Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
angelmaghazy

mysteries of pyramids

1,030 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

cladking

I can guarantee you with utter and complete confidence that unless and until you expend the years of study and research required to become expert in hieroglyphs, you will never be taken seriously. That's a given.

I'm not trying to be taken seriously. I want to find out how the great pyramids

were actually build, not how how egyptologists assume they mussta been built.

OK, let's play your game then. You never said what the determinative actually is

for I[].t-wt.t.

I'm going to guess it's a snake or cobra since "serpents" indicate leaks and "cobras"

represent danger. Of course it might be power which would be a dm-sceptre, or even a

deity since it is what makes Osiris. It is feminine because CO2 is enveloping which

is a feminine characteristic.

What do I win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

All you are looking for is some word or phrase you can pidgeon-hole into your make-believe understanding of Ancient Egyptian religious texts.

You really can't see that it's the Egyptians who said this!!!

You must think I have nothing better to do that write utterances and

then claim the Egyptians wrote them and no one has caught me yet. Just

because you can't be bothered to look to see the truth doesn't mean

this applies to everyone. The Egyptians actually said every single

thing I've copied and pasted. I usually don't even correct the typos.

You can take everything that the Egyptians wrote as metaphoric and every-

thing the egyptologists say as gospel to your dying day but it doesn't

change the fact that yeast gas fits and firstborn's thing doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Here are some more for you to force the orthodox interpretation;

198b. The great ’I[];.t has given birth to thee, the ’I[];.t-wt.t has adorned thee;

198c. the ’I[];.t-wt.t has given birth to thee, the great ’I[];.t has adorned thee,

1916-3 (Nt. 738). Great is thine odour, pleasant to the nose, the odour of ’I[];.t-wt.t.

The egyptians couldn't have said this next one since there's no potule determinative, right?

1503a. His head is lifted up by Re;‘; his odour is [as] that of the ’I[];.t-wt.t-serpent.

1503b. The head of N. also is lifted up by Re‘; the odour of N. is as that of ’I[];.t-wt.t-serpent.

1922 + 2 (Nt. 744). if (thy) father calls thee "’I[];.t," retreat, such is not thy name.

I like this last one. Watch out if your father calls you gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
You must think I have nothing better to do that write utterances and

then claim the Egyptians wrote them and no one has caught me yet.

Nope, you write them down and then reinterpret them completely out of meaning

and context of everything that is known about the Ancient Egytians, with no

actual knowledge of either and expect people to take you seriously.

The Egyptians said what they said, but we have a better understanding of what they

were saying than when the PT were originally translated. That much should be obvious. The

fact that you use an earlier and out-dated translation can only be put down to your desire to

pidgeon-hole an understanding into the religious texts of a civilization that you are too lazy to

learn anything meaningful about.

The only "gas" being blown here is in each and every post on the subject that you make.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

I'm not trying to be taken seriously. I want to find out how the great pyramids

were actually build, not how how egyptologists assume they mussta been built.

OK, let's play your game then. You never said what the determinative actually is

for I[].t-wt.t.

I'm going to guess it's a snake or cobra since "serpents" indicate leaks and "cobras"

represent danger.

Not in this context they don't. Cobras in egyptian religion have a double symbolic connection with Wadjet, royal protectress and symbol of his dominion over lower Egypt, which fits nicely with the nursing bit since she's associated with Isis as nurse to the infant Horus. Her counterpart of course is Nekhbet, associated with motherhood and personification of upper Egypt, whose crown Osiris wears.

Whatever the meaning, It's safe to say as Kmt does that there's a whole cultural subtext you're missing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Whatever the meaning, It's safe to say as Kmt does that there's a whole cultural subtext you're missing here.

I certainly agree it's pretty likely Kmt_Sesh knows the answer.

But this doesn't mean orthodoxy is right. They've had 150 years to

make this stuff fit and many millions of man hours to do it. They

have a very substantial lead on me.

The cultural sutext is wholly irrelevent if I[].t-wt.t means yeast

gas. Their estimation of the culture is wholly dependent on it not

meaning yeast gas.

I still believe it means yeast gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Nope, you write them down and then reinterpret them completely out of meaning

and context of everything that is known about the Ancient Egytians, with no

actual knowledge of either and expect people to take you seriously.

Perhaps you can provide an example.

I've never taken anything out of the context of what they actually said.

The Egyptians said what they said, but we have a better understanding of what they

were saying than when the PT were originally translated.

