Age of The Great Pyramid ....Precisly

[Randyrrr]

I have never seen the helicopter and other flying devices in this one glyph any where else.
If it is, I would love to see it!

I think if it was any where else we would know about it, unless it is being hidden as this one once was.

The erosion of the Sphinx & its surrounding trench show the result of regular heavy rains or perhaps flooding, not wind, not sand. Egypt has not had that kind of climate since 7,000BC & with the possibility of the Sphinx being buried in sand for much of the time (as it was till recently excavated) it may very well be many thousands of years older than that.

From a detailed study of the highly-weathered limestone rock and the enclosure in which it sits, Robert Schoch, a geologist from Boston University, also concluded that the Sphinx was exposed to prolonged heavy rainfall.

At some point and or currently there is a fourteen-foot layer of silt sediment around the base of the Great Pyramid, a layer which also contained many seashells, and the fossil of a sea cow, all of which were dated by radiocarbon methods to 11,600 B.P. (Before Present) plus or minus 300 years. Records also speak of the fact that before the Pyramid’s outer casing stones were removed, one could see water marks on the stones halfway up the Pyramid’s height, in about the 240-foot level, which is roughly 400 feet above the present Nile level.


Sources such as the Inventory Stele state that the Giza monuments were time and time again subjected to many reconstructions and repair work, inside and out and therefore radiocarbon dates do not prove any claim made by Orthodox historians. That, plus carbon dating has been proven to be deeply flawed in it's process and results.


As for all three Giza pyramids: Khufu, first on the scene, would naturally have laid claim to the largest pyramid for himself, or the Great Pyramid. His successor, Khafre, now left with only two pyramids to choose from, would have taken possession of the second largest. Menkhare, the last to reign, would have had to be content with the last pyramid available, the smallest of the three. This suggests the Giza pyramids came first, then the Pharaohs ruled, not the other way around.


The relationship of the 3 Giza pyramids & the Nile to the stars of Orions Belt is exact - provided you 'wind back the clock' to circa 10,400BC. The pattern of temples at Ankor Wat makes a match for the layout of the constellation Draco - provided you 'wind back the clock' to circa 10,400BC.

It has also been proven in the past (although not accepted by the mainstream obviously) that painted hieroglyphic inscriptions found in the air space chambers inside the Great Pyramid which include the name of Pharaoh Khufu were forged by Col. Richard Howard-Vyse in 1837. "'Quarry Marks' exist in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber, including one mark which is reported to indicate Khufu, the pharaoh under whose reign the Great Pyramid was built. One source suggests that these quarry marks were faked by Howard Vyse in 1837. The reasons give[n] are many, but the main ones are: These marks appear only in the 4 relieving chambers opend by Vyse and not in the original relieving chamber opened by Davison in 1765. Vyse's diary for that day described a thorough examination of the relieving rooms but no mention of the hieroglyphics and quarry marks. The marks were mentioned only the next day, when Vyse returned with witnesses. There are problems with the hieroglyphics in that they are a mixture of styles and syntax/usage from differing time periods of Egypt. And finally, in the marks bearing Khufu's name, mistakes were made. Those same mistakes occur in the only two hieroglyphics references that would have been available to Vyse at that time."


Pharaoh Khufu himself that he only did repair work on the Great Pyramid. The Inventory Stele, found in 1857 by Auguste Mariette just to the east of the Pyramid, dates to about 1500 B.C., but according to Maspero and other experts, shows evidence of having been copied from a far older stele contemporaneous with the Fourth Dynasty. In the Stele, Khufu himself tells of his discoveries made while clearing away the sands from the Pyramid and Sphinx.


The Stele describes how Pharaoh Khufu, "gave to her (Isis) an offering anew, and he built again (to restore, renovate, reconstruct) her temple of stone." From there, the Pharaoh inspected the Sphinx, according to the text, and related the story of how in his time both the monument and a nearby sycamore tree had been struck by lightning. The bolt had knocked off part of the headdress of the Sphinx, which Khufu carefully restored. Egyptologist Selim Hassan, who dug out the Sphinx from the surrounding sands in the 1930's, observed there is indeed evidence that portions of the Sphinx were damaged by lightning, and the mark of ancient repairs is very apparent. Also, he noted, sycamore trees once grew to the south of the monument, which had been dated to a great age.





The Stele then ends with the story of how Khufu built small pyramids for himself and his daughters, wife and family, next to the Great Pyramid. Today, the ruins of three small pyramids are indeed situated on the east side of the monument. Archaeologists have found independent evidence that the southernmost of the three small pyramids flanking the Great Pyramid was in fact dedicated to Henutsen, a wife of Khufu. Everything in the inscription thus matches the known facts.




This negates the theory that Khufu’s son Khafre built the Sphinx. Moreover, the Inventory Steele fails to make any claim that Khufu built the Sphinx or the Great Pyramid, and these unsurprising omissions offers more support to the actual ages of the various structures.
http://www.zimbio.com/The+Egyptian+pyra ... id+How+Old

[Ace Rimmer]

Good post Randyrrr I have read this before too and agree, I think they are way older as well.

Dr. Robert Schoch's new geological studies of Egyptian monuments
are likely to revolutionize our understanding of ancient history. His
team has found evidence of weathering upon "core structures" INSIDE the
ancient masonry of the Great Pyramid and of many other early Egyptian
edifices. What he has found proves that many of the structures we now
see in Egypt were constructed on top of other, more ancient structures
which had lain exposed to the elements for THOUSANDS OF YEARS prior to
their being covered up by the pyramids of the Old Kingdom.

This implies a radical revision of the history of Egypt. It
means an advanced Egyptian culture--the one that originally
LOCATED these old structures, that aligned them with great
precision to "true north," and that positioned them around
hundreds of square miles of Egyptian desert to mirror the
astrological sign of Orion--had existed THOUSANDS OF YEARS
BEFORE THE OLD KINGDOM, which Egyptologists date to 2500 BC.

Ancient Sumerian civilation's earliest written tablets [which are
nothing but agricultural commodity tokens] date to 3300 BC. The new
findings by Schoch push the high culture of Egypt back to AT LEAST
5000-7000 BC--vastly older than Sumer. This earlier Egytian culture
literally leaves the supposedly "ancient" civilization of Sumer in
the dust...

The true date of Egypt may be far older, Schoch says. He indicates
that the civilation that laid out these grand monuments so precisely
would have alread had a long devleopment time before planning this huge
complex of pyramids. Moreover, he feels his weathering estimates could
be underestimating the time involved.

