Forbidden Egyptology

reply to post by Hanslune


Hans: Huh? Please explain? I do hope this isn't going to be a short trip to conspiracy land?

PE: Nope no trip. So all the results from both tests have been released? Once again have you seen the data yourself?

Hans: Then how do you know about it? LOL The data is shown in the chart – remember there are TWO studies, the second study stands on it OWN it doesn’t incorporate the data from the first. I think this is what you are misinterpreting?

PE: OK so you answered my question from my last post. The 2nd study tested completely different samples than the 1st. Yet they use it to refute results from the 1st test? How does that work?

I know from what I've found researching online from my armchair.

Hans: First of all PE don't use phrases like, "which fall outside of your expected..". I was not part of this study. I am simply trying to explain what the data shows. I don't have a chronology, I'm not an Egyptologist. Try not personalizing the discussion of facts. Okay?

PE: I know you didn't. And I know you aren't, I just group you and your opinions with the conventional. Don't take any of it personal.

Hans: They are addressed, they are in the report, they are in the chart. I don’t see your point. Please explain to us what you think the reports should say – instead of what they do say. What to you would be an accurate observation of this data?

PE: I haven't been able to find this information in its entirety (ie not just the averages). But when I do find it, it should show each sample, location from where it was taken, type of sample, test result, and any other pertinent information.

Hans: No it doesn’t – why did they take multiple samples? Answer to get an average. so why not use the average since that was the point?

PE: I just think taking the average is a bit too general and vague in this case and is misleading because it covers up the specific out of range dates. But what do I know.

Hans: Please explain how it does that – let reverse the situation. You have one point of data and you say it’s more important than all the other – so what happens to all the other data? Oh and again it is not my chronology.

PE: Honestly Im tired of explaining it. And it's not just one thats more important. Again nothing personal.

Hans: With your great interest in this why can’t you answer it? Answer you then would realize that your one odd result is in a pretty big pool.

PE: The information is not readily available I'm afraid. But Im trying to find it. And its more than just 1 odd result.

Hans: And the affect of that would be? (if one "PE's" the data throws away all data EXCEPT the one old date)

PE: Hurt egos for starters.

Hans: Why do you keep going over and over the same data – I presume you get the same answers back each time? So your point is? You seem obsessed with this and are trying to personalize the discussion. If you want Egyptologists to yell at go over to the Hall of Ma'at - there are Egyptologist there!

PE: Why over and over? I don't get answers. Although I thought we were having a discussion. I keep asking you questions which you answer ( or don't answer) with questions/analogies and so on and so on. We're talking in circles it seems. But I will take it to the Hall, see how fast they can shut me up. Thanks.




[edit on 15-5-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Howdy PE

PE: Archaeologist then? just curious ( you don't have to tell of course)

I trained as a Polynesian/Mayan archaeologist but worked in bronze age ME for awhile before switching to another career. I have kept my hand in as an amateur during my years in the ME. My specialization was in site survey and lithics (primarily the conversion of hunting weapons to war weapons.)

Right, so the C14 dates them then; by way of organic matter found embedded on the outside of the pyramids? Do you know off the top of your head if any organic material from inside was tested?

Hans: I believe so but you'd have to get the original report on the methodology to find that out or ask one of the original participants.

PE: Right the 1984 test wasn't wrong. What I don't know for sure yet is if the same samples that were tested in 1984 were tested again in 1995. Would you know?

Hans: it was 'wrong' in the sense that the Cayce people wanted a date of 10,000+ and the archaeologists wanted a better and more plentiful sources of samples to get a better average.

PE: I'd be lying if I said I knew what you were talking about here. But I will be sure to read everyone of those 33 pages. Thank you for the reference.

What it meant was that the C14 dates of wood in SW America were found to test older than they really were. The c-14 dates were calibrated by tree ring association. A similar problem was found in Anatolia and similarily corrected. Tree ring calibration isn't possible in Egypt due to an incomplete ancient wood source. C14 of wood tends to test OLDER than the wood actually is.