And where is the evidence for this?

We have more and more mysteries with each passing generation. We still don't even

know how these supposed savages built the pyramids. There is no concept more basic

to the Pyramid Texts than the Eye of Horus but you can't find two egyptologists who

even agree on what it is! This isn't progress.

Here's a simple concept you can follow. When the PT were first translated they were

already known to be an earlier version of the coffin texts which were the earliest ver-

sion of their books of incantations. Even as Masperro was translating them for the

first time he "knew" they werejust incantation. It's not possible for this "knowledge"

to not have an effect on his translation. This is what translators do; try to capture

the essence of what was meant. What he translated was about geysers and each subsequent

translation is less about geysers.

You might call this progress but if you do then it's only fair you try to explain why

the earlier versions are such close characterizations of geysers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
The cultural subtext is wholly irrelevent if I[].t-wt.t means yeast gas.

Wrong, the cultural subtext is highly relevant and is not subject to your misguided interpretations.

And where is the evidence for this?

Kmt_sesh already gave you one, with the meaning of I[].t-wt.t and you didn't understand it. I even tried to "dumb it down" for you and you still didn't understand it. This is not rocket science, so I have to believe that you are incapable of/unwilling to understand the AE or their language/religion.

When the PT were first translated they were already known to be an earlier version of the coffin texts which were the earliest version of their books of incantations. Even as Masperro was translating them for the first time he "knew" they were just incantation.

They were inscribed in a tomb and at least an early understanding and translation of hieroglyphics had already occurred. While many scenes and details of daily life were inscribed within many tombs throughout AE history, at no point were any detailing construction techniques used in the building of those tombs. And any details mentioned within any of the various tombs were details FOR THAT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL. So there's one more reason for your PT interpretation, which at the earliest comes from the Tomb of Unas, to be wholly irrelevant to any discussion of the GP.

We still don't even know how these supposed savages built the pyramids.

The only one calling these people savages and such is you. Just from that perspective alone, you don't deserve the kind of respect that the Ancient Egyptians of any level do.

You might call this progress but if you do then it's only fair you try to explain why the earlier versions are such close characterizations of geysers.

And again, they only exist in your own mind. To paraphrase my own signature, not only do you NOT understand AE society, but you don't even understand how much of AE society you don't understand. That is beyond ignorance.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Wrong, the cultural subtext is highly relevant and is not subject to your misguided interpretations.

What you're saying here is that you are wholly incapable of even

entertaining the possibility that you are wrong.

I see a lot of this in egyptology and believe it's caused by build-

ing an entire religion (egyptology) on assumptions. In every other

field of human endeavor most people can imagine that they are wrong.

Kmt_sesh already gave you one, with the meaning of I[].t-wt.t and you didn't understand it. I even tried to "dumb it down" for you and you still didn't understand it. This is not rocket science, so I have to believe that you are incapable of/unwilling to understand the AE or their language/religion.

I have no idea what you'tre talking about because you left the sub-

ject in another post. If you're too lazy to type the subject then

I'm too lazy to go all looking for the subject.

It's a safe bet you're wrong and avoiding the subject anyway.

They were inscribed in a tomb and at least an early understanding and translation of hieroglyphics had already occurred.

No! They were first inscribed in the pyramid of Unas which is one the little

tiny itsy bitsy pyramids they made after all the great pyramids were complete.

These were unknown when they were found. The later works were well known. The

oldest version appeared last. Even as it was being translated the very first

time the translator knew where it was going. He "knew" it was a book of incan-

tation.

He was probably wrong. Repeating the company line doesn't change the fact that

yeast gas fits and your's doesn't. I know you can't imagine this but maybe it's

because you're wrong. Maybe you're the one without the proper cultural context.

Maybe the great pyramid builders weren't ignorant superstitious savages who were

a thousand years behind all the other people in the world.

While many scenes and details of daily life were inscribed within many tombs throughout AE history, at no point were any detailing construction techniques used in the building of those tombs. And any details mentioned within any of the various tombs were details FOR THAT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL. So there's one more reason for your PT interpretation, which at the earliest comes from the Tomb of Unas, to be wholly irrelevant to any discussion of the GP.

This is your opinion.

