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: 6 of 10
Results 151 - 180 of 275
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > You only think literal meaning was intended, you haven't any > > proof to back it up except your immagination. It is you who > has > > to prove that the PT were meant "literally", which of course > > you can't. > > I can't prove the literal meaning was intended but ask yourself > what the odds are that on
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Anytime anyone wanted into something and there was no door the > only option is to force an entry. > > Can you really imagine anyone from anytime in human history who > wouldn't want to see what was under a huge pyramid? 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
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > You're assuming tomb robbers. No assuming at all, fact! > All we know is that many of these were obviously breached after > construction. What this means is conjecture but it could mean > tha early archeologists were trying to learn what if anything > was inside. It could mean that would be robbers thought there > were objects of value inside. For all I
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > But until you can prove the literal meaning wasn't intended it > seems your argument is weak in either case. You only think literal meaning was intended, you haven't any proof to back it up except your immagination. It is you who has to prove that the PT were meant "literally", which of course you can't. > How can it be that > part of establishing the
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Scott Creighton wrote: > Curiously, however, the discovery of what Verner claims to be > the mummified remains of Djedkare Isesi is not mentioned in > Mark Lehner’s The Complete Pyramids, which mentions > only the discovery of fragments of alabaster and basalt in the > ‘burial chamber’ of this pyramid as well as a faience bead > on a gold filament. No mention whatsoever o
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Ronald1 wrote: > > > The builders 'didn't think these were tombs', but placed a > > sarcophagus in each of them (actually in nearly every Ancient > > Egyptian pyramid) ... > > Until it can be shown there was ever a body in one or intended > to be a body in one it remains just a stone box. Of course there were bodies in them untill they were
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > They refer to the pyramids countless times in their tombs and > in the Pyramid Texts. This fact is overlooked by egyptologists > because they don't like what the builders said about the > pyramids and what they were. Now you make it look like egyptologists are aware of the so-called literal meaning (in fact your personal interpretation) of the PT and that they i
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Egyptologists take facts, words, and ideas from later times > that have no applicability whatsoever to the great pyramid > builders and force them into their model. They have taken all > of Egyptian history and blended and pasteurized it and what > comes out has nothing to do with the great pyramids. Cladking, apply your critisism to yourself please; you do e
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Sirfiroth wrote: > LOL MJ, We know, the granite plugs in the ascending passage > were in place, Al Mamun tunneled around them in 820 AD. There's no reason to accept as a fact that the tunnel was made by Al Mamun. The tunnel was probably made much earlier; probably in the FIP and if not then, there were still many more periods when foreign invaders could have looted the pyramid. Some OK
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
MJT wrote: > In the case of the King’s Chamber, it is quite possible that we > are looking at either a symbolic burial chamber or a blind, > possibly both. Imho that's quite unlikely; the only symbolic burial chambers with a sarcophagus are those of the so-called Osiris tombs, all from later periods (a burial chamber in the pyramid of Sesostris III at Dashur might have had a similar fu
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > We're not talking modern burials here, but ancient ones. What > > do you expect, a papyrus trail? > > I am not the one who keeps saying there is a mountain of > evidence about the ancients when there is almost none at all. > It is Egyptology who continually suggest there's lots of all > sorts of evidence but can't come up
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: charly wrote: > > Because nearly every tomb in Ancient Egyt was robbed! > > That can't be used to show that every empty hole, room, void, > or cave in Egypt must have been a tomb. The fact that nearly every tomb was robbed isn't used to show that every empty hole, room, void, or cave in Egypt must have been a tomb. Those that were robbed can be identified as
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Following your line of reasoning it's impossible to prove an > > empty sarcophagus (similar problem with empty tomb). No body > in > > a sarcophagus in a pyramid; stone box, no body in a > sarcophagus > > in a mastaba; stone box. > > > It would be very very easy to prove something were a tomb even > if the b
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > These people had only primitive technology. How many different > ways would tthey have had or even needed to seal a passage? Erm...Cladking, it is you who's claiming that they used a geyser powered counterweight device to lift blocks, and now you say they only had primitive technology? > Why presume they were even keeping something out. Even if they > were ke
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > So, basicaly you admit you don't have an alternative > > explanation... > > Why wouldn't the sarcophagus contain a mummy? You're saying > it > > could have contained personal effects and valuables... well, > > sarcophagi did contain such things, together with the > > mummies... > > > It's a stone box.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > If you reason like this, it's impossible to prove the concept > > of an empty tomb (wheter it's a mastaba, pyramid or a > rock-cut > > tomb). > > So I ask you again: How would you prove the concept of an > empty > > tomb? > > (my answer would be; compare with similar structures that > > weren't empty...)
