Ancient Science and Metaphysics.

[cormac mac airt]

I don't know.

I do know some of the pre-2000 BC Sumerian writing can be interpreted differently. It's

entirely possible that some things were written in a more formal language that looks like

religion to us and some things in a more colloquial language that has more latitude of ex-

pression. This will require scholars to decide and take at least a few minutes of their time

to figure out. If I'm right it could require decades or longer to make sense of the fragments

which survive.

None of the Sumerian texts are of sufficient lenght to solve the same way I did the Pyramid

Texts. Words have to be used numerous times before a meaning emerges because they

appear in a virtual vacuum of meaning. If you don't know an English word you can pick up

on the meaning pretty quickly because you understand the words around it and the various

things it might mean. But when you're trying to solve something everyone believes is gob-

bledty gook there are very few clues.

One of these days if I have time I would like to try to solve the Sumerian writing but the big-

gest obstacle at this time is that my only source for these writings doesn't list a date for them

http://etcsl.orinst....?text=t.1.8.2.4#

You know full well the PT are older than Unas. I don't understand why you continually

make this point.

Misleading people again aren't you. Linguists have suggested that "parts" of the PT predate Unas. They don't say nor do you know specifically which parts and by how long exactly.

Mesopotamian linguistics already know that the Sumerian language was used for Administrative/religious purposes well after the Sumerians, as a people, ceased to exist. So another one of your arguments is meaningless.

cormac

[cladking]

Thanks for cleaning that up. The pyramids were man made but able to be constructed by obviously scientific principles which no one can dispute. How they were constructed them till now has simply been a misinterpretation in translation?

Yes. Exactly.

There is extensive physical, cultural, historical, and metaphysical evidence that this

is exactly how the pyramids were built. If the pyramids really were built by harnessing

the power of geysers then it follows that I really do "understand" the ancient language

meaning and that the language did change. The alternatives are that Egyptologists

don't even recognize the truth when it bites them or that Egyptologists are engaging in

an enormous conspiracy to hide the truth. I simply refuse to believe they are stupid

and conspiracies of this magnitude are very highly improbable.

On this basis the language must have changed and in all probability the story of the

Tower of Babel is probably founded on an actual event.

[cladking]

Yeah, if he's allowed to twist what the texts say to say what he wants them to. And hypothetically speaking, even "IF" they were a construction manual they would only be relevant to the time of Unas since that's to whom they're addressed. Which is just as ignorant since there is no cold-water geyser anywhere near the Tomb of Unas either.

Again you are intentionally misrepresenting the theory.

The Pyramid Texts are what they would have called "The Rituals of Ascension". They are obviously

rituals and this is one of the most surprising errors made by orthodox thought. One of these even begins,

"listen up men". All of them include an instruction to the scientist (priest) who reads them and many in-

clude various other instructions.

They are not only obviously older than Unas but Egyptologists believe they are older than Unas. You

can't have your facts one way when you use themn and another when someone else uses them. Even

if Egyptoilogy didn't already believe these are older than Unas I can show it through context. They speak

of times when the water flowed at Giza, Saqqara, etc. They say it specifically.

You also know full well that the water stopped befor Unas even though the PT did not.

[taniwha]

Yes. Exactly.

There is extensive physical, cultural, historical, and metaphysical evidence that this

is exactly how the pyramids were built. If the pyramids really were built by harnessing

the power of geysers then it follows that I really do "understand" the ancient language

meaning and that the language did change. The alternatives are that Egyptologists

don't even recognize the truth when it bites them or that Egyptologists are engaging in

an enormous conspiracy to hide the truth. I simply refuse to believe they are stupid

and conspiracies of this magnitude are very highly improbable.

On this basis the language must have changed and in all probability the story of the

Tower of Babel is probably founded on an actual event.

It would be impossible to say water was not used during pyramid construction. How it was used is the mystery. Apart from transportation and obviously drinking how was water manipulated in a constructive way?

[cormac mac airt]

Again you are intentionally misrepresenting the theory.

