> I don't believe anyone will find real answers in
> what is currently posted on the Internet. G1 has
> been scrutinized more than any other structure in
> the world with no valid answers.
It depends on the standards each individual applies to how the evidence is “scrutinized" and to what is considered “valid”. I’ve seen plenty of “revelations” about G1 in recent years, largely due to the availability of a massive amount of data over the internet along with global discussions about the implications of such data as analyzed by non-Egyptology cognate disciplines in science and engineering. That’s a relatively new treatment to the evidence and, in my opinion, has been rather effective in challenging traditional tenets.
> Previously stated
> so many time before it may be the answers lay in
> the other structures (pyramids, temples etc.) of
> Ancient Egypt, Britain and Mesoamerica when
> studied concurrently, using both geometry and
> metrology establishing relationships between the
> structures to determine the intent of the
> builders. Relationships like the Grand Gallery
> being 2/9 the base length of G2 or the descending
> passage way of G2 being exactly 1/2 the exterior
> angle of G1.
And the questions become far broader when you include other geographic regions that exhibit similarly complex, megalithic, enigmatic, and complex work, like the Andes, Lebanon, Turkey, etc. Such a broadstroke commonality surely dates before Mesopotamian, Sumerian, etc., influence. As a caveat, keep in mind that there are many thousands of measurements that can be compared to each other, and so we need to take extra care that what might appear to be “correlation” if not “cause” isn’t simply pareidolia.
> Granted there is the habit exercised by mainstream
> to confine their thinking to probabilities rather
> than considering any possibilities.
One problem is that mainstream’s “probability” is often the minority’s “unlikely”. Again, it’s an issue of standards. There is no objective, universally accepted metric being applied historically in arriving at the “probability” of things like the tomb hypothesis and the Dynastic timeline. If anything, applicable metrics that do exist were largely obscure for centuries until the internet unleashed them.
> The pyramids at Giza are located in the middle of
> a grave yard indicating the structures just might
> be tombs. However, that is not to say they weren't
> multi-functional structures. There is always the
> possibility they were built with more than one
> function in mind of the builders. In my mind G1 is
> built with Earth commensurate measures, but the
> one nagging question is, when and how did they
> obtain detailed information regarding Earth Sun
> and Moon dimensions? Answer that and you have your
I simply challenge that first principle. Just because there is a cemetery around G1 says nothing about the original purpose of G1. For all we know, the Pre-Dynastics stumbled upon G1 which may already have been ancient in their day, and they proceeded to construct a narrative to make sense of such monuments along the Nile and came up with the funerary paradigm which simply adapted those ancient monuments to their new context, thereby compelling them to construct cemeteries around them. Meanwhile, there is no evidence the Dynastics had the knowledge or wherewithal to do that kind of megalithic work.
> I think the problem might be derived from our
> current understanding of their methods which
> mathematically seem to be the antithesis of our
> current methods. Now I could be wrong and this is
> just from my perspective, but we seem to have
> misinterpreted the complexity achievable through
> the use of their simple methods by not allowing
> for logical expansion of papyri methodologies.
I’d love to hear more about the logical expansion of papyri methodologies.
> > [Origyptian: In my opinion, the answer to your "reasonable doubt" question is pretty simple... ]
> ...From my perspective the
> Pre-dynastic and Protodynastic Periods in Ancient
> Egypt one should consider the possibility of a
> Sumerian influence which evidently took place as a
> possible source of the abilities you attribute to
> an antediluvian civilization. There are the things
> which indicate history did not follow sequentially
> like chapters of a book. Suggesting these cultures
> actually culturally overlapped from 4300-3450 BC
> prior to the Jemdet Nasr period of Mesopotamia and
> the pre-dynastic period of Egypt were contemporary
> being Ancient Egypt has shown influence from
> Mesopotamia in their early buildings and possibly
> influenced their mathematics as well. As Lee has
> pointed out there are Mesopotamian motifs on
> Egyptian objects showing undeniably Egypt's Early
> Dynastic Period reveals a strong Sumerian influence.
I’m glad you’re allowing the possibility of multiple, possibly layered, cultures which I, too, have embraced instead of a single linear culture in the timeline. Now there’s that timeline that still needs some adjustment. And just because we see similar motifs in Mesopotamia and Egypt is no reason to jump to a cause and effect. The originator of such motifs could have be a far earlier culture. Likewise for the similar architecture we see around the globe. This is not a simple result of any historically recorded culture. For such influence to be so widespread without the originators having a place in the historic record leads one to consider one or more far more ancient cultures who left their mark across the more recent cultures we see in recorded history over the past 7+ millennia. Meanwhile, I see no compelling evidence that the Mesopotamians or Sumerians had the wherewithal to do the kind of work we see in Egypt, Lebanon, Andes, etc. We don’t even really know that the “facade motif” is really a depiction of an “architectural” feature; rather, it appears to be an assumption arrived at by applying our own 20th/21st century contextual filters.
> Leonard Cottrell in “The Quest for Sumer”...
> There is evidence to support this perspective of
> cultural overlap in the form of Mesopotamian
> cylinder seals and Afghan lapis lazuli found in
> early Egyptian tombs. Unfortunately there is no
> way of knowing the extent of cultural overlap
> which may have taken place.
Agreed, and so, likewise, there’s also no way of knowing whether such overlap may have originated far earlier than that. All we can say is that by the time of the Mesopotamians, there already was some cultural “overlap”. But still no record of where or how (or why) it all began.
> From my perspective
> the above is supported by the original Radio
> Carbon Dating conducted in 1984 and supported by
> the mathematics of the structures according to
> Ancient Egyptian methods demonstrated in the
> papyri. Actually one cannot discount Göbekli Tepe
> in these considerations since it dates to the
> 10th–8th millennium BCE sure through a monkey
> wrench into the mainstream mainstream time line.
Understood, and from my perspective the RCD reports can be interpreted to incorporate contamination, methodological flaws, unfounded assumptions, and significant inconsistencies between different reports which render their conclusions tenuous.
> The further one digs into the past the more
> interesting it becomes. FYI, There is evidence of
> a trans-Atlantic use of the cubit being in the
> ground plan at Teotihuacan. A bit closer to Giza
> at Stonehenge where the inner radius of the Sarsen
> circle is is equal to 28 units and the diameter is
> 56 units equal to 1/75600000 earth mean
> circumference. All I will say is, from my
> perspective if there was an advanced ancient
> civilization a system of cubit measures equal to
> those used in Ancient Egypt would seem to have
> been a universal system of measure.
> LOL, for me this started in 1988 with a comment
> made by a long time friends and colleague who
> said, “no one knows for sure the exact angle of
> the great pyramid”.
For me it started when I realized there was never a single authentic royal mummy found in any pyramid. And then von Daniken, Hancock, et al., arrived at the scene, and then the Schoch/West Sphinx Enclosure report…and then the internet!…
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?