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
from Martin Gray [The Great Pyramid of Egypt]

excerpt:
Next we come to perhaps the most extraordinary problem, that of the fashioning and placement of the highly polished limestone casing stones that covered the entire pyramid. The finished pyramid contained approximately 115,000 of these stones, each weighing ten tons or more. These stones were dressed on all six of their sides, not just the side exposed to the visible surface, to tolerances of .01 inch. They are set together so closely that a thin razor blade cannot be inserted between the stones. Egyptologist Petrie expressed his astonishment of this feat by writing, "Merely to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the joint seems almost impossible; it is to be compared to the finest opticians' work on the scale of acres." Herodotus, visiting in the fifth century BC, reported that inscriptions of strange characters were to be found on the pyramid's casing stones. In AD 1179 the Arab historian Abd el Latif recorded that these inscriptions were so numerous that they could have filled "more than ten thousand written pages." William of Baldensal, a European visitor of the early fourteenth century, tells how the stones were covered with strange symbols arranged in careful rows. Sadly, in 1356, following an earthquake that leveled Cairo, the Arabs robbed the pyramid of its beautiful casing of stones to rebuild mosques and fortresses in the city. As the stones were cut into smaller pieces and reshaped, all traces of the ancient inscriptions were removed from them. A great library of ageless wisdom was forever lost.

Still further evidence that the dynastic Egyptians did not construct the Great Pyramid may be found in sediments surrounding the base of the monument, in legends regarding watermarks on the stones halfway up its sides, and in salt incrustations found within. Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be nearly twelve thousand years old. These sediments could have been deposited in such great quantities only by major sea flooding, an event the dynastic Egyptians could never have recorded because they were not living in the area until eight thousand years after the flood. This evidence alone suggests that the three main Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old. In support of this ancient flood scenario, mysterious legends and records tell of watermarks that were clearly visible on the limestone casing stones of the Great Pyramid before those stones were removed by the Arabs. These watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid, or about 400 feet above the present level of the Nile River. Further, when the Great Pyramid was first opened, incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. While much of this salt is known to be natural exudation from the stones of the pyramid, chemical analysis has shown that some of the salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. These salt incrustations, found at a height corresponding to the water level marks left on the exterior, are further evidence that at some time in the distant past the pyramid was submerged halfway up its height.[end]

We can't keep dismissing ancient reports because they offset ,
Colonial Brainwash timelines.
Khufu himself is silent on building the Great Pyramid.

Are there records by his wives or children in the Mastaba's that Hubby or Dad pulled this off?

In parusing Egyptology websites like Guardian Egypts discussion board,
posters forward possibilities that timelines are skewed:

example:

Hm, just to simplify matters, :-), don't the last three kings of Manetho's Third Dynasty :
Achês
Sephuris
Kerpherês
remind you of
Hu(ni)
Snefru
Khufu ?
As to the names placed in the Fourth Dynasty :
Soris could be a misreading of Khnum-khufu : the ram Khnum would have been read ser. Arab authors call the king Surid.
Suphis could derive from a reading *Shufu of Khufu.
And Suphis [II] from *Shafre ?
Ratoisês is Ra-tetef (late pronunciation of Djedefre), misplaced after Khafre.
Mencherês and Sebercherês are obviously Menkaure and Shepseskaf.
Bicheris could be the king of the Zawiyet el-Aryan excavation, whose name was read bjk-kA by LAUER.
Thamphtis has been interpreted as tA-mw.t-njsw.tj, "the Mother of Two Kings", i.e. Khentkaus .
What a mess ! [posted Thursday, February 21, 2002 by J.D. Deqreef]