The Pyramid Texts are what they would have called "The Rituals of Ascension". They are obviously

rituals and this is one of the most surprising errors made by orthodox thought. One of these even begins,

"listen up men". All of them include an instruction to the scientist (priest) who reads them and many in-

clude various other instructions.

They are not only obviously older than Unas but. Egyptologists believe they are older than Unas. You

can't have your facts one way when you use themn and another when someone else uses them. Even

if Egyptoilogy didn't already believe these are older than Unas I can show it through context. They speak

of times when the water flowed at Giza, Saqqara, etc. They say it specifically.

You also know full well that the water stopped befor Unas even though the PT did not.

Calling a priest a scientist doesn't make him a scientist, not in any way relevant to the subject of pyramid construction that is.

Show me one Egyptologist that claims that the Pyramid Texts, in their totality, significantly predate Unas. I know you can't do it because that is not what Egyptologists claim.

BTW, you already know that evidence has shown that the Nile flowed up the the Giza Plateau in the 26th century BC, whereas you've never proven the existance of a cold-water anywhere in the vicinity.

cormac

[docyabut2]

Why don`nt people give the Egyptians the credit for building those massive pyramids instead of by some super unnatual force ?

[cladking]

Is he not saying the geyser is in actuality 'recorded' in ancient text and therefore a reality at the time of construction? Im still no closer to the truth am I

There is extensive evidence not only in the ancient language but in the physical record.

These five step pyramids were built on top of a water collection device. It required extensive

work to build these devices and they could only have been made using water to level them. There

is extensive physical evidence that water existed on the Giza Plateau and was even channeled to

the cliff face above a 300' counterweight run. This water collection device was water tight and sur-

rounded each of the great pyramids. They even had to quarry stone from around G2 to build this

mirror flat device. It is referred to numerous times in the PT not because the PT are an account

of pyramid building but because the PT are the rituals associated with the king's ascension which

began at this device.

368a. N. pushes off from the earth in thy boat, O Rē‘;

368b. so when thou goest forth from the horizon, he (N.) has his sceptre in his hand,

368c. as navigator of thy boat, O Rē‘,

369. Thou (N.) mountest up to heaven; thou separatest thyself from the earth, a separation from wife and office (royal-apron).

It's not a "royal apron", it is the integrated apron known as the ssm.t

The king ascends from the apron and other lines say the stone also ascends from the apron.

Since ramps are debunked it is Egyptology's job to determine how they were really built.

[cladking]

It would be impossible to say water was not used during pyramid construction. How it was used is the mystery. Apart from transportation and obviously drinking how was water manipulated in a constructive way?

It was collected in the ssm.t and channeled to the cliff face.

"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."

It is a simple fact that the evidence clearly says the water collection device was built first

since it lies under the pyramid and that it was actually used to transport water to the cliff

face (above a 300' long counterweight run). It doesn't matter who cries about this fact it

is still a fact. and it's a fact that constitutes an unexplained mystery to Egyptology. Petrie

buried this fact in a 92 word sentence because he found it so disturbing.

There is apparently still carbonated water flowing under these pyramids as we speak.

[cladking]

Calling a priest a scientist doesn't make him a scientist, not in any way relevant to the subject of pyramid construction that is.

Show me one Egyptologist that claims that the Pyramid Texts, in their totality, significantly predate Unas. I know you can't do it because that is not what Egyptologists claim.

BTW, you already know that evidence has shown that the Nile flowed up the the Giza Plateau in the 26th century BC, whereas you've never proven the existance of a cold-water anywhere in the vicinity.

No, it most assuredly did not and could not. There's no evidence that high nile ever

got higher than 50' since about 4000 BC long before these were built. The plateau

towers high over this.

Of course "high nile" wasn't what the builders meant by "inundation". They were talking

about a violent inundation that was a column of water on the plateau;

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

This is where w3g-festival was held; on the uplands at Giza.

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

1554a. (but) the marshes laugh; the shores are become green;

High nile is warm muddy water that slowly climbs in the valley. The inundation tossed

on the plateau and was "cool effervescent water".

507a. To say: N. is come forth to-day at the head of the inundation of the flood.

