Forbidden Egyptology

The ancient Egyptian gods will certainly take there penalty for your insolence and disrepect. I fear you'll drop dead in 50-60 years. Offending gods is always a bad idea!

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks Hanslune, great, now do I want to live that long with the current rate of decline of my body and everything else, Pharoanic curse to live longer, is this a scripture from the good gold book or the bad black book.

You paid me a complement and I will be in my 100's by then. great!!!,
and the worlds situation, that is the question, but thanks, gwhint

Okay okay, 49 years and not a day shorter

reply to post by Harte and Hanslune


No worries Harte, I didn't mean to come across as taking any of it personal, this is just a hobby of mine, I promise. I was just trying to defend the fringier side of things here. And YES I can understand why you and some others would become frustrated with fielding the same questions and comments, but people will believe what they want to believe no matter what facts or logical answers you all provide. This unfortunately tends to happen on both sides of the debate and as a result we never seem to get anywhere...

Hanslune I totally understand, I know you're a busy person with some real priorities.

Re: the C14 dating
I have issues with the way orthodox egyptologists utilize this data to support their proposed chronology for the structures at Giza et al. They pass this data off as hard evidence when they know full well that there are results which are highly irregular and anomalous. These results could prove to be a headache, which is probably why we don't hear or see much of them. They're usually just averaged in with the "correct dates" if not completely discarded altogether.

I've had a few discussions about the C14 dating, more recently in one of Scott Creighton's threads. I'm still waiting to hear back from him regarding a certain dating issue. (you can read it here)

Originally posted by Harte
Are you aware that there was a more recent round of C14 dating done for the GP that basically did away with the former problems to a great extent?

If what you're referring to here as the "more recent round" were the tests conducted in 1995, then yes I'm aware of it. Now if by "former problems" you actually mean the anomalous results yielded in the 1984 dating, then this is where I begin to have issues. And what's the basis for "did away to a great extent" anyway?

It's happened quite a few times that when I've had this discussion I'd be sent to Mark Lehner's site: www.aeraweb.org...

So why don't we go ahead and use it here, but first the anomalous results from 1984:

On this site (scroll down about 1/2 way) a chart lists the mortar samples which were taken from various locations around the GP. These samples show a range of 1000 years which date back to 3800 bc. You'll notice that the oldest dates were found from samples taken from the upper portions of the GP. Hmm.

These strange results prompted the 1995 test. Here's what Lehner's site has to say:

There are two striking results.

First, there are significant discrepancies between the 1984 and 1995 dates for Khufu and Khafre, but not for Djoser and Menkaure.

Second, the 1995 dates vary widely even for a single monument. For Khufu’s Great Pyramid, they scatter over a range of about 400 years.

About that first point, so we do have (significant) differences, but more importantly there's a match in dates between the 2 tests. And oddly enough the matches for the 2 tests were found on the so called oldest and youngest structures of that group. So the 1995 test actually corroborates the 1984 test in some key areas. Maybe we shouldn't throw away all of those results just yet...

The second point confirms that even the dates from the 1995 test show a wide range and variation; and for the GP by as much as 400 years. I don't gather from this how the later dating did away with anything from the prior. Even with supposed refined techniques the dates are still off. Enough to push the GP put of the reign of Khufu.

The AERA site then goes on to try to reconcile these issues (or save face) by proposing the old wood problem and the old kingdom problem. What this says to me is "we don't really know for sure what to make of all this anomalous data."

Point is, there isn't anything solid in this data that proves the dates of those pyramids either way, yet we're lead to believe that this is some of the best supporting evidence for the current orthodox chronology of those structures.

Howdy PE

Yep that's the situation as I understand it.

Point is, there isn't anything solid in this data that proves the dates of those pyramids either way, yet we're lead to believe that this is some of the best supporting evidence for the current orthodox chronology of those structures.

There is a great deal of "solid" in the data but you don't want to accept it.

What does it show, that most of the dates from the data are within the expected time frames while a minority are not.

So do we throw out the entire chronology or take the average?

It is only one point of data for the current chronology.

Questions for you

How many samples were taken?

How many of these samples tested outside the expected range?

What is the percentage of samples outside of the range?

Do you understand that the dating dates the wood and not the pyramids?

Do you understand that some older wood may have been used in making the pyramids and other structures (Scott covered this too) so at worse case the pyramid maybe four hundred years older than determined by other methods, which I believe is an error of less than 9%

Please explain the effect on Egyptology if one pyramid is 400 years older than expected?