My opinion based on facts like "yeast gas" fits in the PT is that there are signs

and drawings everywhere of how the great pyramids were built. Osiris stands in

a djed holding the symbol of the geyser which is also the symbol for life. Every-

where you look you can see drawings and descriptions of building pyramids. This

isn't because they wanted to make fools of egyptologists but because this was a py-

ramid building society; it's what they did.

The only one calling these people savages and such is you. Just from that perspective alone, you don't deserve the kind of respect that the Ancient Egyptians of any level do.

You know I can sit here and describe a pile of excrement in great detail and then

say but it's a good pile. Well egyptologists have painted these people as some-

thing they weren't. They've painted them as "a good pile". They insist they were

a thousand years behind the time.

I don't believe it and just saying they were sophisticated ignorant savages doesn't

change much.

Why don't we talk about what they knew rather than what they didn't know. I've shown

repeatedly that they were highly sophisticated and were more familiar with science than

many of the skeptics today. Instead all we ever hear is stone pounders and ramps.

The Egyptians led the world for a nearly a thousand years but we're supposed to buy

the idea that they were simpletons.

And again, they only exist in your own mind. To paraphrase my own signature, not only do you NOT understand AE society, but you don't even understand how much of AE society you don't understand. That is beyond ignorance.

If I'm wrong then this statement is nearly true. There's the main difference between

us; I know I could be wrong but you are right by definition.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Not in this context they don't. Cobras in egyptian religion have a double symbolic connection with Wadjet, royal protectress and symbol of his dominion over lower Egypt, which fits nicely with the nursing bit since she's associated with Isis as nurse to the infant Horus. Her counterpart of course is Nekhbet, associated with motherhood and personification of upper Egypt, whose crown Osiris wears.

Whatever the meaning, It's safe to say as Kmt does that there's a whole cultural subtext you're missing here.

I probably should have known this. I knew Wadjet and Nekhbet were complimentary

but often lose sight of things that aren't important in the Pyramid Texts. Religion

was local in ancient Egypt and some of these concepts apparently just weren't important

in the land of Horus which is the locale of the PT.

I'm still working on the dm-sceptre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

I'm not trying to be taken seriously. I want to find out how the great pyramids

were actually build, not how how egyptologists assume they mussta been built.

I should hope you would wish to be taken seriously. If not you're not only wasting our time but, worse, your own time. If you want a legitimate understanding of how the pyramids were built, from Zoser's to Ahmose I's, then you'd best turn to the Egyptologists. It's clear to me you really don't understand their methodology and findings. You've said yourself that you have no need to study them, however, so of course you cannot lay claim to any ability to critique them.

OK, let's play your game then. You never said what the determinative actually is

for I[].t-wt.t.

Evidently you didn't read the afore-mentioned post I wrote, Post 131 from Page 9. That entire post was about ixt wtt, including its determinative. To illustrate my point I even linked to the web page where the actual glyphs can be viewed (791a on this page). In summary, I wrote in Post 131:

Most important to note is the determinative at the end of each line: a cobra perched above a basket glyph. Determinatives were vital in hieroglyphs for helping to clarify the nature and meaning of a word, and they are vital to our understanding of translating such words correctly. They cannot be ignored or dismissed.

Your spin on ixt wtt definitely does not work. The determinative makes that crystal clear. As I also wrote in Post 131, for your version to work ixt wtt would require perhaps no determinative or, if one is used, almost certainly the pustule (see Aa2 and its variant Aa3 on this page). In fact, your favorite word "efflux"--rDw in the Egyptian-- uses Aa2 for a determinative; and rDw, "efflux," was a word in their language specifically associated with emissions from the human body. I did not point this out before, but here again another of your spins falls flat.

I'm going to guess it's a snake or cobra since "serpents" indicate leaks and "cobras"

represent danger. Of course it might be power which would be a dm-sceptre, or even a

deity since it is what makes Osiris. It is feminine because CO2 is enveloping which

is a feminine characteristic.

This tells me you did read the post and are feigning ignorance of my effort, but in any case, as I wrote before, the determinative for ixt wtt is a cobra perched above a basket glyph. At no point in pharaonic history does the serpent or cobra represent "leaks." You really must not invent meanings where the need is inappropriate. Serpents in general did represent danger but the cobra in most cases, and particularly as depicted in this case, represent royalty and divinity, two concepts inexorably linked in the ancient Egyptian mind.

Your applications of feminine and masculine traits are not relevant to the Egyptian tradition itself. This is not how the Egyptians thought of such things, either grammatically or culturally. This is another of your inventions. And there is no word for CO2 in the ancient language--another invention, as with dwAt and "geyser." The glyphs simply do not say what you pretend them to say.