507b. N. is a crocodile god, with green feather, with vigilant countenance, with forehead erect;

507c. effervescent, proceeding from leg and tail of the Great (One) who is in splendour.

508a. N. is come to his watercourses, which are in the land of the flood, in Mḥ.t-wr.t,

508b. to the places of satisfaction, with green fields, which are in the horizon,

This is where and how the water tossed. It tossed on the horizon up out of the valley where

the true horizon could be seen. It is the tail of atum who sprays the water up into the mht-wr.t

which they called the cow which channels the water in the sky. This is the device that channeled

the water onto the pyramid top.

[cladking]

Why don`nt people give the Egyptians the credit for building those massive pyramids instead of by some super unnatual force ?

Until we know how they were built it might as well be magic.

Until Egyptologists allow someone to make this determination all we'll have are their beliefs founded on their interpretations.

Ramps are debunked and the ball has been in their court for years. Too many people are just willing to let the status quo remain.

[cladking]

While it's obvious to pretty much anyone other than you the people from the time of Unas were not the same exact people who built the Great Pyramids. Nor are the religious texts inscribed in Unas' tomb addressed to a time that was c.150 years in the past. They were specifically relevant to the time and addressed to Unas. Which means you're still reinterpreting them as being something they're not.

Ask yourself if it really matters if some of these rituals were written after the water failed.

They still spoke the exact same language and remembered how they were built. There's

no reaspon to believe one written in Unas' day couldn't be the same thing that could have

been written 150 years ealier.

Doesn't it make far more sense to trust an Egyptian from 150 years after the water failed

than an Egyptologist from 4700 years later?

I've never seen ypour point about the PT. It makes very little sense to me. It's not so much

you're wrong as your perspective seems far askew.

[cormac mac airt]

No, it most assuredly did not and could not. There's no evidence that high nile ever

got higher than 50' since about 4000 BC long before these were built. The plateau

towers high over this.

~SNIP~

http://ees.ac.uk/userfiles/file/EA-32pp03-05-Lutley.pdf

The above picture has been posted before yet you'll likely ignore it again at the risk of showing just how little you wish to believe about Giza. By 2600 BC the Nile ran up against the Plateau and by 2550 BC it ran as close as c.500 meters from the Plateau. Earlier excavations have shown evidence of one or more harbors leading up to the Plateau from the Nile during the time of the Gizamids construction.

http://www.gigalresearch.com/uk/bulletins-12.php

http://www.guardians.net/hawass/pbuildrs.htm

http://www.gizapyramids.org/static/pdf%20library/hawass_fs_lauer.pdf

cormac

[taniwha]

It was collected in the ssm.t and channeled to the cliff face.

"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."

It is a simple fact that the evidence clearly says the water collection device was built first

since it lies under the pyramid and that it was actually used to transport water to the cliff

face (above a 300' long counterweight run). It doesn't matter who cries about this fact it

is still a fact. and it's a fact that constitutes an unexplained mystery to Egyptology. Petrie

buried this fact in a 92 word sentence because he found it so disturbing.

There is apparently still carbonated water flowing under these pyramids as we speak.

Interesting but I need further enlightening.

Does your theory resemble this I found?

"The Great Pyramid’s Subterranean Chamber Hydraulic Pulse Generator and Water Pump"

Click to enlarge.....http://sentinelkennels.com/GPimages/Image-Great_Pyramid_Edgar.jpg

Source

http://sentinelkenne...rticle_V41.html

Edited November 24, 2013 by taniwha

[cormac mac airt]

Ask yourself if it really matters if some of these rituals were written after the water failed.

They still spoke the exact same language and remembered how they were built. There's

no reaspon to believe one written in Unas' day couldn't be the same thing that could have

been written 150 years ealier.

Doesn't it make far more sense to trust an Egyptian from 150 years after the water failed

than an Egyptologist from 4700 years later?

I've never seen your point about the PT. It makes very little sense to me. It's not so much

you're wrong as your perspective seems far askew.

Yes it matters as you can show absolutely no evidence of which specific parts of the PT date the the time of the Gizamids and which don't. Which means that, once again, you're interpreting them to say what you want them to say. That's not science, that's fiction.