My own solution - that an existing temple/structure at the site was torn down and the wood reused in the replacement structure ( the pyramid). The Egyptian have had a history of reusing materials. Even better to make tomb out of scarced materials from an earlier religious structure.

It's happened quite a few times that when I've had this discussion

Er how many times have you had this same discussion?

If you want to get into a blow by blow detailed discussion on this subject may I suggest you ask your question of the Egyptologist at the Hall of Ma'at.

Perhaps interesting for some of you regarding the discussion about the possible use of coc aine and/or nicotine by the AE.
I find this very interesting myself.

Then four years ago a German scientist, Dr Svetla Balabanova, made a discovery which was to baffle Egyptologists, and call into question whole areas of science and archeology to chemistry and botany.

What interested Balabanova was what happened to Ramses 3000 years later, when he went on his final royal visit.

On september 26th, 1976, amid all the pomp and circumstance - due a visiting head of state - French TV cameras recorded the arrival of the mummy of Ramses II at an airport in Paris. An exhibition about him at the museum of mankind was planned.

But the body was found to be badly deteriorated, so a battery of scientist set about trying to repair this damage.

The bandages wrapped around the mummy needed replacing, so botanists were given pieces of the fabric to analyse what it was made of. One found some plant fragments in her piece, and took a closer look. Emerging on the slide, according to her experience, were the unmistakable features the tiny crystals and filaments of a plant that couldn't possibly be there.

DR MICHELLE LESCOT - Natural History Museum, Paris:
"I prepared the slides, put them under the microscope and what did I see? Tobacco. I said to myself, that's just not possible - I must be dreaming. The Egyptians didn't have tobacco. It was brought from South America at the time of Christopher Columbus. I looked again, and I tried to get a better view and I thought, well, it's only a first analysis. I worked feverishly and I forgot to have lunch that day. But I kept getting the same result."

And this explanation very funny indeed.

PROF NASRI ISKANDER - Chief Curator, Cairo Museum:
"According to my knowledge and experience, most of the archeologists and scientists, who worked on these fields, smoked pipes. And I myself have been smoking pipes for more than 25 years. Then maybe a piece of the tobacco dropped by haphazard or just anyway and to tell this is right or wrong we have to be more careful"

www.druglibrary.org...


[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

Contamination of mummies and other materials is a common problem - a very big problem for DNA in particular

The idea of a lost species of tobacco came to Balabanova because the concentrations in the bodies from Asia and Europe were similar to modern day smokers. But one thing had puzzled her. At 35 times the dose for smokers, the amounts of nicotine she had found in Egyptian mummies were potentially lethal.

As the article noted, they didn't find Tobacco they found nicotine, which comes from other plants native to Egypt. The same for the active ingredient in Cocaine.

Originally posted by Hanslune
As the article noted, they didn't find Tobacco they found nicotine, which comes from other plants native to Egypt. The same for the active ingredient in Cocaine.

Always debunking good and solid arguments right?
No matter from which they are coming.
Even when they clearly show that certain AE facts are in reality no facts at all.
And what on Earth is wrong with that, mistakes can be made, to err is human.
But to deliberately ongoing to deny them is in my opinion very unprofessional and very bad science.
It looks exactly on Forbidden Egyptology.
And the more that happened, the more it proofs to me that my opinion is right, that certain AE facts are really no facts at all.

It’s good then that there are people like Dr. Michelle Lescot of the Natural History Museum, Paris, who has the guts to admit them.

What really do you read here?

Originally posted by spacevisitor

One found some plant fragments in her piece, and took a closer look. Emerging on the slide, according to her experience, were the unmistakable features the tiny crystals and filaments of a plant that couldn't possibly be there.

DR MICHELLE LESCOT - Natural History Museum, Paris:
"I prepared the slides, put them under the microscope and what did I see, Tobacco. I said to myself, that's just not possible - I must be dreaming. The Egyptians didn't have tobacco. It was brought from South America at the time of Christopher Columbus. I looked again, and I tried to get a better view and I thought, well, it's only a first analysis. I worked feverishly and I forgot to have lunch that day. But I kept getting the same result."

[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

Howdy Spacevisitor

I would suggest you read the following report:

P.C. Buckland & E. Panagiotakopulu. 2001. “Rameses II and the Tobacco Beetle,” Antiquity 75: 549-556.

