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
Quote

MJT: 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).

SC: There’s no “perhaps” about it.

Quote

SC: 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.

MJT: This may be plausible to us, but we have no way of knowing how the Pyramid’s builders saw it.

SC: I agree. We have no way of knowing much of what the AEs did or why they did it. They left precious little in writing to tell us and so, if we are to get anywhere near the answer, we must study the architecture of the monuments they left behind to try and logically deduce why they did what they did based on the extant evidence - and a fair bit of imagination.

Quote

MJT: Equally, for all we know there wasn’t a suitable single block available at the time of the building.

SC: Given that the granite blocks for the KC came from Aswan (hundreds of miles away), it shows a great amount of detailed and logistical planning. I rather doubt they would have overlooked the granite portcullis slabs and granite leaf from the Aswan Granite Order Sheet.

Quote

MJT: 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?

SC: I am sure there will have been a practical/functional consideration for this. I reckon possibly something to do with the balance of the leaf given that the top of the granite leaf is, as you have pointed out, quite uneven. Or perhaps it was an issue with the creation of the raised granite boss which was created by removing some of the surface area of the leaf and smoothing it out.

Quote

MJT: The Boss being about 1” deep (front to back), IMO, simply draws attention to this curious feature of the Leaf.

SC: What draws more attention to the boss is that it is slightly off-centre having been displaced a little to the west side of the leaf i.e. placed nearer to the heaviest side of the leaf (as a result of the uneven upper rim and the slightly thicker edge at its west side). This makes sense since the centre of gravity of the granite leaf will be to this side, ensuring that it is balanced when being raised.

Quote

MJT: 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.

SC: If the granite leaf served no “actual function” (I am thinking you mean ‘practical function’) then you are effectively stating that it served some ‘symbolic function’. If that is so, then I completely disagree. Placing a boss on the leaf strongly suggests a practical function (as leverage for raising the block). Ensuring that the boss was placed at the centre of gravity of the uneven block suggests this even more so.

Quote

MJT: 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.

SC: So long as the ropes were properly looped and tensioned around the leaf to take account of its irregular edge, this would not be a problem. It would have been more of a problem had the lower edge of the granite leaf been uneven. You need an even edge at the bottom edge when the granite leaf is descending as this bottom edge is where the force on the rope is directly applied, not on the uneven upper edge.

Quote

SC: 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:

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

SC: You see that only because it rather suits your ‘symbolic’ interpretation of this particular evidence. It wasn’t symbolic – it was practical as all boss’s were.

[snip]

Quote

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

MJT: See my correcting comment above re ‘cement’.

SC: Which rather neatly dodged the point. Mortar was used as a lubricant to assist in the reduction of friction of moving stone. The granite leaf once slid up and down with the ASSISTANCE of such mortar. That it now appears to have been rendered immovable by such does not mean the plaster was used to lock it into place. That is merely misinterpreting the evidence.

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.

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

SC: Nonsense. The force is applied to the rope (when the granite leaf is descending by gravity) at the LOWER even edge of the granite leaf, NOT the upper uneven edge.

Quote

MJT: The thickness of the Leaf (north-south) at its west end is 1” greater than at its east end.

SC: Hence why the boss is off-centre and placed at the leaf’s centre of gravity.

Quote

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.

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

SC: Rather more than you seem to think.

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.

MJT: 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.

SC: Finally.

Quote

MJT: However, I believe the 1” cut-back and 1” differences in widths and thicknesses is telling us something different.

SC: What you believe and what you can prove are two different things. You accept my view that the upper section of the leaf could have been raised – try running with that and see where it takes you.

Quote

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

MJT: A highly subjective viewpoint.

SC: I disagree. If the granite leaf was used as a counter-weight mechanism used to regularly raise and lower the portcullis slabs then it is highly likely that the boss on the granite leaf would suffer wear and tear. Simple logic.

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.

MJT: Indeed so. However, we are expected to believe that a jack of some kind was operated within this confined space.

SC: Why is that so difficult for you to imagine?





Quote

MJT: 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?

SC: Why didn’t they do a lot of things? We could speculate endlessly. They did what they did because they believed in whatever they were building, that was the best and most practical way of doing it in order to obtain maximum functionality from the mechanism.

Quote

MJ?T: I see this as evidence for the purpose of the Leaf being something other than a part of a portcullis system.