There is yet another reason for dating this early Egyptian culture
older even than Schoch suspects. Several scholars over the past fifty
years have argued that the date for the Egyptian Old Kingdom--from which
Schoch's dates are extended back in time--could be off by centuries,
or even millennia.

We ourselves have suggested the date of the Old Kingdom may be too
"young" by 1500-2000 years. In 1983, carbon-14 studies of the Great
Pyramid of Giza showed it to be 200-1200 years older than its supposed
date of construction during the Old Kingdom. That meant it might have
been built as early as 3750 BC. But since Egyptologists reject tree-
ring dating (because it pushes their already faulty dates even further
out of alignment), the tree-ring adjusted date of the Great Pyramid may
be older than 4000 BC.

Adjusting Dr. Schoch's recent weathering measurements from the base
structure inside the Pyramid--by adding at least another 1500 years to
its age--we obtain a total date range of 8500-6500 BC for the original
construction and LOCATING of the Great Pyramid. So it was apparently
sited by the Egyptian civilization mentioned in Plato's discussion of
Atlantis, where Egypt is "re-founded" 1000 years after the sinking of
Atlantis in 9600 BC. We now can tie Plato's history to solid rock in
Egypt, with a major part of his story being confirmed: There truly was
an advanced Egyptian civilization founded around 8500 BC. Climatologist
Dr. Cesare Emiliani confirmed in 1973 that Plato's flood date was sound.
Emiliani discovered evidence in sea-core sediments for a sudden global
sea-level rise of c.325 feet around 9600 BC(+/-70yrs)--Plato's date for
the sinking of Atlantis. Emiliani's data proves that, if Atlantis were
real, then it would indeed have been flooded by the ocean at the very
time Plato stated. Plato either relied on genuine history or he made
an astonishingly lucky guess: Within a century of the exact date over
a period of nearly 10,000 years: 99% perfect.

Not only do we now have the dating of Atlantis becoming more credible,
but so is our c. 4000 BC+ dating for the Old Kingdom. In the summer
of 1999, German climatologists confirmed that Egypt and the Middle East
had endured a sudden great drought and famine in the 4500-4000 BC time
period. This date ties in perfectly with the new tree-ring calibrated
carbon-14 date of the Great Pyramid and, accordingly, its Old Kingdom
great famine in the days of the man who is credited with the Pyramid's
design, Imhotep.

All this brings us to Manetho, whose chronology of Egypt(c.280 BC)
Egyptologists have claimed to use. But Manetho says "70 kings ruled
for 70 DAYS" after the Old Kingdom. Egyptologists have ignored this
period in Manetho's history as if it never happened. Their excuse for
ignoring these 70 kings is that Manetho only accords them "70 DAYS."

But in the ancient world a "DAY" could be a person's life, and the
phrase "70 DAYS" could mean "70 GENERATIONS." Therefore, it signifies
a potentially vast time in which "70 kings" ruled. Using various ways
of calculating a typical king's rule, the period of these "70 kings"
might extend anywhere from 1000 to 3000 years. Thus, Manetho's kings
list implies that the Old Kingdom flourished some 1000-3000 years or
so EARLIER than the 2500 BC epoch now assumed. No wonder the carbon
dates don't fit! And Dr. Schoch's findings push the preceding age in
Egypt back another 3000 years.

http://petragrail.tripod.com/newhistory.html

[Theory]

The final nail in the coffin is,

On the history channel this morning, they showed a video of this chamber and it looks exactly like the picture above, and they among others say it looks like a helicopter and what not. The episode was called Ancient Discoveries~Cars and planes, it first aired in 2007. If I would have thought about it at the time I was watching this, I would have made notes of the names and everything, but I didn't. So, I'll see if its on youtube and watch it again later on tonight maybe.

[Vance]

I'm sorry, but nothing fractures perfectly straight. And I mean, perfect, as in, geometric.

How can you saw block of granite by hand to exactly straight? Did the Egyptians even have a mechanism that we know of to measure exact straightness? Our rulers today are made by machines. And we obviously have lasers and such.

Perfectly flat surfaces require machines.

I'm quoting myself. Just in case anyone glossed over this indisputable evidence.

[Bob137]

Loks like a lost picture of paradise with ships, and helicopters, and space craft to me!

[Hearte]

Where else do these glyphs exist? I do not see the 'helicopter' or the 'craft' looking figures in any of the above pictures you posted other than the expanded pic of the same series. (No I am not saying that they are indeed those objects which is why I put them in quotes to describe what they look similar to.) My assertion is that they don't appear other places, if they do as you say they do, please provide that.

Here is a breakdown of what's left on that panel. That is, what can be read that hasn't fallen off or that can be seen in spots where the second coat of plaster (plastered during the reign of Ramesses II) has fallen off, revealing Seti's glyphs underneath:


Comparing this to the two Nebty names I already posted shows anyone that looks that the glyphs from this photo appear in the two Nebty names.

Of course, stylistic differences make one or two of the glyphs from the Nebty names I posted before appear somewhat differently than in that particular panel.

Also, I should note that Egyptian writing was written from left to right and from right to left (as well as top to bottom, though that doesn't apply here.)
I'm sure most people here already knew this.

Anyway, the two pics of Nebty names I posted before are written left to right, while the glyphs in the panel in question were written from right to left.

I could have that backwards.

I have never seen the helicopter and other flying devices in this one glyph any where else.
The erosion of the Sphinx & its surrounding trench show the result of regular heavy rains or perhaps flooding, not wind, not sand. Egypt has not had that kind of climate since 7,000BC & with the possibility of the Sphinx being buried in sand for much of the time (as it was till recently excavated) it may very well be many thousands of years older than that. From a detailed study of the highly-weathered limestone rock and the enclosure in which it sits, Robert Schoch, a geologist from Boston University, also concluded that the Sphinx was exposed to prolonged heavy rainfall.

I'm not sure what the sphinx has to do with this. However, don't make the mistake of thinking Schoch's date for the sphinx was based on rainfall. His calculation of the date he gave in his original paper (and subsequent publishings) was based solely on differences between subsurface sonar scans in the front of the sphinx enclosure versus a single scan taken in the rear of the enclosure.
This method has not only not been agreed with by his peers, it has been refuted by several geologists.

It should also be noted that, since the time Schoch published his idea, it has been determined that Old Kindom Egypt was far wetter than had been previously thought.

