I have been and will likely continue for a while to be insanely busy so apology for belated reply.
I seriously think (thought -past tense) some of this is very worthy of a separate thread and not muddled in this insane one. But to crop it to the essence would take time. You are very deserving of reply.
> Hello Steve.
> Corpuscles Wrote:
> > Hi Thanos / Lee
> > Maybe take a little chill pill? It seemed like
> > somewhat aggressive request.
> I didn't realize Merrell was such a fragile flower
> above reproach. Pointed, not "aggressive", but
> maybe I have my reasons, you ever think about
> that? If my attitude towards another poster
> puzzles you, which only applies to mainstream
> types for some reason, then how about give me the
> benefit of the doubt for once and ask me why
To be honest I did reply such like because Merrell is a little like a "fragile flower" sometimes she ignores confrontation by letting the 'widish ball thru to the wicketkeeper' or in baseball 'thru to the catcher' .
Her response was to a weird proposal by the originating poster . It was brief and very general.
My fav quote! ;-0
I believe that I have the Unified Field Equation and even the Multivariate Form of the Schrödinger Equation (that completes the equation). The problem is that there are a lot of flaws in modern physics and knowledge of Subspace Physics is suppressed. Scientific Journals don't allow anything too controversial into their publications. My knowledge of physics allows me to better understand the forces of the universe and the forces that are acting upon mankind.
I know that is likely meaningless to you? But, just trust me, it is up there with Cladking's most-er-est insane moments! Maybe even 'GHMB -Crackpot of the Year award' material? Why wasn't he nominated in 2017?
> > It was clear Merrell (note She) was
> > merely briefly addressing some rather
> > outrageous claims made by the OP.
> By yet once again uncritically repeating and
> misapplying as fact mainstream opinion. Sorry, but
> intellectual honesty and integrity applies equally
> to both sides of the isle. Blind debunkery in my
> opinion qualifies.
I get your annoyance of strictly orthodox mantra, or what you might think bigotry. However there was no way to anticipate your progressive development view as it merely addressed a closed statement which was absolutely wrong.
> > In isolation the quarry marks do only establish
> > that fact.
> And as such therefore you agree then that to say
> the quarry marks "prove" G1 was built by Khufu
> from start to finish is a false statement? This
> does not mean Khufu did not, but it is not in and
> of itself proof he did as Merrell is erroneously
> stating as fact. What is the harm in being honest
> and recognizing this fact and why is it ok to
> present it as such when it is not?
Again I value your valuable input on your hypothesis.
> > there being some considerable
> > corroborating stuff
> That Khufu originated the building of G1 and
> finished it? Please, go on....
No. I was referring to several corroborating reasons why G1 was built in Khufu's timeframe.
It WAS substantially. Ie the main impressive part, even if not completed in his lifetime
I am keenly interested in your conjecture about prior or progressive development of monuments.
> > However, the contrary or any elaboration of such
> > of a pre existing structure, is merely
> > speculation or conjecture.
> "there being some considerable corroborating
> stuff" would also apply to this "conjecture" or
> "speculation" does it not? The notion this is true
> only because some cannot accept the DE could not
> do such things is not enough. There has to be
> positive evidence to support the claim which I
> have long endeavoured to find, and have- enough
> to create a circumstantial case.
Mate. Beg steal or borrow and publish it somewhere ,anywhere (even Altlantis Rising for a start-if they do not charge to do so?) your shit is GOLD! and worth reading!
> > It seems as you wish to discuss the
> That was not the point of my comments to Merrell,
> but since we are at it I'd say its a lot more
> interesting and productive course of action than
> opining ad infinitum why Cladking is an idiot and
> the like.
You are not yourself innocent of giving CK a serve ! Infact the best one I ever saw was from you.
> > M Stower also provided a very brief statement
> > addressed to the OP that might be worthy of
> > consideration.
> Which OP? Where?
The whole post reproduced to save looking for it.
> Khufu only encased the ancient inner-core with
> White Casing Stones. He did not built the Great
> Pyramid of Giza and he used primitive technology.
So, he “only” encased the entire pyramid. He “only” raised casing blocks to the highest levels. He “only” put a pyramidion on top.
He “only” produced what many regard as the best masonry in the entire structure.
He “only” achieved (with his “primitive” technology) much of what your supposed “other” builders supposedly achieved—solved much the same problems.
Who at this point looks competent to have done the whole job?
Do you read what you write?
> > Anyway, over the years I am aware that you have
> > speculated that perhaps some original older
> > structure of some sort was placed on the site
> > G1.
> > I am inclined both previously (and still) to
> > consider there might be some valid basis for
> > speculation.
> > Not limited to, but including, other points you
> > have raised long ago such as:
> > Indication that
> > - Djosers Step pyramid shows almost
> > signs (evidence) of staged development or
> > enhancement.
