> The lower end of the granite plugs were not always
> exposed. Neither was the horizontal passage. The
> former attested by AlMamoun, the latter by the
> holes for the floor support beams.
> An yet you presume multi-ton granite stones
> plugging the ascending passage were, only by the
> high level of 'obviousness' they exude, are not
> only non-deterrent, but arrows pointing the way.
Avry, I fear you have fallen prey to the same ruse that countless others have fallen to over the centuries, regarding that infernal but non-existent "Prism Stone". If you haven't already seen the following, I cordially invite you to check it out since it shows I have indeed considered it back in 2011:
Meanwhile, I'd be very interested if you could direct us to any direct account written by al Mamoun or anyone else regarding the Prism Stone. The simple truth is that the stone doesn't exist, there is no rubble that's considered to be a remnant of it, there is no drawing of it from any eyewitness, and there is no eyewitness description of it, or even any verification that it ever existed. There is only hearsay from historians who attempt to present what they believe happened during al Mamoun's excursion to G1.
Likewise, you have no idea what purpose is of those holes are at the bottom of the GG. Your claim that they held beams that supported a floor is pure speculation and is catastrophically contradicted by the physical evidence which you apparently have not studied.
> Also note (as Pete pointed out in the original
> video) the focus is on the GP; a deliberate act to
> remove it from the context of the Old Kingdom and beyond.
"remove" it from the Old Kingdom? The GP doesn't belong in the OK in the first place. The fact that Egyptology puts it there is not only conjecture, it also shows how much Egyptology cherry-picks its evidence by totally ignoring the OK's lack of technology to achieve such works. The problem is putting G1 into the OK, not "removing" it.
> What do you know of the interior set up of
> Khafre, and so on? It is telling why you do not
> consider them.
Irrelevant to G1. There is no direct evidence that dates G1 before G2. There is no direct evidence that dates G2 before G3. There is no direct evidence that dates G1 to the OK. It's all contextual conjecture. We could just as well use presumptions about Nile levels to argue the exact opposite sequence of pyramid construction. You have no proof that substantiates your claims so immutably.
> If plugs in the ascending passage were so
> ridiculously 'obvious' (that the contents were not
> hidden at all by virtue of the treasure map being
> layed bare for all to see) then what would be
> the point of putting them there?
Exactly! That, my friend, is the right question. That al Mamoun allegedly saw them and was immediately drawn to see what was behind them suggests they were NOT meant to hide something, right? The evidence contradicts the security hypothesis and so there was indeed another reason those blocks are located there, and the sooner we accept that they were NOT for security, the sooner we can start to address the real question. If the granite "plugs" were covered by a limestone "Prism Stone", then why make the plugs out of granite in the first place? Avry, the security hypothesis makes zero sense. PLEASE take a look at the above link.
> And this is how it goes. I've seen this
> conversation over and over for a very long time.
> And now will come a further leap of logic for you
> to explain why the plugs are there. Was it aliens?
> Is the GP a water pump? A nuclear reactor? An
> esoteric Atlantean homage?
No need to take the standard reactive posture of sarcasm and intimidation which is the hallmark of Egyptology when it runs out of logical arguments. Just stick to the evidence and you'll see how absurd the security hypothesis really is. No one is talking about aliens here except you. You are the one claiming to know what G1 is, not me. I'm only asking for evidence from those who ARE making such claims. So far, everyone seems to be pulling at conjectural straws.
> You'll try anything to explain it, so long as your
> explanation is careful to avoid the obvious: The
> plugs were put there to deter would-be thieves.
Again, it serves no purpose for steam to come out of your ears. Just take a deep breath and look at the physical evidence and not the contrived contextual conjectures. Scrutinize what we see there. Why use granite when the surrounding limestone is so much softer? How can a "Prism Stone" be supported by those flimsy little recesses on the east and west walls of that socket? How could such a stone be fitted into such a socket if the socket was already there before the stone was installed? There is no Prism Stone and no evidence there ever was one. And it is irrational to propose that the purpose of the granite plugs was a security mechanism. I defy you to defend the argumentl
> But you don't see the genius of the plugs. Even if
> they were found - suggesting to thieves there is
> something behind - the breach of the plugs would
> only lead them up to the 'KC', i.e. the 'QC' is
> still hidden under the floor. So just as the
> descending passage leads to 'nowhere', so would
> the ascending passage even if they discovered the
> plugs bottom end, as AlMamoun did.
