No, that is not correct. Again, problems in Egyptology have nothing to do with the validity of your own observations. Your observations must be established in fact, not by false dilemma. Your explanations are riddled with this kind of illogic and that indicates to me you are unwilling examine your own conclusions, or even to attempt to truly prove them out. You seem so very satisfied in your personal knowledge that Egyptologists are wrong that it’s not worth your bother to find out if your own concepts are actually correct.
Hardly.
Egyptologists do claim there is a mountain of evidence for their beliefs and they don’t agree on the meanings of the most basic words. These are simple facts. Everytime they use the term “cultural context” they are alluding to this mountain of evidence. They say there couldn’t have been aliens because it doesn’t fit the “cultural context” but the fact is no two Egyptologists will agree on the meaning of “the stones fly like the fledglings of swallows”, or “bring to me the boat that flies up and alights”. And not one of them ever thought to google a video of a swallow’s first flight!!! I’ll give you a clue to pyramid building but you won’t know it. On a swallow’s first flight it closely hugs the contours of the ground and seems to be pulled through the air.
Everything I attribute to Egyptologists is literally true. However many of these things are carried to the absurd. I seriously doubt that any Egyptologist thinks the Egyptians walked in all manner of foulness and was blind to everytrhing except his gods. But this is still the image they are projecting. They are claiming that the men were made strong through the belief their dead king was a god and it gave them the power to drag stones up ramps. Just because I change the wording to highlight Egyptological beliefs doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I have never heard any Egyptologist describe building pyramids without making the statement their dead king was a god and the men were highly motivated by their beliefs. Ultimately using ramps to lift stones 481’ in a desert is fantastic and it requires some effort for many people to believe it. We are taught this nonsense as children before we have the visceral knowledge that shows its impossibility.
But the part that is most offensive is that they almost invariably add that the Egyptians had no other technology than ramps. Even though the wheel was 1000 years old (1200) if Egyptological dating is correct) they refuse to allow a wheel might have played a role. Even though I have ALREADY PROVEN an easier way exists and it is well evidenced (pulling stones up one step at a time), they still cling to the notion that only ramps are a viable explanation for how they were built and the evidence.
No, these are not straw man arguments but a logical extension of what they are actuially saying. They actually use the terms “mountain of evidence” and “cultural context” despite the fact their ideas about tombs and ramps are unevidenced. The PT specifically and repetedly says the pyramids weren’t tombs. There is a near vacuum of evidence and no cultural comntext at all unless I’m right. If I’m right there’s cultural context everywhere because what they said agrees with me, it agrees with using the weight of water to lift stones step by step.
Let me try again.
If I find the problems in Egyptology by understanding the Egyptians then it follows if these errors in Egyptology are real then there’s a high degree of probability I understand the Egyptians.
Obviously, you don’t know how Im found these errors but I do, and I know no reason you should doubt it.
To each his own. We can’t believe everything we’re told.
Nope, the simple fact is that every time posters demand a link to an egyptologist claiming what you tell us that they are claiming we get only your rhetoric.
When confronted with clear straw men (like the one about them just being like religious people and ignoring evidence to change their views) you reply that it was a joke that you made.
That is no evidence at all.
You mean, other than almost every single thing you’ve posted in this thread?
OK, OK.
Then why don’t you tell me what Egyptologists really believe and how the pyramids were built and I’ll rip that apart with evidence and logic.
The problem here isn’t what I believe Egyptologists believe. The problem is what Egyptologists believe. If they translate something as superstitious gobbledty gook then they believe at least one ancient person wrote superstitious gobbledty gook. Nothing could possibly be simpler than this.
Yes, there is a high probability that you make the claims that you make. The problem is that you can’t demonstrate that you found errors in Egyptology by understanding the ancient Egyptians so your statement is pointless. And as you continue to substitute fallacy for reason you provide the only reason necessary to doubt you.
Well, of course ancient peoples wrote superstitious gobbledty gook. Antiquity is where most superstitious gobbledty gook comes from, though modern technology allows us to create superstitious gobbledty gook at levels of efficiency previously undreamt.
What’s nice about this is that we already know enough not to bother, because we’ve seen what you use for “logic” and what you consider “evidence”, and we know that the real things would just baffle you.
It doesn’t work that way: you made the claims, you are the one that needs to produce the evidence that what you claim about what the egyptologists are saying is correct; for example, more than once you were already shown to be wrong by insisting that egyptologists are still insisting on a big ramp, and yet** even in the documentary cited many times already it is reported that the use of a big ass ramp is not accepted as practical by researchers nowadays.**
And yet you can not do the simple act of linking to examples of what you claim here. It is only more words and no evidence. No wonder the ones that do have some knowledge about the writing in this thread are not accepting what you claim.
