bayuk, the chiropractor? It appears that what changed his mind was actually going to Egypt and seeing the material first-hand with someone who knew something about the land and its people and culture. He talks about getting a PhD in Egyptology, and his recent material really does reflect this.
guardians.net...

Now, I don't see any coverup here because I went through a similar transformation. One of the early books I read was "Chariots of the Gods" which amazed me and I bought into it completely. I listened to channelers on Atlantis and read all the Edgar Cayce material I could find. A few years later I ran into the book, "Crash go the Chariots", where all the misinformation and misstatements were pointed out. I decided to check out all the statements with other material (looking at full photos of Pacal's tomb, etc) and then checking out the "prophecies" of Cayce and checking on his success record. And I checked out some of the things said by channelers.

It was pretty disappointing to have the beautiful fantasies turn out to be a pile of drivel, but what I found in searching for the truth made the real archaeology and paleontology fascinating. I think that was the real beginning of my love for the study of cultures and antiquities.

He could have gone through a similar transformation. It's not THAT unusual with scholars.

In any case, I don't find a link to his channeling tapes though I see a mention of them. Googling doesn't turn up with any, but I'll try again later.

He still may be emailable at the guardian site, and I suppose someone could ask him about it.


[edit on 24-3-2008 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Hanslune
Are myself, Byrd and Harte part of this conspiracy?

If we are, I want a Pay Raise, Darnit!!! This here PhD is getting WAY expensive!

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
As for the scribble inside the relieving chambers. I still don't know what to make of it all. I'm still looking into it. I've come across some other ideas about these marks and how Khufu really got his name but will reserve any further comment until I can learn more.

Fast comment here: Khufu is only one of this pharaoh's names. Unlike the common people of the era (who had only one name), he had several. Khufu is part of his name, "Knum-Khufu" meaning "the god Khnum defends me". You can see all of his names and their translations here:
www.phouka.com...

Originally posted by Byrd

Just for the sake of reducing what seems to be a tense exchange

The tension coming from posting on a forum that is supposedly dedicated to fringe-science, alterntive history and conspiracy theory and being ridiculed and personally denigrated for every proposal made. Not by you, but by the usual names who pop up on every of these threads.

It appears that what changed his mind was actually going to Egypt and seeing the material first-hand with someone who knew something about the land and its people and culture.

Emphasis on "it appears". Also note that he´s not the only "Channeling Medium" connected to Hawass. As referenced in this thread, Hawass also entertains relations to the A.R.E of Edgar Cayce notoreity.

Furthermore Ive shown how there is a good possibility that some fringe-theories are funded by the U.S. Government itself ("The Stargate Conspiracy").

Now, I don't see any coverup here because I went through a similar transformation. One of the early books I read was "Chariots of the Gods" which amazed me and I bought into it completely. I listened to channelers on Atlantis and read all the Edgar Cayce material I could find. A few years later I ran into the book, "Crash go the Chariots", where all the misinformation and misstatements were pointed out. I decided to check out all the statements with other material (looking at full photos of Pacal's tomb, etc) and then checking out the "prophecies" of Cayce and checking on his success record. And I checked out some of the things said by channelers.

Its good that you bring this up. When I have the time and patience I will detail what happened in the "background" of books such as "Crash go the Chariots", the background of people like Ronald Story and the campaign initiated against von Daniken.

Not available in English is a book called "Disinformed" (translation) with lengthy documentation...including signed governmental documents that would hold up in a court of law...which detail a deliberate conspiracy to neutralize the aforementioned author.

This conspiracy wrecked his career...subsequent rebuttals, again using detailed documentation and counter-evidence, were never published in English.

He could have gone through a similar transformation. It's not THAT unusual with scholars.

Possible. Maybe even probable.

The basic question is why post at a fringe-website in discouragement of fringe-claims?

In the Forum Lost Civilzations Ive been called a raving lunatic, a fraud, a liar, stupid, undeserving of respect...

and have to ask myself: Is all this really necessary?

Ive received U2Us from people telling me they wont participate in this thread because of it.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

As a side-note:

I dont think there´s anything wrong with channeling. I dont think there´s anything wrong with believing ETs either. I enjoy both.

The problem comes up when people are forced to keep non-consensus ideas secret out of worry of loosing their "reputation".

And that is something that is observable in society, in special fields such as egyptology, and even right here.

"How dare anyone believe in channeling"

reply to post by Skyfloating

The problem comes up when people are forced to keep non-consensus ideas secret out of worry of loosing their "reputation".