You're working from a gross disadvantage by deliberately avoiding proper research. Because something sounds good in your head does not mean it is relevant to the ancient culture. Putting it as simply as I possibly can, had the Egyptians wished to write about the use of geysers and counterweights for the purposes of construction, and imagining for a moment that geysers even existed at Giza, then for pete's sake they would've written in plain Egyptian about the use of geysers and counterweights for the purposes of construction! When they wrote about construction, they were exceedingly succinct about it and very straightforward. Your argument, on the other hand, would require that the Pyramid Texts had been couched in such tortured and twisted metaphor that the end result would be entirely nonsensical.

What do I win?

Yet another desperate, humbling, dire request on my part that you dispense with make-believe and actually spend some time performing real-world, legitimate research. Please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
What you're saying here is that you are wholly incapable of even

entertaining the possibility that you are wrong.

Again wrong. What I'm saying is that you've shown absolutely NO evidence to suggest that you are right. And haven't for 4+ years. But that seems to be OK here at UM.

Having said that, I could be wrong about many things, but in this case the only way I could be wrong would entail being LESS knowledgeable about Ancient Egypt than you are. I'm not. Therein lies your problem.

No! They were first inscribed in the pyramid of Unas which is one the little

tiny itsy bitsy pyramids they made after all the great pyramids were complete.

Which still happens to be a tomb.

These were unknown when they were found. The later works were well known.

The later works were still written in hieroglyphics, an early understanding of which was already in usage.

My opinion based on facts like "yeast gas"...

Your interpretation of "yeast gas" is NOT a fact, no matter how many times you make the claim.

They insist they were a thousand years behind the time.

No, they insist that the AE were a people whose outlook on life and death was separate and distinct from any other, past or present. The only one who paints them as "backwards", "savages" "simpletons" or "behind the times" is you.

If I'm wrong then this statement is nearly true. There's the main difference between us; I know I could be wrong but you are right by definition.

Again you'd be wrong as I am not the one who wrote the PT nor lived the AE lifestyle. THEY did. So it's not me being right, it's them. It's solely your interpretation that's wrong, as your interpretation is not a fact.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

I probably should have known this. I knew Wadjet and Nekhbet were complimentary

but often lose sight of things that aren't important in the Pyramid Texts. Religion

was local in ancient Egypt and some of these concepts apparently just weren't important

in the land of Horus which is the locale of the PT.

I'm still working on the dm-sceptre.

Both Wadjet and Nekhbet were important from the very beginning of the Egyptian kingdom. They were part of the royal titulary long before the first pyramid was built. Religion was local, yes, but to the common people. By the time the Pyramid Texts were first being inscribed into stone, this religious corpus was almost exclusively royal.

I think the "land of Horus" must be another of your inventions. Even a very basic familiarity with the culture would help you to see that the "land of Horus" was all of Egypt, although I am not familiar with the term "land of Horus" existing among the Egyptians themselves (I have never seen the term tA-Hr in a pharaonic context).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

No! They were first inscribed in the pyramid of Unas which is one the little

tiny itsy bitsy pyramids they made after all the great pyramids were complete.

These were unknown when they were found. The later works were well known. The

oldest version appeared last. Even as it was being translated the very first

time the translator knew where it was going. He "knew" it was a book of incan-

tation.

He was probably wrong. Repeating the company line doesn't change the fact that

yeast gas fits and your's doesn't. I know you can't imagine this but maybe it's

because you're wrong. Maybe you're the one without the proper cultural context.

Maybe the great pyramid builders weren't ignorant superstitious savages who were

a thousand years behind all the other people in the world.

Well, damn, this is just silly. Do you even understand how translation works? What you're suggesting would be the same as someone trying to understand the Old Testament by translating the New Testament. A translator doesn't assume a translation, unless he prefers his work to be considered half-assed. The translation is performed from the source material. Only where there are significant lacunae would a translator turn to later, better-preserved sources to try to wrestle out a translation.

You cannot translate a Book of the Dead and hope to understand the Pyramid Texts. There are definite parallels, but what you're suggesting just isn't realistic. Moreover, I've already stated how the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, and Book of the Dead ran in an unbroken chain, sometimes even overlapping, so there was no shattering interruption in these corpuses.

