Ancient Reality

[cladking]

It is just a fancy word for a circular argument.

Start with the assumption that hands on the wall are human and even cro magnon are suddenly "people".

It's like magic. Every assumption leads straight to itself around and around. Look and see Science is a circular argument but it is not science. Facts and logic say you are wrong or at the very least, you have not supported your argument or addressed mine.

 

[Agnostisch]

Yes. This is what the authors of the "book of the dead" believed.

But the great pyramid builders had no beliefs at all. They built pyramids as a means of remembering the dead king. They were merely mnemonics so the king wouldn't be forgotten. But these kings were also written in the stars so their own historyu would be remembered.
.

WHAT !!
Unfortunately, It seems that you don't know much, my friend, about the pyramids.
Pyramids are not tombs as some claim. yes, it's not cemeteries, it's a surprise that the pyramids were and still are clean power generators like nuclear reactors now.
Not a single body has been found inside any of the 118 pyramids that have been discovered throughout Egypt.
Most of these pyramids are not in their original form like this, but there was a layer of lime covering the body of the pyramid and covered with a layer of gold such as solar energy units.
The method of cutting granite stone is very hard with this precision that the latest modern laser cutting machines are unable to cut it with such precision shows their use of strong and very precise energy.

Maybe because I don't speak English fluently, so I can't translate new research or books that we have about pyramids.
But I'll try.

 

[cladking]

Pyramids are not tombs as some claim. yes, it's not cemeteries, it's a surprise that the pyramids were and still are clean power generators like nuclear reactors now.

I'm not ruling anything out other than the four failed assumptions that the pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by stinky footed bumpkins who never changed. And even though I've essentially ruled these out I could rule them right back in if any evidence were to arise to support them. We have only evidence and logic to work with and common sense says that a paradigm that has failed is wrong. It has failed because two centuries of modern science has failed to confirm any of these premises. Two centuries of prediction have failed to come true.

Of course I recognize a possibility that the pyramid was a generator, pump, or other contrivance but at this point there is too little data to determine such a function. Assuming it served any function at all would lead us right back to that assumption. I believe at this time we need data because someone put linguists in charge and they won't gather data. Egyptologists refuse to run scientific testing on the pyramids so we have very very little data to work with. So how the pyramid was built becomes a crucial data point to solving what it was for. We have enough data to determine how it was built. It was built by pulling stones straight up the sides of a five step pyramid one step at a time. It's just this simple and it has been "proven" while ramps have been "disproven" as well.

Now we still need evidence to show it was a machine but for this more data is needed. But more importantly ALL the existing data must be reevaluated and reinterpreted in light of the fact that it was not built with ramps. This will take time. Frankly I think I got to this point back about 2011 and am beyond it now. I believe the pyramids were mnemonics and G1 itself was also a time capsule. I can't rule out other functions but we need evidence. Logic alone is simply insufficient to establish much. There is a real possibility you are exactly right but at this point nobody is able to say unless you have supporting evidence. And yes, there is plenty of supporting facts and logic to say your proposal is possible. There is far more evidence that the pyramid collected particles, wave energy, or static electricity than there is direct evidence that it was a tomb. Still these are low probabilities for obvious reasons.

Your English is fairly good. We probably have a lot in common except how we rank the importance of evidence.

 

[Agnostisch]

I'm not ruling anything out other than the four failed assumptions that the pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by stinky footed bumpkins who never changed. And even though I've essentially ruled these out I could rule them right back in if any evidence were to arise to support them. We have only evidence and logic to work with and common sense says that a paradigm that has failed is wrong. It has failed because two centuries of modern science has failed to confirm any of these premises. Two centuries of prediction have failed to come true.

Of course I recognize a possibility that the pyramid was a generator, pump, or other contrivance but at this point there is too little data to determine such a function. Assuming it served any function at all would lead us right back to that assumption. I believe at this time we need data because someone put linguists in charge and they won't gather data. Egyptologists refuse to run scientific testing on the pyramids so we have very very little data to work with. So how the pyramid was built becomes a crucial data point to solving what it was for. We have enough data to determine how it was built. It was built by pulling stones straight up the sides of a five step pyramid one step at a time. It's just this simple and it has been "proven" while ramps have been "disproven" as well.