Very well said,
This thread is a Treat. I have read all 37 pages and I am beginning to believe that it is not just “people”
That are keeping the non-consensus ideas secret , but “the professors of Egyptology” that are afraid of
Reputation loss. I understand that the pay for professors of Egyptology is not that good.

It seems to me that by vehemently defending their hard won stature they are reinforcing your contentions .

I find it interesting how many of the participating conventionalists on this thread have all claimed that their interest of Ancient Egypt started from the fringe side but upon further reading and study of the subject, they then decided it was all crap and that the conventional way must hold true. Now most are hard core advocates and defenders of the orthodox. How does that happen? Traitors.

Sky,

Tis' the relationship between the fringe and the conventional. We will always be met with condescending responses (if we're lucky enough to even get one) that will be made to make us look uneducated and foolish. *Yawn*....So be it.

All I know is if it weren't for all the circumstantial evidence that surrounds the pre-dynastic and early dynastic time periods, they'd have nothing.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Didn't read your second link. Have never been interested much in why anything was aligned a certain way on the Giza Plateau.

You should, it's not all about alignment. The latter half goes on to also mention that Khafre predates Khufu.

The first link I did find interesting. Especially since it seems to agree with what I told you last, that is that the timeframe as given by the writer, isn't outside the bounds of what is known of the Ancient Egyptians.

I believe that you realize the implications of the study. Because I won't believe that the main reason why you found it interesting was because it seems to agree with something you conceded to in response to something I said.

No advanced pre-egyptian civilization, that left no other trace, needed.

None yet. It's all underneath the ground. What's taking them so long to start digging anyway...

But to refresh, the study shows, with substantial evidence to back the claim, that the Sphinx and it's temples, Khafre's causeway and hence his mortuary temple all pre-date Khufus work on the site, to what he proposes would be the early dynastic period or ca 3150 bc. So it's not thousands of years according to Colin but I won't hold it against him.

He seems to stop short of mentioning or associating the building of the pyramids with Khufu and Khafre. His study seems to focus primarily on the dating of the Sphinx and it's associated temples and not necessarily the pyramids.

He does however push the Great Sphinx and all that is connected with it back to at least 500 years prior to what conventional egyptology has attributed to it, therefore pushing it way before Khafre's reign and for that matter before his very existence. So if he didn't do it then who did?

And if we believe that Khafre's pyramid was part of the same plan which includes the Sphinx then his pyramid would have to be dated to pre Khufu aswell. And if we believe that the other 2 huge pyramids standing along side Khafre's are all part of the same plan then those 2 would have to be pushed back also. You see where I'm going with this...

This would then (at least )push Khafre's pyramid back to the time (or before) of the pyramids attributed to Snefuru, that of the Bent Pyramid and the Red Pyramid, and the Step Pyramid of Djoser.

Boy doesn't that throw a wrench in everything....

Hi Byrd,

With all do respect I'm a little confused with what you believe on a couple of small issues, because you seemed (to me) to contradict yourself on a couple of occasions...

In the first instance you said, citing the Mark Lehner's (sp) site,(all bold mine)

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.

Then you go on to say:

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.

But then in your last response you say:

Originally posted by Byrd
Wood isn't THAT scarce in Egypt. They've got forests, although the amount of work needed to cut a tree down with their tools meant that they didn't cut down many trees: www.reshafim.org.il...

So what do you believe then, was it or wasn't wood scarce?

Also, the 2nd part of that made me laugh a little, only because if it was that much work to cut down trees with their tools at the time there-by keeping them from cutting down trees, how did they deal with cutting all those huge slabs of granite and limestone with the same tools?



Second instance you said regarding trade:

...in the Old Kingdom they didn't have as extensive a trade network, hence they reused material.

But then say in a recent post:

Egypt had established quite a system of trade in the predynastic times (actually from neolithic times) www.touregypt.net...

So again this seems to contradict itself and I'm not sure what your belief is...

Thanks.

edit - spelling

[edit on 24-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I believe that you realize the implications of the study. Because I won't believe that the main reason why you found it interesting was because it seems to agree with something you conceded to in response to something I said.

I never said it was the main reason I found it interesting, just that I found it interesting because it seemed to agree with my thoughts BEFORE I read the article.

As to the Sphinx, I am not as hung up on the Sphinx as many are. Doesn't compare to the pyramids in architectural achievement. Even if it's older, and I am not saying it is, doesn't mean that you can then include the pyramids and also say they must be older too. When you get down to it, the Sphinx is just an overglorified statue, nothing complex about it.

cormac

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Hi Byrd,

With all do respect I'm a little confused with what you believe on a couple of small issues, because you seemed (to me) to contradict yourself on a couple of occasions...

