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: 7 of 10
Results 181 - 210 of 275
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > I'd disagree that any extraordinary proof is required that the > great pyramids were not tombs. In that case you have to explain the presence of sarcophagi, blocking stones, porticulis slabs in the internal / subterran passages and chambers of the pyramids... These features are also present in mastabas, which were tombs. If not tombs, what is your explanation for the pr
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Also here you simply ignore the facts presented to you, you evade discussion about points raised and keep repeating your opinions as if they were facts. Also here it's useless to continue the discussion, since you're not willing to discuss... You just repeat your assumptions based on immagination over and over again.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
I expected you woudn't answer these questions. You keep twisting and turning in order to avoid answering. Fact is you can't even find a single argument to "debunk" the evidence (you consider virtual non existent no less!!!) for the "great pyramids" being tombs. Since you refuse to answer, our discussion is over.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > By definition "facts" are what exists but who ever heard an > Egyptologist admit there's nothing related to ramps anywhere in > the culture. The ramps are there and not only in the OK, so they are part of the culture, that's a simple fact... > The Pyramid Texts were written right here where > the great pyramids are yet ramps get no mention at all.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: >I'm not sure what either the question or the referent is. Perhaps you >could expand and clarify. A littke recap then; you wrote: > The lack of evidence for tombs is virtually total. You've got > architecture and stone boxes and little more. Where's the > beef. I answered: > I would say the evidence for tombs is virtually total. > Architecture, sarcophagi,
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Hi Rob, see: Lehner, M. "The Complete pyramids", London, 1997, p.215-217 (chapter on ramps) This is mostly general information, for specific data you'll need repports from the excavators (in case of the Red that would be Rainer Stadelmann, articles found will be mostly in German) or articles dealing with pyramid construction. Don't have any references to those at the moment I'm afraid
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Ronald1 wrote: > And it really is of no importance > that 'there are no Third and Fourth Dynasty ramps', what is > important is that the culture USED ramps. Actually remains of 3rd and 4th dyn ramps have been found: near pyramid of Sekhemkhet, Red pyramid of Sneferu, Sinki pyramid, a mastaba at Dashur, queen's pyramid G I-c at Giza.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > The facts don't change because Egyptologists refuse to see > them. Egyptology doesn't refuse to see facts, we clearly have another definition of "facts" than you. > It doesn't matter one whit if you understand that the > words of the builders are defined by context and that this is > not an interpretation open to other opinion. The PT are not wor
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > I'm afraid further discussion on this subject would be quite > > useless, since we have a complete different perspective on > > this. > > We'll have to agree to disagree then... > > I disagree that we have established a basis on which to > disagree. My contention remains that the Pyramid Texts can be > "solv
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > charly wrote: > > > Unless you find evidence from AE culture that confirms your > > personal interpretation of the PT, it will remain nothing but > a > > personal interpretation and can be hardly called evidence. > > ...And unless someone finds evidence they were tombs this > remains nothing more than an hypothesis. > > I would remi
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > My problem with this is simple. If it is weighed simply on the > basis of the apparent usage and the similarity wityh tombs then > I'd agree that this makes an excellent working hypothesis. The > problem is that the builders said in the PT many times that > these pyramids were not tombs and there's no direct evidence > from the culture to contradict the word
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: >This was almost the stone age. How many ways do you think they had >for building near solid structures? Form follows function but how can form >define usage? You seem to think that building method defines function, you still haven't explained why you think such a thing. Since the pyramid evolved from the mastaba (tomb) and the pyramids still contain the same elements
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > I can't imagine why egyptologists attempt to equate the great > pyramids with the diminuative pyramids that came after except > they want to claim the same techniques were used to build them. There's a constant evolution in techniques of pyramid construction, size of blocks, how the casing was applied, internal filling etc. There's one feature that comes back in ever
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > I'm always willing to learn. You have proven time and again this is not the case; you refuse to look at anything that doesn't agree with your views. >Tell me something I don't know. You mean, for example: the basics of AE culture? > Indeed tell me one thing that existed before G1 was begun. Huh? You do realise AE civilisation didn't start with Khufu's pyrami
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
You keep making claims that you don't give a personal interpretation of the PT but the lieteral meaning. Yet in the your post you take a quote from the PT, let loose your immagination and make up a meaning. Transforming sceptres into machine parts, “Minti-irty” into a water collection tower etc. has nothing to do with literal meaning but everything with personal interpretation. The only thing you
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > Of course they can. There were no ramp builders You're not making sense here imho: since the remains of the ramps are there someone must have built them, ergo there were ramp builders. > There was a whole country full of dead people and not one > single one of them had anything to do with ramps. Or maybe you > believe that ramp builders were known as "Builder
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
I coudn't agree more! Persevere we shall!