Quote from:

“The use of a wide range of narcotic drugs in antiquity has been widely documented, although archaeologists have sometimes been to credulous of apparently scientific data, and have failed to appreciate the post-excavation histories of artefacts, including mummies. This paper examines the discovery of tobacco in the mummy of Rameses II, provides an alternative model for its origin, as a 19th-century insecticide used in conservation, and throws doubt upon the evidence for both cannabis and coc aine in ancient Egypt.”


Presents evidence that tobacco was widely used as an insecticide in the 19th century. Explains Rameses II as well as the mummies in Munich used by Balabanova which were quite fragmentary. “Radioimmunoassay [of the best documented mummy of Parche]showed that nicotine was generally distributed through the body, and it is probable that this reflects the application of tobacco water as an insecticide during conservation in the 19th century.”

“The explanation of the presence of tobacco and coc aine in Egyptian mummies have not only ignored their post-excavation histories, but also the biogeographic data concerning these plants. The evidence for the use of nicotine-derived insecticides at least since the late 18th century provides a much more probable explanation. There remain problems with the interpretation of the biochemical data, but the balance of evidence would indicate that neither plant was known to the ancient Egyptians

Always debunking good and solid arguments right? No matter from which they are coming.

The problem is it isn't a good and solid argument. Why are different opinions not acceptable to you? It would seem you have not researched this completely. Yes there were the initial reports- then later reports refuted them.

Even when they clearly show that certain AE facts are in reality no facts at all.

Logical fallacy Spacevisitor, if tobacco or coc aine were imported into Egypt that fact wouldn't change the other facts. The interpretation of some facts would need to be changed however.

And what on Earth is wrong with that, mistakes can be made, to err is human. But to deliberately ongoing to deny them is in my opinion very unprofessional and very bad science.

It would appear you are doing so by not looking at material dated after the initial reports.

It looks exactly on Forbidden Egyptology.

No its more like poor research or "filtering" out of anything that goes against the initial reports and not following up on the story from non-fringe sources.

And the more that happened, the more it proofs to me that my opinion is right, that certain AE facts are really no facts at all.

You are most welcome to your opinion, however I prefer to look at ALL the evidence then make up my mind, not just the information that fits into my preconceived scenario. Not to beat up on you Spacevisitor but I see this a lot. There is an initial report, the fringe world goes wild, later reports show that the initial report is incorrect - the fringe world ignores that report. I see this cycle over and over again.

It’s good then that there are people like Dr. Michelle Lescot of the Natural History Museum, Paris, who has the guts to admit them.

And if you do a search you'll find he is still trying to find more data on issue

Dr. Michele continues to study it

What really do you read here?

I read what you see but you haven't looked at the evidence beyond this. The issue is still being looked at but the problem is that science has to find some evidence of cross Atlantic trade - and that is missing.

Remember also that the concentration of the active ingredients of tobacco and coc aine found were 35 times the average use for humans. ie in the lethal range.

I would LOVE for there to be evidence for trade across the Atlantic, I and many other people were quite excited by the initial reports, but then alternative views came in and Occam's razor slashed out...

Regards

Hans

Some additional info on the concept of Egyptian Atlantic trade

Historians remain entirely unconvinced of ancient trade links between the old and new worlds because none of the principle domestic species (other than the dog) are found in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus. Native Americans had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys or camels whilst new world domesticates such as the llama, guinea pigs, maize, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, peanuts, tomatoes, squash (incl. pumpkin), pineapples, papaya and avocados were absent from the old world. [23] In addition iron, steel, glass and silk were not used in the Americas prior to 1492. If trade had existed between Egypt and the Americas it would be incredibly unlikely that it would be restricted to plants that produced drugs and not essential food crops and farm animals. Furthermore, the differences between Mayan and Egyptian hieroglyphs and the vast differences in the designs, building materials and purpose of pyramids between Egypt and the Americas indicates that there was not a shared legacy between these cultures.

The paper where these quotes come from

For anyone interested in this subject you might want to read the article above in particular the conclusion.

Although there is good evidence to indicate that nicotine may have been identified in mummies following its application as an insecticide there is an alternative explanation which Balabanova favours. This is that the origin of the nicotine is the result of a post mortem application to the mummy, which may have occurred during the process of embalming. [29] In this study Balabanova compared the amounts of nicotine identified in artificially and naturally mummified bodies from ancient Egypt with the amounts found in modern-day humans.

