Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Go to: Forum HomeBoardNew Topic

Current Page: 3 of 10
Results 61 - 90 of 275
7 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > When you take a closer look at "the facts" that supposedly > > contradict the tomb theory you'll see they're facts disguised > > as "poo". ;-) > > I'm sure you didn't mean what you said but this is the first > time an orthodox believer has admitted this. ;) Sorry about the confusion what I actually me
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
charly
Thanos5150 wrote: > charly wrote: > > > To the contrary Thanos5150, I throw facts at the "poo" ;-) > > What facts? The fact that everything that does not agree with > the pyramids as tombs theory is a "feeling"? Smells like poo to > me. When you take a closer look at "the facts" that supposedly contradict the tomb theory you'll see they'
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > It's not up to you to decide for other people what matters or > > doesn't matter Cladking. > > It really is. Logic is the same for every single persion and > always has been. We have some sort of wishy washy morality and > political xcorrectness now days but facts are still facts and > rules of logic and common sense ap
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > It really doesn't matter which pyramid who doesn't think is a > tomb and nor does it matter that orthodoxy is in agreementr > that all pyramids were tombs (except for those pesky > "cenotaphs" for which there is evidence they were not tomb). It's not up to you to decide for other people what matters or doesn't matter Cladking. > The question remains
Forum: Mysteries
7 years ago
charly
Thanos5150 wrote: > Yes:) That is the point I'm trying to make. Posters like MJT > and KL are quick to throw poo at facts, and the people who > offer those facts, that contradict the Pyramid as Tomb Theory, > but have nothing to offer in support of it. For people > especially who so vigorously defend it by way of disparaging > those who contradict it, it should be equally easy
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > A true Cladking classic, same old stuff that has been > debunked > > a zillion times on many forums and message boards, nothing > new > > here... > > This is no new tactic. All you have to do is claim something > has been disproven and then ignore it. The only thing > disproven here is ramps, changeless Egyptians
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
A true Cladking classic, same old stuff that has been debunked a zillion times on many forums and message boards, nothing new here...
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > QuoteKL: 1) First it is proposed that it's abnormal that the > AE started building big pyramids as tombs, that it doesn't make > any sense. > > SC: Why the sudden "leap" (your word in another post in this > thread) from mastaba to pyramid? For hundreds (if not > thousands) of years AE kings managed quite happly to reach the > A
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > There's a good possibility that this enormous evolution was > > indeed too good to be true; that the system collapsed because > > it was to taxing on the economy is one of the arguments > raised > > to explain the end of the giant-pyramid building era. > > This is a derived conclusion in a void of facts other than th
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
LonelyAngel wrote: > Eddie Larry wrote: > > > > > > But what fun would that be John? How would that serve the > > Pharoah's ego? > > If the Pharoah's ego was so important, surely his name would at > least be on the wall of his chamber or on his sarcophogus? > > Even my old grandad got his name on a brass plaque on his > coffin... A lot of mas
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
See my answer to Porta
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
It all depends on the condition in which the materials were preseverd. For example different kinds of soil, different preservation. Organic materials can survive in very dry conditions (sealed dry rooms / sand) or in certain very wet conditions (bogs). It's impossible for all materials off a civilisation to end up in an environment that would destroy all objets completely. At least a part would
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
IIRC I read this in one of the tomb robbery papyri. In some cases the MO of the tomb robbers is described in quite some detail.
