A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

[+DieChecker]

I have already provided two links that prove rainfall was sufficient to support an ecosystem like a savanna, and you have ignored it. Here is how you find the data. Go to ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVE OF CHICAGO, GO TO RESEARCH PROJECTS, GO TO GIZA MAPPING PROJECT, 2000-2001 annual report by Mark Lehner, scroll down to WADI WASH AND READ IT OUT LOUD TO THE WHOLE CLASS. You are a menace to this forum, and I wish you would leave it entirely. We can do it without you. I have studied all the major pyramids, and I can assure you that there are about 27. Who's Lehner? Just kidding? You must be referring to the smaller satellite pyramids. As for which ones were surrounded by walls--all of them. You should know that if you've read Verner. As to who accepts my theory. Everyone I have spoken to about it who has enough information agrees with the theory. I regret that I ever communicated with you because now I have to clean that crap out of my head. Thanksandgoodbye.

Found it...

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/00-01/giza.html

Very interesting. It does say that it was wetter back then. It does not say where Lehner got that information, but implies it was from his collegue... Karl Butzer, and his book Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt. I'll see if I can find the book.

Anyway, I don't see any numbers. I did see that Cairo gets 1 cm (.3 inches) of rain today, so even 1 or 2 inches a year, if delievered in torrential downpours would cause the damage Lehner writes of.

Edit: I found a PDF of the book mentioned above... http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/early_hydraulic.pdf

I'll read it as time allows.

2nd EDIT: Seems that you cannot cut and paste. Here is a screen shot. It appears Mr Butzer says that the drying trend began in Pre-dynastic times and quickly reached a dryness near what it is today.

And then it says that rain was rare after the predynastic moist period, at about 2900 BC.

And a look at the Wiki - List of Egyptian Pyramids shows that even the first one... Djoser, was dated to no sooner then 2686 BC.

So, it seems that rain was not so plentiful. Maybe Lehner was mistaken in what he wrote, going of generalities by his friend Butzer? Clearly the Wall of Crows shows there were flash floods in the Wadis, but also clearly the total amount of rain was very low.

EDIT, edit, edit. To fix pictures.

Edited November 29, 2011 by DieChecker

[kmt_sesh]

I frankly don't understand how my belief that drinking "cool effervescent water like wine"

would paint the ancients in a bad light. Building the water catchment devices was very easy

work as all it required was to level a small section of ground where the water came up. It

also had a pavement laid over it to prevent the water from leaking into cracks and fissures.

The enclosure at Sakkarae probably took no more than several thousand man hours of work and

according to the Palermo Stone provided some 100,000,000 gallons of crystal clear drinking

water each year. ...

It doesn't make sense to argue Djoser's complex was for rain catchment. Nearly all of the water would've disappeared into the desert floor. As far as I'm aware almost all of the area inside the enclosure wall has a packed earth surface, not stone. Stone pavements exist only under the altars, subsidiary buildings, and other specific structures. For that matter, why build elaborate, ritual, stone buildings all over the interior of the precinct if the enclosure wall was meant to hold only water? No, it doesn't make sense.

The Palermo Stone does not state that hundreds of thousands of gallons of drinking water were available at Djoser's complex. Once again you're misrepresenting the source materials and once again you've been caught in the act. As I recall there are only four or five registers preserved for Djoser, and they are (proceeding left from Khasekhemwy's registers):

Register 7: 2nd month and 13th day, Dual Appearance of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Uniting the Two Lands, the festival “Going around the Wall.”

Register 8: Dual Appearance of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, [introduction] of the King to the refuge (of purification) “Shrine.”

Register 9: Processional Tour of Horus, Birth of Min.

Register 10: Dual Appearance of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Stretching the Cord for the temple “Refreshment of the Gods.”

I can't recall if Register 6 was for Djoser or his predecessor Khasekhemwy, but to be thorough it reads: "4 times bringing to completion the work of the wall of Duadjefa."

