1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  2. Watching NBA Action
    Come join Clutch as we're watching Paolo Banchero and the Magic take on Donovan Mitchell and the Cavs

    LIVE: NBA Playoffs!
    Dismiss Notice

Promising Findings from Mars

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by Htownhero, Dec 15, 2001.

  1. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    I am a graduate student in art history who works closely with an Egyptologist. It is not my field, though, and she is out of town so the only sources I have are two general survey books on ancient art. If I had access to her library, I could have done a much better job.

    My interest in this thread started with the knowledge that it kills Egyptologists to see people with agendas come in and distort reasearch that has been done, etc. Anyway, over the next several months I will be helping her with her book so should know a lot more...too late for this conversation, I guess. :)
     
  2. FranchiseCat

    FranchiseCat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2000
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0

    Rimbaud, are you sure you are not a government dubunking agent? ;)

    Additionally, if you take in consideration "readings" by Edgar Cayce taken decades ago about hidden chambers under the Sphinx, which is now proven by modern technology, does raise an eyebrow. Or do you, with you scientific background, not believe in the metaphysical? Your zest in "educating" us in your belief of "fact" is astounding. You are obviously very versed on Egyptology and the Pyramids of Giza because you work with Egyptologist, yet you won't identify that person. Why? I see no harm of name dropping here. It would certainly add more validity to your claims. I do have another question for you....."why and how does an art history graduate student work with a Egyptologist?" I have gone to school with friends/associates whose major was art history (true that none were grad. students), none seem to study much of Egyptian art. Ancient or otherwise. You are the first, for me.

    I truly can't conceive the arrogance of the scientific/archeological community. How can reasonable evidence be discounted as "myth" when the SAME STORY IS TOLD BY EVERY CIVILIZATION IN THE WORLD!?

    We as a race (human), can not evolve to our highest without knowing the TRUTH. At least, that is my opinion.
     
  3. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    I have said repeatedly that I know very little of Egyptology, I am a modernist. I was just trying to present what little I know about the other side. I have never said anything is fact, I have admitted there are mysteries, I have admitted that with all history...I am merely presenting what is accepted as closer to the truth by all of the field. Anyone who assumes otherwise is being foolish.

    I don't see why the specific person matters. I prefer to keep things of my life private, I guess...sorry I don't care about my credibility. Why do I work with an Egyptologist? Because it is part of the field of art history. They cannot be separated. All Egyptologists are art historians, to a degree. The difference, I guesss, is that not all Egyptologists are archaeologists doing digs. The question and attitude confuses me.

    I am afraid I don't follow. What same story? All I am arguing for is the acceptance that the Egyptians building the pyramids themselves is much more reasonable, depite unknowns, than making a link to magical lost civilizations or UFO's. Why is that so difficult? There are countless examples of construction methods that were not replicated for many thousands of years, why do the pyramids always stand out? There have been a few re-enctments of various construction techniques based upone writings found, such as the raising of massive obelisks mentioned before. All have been successful using no modern technology. The only time they are not successful is when they try more complicated techniques based on greater extrapolation (using technology Egyptians incorporated for ship building, for example).

    So, scholastic thought = governmental control? I guess that explains the massive amounts of funding! Baffling.
     
  4. Dr of Dunk

    Dr of Dunk Clutch Crew

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 1999
    Messages:
    45,180
    Likes Received:
    31,143
    I have no work-related connection with archaeology, anthropology, or Egyptology. I just like reading about Egypt. The Pyramids and the Sphynx have always interested me since I was very young, so I read about them a lot when I was growing up. Of all the cultures that have ever existed, I've always found Egypt the one to make me say "wow" or "neat".

