Sad, sad, sad, as pointed many times before this is a monumental straw man, archeologists and almost all the experts report that the big huge ramps were not used. You are not paying any attention, and so it goes for all the issues you have with physics and chemistry that show that your contraption never could had worked. And then there is no evidence for it.
It is really underwhelming that you demand us to point out where you are wrong, when we have done it already and you act like if that was not done.
So what did it mean when Set swallowed the eye of horus? How could one detect the attention of horus by odor alone. Why is the attention of horus perfumed?
695a. To say: The eye of Horus drips on the tuft of the dn.w-plant.
695b. Ye two Horuses who are chief of the houses, great lord of food in Heliopolis,
How does the attention of horus drip on vegitation and to which horus does the term apply?
I could go on and on all day but the fact is your definition doesn’t fit in context in all places. “An opening for water” fits in every single place!!! This is the strongest implication that the authors believed the “eye of horus” was an opening for the water.
“Opening for water” makes the entire PT and the entire culture comprehensible as people who used natural phenomena not only to build pyramids but for thought and language itself.
I don’t know why this is so hard to groke except that it doesn’t fit into what we think we know.
No matter how ramps were configured you wouldn’t want stones at the base but as high up as is practical with whatever configurtation was employed. The very last thing you’d do is excavate stone at the base of the pyramid before construction ever began and build a water collection device in the excavation exactly as they did at G2. It would be monumentally stupid, stupid on a Biblical scale, to excavate stone and then fill in with ramps. This ALONE is virtual proof they didn’t use ramps.
The fact is that ramps are debunked (post #152) and no amount of semantics will ever restore them. The evidence says stones were pulled up one step at a time and the excavation at G2 is weak implication that they employed a motive force. The scale of the work is very strong implication that they employed a moitive force.
Inadequate as you yourself admitted that it was hard to picture it and you gave up.
You only demonstrated that you are not willing to do it. As pointed before the cave-ins are one big problem you get by ignoring even the simple model we can deduce from your rambling.
It does not bother them because other models existed decades ago, you only show even more ignorance.
You miss why models are needed indeed, it is not to show yourself how possible an idea is, it is to show others with much more expertise than the one you have if a contraption is possible.
And it is clear that you already know how hard is to make a simple model that would account for all the issues pointed before, like were would the natron water pump that injects all those tons of seltzer into the underground was and how did it work.
That’s alright since I’m always carried away to simpler times and a different perspective when Ilet Van Morrison “Take me Back”;
I’ve been walking by the river
I’ve been walking down by the water
I’ve been walking down by the river
MESSAGE REDACTED
Everything felt so good, so good, so good, so good, so good
And so right, so right, so right, just
So good, so right, so right, in the eternal
In the eternal moment, in the eternal moment
In the eternal moment, in the eternal moment
When you lived, when you lived
When you lived, in the light
When you lived in the grace
In the grace, in grace
When you lived in the light
In the light, in the grace
And the blessing.
-1991
…And when I really have to get away from it all there’s “Alan Watts Blues”.
I guess maybe I don’t want to go anywhere. I just want to be somewhere even if it’s far away from the madness of modern life.
Mod Note: Please don’t post full lyrics to songs unless you hold the copyright.
No. It’s hard to draw it in any recognizable perspective. This is why the Egyptians drew it in the scientific perspective since the colloquial perspective couldn’t encompass it with the means they used it and it was impossible from the vulgar.
It’s easy to picture in the mind but then I’ve had a lot of practice.
It remains a straw man because the vast majority of researchers do not depend or talk about a single ramp going all the way up.
And what you claim here has no support whatsoever, you need a cite for researchers claiming what you imagine they are saying over here. Because you have no trust left on the things you claim.
Of course this shows only the depths of your ignorance, the drawings show many types of ramps that were proposed before (it is not the idea just from the maker of the site) and the models were made and were made a long time ago.
I only needed to show that you were wrong about “models just being made this year”.
My understanding is that there are no other known “languages” concurrent with the PT other than Sumerian because no other language had writing and any media that survived.
I believe “Sumerian” is actually another dialect like Egyptian. Where “nun” was the concept of ancient water in Egyptian it was “enlil” in Sumerian. The very fact that five utterances from the PT are Sumerian in origin does suggest this “oneness”. If they had the same “religion” and this “religion” was actually science and language then it was a simple matter to adapt Sumerian dialect into Egyptian.
The evidence and logic fail to support the idea that ancient people could operate outside of theory to build pyramids. It is so vastly illogical I can’t imagine how I missed it myself. It is just glaringly obvious that current beliefs will fall by the wayside because they are wrong. It requires theory to invent complicated processes like agriculture and cities. There is no force that can create such thing outside of ideas so far as modern science has determined. If anyone is offended it is misplaced because science isn’t really wrong and God is certainly not disproven. I am merely creating plausible explanations to tie all the evidence together.
So what is the scientific explanation; that agriculture was instinctive in humans? …Just like dam building is instinctive in beavers.
No it isn’t this way. Every single ramp hypothesis has been open to being changed as fatal flaws are pointed out. This is why I call them “escheresque”.
They morph and change like clouds on the wind. After enough changes they will eventually look like something Escher designed. I kid you not, there’s one of these amorphous ramp ideas that actually had most of the stones moving downhill on the ramps.
The ramp hypothesis has more attributes of science fiction than science except science makes great science fiction and ramps don’t.
I suppose if I drew six different types of alien spacecraft levitating stones this would be science?
No, even the ramp study did in 2013 that purportedly proved ramps were possible simply assumed a ramp that was never described. It was an interesting study and very eye opening but it didn’t model any ramp.
Leafcutter ants also, and some ants ‘herd’ aphids like livestock.
But in any case, for most of the time in which humans lived on earth, there was no agriculture, so I sincerely doubt that agriculture is “instinctive”.
From what I can tell, linguists do not believe this – according to modern linguistics, Sumerian and Ancient Egyptian are not closely related at all – in fact, Sumerian is a ‘language isolate’, unrelated to any other known language. Ancient Egyptian is Afro-Asiatic, and thus related to Hebrew, Arabic, and other languages.
I don’t even know what you’re saying here. It reads like gobbledygook to me.
I’ve posted drawings. I could make more but drawings don’t amount to anything. Ya’ don’t even need pencil and paper to draw. A child can do it.
This proves nothing at all which might be why you forgot them. It’s equally vacuous to someone drawing ramps or aliens or even stones that can sprout wings and fly 300’ at a time.
