Rather than wasting your time typing those words, you could have been sipping a nice, cold Egyptian beer.
1901: “What wonder, then, that standing on the shadowy-threshold of prehistoric times, Egypt still charms us by the irresistible attraction of undying fame? What marvel that her vast antiquity and changeless calm possess a power, like that of fabled Lethe, to render us forgetful of the feverish excitements of the western world, and from her silent and enduring monuments to teach us the littleness of gods and men?”
– Egypt
1907: “Here, again, the changeless Egypt holds up a mirror that reflects the past.”
– The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt as Illustrated by Tombs of the Middle ... - John Garstang - Google Books
1963: “And there is Egypt, which is changeless.”
– Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive Search
1977: “Egypt: Change Comes to a Changeless Land”
– March 1977, National Geographic magazine
2011: “Ancient Egypt has been misunderstood since Herodotus put pen to papyrus in the fifth century B.C., though its appeal has never flagged. Exhibitions of Egyptian artifacts still draw large crowds at museums, and the “documentaries” on cable channels continue to flood in. But much of this attention feeds into an idea that Egypt is “other” and “exotic”—a changeless, mysterious world of tombs, temples and sorcerers. Hollywood is guilty of promoting this image, but so are scholars, who are prone to emphasize mummies and royal tombs to the exclusion of topics such as agricultural production, social organization and, broader still, economic history.”
– http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704893604576200393350126576
Like I said, common in pop culture, especially travelogues. Usually intended as hyperbole, sometimes intended literally.
No! You can’t use facts or logic to dispute any statement I’vve made. I’m very very careful that everything I say is in agreement with nature, physical law, the physical evidence, and logic.
I have never stated the Giza pyramids are the first great pyramids and don’t know what I’ve said to make you believe that.
There is no evidence of any sort that any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using ramps. This is a FACT. There is evidence that can be interpreted to mean stones were moved toward the pyramids on ramps and I’ve shown the flaws in this interpretation. But there’s not even any evidence that stones were dragged to the pyramid by men. There’s no evidence of any sort stones were lifted on the great pyramids with ramps. This is extrapolation by Egyptologists that doesn’t fit logic, common sense, or any evidence.
All the evidence says stones were pulled straight up the side one step at a time.
People choose to believe in ramps but now even Egyptologists are backing off of ramps. This is because I debunked ramps and they know the logic and evidence don’t support it. Egyptologists have always been relatively unconcerned about how the pyramids were built because it doesn’t interest them as much as what the people who dragged stones up ramps believed. This is just the way it is. They have simply supported the idea that they used ramps by saying that ramps are the simplest technology and there was no other technology available and left it at that. But now it’s biting them because ramps are debunked. The word “ramp” isn’t even attested from the great pyramid building age.
If you are aware of any statement I’ve made that is inconsistent with reality then please quote them specifically and I will defend them. I greatly prefer you stick with “misstatements” that are relevant to the main argument aboiut how the pyramids were built and stay away from opinion and especially the opinion of Egyptologists. I don’t care about the opinions of Egyptologists as they relate to pyramid building and prefer not to google them.
They don’t make a lot of statements that are easily googled.
Ah! An accomplished student of Professor Harold Hill’s “Think System” of learning.
Did you know that the Egyptians were first to cultivate yeast around 4500 BC?
This is how they learned the properties of CO2 (rising begetter) to beget risings in cake, beer, bread, and water. They were familiar with the properties of this as well as the fact it was fatal when it collected in low lying areas or canme running down the wadi and was deflected away from the workers by the “Wall of the Crow”.
2109. The sky trembles, the earth quakes before the god, before N.
2110a. N. [is not enveloped] by the earth;
2110b. ’Iḫ.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by the earth.
2110c. Thy fame is by day; thy fear is by night, as a god, lord of fear.
“’Iḫ.t-wt.t” is risings begetter. It is CO2 that is released from the earth. Men fear it by night when solar heating stops and allows it to puddle in low lying areas.
Why are these simple concepts opaque to people.
My mentor taught me the first person to lose his temper loses. 
The name of one could be “tomb of Khufu”.
A nearby grave could be a brother who said he wanted to be buried near Khufu.
There could be an account of burying a king in a pyramid.
There could be a god of pyramid tombs.
There could be a chief builder of the tomb which is a pyramid.
There could be a body discovered in a pyramid or an account of such.
There could be verbiage in the PT that suggests the pyramid was a tomb.
There could be any manner of writing that suggests the pyramid was a tomb.
The pyramid could have “here lies Khufu” inscribed in it.
Merrer could have delivered stones to the tomb of Khufu or even had them signed for by the overseer of stone draggers.
There is simply no direct evidence that any great pyramid was intended as a tomb.
Egyptologists could prove they were tombs by doing the science that they dislike so very much. (No, no Egyptologist will admit he doesn’t like science, he merely acts like he doesn’t like it) All they’d have to do is a microscopic forensics study that would show exactly what was going on at the time.
Don’t hold your breath.
Be specific. What did I get wrong?
Because it would be a waste of their time to call attention to you.
There are hundreds of nutcases wandering around promoting Creationism. Most are ignored by the scientific community. Only those who actually get a sufficient audience (and collect enough money) that they threaten to corrupt schools by inserting their crackpot claims into texts and classrooms get addressed by genuine scientists.
