Ben Carson's Strange Theory About The Egyptian Pyramids

[Skylar]

With chamber after chamber inscribed in burial hieroglyphs, the Egyptians writing extensively about building and using the pyramids as tombs, and an undeniable demonstration of exactly that use and purpose being demonstrated.

Meanwhile, there is *nothing* to back your claims. No grain, no mention of using the pyramids as granaries anywhere. You claim the pyramids were 'hermetically sealed', but can't back the claim. You can't explain why the pyramids only have 1/10th of 1% of their volume available for storage....if they were meant for grain.

THINK.

sure there was, you just haven't found them.

Show us. Don't tell us.

curious, why were the Giza pyramids built so close to the sea?

Define 'so close'. And what does that have to do with your bizarro 'granary' theory?

Seem an odd place to build a tomb especially if you don't want someone invading the contents, eh?

the Great Pyramids of Giza, located on a plateau on the west bank of the Nile River, on the outskirts of modern-day Cairo. Hmm by the Nile. Funny stuff.

Sigh...if you have an argument to make, make it. But using your logic, the Statue of Liberty, Golden gate Bridge and Seattle Space needle would all have to be a granaries.

After all....they're 'so close' to the ocean.

THINK.

the point is who puts a tomb near water except for New Orleans?

You...you do realize that the Giza pyramids are above sea level, right?

And when people ship, they keep warehouses near the boats for ease of loading.

What 'warehouse'. You claim the pyramids were 'hermetically sealed' to protect grain. Yet insist all the grain had been taken out of them. And can't explain why a 'granary' would only have 1/10th of 1% of its internal volume available for storage.

Why are you so desperately polishing this turd of an argument?

I'm giving you information, how you use it is totally on you. You take grain off of ships and you store it in hermetically sealed enclosure for future use. Why else be by the river?

You can't even define what 'so close' is. With your argument 'proving' that the Golden Gate Bridge and the Statue of Liberty must be granaries, as they're both 'so close' to the water.

Your argument is crap. Why do you keep polishing this turd? Its obvious even you don't buy your own bullshit. Even Jim has distanced himself from Carson's nonsense. So why keep polishing?

 

[jc456]

sure there was, you just haven't found them.

Show us. Don't tell us.

curious, why were the Giza pyramids built so close to the sea?

Define 'so close'. And what does that have to do with your bizarro 'granary' theory?

Seem an odd place to build a tomb especially if you don't want someone invading the contents, eh?

the Great Pyramids of Giza, located on a plateau on the west bank of the Nile River, on the outskirts of modern-day Cairo. Hmm by the Nile. Funny stuff.

Sigh...if you have an argument to make, make it. But using your logic, the Statue of Liberty, Golden gate Bridge and Seattle Space needle would all have to be a granaries.

After all....they're 'so close' to the ocean.

THINK.

the point is who puts a tomb near water except for New Orleans?

You...you do realize that the Giza pyramids are above sea level, right?

And when people ship, they keep warehouses near the boats for ease of loading.

What 'warehouse'. You claim the pyramids were 'hermetically sealed' to protect grain. Yet insist all the grain had been taken out of them. And can't explain why a 'granary' would only have 1/10th of 1% of its internal volume available for storage.

Why are you so desperately polishing this turd of an argument?

I'm giving you information, how you use it is totally on you. You take grain off of ships and you store it in hermetically sealed enclosure for future use. Why else be by the river?

You can't even define what 'so close' is. With your argument 'proving' that the Golden Gate Bridge and the Statue of Liberty must be granaries, as they're both 'so close' to the water.

Your argument is crap. Why do you keep polishing this turd? Its obvious even you don't buy your own bullshit. Even Jim has distanced himself from Carson's nonsense. So why keep polishing?

Because you don't have proof of anything on this subject, you have hear say. Hear say. So the probability exists that being on the rivers edge was strategic as a shipping port. and grain stored in the pyramids.

 

[Skylar]

Show us. Don't tell us.

Define 'so close'. And what does that have to do with your bizarro 'granary' theory?

Sigh...if you have an argument to make, make it. But using your logic, the Statue of Liberty, Golden gate Bridge and Seattle Space needle would all have to be a granaries.

After all....they're 'so close' to the ocean.

THINK.

the point is who puts a tomb near water except for New Orleans?

You...you do realize that the Giza pyramids are above sea level, right?

And when people ship, they keep warehouses near the boats for ease of loading.

What 'warehouse'. You claim the pyramids were 'hermetically sealed' to protect grain. Yet insist all the grain had been taken out of them. And can't explain why a 'granary' would only have 1/10th of 1% of its internal volume available for storage.

