Egyptian Pyramids were Built as Machines (miracle, Christ, pope, Earth)

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

You can read more about this here:
Shaft Evidence

Christopher Dunn - another author with no training in Egyptology - is being used as a "legitimate" reference by you? It's fairly easy to find competent critiques of Dunn's popular books and theories. One quick example begins with the obvious:

To write a popular alternative book on the pyramids of Egypt ideally requires three essential qualities: 1. a total disdain for Egyptologists; 2. a passing knowledge of the subject concerned; and 3. an alternative theory that verges on the incredible. All three of these qualities come together in Christopher Dunn’s provocative study of the Great Pyramid, The Giza Power Plant (Bear & Co, 1998).
(A. Alford, A CRITIQUE OF CHRISTOPHER DUNN’S
GIZA POWER PLANT THEORY, from here.

You should choose your sources more wisely if you're actually intent on being taken seriously.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by dtango

Worse than that: to me they are criminals!

As for you… the same story: You hate to answer questions!!


The point is to find out why the pyramids were built. Something for which the Egyptologists’ intelligence is not enough. [/font][/color]

You're a layman who accuses professional scholars and scientists of being "idiots", "criminals" and whose "intelligence is not enough" to answer your uninformed, juvenile questions. You are in no way qualified to make such insulting and incorrect assertions - you don't have the slightest ability to be able to assess their competence. You have already demonstrated this time after time.

If you are the "intelligent" one - answer your own questions. I stopped answering your questions some time ago since your questions are either elementary (in other words, if you need to ask them then you are severely lacking in the basics of the subject) or entirely designed as setups to lead into your quaint monomyth fringe theories and thus not actually questions at all. Your modus operandi is quite well-known by now, and I enjoy interesting and productive discussions - not discussions that go nowhere because one of the participants is starting from an agenda that is based on a foundation of air, wishful thinking and bold assertions that any first year student of the subjet can immediately recognize as being ridcuolous.

So far, you have claimed that all experts are actually idiots engaged in supressing the "truth" in some big conspiracy, and nothing is going to change your mind about that short of an actual education - so I fail to see any point in answering "questions" where the questioner is not willing to alter his starting view.


The above may be harsh - but how else can one put it? I don't know anyone who enjoys talking with someone who starts out with the assumption that trained experts are "idiots" and criminal". Unless you're one of those "idiots" yourself, you are not even able to seriously critique them. It would be the equivalent of me calling an advanced mathematician's complex theories "idiotic" - how would I know without being a mathematician myself?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The evolution of Pharonic burials from the underground houses with protective slabs over the top through the series of slabs built over a sunken burial chamber (stepped pyramid) through to the smoothed - off typical pyramid shape again with sunken burial chambers is well known. The funerary texts associated with many pyramids makes it clear that burial of kings and queens is what they were for, not as any kind of mysterious machinery or power generators. The surprising discovery of a wooden royal barge in the great Pyramid area indicates burial of useful possessions for the afterlife if not a barge for the Pharaoh to use in accompanying the sun across the sky. It is inexplicable as an item for use in a huge pump.

There are many pyramids with small ones for wives being built in the temple complex around a pharonic pyramid for offering of sustenance to the dead king. The practice of burial pyramids carried on to the later copies of Merotic Nubia long after pyramids had been abandoned in Egypt and burial chambers simply hidden in or under rock outcrops.

That the sarcophagi are empty is no surprise. Tomb robbery was rife during times of unrest in Egypt and writings of the time describe how tomb robbing went on even in Egyptian times. The underground burials at Armana and later on at the Valley of the Kings were generally robbed and the later period saw the remaining royal burials all brought together and hidden in one place to try to protect them.

The later post Pharonic attempts to break into the pyramids would have found no treasure and I fail to see what the writings of any Egyptologist on the various cells, traps, passages and blocking - doors is supposed to prove. The insistence on proclaiming that no body has been found in any pyramid is simply either ignorance of the subject (which shows clearly that the purpose was burial) or just the usual quotemining of various irrelevant, misundertood or misrepresented remarks which vaguely look as though they prove that pyramids were not used for burials.

Misrepresenting here is misrepresenting what the import is, not the actual wording - to make a big deal about is, yet again misrepresentation of the argument.