More squirming contrivances. What "floor" are you talking about? You mean the one you are imagining might have been suspended on top of beams inserted into those holes in the walls of the opening to the HP? How on earth does that pattern of holes point to a missing floor above them? Do you realize at least one of those holes extends up to the TOP of where such an alleged floor would reside? There is no space for the floor to sit and still fit into the side grooves in the GG. What's the point of a faux floor at that location vs. a stone plug into the HP? The holes are not simply recesses for structural beams. Rather, they are different sizes and are recessed to two clearly deliberately different depths. To claim those holes simply held beams to support a faux floor is to insult the genius of the builders. The geometry of the holes do not indicate any such flooring. Rather, they indicate an assembly that was inserted between the walls and not a floor placed above them. Like the "Prism Stone", such a floor does not exist, there is no remnant thought to be the remains of such a floor, there is no drawing of such a floor from any eyewitness, and no eyewitness has ever attested to the existence of such a floor. It's all pure conjecture. Do you realize that?
> To you, apparently, the plugs (nor any other
> structural aspect) are not deterrent enough to be
> considered security measures. Were you expecting
> laser beam motion sensors, CCD cameras, sound
> alarms, things like that?
Again with the sillyville sarcasm.
Avry, if the builders truly wanted to keep humans out, they would have loaded the top segment of the entrance passage with limestone blocks similiar to the surrounding core blocks, sealed it with a casing stone similar to the surrounding casing blocks and thrown away the blueprints. You are the one who doesn't see the evidence. You are the one forced to subscribe to contrived conjecture. You are the one who doesn't see the true genius of G1.
> The whole point of requiring the pyramids
> (and for some strange reason, only those of Giza)
> not to be tombs comes from somewhere. And do you
> know where this comes from? It comes from theories
> that simply won't work unless they aren't tombs;
Once again, your premise is incorrect. Who among us is saying the pyramids did not serve as tombs, Avry? For the hundredth time, the contention is that they were not ORIGINALLY DESIGNED to be tombs by virtue of the complete lack of any direct evidence that they WERE designed to be tombs. Period. You can't possibly criticize others for "requiring" that they weren't designed to be tombs. No one here is "requiring" that. We're simply denying it in the first place on the basis of there being zero evidence to back it up. You, on the other hand, are apparently "requiring" that they WERE designed to be tombs, and yet you cannot produce a single piece of hard evidence to support that. You are your own worst enemy, not any of us.
> the idea is a forced attribution borne from
> reckless theory construction. And when confronted
> with more and more info to explain how such a view
> is wrong, the arguments become so tangent and
> ad-hoc as to strain basic sensibility.
The only "more and more info" that's been presented is contrived contextual conjecture, not hard evidence.
> I really was expecting something of greater
> disciplined logic and research from someone with a
I can't account for your expectations. They're obviously not based on direct physical evidence. And you are revealing yourself as being prone to personal attacks when your logic runs out. You clearly are not paying attention to the world around you. You are too invested in conjecture and have fallen gullible to far lower standards of proof than that applied by modern hard science.
In my opinion.
> I feel inspired to present a full dissertation if
> it means bringing out the canoe from the tree,
> Philip. However, I find it more wise to be the
> plug myself, and guide you to the treasure. It's
> up to you to do the digging yourself.
I look forward to any evidence-based dissertation you care to present. Until then, please keep your personal insults to yourself.
> Kind regards,
Hah, yes, I've heard that one before.
Audrey's correct, you have not been inclined to examine detail. You are too content with the baseless mainstream narrative to see though the fog.
I hope you find peace with your assumption that an unsubstantiated statement from a historian or the presence of a proper name engraved on a publicly accessible block of stone is enough proof for you to determine provenance of the entire surrounding ancient complex. Meanwhile, for some of us with modern standards, that's simply not going to cut it. Despite your attempts at sarcasm and insults.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12-Feb-16 23:08 by Origyptian.