    Oh, and I'm not "in-the-know". I just happen to know some things about what's going on when it comes to ancient Egypt and theories on the evolution of their constructs. I've forgotten probably 50% of the stuff I knew growing up simply because "the real world" and "geekdom" has gotten in the way. :)
     
  5. FranchiseCat

    FranchiseCat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2000
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rimbaud:

    Let me step back and say that I am not trying to be antagonistic, really. It just perplexes me when people always want to explain away the alien theory as hogwash, yet so fermently believe in an omnipotent God. To me that is contradictory. Yes, I know....you didn't get into that portion of this topic, but I wonder if you would, if more time allowed. When speaking of Ancient Eqypt (or Pyramids, etc.), I tend to look at the bigger picture. Yes, you are correct, the most rudimentary construction techniques have been proven possible and have been duplicated in the field. But what about the techniques that can not be duplicated or even proven theorically possible?

    I am right with you on keeping your private life, private. I just thought that, based on your creditials, you wouldn't mind letting us know with whom you work with. Not that I am so much challenging your creditability, it's just the way you came off when responding to Treeman.

    Almost every culture on this planet have "record" (oral, hieroglyphic, written, etc.), if you will, of their gods. For example one of the oldest tribes in Africa (I presently forget the name, but I will attempt to find it for you) has an oral tradition that tells of the "Sky People" that came down and taught them math, farm, fashion metals, etc. They knew the structure of our solar system without telescopes and named Pluto before anyone knew that Pluto existed. How, unless they were told? The Vedic (ancient India(n) text), describes similar "contact" and even goes into how the "gods" would fly through the air and have great aeriel battles. In China, an archaeological expendition in the Baian-Kara-Ula mountains (which boarders Tibet and China) found the Dropa Stones and skeletal remains of "people" whose average height was about 4 feet tall. The Dropa Stones (some 716 stone plates found) have been carbon dated to be about 10k-12k years
    old. I let you dig up what the Dropa Stones are supposedly translated to say on your own, but in a nutshell, it tells a story about a race of beings that crash landed here on Earth.

    And for go measure, let's talk about more recent history. Everyone in the world has heard of Roswell. Why do I bring this up? Let's see....... America (and the world) had a technological explosion about 50 years ago. Why not before then? Because it is quite possible that a more advance vehicle did crash in 1947 and we were able to reverse engineer it to get things like fiber optics, the microchip, etc. Now as advance as we were in 1945 (or even 1950), we had no clue of fiber optics. Yet you want the world to believe the ancient Eqyptians were able to construct the Great Pyramids all through good old human ingenuity.


    Why is the opposite so difficult to conceive? Lastly, I want to apologize for any and all spelling (like debunking) and grammatical errors. When I asked if you were a government debunking agent, it was all in jest. If you are it would make very little difference, but I would not want to insult anyone by being serious with that question.

    FC
     
  6. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    FC,

    Yes, I did take your post as antagonistic, but understand that that can happen in a forum such as this. Thank you for softening your tone.

    I will (try to) keep this brief.

    No, I wouldn't get into that, nor would I be contradictory, if that gives you an idea.

    Yes, I would have you believe that humans built them. They had the numbers, the time, the aesthetic interest, and the technology. It has been said that the pyramids could completely be reconstructed. The only reason re-enactments have been limited is because funding/time is limited. Every scholar is a w**** to the money and must constantly justify their actions. In the 80's, I believe, an engineer said he could recreate the pyramids but it would cost about $400 million (might even have been billion). Obviously, that won't happen. The mysteries lie mostly in function, missing pieces, unexplained usage, etc., not in construction technology (at least, not for those who spend their lives studying it). We thus are confronted with two theories: one that has evidence from primary sources as well as field-study type experiments and another that requires external factors about which we have no knowledge, proof, experience, etc. being the source or help. One is tangible and requires backing up, the other is intangible and is extrapolation/conjecture that cannot be disproven (which is the beauty of such theories). Of course, it can also never be proven, short of aliens coming back and setting us straight.

    Again, the easiest solution is usually the best.

    As far as myths/legends...yes, I know of similar legends about outside forces, etc. People have believed all sorts of odd things throughout history. Every culture has origin folklore because it is a need of the human psyche.