The highest nicotine concentrations were found in artificially mummified Egyptians (mean value = 1330ng/g) compared with 47ng/g in natural mummies, 77ng/g in European bronze age remains and 38ng/g in modern day accident victims. However the ratio of nicotine to its metabolised component cotinine indicates that the high concentrations of nicotine in artificial mummies is due to the embalming process. Artificially mummified bodies contain on average 3.4% cotinine compared to 40.3% in natural mummified bodies, 34.3% in European bronze age remains and 596% in modern day accident victims. This is indicative that the nicotine in the artificial mummies was not through its consumption whilst they were alive but through its post mortem application.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Always debunking good and solid arguments right?
No matter from which they are coming.

Thats the reason I tested these debunkers a few times in the thread. One test was to mention the book "The Stargate Conspiracy" by Lynn Picknett.

Because of the title it sounds like one of "our type of books", but actually it argues against fringe-researchers and in favour of mainstream egyptology.

Sureley enough, the usual suspects rushed into this thread to debunk, downplay or ridicule the book they THOUGHT to be arguing for our case.

Its moments like that you realize these debunker-types are not for real

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Hanslune
Logical fallacy Spacevisitor, if tobacco or coc aine were imported into Egypt that fact wouldn't change the other facts. The interpretation of some facts would need to be changed however.

Hi Hanslune, here is another I thought AE fact, it is about the ramps that where used when the Pyramids where build.
Would you be so kind then to look at this question that our friend Harte clearly avoided and give me your personal take on it?
Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Recently, remnants of ramps have been found by Dr. Zahi Hawass on the south side of the pyramid that attest that some type of ramping was indeed used in the construction of this monument. The attribution of the pyramid to King Khufu is supported by workman’s markings in red ink that were found in the pyramid in small chambers that were never intended to be opened.

This portion (above) is enough to refer to as a "wealth of ... evidence" that the G.P. was built by (or for) Khufu.

Harte, do you really think that this portion is enough "wealth of ... evidence" to proof the G.P. was built by (or for) Khufu?
Let me explain why I find it weaker then weak.
To start with the ramps, and I have here some information about that theory.

www.archaeology.org...

interoz.com...

www.touregypt.net...

I am really amazed that you and all those Egyptologists really believe that the AE with the tools they had to their disposal where capable of drag those hundred of thousands immense blocks of stone with weights from one to four tonnes, some of 15 tonnes and some even 70 tonnes tens of meters higher and higher up on those ramps?
Is that Egyptologists common sense?
Imagine how many people obviously must be needed to drag all those blocks up, especially the ones from 15 to 70 tonnes.
Look to the test results of a 25 ton block here.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


And how could such a big group of people who pulling those blocks over wooden runners with long ropes of course have manoeuvred on such a ramp, at some moment they must have turned, going left, going right, back, forward to get those huge blocks precisely on it’s place?
And then, when it is almost on its place you must first remove the ropes and wooden runners right.
So you must place it then in the exact position by means of pushing.
How do you think they have done that?

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Would you be so kind then to look at this question that our friend Harte clearly avoided and give me your personal take on it?
Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Recently, remnants of ramps have been found by Dr. Zahi Hawass on the south side of the pyramid that attest that some type of ramping was indeed used in the construction of this monument. The attribution of the pyramid to King Khufu is supported by workman’s markings in red ink that were found in the pyramid in small chambers that were never intended to be opened.

This portion (above) is enough to refer to as a "wealth of ... evidence" that the G.P. was built by (or for) Khufu.

Harte, do you really think that this portion is enough "wealth of ... evidence" to proof the G.P. was built by (or for) Khufu?
Let me explain why I find it weaker then weak.
To start with the ramps, and I have here some information about that theory.

www.archaeology.org...

interoz.com...

www.touregypt.net...

I am really amazed that you and all those Egyptologists really believe that the AE with the tools they had to their disposal where capable of drag those hundred of thousands immense blocks of stone with weights from one to four tonnes, some of 15 tonnes and some even 70 tonnes tens of meters higher and higher up on those ramps?
Is that Egyptologists common sense?
Imagine how many people obviously must be needed to drag all those blocks up, especially the ones from 15 to 70 tonnes.
Look to the test results of a 25 ton block here.

Spacey,

Look, man, I'm willing to cut you some slack, but not as far as to sit still while you claim I didn't answer this because I did. I also pointed out, quite clearly, that I didn't think any of this constituted "proof" of anything, yet I notice you left that part completely out of this post.

Perhaps I should go back then and selectively quote portions of what you've said here, ignoring other parts, which is exactly what you've just done concerning what I've posted?

I thought that posts from "the other side"were welcome in this thread. Just let me know when you're ready for me to leave you fringers to nod and wink at each other the rest of your lives on this board, like a bunch of bobbleheads, getting nowhere fast.