I do... I'm using the terms very loosely, here, and I am not sure how to be more precise about the issues.

In the first instance you said, citing the Mark Lehner's (sp) site,(all bold mine)

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.

I should also have said that the "reuse materials" was a common practice all over the ancient world. People rebuilt structures or (if they were abandoned) took "free building material" for new structures. It was more an issue of labor involved than it was of "there ain't any." Some kinds of woods were scarce (hardwoods) while others were fairly common (palm wood.)

Originally posted by Byrd
Wood isn't THAT scarce in Egypt. They've got forests, although the amount of work needed to cut a tree down with their tools meant that they didn't cut down many trees: www.reshafim.org.il...

So what do you believe then, was it or wasn't wood scarce?

That it was... hmmm... as common as deer in the countryside. There's lots of them around in one sense of the word, but they're not as common as cattle. There was a lot of the very soft palm wood, but hardwood was more scarce and was labor-intensive to harvest. The poor did not have things made of wood, but the scribes, priests, and officials and certain others would have had chests and chairs and tables made of wood.

Also, the 2nd part of that made me laugh a little, only because if it was that much work to cut down trees with their tools at the time there-by keeping them from cutting down trees, how did they deal with cutting all those huge slabs of granite and limestone with the same tools?

I also had a chuckle at the comment from the site, and then had a "D'oh!" moment. I have handled stone axes before, and they're not terribly good for cutting hard things. They're great for chopping up humans and meat, however.

And they didn't use stone axes to quarry with, of course. They used wooden wedges and pounded them in (just like my husband and I did this weekend to break apart some paving tiles). There's any number of documentary films showing this process.

But then say in a recent post:

Egypt had established quite a system of trade in the predynastic times (actually from neolithic times) www.touregypt.net...

So again this seems to contradict itself and I'm not sure what your belief is...

The second reflects my being challenged about something and I decided to quit pontificating and go look up some papers on archaeological sites. They had a good trade network up and down the Nile, according to the dig reports I see. There may have been some wider trade, but I haven't found documentation on that.

This is according to “The Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt”

The first major buildings in ancient Egypt were built during the reign of Khasekhemwy until (2686BCE). Large mud brick structure at Hierakonpolis. One bigger mud brick at
Abydos, and a large wall of rough dressed stone at Saqqara.

The next two rulers; Sanakhte and Nebka , not much is known. Not even if they were Pharaohs or not. No buildings can be attributed to them.(please correct me if there is new info)

Then we get to Djoser (2668-2649BCE) This is when the stones really start flyin’
The high priest at that time was Imhotep. Imhotep was considered as something of a wizard about a lot of things, but most certainly the father of dressed stones.( Indeed a great architect) Which according to Egyptologists, had only been used in small locations previously.

Ok, Now here is something I find hard to believe.
Egyptologist and archeologist want us to believe that in less then two decades the building
Arts went from basically mud brick mounds to the step pyramid complex?
This is like going from igloos to skyscrapers in 20 years (has this timeline been updated?)

This begs the question, Where did Imhotep get his profound knowledge? Not just of architecture but of medicine, history, stone cutting etc.
And has his tomb ever been found?

Then for 36 years not much in the way of major pyramid building takes place.
Now comes Sneferu in 2613BCE. He built 3 giant pyramids, possibly better then Djoser’s.

And then in 2589BCE our old pal Khnum-Khufwy (Khufu) soon starts building his pyramid.
The likes of which had never before been seen, and dare say, will never be seen again!
Quite frankly, because we probably cant build it today.

After that, it was all in decline, smaller and smaller until the last one was built around
1750BCE 13th Dynasty. Basically a pile of stones and sand, by comparison.

edit-spelling

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Zeptepi]

I really want to know about this? This is just too strange to ignore.
This is the type of enigma that casts grave doubt on the whole current time-line of events.
Which also raises questions as to many other supposed “facts”
He (Imhotep) could have had access to previous knowledge.
This really makes me wonder where did he get this stuff from.
Please some mainstream Egyptologist please explain it to me.

Fair enough Byrd, thank you for the clarifications. I can be somewhat of a nit picker, to a fault sometimes, but I appreciate your response.

I have handled stone axes before, and they're not terribly good for cutting hard things. They're great for chopping up humans and meat, however.