At some point and or currently there is a fourteen-foot layer of silt sediment around the base of the Great Pyramid, a layer which also contained many seashells, and the fossil of a sea cow, all of which were dated by radiocarbon methods to 11,600 B.P. (Before Present) plus or minus 300 years. Records also speak of the fact that before the Pyramid’s outer casing stones were removed, one could see water marks on the stones halfway up the Pyramid’s height, in about the 240-foot level, which is roughly 400 feet above the present Nile level.

I've read these exact words before, on a great many webpages.

Does this site not have any rules regarding the use of direct quotations and for supplying references (if not links) to quoted material?

The story about the silt I see only on fringe sites. I've never seen that story attributed to any particular geological study of the area, nor to any geologist. If you cannot provide this information, then I can easily and simply say that no such silt layer exists. My statement has exactly the same validity as your unreferenced quote. I mean, even though I don't know, I can type it right here on this website, just like your source did.

People can make any claim they want. And, every claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Sources such as the Inventory Stele state that the Giza monuments were time and time again subjected to many reconstructions and repair work, inside and out and therefore radiocarbon dates do not prove any claim made by Orthodox historians. That, plus carbon dating has been proven to be deeply flawed in it's process and results.

Pharaoh Khufu himself that he only did repair work on the Great Pyramid. The Inventory Stele, found in 1857 by Auguste Mariette just to the east of the Pyramid, dates to about 1500 B.C., but according to Maspero and other experts, shows evidence of having been copied from a far older stele contemporaneous with the Fourth Dynasty. In the Stele, Khufu himself tells of his discoveries made while clearing away the sands from the Pyramid and Sphinx.

Carbon dating, while not as accurate as a wristwatch, is accurate enough to give reliable dates up to around 60,000 years before present, if one keeps in mind the error margin (which is always given by the lab, but not always given by a claimant on a forum.) There exists no "deep flaw" in this methodology. This claim is made repeatedly by Creationists like Michael Cremo. It is flat out not true.

Regarding the Inventory Stela, I posted a translation of it. It actually says Khufu built the Great Pyramid, exactly what native Egyptians said when asked by any Westerner that ever reported an answer to that question. Also, it isn't written in anything like first person, and it certainly shows no indication whatsoever that it is "Khufu himself" making statements on the stela.

The Egyptian name for the Great Pyramid translates as "Khufu's Horizon," or "The Horizon of Khufu."

The reason why I find striking similarities with what might have been the global Khufu project at Giza is firstly contained in the title of this paper, Akhet Khufu, the horizon of Khufu.
Akhet Khufu is the name of the Giza 1 pyramid, according to inscriptions present in tombs dated some two hundred years later which report the names of all the three pyramids (Giza 2 at that time was “Khafra is great”).

Source: This is a PDF file
It should be clear that, whoever built the Great Pyramid, the Egyptians themselves all believed it was Khufu - all the way back to within a couple of hundred years of his death.
So, why would anyone believe that a stela from the 26th Dynasty, which was even later than the New Kingdom period and 2,000 years after Khufu, would say anything different? The Egyptians told Herodotus that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu (Greek - "Cheops") around 450 BC. The Inventory Stela dates to no earlier than 670 BC.

Moreover, the Inventory Steele fails to make any claim that Khufu built the Sphinx or the Great Pyramid, and these unsurprising omissions offers more support to the actual ages of the various structures.
http://www.zimbio.com/The+Egyptian+pyra ... id+How+Old

Okay... I guess I'll haver to post the translation again:

'Long live the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life.

He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran (The Sphinx).

And he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King's daughter Henutsen beside this temple.

The place of Hwran Horemakhet is on the South side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the pyramid.

He restored the statue, all covered in painting of the guardian of the atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze.

He replaced the back part of the Nemes head-dress, which was missing with gilded stone.

The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face looking always to the East' .

My emphasis.

The relationship of the 3 Giza pyramids & the Nile to the stars of Orions Belt is exact - provided you 'wind back the clock' to circa 10,400BC. The pattern of temples at Ankor Wat makes a match for the layout of the constellation Draco - provided you 'wind back the clock' to circa 10,400BC.

The relationship with Orion is by no means "exact" for any time period. Not only that, the layout of the pyramids doesn't match the constellation at all unless you turn the constellation upside down, as Robert Bauvel did in his book on the subject. Curiously, he failed to mention that fact in his book. It had to be discovered by others.

Temples at Ankor Wat do slightly match Draco, if you omit some of the temples for no reason (other than to get the remainder to match Draco.)

It has also been proven in the past (although not accepted by the mainstream obviously) that painted hieroglyphic inscriptions found in the air space chambers inside the Great Pyramid which include the name of Pharaoh Khufu were forged by Col. Richard Howard-Vyse in 1837.

In this case the fact is that the opposite is true. I've given the proof of this right here at this site. Apparently, you haven't read it or choose to ignore it.

"'Quarry Marks' exist in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber, including one mark which is reported to indicate Khufu, the pharaoh under whose reign the Great Pyramid was built. One source suggests that these quarry marks were faked by Howard Vyse in 1837. The reasons give[n] are many, but the main ones are: These marks appear only in the 4 relieving chambers opend by Vyse and not in the original relieving chamber opened by Davison in 1765. Vyse's diary for that day described a thorough examination of the relieving rooms but no mention of the hieroglyphics and quarry marks. The marks were mentioned only the next day, when Vyse returned with witnesses. There are problems with the hieroglyphics in that they are a mixture of styles and syntax/usage from differing time periods of Egypt. And finally, in the marks bearing Khufu's name, mistakes were made. Those same mistakes occur in the only two hieroglyphics references that would have been available to Vyse at that time."

The bolded portion above is a lie. That can be a problem when you quote Zecharia Sitchin. I even posted a pic of the page of Vyse's journal for that day. It shows where Vyse was confused because of the glyph he didn't know in the Khufu cartouche. Vyse writes the (at that time) known spelling of Khufu's name - obtained from a book he had with him which got it from the Abydos king's list - along with the spelling he's finding on the wall in that tiny space as if to illustrate the very confusion I mentioned. I suggest you read my post about it.

Regarding the styles/syntax - at the time Vyse made his discovery, the use of hieratic writing (the sort of glyph writing he found) was thought to have originated much later in Egypt. That was, after all, only the 19th Century. Since that time, much has been learned (and found) regarding these things. One of which is hieratic writing predating Khufu. It is now known that the formal hieroglyphic style and the hieratic style developed simultaneously, based on various findings of both.

Vyse couldn't have forged Khufu's name. The "seive" glyph shown in the pic I posted that was taken in one of the relieving chambers was completely unknown at that time

[Bob137]

I think the mainstream information is a lie! I wouldn't believe what they have to say, since they have lied more than anyone on so much of our history, in numerous areas of study!