Excellent post! You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

[dtango]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

No it wasn't. It was first entered in 820 AD.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Eusebius, stop being stubborn and read a proper book on the pyramid.
Read the history of the Well Shaft and you’ll know when it was that the pyramid was first entered.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The funerary texts associated with many pyramids makes it clear that burial of kings and queens is what they were for, not as any kind of mysterious machinery or power generators. The surprising discovery of a wooden royal barge in the great Pyramid area indicates burial of useful possessions for the afterlife if not a barge for the Pharaoh to use in accompanying the sun across the sky.

There is one more such ship (not barge! For God’s sake; it is 43.4 meters long and 5.9 meters wide) there which is still into its pit. If you want to know what the use of the ship was, read the funerary texts yourself. Do not expect Egyptologists to tell you and do not believe their nonsense about Sun barges.

The rest that you write is good for tourist consumption. Have you seen the pyramid yourself? From your writings I presume you have not.
Have a look at it first and then come back and say again that it was built as a tomb for a megalomaniac king.

How about answering the question that our scholar friend hates to answer?

Why did Snofru built three large pyramids? (you learn things from me. No? )

Originally Posted by whoppers

You're a layman who accuses professional scholars and scientists of being "idiots", "criminals" and whose "intelligence is not enough" to answer your uninformed, juvenile questions.

I don't know anyone who enjoys talking with someone who starts out with the assumption that trained experts are "idiots" and criminal". Unless you're one of those "idiots" yourself..,

I started out by presenting evidence of their idiocy (or crime; it is up to you to choose between the two) and therefore that is in not just an assumption of mine.

I repeat the question:

How do your illustrious Egyptologists justify the three large pyramids built by Snofru?

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Christopher Dunn - another author with no training in Egyptology - is being used as a "legitimate" reference by you? It's fairly easy to find competent critiques of Dunn's popular books and theories. One quick example begins with the obvious:

To write a popular alternative book on the pyramids of Egypt ideally requires three essential qualities: 1. a total disdain for Egyptologists; 2. a passing knowledge of the subject concerned; and 3. an alternative theory that verges on the incredible. All three of these qualities come together in Christopher Dunn’s provocative study of the Great Pyramid, The Giza Power Plant (Bear & Co, 1998).
(A. Alford, A CRITIQUE OF CHRISTOPHER DUNN’S
GIZA POWER PLANT THEORY, from here.

You should choose your sources more wisely if you're actually intent on being taken seriously.

I did choose my sources more wisely (than you). Your three points for disenfranchising Mr. Dunn are not factual.

Quit being so stubborn as to the facts.

[Sir Les]

I know it infuriates them demonica when this is said...."GOD Built IT" and in some ways that is true : we being " in his image"...But sometimes truth is better than infighting amoungst the babblers..Who keep trying to find reasons, because they keep tossing out the correct answers....one base camp cannot dictate facts when all things are not known...it is impossible to say with any clear facts as to when these constrcutions took place, how long it lasted or how they cut and moved such great stones into place...No one knows???, because they all have flawed facts, and repute the idea of God being great, and something being used to make the angelic fallen comply to making it be.....greator than us in some regards....Did Jesus (Jeshua) not say...tell the mountain to move, and it will move...same thing here...if we are God's or born of God, as his children...we are given a gift of mind over matter...and if one shapes this gift in the right way, and practices it in Good and sound and safe ways are they not a child of God?...Sinlessly living...God resides on that one or many...and in that the givens are given, and what is asked for of him is done.....it is that simple...Do onto God what God asks..fulfill his word and will....it is simple....when that is done...God will do for you what you cannot do for yourself......like move big stones.....remember God moves everthing in the universe...he plays with all that and more...from the biggest sun to the micro sub atomic and strings and fractals.....it is all in God..and in God all is suppose to be Good....see God said let us make Good things...and so...where are we?...what time is it?...and how do we define or confine ourselves to them notions?....are we correct, if we are always finding new things that predate the evolutionary theories in them time lines they keep creating?...how exacting are their methods?...and are they worth fighting over?....if we keep digging up the dead...are we not disturbing them, and bringing them back into life some how?....Is this good practice??, if some of these Kings and such protected their tombs with curses and such to stop the grave robbing and disturbance of their resting places?...So how far out of whack is science bending traditional concepts and disturbing the dead to make what bent methods to make facts of history become known in a odd timeline of events or plausable theories to remove the truth, and surplant the lies.....is it right or is it wrong?...Well that is another debate on ethical practices....As I see it, the pyramids and other secred structures on this Earth...once were all tied together with a electrical maridian in the earth and around the earth and folded into the heavens and back out again...as Gates....and all land was once tied together..as one KINGDOM...and it was split apart...into continents...and that split is still happening...so ,,...do we need to dig up more dead?... Or start taking care of what is...and leave that stuff be what it is.DEAD.....what ever it is....not fighting over it...and at this point it is not worth lying about, if we do not know everthing...fact is very hard to sell....SO say God did it...makes it easier...to move along.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by dtango