Nothing here about thirsty people lapping up hundreds of thousands of gallons of drinking water from the dirt floor of Djoser's enclosure wall. Please stop misrepresenting and re-inventing the source material. That's three times in this discussion alone that you've been caught doing it. Herodotus hasn't forgotten, nor will Djoser. They're in their afterlives right now and watching us, scratching their heads at you and wondering, Where in the hell is this guy getting this stuff?

There is a watercatchment and it was used. This is a fact...

It is not a fact. It is idle speculation. Were it fact, it would be a basic principle of Egyptology and widely known and understood by all historians in that field. Obviously, then, it's not fact.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

It is orthodox.

Orthodoxy simply arranges the facts differently.

You aren't paying attention to what the Egyptologists try to hide;

" From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement"

Don't pay any attention to the man in the booth or 92 word sentences.

The Nile valley is more than ten miles wide in places. The Nile isn't

"right there".

This region was settled before 5000 BC when almost the entire Nile Valley

was flooded year round. There's such a thing as too much water, too.

If it did I'd have cool effervescent water to shower in while all you get

is schistosomiasis.

Why should believing my ancestors didn't squish their toes around in corpse

drippings make me feel "dirty". Maybe it's you who should feel uncomfortable.

With the proclivity of the ancients to forever be washing their feet one might

think they believed clean feet to be associated with clean hands and a clean

mind. Sure doesn't sound like people who tiptoed through corpse drippings.

My ancestors were not stinky footed bumpkins.

Why is it only you that considers them barefoot (now added stinky) bumpkins... firstly they wore footwear. Secondly quit insulting the ancient Egyptians. They were intellegent and efficient at coordinating work. This is established.

[Djedi]

You aren't paying attention to what the Egyptologists try to hide;

" From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement"

Egyptologists don't try to hide anything, why would they? Should we sound the conspiracy theory alarm?

What's mysterious about a drain? It was needed to evacuate water from the temple courtyard in case of the odd thunderstorm when water falls in large quantaties. Roofs had them too you know.

This drain actually puts a hole in Patrick Giles' theory that water was drained using the causeway.

[kmt_sesh]

Egyptologists don't try to hide anything, why would they? Should we sound the conspiracy theory alarm?

What's mysterious about a drain? It was needed to evacuate water from the temple courtyard in case of the odd thunderstorm when water falls in large quantaties. Roofs had them too you know.

This drain actually puts a hole in Patrick Giles' theory that water was drained using the causeway.

Cladking likes the conspiracy angle. Most fringe writers do. It's a handy excuse to avoid the realities of legitimate research.

The drain has also been explained as a means to drain away water used to clean the basalt flooring, which probably occurred daily. Those Egyptians were fussy about ritual purity, of course, and the mortuary temple was a place of ritual.

I hadn't even considered the problem this presents to Mr. Giles's rain-catchment theme. You're right to point it out.

[Harte]

Cladking likes the conspiracy angle. Most fringe writers do. It's a handy excuse to avoid the realities of legitimate research.

The drain has also been explained as a means to drain away water used to clean the basalt flooring, which probably occurred daily. Those Egyptians were fussy about ritual purity, of course, and the mortuary temple was a place of ritual.

I hadn't even considered the problem this presents to Mr. Giles's rain-catchment theme. You're right to point it out.

Well, then, it wasn't a drain.

Must've been a geyser outlet.

Harte

[questionmark]

Well, then, it wasn't a drain.

Must've been a geyser outlet.

Harte

Now cladking just has to find the 350 meters of ACE 15 pressure tubing and bingo, we have Nibblers....

[cladking]

.

And then it says that rain was rare after the predynastic moist period, at about 2900 BC.

And a look at the Wiki - List of Egyptian Pyramids shows that even the first one... Djoser, was dated to no sooner then 2686 BC.

So, it seems that rain was not so plentiful. Maybe Lehner was mistaken in what he wrote, going of generalities by his friend Butzer? Clearly the Wall of Crows shows there were flash floods in the Wadis, but also clearly the total amount of rain was very low.

Carbon dating suggests the great pyramids were somewhat older.

Rainfall in any given period and the exact time it changes can only be estimated. The

best estimates will come from biologists who can find fauna and flora in stratigraphically

identifiable time periods. We now have four data points and three are wholly consistent

with higher rainfall when G1 was built and one is ambiguous.