SC: Back to the symbolic function, are we? It’s always the same – when you cannot imagine a possible practical function that fits your view then it automatically becomes a symbolic function. How so typically unimaginative.

Quote

MJT: 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: A bit of ingenuity and the ability to manipulate with ease heavy blocks. The AEs were good at both. And 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.

Quote

MJT: 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.

SC: Not if you remove the leaf before it dries. Then you have access to the grooves, clear out the residual plaster with a copper chisel, reload the granite leaf and you’re up and running again. In fact, the leaf doesn't even need to be fully removed from its grooves, just raised high enough and rested on a wooden prop whilst the grooves are cleared of residue plaster. Remove the prop and we're ready to run again.

Obviously when the work is completed and the portcullis system no longer required, the granite leaf is simply left in place (in its lowered position), thus bonded into its grooves with the dried mortar lubricant. And that is what we observe today.

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?

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

SC: Symbolism is often expressed using geometry – just not in the Ante Chamber. Its function was practical not symbolic.

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.

MJT: ‘… 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'.

SC: Repeat – “…might not have been required (there being more of a gap in the grooves)…” Indeed, one might actually question WHY we do not find such mortar in these grooves to securely bond the portcullis slabs in place, rendering them immovable once lowered (presumably for the first and last time assuming a funerary function)? After all, it would have been easy enough for someone to access the area above the lowered portcullis blocks and pour a mortar bond into the gaps to secure these blocks. So why wasn't it done?

Quote

SC: 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.

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

SC: I am sure the AEs could have proven Petrie wrong.

Quote

SC: Unless, of course, you do not wish – for whatever reason – for a solution to be found.

MJT: 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.

SC: Actually – be it a symbolic function or a practical function. I go with the latter. But you knew that. I do, however, find it somewhat ironic that you come here to "fantasy land" (your term) "asking questions" to find solutions. But then again, it is places such as here that you tend to find more imaginative folks than you would find in some of the other places and that truly has to be an enormous advantage when trying to speculate why this and why that. Don't you just love "fantasy land"!

[snip]

Quote

SC: 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.

MJT: Well, it’s certainly contradictory.

SC: Nice to agree.

Quote

MJT: 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…

SC: You’re not alone – it’s completely inadequate. Point of fact there would be no need for the Ante Chamber at all. Simply have a series of long granite blocks rammed into a (longer) passage from the Grand Gallery to the King’s Chamber (stored on the Great Step). It is clear then that the Ante Chamber was required (because it’s there) and so must have served some function – you say symbolic I say practical.

[snip]

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.

MJT: 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.

SC: The granite blocks plugging the bottom end of the Ascending Passage have nothing to do with the counterweight system in the Ante Chamber. They are dead weights and completely immovable.

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.

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

SC: You do not know what this groove was for. There could have been any number of practical functions. It doesn’t always have to boil down to a symbolic function simply because you struggle to imagine a practical function.

[snip]

SC



Post Edited (02-Jul-12 02:38)