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > No, you're still wrong. The outline of the means used to lift > these stones is still carved and shaded right into the > structure in the form of vertical lines right up the side. You ASSUME that the outline of the means used to lift these stones is still carved and shaded right into the structure in the form of vertical lines right up the side. Yet you present th
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > No. Ramps have essentially been disproven. Not at all, the only evidence we have for pyramid construction is that ramps were somehow involved. Everything else (e.g. all sorts of machinery) is pure speculation and cannot be proven untill something new is discoverd, no matter how interesting this speculation might be. > Can you even > imagine the courage and stamina
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: "There were no ramps so there were no tombs. " I suppose what you mean is "I believe ramps were not used to lift blocks onto the pyramids so..." but then it gets confusing; I noticed before that for some reason you see the building method (ramps or no ramps) in direct connection with the function of the structure. There's no reason to assume such a thing. Why
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking, you realy shouldn't make any more comments in future posts like "there were no ramps" or "ramps were not used" when you actually mean that you don't believe that ramps were used to get stone up the pyramid. It would avoid lot's of useless posts, confusion etc. People most certainly won't take you seriously when you contradict yourself.
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
In a post above I said: "You haven't disproven ramps; repeating over and over that ramps weren't used doesn't make it so. Fact is, evidence that ramps were involved has been found. You have been made aware of this but again you choose not to accept this fact..." Your response: "I've posted repeatedly a mountain of evidence that there were no ramps." In your response to bwil
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
cladking wrote: > There's no question > what the builders actually said so this really is no issue. You consider the PT to be the words of the builders but there's no evidence for that. The PT are religious texts and are the words of priests, not builders. cladking wrote: > Obviously I do point out that there is an orthodox interpretation which is > at odds with the literal words o
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: "And I said evolving from tombs doesn't mean they must be tombs." You're missing the point; Djosers step mastaba was a mastaba at first. And you do include Djosers step mastaba under your classification of "great pyramids" don't you?
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: "So, other than the similarity to sarcophagi of the era, exactly how do you know the one in the so called king's chamber is a sarcohagus and that it was contained or was intended to contain the king or some otrher person?" Logic reasoning Cladking, you should try it some time. Cladking wrote: "Right!!! So if we found a UFO with the dead pilot whose name tag says
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: "My guess is that there was an elaborate ceremony which began at the base of the pyramid and ended at the top after a ride up in the ascender for the dead king and the big shots. The internal organs were commended to the winding waterway and the king through hocus pocus was made to appear to ascend to the stars. The mummy was then spirited away to be interred where very few k
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: "You're making assumptions here about the great pyramids. Calling a room in the pyramid a "king's chamber" doesn't mean that there must have been a king in it. Calling the remains of a structure a temple doesn't mean people must have worshipped in it. Most of these things are very poorly evidenced and some are not evidenced at all except through layers of speculatio
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: "The little tiny pyramids built after all the great pyramids were built probably were tombs. I don't care how these little pyramids were built so I don't care what they were used for either. It doesn't matter to the great pyramids what they were or how they were built since they came later. They are obviously an entirely different thing." Well, these later smaller pyram
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote: "They literally said that the tomb of the king was in the sky and they literally said these things in many different ways." And how would they get the king to his tomb in the sky? Using their (Scott's) hot air balloons? ;-)
Forum: Mysteries
9 years ago
charly
Cladking wrote:"Why not just take their word that the great pyramids were not tombs?" Because it isn't "their word", just your overactive immagination Cladking.
Forum: Mysteries
Current Page: 7 of 10