[Randyrrr]

I think that people don't understand that the pyramid was built in two steps.
Inside you have the giant granite structure, which was built to house knowledge.
This was built by Enoch. This is in the bible also the Dead Sea scrolls I believe.
It gives the location and what it was built for.
The outer layers were installed by guess who!
If you do the math of the time period that it took 20- 22 years and the number of stones of the outer layer then it becomes possible.
You can see a big difference between the quality of work inside and outside that no one ever talks about. WHY?
Also the stones on the outside were quarried next to the pyramid.
The granite, if I remember right, comes from 400 miles away.

As I said before SAND doesn't give you the look of the granite blocks inside.
I will explain for some of you.
Sand, loose sand that the Egyptians had gives you a pitted finish.
Let me explain so you understand, to get a nice finish with sand you need, a stone grinder impregnated with sand, sand paper or something where sand is incorperated.
You see the loose sand, piles up on its self giving you uneven layers thus groves and marks.
For instance, take salt, put it in your palm and push it with your finger and you can see how sand would work, crude but the same.
See sand paper gives you a defined layer, a flat surface where all grains wear at the same rate and are not able to pile up on its self.
Like sanding wood, but even trying to use a piece of sand paper in your hand will give you an uneven surface.
As we know the Egyptians had only loose sand, copper tools, rope, wood (limited amount) and wood mallets.
No sand paper, No grinding wheels, no saws.
A saw is an object with teeth, not a piece of copper being pushed back and forth with sand to cut stone.

So, I think the inner structure was built around 12,000 years ago and the outer layers built 4000 years ago give or take a few hundred years.

I also believe science is telling the truth and not archeologists with an agenda.
I also believe certain people are close minded. When they think they know something and then find out they are wrong it destroys there world, thus their argumentative attitude. That is called a, Know it all.

I tell you, I love pulling there chain. I get a good laugh though, I think most would agree.

But who knows, we all could be wrong. All though, Science has been and continues to point this way!

COMBINED DOUBLE POST

Does this site not have any rules regarding the use of direct quotations and for supplying references (if not links) to quoted material?

I guess you don't see the link at the bottom of the page, just like you can't see the helicopter

[Hearte]

I think the mainstream information is a lie! I wouldn't believe what they have to say, since they have lied more than anyone on so much of our history, in numerous areas of study!

I don't suppose you have examples of them "lying... on so much of our history," do you?

I also believe science is telling the truth and not archeologists with an agenda.
I also believe certain people are close minded. When they think they know something and then find out they are wrong it destroys there world, thus their argumentative attitude. That is called a, Know it all.

I'm impressed with your self-knowledge here.
In my experience, very few people know themselves as well as the above illustrates that you know yourself.

No saws?

Talk about ignoring facts in order to maintain some dreamy, house of cards fantasy.

Hearte

[ilacewords]

The final nail in the coffin is,

Where else do these glyphs exist? I do not see the 'helicopter' or the 'craft' looking figures in any of the above pictures you posted other than the expanded pic of the same series. (No I am not saying that they are indeed those objects which is why I put them in quotes to describe what they look similar to.) My assertion is that they don't appear other places, if they do as you say they do, please provide that.

Here is a breakdown of what's left on that panel. That is, what can be read that hasn't fallen off or that can be seen in spots where the second coat of plaster (plastered during the reign of Ramesses II) has fallen off, revealing Seti's glyphs underneath:


Comparing this to the two Nebty names I already posted shows anyone that looks that the glyphs from this photo appear in the two Nebty names.

Of course, stylistic differences make one or two of the glyphs from the Nebty names I posted before appear somewhat differently than in that particular panel.

Placing the two panels together, I don't see anywhere where the glyphs show any evidence of having eroded off or 'fallen off' as you say. I see their lines being very well shaped and exactly as intended by the inscribers. The only thing I show that appears to dirty up the series is maybe the few little hunks of plaster that remain in between them as can be seen on the blown up first picture. Also your words even say that there are one or two that don't match at all, including the 'helicopter' glyph of which the top was certainly intended by the inscribers on being there - as erosion or 'falling off' doesn't happen in straight lines.

In addition since this glyph does not appear anywhere else, I don't think that it's possible for us to know for face value exactly what this glyph stands for - hence why it's still under much debate.

"Doesn't appear anywhere else?"

Please.

Hearte

I ask again, if you know of other series, somewhere else which show these glyphs, as you so say you do, please provide.

If these were just the two Nebty names I don't see any reason why the current Egyptologists would view them as controversial and why they would have been covered up at any time.

[Cammi2012]

[quote="ilacewords"][quote="Randyrrr"]The final nail in the coffin is,


I see a helicopter on the top, plane of some sort on the right, a submarine below the plane, and some big bug with wings on the left.

Lots to read on this thread, just going off the pic above. Are you guys saying that these arent aircraft/submersibles pictured? Not trying to fuel an argument- have a 22mos old so little time to read entire thread- just bits and pieces mostly- sorry, I suck, i know...

[ilacewords]

The final nail in the coffin is,


I see a helicopter on the top, plane of some sort on the right, a submarine below the plane, and some big bug with wings on the left.

Lots to read on this thread, just going off the pic above. Are you guys saying that these arent aircraft/submersibles pictured? Not trying to fuel an argument- have a 22mos old so little time to read entire thread- just bits and pieces mostly- sorry, I suck, i know...

Nah you're good, we are currently debating in here the age of the pyramids and this glyph (among other things we believe present evidence towards our sides) and what it lends to the overall topic

[Hearte]

Placing the two panels together, I don't see anywhere where the glyphs show any evidence of having eroded off or 'fallen off' as you say. I see their lines being very well shaped and exactly as intended by the inscribers. The only thing I show that appears to dirty up the series is maybe the few little hunks of plaster that remain in between them as can be seen on the blown up first picture. Also your words even say that there are one or two that don't match at all, including the 'helicopter' glyph of which the top was certainly intended by the inscribers on being there - as erosion or 'falling off' doesn't happen in straight lines.

The red parts are from one Nebty name, the blue parts are from the other.

If you "can't see" this, it's because you don't want to see it.

Which is fine, really. As long as you realize that your belief here is faith-based and not evidence-based.

If these were just the two Nebty names I don't see any reason why the current Egyptologists would view them as controversial and why they would have been covered up at any time.

