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: 5 of 10
Results 121 - 150 of 275
9 years ago
charly
Titus Livius wrote: > Hi charly > > I also mention in a recent thread that the Great Pyramids are a > obsession for most of the alternative authors. It seems that > the other pyramids didn't exist or didn't deserve any kind of > interest, and this is a clear bias in my opinion, unless we > could state with certainty that some pyramids were not > "egyptian". &g
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Titus Livius wrote: > However, I think the fact of finding or not finding "treasures" > or other artifacts inside the pyramids is not the core of the > question. The main question, as many alternative researchers > have pointed out, is focused on these facts: > > 1) The pyramid age lasted around 1000 years. Too many years and > too little evidence of pharaos' grav
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > I think a better example might be the idea that the great > pyramids were tombs because they are archetectually similar to > tombs built by this society. Since they're all made out of > stone by the same people I never really understood this > argument at all. Strange, it's all logic reasoning, nothing weird about it... > From the idea they are tombs it
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Brien Foerster wrote: > The Great Pyramid contained a big box, about the size of a > human; no body, no writing, no clues. A lot off other pyramids, mastabas and rock-cut tombs also contain "a big stone box" (sarcophagus), about the size of a human; with no body, no writing, no clues. It's simple, some tombs were completely looted others partialy and exceptionaly some were found
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Still the same evidence you chose to ignore, dismiss and > > ridicule... > > I don't dismiss, ridicule, or ignore any evidence and that > includes the low grade evidence presented to show the great > pyramids were tombs. I had no reason to doubt the conclusions > of the low grade evidence at all until discovering that the &
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Slight correction: Egyptology has proven that the pyramids > were > > tombs, you just don't want to accept that... > > > Dang. I try to keep up but overslept this morning. Can you > fill me in on the evidence or what gave it away. Still the same evidence you chose to ignore, dismiss and ridicule...
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Egyptology can't even prove > their basic contentions such as that the pyramids were tombs. Slight correction: Egyptology has proven that the pyramids were tombs, you just don't want to accept that...
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
128. Re: ????
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Problem is; you think you know what the "builders" say and > > consider that a fact. Most of us on the other hand think you > > have a very vivid imagination when it comes to the PT... > > No! The problem is that orthodox believers refuse to accept > the English meaning of the builders' words. Sure, you could be
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > To build G1 with no infrastructure and no tools would require > magic. Orthodox believers instinctively rule out advanced or > alien tools so there must have been either human tools or > orthodoxy is wrong. If there were human tools and human > infrastructure then it is nowhere in evidence because every > single thing on the Giza Plateau other than a few sca
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
130. Re: ????
cladking wrote: > It seems the very last thing an orthodox believer would want to > suggest is that anyone deal with what the builders actually > said. Orthodox assumptions and beliefs are entirely at odds > with what the people said. Problem is; you think you know what the "builders" say and consider that a fact. Most of us on the other hand think you have a very vivid i
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > I said the basalt pad was part of the water catchment device, > not the so-called mortuary temple. > > The so-called mortuary temple was more likely where the stones > were cut for use on the pyramid. But the "basalt pad" IS the floor of the mortuary temple's courtyard, the temple was located right there and not elsewhere.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > The basalt pad was the part of the water catchment device local > to the so called mortuary temple. Khufu's mortuary temple a water catchment device? Cladking, it was a temple not a water basin, water would be very bad for the limestone reliefs you know...
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Didn't know there was "water catchment device" around G1. > > Photograph were it can be seen? > > But, in order for your theory to work, doesn't every site > with > > a "great pyramid" need a "water catchment device"? > > This water catchment device is everywhere in the literature, >
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Ask me how the > water catchment device around G1 yies into my theory. Didn't know there was "water catchment device" around G1. Photograph were it can be seen? But, in order for your theory to work, doesn't every site with a "great pyramid" need a "water catchment device"?