Now we still need evidence to show it was a machine but for this more data is needed. But more importantly ALL the existing data must be reevaluated and reinterpreted in light of the fact that it was not built with ramps. This will take time. Frankly I think I got to this point back about 2011 and am beyond it now. I believe the pyramids were mnemonics and G1 itself was also a time capsule. I can't rule out other functions but we need evidence. Logic alone is simply insufficient to establish much. There is a real possibility you are exactly right but at this point nobody is able to say unless you have supporting evidence. And yes, there is plenty of supporting facts and logic to say your proposal is possible. There is far more evidence that the pyramid collected particles, wave energy, or static electricity than there is direct evidence that it was a tomb. Still these are low probabilities for obvious reasons.

Your English is fairly good. We probably have a lot in common except how we rank the importance of evidence.

Despite the spread of cemetery theory, it has been difficult to answer dozens of questions.

Let me quote From
The Giza Power Plant : Technologies of Ancient Egypt Paperback – August 1, 1998
by Christopher Dunn (Author)

you can find the book here .. you have to read it

https://www.amazon.com/Giza-Power-Plant-Technologies-Ancient/dp/1879181509

How do we cause a mass of stone that weighs 5,273,834 tons to oscillate? It would seem an impossible task. Yet there was a man in recent history who claimed he could do just that! Nikola Tesla, a physicist and inventor with more than six hundred patents to his credit—one of them being the AC generator—created a device he called an "earthquake machine." By applying vibration at the resonant frequency of a building, he claimed he could shake the building apart. In fact, it is reported that he had to turn his machine off before the building he was testing it in came down around him.

 

[cladking]

I have a little game I play for kids. In any small woods there are usually a few mid sized trees that are ready to come down. You can spot these by a depression around the base of their trunks where the roots have rotted away. Usually any small branches above will also have already fallen but you have to be careful not to be under anything. All you have to do is get the tree "vibrating" by intermittently pushing on it much like you keep a swing moving. It will come down. Kids are very impressed.

This is one of the tests I've been trying to get Egyptologists to run on the great pyramids; determining their resonant frequencies. I wouldn't be surprised if return waves to a receiver would pick up internal structures that are at a different frequency. But Egyptologists don't do science and if a scientist who is allowed to work at the pyramid discovers an anomaly he is not even allowed to publish it or to propose means to study it.

Of course they weren't tombs. This is patently obvious. The builders said they weren't tombs and no direct evidence of any sort shows they were tombs. None of the names of the pyramids include concepts like death grave, tomb etc. They have names about life, beauty, and love but Egypotologists only see tombs everywhere they look.

Egyptology has done the world a grave disservice. They have obscured our ancestors and all of their work by assuming they were just like us and then using poor methodology to study the past. They use linguistics to study engineering and anachronistic beliefs to study the physics of the pyramids. They tell people all the questions are "settled science" when in point of fact all of the answers are assumptions. People just don't know what's going on and assume the experts must be right. Meanwhile they refuse to discuss the issues except among themselves. Far far worse is they refuse to let scientists run simple testing. Modern science was capable of figuring out how these were built about 75 years ago but science still hasn't been systematically applied to the questions. Instead they focus on Looking and Seeing what's what. They never even noticed that the solution to pyramid building was found in 1988; stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids one step at a time. They can't see this solution because they see ramps everywhere they look. "Ramps" are tattooed into Egyptologists in grad school. Ramps are the only technology available to the builders and it doesn't matter how they were built anyway.

It time to get the linguists off the Giza Plateau. They won't lead and won't get out of the way. They are stuck in the 1810's with a 16th century mindset.

 

[gnostic]

Despite the spread of cemetery theory, it has been difficult to answer dozens of questions.

