Khufu Cartouche in Great Pyramid 20,000 Years Old?

reply to post by Scott Creighton

The damage has been done. The question now is, can we prove their assertions of a 20,000 year age?

reply to post by xxdaniel21


how many people " just taking a sample for their own purposes " until there is nothing left of the original ?

Scott CreightonCuriously this c.20,000 age is supported by my own recent research.

SC

Hi Scott -

Much respect for your work sir!

Could you please expand on your theory of the 20,000 years timeline..
It has me very curious as my own timeline for the pyra-temples equates
closer to the 39,000 year timeline.

Much thanx in advance!

I of course can't condone the unauthorized 'destruction' of any ancient site for obvious reasons. If its good for the goose its good for the gander and before your know it we will see an epidemic of armchair archeologists out scrapping and destroying ancient sites.

That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the pyramids are far older than claimed. More to the point, dating pigments to get an estimate on age is quite common and the fact that these tests outdate the previous accepted timeline by over 10-15 thousand years certainly suggests that the truth was known all along and simply suppressed.

You just can't piss on my leg and tell me its raining and I think we all know very well that officials would have tested pigments themselves at one point or another. Its time to take the experts to task.

snoopy11
Hmm,


There were Ancient Egyptians... before that there were just local tribes ....

Yes the ancient Egyptians called it Zep Tepi: "The first times" when the world was ruled by the gods.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


How much damage could really have been done? I'm sure they didn't need that many paint chips to run a test on its age. I think the uproar over the minimal amount of damage caused by the scraping may be used to drown out the results and importance of the test.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


I dont condone vandalism, however I do condone responsible research that leads to an overall expansion of knowledge.

If this is confirmed 100 percent legit than why throw such a tuss. I seems very logical to test the paint, as long as things are not destroy beyond repair. And as far as my understanding of the process these kinds of test dont require a large sample.

I hope this can be confirmed.

reply to post by HumAnnunaki


Hi HumAnnunaki,

You ask about the c.20,000 date that my latest research points to. This builds upon my research in the thread (below):

Giza Precession Timeline

As you can see from the above thread, the Sphinx bisects the precise midpoint of the Giza Precession Timeline (GPT) c.3,980 BCE. Remember, however, that the GPT works like a pendulum with the Orion Belt stars moving between max and minimum culmination (around 13,000 years in one direction and then 13,000 years in the return direction). In my earlier research I had merely assumed the first (i.e. most recent date) when the Sphinx bisected the GPT at c.3,980 BCE. However, a new insight into some other evidence I had previously uncovered demonstrates that the Sphinx actually bisects the GPT a full half-cycle earlier (i.e. approx 13,000 years) at c.16,940 BCE (almost 19,000 years ago).

I am presently working on a Flash preentation of this which I will post up in due course.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Yes, i understand that, but how often has this happened?

Obviously often enough for it to make the news and anger Egypt...

If people actually supported these researchers and regulated it properly, there would be no need for these "sneak attacks", and we would have more answers than questions.

But let's all get angry and dismiss them. That'll solve a lot

I can believe 20 thousand years ago. I believe the pyramids are much older than they presently say they are. The Pyramids were probably repaired by some of the ones who are said to have built them. I don't even think humans built them, I do think they were humanoids though.

I look at people, the people in these countries want their ancestors to have built the pyramids so they will ignore any evidence of others building them before their ancestors were there. I can't say for sure that the pyramid was not built by Kafu, but I just don't think that all evidence has been looked at. Some that has been discounted and possibly destroyed in the past that contradicted the mindset of the people of the time may prove that these were built earlier. If you do not allow this evidence to be used that contradicts what you think , then sure the present theory and evidence will keep change from occurring.

Myself, I don't really care when they were built. I won't narrow my thinking to accept something that may be flawed though. I would rather know why these were built in the first place. Were they built as tourist attractions the same way that they attract tourists now. To stimulate an economy?

CitizenJack
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

I dont condone vandalism, however I do condone responsible research that leads to an overall expansion of knowledge.

Agreed.

If this is confirmed 100 percent legit than why throw such a tuss. I seems very logical to test the paint, as long as things are not destroy beyond repair. And as far as my understanding of the process these kinds of test dont require a large sample.

I have long argued that a sample of this Khufu cartouche should be scientifically analysed. There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of academia to do this. Ancient ochre paint typically would use gum and honey (as a binding agent) both of which are carbon-based so C14 dating could be carried out on a sample. Why the reluctance? And why does Dr Hawass thoroughly reject the C14 dating process? Is it perhaps because he alraedy has tested ochre paint from this cartouche and didn't get back the result he was expecting?

I hope this can be confirmed.

Agreed.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton


what is interesting is the comment from the "professor".

He does not dispute the dating at all. He simply throws sand in eyes by stating he is not sure that the pyramid and the cartouche are from the same period...thereby attempting to disconnect the cartouche age with the pyramid age.

The age of the paint on the cartouche alone is enough to suggest "older" civilization.

The vandalism itself immediately discredits any legitimacy these STUDENTS might have had to begin with.

Further, they're STUDENTS.

Additionally, we not only have records, as well as a clear line of pyramid building evolution starting with Pharaoh Djoser with his architect Imhotep building the First Step Pyramid which was really just several of the then traditional Mustaba tombs stacked one upon another.

From there, we see Pharaoh Sneferu attempt to build a pyramid at Median which failed, and not to be deterred there was a second attempt that resulted in the Bent Pyramid, and finally, with success he achieved the first proper smooth sided pyramid with what's known as the Red Pyramid.

We know these things.
We have documentation and a clear line of architectural evolution.

This "Mysteries of the Pyramids" stuff claiming them to be older than they are is the domain and product of fantasists with an agenda to push their own fantasy versions of magical myth making toward whatever purpose, or simply willful denial and rejection of well studied material examined over Generations and Generations of scientists who'd have loved to have produced amazing results counter the current findings that would have made their careers, but, all in all continue to support the established paradigm.

AliceBleachWhite

The vandalism itself immediately discredits any legitimacy these STUDENTS might have had to begin with.

I'm sorry but it discredits them? So they obtained 20,000 year pigment from where exactly?

Then the uproar over the vandalism is phooey? Or they damaged the pyramids in a grand hoax? Doesn't seem rational.

You can't do C14 dating on a scraping of pigment from a wall.

So unless they state their methology, what test they used to obtain this date, and demonstrate repeatability, I'm inclined to not believe it.