[questionmark]

Carbon dating suggests the great pyramids were somewhat older.

Rainfall in any given period and the exact time it changes can only be estimated. The

best estimates will come from biologists who can find fauna and flora in stratigraphically

identifiable time periods. We now have four data points and three are wholly consistent

with higher rainfall when G1 was built and one is ambiguous.

Those nice half truths you alway use, carbon dating date the pyramids 200 years older with an error of plus minus 200 years... which falls within the range established by historic records....

[cladking]

It doesn't make sense to argue Djoser's complex was for rain catchment. Nearly all of the water would've disappeared into the desert floor. As far as I'm aware almost all of the area inside the enclosure wall has a packed earth surface, not stone. Stone pavements exist only under the altars, subsidiary buildings, and other specific structures. For that matter, why build elaborate, ritual, stone buildings all over the interior of the precinct if the enclosure wall was meant to hold only water? No, it doesn't make sense.

I suspect the paving stones in the court yard were dug up and removed. There is

a foreign sand in this court yard which I believe is probably pretty similar to

the sand in the walls of the queens chamber; rounded and partially rounded quartz

of 100 to 400 microns in size. This was the "sandbank of horrible face that brought

water" and was probably paved. The northern end has never even been excavated in

modern times. Also don't forget that there is a massive moat surrounding the entire

complex. It is likely that any water that did soak in would appear in the moat.

The Palermo Stone does not state that hundreds of thousands of gallons of drinking water were available at Djoser's complex. Once again you're misrepresenting the source materials and once again you've been caught in the act. As I recall there are only four or five registers preserved for Djoser, and they are (proceeding left from Khasekhemwy's registers):

Register 7: 2nd month and 13th day, Dual Appearance of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Uniting the Two Lands, the festival “Going around the Wall.”

Register 8: Dual Appearance of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, [introduction] of the King to the refuge (of purification) “Shrine.”

Register 9: Processional Tour of Horus, Birth of Min.

Register 10: Dual Appearance of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Stretching the Cord for the temple “Refreshment of the Gods.”

I can't recall if Register 6 was for Djoser or his predecessor Khasekhemwy, but to be thorough it reads: "4 times bringing to completion the work of the wall of Duadjefa."

Nothing here about thirsty people lapping up hundreds of thousands of gallons of drinking water from the dirt floor of Djoser's enclosure wall. Please stop misrepresenting and re-inventing the source material. That's three times in this discussion alone that you've been caught doing it. Herodotus hasn't forgotten, nor will Djoser. They're in their afterlives right now and watching us, scratching their heads at you and wondering, Where in the hell is this guy getting this stuff?

No, not hundreds of thousands of gallons, tens of millions of gallons. Just a few

pages back I laid out what I believe is an extremely good argument that the Palermo

Stone recorded the depth of the water at Zachary. The amounts listed are far too low

to be high nile so they must be something else. All the evidence points to it being

Zaccarae enclosure and since its size is known, the amount of lifting for Djosers Pyr-

amid is known then this water can be calciulated right from the Palermo Stone.

It is not a fact. It is idle speculation. Were it fact, it would be a basic principle of Egyptology and widely known and understood by all historians in that field. Obviously, then, it's not fact.

What!?! The catchment... ...of course it's a fact. It's the elephant in the room.

[cladking]

Why is it only you that considers them barefoot (now added stinky) bumpkins... firstly they wore footwear. Secondly quit insulting the ancient Egyptians. They were intellegent and efficient at coordinating work. This is established.

No!!!

It's orthodoxy who says they were so primitive and savage they had to be cautioned

against walking through corpse drippings;

722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.

Rather than tread through it they are admonished to tiptoe if you believe orthodoxy.

Anyone who has ever lived and needs to be told to tiptoe through corpse dripping is

a stinky footed bumpkin. I believe that the efflux of Osiris was CO2 therefore it

was wise to tiptoe to increase the odds you wouldn't die.

Orthodoxy = stinky footed bumkins

CO2 = people who would prefer to not die

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

No!!!