One of the reasons I don’t read or quote Egyptologists very much is I find much of what they say highly offensive and most of it disturbing. It’s easy for their ideas to creep into my thinking because they are often right in a left handed sort of way. I still try very hard to avoid their opinions and mostly just see them on message boards and blogs.
One of the better Egyptologists is Dr Mark Lehner. He was an occultist who was sucked into Egyptology. He has this to say about ancient Egyptians;
“Nut was the personification of the sky. She was imagined as bending over the earth with her head in the west, where she swallows the setting sun and stars, and her loins in the east where she gives birth to the rising sun and stars.”
None of this is in any way accurate. It is a confusion of ancient beliefs and statements. Even the words used are wrong. Much of the imagery is actually from many centuries after the great pyramifd building age. The ancient perspective wasa highly scierntific based on theory from 40,000 years of careful observation ant thought. This science was known to all and not just a handful of their scientist/ priests. They used terms like “nut” as a mnemonic to remember the attributes of the sky and as a way to think more quickly; to be more clever more often.
As the statement is made it is simple nonsense that is highly indicative of the type of garbage and misinterpretation that permeates Egyptology.
But you don’t read ancient Egyptian. You merely make up metapborical interpretation of someone else’s translations, who’s opinions you hold in disregard. So all your evidence is imaginary and on a house of cards foundation. Your confidence is not justified.
As a left-handed person, I am deeply offended.
[sinisterly]I intended no offense[/sinisterly]
No. It is Egyptologists who make up metaphorical interpretations based on words whose meaning changes each time they are used.
I am merely “reading” what they actually said. There is no “interpretation” in my understanding. When they said “tefnut makes the earth high under the sky by means of her arms” they not only meant it literally but it was literally accurate by their definitions within modern scientific theory. In other words they said tefnut made the earth high and they were exactly correct.
It is Egyptologists who believe the statement was gobbledty gook with no real world meaning and merely reflective of the beliefs of superstitious bumpkins. These would be the superstiutious bumpkins who believed the sky gave birth to the sun each sday agter swallowing him at night. This is nonsense. It never existed and can’t be real. Even as metaphor it fails again and again. It is illogic elevated to the status of “science”.
I should add that this statement also can have only one single meaning. English sentences can have millions of possible meanings based on intended definitions and connotations. In the ancient language sentences had only one possible meaning and speakers defined perspecxtives and adjusted grammar to help the listener find it. If you take the ancient writing apart all the meaning is lost just like if you tinker with a computer program. This is why the language isn’t understood. They are parsing the meaning right out of the words. Rather than seeking the meaning of the words as I did they are seeking the meaning of the “statements”. There are no statements and if you look at it in bits and fragments there is no meaning either. This is the same mistake later generations made in trying to understand the ancient writing. They had the same confused understanding that Egyptologists have today.
“Tefnut used her arms to make the earth high under the sky” because tefnut is gravity and it was the falling caused by the weight of water that pulled (using ropes or god arms) the stones up such that “geb” (the earth) became high under the sky. My explanation can be taken in many thousands of ways dependent on the beliefs of the reader but the original statement COULDN’T BE MISUNDERSTOOD!!! If the listener didn’t understand it it would sound like nonsense. There would be no meaning at all; just like Egyptologists believe.
Why? I mean, what is so special about ancient Egyptian writing that makes you believe it was completely and utterly literal? No other writing in history has proven to be purely literal, why would that be true for hieroglyphics? Especially when taken in context they appear to be fanciful and spiritual.
This doesn’t even take in to account your wildly fanciful interpretations of the translations (you don’t read hieroglyphics, or understand ancient Egyptian) that others have produced. There’s no hieroglyphic for geyser and yet you seem to assign that to what is written, as well as dozens of other non-intuitive symbols and concepts.
And that further doesn’t account for the fact that you have no physical evidence for anything you claim. The concepts you endorse seem to violate the laws of physics as we understand them. And you are unable or unwilling to even produce a scale model of your vision so your incomplete and fanciful descriptions fall short.
To sum up:
[ol]
[li]There’s no reason to believe the writings were literal[/li][li]There’s no reason to believe your interpretation of the writings are correct[/li][li]There’s no way your hypothesis works without violating the laws of physics[/li][/ol]
Three strikes.
Of course this will have no impact on your witnessing for your cause, but it felt good to write it down.
Incidentally, I recommend episode 2 of the History Channel series Engineering an Empire for some plausible ideas regarding ancient Egyptian construction.
They use all of that debunked modeling software stuff on that show, so it would be of no interest to the King of Clad. They also consult Egyptologists, so you know it can’t be good. :eek:
I doubt that. I suspect that, just as you have demonstrated an inability to understand science, engineering, and philosophy or to distinguish between science, engineering, and philosophy, and since you can never actually quote the Egyptologists in the errors you attribute to them, you are simply foisting off your own bad logic and misunderstanding on them, wholesale, and the stuff you attribute to them is simply more of your imagination.