Please, try to understand at least a little bit about the reality of research. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

What you're saying here is that you are wholly incapable of even

entertaining the possibility that you are wrong.

Odd, that sounds like what you're saying. On several occasions you've made statements to the effect that yours is the only logical and likely interpretation.

My opinion based on facts like "yeast gas" fits in the PT is that there are signs and drawings everywhere of how the great pyramids were built.

Consensus however seems to be that you're using outdated and inaccurate information in part as a basis for some of your conclusions. Like "yeast gas".

Remove those and the underpinnings of the rest of the theory start to come loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Both Wadjet and Nekhbet were important from the very beginning of the Egyptian kingdom. They were part of the royal titulary long before the first pyramid was built. Religion was local, yes, but to the common people. By the time the Pyramid Texts were first being inscribed into stone, this religious corpus was almost exclusively royal.

I think the "land of Horus" must be another of your inventions. Even a very basic familiarity with the culture would help you to see that the "land of Horus" was all of Egypt, although I am not familiar with the term "land of Horus" existing among the Egyptians themselves (I have never seen the term tA-Hr in a pharaonic context).

I'm sure you're right. I do take liberties with "land of Horus" and "land

of rainbows" as these term don't specifically appear and they are derived

from things that do appear. Horus was king of upper and lower Egypt but he

was larger than life in the area of the d[].t; He was "chief of the D[].t"

He inhabited the horizon where the pyramids were built.

1103b. the two reed-floats of heaven are placed for Rē‘ that he may ferry over therewith to Horus who inhabits the horizon."

1986b. [for this spirit, who ascends from] the Dȝ.t, (even) Osiris N. who ascends from Geb.

295a. To say: The Horizon burns incense to Horus of Nḫn; provisions for the lords.

1612a. To say: Horus adorns himself with his šsmt-apron, (when he) moves (about) on his land like tiwti;

573d. like (to) Horus after he had avenged his father, Osiris.

574a. I am thine Anubis-priest.

574b. Thou puttest thy hand on the land; thy warrior-arm is over the great region,

574c. wherein thou goest (or, passest through) among the spirits.

581a. Horus has seized Set; he has placed him under thee

581b. that be may carry thee and that he may quake under thee like the quaking of the earth,

581c. for thou art more exalted than he, in thy name of "He of the exalted land."

1594a. (but) they are open to Horus. It was, he who made them; it was he who made them stand fast;

1594b. it was he who rescued them from every evil which Set did to them;

1595a. it was he who settled thee, in this thy name of "Settlements" ("Colonies");

480b. The regions of the kingdom, the kingdom of Horus, the kingdom of Set, (and)

1449b. May Horus of the Horizon cause him to hear his glory and his praise

I believe all these refer to the region where the great pyramids were built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Odd, that sounds like what you're saying. On several occasions you've made statements to the effect that yours is the only logical and likely interpretation.

Consensus however seems to be that you're using outdated and inaccurate information in part as a basis for some of your conclusions. Like "yeast gas".

Remove those and the underpinnings of the rest of the theory start to come loose.

You're using orthodox ideas to argue against an idea that excludes

the possibility that orthodoxy is correct.

I know that the only understanding orthodox theory has is based on

incantation, ramps, tombs, and metaphor but these and anything derived

from them are irrelevent since the ideas are mutually exclusive. If

one is right the other is necessarily wrong.

This means we all have to fall back on the actual evidence and the ac-

tual cultural record. This makes it difficult to argue since there is

so little evidence.

But, in my opinion the evidence all points my way and the literal mean-

ing of what the builders said is the same as what I say.

There are points that orthodoxy could be making but they aren't attemp-

ting a sincere rebuttal to my arguments. Instead I'm merely told that

my ideas are obviously wrong and incredible. I already knew this. What

I want to know is how the pyramid was built and that's going to include

an explanation of why I must be wrong. I believe any serious attempt to

exclude geysers is going to show that they actually existed.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Well, damn, this is just silly. Do you even understand how translation works? What you're suggesting would be the same as someone trying to understand the Old Testament by translating the New Testament. A translator doesn't assume a translation, unless he prefers his work to be considered half-assed. The translation is performed from the source material. Only where there are significant lacunae would a translator turn to later, better-preserved sources to try to wrestle out a translation.

You cannot translate a Book of the Dead and hope to understand the Pyramid Texts. There are definite parallels, but what you're suggesting just isn't realistic. Moreover, I've already stated how the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, and Book of the Dead ran in an unbroken chain, sometimes even overlapping, so there was no shattering interruption in these corpuses.