To my knowledge, they weren't. You should remember that people can claim anything they want. It's not like anything bad will happen to somebody (like a lawsuit) if they make some ignorant claim about a king that's been dead for 3500 years, just to sell a book or a video.

Have you ever seen this panel covered, or have you ever found where Egyptologists found the panel to be controversial?

No. You've just heard (or read) other people claiming this.

If people wish to continue with this ridiculous claim, then those people are going to have to explain why the entire five-fold titulary for Ramsses II apears along that lintel right up to the Nebty name section, and then the panel turns (temporarily) into artwork about giant bees attacking Ramsess' air force, and then switches immediately back to fininshing the five-fold titulary (to the right of the panel.)

Hearte

[ilacewords]

They were covered in the plaster that you yourself spoke of the in above post.

They were recently uncovered.

There is no discrepancy or argument on this.

They (tour guides there) also will not directly address them if you tour the site of which I have presented evidence which you ignored because you didn't like the female narrator. I'm sure that's a valid reason somewhere although archaic.

Why would they want to put two different glyphs on top of each other as you postulate? This doesn't make any sense to me also doesn't even match up completely by your own admittance.

[Jir1984]

I think that people don't understand that the pyramid was built in two steps.
Inside you have the giant granite structure, which was built to house knowledge.
This was built by Enoch. This is in the bible also the Dead Sea scrolls I believe.
It gives the location and what it was built for.
The outer layers were installed by guess who!
If you do the math of the time period that it took 20- 22 years and the number of stones of the outer layer then it becomes possible.
You can see a big difference between the quality of work inside and outside that no one ever talks about. WHY?
Also the stones on the outside were quarried next to the pyramid.
The granite, if I remember right, comes from 400 miles away.

wow I like this idea, very interesting...

alternative scenarios maybe?

1. They found this temple or structure and were instructed to cover or enclose it by the gods - makes building them less difficult if you already have a frame in place?

2. They found this temple or structure and wanted to take claim of it - Inscribed the graffiti inside and hid or covered up the temple/structure and made them look like the surrounding smaller ones that they built. Would maybe explain why they would cover up an entrance such as http://alexphoto.e-hk.org/20080111Egypt ... C_7124.jpg to maybe hide the fact that it once was a free standing structure or temple?

3. Hearte is correct and we are all just missing something obvious. - hope this isn't the case

All in all I really like the idea of it possibly being built in two different time periods, thanks for passing this on!

[Bob137]

Hearte is not correct, and bases his belief's sorely in Egyptologists, who manipulate the facts, as such as he is doing.also. Most everyone else can see through it, but many follow suite with his statings from Egyptologists, when other proof of the opposite is ignored, or explained away as ignorant, which is not an explanation, but a put down, just because most of us know different than he does on what is real and what is an illusion or misconceptions from egyptologsits, who are not the end all or be all of knowing everything there is to know on the subject does not make one ignorant, but actually the opposite, makes one open minded to other possibilities to explain our history. Remember the only ignorance is when one is close minded!

[Hearte]

They were covered in the plaster that you yourself spoke of the in above post.

They were recently uncovered.

There is no discrepancy or argument on this.

I thought you meant the panel was recently covered.

The original writing was plastered over (the entire lintel) by Ramesess II, the son of Seti I, who built the place.

The Egyptians did things like this fairly often. Ramesses was the king, he wanted to be recognized as the king in that temple, so he had it done.

That, of course, is speculation. What is not speculation is that the temple was built by Seti, yet has the five-fold titulary of Ramesess II on that lintel. What else is not speculation is that some of this plaster fell out, revealing glyphs that would be expected to be found in the Nebty name of Seti. And this on the same panel showing Ramesses' Nebty name.

They (tour guides there) also will not directly address them if you tour the site of which I have presented evidence which you ignored because you didn't like the female narrator. I'm sure that's a valid reason somewhere although archaic.

Purposefully mischaracterizing what I said about your narrator only reflects poorly on you, not me.

Your narrator characterized the poor condition of the pyramid at Abu Rawash as "mysterious." Your narrator either doesn't know, or doesn't want you to know, that the reason for this pyramid's ruined condition is well known and fully established - the site was quarried for stone by the Romans and afterward by Copts. This has been proven by archaeologists. Some of the stone was located elswhere.
It's also been shown that there is evidence that the pyramid was quarried even earlier than this, but likely long after the Old Kingdom date when it was built.

Now, maybe it's okay with you for someone to completely mischaracterize the known facts of this archaeological site. It is not okay with me. Maybe you don't mind being lied to (through mischaracterization) by people, as long as their lies run parallel with whatever it is you want to believe. It is not okay with me.

Nontheless, I said nothing averse about the woman, other than my opinion that she doesn't know what she's talking about. You should note that this opinion is actually charitable, since the only other alternative is that she does know what she's talking about - which would mean she knows why that pyramid is ruined, but decided to completely mischaracterize the situation in order to sell her books.
In any case, I can't see wading through 8 hours of video by a person that either doesn't actually know, or knows and is lying about it, in order to find a statement by some other person about how old the GP is when I already know the Egyptians built it, based on irrefutable evidence found in the relieving chambers which I've listed here multiple times and won't go into again.

Why would they want to put two different glyphs on top of each other as you postulate? This doesn't make any sense to me also doesn't even match up completely by your own admittance.

No, what doesn't perfectly match are the glyphs generated by an online hieroglyphic translator (that you can get your "Egyptian name" out of by putting in your English name) and glyphs hand carved by an actual ancient Egyptian. This is because of the limitations of the digital library of glyphs at the website where that was generated, not because it's not true.

Why Ramesses II did this is speculative. I know similar things were done by other kings. To thoroughly investigate, one would have to scrape the plaster off the entire lintel, destroying the Ramesses titulary to reveal that of Seti. You don't really expect anyone to do this, do you?

It occurs to me that a few people here might have no idea what I'm talking about with all this "titulary" stuff. Look:

The royal titulary or royal protocol of an Egyptian Pharaoh is the standard naming convention taken by the kings of Ancient Egypt. It symbolises worldly power and holy might and also acts as a sort of mission statement for the reign of a monarch (sometimes it even changed during the reign).

The full titulary, consisting of five names, did not come into standard usage until the Middle Kingdom but remained in use as late as the Roman Empire.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_royal_titulary

Here is a pic from that page showing the titulary of Senusret. You can see the Nebty name to the right. See the big bee (part of the Throne name) and the cobra and vulture (part of the Nebty name,) the latter two in shallow baskets?