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Sarcophagi in their context are direct evidence. > > Yes. This is direct evidence but it is not conclusive evidence > without knowing there was a body in one or knowing a body was > ever intended to be in one. If you reason like this, it's impossible to prove the concept of an empty tomb (wheter it's a mastaba, pyramid or a roc
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Realy? How come you never actualy answer the following basic > > question (based on basic evidence) then? > > How do you explain the presence of sarcophagi, blocking > stones, > > porticulis slabs in the internal passages of G1. These > features > > are also present in mastabas, which were tombs. If not a > tomb,
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: > Perhaps it was reserved for his wife or something > altogether different. The wives had small pyramids of their own (G I-a, G I-b, G I-c).
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > If the pyramid was the life of the king after life on earth > then perhaps (I don't know) perhaps the sarcophagus contained > his writings, or possessions, or even his personal effects and > valuables. Perhaps it was reserved for his wife or something > altogether different. So, basicaly you admit you don't have an alternative explanation... Why wouldn't th
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
drrayeye wrote: > Mathematical and statistical rules are the same for all fields > of science, but not all fields of science use them the same > way. To those of us who know the difference, failure to use > these methods and meet the requirements of these rules rather > dramatically reduces credibility of claims. > > Much archeological evidence is subjective. Waving your
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > It's not about predictions Ray, it's about facts. > > All science is about predictions. When a theory is right it is > able to make predictions. When Petrie said "it mustta been a > ramp" he was really predicting that future evidence, testing, > and experimentation would support the idea that a ramp was > used.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
drrayeye wrote: > This "archeological evidence" may convince you and most > Egyptologists, but not scientists from other fields that > require much stricter measures of proof. I doubt that, scientists from other fields are well aware that each discipline has it's own methods, rules and restrictions. They know their methods can aid archaeology to find answers but they're al
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
...for an alternative explanation...
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
drrayeye wrote: > In Egyptology, it's a subjective > judgement poorly disguised, because the "evidence" is not > evidence in a scientific sense at all. I must disagree with "subjective judgement poorly disguised". For an archaeological problem you need archaeological evidence. Several scientific methods can aid in anwering these questions, but cannot provide the ans
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > What would overwhelming evidence be in your opinion? > > That's easy. How about the slightest litytle tiny bit of > direct evidence? Sarcophagi in their context are direct evidence. > Why did the Egyptians never say in anyt place > that the king was buried in a great pyramid? Why is there no > direct evidence such a a dra
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
drrayeye wrote: > If an Egyptologist really would like to advance our > understanding of the building of G1, he/she needs to come up > with an alternative model that leads to findings that > Jean-Pierre's model can't predict. One can then compare > predictions objectively. It's not about predictions Ray, it's about facts. > Simply saying that one is not satisfied with Jean-
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Ray, I fail to see what scepticism concerning the building > > method of G1(proposed by Jean-Pierre or anyone else for that > > matter), has to do with the theory (it's not a hypothesis) > that > > G1 is a tomb built at a specific time. > > It is not a theory because there is no evidence to support it > and no expe
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
drrayeye wrote: > The problem with your scepticism of Jean-Pierre's solution to > G1, is that if one applies that same standard to the G1 > findings of Egyptology, one can make the same claims about the > Egyptology hypothesis that G1 is a tomb built at a specific > time. Ray, I fail to see what scepticism concerning the building method of G1(proposed by Jean-Pierre or anyone els
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
drrayeye wrote: > What I can't understand, and you might help explain, is why > don't traditional Egyptologists embrace the explanation of the > building of G1 as described by Jean-Pierre Houdin? Jean-Pierre Houdin's solution incorporates ramp technology as well as lifting devices. We know the AE in the OK had ramp technology, but there's no evidence for any kind of lifting device tech
Forum: Mysteries
Current Page: 6 of 10