Liberal claptrap.
6 Likes
It is all a Napoleonic Conspiracy to obscure the true purpose of the pyramids – the Rosetta Stone was created specifically to make the translation of hieroglyphics on pyramid walls point to burial chambers as a smokescreen. It is well known among the illuminated ones that the pyramids are conduits which one uses to communicate with the inhabitants of distant worlds. It is all a plot to “bury the dog deeper”… It is not “bones” that one should seek in a pyramid, but the “dog” that you have to find – the dog is Sirius the dog star. Pyramids are quite literally the stairway to Sirius. Specifically, with the Great Pyramid, one merely needs to enter the proper mental state while in the “Queen’s Chamber” and one’s consciousness will be projected to Sirius where you may communicate with a higher intelligence.
Only the Dogon know the TRUTH!!!
10 Likes
16 Likes
Yes, as previously stated we need to be real about the origin of the discussion. When people say “the pyramids” they are referring to the great pyramids.
Pyramids begin having mummies placed in them over a thousand years after they were built. The actual tombs of the Pharisees are found in the Valley of the Kings. They did find Khufu’s wife buried in a traditional Eqyption tomb near Khufu’s pyramid. It was very well hidden and not looted. I suspect that one day we will find Khufu’s tomb as well.
Found in the Valley of the Kings. That’s not the Pyramid complex. It’s about 400 miles away.
There is an unadorned stone box with no lid. That assumption requires us to believe the lid, which was likely simple stone owing to the construction of this box, was removed by robbers who like worthless stone rectangles. Here is what an Egyptian Sarcophagus actually looks like
http://www.aldokkan.com/art/sarcophagus.htm Note that it in no way resembles what was found inside the great pyramids. To call it a sarcophagus smacks of someone trying to make an oddity fit a narrative when viewed objectively.
1 Like
20 Likes
Well, this is interesting.
Why are you extrapolating your scepticism of the usage scenarios of the pyramids based on one or two cherry-picked examples?
And even then, you’ve had to disallow findings of actual hieroglyphs inside Khufu’s pyramid because… well because.
I even stated that I thought it possible that the pyramids, and in particular, Khufus, were probably used as astronomical instruments before their completion. But it rather does seem as if the ancient Egyptians built pyramids to act as tombs.
Is this extrapolation literally because there are no specific statements of purpose from the designers to be found inside the The Great Pyramid?
ETA:
Ah. Just read your statement above.
Nevermind!
Whoa! When did they find those. I’m sure you can send a link right?
My position is based on my understanding of conjecture and the knowledge that conjecture is not science. It we are to be truthful to those we teach then we should refrain from the use of conjecture unless we specify it as such. The only true position I’ve seen is that “we do not know their purpose and may never know - however, the current theory is that…” See the difference?
Umm, you haven’t taken this position either, yet I accept that’s what you mean. If you don’t understand this as the meaning of most comments here, then there are clearly some hidden assumptions you hold about the people you’re speaking with.
You’ve made some pretty bold assumptions about group think and what other people mean, Maybe, just maybe, you should provide evidence for what you believe and let it stand on its own?
The position you’re taking right now is that other people need to debunk your understanding yet you don’t actually need to prove anything.
At this point, I’m not even challenging your facts, you’ve provided none, (You’ve challenged some beliefs but provided no evidence of your own), this is very close to a trolley
3 Likes
Why would you assume that? Have you ever seen how much more ornate the lids are in every layer of an Egyptian sarcophagus? Why is your assumption right but everyone else’s suspect because it doesn’t suit your assumption?
6 Likes
Attempting to shift the burden is pointless. I have no pet theory to propose to you. I am pragmatic and believe that the circumstantial evidence amounts to conjecture.
Not at all. My position is that with nothing more than circumstantial evidence, making a declarative statement as to the nature of the great pyramids is meaningless. The skeptic does not need to prove a theory is incorrect, those that posit a theory must do so. That’s science 101.
I would say that attempting to use logical fallacy and shifting the burden to the skeptic is more trolley like behavior than simple skepticism.
because stealing a several hundred pound rectangular stone makes little sense. If it were a sarcophagus, there would be actual treasure to steal. Further, the ornate lids were middle to late kingdom. Early kingdom lids were much less so. Some were simply plain with internal inscriptions. But you are correct in calling out my assumption. It is only conjecture and should not be used to as fact.
Lone-wolf theories that haven’t fallen prey to the group-think of peer-review are the safest, and most logical, bet.
7 Likes
What loan-wolf theory would that be or do you consider skepticism a theory?
Oh, I do like your suggestion that the tomb theory has passed peer review as if Egyptology actually treats the subject like real science.
Reductio ad absurdum
A Loan-Wolf appears
13 Likes
I just looked at wikipedia
Isn’t that from the Hawaiian for “group-think”?
13 Likes
Hey! My usage of the word ‘just’ in that sentence was supposed to imply criticism of wikipedia.
3 Likes
No, he was a Chinese mystic.
12 Likes
Oh, not that guy. I owe him like twenty bucks. Tell him I’m not here before he sends in his enforcer:
9 Likes
7 Likes
RU Sirius?
15 Likes