It's orthodoxy who says they were so primitive and savage they had to be cautioned

against walking through corpse drippings;

722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.

Rather than tread through it they are admonished to tiptoe if you believe orthodoxy.

Anyone who has ever lived and needs to be told to tiptoe through corpse dripping is

a stinky footed bumpkin. I believe that the efflux of Osiris was CO2 therefore it

was wise to tiptoe to increase the odds you wouldn't die.

Orthodoxy = stinky footed bumkins

CO2 = people who would prefer to not die

I fall into the orthodoxy category and I don't think that cladking... ANYONE ELSE? Does any other mind here who follows orthodoxy believe cladkings statement to be true?

[questionmark]

I fall into the orthodoxy category and I don't think that cladking... ANYONE ELSE? Does any other mind here who follows orthodoxy believe cladkings statement to be true?

Well, people who did not have sewers would hardly fit under cladkings category.... now reality check....

[cladking]

Egyptologists don't try to hide anything, why would they? Should we sound the conspiracy theory alarm?

What's mysterious about a drain? It was needed to evacuate water from the temple courtyard in case of the odd thunderstorm when water falls in large quantaties. Roofs had them too you know.

I don't have a problem with this. It actually makes sense.

However there are a few facts which appear to point away from the idea

that it was a simple drain. It's not only the finely crafted canals that

take the water to two points on the cliff face but the very fact they

would dig two canals when one would be far easier. It's also the fact

that these canals in aggregate are woefully underbuilt for a torrential

rainstorm. The water would back up and could even go over the walls.

There's also the fact that the eastern canal has two inlets. This makes

no sense at all unless it was being used to channel two different fluids;

one liquid, one gaseous. Note also where they are taking the water. They

could channel the water sown the incline where it could be used at the

pyramid builders village and save the need to haul river water but instead

they take the water to the cliff face. The two points on the cliff face

to which thew water is taken are ideal locations to enplace counterweight

runs. If it took weither of these outlets to any other place it wouldn't

be a good place for a counterweight run. Moreover and perhaps most impor-

tantly is that the spot on the cliff face where the western canal emerged

was not quite ideal for a counterweight run so they changed the shape of

the cliff face to make it ideal.

It would be one remarkable coincidence if all they were doing was trying

to keep the pyramid base dry. Why would they build a catchment at all and

then just waste the water over the cliff face. This could be no simple over-

flow because the base was at a lower level than the catchment.

I agree with Patrick Giles that water was used in the so called valley tem-

ple as well so it is more likely to be the overflow than the cliff face.

The evidence isn't conclusive what the water is for or where it went but it

is pretty conclusive that this was a water catchment device and it did in

fact catch rain. It most probably caught water that sprayed up from the earth

on the north side as well.

This drain actually puts a hole in Patrick Giles' theory that water was drained using the causeway.

I believe it only damages it. If they had water we can't even rule out the

possibilitry that stones were floated up the causeway in a series of hydraulic

locks.

[cladking]

Cladking likes the conspiracy angle. Most fringe writers do. It's a handy excuse to avoid the realities of legitimate research.

The drain has also been explained as a means to drain away water used to clean the basalt flooring, which probably occurred daily. Those Egyptians were fussy about ritual purity, of course, and the mortuary temple was a place of ritual.

I hadn't even considered the problem this presents to Mr. Giles's rain-catchment theme. You're right to point it out.

No. There's no conspiracy. There's just the inability of the human

species to see what we don't expect. Read Petrie's description again

and look at the incredulity with which it was written.

It is a huge tribute to Petrie's intellectual honesty that he was able

to see and report this at all. I doubt modern scientists could be so

honest.

[kmt_sesh]

I suspect the paving stones in the court yard were dug up and removed. There is

a foreign sand in this court yard which I believe is probably pretty similar to

the sand in the walls of the queens chamber; rounded and partially rounded quartz

of 100 to 400 microns in size. This was the "sandbank of horrible face that brought

water" and was probably paved. The northern end has never even been excavated in

modern times. Also don't forget that there is a massive moat surrounding the entire

complex. It is likely that any water that did soak in would appear in the moat.