Your links reinforce the theory that ramps were used.

Note that I said the Khufu cartouche and other writings in the relieving chamber constitute a wealth of evidence that the G.P. was built for Khufu.

Is this somehow not true? I mean, is this not somehow a "wealth of evidence?"

If not, why do you think not?

Don't come around several pages later claiming I didn't answer your so-called "question" (there actually was only the one question as far as I could tell, it was about the painted cartouche) when I most certainly did. I then told you I wasn't sure what you were asking concerning the ramps. I mean hey, remains of ramps were found. Your links show the varied ways ramps could have been used and the problems associated with each.

How is this contradictory? What "explanation" is called for here?

If I knew exactly how it was done. I'd be famous.

If you think the use of ramps is "beyond belief," while the remains of ramps have actually been found, then exactly what are you getting at here? I mean, where's the remains of whatever method you're proposing they used, and why are the remains of ramps there at all?

Harte

Hi Hanslune, here is another I thought AE fact, it is about the ramps that where used when the Pyramids where build.

No acknowledgement of your previous error or thanks for my giving you all that information- just another homework assignment for me, huh?

I'll pass as Harte has already commented on it.

And a question for you, how did the Russians move a 1,500 ton stone without mechanization in 1770?



Oh and how did the Indians in the 10th century move a 80 ton black granite capstone/dome to the top of the Brihadeeswara Temple? A height of over 60 meters?

Added data





[edit on 30/4/08 by Hanslune]

Gwhint got a reply to my email

Originally posted by Hanslune
Interesting story

I know a Coptic priest from Alexandria. I'll ask him if he knows anything about this. He has an unusual knowledge of the weird and bizzare.

The Father's answers were:

1. No

2. No

3. Yes but no

The questions were

1. Was there an openly gay life styles in Ancient Egypt? (although some might challenge that)

2. Is there a men only community in Siwa (but there are lots of bachelor workers there who work under "bosses").

3. Is there an unusual male/gay community culture in Siwa? Not officially but its an open secret that such activity occurs there and local government and police/imams seem to go along or have been bribed into acceptance.
There is no Coptic church in Siwa AFAIK, he is checking with his Bishop.

That fairly true for many Arab nations. (

reply to post by Harte


Well Harte, it is very obvious to me that after this answer of you it's in my opinion very sensible to end our so far really interesting discussions here.

I wish you well.

Spacevisitor, the man from "the other side"

Originally posted by Hanslune

Hi Hanslune, here is another I thought AE fact, it is about the ramps that where used when the Pyramids where build.

No acknowledgement of your previous error or thanks for my giving you all that information- just another homework assignment for me, huh?

Because it’s absolute not fully proven to be an error in my opinion.
I am really not aware for the fact that I must thank everybody again and again for their provided info.
But you are right in saying that I give you no answer on that remark, but even that count's not alone for me I hope?
However I read all your remarks.

Originally posted by Hanslune
“The use of a wide range of narcotic drugs in antiquity has been widely documented, although archaeologists have sometimes been to credulous of apparently scientific data, and have failed to appreciate the post-excavation histories of artefacts, including mummies.
This paper examines the discovery of tobacco in the mummy of Rameses II, provides an alternative model for its origin, as a 19th-century insecticide used in conservation, and throws doubt upon the evidence for both cannabis and coc aine in ancient Egypt.”

Presents evidence that tobacco was widely used as an insecticide in the 19th century. Explains Rameses II as well as the mummies in Munich used by Balabanova which were quite fragmentary. “Radioimmunoassay [of the best documented mummy of Parche]showed that nicotine was generally distributed through the body, and it is probable that this reflects the application of tobacco water as an insecticide during conservation in the 19th century.”

“The explanation of the presence of tobacco and coc aine in Egyptian mummies have not only ignored their post-excavation histories, but also the biogeographic data concerning these plants. The evidence for the use of nicotine-derived insecticides at least since the late 18th century provides a much more probable explanation. There remain problems with the interpretation of the biochemical data, but the balance of evidence would indicate that neither plant was known to the ancient Egyptians

First, I am really so amazed that you believe this explanation yourself.
Second, it ultimate proofs to me that the Mainstream Egyptologists are doing everything in their power to keep the truth under wraps.
So doing exactly what Skyfloating named this thread to. “Forbidden Egyptology”

Originally posted by Hanslune
I'll pass as Harte has already commented on it.

That really surprised me, but is up to you of course.

