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: 4 of 10
Results 91 - 120 of 275
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Once more, you're the only one who "sees" this... > > It doesn't matter because it's still exactly what the builders > said. Sure they might not have meant it literally but it is > exactly what they said. I am not responsible either for what > the builders wrote or for how it is interpreted by > Egyptologists. B
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > You clearly have a different definition of evidence than most > > people; I can't make an argument that your evidence is weak > > because I don't consider it evidence but pure imagination... > > What I have is the mother of all coincidences. What are the > odds the builders would leave words that describe building a > p
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Ramps are the only tangible evidence that has been found... > > This is not true. There is not one shred of evidence that any > stone was ever lifted on any great pyraid using ramps. Again you continue refusing to see the difference between "there were no ramps" and "ramps were not used to lift a stone up the pyramid
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > I guess you didn't read what I wrote; try again... > > There's no evidence and logic against ramps since the remains > > are there. > So again I carefully delineate some of the evidence against > ramps and you type out a few words suggesting the case is > already closed. > OF COURSE IT'S CLOSED; EVERYONE KNOWS THEY >
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Plenty of ramps are evidenced and you know it. How many > times > > do people have to repeat to you that there's a difference > > between "There were no ramps" and the fact that you simply > > don't believe ramps were used to move blocks up the pyramid? > > Again and again I suppose... > > Utter nonsen
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > There were no ramps because ramps would have left evidence > throughout the culture and there is absolutely no evidence > whatsoever that a single stone was ever lifted on any great > pyramid using ramps. Give it up. There were no ramps. They > must not have used ramps. Plenty of ramps are evidenced and you know it. How many times do people have to repeat t
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Bobajot wrote: "There were no actual pyramids uncovered..." Well, at the end of the documentary Hawass showed remains of the enclosure wall (of the newly discovered pyramid complex) they had excavated. Bear in mind that a pyramid is but one part of a pyramid-complex.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > I noticed you didn't respond to: > > "The AE believed each king was the (mortal) incarnation on > > earth of the god Horus, so you might want to review your > > statements in this post Cladking..." > > > > Are you in the process of reviewing your statements Cladking? > > IOW, are you doing some hom
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
loveritas wrote: > Hi Charly, > > If you wish to get into 4th Dynasty burial practices and all > that and try to explain why the entrance to the King's Chamber > was built for dwarves but the Grand Gallery was built for > giants etc etc, it's just the same old stuff. > > It isn't logical. It's mainstream repetitive brainwashing and, > really, it's not going to resolv
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Depends on what you mean by mummification; from the first > till > > the end of the third dynasty the bodies were wrapped in > linnen > > and that's about it. Removal of organs and separate burial of > > these began only at the beginning of the fourth dynasty, not > > surprisingly the first canopic chests apear. &g
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
loveritas wrote: > Hi Charly, > > Thanks for the Zawyat el Aryan info. Coincidentally, I have > recently looked at that site, but in connection with Abu > Rowash. Very impressive masonry and unusual design. > > If I may digress a little. > > It would appear that the Gestalt Principle is at work with a > lot of the conclusions being made about pre 5th Dynasty >
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Well, pharaohs require a tomb for burial no matter what shape > > it takes. > > This is an assumption. We have no mummies of any of the early > kings and this might be because they had no tombs. > > The ancient Egyptians believed these kings were gods and that > they were immortal. Building a tomb for them seems qu
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Morten wrote: > Interesting. Do you have a link to Barsanti´s work on this > trench? > > Morten > The excavation report relevant for the sarcophagus (in French): - A. Barsanti and G. Maspero, Fouilles de Zaouiét el-Aryân (1904-1905), ASAE 7, 1906, p. 257-286. see: <; other excavation reports on the trench by Barsanti (2 others IIRC) should also be found on the same website i
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
loveritas wrote: > Hi Charly, > > You're on the money. > > The only thing that we can prove from all of this, is that > pharaohs do not require pyramids for burial. > > lover > Well, pharaohs require a tomb for burial no matter what shape it takes. What then when a tomb wasn't finished? When was an unfinished tomb suited for burial and when not? Hard to tell whic
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
I agree with Avry that they could be a representation of a Djed-pillar: If the "relieving chambers" were part of a Djed pillar (KC would be the shaft) they would give support as an actual relieving structure and also as a symbolic support; Djed meaning "stability", "to endure" (Djed often used as support of the sky or solar disc). IIRC correctly the actual support fu
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > QuoteSC: Well then, Karl, it is not the traces of bitumen in > the sarcophagus that proves the burial, is it? You are saying > now that it is the other artefacts - the combined evidence, if > you like - that proves the burial. There is a subtle difference > here, but an important one. The bitumen traces - of their own - > do not prove a burial. That wa
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > QuoteSC: It proves nothing of the sort. Bitumen can come from > any number of organic sources (usually vegetation) and also > occurs naturally in rock deposits. > > KL: But it does Scott, bitumen was used in mummification, > surely you know this... > > SC: Yes, I know that, Karl. The POINT, however, is that the > source of the bitumen has not
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > Quote SC: It proves nothing of the sort. Bitumen can come > from any number of organic sources (usually vegetation) and > also occurs naturally in rock deposits. > > KL: But it does Scott, bitumen was used in mummification, > surely you know this... > > SC: Yes, I know that, Karl. The POINT, however, is that the > source of the bitumen has no
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > QuoteKL: ...(except for some traces of bitumen which proves > it did hold a body at one time)... > > SC: It proves nothing of the sort. Bitumen can come from any > number of organic sources (usually vegetation) and also occurs > naturally in rock deposits. > > SC But it does Scott, bitumen was used in mummification, surely you know this...