Why should any genuine historian or anthropologist bother to spend time “refuting” the claims of one more lonely voice (among hundreds) with odd ideas posted on the internet?
Some research suggests alternate estimates to the accepted workforce size. For instance, mathematician Kurt Mendelssohn calculated that the workforce may have been 50,000 men at most, while Ludwig Borchardt and Louis Croon placed the number at 36,000. According to Miroslav Verner, a workforce of no more than 30,000 was needed in the Great Pyramid’s construction. Evidence suggests that around 5,000 were permanent workers on salaries with the balance working three- or four-month shifts in lieu of taxes while receiving subsistence “wages” of ten loaves of bread and a jug of beer per day. Zahi Hawass believes that the majority of workers may have been volunteers. It is estimated that only 4,000 of the total workforce were labourers who quarried the stone, hauled blocks to the pyramid and set the blocks in place. The vast majority of the workforce provided support services such as scribes, toolmakers and other backup services. The tombs of supervisors contain inscriptions regarding the organisation of the workforce. There were two crews of approximately 2,000 workers sub-divided into named gangs of 1,000. The gangs were divided into five phyles of 200 which were in turn split into groups of around 20 workers grouped according to their skills, with each group having their own project leader and a specific task.
A construction management study (testing) carried out by the firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall in association with Mark Lehner and other Egyptologists, estimates that the total project required an average workforce of 14,567 people and a peak workforce of 40,000. Without the use of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools, they used critical path analysis to suggest the Great Pyramid was completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.
This entire thing is pure speculation. There are a few things that are actually established about the division of labor but even these are weakly evidenced. It’s correct there were physles ands gangs but it’s unknown how many men were there or the relative sizes of the phyles. For instance somethingf the writer doesn’t even mention is that the phyles were named after parts of a boat. Each part of this “boat of re” didn’t need equal numbers of men.
4000 men to quarry, lift, and place stones is simply a ridiculous assertion totally devoid of common sense. He’s implying 4000 men did all the work while 40,000 men, and 40,000 women and children supervised them.
My guess is that the primary reason goes far beyond how offended they are when I say there was no ancient religion and no belief in magic. I think the primary reason is they have enough expertise to clearly see my interpretations more closely match the facts than their own. By trying to refute a superior explanation they would call attention to it. They need this time to find evidence for ramps and not defend their ideas against the very person who took away their favorite weapon.
Of course they do get quite angry when they see how I portray these people so it’s entirely possible that anger is the chief motivation. Egyptologists get highlt flummoxed at the first hint you don’t believe there were ancients “gods”. This is much more deeply engrained than ramps.
Do you seriously not recognize the difference between support workers – cooks, medics, carters and carriers, messengers and scribes, launderers, gatherers of fuel, etc. – and “supervisors?” You’ve distorted what was actually said into a rank absurdity.
Also, the 4,000 were the core of most-trained workmen, and they, themselves, were probably the actual supervisors. Much of the rest of the labor would have been untrained or less-trained, and that was what was accounted for in the tens of thousands of seasonal workers.
Because your interpretations of ancient texts are entirely subjective. You say they were talking about geysers and C02 and counterweights, but it is all just retconned fantasy. You came up with the story, then interpreted the texts to fit your story, and we are just supposed to take your word for it. Everything boils down to your unique interpretations. Your theories are the antithesis of logic, the antithesis of science. You can’t claim a basis in science and logic by simple declaration. You are selling crazy, and nobody’s buying.
I think cladking is confusing the anger that he thinks Egyptologists have with the actual giggles, snickers, chuckles, grins, guffaws and chortles they actually get out of all these efforts from him. 
And looking at the sources he uses the anger is reserved to the proponents of ancient aliens, that curiously enough have been called the “ancient gods” by woo woo proponents.
The fact that there are thousands of paintings, engraved images, statues, and references in writing to these gods doesn’t seem to make any difference to you.
Yes, the ancient Egyptians had a religion. A fairly ornate one, highly developed, with mythic tales and rules of behavior.
(You’re gonna be in big trouble when it is time for your heart to be weighed!)
They are not offended… That is part and parcel of your imaginary story that you tell yourself (and repeat on message boards). You are just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people with imaginary beliefs about Ancient Egypt. They are no more concerned about your opinions than I am concerned about the latest 14-year-old who has just discovered Justin Bieber and thinks that he is a superior musical artist to Pavoratti. I might smile indulgently at his fantasy, but I am not going to invest any energy trying to change his mind. Years ago, my son decided that Blink 182 was better than every band from the 1960s. I made no effort to change his opinion, letting him grow up to recognize his own errors.
The Egyptologists that you imagine yourself offending do not regard your quaint beliefs to be worth their time to be offended.
Read the paragraph again. This is not what it says.
No, that’s just exactly the point. It is Egyptologists with the subjective interpretation. It is based on what people centuries later meant.
My “interpretation” is the result of determining word meanings by context.
Yes, it looks from your perspective I’m wrong and I’m subjective but my interpretation is driven by the words chiseled in stone and Egyptological interpretation is driven by our assessment of the meaning of “god” and “magic”. I’m just reading thew text and Egyptologists are seeing it in terms of something they can understand; the book of the dead.
What logic is there to say “god” is an imaginary consciousness in the PT if no two people agree on the nature of the god?
Yes. And these drawings all agree with my theory. They depict osiris in a djed because osoiris stood inside a djed to make him stable and enduring.
Is this thing on?