Khafre pyramid as Noah’s Ark?

[reverendALC]

There are many fantastical theories regarding the pyramids and their age, purpose, etc.

In all of the hullabaloo regarding the recent discovery of additional structures reaching great depths beneath the pyramid of Khafre… I found a Facebook post regarding some assertions by C.E. Getsinger from the early 1900s regarding Khufu. Now, the paper trail on this gentleman is sparse and (according to my research to date) all hearsay and anecdotal evidence, but these articles referencing him and his assertions are available:

Snippets sourced from here:
The Oregon daily journal. (Portland, Or.) 1902-1972, August 14, 1922, Page 6, Image 6

An interesting, if not wild claim, apparently quite baseless. A web search for the Getsinger character is rather fruitless indeed. Jason Colavito has the cogent collection of words about him, but then another vetting process ensues. That can be for a later time.

However, in a search for some form of corroboration; enter the Dead Sea scrolls. Some interpretations of the scrolls imply that the “ark” had a pyramidal shape, that the top of the “ark” came to a point, and more. Here is one discussion:
Was Noah’s Ark shaped like a pyramid?

The Dead Sea scrolls are nothing new, but in the last 10 years, science has improved (allegedly) to the point of being able to read previously illegible portions of text. I do find it curious that this Getsinger character of the 1900s was possibly privy to architectural facts about the pyramid(s) that escaped the mainstream for another 100 years.

Here are the radar images of the pyramid substructure of Khafre:

And some 3D renderings of an interpretation of the data:

There are some undeniable similarities between these modern images and the 1920s illustration of Khufu:

So far, this theory has some fuzzy support: an ancient nobody’s theory, some ancient scroll interpretation, and some modern (pseudo?) science providing new perspective on the scrolls and the pyramid. It could be coincidental; it could be some various nonsensical theories which overlap due to being the same type of crazy!

But wait, there’s more! There’s no shortage of theories about a deluge, or even the pyramids (even the entire plateau) being submerged. If the pyramids were just sitting there, Noah built his ark of gopher wood in Turkey, and the flood came… the pyramids would’ve been submerged anyway. Here’s an ok read:
Fossil Discovery Suggests the Pyramids and Sphinx Were Submerged Under Water | ARCHAEOLOGY WORLD

And a neat photo of some evidence:

So in all likelihood the pyramids were at least partially submerged in (salt) water, but were they meant/designed to be??? I can only think of one geometric shape that’s better suited to withstand erosive forces than a pyramid: a cone. However, a cone would be exponentially more difficult to build, and a pyramid would be a very fine compromise between structural durability and engineering feasibility. A pyramid would provide glancing angles for both a heavenly downpour as well as tidal assault.

Then there are the air shafts, or star shafts, or whatever you’d like to consider them, on the pyramid of Khufu.

As well as two additional shafts which are sealed:

Perhaps these were ventilation for the safe/dry occupants of the pyramids? Maybe a miscalculation of the upcoming deluge rendered the lower vents unusable and required their sealing. The king’s chamber shafts exit the pyramid at a height of approximately 240’ above grade. The sealed up queen’s chamber shafts would exit at around 160’ above grade.

I have read scholarly (and not so scholarly) articles suggesting that Giza submersion could’ve been anywhere between 30-130’, or 40-240’, with some suggesting as much as 400’.

This is a wild theory based upon a cobbling together of wild theories, but it’s fun to think about. Hopefully those with greater knowledge of Giza can set me straight.

 

[jonnye]

Just some random thoughts:
Noah's flood is a hard pill to swallow for modern people indoctrinated into the principles of Uniformitarianism. The geography of the antediluvian earth was far different than today's. There were no high mountains. There was one continent Pangaea or The Garden of Eden. It didn’t exist 350 million years ago but 6,000-1200. The transformation of the earth was due to a worldwide CATASTROPHE or Catastrophic Plate tectonics. The mountains rose to their present height. This released water from inside the earth. Genesis 7:11 “the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Modern science confirms there are massive amounts of water in the mantle or deep in the crust. It didn't rain in the antediluvian earth because the earth orbited a different star; probably the brown dwarf Saturn.