I wish you would stop throwing foreign sand at the monuments. In the very least, as has been asked of you countless times by now, at least quote the scientific report corroborating "foreign" sand.

In actuality there is nothing unusual about any of the sand anywhere along the fringes of the Nile Valley. At most some was blown in from other adjacent regions and might register a different chemical signature, with perhaps somewhat different mineralogical components--depending on the point of origin. Please stop making stuff up. I am tired of having to point this out so other readers will not be led astray by your slights of hand. If you cannot present a legitimate report to support your claim, then keep it within the confines of your own imagination. This is bordering on lying.

There is no evidence that the entire complex of Djoser was once paved. The evidence for this would've been clear-cut, and yet no such evidence exists. I don't think you understand how easily archaeologists can determine such things. Come to Chicago sometime and attend an ARCE lecture at the O.I. presented by such an archaeologist. You might be amazed.

The moat is well known but its original intent and purpose are not. This area of Lower Egypt (Saqqara necropolis) was arid even in the time of Djoser, so it's unlikely little if any water ever occupied the moat. Even the use of the word "moat" is misleading because it may not have been any such thing. Unless you can present well-documented and corroborated evidence to the opposite, stop making stuff up to suit your agenda.

No, not hundreds of thousands of gallons, tens of millions of gallons. Just a few

pages back I laid out what I believe is an extremely good argument that the Palermo

Stone recorded the depth of the water at Zachary. The amounts listed are far too low

to be high nile so they must be something else. All the evidence points to it being

Zaccarae enclosure and since its size is known, the amount of lifting for Djosers Pyr-

amid is known then this water can be calciulated right from the Palermo Stone.

I'm not familiar with the term "Zaccarae enclosure" so please feel free to explain it to me. In any case, you wrote an entire paragraph that completely avoids the information in my post. Nothing in the Palermo Stone corroborates your statement, and you continue in this vein even though I provided an actual translation for the registers pertaining to Djoser.

You also continue with the fantasy about the measurements below each register. Of course they record heights of the Nile. This is one of the most basic and understood facts about the Palermo Stone, so instead of using your imagination, at least attempt a scientific argument that is relevant to the socio-economics of the people who lived in that time. Nothing was more important than the Nile flood, which either ensured a year of plenty of a year of famine. The Palermo Stone records instances of both.

What!?! The catchment... ...of course it's a fact. It's the elephant in the room.

No, you're sidestepping the meat of the argument again. If it were a fact, it would be something on which the majority of people would agree. I think the only people who agree with the catchment are you and Mr. Giles, and you two do not constitute a majority. Perhaps Mr. Giles counts among his "adherents" those who enjoyed and commented favorably on his YouTube video. He did a nice job with his model in the video, and I enjoy YouTubing as much as anyone else, but I think we can all agree the average YouTube watcher is not exactly the brightest bulb in the room. Look at all the colossally uninformed comments make about Egypt videos. So here at UM you and Giles seem to stand alone. On YouTube around 1,200 people have viewed Giles's videos, although I don't know the distribution of likes and dislikes from viewers. This is a fan club, not a forum of scholars.

[cladking]

Those nice half truths you alway use, carbon dating date the pyramids 200 years older with an error of plus minus 200 years... which falls within the range established by historic records....

It's no half truth, it's a fact.

If it dates it 180 to 200 years earlier than that is the fact.

I'll add another fact for you. Carbon dating tends to err toward the low side. This would imply that the pyramids are at least 180 years older. Of course carbon dating isn't perfect and conventional dating of the pyramids isn't ruled out by this evidence. It is simply inaccurate to say that conventional dating is confirmed by CO2 dating.

[questionmark]

It's no half truth, it's a fact.

If it dates it 180 to 200 years earlier than that is the fact.

I'll add another fact for you. Carbon dating tends to err toward the low side. This would imply that the pyramids are at least 180 years older. Of course carbon dating isn't perfect and conventional dating of the pyramids isn't ruled out by this evidence. It is simply inaccurate to say that conventional dating is confirmed by CO2 dating.

180 years before the time, plus minus the error margin, it did not rain significantly more than today either.