Why are you so desperately polishing this turd of an argument?

I'm giving you information, how you use it is totally on you. You take grain off of ships and you store it in hermetically sealed enclosure for future use. Why else be by the river?

You can't even define what 'so close' is. With your argument 'proving' that the Golden Gate Bridge and the Statue of Liberty must be granaries, as they're both 'so close' to the water.

Your argument is crap. Why do you keep polishing this turd? Its obvious even you don't buy your own bullshit. Even Jim has distanced himself from Carson's nonsense. So why keep polishing?

Because you don't have proof of anything on this subject, you have hear say. Hear say. So the probability exists that being on the rivers edge was strategic as a shipping port. and grain stored in the pyramids.

On the contrary, I have the Ancient Egyptian writings where they describe why and for whom they built the Pyramids as tombs. I have undeniable demonstration of their use for this purpose. I have burial heiroglyphs all over the walls of the burial chambers. And I have the pyramids being 99.9% solid stone.

Literally 99.89%. Demonstrating the absurdity of the granary narrative, as there is virtually no space for storage.

You've got jack shit to back up any part of your narrative. Literally nothing but you citing yourself. And you're nobody.

 

[rdean]

No one is talking about the final purpose of the Pyramids, which is obviously burial.

What Carson was speculating about and that I dont see any reason to dismiss much less declare him an idiot for is the idea that there may have been multiple purposes for the structure as it was being built.

The Pyramids took a long time to build, and typically were started as soon as the pharaoh in question was born. What evidence is there that no dual uses could have been made of them while they were being built? Why couldnt grain storage, weapon storage, tool storage and maintenance, record keeping, housing and other things not also have been done within the Pyramids as they were built? What is so difficult about coming back and filling in with limestone cement as the Pyramid got higher and followed close behind the work?

Good grief, you libtards are so afraid to think for your own damned selves that you reflexively attack anyone that comes up with an original idea that isnt from some duly degreed 'expert'.

Fuck, you people are stupid.

Did they find grain inside the pyramids?

Has anyone who has ever investigated the pyramids ever said they were used for grain?

A grain storage from Ancient Egypt. Why go to so much trouble to use the pyramids, when something so simple could be used?

I mean, you're saying I'm "stupid", then come on, show the evidence. Any evidence. Anything at all would be nice.

why would they find grain? It was obviously removed centuries after the needs or more common buildings were built. I don't believe anyone ever stated they were built directly for grain, just that grain might have been held in them. The fact is you have no idea. You just don't.

every single kernel?

they built a frickn building that lasted thousands of years, you don't think they didn't have good cleaning skills?

They clearly had excellent writing skills. Why no mention ever of anything you've made up?

And of course, if they built the pyramids to store grain....why were they 99.9% solid stone?

THINK.

Think????????

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!

Think????????

Do you have any idea how hard that is for GOP sheeple?

 

[rdean]

The Pyramids were for burial, it's clear to anyone who has been inside one, and clear to anyone with half a brain and uses it, that this is the case.

No one is talking about the final purpose of the Pyramids, which is obviously burial.

What Carson was speculating about and that I dont see any reason to dismiss much less declare him an idiot for is the idea that there may have been multiple purposes for the structure as it was being built.

The Pyramids took a long time to build, and typically were started as soon as the pharaoh in question was born. What evidence is there that no dual uses could have been made of them while they were being built? Why couldnt grain storage, weapon storage, tool storage and maintenance, record keeping, housing and other things not also have been done within the Pyramids as they were built? What is so difficult about coming back and filling in with limestone cement as the Pyramid got higher and followed close behind the work?

Good grief, you libtards are so afraid to think for your own damned selves that you reflexively attack anyone that comes up with an original idea that isnt from some duly degreed 'expert'.

Fuck, you people are stupid.

Did they find grain inside the pyramids?

Has anyone who has ever investigated the pyramids ever said they were used for grain?

A grain storage from Ancient Egypt. Why go to so much trouble to use the pyramids, when something so simple could be used?

I mean, you're saying I'm "stupid", then come on, show the evidence. Any evidence. Anything at all would be nice.

why would they find grain? It was obviously removed centuries after the needs or more common buildings were built. I don't believe anyone ever stated they were built directly for grain, just that grain might have been held in them. The fact is you have no idea. You just don't.

every single kernel?

they built a frickn building that lasted thousands of years, you don't think they didn't have good cleaning skills?

every single kernel?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, and how do we know that the Egyptians used pyramids to bury their dead? They told us:

The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts

then why didn't they?

They did. Read the translation of the texts where the ancient Egyptians explain why and for whom they built pyramids.

