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
Excellent!
A full and proper response from Scott at long last.

Scott Creighton wrote:

> MJT: The Granite Leaf is cemented in place, and
> therefore was/is immovable.
[snip]
> SC: Clincher? Fantasy land again. “Cemented in place”? What
> cement then did the ancient Egyptians use 2,500 years before
> the Romans invented it? Is that the same cement that they used
> to create their limestone blocks as proposed by Joseph
> Davidovitts? Or is it perhaps some modern Portland cement? Have
> you had this “cement” analysed?

My mistake, folks; I was using colloquial English.
Definition of cement: Something that hardens to act as adhesive material.
Perhaps I should have said mortar (tricky thing the English language).

[snip]
> If the Granite Leaf was intended to be immovable then it would
> have been inserted as a single granite slab and not one on top
> of the other.

This may be plausible to us, but we have no way of knowing how the Pyramid’s builders saw it.
Equally, for all we know there wasn’t a suitable single block available at the time of the building.
And what are we to make of the whole of the north face of the Leaf between the faces of the wainscots being cut back about 1”, the grooves containing the Leaf differing in width by about 1”, and the thickness of the Leaf at the face of the west wainscot being about 1” greater than it is at the face of the east wainscot?
The Boss being about 1” deep (front to back), IMO, simply draws attention to this curious feature of the Leaf.
IMO, the Leaf does not appear to have served any actual function, which has me thinking that we are looking at something other than a part of a portcullis device.
Then there is still the uneven and out of level (W-E) top of the Leaf to consider.
If ropes were intended to go over the top of the Leaf, then surely a) the top would have been made level E-W to prevent the ropes shifting sideways and b) the top would have been made as smooth as possible to reduce friction between it and the ropes and thus reduce the risk of snagging.

> The fact that the upper slab – the Granite Leaf –
> has a raised boss and rebates at each side is a strong
> indicator that the upper slab was intended to be levered
> upwards in a manner probably not too dissimilar to this:
>
> This was, after all, the purpose of the boss, to provide an
> anchor point for ropes or levers, thus:

I see this Boss as completely inadequate for the purpose proposed by Scott.

[snip]
>
Quote

MJT: The top of the Leaf is 'a mere natural surface of
> the granite boulder out of which it was cut, utterly rough and
> irregular; and not materially broken away as it dips down
> deeply into the grooves and is there plastered over.' (Petrie
> 1883).
>
> SC: Ah, so we’ve now gone from cement to plaster – plaster in
> the grooves.

Semantics.

> Such mortar was used as a lubricant to assist in
> the reduction of friction of a moving (stone) object – you
> should know that.

See my correcting comment above re ‘cement’.

>
Quote

MJT: The level of the top of the Leaf from east end to
> west end varies by at least 7.75" – between the faces of the
> wainscots the difference is less at about 5.25”.
>
> SC: So what.

As already mentioned, this is hardly efficient for ropes to run over the top of the Leaf.

>
Quote

MJT: The thickness of the Leaf (north-south) at its west
> end is 1” greater than at its east end.
>
> SC: So what – my sash windows have a slightly wider gap at one
> end than the other but it doesn’t stop them from being raised
> and lowered.

You don’t appear to be as well-acquainted as you should with the appearance and dimensions of the Leaf, Scott.

>
Quote

MJT: The Boss on the north face of the Leaf's upper
> section projects only 0.94" to 1.1", and its edges slope
> slightly outward from front to back, and is, therefore, clearly
> inadequate as a point at which to place the upper end of a prop
> (note: Similar bosses exist in other parts of the Antechamber
> and inside the King’s Chamber).
>
> SC: As stated above – boss’s were used as leverage and anchor
> points to move/raise stone.

As the Boss is on the upper section of the Leaf, then, yes, it could be that this section was to be raised whilst the lower section (which is sans Boss) stayed put.
However, I believe the 1” cut-back and 1” differences in widths and thicknesses is telling us something different.

> If anything this shows that the
> boss has become worn through extensive use.

A highly subjective viewpoint.

>
Quote

MJT: There is only a 20" gap between the north wall of
> the Antechamber and the north face of the Leaf.
>
> SC: Enough of a gap for a man to climb up and over the top
> whereupon the portcullis system would be fully at his mercy.

Indeed so.
However, we are expected to believe that a jack of some kind was operated within this confined space.
The builders’ lot would have been much improved by reducing the number of portcullis blocks from three to two and moving the Leaf some three feet to the south.
So why didn’t they do this?
I see this as evidence for the purpose of the Leaf being something other than a part of a portcullis system.