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Porta wrote: > There's no reason to assume an earlier unknown civilization > since there's no trace of it in the archaeological reccord. Not > a potsherd, nada, zilch... > > If the Civilisation that Built the Pyramids was pre iceage, and > i know i´m going to get hammered for that statement, then there > really wouldn´t be anything left, the same as nothing would be > le
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Titus Livius wrote: > Now, regarding the ten facts exposed by Scott, this is my > vision (not exactly the ten points): > > 1) The "natural transition" from mastabas to pyramids as burial > buildings is a great assumption in itself. We have looked for > religious or political causes, but it is still a speculation. > We don't have any clear reason for this change. B
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
eyeofhorus33 wrote: > An interesting rebuttal but one which fails to acknowledge that > there is not a shred of archaeological evidence to support the > belief that the pyramid at Saqqara - or indeed, any of the > other pyramid sites at the Memphite Necropolis - were tombs > because no mummified remains have ever been discovered inside > them. Remains of mummies have been foun
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > Hi GHMB, > > Here is an article I have written (PDF format) which presents > 10 facts that contradict the pyramid tomb theory as posited by > mainstream Egyptology. > > 10 > Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory. > > This is by no means an exhaustive list and I fully intend to > add to it as time goes on. Indeed, if anyone here
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
LonelyAngel wrote: > MJT wrote: > > > What would one reasonably expect to find inside a building > > intended to serve as a tomb? > > Answer: at the very least three main features consisting of a > > passageway running from the front door to a chamber or room > > containing a coffin-like box. > > > > The vast majority of Egypts pyramids appear to
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > QuoteKL: Pyramids were well protected against the average > tomb robber who wouldn't have stood a chanche to penetrate in > the interior. Only organised gangs with enough time could do > such a thing and only if a necropolis was no longer garded such > as in the FIP. > > SC: What nonsense! Guard patrols aside, we are talking here > about a peopl
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > KL: You seem to forget that the pyramids you like to call > "Recovery Vaults" have develloped from mastaba tombs, > ... > > SC: No, I do not forget that this is merely the consensus > opinion of Egyptologists. They have no actual proof that the > pyramid evolved from a mastaba in order to serve the same > function as a mastaba i.e. a to
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > SC: Not at all. As sated - as the AEs religious ideas > developed, it is perfectly understandable why later tombs would > be modeled on the 'sacred' Recovery Vaults (the 'instruments of > regeneration'). But tombs are tombs and Recovery Vaults are > Recovery Vaults - two very similar things but for two > completely different purposes. You seem to
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Audrey wrote: > I think you are comparing methods used today with > methods used before. This isn't what I'm talking about when I > used the word 'Egyptology'. I am speaking of the established > beliefs of > 1. they used ramps > 2. the pyramids are tombs > 3. the Giza pyramids were built approx 2500 b.c. > 4. Egyptian chronology > And all the other "facts" s
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Audrey wrote: > QuoteFrom the above it seems to me you don't know what > Egyptology is about, consulting "Egyptology Today" by Richard > Wilkinson (2008) could be quite usefull. > I pointed this book out to Cladking on several > occasions, > This book looks to be an introduction to Egyptology. And just > how would that shed light on the assumptions made about the &
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Audrey wrote: > You speak as if Egyptology has made great strides recently. I > beg to differ. What Egyptology is today is almost identical to > what it was 100 years ago. The changes are minor. If this isn't > true, give me a couple of examples of how Egyptology has > greatly changed in the last decades. And it is MOST important > to know the history of Egyptology. Otherwise o
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Ratcho wrote: > without acknowledging new facts? > > As you've indicated, archeologists may be good at digging up > sites etc., for for an explanation of the pyramids > function/purpose, we should listen to the engineers of our > day...and the following interview is one of the best I've heard > so far. > > There is a little bit of everything in that pyramid but one
Forum: Mysteries
8 years ago
charly
Well, the pyramids of Teti's wives had already been found, his mother's wasn't discovered yet. BTW, Sesheshet wasn't a queen (never married to a king), she was a king's mother. There's still a (small) possibility that it isn't Sesheshet's pyramid but that of a previously unknown wife of Teti.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > Hello Karl, > > QuoteSC: "crown prince" - lower case. It is accepted that > Kawab was Khufu's immediate heir. > > KL: That WAS accepted, but no longer, since there's no real > evidence for this. .. > > SC: Which just goes to demonstrate the foundationless basis for > many mainstream 'facts'. If there was no evidence to imply >
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > SC: "crown prince" - lower case. It is accepted that Kawab was > Khufu's immediate heir. That WAS accepted, but no longer, since there's no real evidence for this. Kawab probably was the son of a minor consort and as a result excluded to be heir, at least that's the current vision. > SC: I disagree. It is evident that Khufu's "personal taste&qu
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Obeone wrote: > Greetings Charly, > You think that the King's Chamber of the GP is the final > resting place of Khufu? > > Kind Regards > Max Absolutely, no doubt about it. I see no reason to assume otherwise.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > Why was Khufu's 'sarcophagus' not inscribed with any > hieroglyphs when those of his sons and daughters were so > inscribed? Many sarcophagi found in mastabas and rock-cut tombs at Giza are uninscribed; it's not like all family members had their titles inscribed on their sarcophagi. > Keep in mind here also that these sarcophagi are > early Old Kingdom
Forum: Mysteries
Current Page: 3 of 10