Stone axes don't sound like they'd be too efficient for anything... except for chopping up humans of course. Out of curiosity though, have you ever handled any other ancient tools, like the one's that were said to have been used to cut and drill thru granite and limestone?

They used wooden wedges and pounded them in (just like my husband and I did this weekend to break apart some paving tiles). There's any number of documentary films showing this process.

Ill be sure to have a look.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Originally posted by cormac mac airt

I never said it was the main reason I found it interesting, just that I found it interesting because it seemed to agree with my thoughts BEFORE I read the article.

That's fine, it's just that it was the only reason you mentioned, so I just considered it your main one...

As to the Sphinx, I am not as hung up on the Sphinx as many are. Doesn't compare to the pyramids in architectural achievement.

You're right, it pales in architectural comparison, but still impressive in its own right. However the Sphinx is a very important feature of Giza...

Even if it's older, and I am not saying it is, doesn't mean that you can then include the pyramids and also say they must be older too.

Interesting comment considering you said this to me in a prior post:

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

So, you yourself said that I shouldn't take one item and separate it from all the rest, yet when it comes to the Sphinx now suddenly you don't get hung up on it and it shouldn't be looked at in relation to the pyramids? What gives?

It is widely accepted that The Sphinx, the Sphinx Temple, the Valley Temple, Khafre's causeway, Khafre's mortuary temple, and Khafre's Pyramid are all inter-related. There is archaeological and geological evidence that supports this.

It's generally believed too that the 3 main pyramids of Giza were all part of the same development plan. So I think in this sense I'm comfortable with proposing, in light of Colin Reader's study, that all 3 pyramids predate the time of Pharaoh Khufu...

When you get down to it, the Sphinx is just an overglorified statue, nothing complex about it.

Just like the pyramids are just a pile of rocks...why do we even waste our time discussing such things anyway?

[edit on 24-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Hi PhotonEffect,

Yes, I can see where I confused you. It was not my intention and I will explain.

Whereas many want to pass the Sphinx off as hundreds, even thousands of years older than believed, and by association the rest of the Giza Plateau, I believe they are wrong, at least partially.

One thing we know about the egyptians is that they were very good at creating objects in proportion. That has always been true as far as I know. However the Sphinx, particularly the head, isn't in proportion to the body. This was known long before Schoch and others.

I believe that the Sphinx may have been carved in the figure of a lion earlier than Khafre, then the head recarved later in honor of himself or his father. Also, we know where the material for the Valley Temple came from, but there is nothing that says it was built at exactly the same time as the Sphinx. The material didn't have to be removed from the Sphinx enclosure at the time it may have originally been created, only after it was modified.

cormac

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Actually I think it was the Sphinx temple which utilized limestone quarried from the Sphinx enclosure not the Valley temple. And there's evidence that suggests the Sphinx temple was constructed in 2 phases; the first started at the time of the Sphinx (pre-Khufu) and the second phase being finished sometime in the 4th dynasty...

It's all in that paper.

I too believe that the Sphinx' head may have actually been that of a lion at one point in time. However there is debate as to who the head is representative of, with some even believing that it's a woman's head..(although Im sure you know all of this already)

[edit on 25-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

Whereas many want to pass the Sphinx off as hundreds, even thousands of years older than believed, and by association the rest of the Giza Plateau, I believe they are wrong, at least partially.

One thing we know about the egyptians is that they were very good at creating objects in proportion. That has always been true as far as I know. However the Sphinx, particularly the head, isn't in proportion to the body. This was known long before Schoch and others.

I believe that the Sphinx may have been carved in the figure of a lion earlier than Khafre, then the head recarved later in honor of himself or his father.

I don't know when the sphinx was carved. Schoch's theory is based on a very sketchy means of "dating" exposed limestone, not on water erosion, and I've seen too many geological reports about the sphinx in context with Giza that include data that Schoch ignores. But, regarding the head-body proportionality problem, there is another excellent reason that the head is out of proportion.

There is a huge crack running through the sphinx and its' enclosure walls that you can see even today. The crack continues into the limestone bedrock on the north and south sides of the sphinx.

The crack runs through the sphinx near where the rear end of the sphinx would be if it were carved in proportion. This means that if the body had been carved proportional to the head, the rear of the sphinx would have been in danger of simply falling off the statue.

This idea explains it well, but there's no real reason to believe it over any other because the Egyptians don't tell us.

Harte

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Again, the only field of science that works in absolute "yes or no" constrainst is mathematics. History, geology, biology, all of these fields work on the premise of "more probable or less probable"

So, with htat in mind, apply it to your questions here.