Let me quote From
The Giza Power Plant : Technologies of Ancient Egypt Paperback – August 1, 1998
by Christopher Dunn (Author)

you can find the book here .. you have to read it

https://www.amazon.com/Giza-Power-Plant-Technologies-Ancient/dp/1879181509

How do we cause a mass of stone that weighs 5,273,834 tons to oscillate? It would seem an impossible task. Yet there was a man in recent history who claimed he could do just that! Nikola Tesla, a physicist and inventor with more than six hundred patents to his credit—one of them being the AC generator—created a device he called an "earthquake machine." By applying vibration at the resonant frequency of a building, he claimed he could shake the building apart. In fact, it is reported that he had to turn his machine off before the building he was testing it in came down around him.

Oh, great.

Another believer of another kook.

Dunn is like Hancock, Bauval and Daniken, all like to write conspiracy theories and total BS.

 

[cladking]

Oh, great.

Another believer of another kook.

Dunn is like Hancock, Bauval and Daniken, all like to write conspiracy theories and total BS.

You have no patience for people who don't accept your beliefs. And you see conspiracies everywhere.

Dunn started with a very reasonable premise; There must have been a purpose and a means for the pyramid builders to achieve precision. He couldda started with the assumption that the builders were stinky footed bumpkins as Egyptologists did but then he couldn't have even seen the precision which is everywhere in and around the pyramids. Of course his conclusions are derived from his assumptions but at least he's making progress along his "line" of research.

Your assumption appears to be that experts are necessarily correct whether they make any sense or not. What progress are you making? Have you found any errors, anomalies, or explanations for the many mysteries that dog Egyptology? Have you discovered any evidence that show the "kooks" are wrong? Have you ever found any means of showing that ramps were used to build tombs by highly superstitious and primitive people? Have you made any progress in your beliefs other than following them to their bitter end in an Egyptological tome?

The reality is all the new ideas are coming from outside Egyptology. A lot of them are far out and highly improbable but at least it is only Egyptology that has had no new ideas in a century and a half. While they count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, real progress is going on without them. Many of these new theories are actually falsifiable But it's simply impossible to prove ancient people were wholly ignorant and superstitious. How do you prove they mustta used ramps? How do you prove the lack of bodies in pyramids proves they were robbed of the bodies? How do you prove the lack of evidence for ramps only exists because the ramps were torn down after usage? Egyptology is a belief system. Meanwhile at least Dunn's premises make sense even if some of his "conclusions" are improbable. His conclusions derive from the evidence and logic, Egyptology's do not. They have little relationship to the evidence because almost all the evidence is believed to be about magic and religion. Egyptology is supported by virtually no evidence and almost solely by interpretation of what they call "cultural context". Unfortunately this context is derived from anachronisms and very bad methodology.

The real "kooks" are the ones who refuse to use modern science to study this ancient "context". This leaves the door open for all types of theorists and thinkers.

Even if Egyptology is right (and I've proven they aren't) they are still the only kooks looking at the pyramids.

 

[cladking]

I guess I've let you get my goat a little bit here. The problem is Dunn is one of the best researchers who have rejected Egyptology. There are several very good people who tow the Egyptological line of bumpkins, stasis, tombs, and ramps because they want to be taken seriously by Egyptologists or they have fallen for the hype. Of course it does no good because Egyptologists simply reject outsiders. They smirk and go on about their business of parsing Ancient Language and ignoring science. Bauval actually gets some attention from Egyptology and from other researchers. Even I believe he's onto something though I don't exactly what. Hancock, as well, is rarely considered a "kook" now days. He has numerous keen insights into various fields. I don't follow his work much but some serious people do. I'd read something he wrote about the pyramids or their builders though wouldn't know what to expect. Even Van Daniken, while off the wall, had some very good points.

Only congress is always wrong. Everyone else is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I might say Egyptology is always wrong but the fact is it's only the conclusions that are wrong. They've done all the heavy lifting in translating a language that can't be translated and removing mountains of detritus off of pot shards. Their work is invaluable to everyone. More accurately it might be said that when Egyptology isn't right they are often right in a left handed sort of way. If not for their isolation, methodology, and refusal to use science I'd be singing their praises rather than taking them to task.