It only makes sense that when an AE says that they are specifically addressing Unas that that's what they mean, they're specifically addressing Unas. In no way does it mean they were referring to the GP's construction.

I've never understood how bastardizing a cultures religious beliefs based on no meaningful knowledge whatsoever makes sense to anyone. But I guess fiction is more fun than fact.

cormac

[cladking]

http://ees.ac.uk/use...3-05-Lutley.pdf

The above picture has been posted before yet you'll likely ignore it again at the risk of showing just how little you wish to believe about Giza. By 2600 BC the Nile ran up against the Plateau and by 2550 BC it ran as close as c.500 meters from the Plateau. Earlier excavations have shown evidence of one or more harbors leading up to the Plateau from the Nile during the time of the Gizamids construction.

http://www.gigalrese...ulletins-12.php

http://www.guardians...ss/pbuildrs.htm

http://www.gizapyram...ss_fs_lauer.pdf

It doesn't matter how close the Nile ran to the plateau. What matters is how

high up it could run on the plateau. The plateau towers high over the greatest

height the Nile has achieved in at least 6000 years.

The PT are speaking of an inundation on the plateau and the evidence says there

was water on the plateau.

[cladking]

Interesting but I need further enlightening.

Does your theory resemble this I found?

"The Great Pyramid’s Subterranean Chamber Hydraulic Pulse Generator and Water Pump"

Click to enlarge.....http://sentinelkenne...ramid_Edgar.jpg

Source

http://sentinelkenne...rticle_V41.html

I like a lot of the alt theories and I like all the theories that involve water. However, this

doesn't mean I beliueve them. The pump theory is one of the most attractive of all of these

theories but it lacks some key pieces of evidence which I believe weakens severely. It's

not impossible that the pyramid was a pump but until some evidence appears to support

it I'll be very doubtful.

[taniwha]

I like a lot of the alt theories and I like all the theories that involve water. However, this

doesn't mean I beliueve them. The pump theory is one of the most attractive of all of these

theories but it lacks some key pieces of evidence which I believe weakens severely. It's

not impossible that the pyramid was a pump but until some evidence appears to support

it I'll be very doubtful.

I admit it makes heady reading I just skimmed it myself, but I think it supposes that water was pumped from the Nile using this hydraulic technique to aid in the Pyramids construction.

Edited November 24, 2013 by taniwha

[cladking]

Yes it matters as you can show absolutely no evidence of which specific parts of the PT date the the time of the Gizamids and which don't. Which means that, once again, you're interpreting them to say what you want them to say. That's not science, that's fiction.

I've never understood how bastardizing a cultures religious beliefs based on no meaningful knowledge whatsoever makes sense to anyone. But I guess fiction is more fun than fact.

Again. Why not trust something from near the time of the pyramids that is consistent

with the evidence and internally consistent above a modern theory that says they must

have used ramps when this has been disproven and ramps have been debunked? You

say that I am merely interpreting the words but I once again remind you that these words

are derived from context. Egyptology determines meaning from material written a 1000

years after the pyramids but I'm getting meaning from the words themselves. My inter-

pretation can't be contaminated by later ideas other than possibly confirmation bias. Ot-

her interpretations are dependent on later beliefs being the same as those of the great

pyramid builders. Other interpretations say there are many grammatical errors, the words

are inconsistent and the meaning skips around. Other interprtations are consistent with

the obvious fact that these are rituals. My "interpretation" sees no errors inscribed in stone.

There is no bouncing about. All the words are internmally consistent.

But more importantly other interpretations say these woirds are not understood because

they are mere incantation so not even meant tpo be understood while my "interpretation"

says these words make perfect sense and are internally consistent. My interprtation makes

predictions about things like how they built the pyramid and why there is a ben ben stone

growing in the Sphinx Temple today. Other interpretation says they mustta used ramps

even though ramps are still debunked.

All the logic is on my side. Dismissing the possibility thatr there were geysers in the face

of evidence to the contrary makes no more sense than dismissing aliens because you don't

like how shallow the evidence is or dismissing wind power because it wasn't always windy.