Wal Thornhill: The Star 'Proto-Saturn' | EU Workshop 2014
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDO1WNiocOE&t=66s


Was Saturn the sun part 1 and 2:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSzqKJOQYas

Earth orbited within the dwarf star’s heliosphere. This would account for the antediluvian earth covered in perpetual mist, why it never rained, and why Adam and his descendants lived so long; the canopy kept out the harmful cosmic rays that age people prematurely. Drinking water came up through springs. That's why Noah witnessed the 1st rainbow as the catastrophe shifted the earth’s orbit. The sudden upheaval of mountains is a recent event. Lake Titicaca in the Andes is a good example of this and the lake still supports oceanic life-forms at 10,000 feet altitude. The Ark was a barge. It had no propulsion, no steering, no masts nor sails. It was a perfectly designed maritime barge and perfectly seaworthy. It went wherever the currents took it and didn’t need anchors.

 

[reverendALC]

I mean, maybe… but thinking about the ark as a ship or barge, logistically… is it really feasible? I asked ChatGPT to approximate how much space would be required to house two of every land-dwelling creature. It suggested that to do so humanely would require 42 acres of animal storage only, not considering walkways, food storage, etc. ChatGPT opted to disregard insects for the purpose of this exercise, which would add another wrinkle.

When asked to store them in containers no larger than each creature itself, here’s the resulting estimate:

Assuming that the actual storage of creatures on the ark was feasible, how feasible is collecting the two of each? Then feeding and cleaning up after them? Providing adequate environments for them? Tangentially, if the world was flooded with seawater, how did all of the freshwater aquatic life fare?

If all species of creature were reduced to one breeding pair, then the level of genetic biodiversity we see today is pretty astounding and would support evolution, which is pretty incongruent with creationism and the ark. One might argue that micro-evolution is real while macro-evolution is a perversion of that reality designed to shroud creationism I suppose.

My point is, the ark is a pretty crazy idea. One man creating an enormous ship to carry the animal population of the earth to safety through the deluge… not to mention the logistics issue of gathering and caring for each of these animals.

The Norwegian seed vault takes 11,000 sqft to safely and securely store only 5,000 different species of agricultural plants. Some have gone as far to suggest that Noah’s ark was more likely a genetic repository than a physical containment of live beasts. I suppose that’s another fold-in here.

 

[Just]

I mean, maybe… but thinking about the ark as a ship or barge, logistically… is it really feasible? I asked ChatGPT to approximate how much space would be required to house two of every land-dwelling creature. It suggested that to do so humanely would require 42 acres of animal storage only, not considering walkways, food storage, etc. ChatGPT opted to disregard insects for the purpose of this exercise, which would add another wrinkle.

When asked to store them in containers no larger than each creature itself, here’s the resulting estimate:
View attachment 33761

Assuming that the actual storage of creatures on the ark was feasible, how feasible is collecting the two of each? Then feeding and cleaning up after them? Providing adequate environments for them? Tangentially, if the world was flooded with seawater, how did all of the freshwater aquatic life fare?

If all species of creature were reduced to one breeding pair, then the level of genetic biodiversity we see today is pretty astounding and would support evolution, which is pretty incongruent with creationism and the ark. One might argue that micro-evolution is real while macro-evolution is a perversion of that reality designed to shroud creationism I suppose.

My point is, the ark is a pretty crazy idea. One man creating an enormous ship to carry the animal population of the earth to safety through the deluge… not to mention the logistics issue of gathering and caring for each of these animals.

The Norwegian seed vault takes 11,000 sqft to safely and securely store only 5,000 different species of agricultural plants. Some have gone as far to suggest that Noah’s ark was more likely a genetic repository than a physical containment of live beasts. I suppose that’s another fold-in here.

I always assumed the ‘Noah’s ark’ idea was a misunderstanding of the collection of all creatures’ DNA. Wouldn’t take up as much space! Also the vast size of the Norwegian seed vault set up by among others, the richest woman in the USA, Amy Goldman Fowler. The size of the vault is speculative and potentially holds something beyond the seeds - anyone allowed to go there?