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 1149 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 15:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 279 Archae Solenhofen 20-Jun-12 16:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 460 LonelyAngel 25-Jun-12 19:58
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 366 Archae Solenhofen 25-Jun-12 20:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 402 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 21:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 453 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 17:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 517 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 18:24
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 445 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 18:53
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 485 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 19:03
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 439 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 19:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 456 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 22:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 465 cladking 25-Jun-12 22:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 473 LonelyAngel 26-Jun-12 20:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 434 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 21:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 439 LonelyAngel 26-Jun-12 22:04
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 495 Archae Solenhofen 26-Jun-12 22:10
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 472 LonelyAngel 26-Jun-12 22:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 423 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 22:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 484 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? 434 Scott Creighton 27-Jun-12 10:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 448 Archae Solenhofen 27-Jun-12 12:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 485 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? 474 Scott Creighton 27-Jun-12 15:02
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 441 cladking 26-Jun-12 22:51
Did you have a direct question? 471 Warwick 09-Jul-12 23:13
Re: Did you have a direct question? 472 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? 460 Warwick 14-Aug-12 19:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 506 billbaty 20-Jun-12 17:39
The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 438 cladking 20-Jun-12 19:18
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 471 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 23:50
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 478 Thanos5150 21-Jun-12 01:07
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 484 billbaty 21-Jun-12 03:24
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 452 Thanos5150 21-Jun-12 03:44
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 515 billbaty 21-Jun-12 04:43
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 435 Thanos5150 22-Jun-12 06:56
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 454 MJT 22-Jun-12 08:15
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 475 paxton 22-Jun-12 10:18
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 326 MJT 23-Jun-12 03:29
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 442 Chris Jordan 23-Jun-12 09:12
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 457 MJT 23-Jun-12 10:41
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the king. 390 paxton 24-Jun-12 15:22
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 430 Chris Jordan 24-Jun-12 18:01
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 452 MJT 24-Jun-12 18:59
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 386 Chris Jordan 24-Jun-12 19:47
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 467 MJT 25-Jun-12 00:21
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 479 Chris Jordan 26-Jun-12 14:48
Re: The tomb theory is NOT dead; long live the spirit of the king. 394 MJT 26-Jun-12 18:00
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 446 paxton 26-Jun-12 21:58
Re: The dumb theory is dead; long live the water king. 423 Nejc 26-Jun-12 22:46
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 503 Chris Jordan 27-Jun-12 10:28
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 457 paxton 27-Jun-12 22:02
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 486 Chris Jordan 28-Jun-12 09:32
Re: The tomb theory is dead; long live the water king. 512 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... 407 MJT 22-Jun-12 19:01
Re: The tomb theory is not dead - some folk just wish it was... 490 Thanos5150 22-Jun-12 20:00
Re: The tomb theory is not dead - some folk just wish it was... 402 MJT 23-Jun-12 02:57
Re: The tomb theory is not dead - some folk just wish it was... 524 Thanos5150 23-Jun-12 22:45
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 453 Audrey 20-Jun-12 20:06
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 365 Chris Jordan 20-Jun-12 20:19
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 449 MJT 20-Jun-12 22:04
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 439 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 22:22
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 437 MJT 20-Jun-12 22:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 435 Scott Creighton 20-Jun-12 22:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 452 MJT 21-Jun-12 00:09
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 431 Sirfiroth 21-Jun-12 00:40
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 450 MJT 21-Jun-12 01:09
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 356 Sirfiroth 21-Jun-12 04:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 459 MJT 21-Jun-12 08:33
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 465 lobo-hotei 28-Jun-12 17:34
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 272 MJT 28-Jun-12 18:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 422 Scott Creighton 28-Jun-12 22:30
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 352 MJT 29-Jun-12 00:38
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 478 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 01:13
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 436 MJT 29-Jun-12 11:14
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 447 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? 477 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 13:33
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 463 MJT 29-Jun-12 18:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 440 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 19:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 467 lobo-hotei 29-Jun-12 20:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 490 MJT 29-Jun-12 21:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 487 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 22:30
Re: Ante Chamber Fails To Disprove Tomb Theory 418 MJT 30-Jun-12 14:25
Re: Ante Chamber Fails To Disprove Tomb Theory 494 Scott Creighton 30-Jun-12 16:38
Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 488 cladking 29-Jun-12 22:05
Re: Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 427 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 22:33
Re: Proof the pyramid was not a tomb. 451 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. 415 cladking 30-Jun-12 01:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 420 LonelyAngel 30-Jun-12 00:11
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 437 MJT 30-Jun-12 13:23
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 533 Scott Creighton 30-Jun-12 16:33
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 498 paxton 30-Jun-12 18:07
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 484 Scott Creighton 30-Jun-12 18:38
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 503 paxton 02-Jul-12 10:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 471 Scott Creighton 02-Jul-12 11:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 443 lobo-hotei 30-Jun-12 21:30
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 454 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? 420 Scott Creighton 01-Jul-12 15:05
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 408 lobo-hotei 03-Jul-12 19:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 434 LonelyAngel 10-Jul-12 22:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 495 lobo-hotei 28-Jun-12 17:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 466 Scott Creighton 21-Jun-12 10:55