 

[Agnostisch]

Oh, great.

Another believer of another kook.

Dunn is like Hancock, Bauval and Daniken, all like to write conspiracy theories and total BS.

Sorry .. I am not perfect in English .kook means what? Crazy ?!

 

[cladking]

...all like to write conspiracy theories and total BS.

You know what's funny is that every single "kook" believes something different and you call each of them "conspirators". But every single Egyptologists all believe the pyramids are tombs and it never even crossed my mind that there is a "conspiracy". I don't believe "Peers" are engaging in "conspiracy" but rather they are pursuing a science founded on a series of false assumptions. They all agree on these assumptions because they are the basis of their study. When these assumptions were made they were far and away the best guesses possible. But they've never gone back and reviewed these assumptions in light of new evidence like the gravimetric scan. They do not systematically try to falsify any of these foundational assumptions. This is no conspiracy, it is the way the human brain works on modern language. They simply are oblivious to tower cores and steps and to the implications of their existence.

"Egyptology" is a belief system and they see conspiracy when their beliefs aren't shared. Believers often think outsiders are working against them.

I've spoken with many alternative thinkers and very very few see a conspiracy anywhere. There is a real tendency to not display or speak about objects that don't dovetail with current opinion but this is only "natural" as well. Why would a museum want to display an artefact that might lead the unsophisticated to the wrong conclusion?

 

[gnostic]

I guess I've let you get my goat a little bit here. The problem is Dunn is one of the best researchers who have rejected Egyptology. There are several very good people who tow the Egyptological line of bumpkins, stasis, tombs, and ramps because they want to be taken seriously by Egyptologists or they have fallen for the hype. Of course it does no good because Egyptologists simply reject outsiders. They smirk and go on about their business of parsing Ancient Language and ignoring science. Bauval actually gets some attention from Egyptology and from other researchers. Even I believe he's onto something though I don't exactly what. Hancock, as well, is rarely considered a "kook" now days. He has numerous keen insights into various fields. I don't follow his work much but some serious people do. I'd read something he wrote about the pyramids or their builders though wouldn't know what to expect. Even Van Daniken, while off the wall, had some very good points.

Wow.

You are such a hypocrite, cladking.

You instantly accuse the Egyptologists of believing that stinking-footed bumpkins...although I never seen any Egyptologist describing ancient Egyptians this, so basically a strawman attack...you defended Erich von Daniken, who believed that Egyptians were too stupid at all to construct the pyramids at all. You do realize that Daniken claimed that they were built by aliens.

The Stonehenge...aliens.

The Nazca lines...again, aliens. Here, Daniken believed they were landmarks for aliens as landing sites for UFO vessels.

The statues on Easter island...aliens.

Daniken think Egyptians and other races mentioned in his Chariots of the Gods book, worshiped these aliens as gods. Daniken does think Egyptians were indeed stupid.

“Off the wall”, you say. That’s an understatement. Daniken is nothing but an alien conspiracy theorist.

You defending Daniken only just verify your hypocrisy. You falsely believed Egyptologists think the Egyptians were superstition stinky-footed bumpkins, but that’s exactly how Daniken treated the ancient Egyptians.

Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval may not used the “alien angle” in their own books, but their works are all conspiracy theories, meant to shock people and sell books to larger audience who are largely science-illiterate or history-illiterate.

Their works are for mass media and the kooky pop cultures.

 

[cladking]

You instantly accuse the Egyptologists of believing that stinking-footed bumpkins...although I never seen any Egyptologist describing ancient Egyptians this, so basically a strawman attack...you defended Erich von Daniken, who believed that Egyptians were too stupid at all to construct the pyramids at all. You do realize that Daniken claimed that they were built by aliens.

What I said was Von Daniken isn't always wrong but is often off the wall.

If you take that as "support" then you have a strange definition of support.

I don't know Hancock's or Bauval's work well enough to comment extensively but I read one of Bauval's books and some stuff by Hancock and don't see any reason to call them conspiracy believers or kooks.