T Bird


Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 664 loveritas 29-Jan-08 11:29
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 398 Raja 29-Jan-08 12:50
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 370 Graham Hancock 29-Jan-08 13:31
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 398 turnofthetide 29-Jan-08 16:22
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 363 Raja 29-Jan-08 17:29
Re: Hancock and Hawass 370 Oddity 29-Jan-08 17:43
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 319 Houcad 29-Jan-08 17:51
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 398 Raja 29-Jan-08 17:56
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 364 Houcad 30-Jan-08 12:23
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 425 Raja 30-Jan-08 12:37
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 351 solitaire 29-Jan-08 17:52
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 380 Warwick 29-Jan-08 18:05
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 396 solitaire 29-Jan-08 20:36
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 387 Warwick 30-Jan-08 16:14
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 398 gulsbo 30-Jan-08 20:09
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict 413 Thunderbird 29-Jan-08 20:16
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict 304 Jon B 29-Jan-08 20:56
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict 371 Thunderbird 29-Jan-08 22:28
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict 352 Jon B 30-Jan-08 07:31
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict 280 Raja 29-Jan-08 21:10
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 362 Me 29-Jan-08 23:49
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 397 Raja 30-Jan-08 07:20
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 365 Me 31-Jan-08 00:20
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 360 Raja 31-Jan-08 01:54
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 370 Me 31-Jan-08 19:12
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 419 Raja 31-Jan-08 19:22
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 333 Warwick 01-Feb-08 17:34
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 338 Raja 01-Feb-08 19:02
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 390 Warwick 01-Feb-08 19:43
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 351 Raja 01-Feb-08 20:34
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 415 Warwick 01-Feb-08 20:49
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 378 Raja 02-Feb-08 07:29
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 372 Raja 02-Feb-08 08:43
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict of not guilty 405 Warwick 02-Feb-08 17:27
Re: Inventory Stela 354 Thunderbird 30-Jan-08 02:55
Re: Inventory Stela 432 Raja 30-Jan-08 12:17
Re: Evidence that demands a verdict 383 bofl 30-Jan-08 00:14
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 464 Scott Creighton 29-Jan-08 18:29
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 382 Daz407 29-Jan-08 18:48
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 422 gulsbo 29-Jan-08 19:42
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 391 Me 29-Jan-08 23:53
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 377 MALaclypse 30-Jan-08 06:23
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 341 gulsbo 30-Jan-08 12:22
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 359 Me 31-Jan-08 00:23
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 376 gulsbo 31-Jan-08 15:47
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal or no Deal" 380 Me 31-Jan-08 19:17
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal or no Deal" 369 gulsbo 31-Jan-08 19:28
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal or no Deal" 316 Raja 31-Jan-08 19:59
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal or no Deal" 412 gulsbo 31-Jan-08 20:13
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 365 ninja 30-Jan-08 23:29
How convenient... 413 Nejc 30-Jan-08 11:56
Re: How convenient... 376 damthatbeaver 31-Jan-08 04:37
Re: How convenient... 336 Warwick 31-Jan-08 16:18
Re: How convenient... 395 gulsbo 31-Jan-08 20:11
Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 401 Citizen Attorney 31-Jan-08 01:41
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 398 Raja 31-Jan-08 02:24
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 375 Warwick 31-Jan-08 16:27
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 393 Citizen Attorney 02-Feb-08 15:10
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 403 Warwick 02-Feb-08 17:35
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 400 Citizen Attorney 03-Feb-08 02:16
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 346 Citizen Attorney 03-Feb-08 17:30
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 347 Raja 03-Feb-08 18:20
Re: Is the Grafitti a checkmate for Khufu? 369 Citizen Attorney 03-Feb-08 22:58
Quotation please 325 Warwick 04-Feb-08 21:29
Re: Quotation please 339 Citizen Attorney 05-Feb-08 02:32
Re: Quotation please 345 Warwick 05-Feb-08 17:33
Re: Quotation please 365 Raja 05-Feb-08 20:08
Re: Quotation please 360 Warwick 05-Feb-08 21:34
