- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
This is literally how sciene proper works. Someone presents something, others try to knock it down. The orthodox view of why and when the great pyramid is attributed is a joke.
Alternative Pyramid Theories
- Thread starter andnowweknow
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
Views outside what is traditionally thought tend to rustle a lot of people for whatever reason. There are lots of possibilities regarding the work at Giza...tombs for Pharoahs is REALLY low on that scale if we're looking at evidence and logic over blind antiquated guessing.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 42,374
- Reaction score
- 6
But you can't really knock it down unless you have something to replace it with.
The pyramids are there and they got there somewhere. People came up with theories based on all of the evidence they had.
If you want to replace those theories you have to present better ones.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
I honestly think the biggest problem that is super obvious is that the great pyramid wasn't built as a tomb for Khufu based on the evidence at hand. When it was built is completely based on who they believe built it, which itself is based on extremely shaky foundations.
I believe I have stated this prior in the thread, but the story about the Great Pyramid from the orthodox viewpoint, was created during the late 19th/early 20th Century with regards to who they thought built it and when. And when you look at the evidence that was based on, it's silly. The Khufu attribution is based off of 1 small statue of Khufu that they found, as I recall, in a nearby mortuary temple and a cartouche that means something along the lines of "khufu's gang", or something to that affect. The great pyramid is not inscribed otherwise, and is never referred to directly in any contemporary or reliable source as built by or for anyone in particular. It's a complete guess.
THE ONLY REASONS the great pyramid itself is attributed to Khufu (outside of my final thought below) is described in the above paragraph, and the only reason it is given a construction date of circa 2600BC (and a 20 year time period) is because it had to have been built during Khufu's lifetime for it to be a tomb. It, along with the other 80 or so pyramids found in Egypt, have never, not one instance, been found to have a burial contemporary to construction, found in them...ever. I don't know why people seem to confuse the valley of the kings with the pyramids, but that is where the burials have been found (yes a few have been found near or in pyramids too, but not contemporary to construction, even the given dates for said construction which is likely incorrect in most cases), and it is many many miles away from Giza.
Last, because there really isn't much to go on, there is a big habit in archeology and in Egyptology in particular (by default because it is the most widespread and well preserved archeological landscape on the earth due to climate conditions) of attributing structures of unknown origin to the same entity of nearby structures of known origin. IE, "Khufu built temples/buildings near the Great Pyramid, thus, Khufu built the Great Pyramid"...it's really REALLY faulty logic but taken as gospel in Egyptology.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
the slave theory is pretty much dismissed by everyone including the orthodox historians. Well, maybe Sitchin Annunaki wackos believe that at some level but...
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,603
- Reaction score
- 13,466
By pointing out obvious flaws in the existing paradigm one can contribute to furthering a more accurate understanding.
TS can provide evidence that X,Y, or Z cannot be correct, which will eventually lead others (or perhaps TS) to develop a stronger theory that may account for said weaknesses of prior theories.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 42,374
- Reaction score
- 6
You can't call them flaws unless you have something to compare it too.
You can say you find the hypothesis unbelievable but unbelievable compared to what?
The pyramids are there so we know they were built. There are theories on how it was done. If you want to knock down those theories you have to offer some alternative and if you want it to be taken seriously it has to answer more questions than the current theories.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
One of the best things I would suggest, not that you necessarily care to go down the rabbit hole, is to develop a comprehensive understanding of both how it could have been done (as you said, it was clearly done however it was done) and why...
The why is actually a more answerable question in my opinion at least regarding what it wasn't built for, and with 99% certainty Khufu's pyramid was not built as a tomb for some megalomaniac pharoah. Again, you'd think at least one contemporary burial would have been found in 1 of the 80 pyramids in Egypt. Even more to add to the fire, the Great Pyramid is almost completely anonymous, lacking inscription throughout.
A functional building of some sort makes much more sense given the layout and bizarre nature of the internal structure...But a practical functioning building for what, and what are the ramifications if it was indeed a functioning operational device of some kind? If it indeed was, it says two things which may not both be true...Our understanding of the level of sophistication of old kingdom Egypt is woefully inadequate. And/or the monument is a product of a much earlier period of time that we currently don't have record of.