Edited November 29, 2011 by questionmark

[cladking]

I fall into the orthodoxy category and I don't think that cladking... ANYONE ELSE? Does any other mind here who follows orthodoxy believe cladkings statement to be true?

This is exactly what Mercer said. You don't get to have an opinion on it;

722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.

The next line exhorts the hearer to tiptoe rather than tread. The idea that

that the efflux of Osiris is corpse drippings comes from the translators. The

builders said it was I[].t-wt.t which is CO2. Everywhere this efflux is used

in cpontext only CO2 fits. It really doesn't matter what it is though since

orthodoxy says it is corpse drippings.

It's just that simple.

[cladking]

I wish you would stop throwing foreign sand at the monuments. In the very least, as has been asked of you countless times by now, at least quote the scientific report corroborating "foreign" sand.

I'd wager I've already done this at least twice. I have to suspect you

can't see it. It makes no sense to your mind so it's invisible to you.

The fact is the sand in the queens chamber is exactly as I described though

I didn't mention that there is 1% impurities in it. I'd wager long odds

that these impurities are mostly calcium carbonate and something that would

be mistakingly reported on the lab report as "silicon". It would actually

be "fossilized" gold. There is evidence that gold compounds stipped of their

elemental partners test on modern equipment as silcon rather than gold.

I did not claim that the foreign sand at Saqqaury is the same thing. I said

it is probably the same thing. This is based on my theory and would be one

more way to corroborate my theory.

In actuality there is nothing unusual about any of the sand anywhere along the fringes of the Nile Valley. At most some was blown in from other adjacent regions and might register a different chemical signature, with perhaps somewhat different mineralogical components--depending on the point of origin.

It's impossible for this sand to exist here by "any" known natural process what-

soever other than a geyser. It was either hauled in by the builders or it came

in with the water. This applies to the sand in the queens chamber and almost

certainly to the sand at Saccarrai

Please stop making stuff up. I am tired of having to point this out so other readers will not be led astray by your slights of hand. If you cannot present a legitimate report to support your claim, then keep it within the confines of your own imagination. This is bordering on lying.

You should prove me wrong then.

It was a Japanese team that did this research back in 1978 if memory serves.

Just because Egyptology doesn't pay attention to something, it doesn't go away.

Just because Egyptology makes up the idea that they mustta used ramps, it doesn't

become a fact.

There is no evidence that the entire complex of Djoser was once paved. The evidence for this would've been clear-cut, and yet no such evidence exists. I don't think you understand how easily archaeologists can determine such things. Come to Chicago sometime and attend an ARCE lecture at the O.I. presented by such an archaeologist. You might be amazed.

I'm at a disadvantage here and need to defer to your knowledge. But I do not

accept the idea that a pavement would necessarily be known. I'd also point out

that this catchment would still work even without a pavement since there is a

moat around it.

The moat is well known but its original intent and purpose are not. This area of Lower Egypt (Saqqara necropolis) was arid even in the time of Djoser, so it's unlikely little if any water ever occupied the moat. Even the use of the word "moat" is misleading because it may not have been any such thing. Unless you can present well-documented and corroborated evidence to the opposite, stop making stuff up to suit your agenda.

If there was a geyser north of Djoser's then the moat was full. TRheir literature

does in point of fact refer to a sandbank of horrible face bringing water. Look

closely at this picture and imagine your beliefs if you described it in these exact

words. Thgis is how to learn about the builders probably.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fly_geyser.jpg

Try to see what's really there and not what you expect.

You also continue with the fantasy about the measurements below each register. Of course they record heights of the Nile. This is one of the most basic and understood facts about the Palermo Stone, so instead of using your imagination, at least attempt a scientific argument that is relevant to the socio-economics of the people who lived in that time. Nothing was more important than the Nile flood, which either ensured a year of plenty of a year of famine. The Palermo Stone records instances of both.

The highest measurement recorded is far below the minimum high nile need to

avoid starvation. It can not be the measurement of the flood.

I think the only people who agree with the catchment are you and Mr. Giles, and you two do not constitute a majority.

Truth isn't determined by vote.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

No!!!