No Public Access:
The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is a restricted area, and entry is only permitted for authorized personnel due to strict security protocols.

I thought not.

 

[reverendALC]

Agreed that the extent of that operation is likely unknown and possibly cover for something far greater, but it does at least offer a perspective into the special requirements i think.

I also concur that the story of Noah’s ark is likely a mythical conflation.

 

[jonnye]

I mean, maybe… but thinking about the ark as a ship or barge, logistically… is it really feasible? I asked ChatGPT to approximate how much space would be required to house two of every land-dwelling creature. It suggested that to do so humanely would require 42 acres of animal storage only, not considering walkways, food storage, etc. ChatGPT opted to disregard insects for the purpose of this exercise, which would add another wrinkle.

When asked to store them in containers no larger than each creature itself, here’s the resulting estimate:
View attachment 33761

Assuming that the actual storage of creatures on the ark was feasible, how feasible is collecting the two of each? Then feeding and cleaning up after them? Providing adequate environments for them? Tangentially, if the world was flooded with seawater, how did all of the freshwater aquatic life fare?

If all species of creature were reduced to one breeding pair, then the level of genetic biodiversity we see today is pretty astounding and would support evolution, which is pretty incongruent with creationism and the ark. One might argue that micro-evolution is real while macro-evolution is a perversion of that reality designed to shroud creationism I suppose.

My point is, the ark is a pretty crazy idea. One man creating an enormous ship to carry the animal population of the earth to safety through the deluge… not to mention the logistics issue of gathering and caring for each of these animals.

The Norwegian seed vault takes 11,000 sqft to safely and securely store only 5,000 different species of agricultural plants. Some have gone as far to suggest that Noah’s ark was more likely a genetic repository than a physical containment of live beasts. I suppose that’s another fold-in here.

There is some interesting information here:
Noah's Ark has been found with high probability on Mount Ararat

 

[reverendALC]

There is some interesting information here:
Noah's Ark has been found with high probability on Mount Ararat

Interesting for sure. I won’t pretend to have taken the time to read that entire page, but I’ve been down the Ararat rabbit hole many times.

I think that this whole pyramid-as-the-ark theory intrigues me because I just can’t get past the logistical improbability acquiring all those animals, shepherding them onto a boat, and caring for them on a boat.

Similarly, the thought of humanity undertaking the pyramids (with the alleged technology of the time) for not much more than burial tombs? Also doesn’t make much sense. The pyramid(s) as the ark is flimsy as hell but it’s also “two birds with one stone”.

I found this excerpt from the 1982 book Revelations of things to come:

It doesn’t support the ark theory, but it’s more 40+ year old discussion of what’s beneath the pyramid(s).

I’d like to be clear that I don’t believe that the pyramid(s) were Noah’s ark, but I do think it’s worth discussing.

 

[jonnye]

Interesting for sure. I won’t pretend to have taken the time to read that entire page, but I’ve been down the Ararat rabbit hole many times.

I think that this whole pyramid-as-the-ark theory intrigues me because I just can’t get past the logistical improbability acquiring all those animals, shepherding them onto a boat, and caring for them on a boat.

Similarly, the thought of humanity undertaking the pyramids (with the alleged technology of the time) for not much more than burial tombs? Also doesn’t make much sense. The pyramid(s) as the ark is flimsy as hell but it’s also “two birds with one stone”.

I found this excerpt from the 1982 book Revelations of things to come:
View attachment 33762
It doesn’t support the ark theory, but it’s more 40+ year old discussion of what’s beneath the pyramid(s).

I’d like to be clear that I don’t believe that the pyramid(s) were Noah’s ark, but I do think it’s worth discussing.

