It is not unreasonable to begin from the default assumption that a thing is what it appears to be. These writings appear to be a rambling collection of religious and poetic mythology.
The words geyser and pulley don’t appear there either, you say they do, but you’re just making shit up.
“What it appears to be” simply doesn’t hold up upon closer scrutiny. “What it appears to be” has proven incapable of leading to any understanding of the Egyptians or their work.
What it really appears to be if you look at it closely is ritual and not incantation. I don’t know how they missed this obvious fact except that they are understanding it solely in terms of the book of the dead.
Since it is not “what it appears to be” perhaps it has nothing to do with religion and magic either.
Piffle, the reality is that PT texts and Book of the dead texts were carved and painted in coffins of kings and less important ancient egyptians. The context is clearly about what to do when going to face judgement and about the dangers in the afterlife. It is not related to geysers or the pie in the sky contraptions you imagined.
The evidence found in many tombs and burial sarcophagi is that they had everything to do with religion. Your geyser being used to build the pyramid is what remains in the land of magic.
You could put two of them together, base to base, and get an 8-sided die, so you could play Dungeons and Dragons with, like, real Titans.
Just remember to roll the dice away from Cairo, 'cause mom will get mad if you wipe out the city, the way you did Sodom when you knocked over the candlestick. And they’re still talking about Noah and the spilled Dr. Pepper.
Heh, you reminded me that somewhere in a discount store I saw bible themed Noah sodas, with flavors like
NOAH’S RHINO ROOTBEER, PORCUPINE PINEAPPLE SODA, COUGAR COLA.
With a great jingle line:
FLOOD YOUR THIRST!
Nope. Akkadian is contemporary with both Old Egyptian and Sumerian.
Timeline of written languages…as always, claddy’s ‘understanding’ is based on his often sketchy understanding and obsessive focus that excludes everything not based on his gut or his interpretation of other peoples translations.
ETA: And, of course, this is just what archeologists have FOUND…doesn’t mean there weren’t any before this, simply that they have either been lost or just not found yet. New discoveries, contrary to the King O’ Clad’s assertions, happen continuously (though, granted, that whole war throughout the ME and Arab Spring thingy has put some dampers on discovery lately) and the timeline seems to always get pushed back with new discoveries.
claddy, I know you think you are real knowledgeable and smart, but this thread–and your years-long online campaign–has gone on and on with you not getting the slightest clue that your theory might have flaws. There’s a very good reason that, of the several billion people on the internet, only you understand and accept it, and your endless defense of it is looking more and more pathetic. Since you seem incapable of being embarrassed I’ll do you a favor and be embarrassed for you: :o
And here’s me suddenly realizing for you that you have wasted nine years on it: :eek: :smack:
Life is too short to waste it on nonsense. Get medication for your compulsion. Find another hobby; classes in ancient hist…okay, maybe art classes could be a fun way use your creativity.
The rest of you should leave the poor man alone. He won’t change, and it makes you look like bullies.
I think we’re giving him exactly what he wants - attention. He’s not a, er, mythological caprophobic Scandinavian creature - if he was, he’d have made his post and fled, or been far more obnoxious in his responses - but he has a similar motivation, I think. The criticism might feed a sense of a-lonely-voice-crying-out-in-the-wilderness. And there’s been enough of interest in the thread that I’m still willing to check it every day.
Ignoring the King o’ Clad might actually be bullying.
Cladking, can we set aside the geyser issue for a moment? There’s something else I hope you’ll clarify.
You’ve said many times that the evidence shows stones were hauled straight up the sides of the pyramids, one step at a time. Do you mean evidence from your interpretation of the PT or are you saying there is physical evidence that this was the method of construction?
If you do mean there is physical evidence, would you mind describing it as clearly and succinctly as you can?
Thanks.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” This thread has long since lost any conceivable purpose. cladking doesn’t use language the same way the rest of us do, and has no intention (or ability) to provide any evidence for his fantasies.
If such a thing were up for a vote, I’d vote to close the thread. It’s just rowing in circles at this point.
Rambling poetic mythological bullshit will tend to do that. You’re assuming there IS a coherent, meaningful message in it.