> > - G3 has somewhat similar but less extensive
> > indications
> > - Almost un disputed that Meidum supposedly
> > Snefru's first effort, clearly at some stage
> > further developed.
> > - There are others like Bent (maybe, but maybe
> > not).
> > In order to challenge Merrell's statement
> > concerning G1 - have you got any evidence or
> > reason to positively endorse such speculation
> > there was some original structure?
> The statement of Merrell's that I have challenged,
> corrected actually, is only what was stated
> above-that the quarry marks in the RC are "proof"
> the construction of G1 began and ended with Khufu.
> Again, this is not true and proves nothing either
> which way other than Khufu took part in its
> construction. This fact by the same token does not
> "prove" or even "imply" Khufu did not do these
> things. It is not warranted to conflate this with
> your comments above.
> But to your question, the hill G1 was built over
> is a "pre-existing structure" is it not? Of course
> we do not know as of yet if it was manipulated
> before the construction of G1, but as part of the
> circumstantial evidence offered is establishing
> the fact there was a pre-4th Dynasty presence at
> Giza before Khufu making such a thing within the
> realm of possibility. The least of which the Wadi
> Cemetery that was cleared away to make room for
> the Western Cemetery next to G1. It has also been
> suggested a few of the Eastern Cemetery tombs date
> to the 3rd Dynasty. The tombs of Khentkawes and
> Kai have also been argued to predate the 4th
> Dynasty and of course the South Field has tombs
> dating from the 1st-3rd (and later). And so on.
> > If so, what sort of pre existing structure?
> There are several possibilities which it too may
> have changed over time before being converted to a
> true pyramid. As to what it may have been we have
> to look to what came before, or argued to have
> come before, as possibilities. It may have been a
> stepped pyramid structure akin to what is seen in
> the late 1st Dynasty, something like what is at
> Abu Roash or Zawyet El Aryan, or perhaps a tower
> core like what is seen at Meidum which if the
> latter I think it possible this was a conversion
> at a later date of one of these other forms. The
> lower section of the descending passage and
> subterranean chambers were a part which given the
> state of the latter this suggests it was never
> > Do you think some form of mastaba centered
> > the remnant plateau solid rock mound?
> Whatever it was integrated the hill into its
> > Perhaps an
> > earlier smaller stepped pyramidical structure?
> The DE were certainly no strangers to such having
> built stepped pyramids going back the 1st
> > What about a Mesopotamian style smaller
> The Ubaid built monumental stepped platforms at
> least as far back as the 5th millennium. The Sailk
> ziggurat in Iran c. 3000BC is interesting:
> Ziggurat of Uruk and White Temple c. 3000BC:
> Given the time it would have been made, i.e. the
> late 4th/early 3rd millennium, it would not be
> related to what is considered as a traditional
> Mesopotamian ziggurat as they were not built as
> such in this time.
> > What?*
> This is what we are here for is it not?
> > In contemplating such possibility one of two
> > possible indicators would be the make up of G1's
> > ascending passage. It hardly could have escaped
> > your notice the elaborate colourful 3D drawings
> > made by and offered by Jon Ellison.
> They did.
> > They somewhat
> > indicate to me a compacted rubble fill core,
> > is unlike even the more external rubble fill
> > exposed by Col Vyse (ok reckless blasting ) on
> > South side of G1. However I disagree with Jon
> > that he presents it as a regular rectangular
> > profile of VERY faint joint marks on a very
> > or damaged roundish profile shape. Joints that
> > were hard to detect or identify as early as
> > Bros detailed survey but almost exactly copied
> > M & R later.
> > So referring to whatever you believe existed*
> > is clear that any such original structure could
> > only rise to the level of QC before and
> > renovation and enhancement by Khufu.
> Agreed. The first incarnation of this structure
> may have not been much larger than the peak of the
> hill itself. Regardless, the 35th course appears
> to be a clear delineation for some purpose which
> lies directly above the roof of the QC:
> My thought is that the earlier structure reached a
> hight to roughly the floor level of the QC,
> something like this denoted in green:
> I imagine the left side to not have extended as
> far and proportional the the right with the
> subterranean chamber effectively the center. The
> 35th course would have been part of building over
> and expanding the structure to create a secure
> foundation above it.
All of the above is again interesting conjecture.
However, the most amazing aspect is the further development which you seem to concede happened above the RC level and incorporated the exquisite 440 cubit 280 cubit 5 1/2 seked incorporation of significant mathematical considerations.
(No not talking about the 'maths mumbo' proliferated by our Freemasonry friend here)
If it was built from there up and wider it was the major (eclipsing all prior efforts - achievement!)
> > It would be
> > somewhat ridiculous to suggest higher but
> > as a total height of KC. Not including the
> > of RC's.