As a rule of thumb so long as a person's premises aren't contradictory or plainly false their work can be good. Some people have "strange" premises but are still insightful. Perhaps you're just looking for people who agree with you and agree with your premises.

Every Egyptologist on the planet believes the pyramid builders were highly superstitious, wholly ignorant of modern science, believed in numerous gods, and practiced magic. If you look up "stinky footed bumpkin" in the unabridged dictionary this is the definition. If it's illustrated it will have a drawing of people dragging tombs on ramps.

You can use words any way you choose but the fact remains you will not find an Egyptologist on this specific planet who doesn't believe that the definition applied to the great pyramid builders. Even worse is the vast majority of Egyptologists don't believe the Egyptians could have invented or used a pulley despite the fact it had been invented 1000 years earlier. The vast majority of Egyptologists believe that the means used to build the great pyramids is irrelevant to Egyptology and a distraction; they believe it was ramps anyway so why study it at all.

Now you can invent new words to say the same thing but the simple fact is that they are just words. Egyptologists can describe a swan with the characteristics of an ugly duckling but it still doesn't waddle and quack.


The ancient Egyptians were nothing like Egyptologists believe. They were not superstitious like Egyptologists are who each see what they expect just like all people today. Ancient people saw what they knew and communicated in a metaphysical language. We believe we see reality because everything we see is wholly comprehensible to us. We don't normally even see the anomalies. Ancient people used the word "amun" instead of "reality" because they knew reality was hidden from human eyes because our ignorance greatly exceeds our knowledge. Now we use Look and See Science that just pronounces reality to be whatever it looks like. It looks like ancient people were changeless and dragged tombs up ramps for superstitious reasons. Therefore this is reality to modern day people. This is what we see. This is why Egyptologists still see ramps even though they have been debunked and it's been shown that stones were pulled straight up the sides. Why do you think they STILL say out of one side of their mouth that it doesn't matter how they were built and it mustta been ramps out of the other?

 

[gnostic]

Unfortunately, It seems that you don't know much, my friend, about the pyramids.
Pyramids are not tombs as some claim. yes, it's not cemeteries, it's a surprise that the pyramids were and still are clean power generators like nuclear reactors now.

Seriously, Agnostisch, not a cemetery?

You do realize the fields to the east and west of Khufu’s Pyramid, are cemeteries, and to the south are row of mastabas (tombs). Even some builders have some small tombs for themselves, not mastabas or pyramids, but more simple tombs.

Other than pyramids, mastabas, other tombs and graves, and of course, some temples and funerary temples, and boat pits, the only evidence of people living there, are the builders’ quarters found in west of Khafre’s pyramid.

This area of Giza only served as a necropolis, as are Saqqara and Dahshur.

 

[gnostic]

Every Egyptologist on the planet believes the pyramid builders were highly superstitious, wholly ignorant of modern science, believed in numerous gods, and practiced magic. If you look up "stinky footed bumpkin" in the unabridged dictionary this is the definition. If it's illustrated it will have a drawing of people dragging tombs on ramps.

You can use words any way you choose but the fact remains you will not find an Egyptologist on this specific planet who doesn't believe that the definition applied to the great pyramid builders. Even worse is the vast majority of Egyptologists don't believe the Egyptians could have invented or used a pulley despite the fact it had been invented 1000 years earlier. The vast majority of Egyptologists believe that the means used to build the great pyramids is irrelevant to Egyptology and a distraction; they believe it was ramps anyway so why study it at all.

Now you can invent new words to say the same thing but the simple fact is that they are just words. Egyptologists can describe a swan with the characteristics of an ugly duckling but it still doesn't waddle and quack.


The ancient Egyptians were nothing like Egyptologists believe. They were not superstitious like Egyptologists are who each see what they expect just like all people today. Ancient people saw what they knew and communicated in a metaphysical language. We believe we see reality because everything we see is wholly comprehensible to us. We don't normally even see the anomalies. Ancient people used the word "amun" instead of "reality" because they knew reality was hidden from human eyes because our ignorance greatly exceeds our knowledge. Now we use Look and See Science that just pronounces reality to be whatever it looks like. It looks like ancient people were changeless and dragged tombs up ramps for superstitious reasons. Therefore this is reality to modern day people. This is what we see. This is why Egyptologists still see ramps even though they have been debunked and it's been shown that stones were pulled straight up the sides. Why do you think they STILL say out of one side of their mouth that it doesn't matter how they were built and it mustta been ramps out of the other?