Originally posted by Hanslune
And a question for you, how did the Russians move a 1,500 ton stone without mechanization in 1770?

I answered that question also to legionromanes, so I hope you don’t mind that I use the same answer for your question.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by legionromanes
your post seems to be basing its credibility on your belief that the egyptians couldn't move the blocks used in the GP

It is based on several things, where under the lack of solid evidence from the ME themselves.
They believe/claim for instance that the AE must have used those clamps, because all those blocks must be dragged upwards.
Will you give me your personal view on that, and do you really think that it is possible that way?

Originally posted by legionromanes
did you never hear of the thunder stone ?
was that moved by a lost advanced race too, it is after all the largest stone ever moved by mankind.

en.wikipedia.org...

it weighed 1500 tonnes, thats slighty larger than what you are claiming couldn't be moved in Egypt. I guess the Russians must be the lost race you are looking for.

No, I really didn’t, very interesting and thanks for that info.
But with the thunder stone, you forget some important things in my opinion, look closely to the picture and look to the tools they use.
And don't forget the very convenient circumstances too.

Moving the Thunder Stone
After waiting for winter, when the ground was frozen, it was then dragged across the countryside. This was done by means of a metallic sledge which slid over bronze spheres about 13.5 cm (6 inches) in diameter, over a track, a process similar to the later invention of ball bearings. Making the feat even more impressive was that the labour was done entirely by humans; no animals or machines were used in bringing it from the original site to the Senate Square.[7] Once a method to move it was devised, it took 400 men 9 months to move the stone, during which time master stonecutters continuously shaped the enormous granite monolith.[2] Catherine periodically visited the effort to oversee their progress. The larger capstans took 32 men at once to turn, this just barely moving the rock. Further complicating the issue was the availability of only 100 m of track, which had to be constantly relaid.[7] Nevertheless, the workers made over 150 m of progress a day while on level ground.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 23/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 23/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 23/4/08 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by Hanslune
Oh and how did the Indians in the 10th century move a 80 ton black granite capstone/dome to the top of the Brihadeeswara Temple? A height of over 60 meters?

Added data

Well, that looks also very interesting so I am looking forward to your info.

Howdy Spacevisitor

Because it’s absolute not fully proven to be an error in my opinion.

Unfortunately it is, you were commenting and quoting from an earlier document - and had obviously failed to look at studies after that document was created. That is a fact and that was the nature of your error. If you like we can go thru it line by line and I'll point out the error in greater detail.

So in your mind, AE voyaged to South America for over 2,500 years and no evidence of it exists?

Okay where in SA did the AE get drugs from? Explain the route please. I think you'll come up with a problem - what is that problem?

Why was there no trade in other materials? Why would the AE go that far when those types of material were available in the local area?

What did the AE pay for these items? (Ie no evidence of Egyptian materials in SA)

There is no conspiracy Spacevisitor, just very bad scholarship and a refusal to see evidence. That I cannot help you with.

Ah winter, that doesn make it easier but it took them 9 month so that took it thru spring and summer too. The Egyptian also used wooden sleds - do you know about the compressibility factor of wood? So non-mechanized man moved a 1,500 ton stone, slowly but they did it with manpower.

I once moved a four ton stone with 24 students - it was back breaking labor but we did it in 2 days (120 meters)

You should look up how the Indian capstone was moved, open your mind to knowledge outside your comfort zone. Hint the Indians used a ramp, its documented and part of the ramp is still there.

reply to post by Hanslune


So in your mind, AE voyaged to South America for over 2,500 years and no evidence of it exists?

-they appearantly made it to Australia (unless that site has be proven to not be authentic) what not South America?

The coca plant grows only in South America, Opium is a different drug,, although they would need all the drugs they could get to get however many people it took to drag those stones across the desert.

reply to post by Hanslune



There is no conspiracy Spacevisitor, just very bad scholarship and a refusal to see evidence. That I cannot help you with.

- Evidence, surely you dont mean the pretty colored picture of Russians moving one! big rock across the ice as proof that the same thing occurred in Egypt?
Next you are going to want us to believe that the local natives drug the huge stones from the river bed quarry across two mountain ranges to what an elavation of some 6-7 thousand feet in Tiawahanco (Sp ?) There isnt enough Cocaine in Columbia to enable anyone to do that feat.

No doubt Hanslumem particapating in a rock dragging event proves a point to you ,, that it can be done,,, but the probablity of all the stones in all the pryamid structures in Egypt,,

On a different thought ,, what was the live time of Khufu, (and his approximate) reign?