    Medieval eauropeans "knew" that there were "monstrous races" that inhabited the far reaches of the globe, with animal heads, faces on their stomachs, etc. This, of course, was not true, but was based upon the perception of deformed people in Europe...thus, they extrapolate and build myths about thoughs around the globe.

    I could say that Egyptians never existed, that some force is just messing with us, planted it all there to fool us. This cannot be disproven. It, however, is no reason to throw away the cumulation of some 100 years of scholarship based upon what we have before us.

    Oops, this wasn't brief.
     
  7. AhPook

    AhPook Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2000
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Mrs. JB

    Mrs. JB Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    A spelling error? And you claim to be a graduate student? I'd like the name of your English teacher. It just seems a little strange that a so-called "graduate student" has a spelling error in his post... ;)
     
  9. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    Lol,

    I am out...I have been exposed for the charlatan that I am. I suck.
     
  10. FranchiseCat

    FranchiseCat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2000
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rim:

    You disappoint this go-around.


    That's what I thought religion was for? :D Seriously, are you saying that every culture from the beginning of the human race needed to create myths/legends to feed the need of the human psyche? Why!?!? What evidence do you have to support that!?

    C'mon is the absolute best you can do? I am of belief that you are a very intelligent person (we already know that you are very well educated) and in this short correspondence today, I have come to appreciate your opposing yet articulate side of your debate. But the above quote seems a little desperate. I really expected more. Mind you, I am not trying to be insulting, but you have given me a certain bar of expectation from our conversations today, as well as other post you have made on this BBS.

    Spoken like a true government debunking agent. ;) :D

    FC
     
  11. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    FC,

    Well, sorry to disappoint. As I said, I tried to keep it brief, and I don't even want to keep posting in this thread...but you people keep pushing me back in. :(

    Medieval...just an example, not a thesis around which I am constructing an elaborate argument. I have already given other examples of lost knowledge, myths, etc...yawn. Are you suggesting folklore and religion do not share similar attributes and serve similar purposes? Origin myths themselves are generally religious. Creation of folklore and myth is an attempt to better understand the world...yes, a part of human psyche. Why else would so many different kinds from different cultures exist? It is innate. The same as aesthetic production exists/existed in every culture throughout history - it seems to be a part of humanity, of human psyche. My evidence is internal to the existence itself. You can argue that they exist because they are "truth" but then why are there so many different, often conflicting stories, evolution of spiritual thought (polytheism to monotheism, mean gods to benevolent gods, etc.)? Just as there is no one aesthetic appreciation, there is no one spiritual aesthetic...often the only connections are the humans that produce them.

    Actually, my "fake history" example is out of the anti-academic/evidence handbook, stolen from argumentation against dinosaurs.

    Anyway, all of these were just asides to the meat of my position about those pesky Egyptians.

    Finally, who told you to think that I was "highly intelligent" and to create some kind of bar to which I must measure? Mrs. JB already exposed me, don't believe the hype. I have continually said that I know nothing about Egypt, but that can really be expanded to everything. Yawn, I am tired and sick...

    Nap time.
     
  12. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    OK, one more post on this subject, and then I'm done, because rimbaud is right about one thing: it's pointless.

    1) I apologise for my "arrogant" tone, although I shouldn't, because rimbaud didn't apologise for his arrogant tone... I should know better than to post drunk in the middle of the night.

    2) I was incorrect about the "airshafts" (again, drunk in the middle of the night without my books); there are "airshafts" that lead from both the Queen's and King's chambers; the "airshafts" of the Queen's chamber don't even break into open air, so they couldn't possibly be "airshafts"... And at least one of the shafts leading from the King's chamber ends at a door, which was found by the robot. The Egyptians will not let anyone open it. I know I am not wrong about that.

    I'm also looking at a map of the Great Pyramid, and there is only one "thieves' tunnel" on it that leads from the Grand Gallery to the fake tomb, and that is the one I was refering to. It was incomplete when found. Maybe my map is incomplete, but... That is not the "airshafts" I was refering to anyway.