Now, Senusret's name is not the same as Seti's or Ramesses', obviously, but you can see what the entire titulary looks like in that pic and you can see what the Nebty name part looks like as well.

On the panel in the Osiris temple, the cobra and vulture are partially missing where a chunk of the lintel itself has fallen off. You can still see the two baskets (and part of the bodies of the cobra and vulture) to the right in the "helicopter" pic.
That is, if you actually look.

Hearte

[ilacewords]

In any case, I can't see wading through 8 hours of video by a person that either doesn't actually know, or knows and is lying about it, in order to find a statement by some other person about how old the GP is when I already know the Egyptians built it, based on irrefutable evidence found in the relieving chambers which I've listed here multiple times and won't go into again.

You watched the first 10 minutes and that's being generous if you didn't make it to the rest of the narrators. That lady is only talking for the first few minutes and not even about the GP which is what we are discussing here. I advised that the whole series is yes a total documentary covering the entire Band of Peace, not just the GP that we are discussing. Why you could not have fast forwarded to the GP is beyond me. I can only guess as to why.

Why would they want to put two different glyphs on top of each other as you postulate? This doesn't make any sense to me also doesn't even match up completely by your own admittance.

No, what doesn't perfectly match are the glyphs generated by an online hieroglyphic translator (that you can get your "Egyptian name" out of by putting in your English name) and glyphs hand carved by an actual ancient Egyptian. This is because of the limitations of the digital library of glyphs at the website where that was generated, not because it's not true.

Hearte

Why are we wanting to use something as evidence then when it cannot even produce what is your evidence? You say it doesn't even work right then why are you using it and presenting it as the truth?

[Randyrrr]

Early Egyptian tools were made of ivory, bone, stone or wood. Wood was an integral part of many implements. Harvesting sickles were constructed of a wooden handle and a flint blade. Looms and spindles used for weaving were most often made of wood. Some Egyptian tools were made of copper and, much later, bronze. Copper was mined around the Sinai or in the desert wilderness until the dawn of the New Kingdom. The earliest bronze tools come from the Old Kingdom and the earliest bronze was smelted in the Fourth Dynasty

Read more: Ancient Egyptian Tools | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4794172_ancie ... z1HHw3nxom


Arnold and others propose that the Egyptians shaped stones too hard to cut with copper with stone pounders! Arnold writes:

"The picture is completed by the presence of huge quantities of spherical balls of dolerite and elongated mauls or axes all over Pharaonic construction sites...By bouncing the dolerite balls, which weighed up to 6 kilograms [13 pounds] or more, at a certain angle and rhythm, the surface of a stone like granite was bruised and ground down to powder."

If we follow Arnold's logic (remembering that most limestone pyramid blocks are too hard to cut with copper), millions of pyramid blocks would have to be shaped to conform to tier heights and other specifications with pounding balls! In that case, the tools used to build the pyramids were made of very tough greenish-black dolerite (any of various coarse basalts) or other hard rocks. It staggers the imagination to think that the Great Pyramids could be built by this means.

Arnold's suggestion suits Pyramid Age technology, and, given enough time, pounding rocks can produce results. A mason could build a wall this way, but the scale and perfection of the Great Pyramids cannot have been achieved with pounding balls. It would be impossible to produce 115,000 massive, perfectly sloped, massive casing blocks that custom-fit as close as 1/800th of an inch or in perfect contact. The area of the four faces covered 2,379,842 cubic feet. Arnold admits to serious problems:

"It is difficult to imagine, however, how this method was applied to inclined, vertical, or even overhanging planes...We do not know exactly how the masons achieved two corresponding and neatly fitted planes on two neighboring blocks."

We see that Egyptology's last option, stone tools, is unworkable. Something is fundamentally wrong with the standard paradigm of pyramid construction.

http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/xcerpt06.html

Watch this one not long
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBH ... E71EAB6BB1

Has anyone seen a saw that was used to build the pyramids, if so please post the picture.
I would love to see it.

titulary of Senusret
I don't see anything that looks like a helicopter, plane, boat or any of the glyphs in question.
Try again.

Another tug of the chain.....

How did the get the great tolerances of the massive granite stones, 1 - 10,000 of an inch over the length of the blocks, also the so called burial chamber and sarcophagus?

[Hearte]

Why would they want to put two different glyphs on top of each other as you postulate? This doesn't make any sense to me also doesn't even match up completely by your own admittance.

No, what doesn't perfectly match are the glyphs generated by an online hieroglyphic translator (that you can get your "Egyptian name" out of by putting in your English name) and glyphs hand carved by an actual ancient Egyptian. This is because of the limitations of the digital library of glyphs at the website where that was generated, not because it's not true.

Hearte

Why are we wanting to use something as evidence then when it cannot even produce what is your evidence? You say it doesn't even work right then why are you using it and presenting it as the truth?

You really understand what I'm saying here. You just want to act like you don't.
A word written in Arial font doesn't "match" the same word written in Times New Roman font either.

Does that mean they aren't the same word?
Changes in languages and letter forms (or forms of glyphs) occur over thousands of years of the existence of a civilization.
An online hieroglyph generator will never have digital versions of every single form of wevery single glyph.

As an example:

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke

The above is English. Can you read every word and know what each one means?
Canterbury Tales dates from around 1400 AD. That's barely half a millenium.

Ancient Egypt existed as a state for 5 times that long.

So, of course no online glyph generator will ever contain every variation of any Egyptian hieroglyph.

However, the differences are small enough that they really don't matter. It just prevents "exact" matches between online digitally stored glyphs and actual glyphs found on walls, etc., in Egypt.

Arnold and others propose that the Egyptians shaped stones too hard to cut with copper with stone pounders! Arnold writes:

"The picture is completed by the presence of huge quantities of spherical balls of dolerite and elongated mauls or axes all over Pharaonic construction sites...By bouncing the dolerite balls, which weighed up to 6 kilograms [13 pounds] or more, at a certain angle and rhythm, the surface of a stone like granite was bruised and ground down to powder."

Pounding stones, as well as marks left by them, were found in the excavation the Egyptians made when they were creating a rather large obelisk that broke before they finished it. I'm sure you've seen this obelisk - it's still embedded in the granite at their quarry.

So, there's no question at all that they did use these pounders to quarry granite, along with fire to make the granite a little easier to pound.

If we follow Arnold's logic (remembering that most limestone pyramid blocks are too hard to cut with copper), millions of pyramid blocks would have to be shaped to conform to tier heights and other specifications with pounding balls!

Randyrrr,

Exactly what sort of limestone is it that you think the pyramids are "mostly" made of?