>
Quote

When fully raised the upper section of the Leaf would be
> free of its grooves and unstable - no explanation is offered as
> to how this would have been controlled adequately.
>
> SC: Releasing the Granite Leaf from its grooves would probably
> be required from time to time in order to remove the build up
> of the mortar lubricant that had dried. Easily done with a
> copper chisel.

Surely some of this ‘mortar lubricant’ would have remained in the grooves where the Leaf is, and this substance would have dried out – effectively ‘cementing’ the Leaf into place and making it immovable.

>
Quote

MJT: The grooves above the varied-in-level top of the
> Leaf are well-finished and clear of any signs of wear and have
> no traces of plaster or cement – this implies strongly that the
> Leaf was not raised once it was in place.
>
> SC: So how do you think the wear came about below this level?

It is not possible to see the condition of the ends of the Leaf or faces of the grooves where the Leaf enters the grooves.

> The Granite Leaf does not have to go all the way to the ceiling
> to function.

I don't recall saying it did.
The upper section of the Leaf could be lifted clear of the grooves and its highest point still be nearly 3 feet below the Antechamber ceiling.

>
Quote

MJT: The pilaster at the south face of the Leaf is
> nearly half the width of the other two pilasters (3” against
> 5.7”) – suggesting a matter of geometry not
> functionality.
>
> SC: Functionality? In the Ante Chamber? Don't you mean
> 'symbolic' given that this is your view of the purpose of this
> chamber?

Are you saying that symbolism and geometry cannot go hand-in-hand here?

>
Quote

MJT: There are no signs of plaster or cement in the
> three grooves for the portcullis blocks.
>
> SC: It might not have been required (there being slightly more
> of a gap in the grooves) or it might have been removed as part
> of the modern ‘restoration’ of the chamber.

‘… no signs of plaster or ‘cement’ (inverted commas added by MJ) in the three grooves’ is from accounts dated 1867 and 1883 - decades before the 'modern restoration'.

>
Quote

MJT: There are no signs of wear in the top of the
> Antechamber’s north doorway similar to that seen in the doorway
> in the south wall of the Grand Gallery, and the doorway in the
> south wall of the Antechamber.
>
> SC: Obviously less stress/friction occurring here.

Or none at all…

>
Quote

MJT: There are no semi-circular hollows in the top of
> the east wainscot.
>
> SC: Because they were obviously not required.

Or they were removed…

> SC: There are all manner of possibilities that do not require
> semi-hollows in the east wainscot. Here’s another:
[snip]
> And I am sure many other possibilities could be imagined.

Agreed.

> But yes, it’s a puzzle why the builders simply did not place
> semi-hollows in the east wainscot as, on the surface, this
> would seem the simplest thing to have done. But they didn't and
> there has to be a practical/logical reason why they did not.
> However, having semi-hollows on both sides of the chamber might
> result in the beams rotating – even if tightly jammed in - and
> this might be what the builders were trying to avoid.

A perfectly reasonable explanation.
However, Petrie's drawings of these hollows suggest that the logs would not have fitted into them properly.

>
Quote

MJT: If the Antechamber was intended to be a properly
> functioning portcullis system (for whatever reason), then
> surely care would have been taken to ensure it worked
> efficiently and easily.
>
> The above indicates that it would not have done so.
>
> SC: The above indicates nothing of the sort.

Perhaps ‘suggests’ is more appropriate than ‘indicates’.

> If it indicates
> anything then I rather think its your penchant to avoid
> possible solutions and to present only problems. Not that
> presenting problems is a bad thing – it should be done. But not
> in isolation without possible solutions. Unless, of course, you
> do not wish – for whatever reason – for a solution to be
> found.

If I didn’t want solutions, Scott, I would not be here asking questions.
As it is, I would dearly like to know the true purpose - be it functional or symbolic - of the Antechamber.

>
Quote

MJT: Then there is the fact that such a system was
> totally unnecessary, anyway. All that is required for Scott’s
> and Gary’s RVT was for a block of limestone measuring slightly
> less than 43.75” high by 41.25” wide by, say, 36” long, to be
> slid into the passage between the south wall of the Grand
> Gallery and the north wall of the Antechamber.
>
> Fit handles to the GG end of the block so that it can be hauled
> out onto the Great Step quite easily as and when required.
> Smear a bit of plaster into the gaps between the sides of the
> doorway and the block and BINGO, one efficient and easy to use
> re-sealable passage.
>
> SC: Why secure the chamber any more than is necessary? They are
> not trying to prevent entry, merely restrict airflow.

I am thinking in terms of the passage blocking being an alternative arrangement to a portcullis system, and not an addition to it.