> > Perhaps you think something like the shrine
> > top as is speculated on Ziggurats ? or
> > atop Sth American pyramid structures?
> Maybe maybe not. We do not know what its function
> was. It is interesting though to contemplate early
> Dynastic images of the stepped platforms and their
> relationship with the Sed Festival.
That had something to do with a Co2 geyser did it not? I jest! ;-)
Clearly absolutely a belief system and some would say "superstitious" but so is every Religion.
> > The introduction of granite occurs at KC level.
> > as you know contains and the RC's the most
> > amazing sized 60-80 ton granite slabs and no
> > primitive builder put them there.
> I do not think the DE were "primitive". Quite the
> opposite. Not to mention the 4D Egyptians were not
> separated from the dynasties that came before,
> ergo a legacy of something already established. If
> a higher technology is attributed to these
> monuments, which something at least on par with
> the Romans and Greeks is warranted, who is to say
> the DE were not the inheritors of this legacy in
> both real time and after the fact? Look at
> monuments from the NK, for example, no doubt built
> in the period. This is legacy, not invention.
But we go back to Merrell's succinct statement not (I think meant) to be aggressively controversial, THE PRYAMID from RC upwards (width conjecture) had to be after or including KHUFU or Khnum Khuf . NO DOUBT except maybe Sithin/Alford/ Creighton fantasy based on debunked ABSOLYELY DEBUNKED fantasy.
> Over 35 tons of finely cut granite was used in
> Djoser's complex including a vault inside the
> pyramid. Granite portcullis doors weighing upwards
> of 15 tons were used in the 1st Dynasty. Among
Good ,material for your article(or BOOK!). Please search back and keep all the photos you have delivered to prove a point I have no reason to doubt or dispute at this point
> > If we concede
> > they did???? then later the RC's were total
> > and enclosed and includes the writing which
> > conclusively indicates Khufu. It is found
> > sealed could not possibly have been intrusively
> > transported via any known opening of G1. Even
> > sealing limestone blocks.
> As an aside, granite is used to case the
> already eroded massive limestone blocks of
> the Valley Temple and to make the temple set
> inside this massive enclosure. To me this is an
> indicator of two different construction eras.
> > Thereafter whatever structure you or I imagine
> > embellished from either 50 metres or so height
> > a further height of 89 metres. The most scary
> > difficult (albeit not the most quantity) BUT
> > quality finishing job. Then cased the project
> > enclosed it uber quality . HIGHEST TECHNOLOGY
> > craftsmanship!
> This same style of casing stone with the same
> precision is found on some mastabas at Giza as
> well the satellite pyramids.
> > Did it get finished before his death. You know
> > more about AE than I, and would/ ought/
> > be aware of such basis for the conjecture.
> > Particularly possible touches by son Djedefre.
> Djedefre had a role in finishing the project which
> may have lasted well after his reign.
How do you/assume know such?
> > Not only that but the engineering marvel of a
> > incredibly square base (casing/socket) and the
> > incredible mind numbing orientation due North
> > pole was obvious completed by Khufu!
> > Tell me where I am wrong so far?
> How do we know the alignment and base were set by
> Khufu? There are two issues here that should not
> be conflated: for one the idea of a pyramid
> building over a pre-existing structure. Two, did
> the pyramid conversion begin and end in Khufu's
> reign. Though I disagree and think it was 3rd
> Dynasty or older, the Wadi cemetery is though to
> date to the early reign of Sneferu. Keep in mind
> what I said about the other tombs as well as the
> fact there are several burials at Giza that the
> people have a contemporary connection with
> Sneferu. Sneferu is credited with building 3
> pyramids which does not seem plausible unless in
> reality he was building over already existing
> structures like I have argued was the case at
> Meidum. How do we know G1 was not part of this
> conversion program which for all we know may have
> begun before Sneferu which may explain why the 3rd
> Dynasty between Sekhemet and the beginning of the
> 4th is a veritable black hole-they did not build
> pyramids for themselves as they had already
> started on the conversion projects.
Lots of stuff there. Well the green stuff level of QC proposed , doesn't explain the mathematical marvel.
Snefru is a MARVEL.
If one of the competent hieroglyphic masters read this then:
How do we know there were not 3 Snefru's?
How is son inheriting name distinguished by glyph? I hve looked at Ramesses et al and I cannot yet climb to understanding of the difference.
Just reply to this piece PLEASE? I do not get it (Yet?)
> Keep in mind as I noted recently (ignored) that
> the eastern corner core block area around the base
> of G1 were heavily repaired with fill blocks and
> mortar in ancient times when there could only have
> been no casing stones. At any rate, I do not think
> the idea that one pharaoh died and the next
> started building their pyramid and they just so
> happened to finish before they died, and this just
> magically kept happening over and over again. It
> is more likely that building the great pyramids
> and their complexes in particular took multiple
> generations of pharaohs to complete and at various
> times were worked on concurrently.