ANCIENT ARCHAEOLOGY
Ancient Superhighways: 12,000-Year-Old Massive Underground Tunnels Stretch From Scotland To Turkey

 

[papaganda]

I know pop culture is generally not a great place to look for historical confirmation, but I find that cartoons (perhaps because they are designed for children or as jokes) have the ability to pass off - as a joke or a silly plotline - a concept that may very well have more to it than mainstream histories allow for, and would change our understanding of history. This Futurama episode involved a Martian spaceship that was a pyramid, used at one point to shuttle the martians here from a doomed mars. There are other examples of this behavior across the entertainment complex but I think they won’t ever be more blatant/portrayable than what can be shown in a cartoon.

All I’m really saying is, that groening and co. repped this pyramid-ark idea, is indication that there is some merit to the thought process, as they’re the only ones left allowed to say anything about it publically, assumed to be constant jokers

 

[Seiya]

After reading the thread, I was “What the hell is Khufu?” So they changed Cheops to Khufu? Why a Japanese name? That's how sound to me. I know the original ancient civilization of Egypt look like physical as Chinese race, not Japanese.

The true name is The Great Pyramid of Iesa, and was substituted to "Cheops" that the Roma follow by British priest
with the idea that under these deceptive names the truth regarding it would never be suspected. But they are always lazy. In order to effect this deception they invented the word Cheops as a name for The Great Pyramid, by taking the Irish word Spoehc, or spirit, which The Great Pyramid of Iesa represents, and writing the word backwards. Cheops
I won't even waste my time looking for the reason for this name Khufu.

As you may already know, the British priests of Rome rewrote our history by hiding and altering it, lying in plain English.

It's funny these stories that appear with the insistence of linking Egypt and Atlantis, it's clear that they come from the scrobe priests. A regular person does not understand why since one is in the desert with 1/4 of the territory touching the Mediterranean Sea and the other in the waters, surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean which is very far from Egypt.
The connection is that the same person who invented the Atlantean legend was the one who invented the Egyptian one too.

The fabled "Atlantis" of Plato, he who is also a fictional character invented by the priests, who have written Plato's works.
Intended this story to serve as an historical drop-curtain on the stage of Ireland's great career.
Atlantis is the name under which these plotters have sought to sink Ireland and bury her great past in the oblivion of the bed of the ocean. The name Atlantis was formulated for this very reason and to secretly signify and commemorate her past. The word Atlantis signifies "the illustrious land of wisdom." ("At"means illustrious, "Lan" means land or church, and "Tis" means wisdom) It is a compound Irish name composed of three words and justifiably applied to Ireland. But it has been done secretly by the British priests of Rome, as one may infer from the fact that they have this Isle of Atlantis lying at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

So I will say this gentleman C.E. Getsinger is just an agent to spread the fictional stories invented by the British priests of Rome.

The Great Pyramid & Noah Ark - This pyramid symbolizes this fact in man's being. That such a fact is a part of man's nature becomes very plain to us when we understand that in the long ages of the past, the soul or personality of man has evolved through the animal kingdom, and he retains more or less strongly yet the traits and tendencies of the animal nature in his personality, such as anger,
selfishness, jealousy, etc. This fact is embodied in the - Bible myth of the Ark; for man himself is the Ark into which went a pair, male and
female, of the animals of every living species. These elements in our nature we must overcome if we would escape from the "wheel of death and rebirth." It is the goal of man to achieve liberation from his lower nature, and it is an individual task for each and every human being to accomplish.

That's the truth. Since I learned it, it seems obvious to me. It's an answered question, there's no room for any speculation, without "if". And I believe this is the indicator between truth and lies. Because the lie requires constant maintenance so that the truth does not begin to appear. Lies never bring peace. That's why I see lies as Evil

And finally, these "discoveries" are just more lies to distract people. It doesn't take much to identify this. "radar pulses from a satellite"
Come on people! Wherever you find it written satellite, throw it away. Don't even waste your time.

If we don't have the technology to cross water. We only have the primitive sonar system from 1915. Well, that's what submarines (which I highly doubt are what they claim to be) still use today and cost billions, and if you're like me, thinking that submarines stay deep in the water and communicate with other locations, receiving and transmitting information, you're as mistaken as I was. No signals cross water, they have to go to the surface to communicate.
But at the same time there is a Satellite to "read" kilometers inside the earth.

Few will understand but majority don't like when I say this but: Everything is fake even when is true is fake.