After all, we all saw Christopher Dunn cut limestone with a copper saw on everyone's favorite History Channel television series.

Has anyone seen a saw that was used to build the pyramids, if so please post the picture.
I would love to see it.

Link to a pic of a 4th dynasty copper slabbing saw: http://www.accessingvirtualegypt.ucl.ac.uk/detail/details/index_no_login.php?objectid=UC__30854__&accesscheck=%2Fdetail%2Fdetails%2Findex.php

How did the get the great tolerances of the massive granite stones, 1 - 10,000 of an inch over the length of the blocks, also the so called burial chamber and sarcophagus?

They didn't. I've read the claim. I haven't seen the evidence. Perhaps you can diverge from your usual style and actually present some?

Hearte


Hearte

[ilacewords]

Lol Hearte you make it sound like that's helping your argument. But your argument is this: that the GP was built by one guy, Khufu which according to your beloved mainstream thinking would've taken 20 years. Language doesn't change that quickly. In fact if you actually can believe that could in fact happen, it was probably the same couple of guys that would've finished them all inside the GP. scribes were very educated and few and far between therefore you aren't helping yourself out here.

[Hearte]

Lol Hearte you make it sound like that's helping your argument. But your argument is this: that the GP was built by one guy, Khufu which according to your beloved mainstream thinking would've taken 20 years. Language doesn't change that quickly. In fact if you actually can believe that could in fact happen, it was probably the same couple of guys that would've finished them all inside the GP. scribes were very educated and few and far between therefore you aren't helping yourself out here.

I wasn't the one that brought up Seti's Osiris Temple at Abydos.

That certainly wasn't built during the 4th Dynasty.

Anyway, your problem was with the glyphs I posted not "matching" the ones in that temple. It had nothing to do with Khufu or the Great Pyramid.

Please don't pretend anymore. You really don't want me to respond, do you? It appears you actually don't want to hear the facts and decide for yourself. You'd rather just decide for yourself, without the facts.

Hearte

[ilacewords]

Please don't pretend anymore. You really don't want me to respond, do you? It appears you actually don't want to hear the facts and decide for yourself. You'd rather just decide for yourself, without the facts.

Hearte

Actually, I would really love for you to respond to the question I've asked twice before that you ignored and other people also would like for you to answer as their posts also reflected.
So third time's a charm and I ask again....

In addition since this glyph does not appear anywhere else, I don't think that it's possible for us to know for face value exactly what this glyph stands for - hence why it's still under much debate.

"Doesn't appear anywhere else?"

Please.

Hearte

I ask again, if you know of other series, somewhere else which show these glyphs, as you so say you do, please provide.

If these were just the two Nebty names I don't see any reason why the current Egyptologists would view them as controversial and why they would have been covered up at any time.

[Randyrrr]

I also believe science is telling the truth and not archeologists with an agenda.
I also believe certain people are close minded. When they think they know something and then find out they are wrong it destroys there world, thus their argumentative attitude. That is called a, Know it all.

I'm impressed with your self-knowledge here.
In my experience, very few people know themselves as well as the above illustrates that you know yourself.

No saws?

Talk about ignoring facts in order to maintain some dreamy, house of cards fantasy.

Hearte

Heartes link to a saw!
Link to a pic of a 4th dynasty copper slabbing saw: http://www.accessingvirtualegypt.ucl.ac ... Findex.php

You think that cut granite...

That is the tip of a knife, about the size of a childs finger, For eating food, like a butter knife of today.
Not building pyramids....

As for the tolerances there are plenty of videos for you to watch...
I am sure you can find them if you have not seen them.
I think you have, but have no answer for that.

Why avoid, just say you don't have a clue...
You can't can you.

Have you ever thought you are wrong about this, or even speculated about it?

Try again..

Oh yeah, I do know myself. Most normal people do.
I am so sorry you don't.

You seem very immature, with a narcissistic personality.
Cannot be wrong - The narcissist is never, ever wrong, and they like to present "proofs" that they are correct. The narcissist cannot accept responsibility for making a mistake and they are expert at diverting the blame to others.

I truly feel sorry for you, I hope you can get a grip on your problems.
You seem good at looking things up on the net, how about looking for help.
I can imagine it is hard for you to admit to your short comings, which must give your a horrible life.
Just remember you can get help. They say you just have to ask for it.

I hope all teachers don't suffer from your problem, it must be very hard not "to be smarter than a fifth grader". Get it, the TV show.

Just an observation!

Tug that chain....

[Hearte]

Please don't pretend anymore. You really don't want me to respond, do you? It appears you actually don't want to hear the facts and decide for yourself. You'd rather just decide for yourself, without the facts.

Hearte

Actually, I would really love for you to respond to the question I've asked twice before that you ignored and other people also would like for you to answer as their posts also reflected.
So third time's a charm and I ask again....

I ask again, if you know of other series, somewhere else which show these glyphs, as you so say you do, please provide.

If these were just the two Nebty names I don't see any reason why the current Egyptologists would view them as controversial and why they would have been covered up at any time.

Your pretense that I haven't answered this question is mind-numbing.

There exists no "helicopter" glyoph in any Ancient Egyptian writing.

I've shown you the glyphs that, when put together, appear to make this inane depiction.

Pretending I haven't done so is par for your course.

That is the tip of a knife, about the size of a childs finger, For eating food, like a butter knife of today.
Not building pyramids....

Your children have huge fingers....

Apparently, you have no idea of how long 6 centimeters is.

If you expected a pic of an entire saw, you're out of luck. Copper was somewhat valuable then - moreso than now, considering it was the only hard metal they had.

I will say, however, that the saw in the pic was most likely used for cutting wood, since teeth are not only unnecessary, but would also be a hindrance for cutting stone.

As for the tolerances there are plenty of videos for you to watch...
I am sure you can find them if you have not seen them.
I think you have, but have no answer for that.

Videos in which people state claims, or webpages and books where they write them, are not evidence.

I've seen Dunn holding a one-meter flatness guage in various places on the ceiling of the King's chamber.

That tells you that the one meter it is against is flat, assuming that it does show flatness (Dunn never shows a closeup to each spot so that his claim can be confirmed.)

Why avoid, just say you don't have a clue...
You can't can you.

"No clue?"

Dude. You were the one that claimed children's fingertips are over 2 1/3 inches across! LOL

Hearte

[ilacewords]

In addition since this glyph does not appear anywhere else, I don't think that it's possible for us to know for face value exactly what this glyph stands for - hence why it's still under much debate.