Please, try to understand at least a little bit about the reality of research. :rolleyes:

Yes. I know exactly how translation works. I'm exceedingly good

at it.

But apparently I'm not succeeding in translating my ideas into words

you can understand. Part of my problem here is that it would require

extensive typing to show this and I hate typing.

So here's the shortcut again. Please try to keep up with it.

Communication isn't about words. It isn't about grammar or defin-

itions. It's not sentence structure nor has it much to do with spell-

ing, inflection, or necessarily even language itself. Youcan mime

to somebody and make yourself understood. There is even interspecies

communication at times.

Communication is primarily about shared referents and shared refer-

ents are the bedrock of translation. It's impossible to properly

translate a concept if you don't know what that concept is. If all

you have are the words they still have no meaning. For example, the

Eye of Horus was not an eye which was used by a man or God top see.

It's probably translated correctly and we would be understood if we

went back in time and talked to an ancient. BUT we'd be talking a-

bout two different things. It's possible we could talk for hours and

neither of us would notice we were talking about two different things.

I've seen people do it many times and it's a common occurance on a

phone or message board where people are so different or can't see bo-

dylanguage and the other clues we usually take for granted. Normally

people don't notice when it's something as simple as a single unshared

referent. It can be glaring if briton says he broke three fingers

dropping a bonnet on them but it tends to be subtle and pass unnoticed.

This is what we have with the PT. Almost no shared referents. It is

so opaque to a literal understanding that it was simply assumed to be

metaphoric. This wasn't an unreasonable assumption but it's very un-

reasonable to deny the possibility when it's all been deciphered, it

all fits, and there is every possibility it's correct.

It's unreasonable in the extreme. It surprises me more than the words

exist to express it in any language. It's not a matter of whether it's

liked or not. It's a matter of whether it's true or not and almost no

progress has been made in this determination so far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

WELL, thanks to Kmt, Onionmancer, Cormac and others who have so nicely sliced Cladking's idea to pieces - as it has been sliced to pieces before on other boards.

Does that make any difference to Cladking? Not a bit, wait a few days and he'll be again claiming that no one looks at his evidence, etc, etc

Some of the best comments I've put below

KMT said: I've said this to you before, cladking, but it bears repeating: you simply must stop entertaining the notion that you've obtained a remarkably fresh and hitherto-unknown understanding of the Pyramid Texts by obsessing over a very old and decidedly incomplete translation of the Texts. And by doing so knowing only English, no less. I can guarantee you with utter and complete confidence that unless and until you expend the years of study and research required to become expert in hieroglyphs, you will never be taken seriously. That's a given.
To be perfectly honest I've never come across a word preserved in ancient Egyptian that can be translated as yeast gas. This is something else that you, cladking, would need to establish on purely linguistic grounds in the hieroglyphs. But in point of fact there were many words in Egyptian having to do with odors and emissions, and they were generally marked by a determinative shaped as a pustule. The word ixt wtt is not marked with a pustule hieroglyph, so we can dismiss the idea that it represents an odor or emission.
Cladking goes into the great conspiracy: (LOL) And each time you've said it I responded that if I wait long enough there will be a trans-

lation that agrees exactly with what egyptologists already believe. In a hundred years they will find ramps right there in the text. Everywhere it says the pyramids were the ka of the king will have been edited right out. Interpretation is driving translation now.

Most non-pithy comment in this thread - by Cladking of course: I have very extreme doubt that much of anything has been learned about the builder's language even in the last 100 years.
Whoa that is painfully out of touch.

The summary: Cladking's claim that 'no one will look at the evidence' has been falsified, it has been looked at multiple times, on multiple boards by multiple people and by subject experts - and rejected soundly and completely by those who are knowledgeable in the AE religion and language.

Conclusion: Cladking as noted has been shown to be lying about 'no one looking at the evidence'. We do hope that in the future he will:

Not say that

Study the AE religion and language so as to be able to comment intelligently on the subject.

Acknowledge that he using a obsolete translation.

Acknowledge that his lack of all the above severly impacts his believability.

Final note: I will make a private bet with those here on how many days/weeks it will be before Cladking begins again to claim that 'no one will look at the evidence' any takers? LOL

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

The summary: Cladking's claim that 'no one will look at the evidence' has been falsified, it has been looked at multiple times, on multiple boards by multiple people and by subject experts - and rejected soundly and completely by those who are knowledgeable in the AE religion and language.