We need evidence and not guesses and not estimates of how many angels can dance on

the head of a pin.

[cladking]

I admit it makes heady reading I just skimmed it myself, but I think it supposes that water was pumped from the Nile using this hydraulic technique to aid in the Pyramids construction.

Wanna hear something funny. I recently heard a radio broadcast with Steven Meyers

who is a mucky muck (with the PP foundation, I believe) and promotes a water lock

theory for pyramid construction and for the purpose of building a pump who suggested

geysers as a possible source for the water. Chris Jordan wrote a book recently which

suggests both natural and artificial geysers were used. A lot of people like Gigal have

long been aware that water was there and now the source is becoming apparent.

If atum was really a geyser who erupted at zep tepi then it will follow that the language

changed. It was the metaphysics expressed in the PT that says it was a CO2 geyser.

The builders said it was a cool effervescent column of water that off gassed (ntknw) CO2.

This is a scientific description of a cold water geyser.

[taniwha]

Wanna hear something funny. I recently heard a radio broadcast with Steven Meyers

who is a mucky muck (with the PP foundation, I believe) and promotes a water lock

theory for pyramid construction and for the purpose of building a pump who suggested

geysers as a possible source for the water. Chris Jordan wrote a book recently which

suggests both natural and artificial geysers were used. A lot of people like Gigal have

long been aware that water was there and now the source is becoming apparent.

If atum was really a geyser who erupted at zep tepi then it will follow that the language

changed. It was the metaphysics expressed in the PT that says it was a CO2 geyser.

The builders said it was a cool effervescent column of water that off gassed (ntknw) CO2.

This is a scientific description of a cold water geyser.

The Great Pyramid of Geyser? Perhaps.. but as has been pointed out by previous poster this water source would be evidenced today which it is not.

Or rather can you pinpoint the evidence?

[cladking]

The Great Pyramid of Geyser? Perhaps.. but as has been pointed out by previous poster this water source would be evidenced today which it is not.

Or rather can you pinpoint the evidence?

There is extensive evidence and even a ben ben growing in the walls of the so called

sphinx Temple. There is tectonic activity in the area including earthquakes ands warm

springs. There is CO2 under the pyramid. There is ancient evidence such as running

water atop the plateau. There are canals and canal overseers. There is a cistern in

Kwentkawes Town which can not be filled in a rain event demonstrating that it was pro-

bably filled by running water coming down from the plateau. There's far more than only

this. There is even the words of the builders who describe making offerings of natron

which causes atum to be devine. There are even tidbits of evidence like the action of

sodium decahydrate and copper sulfate which makes a turquois colored copper hydrox-

ide which was said to stain the ssm.t on the north side of the pyramid.

All the stars are in a line and these stars were bubbles. The answers have been staring

us in the face for 150 years but it was impossible to see without google and without be-

lieving that the ancients were sophisticated and scientific. They studied all the branches

of knowledge we do and stated their findings as language.

[cormac mac airt]

Why not trust something from near the time of the pyramids that is consistent with the evidence and internally consistent above a modern theory that says they must have used ramps when this has been disproven and ramps have been debunked?

I trust that the words of the PT in Unas' tomb are specifically addressed to him exactly as they're written. "If" they were meant to be some kind of construction manual, which is not in evidence, then they would be relevant to his timeframe. Which means that you've misapplied the PT no matter which way you go. And no matter how many times you claim that ramps have been disproven or debunked, that only remains true in your own mind. Not in reality.

Egyptology determines meaning from material written a 1000 years after the pyramids but I'm getting meaning from the words themselves.

Wrong. You're force-fitting a meaning that doesn't actually exist, something of which you've admitted to doing quite some time ago.

Other interprtations are consistent with the obvious fact that these are rituals.

and before

]The Pyramid Texts [/b]are what they would have called "The Rituals of Ascension". They are obviously

rituals and this is one of the most surprising errors made by orthodox thought.

While orthodoxy sees these as rituals and religious ones at that first you claim orthodoxy doesn't see them as rituals, then say they do. Appears to me like you can't remember which story you told last.

But more importantly other interpretations say these words are not understood because they are mere incantation so not even meant tpo be understood...