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Typical tactic of pseudo archaeology, take a modern day > concept > > an try to make it seem ancient cultures already had the same > > concept. Make the evidence fit and in case there's not enough > > evidence to be distorted make up some more. Oh, yes...almost > > forgot, any evidence that points to the contrary has
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > No! Direct evidence could be anything. For instance Khufu's > brother could be buried right next to G1 and an inscription in > his tomb might read that he wanted to be buried next to his > brother. Well guess what? Khufu's brother really is buried > right next to G1 but the inscription says he wanted to be > buried next to "Khufu's Horizon". &qu
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
will2learn2000 wrote: > Hi charly > > > did you read what you wrote in response, > > when were mummification chambers a new concept, I thought they > came from Egypt. The only way to guarantee all of the rotting > bugs are dead is to steadily heat the body at 100C for a few > days. What better way to do this than in box under a pile of > boiling water in geyser.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > I know you believe that, no need to repeat that in every > post. > > If you don't like the builders saying they weren't tombs take > it up with them. They're all spinning in their graves so stop > one and tell him the complaint. Hell, ask him why they didn't > think pyramids were tombs. The builders say no such thing, you
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > There is no lack of evidence, the evidence is ignored, > > dismissed or ridiculed by many "alternatives". There 's > nothing > > modern about sarcophagi constructed in the OK. > > If there's no lack of evidence then why can't you show any > direct evidence whatsoever that any great pyramids were tombs. > Yo
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
will2learn2000 wrote: > Hi charly > > charly wrote: > > WRT tombs > > > > There is no lack of evidence, the evidence is ignored, > > dismissed or ridiculed by many "alternatives". There 's > nothing > > modern about sarcophagi constructed in the OK. > > > The sarcophagi argument is fallacious in the extreme, it is a > stone box
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
will2learn2000 wrote: > Hi Charly > > I must admit to being a fan of Cks approach and persistence in > the light of all the orthodoxy floating about. A few points are > worth noting regarding your post. > > ''> The builders of the great pyramids distinctly and > repeatedly > > said the great pyramids were not tombs. > > ''I know you believe that, no nee
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > I doubt egyptology is completely mistaken about everything > after the 5th dynasty. I have no reason to believe they are > wrong about anything after the 5th dynasty. > > But all the known facts suggest they are mistaken about almost > everything before the 5th dynasty. I'm referring here to the > important things like how and why they built the pyrami
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
MJT wrote: > That the pyramids were plundered by tomb robbers is perfectly > plausible, but it is not proven in most cases. > Consequently, I consider it equally plausible that some, if not > all, of the pyramids were cenotaphs and not actual tombs. > As to where a pyramid-as-a-cenotaph’s king or pharaoh was > actually interred is another matter. The south-tombs in the funerar
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Ronald1 wrote: > > > > > The only sensible conclusion is that one first has to do the > > effort to get knowledge of the culture ..... > > > It's hard to believe you actually said this. Did you read the > first post. > > I'm contending and presenting solid evidence which you haven't > disputed that orthodoxy knows nothing a
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
I see it's once again pointless to try discussing the AE with you. I'll leave you in geyserland where imagintion is fact and egyptology is wrong about nearly everything. Let us know when you're ready to leave your dreamworld and actually learn something. Until then.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > We > are familiar with later Egyptians for this reason but the great > pyramid builders were lost and only partly understood by those > whose ideas we project backward in time. Well, there's no doubt the fifth dyn egyptians still understood those of the 4th dyn. Depends what you mean by "later Egyptians".
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Of course there's no trace of such artefacts except in some > > cases the sarcophagus. No willingness to find a trace??? > > They could do a forensic evaluation. There's no certainty this > prove anything one way or nother but what's the harm in > looking. > > > Just because a tomb has been emptied it can't be pr
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Problem is, if taken literally they mean nothing (unless you > > begin to imagine there are hidden meanings such as > > Osiris=geyser etc.) > > How can you say such a thing? How much more clear can they be > than to say the dead king rests in heaven as a mountain as a > support. Or the earth is high under the sky by me
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > You admit you can't prove the "literal meaning" was intended > > yet you use it as evidence all the time... > > There is no coherent literal meaning, unless you begin to > > imagine un-evidenced machinery and un-evidenced geysers. Then > > you get a coherent picture...for a sf/fantasy novel. > > I can't p
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > And since the GP is the biggest of them all, it drew the most > > attention... result: it got completely picked clean, hence > not > > even a trace of grave goods and human remains. > > Yes. Exactly. But since there's neither a trace of such > artefacts nor a willingness to seek a trace this lack of > evidence can n
Forum: Mysteries
Current Page: 5 of 10