Best evidence is that the great Pyramid was probably built within 500 years of Khufu's reign (guess on my part, it likely took hundreds of years and built in stages given the scope of the job) though it may have been built earlier...the weird thing about Egypt is that the oldest stuff is the most high quality and the most difficult to have achieved and it gets progressively worse over time (almost as if they are losing skills), aside from the great Pyramid, and in general, an older style of construction.
Two examples would be the mortuary temples in front of the sphinx created from the yardang it (the sphinx) was cut from and the Osireion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osireion
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 8
Yeah what's up with the interior? I always assumed there was all kinds of space in there, since it's such a large structure. But looking at these maps, it looks like there are only a few corridors and most of them are slanted.
Is that really all that's in there?
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
It's likely there are still unknown chambers/passageways. Keep in mind all this titles for what you see in those images are completely arbitrary and modern attributions. We have no idea what the creators called those rooms and there was no body discovered in the "sarcophagus" in the Kings Chamber. No evidence it's a sarcophagus btw, it's a granite box.Yeah what's up with the interior? I always assumed there was all kinds of space in there, since it's such a large structure. But looking at these maps, it looks like there are only a few corridors and most of them are slanted.
Is that really all that's in there?
The passageways and rooms and the general layout do not give off the vibe that people were ever intended to be inside of it. As I mentioned before, Dunn's book, aside from positing a well thought out idea of what it might have actually been, gives incredible insight into all the different areas of the great Pyramid.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 8
Yeah, to me that looks like inner workings of some type of machine (for lack of a better word).
I'm most interested in what they're calling the "relief chambers." wtf are those?
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
There is a vaulted ceiling at the top of the relieving chambers, its thought to be functioning simply as a structural device, Dunn posits it being a boon to resonation...An amplifier/dispersion of energy unit. Those relieving chambers house ENORMOUS blocks, single stones weighing roughly 100 tons each if I remember correctly. Those are hundreds of feet in the air mind you. Whatever the purpose, it was done with precise intent, completely unnecessary to house a dead guy
Edit, 50 tons I guess, still 100k pounds is rather heavy.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 8
There is a vaulted ceiling at the top of the relieving chambers, its thought to be functioning simply as a structural device, Dunn posits it being a boon to resonation...An amplifier/dispersion of energy unit. Those relieving chambers house ENORMOUS blocks, single stones weighing roughly 100 tons each if I remember correctly. Those are hundreds of feet in the air mind you. Whatever the purpose, it was done with precise intent, completely unnecessary to house a dead guy
Man that really is fascinating. I'm gonna see if I can find some actual pics of the inside of that thing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,603
- Reaction score
- 13,466
In my opinion, scientific discovery doesn't work by knocking things down necessarily, but rather by the progressive refinement of known facts that moves us towards to a truer understanding.
History highlights the replacement of a prominent theory, however, the slow chipping away that often leads to the change is easy to overlook.
Yes, and the evidence doesn't support their theories if TS is right.
So TS is simply an observer who says, "hey, that doesn't make sense," and the proponent of said theory then has to defend the critique... or deflect by appealling to authority/consensus, ad hom attacks, etc.
Demanding an alternative theory is a similar tactic that distracts from the critique, and therefore ultimately slows scientific progress. Again, TS has been fairly direct in his critique of orthodoxy, and I'm surprised despite several pages of responding none have really addressed his points.
If TS is right, then we can spend more energy seeking alternatives to the demonstrably false paradigm. If he is wrong then we can avoid wasting our time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2016
- Messages
- 832
- Reaction score
- 0
Explain them overcoming the physical limitations that today's machinery could not beat
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 8
Yeah I was browsing through a lot of those pics earlier, and from there ended up reading some theories about the pyramid possibly being a hydraulic pump, and ended up watching these:
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 35,525
- Reaction score
- 5,002
If a Jewish carpenter can walk on water & turn water into wine, imagine what tens of thousands of them can do.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2016
- Messages
- 832
- Reaction score
- 0
If a Jewish carpenter can walk on water & turn water into wine, imagine what tens of thousands of them can do.
Aliens