Only a fool can be pointed at something and not see it.

No, I'm not referring to the facts of the case in this instance

but the two claimns I've made in the last few days that are in-

visible to you.

First I've pointed out that there were three major flaws in my

theory and no one ever even pointed them out. That includes you.

I gave cause for no one to ask what the unsolved one is since I

won't divulge it to anyone who is examing this with is brain off

and his eyes closed, but no one even asked what the two solved

problems were; pathetic. You simply don't want to be bothered

with facts because once your mind is made up you find them confu-

sing.

Then even worse is that I just said that there are arguments and

points that could be made. Frankly I've been hoping someone would

make most of these. Some would be difficult to for me to counter

but maybe we could all learn something in the process.

I could do a better job of putting this theory down in my sleep

than you can wide awake. Your only weapon is name calling. And

(maybe) selecting statements where it seems someone drew blood.

Of course you'll see if you actually looked that these statements

have mostly been either previously addressed or put to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

WELL, thanks to Kmt, Onionmancer, Cormac and others who have so nicely sliced Cladking's idea to pieces - as it has been sliced to pieces before on other boards.

Does that make any difference to Cladking? Not a bit, wait a few days and he'll be again claiming that no one looks at his evidence, etc, etc

Some of the best comments I've put below

Whoa that is painfully out of touch.

The summary: Cladking's claim that 'no one will look at the evidence' has been falsified, it has been looked at multiple times, on multiple boards by multiple people and by subject experts - and rejected soundly and completely by those who are knowledgeable in the AE religion and language.

Conclusion: Cladking as noted has been shown to be lying about 'no one looking at the evidence'. We do hope that in the future he will:

Not say that

Study the AE religion and language so as to be able to comment intelligently on the subject.

Acknowledge that he using a obsolete translation.

Acknowledge that his lack of all the above severly impacts his believability.

Final note: I will make a private bet with those here on how many days/weeks it will be before Cladking begins again to claim that 'no one will look at the evidence' any takers? LOL

Well summarized, Hanslune. I was once again going to emphasize to cladking, based on his last reply to me, that he clearly does not understand how translation is performed; inventing and pretending do not build a useful theory. I needn't go in to all of that yet again, however, because your post nailed the whole essence of the issue.

Many of us posters have sliced and diced cladking's arguments for years; and this includes not just UM but posters on other forums like Hall of Maat. You're right, Hanslune, that cladking either ignores us or merely tells us we're wrong, and in short time he returns to the same arguments that have been roundly disproven. However, I think he's wishing that the ones doing the critiquing were professional academics. He wants them to take notice. I've gone round and round with cladking on this issue, but the gist of it is, (1) professional scholars do not troll the internet to look at the crazy crap out there, and (2) they do not give notice to ideas entirely lacking in substantive evidence. In point of fact, cladking has to bring his ideas to them.

It would be a scary proposition, at best. If we posters are able so easily to dissect and disprove cladking's arguments, imagine how brutal professional scholars would be. It would be one very brief and decidedly unpleasant peer-review experience. Nevertheless, if cladking wants his theory "to be noticed," he has no other recourse but to submit himself to the process. Complaining to us certainly won't help, and in fact it's become very annoying. We've done our jobs, so now the ball still remains in cladking's court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

I found this post right before retiring last night.

I should hope you would wish to be taken seriously.

Perhaps this was phrased badly. I meant my objective is to keep personalities

out of this and discover how G1 was really built. I appears no one wants to take

this thing seriously. Skeptics have revealed themselves (generally) to be unable

to consider new ideas and most egyptologists (generally) are content to stick with

the 19th century mantra that "it mustta been ramps". I used to call myself a "skep-

tic". Now it's almost a dirty word.

If not you're not only wasting our time but, worse, your own time. If you want a legitimate understanding of how the pyramids were built, from Zoser's to Ahmose I's, then you'd best turn to the Egyptologists.

This wouldn't be true if I'm right.

It's clear to me you really don't understand their methodology and findings. You've said yourself that you have no need to study them, however, so of course you cannot lay claim to any ability to critique them.

Willie Sutton robbed banks because "that's where the money is". If you want facts

about the pyramids then you'll find more in a book be Lehner than a McDonalds menu.