Re: Quotation please 304 Raja 05-Feb-08 21:50
Re: Quotation please 348 Me 06-Feb-08 01:09
Re: Quotation please 393 MALaclypse 06-Feb-08 02:32
Re: Quotation please 375 Warwick 07-Feb-08 00:24
Re: Quotation please 339 Citizen Attorney 06-Feb-08 02:09
Re: Quotation please 353 Citizen Attorney 07-Feb-08 03:44
Re: Quotation please 352 Warwick 09-Feb-08 00:47
Re: Quotation please 383 Ahatmose 09-Feb-08 01:11
Re: Quotation please 226 Warwick 09-Feb-08 01:32
Re: Quotation please 373 Ahatmose 09-Feb-08 01:44
Re: Quotation please 343 Warwick 09-Feb-08 02:38
Re: Quotation please 336 damthatbeaver 09-Feb-08 02:18
hoist on his own petard 372 Warwick 09-Feb-08 02:49
The "A" word. 386 Raja 09-Feb-08 04:50
Re: The "A" word. 366 Warwick 10-Feb-08 04:50
Re: The "A" word. 343 Raja 10-Feb-08 13:32
Re: The "A" word. 255 Warwick 10-Feb-08 19:44
The end. 360 Raja 10-Feb-08 20:37
Re: The end. 343 Warwick 10-Feb-08 21:26
Re: hoist on his own petard 352 damthatbeaver 09-Feb-08 10:37
Re: hoist on his own petard 375 Me 10-Feb-08 00:54
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 354 Daz407 31-Jan-08 18:52
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 337 loveritas 01-Feb-08 11:39
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 364 Warwick 01-Feb-08 17:43
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 361 Graham Hancock 02-Feb-08 10:59
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 368 gulsbo 02-Feb-08 11:16
Re: Hancock and Hawass 363 Graham Hancock 02-Feb-08 11:33
Re: Hancock and Hawass 362 gulsbo 02-Feb-08 12:21
Re: Hancock and Hawass 374 Graham Hancock 02-Feb-08 13:11
Re: Hancock and Hawass 354 The Elim 02-Feb-08 14:29
Re: Hancock and Hawass 329 Graham Hancock 02-Feb-08 15:07
Re: Hancock and Hawass 360 The Elim 02-Feb-08 15:36
Re: Hancock and Hawass 413 gulsbo 02-Feb-08 17:33
Re: Hancock and Hawass 363 Warwick 02-Feb-08 17:44
Re: Hancock and Hawass 366 Raja 02-Feb-08 17:59
Re: Hancock and Hawass 403 Warwick 02-Feb-08 18:22
Re: Hancock and Hawass 361 Raja 02-Feb-08 18:37
Re: Hancock and Hawass 403 Warwick 02-Feb-08 19:15
Re: Hancock and Hawass 325 Raja 02-Feb-08 19:34
Re: Hancock and Hawass 352 Warwick 02-Feb-08 20:11
Re: Hancock and Hawass 336 Me 03-Feb-08 00:22
Re: Hancock and Hawass 428 Raja 03-Feb-08 04:23
Re: Hancock and Hawass 406 gulsbo 02-Feb-08 19:44
Re: Hancock and Hawass 380 Warwick 02-Feb-08 17:34
Re: Hancock and Hawass 343 Jon B 02-Feb-08 20:29
Re: Hancock and Hawass 378 Warwick 02-Feb-08 21:50
Re: Hancock and Hawass 315 gulsbo 03-Feb-08 18:56
Re: Hancock and Hawass 394 Warwick 04-Feb-08 21:32
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 341 William Glyn-Jones 05-Feb-08 11:13
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 339 Houcad 29-Jan-08 13:51
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 361 damthatbeaver 31-Jan-08 04:19
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 354 Houcad 31-Jan-08 05:08
Re: Hancock and Hawass 405 Robert Bauval 03-Feb-08 10:02
Re: Hancock and Hawass "Deal" 375 mt20tyom 03-Feb-08 20:19
Re: Hancock and Hawass 366 solitaire 03-Feb-08 20:57
Re: Graffiti 419 Thunderbird 04-Feb-08 18:47
Re: Graffiti 373 Raja 04-Feb-08 21:33
Re: Graffiti 430 Martin Stower 15-Feb-08 18:47
Re: Hancock and Hawass 403 Martin Stower 15-Feb-08 18:16
Re: Hancock and Hawass 358 solitaire 16-Feb-08 03:15
Re: Hancock and Hawass 342 Martin Stower 16-Feb-08 22:58
Re: Hancock and Hawass 245 Warwick 17-Feb-08 19:43
Re: Hancock and Hawass 340 Martin Stower 18-Feb-08 21:09
Re: Hancock and Hawass 348 Mr. Hunter 17-Feb-08 20:52
Re: Hancock and Hawass 377 solitaire 17-Feb-08 21:16
Re: Hancock and Hawass 335 Martin Stower 17-Feb-08 23:41
Re: Hancock and Hawass 266 solitaire 18-Feb-08 01:27
Re: Hancock and Hawass 360 Warwick 18-Feb-08 01:43
Re: Hancock and Hawass 342 solitaire 18-Feb-08 02:48
Alpha and Omega 413 Warwick 18-Feb-08 18:49
Re: Alpha and Omega 352 Me 18-Feb-08 20:49
Re: Alpha and Omega 366 Martin Stower 18-Feb-08 20:58
Re: Alpha and Omega 365 Warwick 19-Feb-08 16:21
Re: Alpha and Omega 383 Martin Stower 20-Feb-08 19:41
Re: Alpha and Omega 405 Warwick 21-Feb-08 15:29
Re: Alpha and Omega 398 Martin Stower 22-Feb-08 16:14
Re: Alpha and Omega 369 Warwick 23-Feb-08 16:55
Re: Hancock and Hawass 338 ninja 18-Feb-08 10:20
Re: Hancock and Hawass 395 Martin Stower 18-Feb-08 19:56
Re: Hancock and Hawass 339 The Elim 18-Feb-08 20:20
Re: Hancock and Hawass 376 Me 18-Feb-08 01:27
Re: Hancock and Hawass 382 damthatbeaver 17-Feb-08 21:27
Re: Hancock and Hawass 399 damthatbeaver 04-Feb-08 06:07
Re: Hancock and Hawass 365 Susan Doris 04-Feb-08 07:12
Re: Hancock and Hawass 360 Thunderbird 04-Feb-08 17:50
Re: Hancock and Hawass 415 Susan Doris 04-Feb-08 20:57
Re: Extreme caution part deux : ) 370 Thunderbird 04-Feb-08 20:46
Re: Extreme caution part deux : ) 332 Archae Solenhofen 04-Feb-08 21:51
Re: Extreme caution part deux : ) 374 Thunderbird 04-Feb-08 23:57
Alford's refuation of Sitchin 362 Citizen Attorney 04-Feb-08 13:46
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 438 Susan Doris 04-Feb-08 20:49
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 375 Raja 04-Feb-08 21:48
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 393 JonnyMcA 11-Feb-08 18:48
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 400 Eddie Larry 13-Feb-08 04:00
