Sorry, but I already made that Scrooge reference. Try again.
Is that the National Geographic one hosted by Bob Brier? Because Brier gets so effing enthusiastic about Houdin’s ideas that it almost called it all into question. And Houdin still has a BIG ramp, just not one that goes all the way to the top.
Placing the cladding stones without damaging the ones in place is piquing my interest, especially the ones over the corner ramp turnarounds. Making a pile of rocks is one thing. Covering the pile of rocks with pretty ones could be much harder. My viscera say that there was a lot of of people clinging to scaffolds and sanding out scratches.
Still it is only just up to a third of the total height to add the stones over the Main Chamber, the length then is short enough to reach the bottom of the second pyramid area. Where the second ramp of the great pyramid most likely began. One could be pedantic and claim that the incline that goes from the sphinx to the second pyramid is just a walkway but Houdin and others see that incline as the first ramp section of the great pyramid.
The reason why it is important for pseudo scientists to prop up the impractical big ramp to the top is precisely to make all researchers sound silly, because to be effective the length of it would be almost a mile long and require more material than the pyramid itself, very few egyptologists think that that was feasible, so most researchers think that any ramps were smaller than that.
It’s still a big-ass ramp. And Brier annoyed me. Such unseemly enthusiasm is what leaves Archaeology open for parody and Poe-ing, like what cladking has created. It needs to return to its dry, dusty roots, as exemplified by Howard Carter and Drs Henry Jones, Sr and Jr.
I am really annoyed by his continuing use of “bumpkins.” The only people who consider the Egyptians too stupid to build the pyramids are the Ancient Aliens morons, and I do not wish to be lumped in with that convicted conman, von Daniken, or the nut with the hair. Proper investigators consider them deucedly clever, which is why, thousands of years later, we are trying to figure out how they did it.
Ooops! I’ve fallen into his “they were smarter than us” trap. : old, snarkier rolleyes:
Egyptologists are right in a left handed sort of way.
In reality the ben ben was the phalus of atum and stood atop the primeval mound which was created be the deposition of calcium carbonate. It was the “sandbank” and “ugly face bringing water”;
The hole through the ben ben was the feminine principle of creation and atum’s consort, iusaas. The ben ben built itself similarly to how the pyramid built itself. The ben ben was removed before the geysers were drilled and taken to museums;
1652a. To say: O Atum-Khepri, when thou didst mount as a hill,
1652b. and didst shine as bnw of the ben (or, benben) in the temple of the “phoenix” in Heliopolis,
1652c. and didst spew out as Shu, and did spit out as Tefnut,
The eruption spewed out shu (upward) and spit out tefnut (downward). This water was embued with upward and downward and by so moving they defined the sky and the earth who are their progeny.
It’s impossible to understand the cultural context without understanding the ben ben. This is why 150 years of intensive study of the PT has still yielded no word definitions to Egyptologists. They don’t understand the ben ben and they don’t even know what a simple w3s-sceptre was for or how it operated. All they have are countless mysteries that can’t be explained evidentially or through the cultural context. To build the paradigm they’ve had to bolt and clamp the facts to it because it is like teflon and otherwise nothing will stick to it.
This wouldn’t be such a sad state of affairs if they didn’t shout down those who disagee by waving a non-existent cultural context.
I don’t understand anything the same way most people do. But my equations still work. My observations still reflect reality sometimes. And my theory about pyramid building still makes accurate predictions and explains the news. I’m sure as time goes by this will become increasingly apparent. More and more preople are looking at this in terms of water and are seeing more and more water.
Read the link about the Egyptological interpretation of the benben above and compare it to mine. They never reall6ty say much of anyrthing and when they do it’s just interpretation and based on concepts from 1000 years after pyramid building. This is just the way it is. Egyptological opinion as it applies to the pyramid builders is not evidentially based but is derived from later concepts and the four foundational assumptions. This doesn’t prove they’re wrong but it sure makes their opinions irrelevant to me and quite annoying. They can’t even argue outside their assumptions so discussion is extremely difficult. This is why they simply dismiss everyone who doesn’t accept the assumptions; they have no choice because Egyptology is founded on these assumptions.