"Doesn't appear anywhere else?"

Please.

Hearte

So this above statement was a sarcastic lie I presume? Your evidence of the helicopter glyph does not match it at all because it does NOT cover the propellers on the top. The glyphs(s) you presented fail to cover even half of the glyph in question.

Anyone's eyes can see that.

Sorry you cannot.

As for the tolerances there are plenty of videos for you to watch...
I am sure you can find them if you have not seen them.
I think you have, but have no answer for that.

Videos in which people state claims, or webpages and books where they write them, are not evidence.

Hearte

Don't expect Hearte to watch any videos with any evidence with any doctorates or Egyptologists or any ancient wisdom holders or people that can directly refute anything Zahi Hawass has ever said. He will refuse and will not make it past the intro narrator as shown above. He is equal to Bill O Reilly in his own spin zone, spun directly by Hawass and wearing the largest blinders ever seen which anyone can directly make out by just reading this thread as also stated above by Jir1984.

Sadly since Hawass is now gone Hearte is our only source of true information folks!

[Bob137]

I agree and he is very rude and obnoxious on here also. He probably thinks he is better than everyone else on here because he is an engineer and a school teacher, but sorry to burst his bubble, but he is not any better than anyone else, he has to go to the bathroom and wipe just as everyone else does.

[Hearte]

In addition since this glyph does not appear anywhere else, I don't think that it's possible for us to know for face value exactly what this glyph stands for - hence why it's still under much debate.

"Doesn't appear anywhere else?"

Please.

Hearte

So this above statement was a sarcastic lie I presume? Your evidence of the helicopter glyph does not match it at all because it does NOT cover the propellers on the top. The glyphs(s) you presented fail to cover even half of the glyph in question.

Anyone's eyes can see that.

Sorry you cannot.

Are you colorblind?

You didn't even read what I wrote about this image, did you?

Hearte

[ilacewords]

So this above statement was a sarcastic lie I presume? Your evidence of the helicopter glyph does not match it at all because it does NOT cover the propellers on the top. The glyphs(s) you presented fail to cover even half of the glyph in question.

Anyone's eyes can see that.

Sorry you cannot.

Are you colorblind?

You didn't even read what I wrote about this image, did you?

Hearte

HA!! That's hilarious apparantly you cannot read what you quoted me saying which again was this --- None of the glyphs you posted show any glyph that would cover the propellors portion of the helicoptor!
This is what you claimed fit into those little colors:

In truth, what was previously posted is a photoshopped image. Unretouched, it looks like this:

It is a palimpsest. Ramesses II came in and replastered over the Nebty name of Seti I (his father.)
There's no question this is the Nebty name of both kings.
Do you know what a Nebty name is?
I think not.
The middle row of glyphs below shows the Nebty name of Ramesses II:

Here's a depiction of Seti I's Nebty name:

I'm certain that you won't admit that many of the glyphs in these two names are shown overlapping in the "helicopter" picture.

Hearte

Your own words...not mine...So again, where is the helicopter glyph? No where in your depiction of the name is there such a glyph that would create the top of the helicopter as you claim it should...by your own words and little colors...

[Cammi2012]

i see a helicopter

[Don Morace]

Hi Folks,Don here with a thought.If a pharoah's name was applied to any construction site or artifact would it not have to be in an official cartouche for it to be recognized as legitamate??Off with the scribes head!!Don out...............

[Hearte]

So again, where is the helicopter glyph? No where in your depiction of the name is there such a glyph that would create the top of the helicopter as you claim it should...by your own words and little colors...

So, your objection boils down to a single horizontal line in the top left of the panel?

You've made progress, I'll give you that!

Look in the top right corner of the Nebty name I posted for Seti.

You see the horizontal glyph, flat on top with two small arcs underneath?

There's your "helicopter rotor."

Here's a link to another (digitalized) version of Set's Nebty name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_royal_titulary#Nebty_.28.22two_ladies.22.29_name
Assuming you actually click on that link (and actually look,) you can see that this illustrates how the glyphs can be written differently by different scribes. The nine vertical lines ("nine bows" in Egyptian) are shown seperated onto threes in the earlier depiction whereas in this one they are all in vertical rows of three each.

Every depiction of a name or idea in hieroglyphics does not look exactly the same. But they have exactly the same meaning.

Harte

[Cammi2012]

... OMG I found Waldo on the glyph !

[ilacewords]

So again, where is the helicopter glyph? No where in your depiction of the name is there such a glyph that would create the top of the helicopter as you claim it should...by your own words and little colors...

So, your objection boils down to a single horizontal line in the top left of the panel?

You've made progress, I'll give you that!

Sorry you have trouble understanding what I've been saying over and over and over again....

Look in the top right corner of the Nebty name I posted for Seti.

You see the horizontal glyph, flat on top with two small arcs underneath?

There's your "helicopter rotor."

I looked at and as well as relinked the pics of the glyphs you propose to create such glyph, I don't see any horizontal lines in them that would appear at the top of them that would thus make the top of the helicopter. Again, same thing I've been saying.

Here's a link to another (digitalized) version of Set's Nebty name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_royal_titulary#Nebty_.28.22two_ladies.22.29_name
Assuming you actually click on that link (and actually look,) you can see that this illustrates how the glyphs can be written differently by different scribes. The nine vertical lines ("nine bows" in Egyptian) are shown seperated onto threes in the earlier depiction whereas in this one they are all in vertical rows of three each.

link clicked, and it's showing a couple of birds.... no straight horizontal lines

Every depiction of a name or idea in hieroglyphics does not look exactly the same. But they have exactly the same meaning.
Harte

How convenient for you that now your argument is just "Well they seem to make it up as they go but it all means the same"

I don't buy what you are selling.

... OMG I found Waldo on the glyph !

That's a closer explanation of what Hearte is presenting to me as well.

[Hearte]

Look in the top right corner of the Nebty name I posted for Seti.

You see the horizontal glyph, flat on top with two small arcs underneath?

There's your "helicopter rotor."

I looked at and as well as relinked the pics of the glyphs you propose to create such glyph, I don't see any horizontal lines in them that would appear at the top of them that would thus make the top of the helicopter. Again, same thing I've been saying.

You only see birds? I see. Hmmm.

Your refusal to look has no impact on the reality of the situation.

Done with you and this thread.

The insulting tones you and Bob have taken indicate that no matter what evidence you are shown, you will refuse to even admit to what you are seeing.

Last time I notified mods about this, they gave me a hard time, so my hands are tied.

Goodbye.

Hearte