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 330 damthatbeaver 05-Feb-08 01:50
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 347 Warwick 05-Feb-08 17:37
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 365 Me 05-Feb-08 19:52
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 242 damthatbeaver 06-Feb-08 01:07
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 261 Me 06-Feb-08 01:11
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 339 damthatbeaver 06-Feb-08 06:13
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 408 JonnyMcA 11-Feb-08 19:01
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 365 gulsbo 11-Feb-08 20:58
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 422 JonnyMcA 11-Feb-08 21:17
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 431 gulsbo 12-Feb-08 20:32
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 418 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-08 23:05
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 434 gulsbo 13-Feb-08 21:06
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 359 damthatbeaver 14-Feb-08 03:09
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 385 JonnyMcA 14-Feb-08 10:47
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 327 Me 14-Feb-08 23:40
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 424 gulsbo 15-Feb-08 21:06
Zahi defends a world that fears and detests him 360 Me 16-Feb-08 01:05
Re: Zahi defends a world that fears and detests him 314 gulsbo 16-Feb-08 15:53
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 327 damthatbeaver 16-Feb-08 10:51
entertainment vs. enlightenment 371 drrayeye 11-Feb-08 23:35
Re: entertainment vs. enlightenment 357 Me 12-Feb-08 01:22
Re: entertainment vs. enlightenment 420 Warwick 12-Feb-08 15:27
Re: entertainment vs. enlightenment 346 MALaclypse 12-Feb-08 20:46
Re: entertainment vs. enlightenment 342 Warwick 12-Feb-08 22:42
Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 366 Me 13-Feb-08 00:53
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 337 Warwick 13-Feb-08 17:15
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 358 Me 13-Feb-08 19:42
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 418 Warwick 14-Feb-08 16:35
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 406 Me 14-Feb-08 23:44
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 380 Warwick 15-Feb-08 00:16
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 399 richarddullum 13-Feb-08 19:56
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 361 Me 14-Feb-08 00:09
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 447 richarddullum 14-Feb-08 02:40
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 351 damthatbeaver 14-Feb-08 03:22
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 369 Me 14-Feb-08 23:47
It was KHUFU 101: 379 Warwick 14-Feb-08 16:48
Re: It was KHUFU 101: 381 richarddullum 15-Feb-08 02:44
Re: It was KHUFU 101: 376 Warwick 15-Feb-08 18:04
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 406 gulsbo 13-Feb-08 21:18
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 309 Warwick 14-Feb-08 17:09
Re: Is Zahi Hawass to blame for rubbish books and TV too? 362 gulsbo 15-Feb-08 21:21
Re: entertainment vs. enlightenment 405 MALaclypse 13-Feb-08 03:13
excavations reveal bones... 348 Ghia 06-Feb-08 02:35
Re: excavations reveal bones... 421 JonnyMcA 11-Feb-08 19:02
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 352 Warwick 07-Feb-08 00:32
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 364 Citizen Attorney 07-Feb-08 03:23
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 350 Warwick 07-Feb-08 17:52
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 375 Virgo 08-Feb-08 16:24
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 383 Warwick 09-Feb-08 00:52
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 375 Me 10-Feb-08 00:58
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 435 Warwick 10-Feb-08 04:51
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 387 The Elim 11-Feb-08 03:07
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 359 Citizen Attorney 09-Feb-08 05:33
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 306 Virgo 11-Feb-08 17:32
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 365 richarddullum 12-Feb-08 18:22
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 360 Virgo 13-Feb-08 08:52
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 399 richarddullum 13-Feb-08 15:31
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 364 Me 13-Feb-08 19:49
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 321 Virgo 14-Feb-08 09:24
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 392 Sirfiroth 15-Feb-08 02:50
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 384 richarddullum 15-Feb-08 02:57
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 402 Sirfiroth 15-Feb-08 03:52
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 360 Virgo 15-Feb-08 10:02
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 378 Sirfiroth 15-Feb-08 14:20
Re: Alford's refuation of Sitchin 367 richarddullum 16-Feb-08 01:55
Re: Hancock and Hawass 356 Houcad 04-Feb-08 20:08


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.