 

[reverendALC]

Everything is fake even when is true is fake

This is a serious problem. We have lots and lots of information, and we don’t know if any/all of it is factual. We must (try to) discern which “facts” are valid and worth considering and which facts are worth dismissing, while the only compass we carry is our intuition and personal experience/observation.

We make SO many deferrals, taking facts for granted because we’re accustomed to them, similar to those who take the globe for granted. To see the world with open eyes requires the ability to abandon any/every presumption or assumption.

For a moment I’ll digress; I love the idea of cotton. At face value, it seems abstract that these little white fluff balls are spun into thread and then woven into cloth. I “believe” that many of my clothes are made of “cotton” because when I was young I was “taught” about slavery, cotton picking, and Eli Whitney’s cotton gin. I’ve never seen the cotton fields, I’ve never seen gins in action, it’s just what I’ve been told all of my life. My clothes have a little tag in them assuring me of their cotton content, and I trust that A) cotton is a thing and B) that’s what my clothes are made of. From there, I can argue that cotton and wool, being natural fibers, are better for our bodies to contact than rayon, polyester, and other synthetic fibers, which may be a sensible argument but is hinged upon the acceptance that cotton (and wool) are real and are what we think they are. Cotton may be sheared from millions of poisonous space aliens being raised in underground facilities, I don’t know. I don’t believe that, but it makes the point beautifully, that we choose which truths we accept and that which truths we (blindly/willingly) accept further affect our thought processes.

I almost desire some sort of reset, to bring humanity back to only relying upon truths which are self-evident, and not things we were taught by people who took other people’s words for it.

Back to the pyramids, this argument is founded upon suppositions. Was there an ark? Was there a need for an ark? Are they really stone through and through? Were they really marble clad? Is the riffraff beneath them real? How old are they really? Were they really submerged? Do they really align with Orion’s Belt? Do the shafts really align with the stars? I mean, are they REALLY in Egypt? Do they even exist?

I believe they’re made of stone, they really exist, and are in Egypt. That’s all I’ve got though.

 

[Seiya]

This is a serious problem. We have lots and lots of information, and we don’t know if any/all of it is factual. We must (try to) discern which “facts” are valid and worth considering and which facts are worth dismissing, while the only compass we carry is our intuition and personal experience/observation.

We make SO many deferrals, taking facts for granted because we’re accustomed to them, similar to those who take the globe for granted. To see the world with open eyes requires the ability to abandon any/every presumption or assumption.

For a moment I’ll digress; I love the idea of cotton. At face value, it seems abstract that these little white fluff balls are spun into thread and then woven into cloth. I “believe” that many of my clothes are made of “cotton” because when I was young I was “taught” about slavery, cotton picking, and Eli Whitney’s cotton gin. I’ve never seen the cotton fields, I’ve never seen gins in action, it’s just what I’ve been told all of my life. My clothes have a little tag in them assuring me of their cotton content, and I trust that A) cotton is a thing and B) that’s what my clothes are made of. From there, I can argue that cotton and wool, being natural fibers, are better for our bodies to contact than rayon, polyester, and other synthetic fibers, which may be a sensible argument but is hinged upon the acceptance that cotton (and wool) are real and are what we think they are. Cotton may be sheared from millions of poisonous space aliens being raised in underground facilities, I don’t know. I don’t believe that, but it makes the point beautifully, that we choose which truths we accept and that which truths we (blindly/willingly) accept further affect our thought processes.

I almost desire some sort of reset, to bring humanity back to only relying upon truths which are self-evident, and not things we were taught by people who took other people’s words for it.

Back to the pyramids, this argument is founded upon suppositions. Was there an ark? Was there a need for an ark? Are they really stone through and through? Were they really marble clad? Is the riffraff beneath them real? How old are they really? Were they really submerged? Do they really align with Orion’s Belt? Do the shafts really align with the stars? I mean, are they REALLY in Egypt? Do they even exist?

I believe they’re made of stone, they really exist, and are in Egypt. That’s all I’ve got though.