All ramps are debunked (see posat #152). Even internal ramps are debunked but these are less solidly debunked than ALL other ramps. But internal ramps have severe flaws not least of which is a near vacuum of evidence to support them.
It doesnt matter how you configure a ramping system the stones at the top must travel about a mile up one ramp or another. Egyptologists design systems there I call “esheresque” because the stones can even travel downward and still arrive at the top. Reality, definitions, and common sense simply don’t allow this.
Perhaps I should say that I understand author intent rather than the language itself. The language is complex and will require decades to properly translate. It will require a lot of deductions and large numbers of dead ends. But since it is totally logical it will be possible to understand it very very much more deeply than I do. But, after all this work and the last nuance is understood, I believe we’ll see very little metaphor per se. There are various artistic and literary devices but these are not so much about meaning as expression. This language will never be “translatable” because it is metaphysical. It would be like trying to set a highly complex computer program that operated animals with their own will to English. It can’t be done. It can’t be translated.
But the language can be “explained”. The intended meaning of the author and what he was thinking is simply in the context of what he wrote.
The PT appears to be nothing more than a book of ritual but it may well be in a flowery language or poetry. I don’t think it is; I think it’s in a very formal ancient language thart was still used in science, courts, and finance. The people spoke it but might have felt more comfortable using “slang” which was more similar to modern language and where most meaning was expressed directly. I don’t know. All I have to work with is the words carved in stone and the observation that these words are understood scorrectly ALL of the grammatical errors that Egyptologists believe exist dissipate. There are no grammatical errors and they arise from our misunderstanding. This really should be quite obvious since these exact same “errors” exist each time it is repeated. People don’t carve a lot of errors in stone. When they do it is corrected or discarded.
Whether it’s all literal or not isn’t extremely important since all of the most absurd sounding statements only sound absurd. The king asks for the boat that flies up and alights because he needs a ride to the pyramid top. Not because he’s confused and thinks he’s going to an imaginary heaven he cal live forever.
Yes there is. The word for geyser was “duat” which was respresented by a circle with a star in it. The circle was the arm of nut (the well) and the star was the bubbles in the water that powered it. The action word was “3gb” which meant “the violent inundation that causes abundance”. It’s name was atum. Everything is there right in the PT where no one ever thought to look.
Every one of your assertions is uncited. “No word for ramp” – uncited. “No overseers buried”, “the grooves are the routes”, “pyramid town numbers were too small”, and many more – all uncited. I’m not going to take your word for it.
So in order to prove the word ramp doesn’t exist or that there are no overseers of ramp builders I have to specifically cite all human knowledge which doesn’t include the word ramp from before 2500 BC!!!
This isn’t the way it works. You have to show me the word exists from before 2500 BC. It’s the same with ramp overseers; you show me wrong. This will prove impossible because these concepts aren’t in the ancient writing. It is Egyptologists who claim there is a mountain of evidence but no Egyptologist has consulted this mountain and found the word “ramp”. It’s not there.
I can ease your burden of checking all sources and all human knowledge because the only place to look fpor ramps is in the PT or the writing on tombs. Here is a compendium of virtuall tomb writing at Giza;
You are welcome to read these and get back to me if you think I’m wrong. But I’ve already scoured them looking for support or refutation of my hypothesis and Egyptological hypothesis. I can find nearly nothing at all to support the paradigm but there are volumes that support the use of geysers.
Egyptologists don’t want to argue these points because I can cite the builders own woirds and titles to show they are wrong. I can demolish ramps with evidence and logic and they are demolished whether they admit it yet or not. There were no ramps and I have proven beyond doubt there’s a simpler and easier way to build. I have shown this easier method is the best evidenced theory in existence. These are simple facts and appeals to “cultural context” means nothing at all if the word “ramp” isn’t even attested.
And Houdin still has a BIG ramp, just not one that goes all the way to the top.