> The
> Portcullis system was already there serving its primary
> function (probably as a counter-weight system) so it could be
> utilised to adequately seal the chamber (from air) without
> recourse to anything else.

So, now we have a dual-purpose portcullis system.
Well, I suppose that's possibly one way around some of the problems with Scott's hypothesis.

> And
> having sealed the chamber (from air) in this manner, allowed
> easy access to it later which is consistent with the RVT but is
> entirely contradictory with the tomb theory.

Well, it’s certainly contradictory.
The portcullis system as a means of sealing the KC as suggested by Borchardt (spelling?) and others always looks inadequate to me – but, then, I’m not an AE pyramid builder…

>
Quote

MJT: Another issue is the fact that it is wrong to view
> the Antechamber in isolation.
>
> SC: You mean like the King’s Chamber is a Decoy so the Ante
> Chamber is merely symbolic? Is that the kind of isolation you
> are talking about?

Not necessarily.

>
Quote

MJT: However, I see that Scott and others have tried to
> link the Antechamber to the Grand Gallery as an integral part
> of a system to seal the Ascending Passage with three (or more?)
> stone blocks, and or drag large granite beams up to the King’s
> Chamber. However, the problems with the Granite Leaf, etc.,
> have an adverse effect on this.
>
> SC: I disagree.

Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree unless and until somebody puts your theory to a practical test.

>
Quote

MJT: Then there is the problem with the rectangular
> holes in the tops of the two GG ramps. Broadly, there are two
> lengths of hole - described usually as long and short - and
> they are all irregular in length and their ends are not all
> positioned diametrically opposite each other (see Piazzi Smyth
> 1867). The depths of these holes are also varied (this could be
> down to a natural accumulation of detritus over the millennia).
> Any beams placed across the Gallery would be skewed N-S by up
> to 2”, which would cause problems with the granite plugs that
> were supposedly stored in the Gallery.
>
> SC: Agreed. But what exactly has this to do with the price of
> fish? In my opinion, and I know you agree, the granite plugs of
> the Ascending Passage were built in-situ.

It ties into the 'counterweight' hypothesis.
Though I suspect that once again we are looking at something that was never intended to be put to an actual practical use.

>
Quote

MJT: The groove in the east and west walls of the GG is
> very roughly cut and much broken away from along its edges. The
> groove is only about 1” deep and is close to the bottom edge of
> a corbel. It could not have been used to support a platform for
> people to walk along, as some folk have suggested.
>
> SC: Some folk may have – I haven’t.

Fair enough.
I was merely adding to my ‘something that was never intended to be put to an actual practical use’.

>
Quote

MJT: At least one point on the Ascending Passage floor
> is fractionally narrower than one of the granite plugs at its
> lower end, suggesting that the blocks were built in situ (see M
> & R).
>
> SC: Agreed.
>
>
Quote

MJT: I hope this gives you (and perhaps others here) a
> better idea of why Scott’s Antechamber hypothesis is, IMO,
> fatally flawed and does not work.
>
> SC: And I hope my rebuttal shows that you are somewhat
> over-stating your case.

Over-stating?
I’m not sure.
It’ll be interesting to learn what others here make of it all.