That's was a kind of joke. But what isn't joke is from all I wrote about the thread you choose take the irrelevant joke sentence and call a "serious problem".

Am I the only one who found the "cotton moment" jump to "slavery, cotton picking" hilarious?

So are you saying when I come across information, what matters is choosing which facts I like, excluding what I don't like and then deciding whether the information is valid. That's

I completely disagree.

1 - What matters in a piece of information is only whether it is true or false.
2 - Information is not a consultation. A piece of information is not asking for your opinion regarding what it is saying.
3 - I can give you facts from a lie, many from a single lie.
4 - You can not live "only compass we carry is our intuition and personal experience/observation. Every minute of every action we take is totally based on presumption or assumption.

Exactly like you did in "back to the pyramids...". Nothing I wrote is based on assumptions, quite the opposite. But because you choose to accept information based on your taste and what you want to believe, you ignore the information and continue in the fantasy. Besides not being able to understand allegory.
Insisting on fantasy, anyway. Good luck.

 

[reverendALC]

Well, private discussion aside, it would behoove us to recalibrate the conversation.

I meant that it is very easy to believe that my shirt is cotton, because I believe that cotton is a plant that grows abundantly and its fibers may easily be spun into thread and consequently woven into fabric. I believe these things not because I’ve witnessed them, but because I’ve been told them my entire life.

Similarly, it’s very easy to believe that the pyramids are massive burial tombs, thousands of years old, built by slaves of the Egyptian empire. Or it’s easy to believe in the deluge and the ark, if you’ve been told these things all of your life and had them reinforced by school, media, etc.

I enjoy this forum in particular due to the people who are capable of investigating the world through fresh eyes!

 

[Coulness]

Just for interest, have you seen this?
Ark of Bukhara - Wikipedia

 

[reverendALC]

Just for interest, have you seen this?
Ark of Bukhara - Wikipedia

Nope, another thing to read about

But it reminds me, why was Noah’s ship called the ark? Ark and its roots typically mean large box or chest, and extended meaning like “place of refuge” are far more recent.

Now I find that not only a big ass boat, but a structure is an ark?

 

[Tapioca]

Nope, another thing to read about

But it reminds me, why was Noah’s ship called the ark? Ark and its roots typically mean large box or chest, and extended meaning like “place of refuge” are far more recent.

Now I find that not only a big ass boat, but a structure is an ark?

I found these:

The difference between Noah's ark, Moses's ark, and the ark of the covenant in Hebrew.

Ark = Tevah only mentioned twice in scripture
Noah built an ark

• “So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark (tevah) of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.”-Genesis 6:13-14

Moses was saved in an ark

• “And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark (tevah) of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink. And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side; and when she saw the ark (tevah) among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.”-Exodus 2:2-6 and 10

Hebrew Names of the Ark of the Covenant
In the original Hebrew the Ark of the Covenant has three different main names:

• “Aron Ha-Edut” {ארון העדות}– literally means ‘the Ark of the Testimony’ and can be found in the Book of Exodus in general and in our weekly Torah portion in particular.
  • “There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony…” (Exodus 25:22)
• “Aron Ha-Brit” {ארון הברית}– literally means ‘the Ark of the Covenant.’ This is the most popular Hebrew name for the Ark and can be found in the Hebrew Bible mainly in the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua.
  • “And Joshua said to the priests, “Take up the ark of the covenant and pass on before the people.” So they took up the ark of the covenant and went before the people.” (Joshua 3:6)
• “Aron Ha-Elohim” {ארון האלוהים}– literally means ‘the Ark of God’ and can be found in the Book of Samuel (1 and 2) and in the Book of Chronicles (1 and 2).
  • “And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim.” (2 Samuel 6:2)

Strong's Lexicon ARON: Ark, chest, coffin
Original Word: אָרוֹן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: arown
Pronunciation: ah-ROHN
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-rone')
Definition: Ark, chest, coffin
Meaning: a box

EEK! Well coffin is an interesting translation!! "Noah into the coffin!!"

So Ark is basically a box.

Are there any native Hebrew speakers that can explain this further?