We know that the Egyptians lived there for several thousand years, and we know they started building large monuments there five thousand years ago at the latest. We know they had the capabilities, tools, and knowledge needed to build things like the pyramids. We know hte pyramids are dated from the period of Egyptian construction.

Others claim that the ancient Egyptians were incapable of building the pyramids, even with the tools and knowledge we know they had. These speculators insist that someone else had to have built them. The theories on who built them varies , but there's one constant - we have zero evidence of these "other people." No tools, remains, or anything of the sort. Now, given that we're able to find evidence of pre-clovis cultures in the Americas, and Ice-Age villages in the North Sea, all that stuff, I'd say we're pretty good at finding the most unlikely of things in hte darnedst places.

Both are possibilities.
But which of the two is more probable?
GIven the lack of any evidence supporting the second, and the body of evidence for the first, the first is more likely.
Circumstantial, perhaps (if you say so...), but it's still more evidence than Option B has.

We have plenty of evidence of these people. Ignorant scholars are choosing to ignore the fact that our ancestors left us records of who did what, when, how and why. It's up to us to read it and discard or believe it. There are literally millions of cuneiform tablets that haven't been deciphered yet. Each of these tablets holds another piece of the puzzle.






= Thoth
*

= Pure Rigelean Orionian?
*

= the Illumined Enochian Master
*

= Quezlcoatel
*

= Hermes
*

= Enki’s Son
*

= Raismes of Aphra
*

= The Atlantean
*

= Tut!? (=Jesus?!)...
*

Built the Pyramid, Started the Calendar...


Thoth is an educational case in point in this regard. Rarely do we compare specific detailed information which explains that he (also named Quetzlcoatel- THE subject of "Tutankhamon Prophecies"), was the son of Enki, brother to Marduk / Ra - thus clearly the pride of the human DNA defenders part of the Anunnaki fleet. And yet here (as clearly below)---

Thoth states un-equivocally that he is of PURE ORION / Rigelian descent. Putting these 2 notions together may give us new insight into the Anunnaki Origins in the Orion sector, AND why for example Thoth (as Hermes) built the Pyramid complex as a Golden Spiral starmap to Orion’s beltstars... Quote from Eldorado Analysis of North American StarMaps

Oh the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' is a perfect example of scholars believing that mythology was airy fairy stories made up by our bored ancestors. This was proven wrong when an ancient site in Sumer named Isin produced a tablet of rulers inscribed during the reign of Damiqilishu of Isin (1816-1794 BCE). This proved too me and the fact that ancient word which mythology derived from actually means 'A peoples history from their perspective'.

This was an interesting 2003 news bulletin as well. With war in Iraq who knows what's going on with this now.


Archaeologists in Iraq believe they may have found the lost tomb of King Gilgamesh - the subject of the oldest "book" in history.

The Epic Of Gilgamesh - written by a Middle Eastern scholar 2,500 years before the birth of Christ - commemorated the life of the ruler of the city of Uruk, from which Iraq gets its name.

Now, a German-led expedition has discovered what is thought to be the entire city of Uruk - including, where the Euphrates once flowed, the last resting place of its famous King.

"I don't want to say definitely it was the grave of King Gilgamesh, but it looks very similar to that described in the epic," Jorg Fassbinder, of the Bavarian department of Historical Monuments in Munich, told the BBC World Service's Science in Action programme.

Magnetic

In the book - actually a set of inscribed clay tablets - Gilgamesh was described as having been buried under the Euphrates, in a tomb apparently constructed when the waters of the ancient river parted following his death.

"We found just outside the city an area in the middle of the former Euphrates river¿ the remains of such a building which could be interpreted as a burial," Mr Fassbinder said.

He said the amazing discovery of the ancient city under the Iraqi desert had been made possible by modern technology.

"By differences in magnetisation in the soil, you can look into the ground," Mr Fassbinder added.

"The difference between mudbricks and sediments in the Euphrates river gives a very detailed structure."

This creates a magnetogram, which is then digitally mapped, effectively giving a town plan of Uruk.

'Venice in the desert'

"The most surprising thing was that we found structures already described by Gilgamesh," Mr Fassbinder stated.

"We covered more than 100 hectares. We have found garden structures and field structures as described in the epic, and we found Babylonian houses."

But he said the most astonishing find was an incredibly sophisticated system of canals.

"Very clearly, we can see in the canals some structures showing that flooding destroyed some houses, which means it was a highly developed system.

"[It was] like Venice in the desert."