MJ



So many questions.
So few answers - and not one of them mine.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 1150 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 15:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 280 Archae Solenhofen 20-Jun-12 16:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 461 LonelyAngel 25-Jun-12 19:58
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 367 Archae Solenhofen 25-Jun-12 20:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 403 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 21:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 455 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 17:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 519 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 18:24
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 446 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 18:53
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 486 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 19:03
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 440 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 19:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 457 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 22:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 467 cladking 25-Jun-12 22:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 474 LonelyAngel 26-Jun-12 20:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 435 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 21:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 440 LonelyAngel 26-Jun-12 22:04
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 496 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 22:10
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 473 LonelyAngel 26-Jun-12 22:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 424 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 22:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 485 LonelyAngel 26-Jun-12 23:23
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 470 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jun-12 04:24
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 435 Scott Creighton 27-Jun-12 10:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 449 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jun-12 12:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 486 Scott Creighton 27-Jun-12 13:10
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 458 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jun-12 14:03
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 475 Scott Creighton 27-Jun-12 15:02
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 442 cladking 26-Jun-12 22:51
Did you have a direct question? 472 Warwick 09-Jul-12 23:13
Re: Did you have a direct question? 473 LonelyAngel 10-Jul-12 20:40
Re: Did you have a direct question? 378 cladking 11-Jul-12 00:15
Re: Did you have a direct question? 461 Warwick 14-Aug-12 19:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 507 billbaty 20-Jun-12 17:39
The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 439 cladking 20-Jun-12 19:18
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 472 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 23:50
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 479 Thanos5150 21-Jun-12 01:07
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 485 billbaty 21-Jun-12 03:24
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 454 Thanos5150 21-Jun-12 03:44
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 516 billbaty 21-Jun-12 04:43
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 436 Thanos5150 22-Jun-12 06:56
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 455 MJT 22-Jun-12 08:15
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 476 paxton 22-Jun-12 10:18
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 327 MJT 23-Jun-12 03:29
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 443 Chris Jordan 23-Jun-12 09:12
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 458 MJT 23-Jun-12 10:41
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 391 paxton 24-Jun-12 15:22
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 431 Chris Jordan 24-Jun-12 18:01
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 453 MJT 24-Jun-12 18:59
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 387 Chris Jordan 24-Jun-12 19:47
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 468 MJT 25-Jun-12 00:21
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 480 Chris Jordan 26-Jun-12 14:48
Re: The tomb theory is NOT dead; long live the spirit of the king. 395 MJT 26-Jun-12 18:00
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 447 paxton 26-Jun-12 21:58
Re: The dumb theory is dead; long live the water king. 424 Nejc 26-Jun-12 22:46
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 504 Chris Jordan 27-Jun-12 10:28
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 458 paxton 27-Jun-12 22:02
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 487 Chris Jordan 28-Jun-12 09:32
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 513 paxton 29-Jun-12 10:46
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 490 Thanos5150 22-Jun-12 17:54
Re: The tomb theory is not dead - some folk just wish it was... 408 MJT 22-Jun-12 19:01
Re: The tomb theory is not dead - some folk just wish it was... 491 Thanos5150 22-Jun-12 20:00
Re: The tomb theory is not dead - some folk just wish it was... 403 MJT 23-Jun-12 02:57
Re: The tomb theory is not dead - some folk just wish it was... 525 Thanos5150 23-Jun-12 22:45
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 454 Audrey 20-Jun-12 20:06
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 366 Chris Jordan 20-Jun-12 20:19
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 450 MJT 20-Jun-12 22:04
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 440 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 22:22
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 438 MJT 20-Jun-12 22:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 436 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 22:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 453 MJT 21-Jun-12 00:09
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 432 Sirfiroth 21-Jun-12 00:40
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 451 MJT 21-Jun-12 01:09
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 357 Sirfiroth 21-Jun-12 04:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 460 MJT 21-Jun-12 08:33
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 466 lobo-hotei 28-Jun-12 17:34
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 273 MJT 28-Jun-12 18:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 423 Scott Creighton 28-Jun-12 22:30
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 353 MJT 29-Jun-12 00:38
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 479 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 01:13
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 437 MJT 29-Jun-12 11:14
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 448 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 11:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 399 MJT 29-Jun-12 13:09
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 479 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 13:33
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 464 MJT 29-Jun-12 18:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 442 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 19:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 468 lobo-hotei 29-Jun-12 20:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 491 MJT 29-Jun-12 21:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 488 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 22:30
Re: Ante Chamber Fails To Disprove Tomb Theory 419 MJT 30-Jun-12 14:25
Re: Ante Chamber Fails To Disprove Tomb Theory 495 Scott Creighton 30-Jun-12 16:38
Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 489 cladking 29-Jun-12 22:05
Re: Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 428 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 22:33
Re: Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 452 cladking 30-Jun-12 02:00
Re: Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 455 MJT 29-Jun-12 22:37
Re: Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 416 cladking 30-Jun-12 01:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 421 LonelyAngel 30-Jun-12 00:11
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 438 MJT 30-Jun-12 13:23
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 534 Scott Creighton 30-Jun-12 16:33
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 499 paxton 30-Jun-12 18:07
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 485 Scott Creighton 30-Jun-12 18:38
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 504 paxton 02-Jul-12 10:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 472 Scott Creighton 02-Jul-12 11:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 444 lobo-hotei 30-Jun-12 21:30
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 455 MJT 01-Jul-12 00:07
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 465 MJT 30-Jun-12 23:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 421 Scott Creighton 01-Jul-12 15:05
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 409 lobo-hotei 03-Jul-12 19:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 435 LonelyAngel 10-Jul-12 22:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 496 lobo-hotei 28-Jun-12 17:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 467 Scott Creighton 21-Jun-12 10:55