I told you from the start, that I don’t give craps if the Egyptians used ramps or not.

You are the one who keep bringing ramps, just about every time to try to rebuff what I say. It is nothing more than strawman.

I didn’t support ramps, nor do I reject ramps. I simply don’t bloody care, cladking.

Cannot you not read, cladking? Can you not comprehend that I don’t give a crap, if ramps were used or not used during construction?

Why do you insist in being this sh## up when you are replying to me?

Ramps...bloody ramps. It is nothing than crap strawman.

 

[cladking]

Here's a big pyramid shaped structure inside of a cemetery.

Maybe it was dragged by bumpkins.

 

[gnostic]

Here's a big pyramid shaped structure inside of a cemetery.

Maybe it was dragged by bumpkins.

Again, with the dragging and ramp strawman.

How many times must I say I don’t give a crap with your BS ramp strawman?

And 2nd, I don’t follow any Egyptologist, so it is just more stupid baseless accusations.

You have read my replies, cladking. Did I ever bring up any Egyptologist by name in my posts?

Stop accusing me following Egyptologists, when I never referred to any Egyptologist in my posts. Stop lying what I didn’t say.

 

[cladking]

Again with ignoring my points!

Most of the supplies to build the church in which no bodies were buried were probably wheeled straight up to the side and then lifted straight up the side on ladders. This was very similar to how and why they built the great pyramids. Rather than horses the pyramids used horse power provided by a linear funicular. Rather than being pointed in two dimensions to shed water they were pointed in three to shed their own weight from vertical sides. Rather than being surrounded by graves marked by headstones they were surrounded by graves marked by tombs. Rather than standing for "spirituality" the pyramids stood as a "mnemonic" to remember the "spirit" dead king.

People have always looked for pretty places to bury their loved ones but this doesn't make this a tomb;

Even if it were surrounded by a cemetery it still wouldn't make it a tomb.

There is no direct evidence ANY great pyramid was intended or used as a tomb. The builders said they were not tombs.

Remind me again what high tech and sophisticated means you believe were used to build pyramids or are you just like Egyptologists who say it doesn't matter how they were built? Why do you almost never address anyone's points or questions and instead accuse them of conspiracy and being misguided? Why not provide some guidance? Tell us how these pyramids were really built and show your evidence they were tombs. I always get a kick out of unidentifiable body parts spread around the Red Pyramid. I always get a kick out of Egyptologists who fail to mention that bodies were crammed into any void that could be found for thousands and thousands of years after the pyramids were built and still there are no known burials in any great pyramid. There's no literature saying there was a burial in any great pyramid and no direct evidence of any nature that there was. There's no evidence any were built with ramps and the word "ramp" isn't even attested. There's no evidence the builders were superstitious other than a book from a century later that looks and feels like a book of incantation. There's no evidence that the builders were like later Egyptians except for interpretation of lists, labels, and incantation.

After you enlighten me about how you believe the pyramids were built why not mention where you heard it first. Tell me what evidence you have for your belief. How these were built lies at the heart of my theories and so is of extreme interest to me but I'd love to talk about any part of any of my theories or about the nature of knowledge, language, Egyptians, animals, metaphysics, Egypt, ancient materials, Pyramid Texts, etc etc etc...

I've gone to a lot of effort to show how, why, and when Egyptology went wrong AFTER first figuring out how the pyramids were built. It seems you could point out my errors.

I have some old and new leads to follow so for the next few days I might not answer. I will not answer more words games or ignoring of the argument. I think it can be determined when and how Meidum collapsed and there may be a lot more information in the PT that I can now tweeze out of it.

 

[Agnostisch]

Seriously, Agnostisch, not a cemetery?