Actual translations, as opposed to your misapplied theme, are meant to be seen in a religious context. Something of which you've never disproven.

cormac

[taniwha]

There is extensive evidence and even a ben ben growing in the walls of the so called

sphinx Temple. There is tectonic activity in the area including earthquakes ands warm

springs. There is CO2 under the pyramid. There is ancient evidence such as running

water atop the plateau. There are canals and canal overseers. There is a cistern in

Kwentkawes Town which can not be filled in a rain event demonstrating that it was pro-

bably filled by running water coming down from the plateau. There's far more than only

this. There is even the words of the builders who describe making offerings of natron

which causes atum to be devine. There are even tidbits of evidence like the action of

sodium decahydrate and copper sulfate which makes a turquois colored copper hydrox-

ide which was said to stain the ssm.t on the north side of the pyramid.

All the stars are in a line and these stars were bubbles. The answers have been staring

us in the face for 150 years but it was impossible to see without google and without be-

lieving that the ancients were sophisticated and scientific. They studied all the branches

of knowledge we do and stated their findings as language.

I imagine sattelite imagery can confirm this as well.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w9LgkvUtzSk[/media]

I dont understand German but the video speaks for itself. Perhaps this is equivalent to its Egyptian cousin. It is near a watercourse and houses a harbour and boats. All thats missing is a pyramid.

Bad jokes aside, considering a geyser is usually a naturally timed recurring event how does one (or many) begin a pyramid construct around a formation as this?

[cormac mac airt]

There is extensive evidence and even a ben ben growing in the walls of the so called

sphinx Temple. There is tectonic activity in the area including earthquakes ands warm

springs. There is CO2 under the pyramid. There is ancient evidence such as running

water atop the plateau. There are canals and canal overseers. There is a cistern in

Kwentkawes Town which can not be filled in a rain event demonstrating that it was pro-

bably filled by running water coming down from the plateau. There's far more than only

this. There is even the words of the builders who describe making offerings of natron

which causes atum to be devine. There are even tidbits of evidence like the action of

sodium decahydrate and copper sulfate which makes a turquois colored copper hydrox-

ide which was said to stain the ssm.t on the north side of the pyramid.

All the stars are in a line and these stars were bubbles. The answers have been staring

us in the face for 150 years but it was impossible to see without google and without be-

lieving that the ancients were sophisticated and scientific. They studied all the branches

of knowledge we do and stated their findings as language.

You finally have those hydrological reports substantiating your geyser theme on the Giza Plateau then? Good, I'd like to read a copy of same. Because short of that, it's all your own personal opinion based on nothing more than what you want to believe. My inbox awaits your expert evidence.

cormac

[cladking]

I trust that the words of the PT in Unas' tomb are specifically addressed to him exactly as they're written. "If" they were meant to be some kind of construction manual, which is not in evidence, then they would be relevant to his timeframe. Which means that you've misapplied the PT no matter which way you go. And no matter how many times you claim that ramps have been disproven or debunked, that only remains true in your own mind. Not in reality.

The concept that they could only have used ramps has been completely and utterly disproven.

I've stated several ways that they could have been built that are better evidenced and far more

logical. That they used ramps has separately been debunked; the preponderance of evidence

says that ramps were not used to lift the stones on the great pyramids. The fact is the actual

evidence does not fit ramps. Logic does not fit ramps. And common sense does not fit ramps.

While orthodoxy sees these as rituals and religious ones at that first you claim orthodoxy doesn't see them as rituals, then say they do. Appears to me like you can't remember which story you told last.

Orthodoxy says they are religious in nature and are incantations and spells for the king.

This is simply not true and they can't defend this belief without invoking the book of the

dead because there is northing in the PT to support it that isn't also contradicted. Since

it makes no sense to themthey believe it must be religious in nature.

It's not.

Actual translations, as opposed to your misapplied theme, are meant to be seen in a religious context. Something of which you've never disproven.

I don't need to disprove it because I know the actual meaning. This meaning makes actual

predictions that are bourne out by evidence rather than suppositions like "they must have used

ramps".