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 457 MJT 21-Jun-12 12:12
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 477 MJT 23-Jun-12 12:06
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 389 Nejc 24-Jun-12 13:48
Further Thoughts.... 403 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 10:37
Re: Further Thoughts.... 488 cladking 22-Jun-12 16:16
Re: Further Thoughts.... 412 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 16:29
Re: Further Thoughts.... 490 eyeofhorus33 22-Jun-12 16:19
Re: Further Thoughts.... 427 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 16:32
Re: Further Thoughts.... 380 MJT 22-Jun-12 19:35
Re: Further Thoughts.... 474 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 20:18
Re: Further Thoughts.... 428 MJT 22-Jun-12 23:30
Re: Further Thoughts.... 448 eohpyratech 23-Jun-12 02:13
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 442 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 17:17
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 429 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 17:35
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 334 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 17:47
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 309 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 17:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 303 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 18:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 453 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 18:14
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 403 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 18:28
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 462 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 18:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 477 Archae Solenhofen 22-Jun-12 18:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 411 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? 495 Scott Creighton 22-Jun-12 20:02
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 447 MJT 23-Jun-12 03:12
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 453 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 11:58
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 417 MJT 23-Jun-12 12:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 441 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 13:26
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 425 cladking 23-Jun-12 15:55
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 413 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 15:40
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 331 eohpyratech 23-Jun-12 12:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 419 cladking 23-Jun-12 15:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 378 eohpyratech 24-Jun-12 16:01
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 415 cladking 22-Jun-12 19:59
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 420 drew 23-Jun-12 00:30
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 462 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 12:19
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 434 MJT 23-Jun-12 12:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 416 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 13:52
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 308 drew 23-Jun-12 14:45
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 437 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 17:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 333 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 17:43
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 400 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 17:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 435 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 18:13
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 380 Scott Creighton 23-Jun-12 18:23
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 315 Archae Solenhofen 23-Jun-12 18:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 404 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? 435 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? 413 Scott Creighton 24-Jun-12 23:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 444 Sirfiroth 24-Jun-12 23:24
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? - NO! 362 MJT 25-Jun-12 00:05
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 441 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 00:26
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 415 Archae Solenhofen 25-Jun-12 18:23
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 395 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 00:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 349 drew 25-Jun-12 11:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 420 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 15:01
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 421 drew 25-Jun-12 22:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 416 Scott Creighton 25-Jun-12 22:53
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 420 drew 25-Jun-12 23:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 428 Scott Creighton 26-Jun-12 00:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 416 Sirfiroth 25-Jun-12 14:34
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 373 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? 297 Scott Creighton 24-Jun-12 01:34
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 402 drew 06-Jul-12 17:14
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 413 MJT 06-Jul-12 22:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 415 drew 06-Jul-12 23:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 420 MJT 07-Jul-12 01:27
Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 410 Sirfiroth 07-Jul-12 06:54
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 464 MJT 07-Jul-12 10:44
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 393 Sirfiroth 07-Jul-12 17:52
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 429 MJT 07-Jul-12 18:40
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 428 Sirfiroth 07-Jul-12 23:17
Re: Some Recorded Floods of Antiquity! 379 MJT 08-Jul-12 00:45
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 414 drew 07-Jul-12 14:31
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 401 MJT 07-Jul-12 18:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 428 drew 07-Jul-12 21:41
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 437 MJT 08-Jul-12 00:36
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 248 drew 08-Jul-12 14:18
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 415 MJT 09-Jul-12 23:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 397 cladking 10-Jul-12 00:35
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 391 Audrey 10-Jul-12 04:20
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 427 Sirfiroth 10-Jul-12 04:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 423 Audrey 10-Jul-12 04:57
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 441 cladking 10-Jul-12 04:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 402 Audrey 10-Jul-12 05:06
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 456 cladking 10-Jul-12 05:32
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 378 MJT 10-Jul-12 11:27
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 434 cladking 10-Jul-12 15:08
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 310 MJT 10-Jul-12 18:15
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 426 cladking 10-Jul-12 18:54
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 413 MJT 10-Jul-12 22:42
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 406 Audrey 11-Jul-12 02:28
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 417 drew 10-Jul-12 15:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 404 Audrey 11-Jul-12 02:37
Re: Sothic cycle 418 drew 11-Jul-12 17:53
Re: Sothic cycle 452 Scott Creighton 11-Jul-12 23:42
Re: Sothic cycle 412 drew 12-Jul-12 01:38
Re: Sothic cycle 370 drew 12-Jul-12 05:29
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 398 Scott Creighton 09-Jul-12 14:04
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 392 Freelancer62 27-Jun-12 13:19
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 749 Scott Creighton 29-Jun-12 11:49
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 410 drew 29-Jun-12 12:37
Re: Ante Chamber Disproves Tomb Theory? 451 Sirfiroth 29-Jun-12 14:35


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.