No doubt that, to the Egyptians, it was meaningful and coherent.
But in Cladkings eyes that would mean that they were Stinky Footed Bumpkins.
It’s like Seventies art-rock. What kind of recreational medications did the Egyptians have?
Sure, in the sense that there’s still a market today for rambling Rambling poetic mythological stuff, and the consumers of same don’t necessarily consider it bullshit.
I’ve touched on all this before so briefly;
All the great pyramids appear to be stepped pyramids. Steps must play some integral role in how they were constructed since it required extra effort to build the steps and these steps weaken the structure.
There are visible vertical and horizontal lines on “all” the great pyramids shows that all forces that operated on it occurred in the horizontal and vertical planes. This is only consistent with pulling or pushing the stones straight up the side and “pushing” can be ruled out logically and mostly ruled out evidentially.
G1 is shown by the gravimetric scan to be a five step pyramid.
Ancient reports suggested they were built in steps.
Pulling stones straight upis the most direct, fastest, easiest, and most logical means to lift stones using ancient technology.
Thank you for your consideration and concern. Obviously I’d be pretty embarrassed if I believed I were intelligent and having the proper beliefs were important. But if this whole thing has taught me anything it’s taught me that everybody has his own unique set of beliefs. I used to race to threads because I feared someone would beat me to posting the punchline but this appears to be impossible because everyone is on a completely different page and we no longer have the playbook we were born with.
If I have anything to truly be embarrassed about it’s that it has taken me so long. This highlights what a poor researcher or “scholar” I am. A real scholar could have done all this in a year and a good Egytologist in a few months. But I spend a lot of time trying to recruit help by means of proving the theory to attract a little interest. Talking about it helps me sort it out in my mind and input has often proven valuable or pointed to new leads.
Even if I’m wrong about everything (how curious from my perspective I’m the only one who might be wrong), it’s still interesting that somehow the world appears to fit such an arcane, obscure, and wet pattern. Right or wrong water really is life itself whether your culture is in a desert or a swamp.
I’ve read just about everything there is to read from Shakespeare to computer code and never once found anything at all from the hand of man that didn’t make sense. Sure, I’ve seen word soup but you can usually pick a few ideas out of it. Are you suggesrting that each of the authors of the PT were loopy enough to compose word soup and that each of them wrote the same kind of word soup? This sounds like another language to me.
I was once tasked with designing a computer controlled operating system for a small manufacturing plant. It was a simple enough system but there were numerous processes being controlled so the programming itself was a little more complex. My boss insisted that I have the programmers write up the instructions for the operators rather than doing it myself. They sent this document to me and I didn’t recognize it. I saw that the subject concerned the operating system because there were numerous key words related to the system but the entire thing appeared to be some form of word soup. It required twelve readings before I suddenly understood the whole thing at once. The only way to describe it was a computer program set to English. This is exactly what the PT looks like. A bunch of key words and a “computer program” set to English.
I’m sure I mentioned linguists don’t agree with me. Obviously if they knew there was a “Tower of Babel” you wouldn’t have heard it from me first.
There really isn’t much support for the concept that these languages were continuous through 2000 BC. Their understanding of these ancioent languages is based on things that are incomprehensible like the PT. They only have the vocabulary to tie ancient Egyptian to more modern Egyptian. It’s the same with other languages. There’s simply no way to show that the language didn’t change unless you have something that can be understood from the earlier timeand this means you have to be able to answer simple questions about what the authors are believed to be talking about. Just seeing a bunch of key words means nothing because the vocabulary didn’t change.
People have little clue just how weakly some of the soft sciences are founded on actual evidence. We all display a rush to judgement caused by seeing what we expect and confirmation bias. When there is complete agreement it’s called “science” and is usually wrong when it’s also outside of experimental results.
There are no PT or Coffin Texts inscribed on the walls or anywhere inside any great pyramid.
Egyptologists don’t differentiate the real pyramids from the tiny little mud brick pointed tombs that come later to obfuscate.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the PT are incantation. They are obviously ritual and not incantation. They were fooled by the similarity to the book of the dead which is derived from it after the collapse of the language.