I plotted the date of 3809 bc (a c14 result from a test on the GP) on that chart and it hits the curve at about 4000 bc on the dendro-age axis? Am I reading that right? Also could you tell me if this is a conversion chart of some sort? And how to read it correctly?

That chart is a general (world wide) C-14 table showing where general dates range from. Example using the 3,800 date as an actual date it would be expected to show up as a uncalibrated Radiocarbon date of 5,800 BP which would be calibrated to 5,100 BP (approximately 3,100 BC.

This chart is for general carbon use and not specifically for tree carbon nor for Egypt.

Continuing my reply to PE

Find the two reports and you'll be able to drown yourself in the details.

Egos? Whose? You do realize this information is over 20 years old and has been in public domain for longer than that. Its old news. The old wood problem is just another of the many puzzles of Egypt . This odd response again confuses me as to what you seem to be concerned about.

So let me try this

YES everyone in Egyptology, archaeology and associated sciences is aware of this data, the reports can be read by anyone, anywhere. There are no hidden secrets, unknown codes or anything else in those reports.

Yep go to Hall of Ma'at however they may be as puzzled over exactly what your question is or what your point is - as I was.

Good luck PE

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

On a side note, did the link I posted the other day on the subject of the Tomb of Osiris help you any?

Yes, that was helpful, thank you. I read every single post here in full length, but sometimes I dont respond.

No problem. I am sure there are some who only read the latest page, wasn't sure if you were one of them. Glad to help.

cormac

Originally posted by Hanslune
You do realize this information is over 20 years old and has been in public domain for longer than that. Its old news. The old wood problem is just another of the many puzzles of Egypt . This odd response again confuses me as to what you seem to be concerned about.

Huh? Which information has been in the public domain for over 20 years? Aren't we talking about the dating? So yeah, the 1st round of results have been out that long but the not the 2nd round...

The old wood problem is a part of what I'm talking about here. But that's ok Hanslune, don't have an aneurysm trying to figure out what Im trying to address here. I really don't think that I've been that unclear.

You say the data is reliable in the face of the "old wood problem" and the way out of range dates and I say it isn't. My basic point in all of this is that it's unreliable data which is used as hard evidence by conventional egyptology.

You said yourself that the old wood problem is one of the puzzles of ancient egypt...

And the old wood problem directly relates to the dating, does it not? Even Mark Lehner seems to acknowledge the irregularities and the old wood problem on his AERA site.

YES everyone in Egyptology, archaeology and associated sciences is aware of this data, the reports can be read by anyone, anywhere. There are no hidden secrets, unknown codes or anything else in those reports.

If you say so Hans, but NO this data can't be read anywhere or by anyone.

Wait, have you seen and read thru all the data yourself? I've assumed that you have...


[edit on 15-5-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Howdy PE

Still haven't gone to the Hall of Ma'at yet?

Huh? Which information has been in the public domain for over 20 years? Aren't we talking about the dating? So yeah, the 1st round of results have been out that long but the not the 2nd round...

Hans: The first report and all data about C-14 and radiocarbon-its all there and the 2nd report came out in 2001 but the data was available in the mid 1990s.

The old wood problem is a part of what I'm talking about here. But that's ok Hanslune, don't have an aneurysm trying to figure out what Im trying to address here. I really don't think that I've been that unclear.

Hans: unfortunately you have

My basic point in all of this is that it's unreliable data which is used as hard evidence by conventional egyptology.

Hans: This is were you make no sense, how is the data unreliable? Just because you seem to want it to be unrealiable doesn't make it unreliable. You simply do not understand the process, no one who understands the process AFAIK considers the data of the reports to be unreliable. So outline if you would your criteria for determining whether C-14 dates are reliable or unreliable, I like to know how you come to this conclusion.

You said yourself that the old wood problem is one of the puzzles of ancient egypt...

Hans: it is but not in the way you want it to be.

And the old wood problem directly relates to the dating, does it not? Even Mark Lehner seems to acknowledge the irregularities and the old wood problem on his AERA site.

Hans: Of course he does, everyone who has looked at this understands the data and what it means - except you. Again the data IS reliable, it states what it states. The accurate data shows X+1, whereas, it should show X, however in not showing X it doesn't disprove all the other archaeological data.