Eusebius, stop being stubborn and read a proper book on the pyramid.
Read the history of the Well Shaft and you’ll know when it was that the pyramid was first entered.

There is one more such ship (not barge! For God’s sake; it is 43.4 meters long and 5.9 meters wide) there which is still into its pit. If you want to know what the use of the ship was, read the funerary texts yourself. Do not expect Egyptologists to tell you and do not believe their nonsense about Sun barges.

The rest that you write is good for tourist consumption. Have you seen the pyramid yourself? From your writings I presume you have not.
Have a look at it first and then come back and say again that it was built as a tomb for a megalomaniac king.

How about answering the question that our scholar friend hates to answer?

Why did Snofru built three large pyramids? (you learn things from me. No? )

I started out by presenting evidence of their idiocy (or crime; it is up to you to choose between the two) and therefore that is in not just an assumption of mine.

I repeat the question:

How do your illustrious Egyptologists justify the three large pyramids built by Snofru?

One does not need to go and look at a pyramid to be able to learn something about them. I am well aware of how big they are. I am willing to be corrected on the purposes of the boat or barge - the term used is immaterial - but not by someone who has posted the sort of nonsense I have seen from you.

Sneferu, or Snofru, of you prefer, built three pyramids. Why he of all the kinds built three is open to discussion, but the answer is probably connected with their being the attempts to move from the stepped pyramid type with one layer built on another to the proper pyramidical shape. It is noted that the first effort was unstable, the second (the 'bent' pyramid) was unsatisfactory and had to be truncated and the third was the one -so our Egyptologists say -that was actually used.

If you have a better explanation that fits the facts (that the first two are rather unsatisfactory experiments) I'm sure we should all love to hear it.

Whatever, I believe that we both agree that they were built as monuments of some kind and not as machines or any kind.

[dtango]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

One does not need to go and look at a pyramid to be able to learn something about them. I am well aware of how big they are. I am willing to be corrected on the purposes of the boat or barge - the term used is immaterial - but not by someone who has posted the sort of nonsense I have seen from you.

I write not nonsense because I only involve myself in subjects I’ve studied and I know. You can say you do not agree with me but I suggest that you do not say I write nonsense because then you’ll have to prove it and you’ll be in trouble.

Eusebius, with the funny theory about Pyramids-Machines, read about the Great Pyramid for the first time in that theory. I told him twice that the Pyramid was entered in the antiquity but he keeps saying “No, the Arabs were the first” because he has no idea of the history of the Pyramid. I do not do so naive mistakes

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Sneferu, or Snofru, of you prefer, built three pyramids. Why he of all the kinds built three is open to discussion, but the answer is probably connected with their being the attempts to move from the stepped pyramid type with one layer built on another to the proper pyramidical shape. It is noted that the first effort was unstable, the second (the 'bent' pyramid) was unsatisfactory and had to be truncated and the third was the one -so our Egyptologists say -that was actually used.

The large pyramids are seven all in all. Zoser’s is the first one, then there are the three Snefru pyramids and the three of the Giza Plateau.
According to Manetho Snefru reigned for 29 years but present opinion is more in favor of about 24 years. Let us use Manetho’s estimation: can three large pyramids built in 29 years? Obviously not. The pyramids were therefore built simultaneously. It would be idiotic to finish one pyramid, let technicians and workers go, dismantle the organization and start all over again next year of after a couple of years. That is common sense that the Egyptologists never had.

What is the explanation for the strange shape of the Bent Pyramid?
According to the German Egyptologist Borchardt the king died suddenly and the pyramid’s angle had to be radically reduced from the 54.5 degrees of the lower courses to the 43.3 of the upper courses in order to be finished sooner. But what about the Red Pyramid and the medium Pyramid?