It's orthodoxy who says they were so primitive and savage they had to be cautioned

against walking through corpse drippings;

722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.

Rather than tread through it they are admonished to tiptoe if you believe orthodoxy.

Anyone who has ever lived and needs to be told to tiptoe through corpse dripping is

a stinky footed bumpkin. I believe that the efflux of Osiris was CO2 therefore it

was wise to tiptoe to increase the odds you wouldn't die.

Orthodoxy = stinky footed bumkins

CO2 = people who would prefer to not die

Sorry I am stuck on this use of the term bumpkin... I can't let it go... can't you say stinky footed engineers or stinky footed Egyptians .... why speak about them as bumpkins.... why try to paint a false picture thar orthodoxy views them as bumpkins when we... I at least know for a fact they were biologically modern humans who worked their asses off just to be called bumpkins by a person using them to attack orthodoxy.

I don't care what you call them just don't use derogatory terms to try to illustrate a false perception of who these people really were. If you do this I will even stop one thing that bugs you... except for believe you are telling g the truth... I just am unable to do that. I will agree that your truths are simply your interpretation of the assumptions you have made along your path to discover how and why the pyramids were built. I will honestly give you that. Just please stop with the bumpkin comments... I hope we can reach an agreement here.... thank you in advance.

Aus

[+DieChecker]

I fall into the orthodoxy category and I don't think that cladking... ANYONE ELSE? Does any other mind here who follows orthodoxy believe cladkings statement to be true?

Well, I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to say. Is he saying that orthodoxy is built on the Pyramid Texts? I thought that is what his idea was built on????????? Egyptian Orthodoxy does not care about corse drippings, tip-toeing or flat footing it over them. Orthodoxy does not care about the secretions of Osirus at all, other then as a religious metaphor in various pyramid texts.

I also don't see what tip-toeing has to do with CO2. CO2 is a gas, that can be associated with the dead, but you can't escape it by tip-toeing.

[questionmark]

Well, I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to say. Is he saying that orthodoxy is built on the Pyramid Texts? I thought that is what his idea was built on????????? Egyptian Orthodoxy does not care about corse drippings, tip-toeing or flat footing it over them. Orthodoxy does not care about the secretions of Osirus at all, other then as a religious metaphor in various pyramid texts.

I also don't see what tip-toeing has to do with CO2. CO2 is a gas, that can be associated with the dead, but you can't escape it by tip-toeing.

maybe by toeing the tip?

[kmt_sesh]

Sorry I am stuck on this use of the term bumpkin... I can't let it go... can't you say stinky footed engineers or stinky footed Egyptians .... why speak about them as bumpkins.... why try to paint a false picture thar orthodoxy views them as bumpkins when we... I at least know for a fact they were biologically modern humans who worked their asses off just to be called bumpkins by a person using them to attack orthodoxy.

I don't care what you call them just don't use derogatory terms to try to illustrate a false perception of who these people really were. If you do this I will even stop one thing that bugs you... except for believe you are telling g the truth... I just am unable to do that. I will agree that your truths are simply your interpretation of the assumptions you have made along your path to discover how and why the pyramids were built. I will honestly give you that. Just please stop with the bumpkin comments... I hope we can reach an agreement here.... thank you in advance.

Aus

I think you might be expecting too much, Aus Der Box Skeptisch/Phone Guy/Mr Skepticism. By now you must have the longest name at UM, by the way.

Cladking cannot turn to reputable scientific or historical studies of any kind to defend pretty much any of his arguments (look at how he's studiously avoiding my requests for legitimate citations), so he uses the stalwart fringe tactic of trying to make orthodox research seem sinister and misdirected. In other words, cladking, like most fringe adherents, tries to shift attention away from the holes in his own theme.

He's been asked many, many times to stop shifting attention in this way and to stop using silly terms to describe the Egyptians, and yet he does not bend. He'd be much better off addressing orthodox theories head on, but he seems extremely hesitant to do so. And so it goes.

It's a bunch of turnip snot.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

maybe by toeing the tip?

There are people right now with foot fetishes that are at home all warm and bothered by what you just wrote... you dirty dirty man.