If you say so Hans, but NO this data can't be read anywhere or by anyone.

Hans: Groan, unfortunately that statement is easily shown to be false. Go to any university library and you can find those two reports. Have you tried to do that? I assure you that those reports actually exist. LOL

Wait, have you seen and read thru all the data yourself? I've assumed that you have...

I read the second report and an abstract of the first - at a library, try finding one.

Go talk to the Egyptologists at the Hall of Ma'at I'm sure they'd love to hear your explanation of why the C-14 dating of the two reports is unreliable.

An addition:


Possible Egyptian statue on Mars


Mythology turned out to be scientifically accurate

Originally posted by Skyfloating
An addition:


Possible Egyptian statue on Mars


Mythology turned out to be scientifically accurate

Well a trick of light and shadow or do you think the Egyptians were on Mars Sky?

Here is a question for you, what percentage of myth can be considered "scientific"? Like all human stories there may be some truth and much exaggeration in what legends tell us. Humans are a very inventive species as you know. Look at all the medieval legends of foreign lands and strange creatures. What percentage was correct?

When you get into religious imagery the "science" tends to fade away.

How do you determine which myth is accurate and which is not?

Answer: by seeing which ones can be backed up by other sources.

Here is a question for you Sky, lets say no aliens or advanced humans every flew thru the sky above earth. So does that mean that there would be NO mention of things in the skies, nothing flying? No strange beasts and visitations? Are you stating that man is unimaginative and that the only possible explanation is A & AHs?

I would think you wouldn't say that so then the next question comes up, how do you tell the aliens and AH from human imagination? Humans are terribly imaginative - I'll cite the SF and fantasy literature of the last few centuries not to mention all the religious stuff. If they can think up all this stuff why couldn't our ancestors?



[edit on 18/5/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


Mythology turned reality. Thats all I´ll say for now.

More to come. MUCH MORE.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Hanslune


Hey there Hans,

Yes I see this data as unreliable evidence to establish (or support) a firm chronology for the construction of those Pyramids, especially the GP, where many of the anomalous dates were found. There I go talking crazy again...

Now I have not seen all the data myself, and I would love to peruse thru it all so I can see with my own eyes what you're so sure of. This I will do.

Unfortunately you can't just walk into any university library unless you're a registered student AFAIK. I thought universities were private institutions and not public... but if Im wrong then I will look to get access to the Columbia University Library, that should do it.

I've only been able to find averages of all the results, but one can't determine from this where on the structures each and everyone of those samples were taken. I know of only a few, like the much older dates, which were found in material from the upper courses of the GP for instance. The younger dates (some, but still off by hundreds of years) tended to be found in material from the lower courses. Why is that?

Also, were there any tests done on material from inside these structures? You've seen the info, will you please answer this? I know that Hawass won't date a wooden rod lodged inside one of the shafts. I've also read, but must confirm, that the boat found outside the Pyramid wasn't dated...

But then again what's the point right, because you're dating the wood and who knows where the wood came from and at what point in the trees life it was used or reused. So those dates wouldn't necessarily be indicative of when that boat (or pyramid) was built. There's no way to determine this, at all. It's a guess. You can't just explain away a very old date for instance as "well the AE's were known to reuse their wood...". I mean, that may be but there's no way to know for sure if that was the case for that particular charcoal piece. Maybe that piece wasn't from reused wood. Right? Isn't this what the "old wood problem" in part is about?

Even for Khufu there are dates ranging over a thousand years. So we take an average, and the average shows a date closer to the reign of Khufu but still off by 100's of years. But what if that's because the samples that were tested just so happened to be more clumped around the more contemporary dates therefore yielding more of a weighted average? There quite obviously is very old material (ca 3809 bc) embedded around the GP, so lets say they instead had grabbed more samples of the much older material, wouldn't that then yield an average weighted more to the older dates? You follow?