You do realize the fields to the east and west of Khufu’s Pyramid, are cemeteries, and to the south are row of mastabas (tombs). Even some builders have some small tombs for themselves, not mastabas or pyramids, but more simple tombs.

Other than pyramids, mastabas, other tombs and graves, and of course, some temples and funerary temples, and boat pits, the only evidence of people living there, are the builders’ quarters found in west of Khafre’s pyramid.

This area of Giza only served as a necropolis, as are Saqqara and Dahshur.

We must think logically.
For example, King Sanfro, Khufu's father, had three pyramids, and it is hard to imagine that he intended to divide his remains between them.

 

[gnostic]

We must think logically.
For example, King Sanfro, Khufu's father, had three pyramids, and it is hard to imagine that he intended to divide his remains between them.

Founder of the 4th dynasty, Sneferu succeeded Huni from 3rd dynasty. The Meidum Pyramid was originally started by Huni, and Sneferu had tried to complete it. The problem was it had unstable foundation, and the funerary temple that was normally built beside it was never completed. Too many things were left un-completed, so Sneferu may have abandoned this building project, and decided on the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur.

The Bent Pyramid was strangely designed, with two different angles, in which may have caused this pyramid to be also unstable, which was probably why he began construction of the 3rd pyramid near the Bent Pyramid - the Red Pyramid.

It is called the Red Pyramid because of iron oxide found on the limestone that gave it reddish shade.

The Red Pyramid was the first true pyramid. Khufu’s own pyramid at Giza were based on his father’s design, and not the step pyramids, like the Step Pyramid of Djoser, which was the earliest pyramid.

No, Agnostisch, his body wasn’t going to be split 3 for each pyramid.

Second. Haven’t you noticed small pyramids built next to the 3 larger pyramids? The smaller pyramids could built for mothers or wives, or for children who died early.

It is the same with pyramids of Unas (5th dynasty) and the 6th dynasty Teti, Pepi I, Pepi II, where even smaller pyramids were built for other family members.

 

[Agnostisch]

Founder of the 4th dynasty, Sneferu succeeded Huni from 3rd dynasty. The Meidum Pyramid was originally started by Huni, and Sneferu had tried to complete it. The problem was it had unstable foundation, and the funerary temple that was normally built beside it was never completed. Too many things were left un-completed, so Sneferu may have abandoned this building project, and decided on the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur.

The Bent Pyramid was strangely designed, with two different angles, in which may have caused this pyramid to be also unstable, which was probably why he began construction of the 3rd pyramid near the Bent Pyramid - the Red Pyramid.

It is called the Red Pyramid because of iron oxide found on the limestone that gave it reddish shade.

The Red Pyramid was the first true pyramid. Khufu’s own pyramid at Giza were based on his father’s design, and not the step pyramids, like the Step Pyramid of Djoser, which was the earliest pyramid.

No, Agnostisch, his body wasn’t going to be split 3 for each pyramid.

Second. Haven’t you noticed small pyramids built next to the 3 larger pyramids? The smaller pyramids could built for mothers or wives, or for children who died early.

It is the same with pyramids of Unas (5th dynasty) and the 6th dynasty Teti, Pepi I, Pepi II, where even smaller pyramids were built for other family members.

There are NO writings found in the great pyramid indicating that it is a tomb nor are there in any of the other pyramids at Giza.. what little writing has been found was very amateur and out of place.. and was more in the style of graphitti than the writings that you typically find in a tomb of someone important. Go take a look at just a few tombs outside of Giza and you will see what I mean.. The tomb of Nefertari alone was so elaborate and she was only a Queen.. and you think that they buried the Pharoahs with that little bit of heiroglyphic chicken scratch as its only markings? The Egyptian people had more respect for their leaders than that.
To say otherwise is an insult to the culture.. it is obvious to anyone that has the ability to use logical thought and do simple historical comparisons that the Giza pyramids were NOT tombs.. I don't care WHAT some internet website told you... the fact is... any story you find that they claim says they are tombs was not found in those pyramids because those pyramids are devoid of story.