As you say, the first effort was unstable and thus when that effort (Meidum) collapsed, the Bent Pyramid which was under construction at the same time had to have its angle changed. Before the Bent Pyramid was finished, the construction of the Red Pyramid had already started.
Mendelssohn writes:

The pyramid project was creating a type of community which had never existed before. Tribal villagers were welded by common work into people with the consciousness of nationhood. It was probably for the first time that they thought of themselves first and foremost as Egyptians. Working together, under one administration, their differences and mutual suspicions were bound to lessen. With this unifying labour on three large pyramids in the reign of Snofru it may have become of secondary importance in which of them he was eventually buried.

Snefru’s ingenious program created the miracle of the Great Pyramid!

Mendelssohn was a Mathematician, Physicist and Archaelogist. Thank God he was not an Egyptologist.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Whatever, I believe that we both agree that they were built as monuments of some kind and not as machines or any kind.

Unfortunately, whatever it was that the builders of the Great Pyramid had put in display in the Grand Gallery is lost to us because some people, right after the pyramid was finished, dug a shaft (or used the escape shaft) destroyed and removed from the pyramid the artifacts.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I did choose my sources more wisely (than you). Your three points for disenfranchising Mr. Dunn are not factual.

Quit being so stubborn as to the facts.

They were not "points" (having trouble with terminology again?), and they were not "mine" - they were a quick example from one online review that is representative of how Dunn and his work is viewed by reasonable people. As suggested, a quick online search would quickly reveal much more detailed critiques of his "work".
Judging from your posts and your habit of relying on either outdated or fringe sources, I think it's safe to assume that you are unable to determine what is "factual" in regard to either the Pyramids or the quality of "Mr. Dunn's" work. When one has absolutely no training in either archaeology or Egyptology, they are unfortunately unable to determine which sources are reliable and which are not.

The only stubborness here is your habit of adopting bad ideas and then sticking to them like glue - despite the massive amounts of data going against such poorly chosen ideas and your inability to discern good scholarship from bad scholarship. You're convinced that the pyramids were machines? Good - you haven't succeeded in convincing a single other person here of that. If I had constructed a thread to convince people who called the Israelites "goat-herders" that they were anything but, I certainly wouldn't have chosen a fringe-theory about the pyramids being a machine to do so! Lol! As it stands, the thread has nothing to do with religion or spirituality.


In a reply to Dtango - who is quite fond of adopting strange, fantastic, fringe theories but is unwilling to adopt this particular "machine" theory (that should tell you something!) - Arequipa writes concerning how plausible the "machine" theory is:

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Whatever, I believe that we both agree that they were built as monuments of some kind and not as machines or any kind.

If someone has a minority view on a subject, but is unable to convince anyone else about it - it's a good chance that the idea is either flawed or incorrect. Calling others "stubborn as to the facts" only shows that you're convinced 100% of the minority view's value, while admitting that nobody else is willing to adopt such a bad idea. You have been unable to prove this idea - and I still don't understand why you persist in sticking to an idea that you read online in passing. Yes - there's definately a stubborn person in this thread, wedded to the "machine" theory like a man to his wife: till death do us part!

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by dtango

I started out by presenting evidence of their idiocy (or crime; it is up to you to choose between the two) and therefore that is in not just an assumption of mine.

Well, the evidence didn't quite cut it in your other threads, and it certainly didn't cut it here. You're just not going to convince any reasonable people that scholars and historians are all purposeful liars and that actual gods kept stables of women to rape, etc.

Originally Posted by dtango

I repeat the question:

How do your illustrious Egyptologists justify the three large pyramids built by Snofru?

Nothing has changed since my previous post -
I already posted why I'm not interested in taking you by the hand and pointing you to sources that you have no interest in whatsoever, except to call them "idiotic" and "criminal". You're a big boy - you can find and condemn the information yourself.

I would provide my own answer, but I am not an Egyptologist and haven't studied such things in enough detail to formulate my own professional opinion - so that would be a bit ingenuous of me to try (not that it's stopped either you or Eusebius from declaring 100% certain statements concerning the subject!). Even so - providing such an answer would still be fall under what I wrote above concerning your question.