    3) I did not once say that I thought that aliens built the pyramids, and thank you very much rimbaud for putting words in my mouth. I believe that a *human* civilization that predates Egyptian civilization *may have* built the Giza pyramids and the Sphinx. I am not certain either way, and thank you again for putting words in my mouth...

    No Egyptologist can explain how Egyptian civilization just suddenly arose, fully formed, in 3100 BC. No one can explain how their arts, sciences, language, religion, etc show no trace of an extended developmental period. Until they understand that little mystery, they do not truly understand the origins of Egyptian civilization. To rule out the possibility that it descended from an earlier "lost" civilization would be arrogant denial of a likely possibility.

    The paradox of Egyptian development has always been that the more advanced stages of their culture appeared at the beginning, instead of towards the middle or end as would be expected. How did such an advanced culture just pop up out of nowhere? And why the steady decline?

    In addition, the Great Pyramid has not been positively linked to any specific date - no one knows how old it really is. Vyse's "discoveries" linking the pyramid to Khufu have been exposed as frauds, and the only other evidence is an inscription on an obelisk relating a claim of renovation by Khufu.

    4) Every source I have ever read has said that the Great Pyramid was discovered empty for the most part. I am not an expert on this (never claimed to be), I've just never seen any account that said it wasn't empty. I am not calling you a liar, but I would like a link or something to support your claim to the contrary, rimbaud.

    And I have a question: If the Queen's chamber contained the artifacts that you mentioned, and there was no body there, and it was a burial chamber, then logic dictates that a graverobber stole the body. Why did they not steal the artifacts as well, since that is what graverobbers are usually after? Explain, please.

    5) There is a cavern beneath the Sphinx; ground penetrating radar found it some time ago, and Hawass has refused excavation to take place there. I also know I am not wrong about that.

    I just think that anyone who thinks that Egyptologists have all the answers is arrogant and self-delusional. They do not have all the answers, and may be wrong about a few things. My only point in all of this is that they do not know everything, and it is arrogant and misleading discount alternative hypotheses simply because they don't jibe with what they think they know.

    But whatever, I'm done with this conversation. I simply don't have enough patience for arrogance.
     
  13. FranchiseCat

    FranchiseCat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2000
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0

    Amen (Ra)

    ;)
     
  14. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    Egypt didn't spring out of nowhere, fully formed. The 3100 date is just an estimate we have that is left over from a second century BCE Egyptian who stated that Menes unified Upper and Lower Egypt (meaning that those two distinct entities existed before, with their own developments). The Palette of King Narmer from sometime around this time shows the unification through the representation of crowns from the north and south (on front and back, I believe). It is very famous for being symbolic of this new unity.

    Anyway, they had influences, Mesopotamia was an early one (especially for the north), Nubia was fairly constant later. But, yes, they were fairly unique and developed rapidly...they also survived longer than any other ancient civilization...Egypt was fairly insulated from outside sources.

    Personally, I think the Middle Kingdom shows more advances in style and architecture. Tomb paintings are better (and tombs themselves more complicated), more elaborate, all of Tut's stuff is middle (and he was minor), Nefertiti, Amarnan style develops, etc. New Kingdom has Ramses II...then there is a definite decline.

    Queen's chamber already been answered. I also stated my "secret" sources. Sorry, the Museum of Cairo is not online. I was, however, able to find ot that the books I have are too simplistic (as I said, they are very general surveys). Hetepheres's stuff was not found in her specific chamber...they were in a pit carved from the causeway to Khufu. Records, apparently, indicate that Hemiunu, Khufu's vizier, moved them there after thieves broke into the original chamber. I got this from putting together multiple websites (they are so damned limited) but here are two of the better exampes...scroll down or search for hetepheres:


    UT syllabus


    General

    Here is a PDF about the canopy found that mentions it's movement (really only talked about on pages 3 and 7).


    Anyway, anyone who reads a bit of the scholarly tradition of Egypt knows that it is almost always prefaced with the declaration that nothing is set in stone, that all are approximates, educated guesses, etc. I don't see how it is arrogance.

    Now stop asking questions to keep me replying. My head hurts.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now