Notice the stark lack of any mention of 'granaries' anywhere. You're litereally pulling that out of your ass, backed by absolutely nothing.

For fuck's sake....the pyramids were 99.9% solid stone. A granary that has virtually NO storage space? That is the stupidest theory I've ever heard.

Why are you polishing this absolute turd of a theory? Because Carson told you to?

only one body ever found in a pyramid. Do you think there was but one model pyramid?

With chamber after chamber inscribed in burial hieroglyphs, the Egyptians writing extensively about building and using the pyramids as tombs, and an undeniable demonstration of exactly that use and purpose being demonstrated.

Meanwhile, there is *nothing* to back your claims. No grain, no mention of using the pyramids as granaries anywhere. You claim the pyramids were 'hermetically sealed', but can't back the claim. You can't explain why the pyramids only have 1/10th of 1% of their volume available for storage....if they were meant for grain.

THINK.

sure there was, you just haven't found them.

curious, why were the Giza pyramids built so close to the sea? Seem an odd place to build a tomb especially if you don't want someone invading the contents, eh?

"the Great Pyramids of Giza, located on a plateau on the west bank of the Nile River, on the outskirts of modern-day Cairo. Hmm by the Nile. Funny stuff." credit the 'history' web page

And you haven't found them either. Surprising. It's like finding evidence of UFOs inside a hamburger. Just because you haven't found evidence there, doesn't mean you will.

As to why they were near the nile, one suggestion is that were to look like the night sky.

Another is that in Egypt, if you've ever been, the whole country is next to water, because where there is water there is LIFE. The Nile was EXTREMELY important to the Egyptians. You go a few miles to the east or west of the Nile and it's desert, it's desolate, nothing there.

However there were LOADS of pyramids (lots of people died, apparently, estimates are that around 100% of ancient Egyptians died) in lots of different places.

In Luxor, the temples were build CLOSE to the Nile too. Does that mean the temples were used for storing grain?

I mean, you're trying to claim black is yellow.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Pyramids were for burial, it's clear to anyone who has been inside one, and clear to anyone with half a brain and uses it, that this is the case.

No one is talking about the final purpose of the Pyramids, which is obviously burial.

What Carson was speculating about and that I dont see any reason to dismiss much less declare him an idiot for is the idea that there may have been multiple purposes for the structure as it was being built.

The Pyramids took a long time to build, and typically were started as soon as the pharaoh in question was born. What evidence is there that no dual uses could have been made of them while they were being built? Why couldnt grain storage, weapon storage, tool storage and maintenance, record keeping, housing and other things not also have been done within the Pyramids as they were built? What is so difficult about coming back and filling in with limestone cement as the Pyramid got higher and followed close behind the work?

Good grief, you libtards are so afraid to think for your own damned selves that you reflexively attack anyone that comes up with an original idea that isnt from some duly degreed 'expert'.

Fuck, you people are stupid.

Did they find grain inside the pyramids?

Has anyone who has ever investigated the pyramids ever said they were used for grain?

A grain storage from Ancient Egypt. Why go to so much trouble to use the pyramids, when something so simple could be used?

I mean, you're saying I'm "stupid", then come on, show the evidence. Any evidence. Anything at all would be nice.

why would they find grain? It was obviously removed centuries after the needs or more common buildings were built. I don't believe anyone ever stated they were built directly for grain, just that grain might have been held in them. The fact is you have no idea. You just don't.

This is the funny thing right here. You ask a question which shows you have no understand of this topic whatsoever. You're either trying to prove something to make sure your view of the world remains correct even though it's based only on what's in your head, or you're taking the piss. I'm not sure which.

Either way. Archaeologists, you know, them there people who go try figure out what happened in the past, they find stuff and then they try and figure out how relevant it is.

If you use something to store grain, which is very small, there will almost certainly be, in at least one of these, evidence that grain was stored there.

ancient malt & ale : what's the archaeological evidence for malt?

"Carbonised or charred grains are frequently found in archaeological excavations from the neolithic, when people first began to cultivate and process grain, right through to the medieval era and beyond. Carbonised grains are found all over northern Europe."

So if they found grain in neolithic communities, why wouldn't they find it in the Pyramids, especially somewhere so dark, and somewhere not used much later on as it was sealed and closed?

"Is it evidence of a grain store or granary that has been destroyed by fire? This was suggested in interpretations of excavations of an huge rectangular timber building atBalbridie, Fife, Scotland where thousands of carbonised grains were found?"

The suggestion that a lot of grain found together could indicate that this is a granary.


But like has been said before. You're not presenting ANY evidence for your argument. So.... it's very telling. Basically you know you're wrong.