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: > Many of the people I argue with don't seem to have much > comprehension of English so why would I trust their ability to read or > not read something else. Slight correction: Many people you argue with don't have much comprehension of "Cladking-English". How would they know that each time you yell: "No ramps" or "They didn't use ramps"
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Pete Vanderzwet wrote: > Great post. The only other royal sarcophagus made from > alabaster dates to the 19th dynasty under Seti I's reign. I > believe Hetepheres was also alabaster? Indeed, the sarcophagus of Hetepheres I (and canopic chest; one of the first) was made of alabaster. IIRC all sarcophagi of Djoser's family members under his pyramid were also made of alabaster. Also Khe
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: > Herodotus, I believe, just about nailed everything. We have totally > misunderstood him. Translators have cleaned up his Greek and > presented it in a more modern form of English but they couldn't decipher > what he meant because they didn't know. So, not only egyptologists who know how to read the AE language are clueless but now also those who read the Ancien
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > And here we have ramps. I could easily disprove ramps again > right now and you'll magically not see the disproof and bring > the subject back tomorrow like it never happened. Wrong, you cannot disprove ramps because the remains exist. Naturally, as usual you don't write what you mean (warned you about it before) and what you actually mean is that you don't believ
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
loveritas wrote: > Hi Charly, > > Thanks for your input. > > Before you go any further, I would strongly suggest that you > have a look at Zawi Hawass's video on the opening of > Sekhemkhet's pyramid and that "sarcophagus". > > Have a look at its opening mechanism. Think how would it have > been possible to place a body in that stone box in the way in
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Titus Livius wrote: > > > Many engineers and architects have studied > > this subject and have pointed out the problems for several > > types of ramps, there is no mystery about it. But it seems > that > > you are very sure that aliens or atlanteans built it (or > helped > > to build it) using a levitation technology. Well, as far as &
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
loveritas wrote: > Hi Pete, > > Thanks for your input. > > For this thread to stay on track, any post 4th Dynasty > information, although interesting, is largely irrelevant. > > For Khufu's designers and builders to have considered, and then > built, the security apparatus in the Great Pyramid which, > according to Egyptologists, was so necessary to protect the &
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > Herodotus isn't a reliable source and neither is the al-Mamun > > story of course. > > Egyptologists have dismissed all historical evidence that > doesn't agree with their assumptions. This means almost every > account is dismissed. I believe all these accounts are > essentially correct. A few are misleading. First thing y
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
The sarcophagus of Sekhemkhet is not the only one that has been found sealed and empty; other famous example is the sarcophagus of Hetepheres I. In both cases the bodies could have been robbed and burned and a restoration burial could have taken place. The AE had several back ups in case the body was destroyed, the spirit of the deceased could also return and inhabit the (empty) sarcophagus itse
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Still, no evidence that sarcophagi had another purpose than burial in the 3th and 4th dyn. Many have been found in mastabas containing mummies; I'm not aware of sarcophagi filled with seeds or "recovery" items (whatever they are supposed to be). Again, the evolution and typology of sarcophagi is well known, no reason to transform them in "mysterious stone boxes".
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Why would they make stone boxes any differently than they made > a stone box to bury a body. Let's see, these "stone boxes" not intended for burial, why would they be all the same size as those meant for burial? Logically, you'd expect diffenrent sizes, but no, for some reason they are all the perfect fit for a mummified body. > I don't doubt that most of
Forum: Mysteries
Current Page: 4 of 10