> As far as when any of the Giza pyramids were
> finished, nearly 80% of the mastabas at Giza date
> to the 5th and 6th Dynasties. The so-called
> pyramid worker's cemetery does not date to the 4th
> Dynasty, but rather to the 5th including to the
> end of it. They do not even bother to mention any
> of the 4th Dynasty pharaohs. The pyramid kilt
> guild begins at the end of the 4th/beginning of
> the 5th Dynasty. The harbor and port talked about
> so much over the last several years dates to the
> reign of Menkaure.
> It is incredulous to think all that is attributed
> to Sneferu through Menkaure was begun and finished
> within each of their reign all of which completed
> in barely 100yrs. No way.
I am inclined to wholeheartedly agree . I even made a thread (shock horror) about it long ago!
> > Clearly the most signifigant and most awe
> > inspiring part of the project. Mastabas and
> > Ziggarats are trivial in comparison ???
> In its own way, sure.
> > In your thread below I quickly scan read it
> > just to see whether (I erred and did not
> > (LOL! not only for that reason) you state that
> > are aware of the extensive tomb robbing that
> > occurred right throughout Dynastic Egypt even
> > something like "even sons from fathers" so we
> > ought not be surprised that bodies are no
> > there - IF they were ever there?
> As stated, its not just about the bodies or not. A
> large part of the argument.
> > Your previous seemingly long held conjecture
> > 'cenotaph'. I am not sure.
> What else then do you suggest?
> > However mountains of
> > corroborating evidence indicates it was
> > related to what we would call religious (dare I
> > suggest 'superstitious') and dealt with the
> > afterlife of the deceased king.
> You sure about that...? It goes without saying the
> DE placed pyramids within a funerary context which
> further had an association with the pharaoh. But
> you will find little of this contemporary with the
> building of the great pyramids including Saqqara.
> So much so for the most part it seem they really
> didn't give a shit. To the people buried around
> the pyramids the pyramid itself had no stated
> meaning for them with the overwhelming iconic meme
> being the serekh building and false door. As
> talked about
> > As above . No there isn't any mummies ,only
> > parts (maybe), nor dead intact undisturbed
> > pharaohs.
> > Is absence, conclusive evidence? If so, of
> Again, its all absent.
> > You obviously was aware of where Merrell may
> > obtained such a date. You detail it later!
> I do not know where she got it from I am just
> noting where it comes from to the general public
> that only starts getting repeated after 2017.
> > I refer you to her first post in reply to the
> > [quote=Merrell]
> > Author: Merrell ()
> > Date: August 25, 2017 07:49AM
> > ...
> > But, for example, there are crewmarks in
> > Campbell's Chamber in the GP based on the name
> > the king, Khufu [b](d. 2566 BC).[/b]
> > [/quote]
> > Not everyone has an Encycopedic mind of dates
> > deceased pharaohs.
> Including those who pretend to know what they are
> talking about and think themselves qualified to
> tell others what is what? Even then I would not
> expect someone like that to know "exact dates" but
> obviously a red flag should pop up when someone is
> telling you Khufu died after 2500BC. So what does
> that tell you about Merrell that she uncritically
> cites two different sources that give
> significantly different dates but does not realize
> or understand the problem?
> > Also you ought with your
> > extensive knowledge know or be aware that even
> > what some claim to so called " fixed rigid
> > Egyptology " there is constant conjecture and
> > modification of the periods based on new
> > unfortunately based on conflicting Kings lists
> > etc.
> No shit. This is not the point. The date offered
> is unusual and lies outside these accepted
> parameters regardless of the minutia of the dates.
> I am not sure what you are defending here as
> putting Khufu in a time that is otherwise reserved
> for the 5th Dynasty no matter what is an issue is
> it not worthy of explanation?
> > I hope this is of some value to someone
> > Thanks but you know the "quarry marks or
> > "graffiti" or "rudimentary hieratic glyphs"
> > discovered by Col Vyse were at least mostly
> > likely certainly entirely) original (not
> > and dated to the 4th Dynasty reign of King
> > [b]You surely do not need convincing of
> 75032]Second Khufu Cartouche Exists on North Side
> of Campbell's Chamber[/url]
> > At least you got a contribtion and reply.
> Yeah. Thanks.
Shit, I ran out of gas.... your understanding and research of the early dynasty tombs and mastabas
on Giza plateau is IMHO some of the most interesting stuff.
If you do not mind one day when you have time start a thread about it all and if time permits we can try to contribute to your research.
btw I do not need to 'know' Merrell personally to know she is a darling and committed only to the truth.
Take care mate
luvz ya work
Ps no edit if there are significant typos and such so be it!