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 458 MJT 21-Jun-12 12:12
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 478 MJT 23-Jun-12 12:06
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 390 Nejc 24-Jun-12 13:48
Further Thoughts.... 404 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 10:37
Re: Further Thoughts.... 489 cladking 22-Jun-12 16:16
Re: Further Thoughts.... 413 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 16:29
Re: Further Thoughts.... 491 eyeofhorus33 22-Jun-12 16:19
Re: Further Thoughts.... 428 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 16:32
Re: Further Thoughts.... 380 MJT 22-Jun-12 19:35
Re: Further Thoughts.... 475 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 20:18
Re: Further Thoughts.... 429 MJT 22-Jun-12 23:30
Re: Further Thoughts.... 450 eohpyratech 23-Jun-12 02:13
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 444 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 17:17
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 430 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 17:35
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 335 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 17:47
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 311 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 17:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 304 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 18:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 454 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 18:14
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 404 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 18:28
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 463 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 18:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 478 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 18:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 412 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 19:13
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 447 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 19:40
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 496 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 20:02
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 448 MJT 23-Jun-12 03:12
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 454 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 11:58
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 418 MJT 23-Jun-12 12:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 442 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 13:26
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 427 cladking 23-Jun-12 15:55
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 414 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 15:40
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 332 eohpyratech 23-Jun-12 12:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 421 cladking 23-Jun-12 15:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 380 eohpyratech 24-Jun-12 16:01
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 416 cladking 22-Jun-12 19:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 424 drew 23-Jun-12 00:30
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 463 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 12:19
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 435 MJT 23-Jun-12 12:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 417 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 13:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 309 drew 23-Jun-12 14:45
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 438 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 17:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 334 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 17:43
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 401 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 17:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 436 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 18:13
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 381 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 18:23
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 316 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 18:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 405 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 19:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 457 eyeofhorus33 24-Jun-12 18:21
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 436 Scott Creighton 24-Jun-12 19:07
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 397 eyeofhorus33 24-Jun-12 19:28
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 423 eyeofhorus33 24-Jun-12 19:51
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 414 Scott Creighton 24-Jun-12 23:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 445 Sirfiroth 24-Jun-12 23:24
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? - NO! 363 MJT 25-Jun-12 00:05
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 442 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 00:26
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 416 Archae Solenhofen 25-Jun-12 18:23
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 396 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 00:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 350 drew 25-Jun-12 11:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 421 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 15:01
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 422 drew 25-Jun-12 22:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 417 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 22:53
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 421 drew 25-Jun-12 23:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 429 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 00:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 417 Sirfiroth 25-Jun-12 14:34
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 374 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 18:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 449 drew 23-Jun-12 20:28
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 439 Sirfiroth 23-Jun-12 21:50
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 448 cladking 23-Jun-12 21:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 298 Scott Creighton 24-Jun-12 01:34
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 403 drew 06-Jul-12 17:14
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 414 MJT 06-Jul-12 22:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 416 drew 06-Jul-12 23:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 421 MJT 07-Jul-12 01:27
Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 411 Sirfiroth 07-Jul-12 06:54
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 465 MJT 07-Jul-12 10:44
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 394 Sirfiroth 07-Jul-12 17:52
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 430 MJT 07-Jul-12 18:40
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 430 Sirfiroth 07-Jul-12 23:17
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 380 MJT 08-Jul-12 00:45
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 415 drew 07-Jul-12 14:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 402 MJT 07-Jul-12 18:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 429 drew 07-Jul-12 21:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 438 MJT 08-Jul-12 00:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 249 drew 08-Jul-12 14:18
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 417 MJT 09-Jul-12 23:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 398 cladking 10-Jul-12 00:35
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 392 Audrey 10-Jul-12 04:20
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 430 Sirfiroth 10-Jul-12 04:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 424 Audrey 10-Jul-12 04:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 442 cladking 10-Jul-12 04:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 403 Audrey 10-Jul-12 05:06
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 458 cladking 10-Jul-12 05:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 379 MJT 10-Jul-12 11:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 435 cladking 10-Jul-12 15:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 311 MJT 10-Jul-12 18:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 427 cladking 10-Jul-12 18:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 414 MJT 10-Jul-12 22:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 407 Audrey 11-Jul-12 02:28
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 418 drew 10-Jul-12 15:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 405 Audrey 11-Jul-12 02:37
Re: Sothic cycle 419 drew 11-Jul-12 17:53
Re: Sothic cycle 454 Scott Creighton 11-Jul-12 23:42
Re: Sothic cycle 413 drew 12-Jul-12 01:38
Re: Sothic cycle 371 drew 12-Jul-12 05:29
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 399 Scott Creighton 09-Jul-12 14:04
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 393 Freelancer62 27-Jun-12 13:19
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 750 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 11:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 413 drew 29-Jun-12 12:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 452 Sirfiroth 29-Jun-12 14:35


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.