Why I say it's unreliable:

Unless they've tested EVERY (and I mean every) piece of organic material that could be found in and around those pyramids, then how are we to know that they are testing an equally distributed sampling? The averages we are seeing are weighted, based on the small portion of samples (relative to all possible samples) that they just happened to grab. Fact is we don't know what they left behind on those stones that hasn't been tested. There could be material as old as 5000 bc, maybe older. Point is it's an incomplete story.

Plus they're testing little pieces of charcoal (within mortar) from wood that was burned thousands of years ago for who knows how long. Does this not affect the results even a little bit since the original piece of organic matter (in this case the wood) has been altered? And doesn't the (change in) level of fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere have an affect?

Can you see a little more clearly why I find this method to be unreliable? Or do I still sound nuts for challenging this? I mean I could keep going on...

Im sure to this you'll just say,"But you're ignoring all the other archaeological evidence..." to which of course I will ask, " What other evidence?"

Originally posted by Hanslune

I trained as a Polynesian/Mayan archaeologist but worked in bronze age ME for awhile before switching to another career. I have kept my hand in as an amateur during my years in the ME. My specialization was in site survey and lithics (primarily the conversion of hunting weapons to war weapons.)

By the way, I forgot to reply to this.

Your career sounds awesome. You must find much enjoyment in it. I kind of wish I would've taken a career path along those lines. I find it to be very interesting.

You guys think you are so smart.

The sphinx has rain damage.

The entrance to the big pyramid was blocked by debris, evidence of a great flood, when they were first uncovered in 1900 something.

Geologists and Archaeologists can never agree on much.

Who are the dummies?

Howdy PE

This is a brief response as I'm about to disappear for a few days

Unless they've tested EVERY (and I mean every) piece of organic material that could be found in and around those pyramids, then how are we to know that they are testing an equally distributed sampling?

Go to the Hall of Ma'at and ask them that question....

Sky have you read Campbell's transformation of myth through time? You might find it enlightening.

See you guys later

Originally posted by Hanslune

Sky have you read Campbell's transformation of myth through time? You might find it enlightening.

Ive read some of Campbells books. I liked them actually. In fact, Ive read hundreds of books from all sides of the debate.

Addition:

There comes a time in the heart of every researcher though, where it is no longer satisfying to take information from others but to go out and look and find and write oneself.

People here reference what Hancock said, what Sitchin said, what Hawass said, what Mark Lehner said, what so-and-so said.

Thats all well and good. Nevertheless we are also capable of making our own interpretations and drawing our own conclusions as to not soley rely on others perceptions.

reply to post by Hanslune


Im pretty certain PhotonEffect has been to the Haal of Maat, considering his keen interest in the subject.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


awsome thread, and great posts on both sides.. as far as baing more advanced than we first thought, mainstream science is starting to believe just that.. not at the scale that has been sugested on this thread. but much more than previously thought

reply to post by Skyfloating


abydos??? r those hyroglyphs real..u know, the ones with hellicopters and other ships.. i heard that it was just coinceidents that they looked like that

sorry if this has already been covered, the thread is so long i jumped ahead as i need to head to bed

[edit on 20-5-2008 by scorand]

Originally posted by scorand

abydos??? r those hyroglyphs real..u know, the ones with hellicopters and other ships.. i heard that it was just coinceidents that they looked like that

sorry if this has already been covered, the thread is so long i jumped ahead as i need to head to bed

First they tried to proclaim hoax. The "hoax" tag was all over the press.

When they realized that its not actually a hoax they tried to explain it in terms of coincidence.

When they realized that its not actually a coincidence they tried to explain it in terms of certain hieroglyphs laid on top of each other.

When they realized its not that either they attacked the messenger.


Yes...those pictures really are there.

This is a topic dear to my heart. When i have some more time i would like to dip right in. The leader in pissing off Hawas is John Anthony West and his truthful research about the fact that the sphinx is at least 15,000+ years old which would require the history books to be re written. His evidence of water erosion on this most famous figure would suggest that the inhabitants of the area would have already had more advanced brains and technology available to themselves. Hawas would die if this was accepted cause he would be out of a job and wouldn't make the cash he does.....When it comes to money.......greed overthrows truth. there is no money in truth with the ruling powers.