That doesn't mean the pyramids were built with ramps. And it doesn't mean you'll

find many facts in a book written by an egyptologist. There's no more real meat in

the book than the menu.

Evidently you didn't read the afore-mentioned post I wrote, Post 131 from Page 9. That entire post was about ixt wtt, including its determinative.

In pointr of fact you merely implied what the determininative is. I don't do impli-

cations and admit I missed it altogether.

Your spin on ixt wtt definitely does not work.

Of course it works. It's the only thing that does work. Go back and actually look

at what's there.

CO2 is a liquid that can be carried in a basket. It is dangerous and divine. It

will be associated with odors and be driven from water (Osiris) explosively with the

addition of natron. It is talked about by dayand feared by night. It is the only

thing that does fit. Nothing else fits.

The determinative makes that crystal clear. As I also wrote in Post 131, for your version to work ixt wtt would require perhaps no determinative or, if one is used, almost certainly the pustule (see Aa2 and its variant Aa3 on this page).

Again youare obviously wrong. They said right there in the utterances I posted

that this has an odor. Obviously it either doesn't need a postule or it has one

because it does have an odor.

In fact, your favorite word "efflux"--rDw in the Egyptian-- uses Aa2 for a determinative; and rDw, "efflux," was a word in their language specifically associated with emissions from the human body. I did not point this out before, but here again another of your spins falls flat.

"Efflux" is also called the God's sweat. They anthropomorphized all their Goids.

Part of this process is giving them body parts with which body odors are associated.

This tells me you did read the post and are feigning ignorance of my effort, but in any case, as I wrote before, the determinative for ixt wtt is a cobra perched above a basket glyph.

Sure. I have nothing better to do. When you're as dense as I am you never feign

ignmorance (and usually don't need to)

At no point in pharaonic history does the serpent or cobra represent "leaks."

No!! In the PT all serpents are "leaks" from the natural and man made systems to

control this water and gas. Even Nehbekau is a representation of the hydraulic

cycle and his multitudinous coils are the clouds.

You really must not invent meanings where the need is inappropriate.

It's time to get out of the 19th century. Consider this the alarm going off.

Your applications of feminine and masculine traits are not relevant to the Egyptian tradition itself.

I don't read heiroglyphs, but what explanation would you put forth for why the

so-called errors inthe PT disappear with my understanding? Of course the theory

was built around what the builders actually said but this seems far too simplistic

an answer.

The glyphs simply do not say what you pretend them to say.

Of course they say exactly what I say they do except to the degree that the translators

are wrong. I think they generally did a good job intranslation.

You're working from a gross disadvantage by deliberately avoiding proper research.

You keep saying this and keep ignoring the possibility that I'm right.

Youcould be wrong.

Because something sounds good in your head does not mean it is relevant to the ancient culture. Putting it as simply as I possibly can, had the Egyptians wished to write about the use of geysers and counterweights for the purposes of construction, and imagining for a moment that geysers even existed at Giza, then for pete's sake they would've written in plain Egyptian about the use of geysers and counterweights for the purposes of construction!

The geysers were Gods! Where do they write in plain English about any

of their Gods.

Yet another desperate, humbling, dire request on my part that you dispense with make-believe and actually spend some time performing real-world, legitimate research. Please!

If I'm right then who would do the "real-world, legitimate research".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Many of us posters have sliced and diced cladking's arguments for years; and this includes not just UM but posters on other forums...

No. It's about 60% word games and semantics and 40% insults and incredulity.

This isn't to say there's been no real help or nop one considering it at all

but no one identified the real weaknesses in my theory. What does that tell you?

It tells me that this isn't being seriously considered. I haven't been trying

to hide these weaknesses merely prepare for when they are pointed out yet nary

a word. Pathetic.

I could do a ten time better job attacking this than has been done. Wanna

change sides? I bet I could drive you off with your tail between your legs.

Though the best argument most would come up with if they switched to my side

wiould be "there must not have been ramps".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

cladking either ignores us or merely tells us we're wrong, and in short time he returns to the same arguments that have been roundly disproven.

You can't come up with a single example of this because it's untrue.

In every case I make a fact based presentation of the evidence for a

contention. Usually the basis in fact is very weakl because there's

very little evidence to support any contentions and then someone says

"no it's not" with no logic and no facts.

I can point to 4" ropes of a lenght necessary to do this job yet you

deny it can be done. You claim ropes can't be hooked together. What

kind of argument is that? Why can't ropes be hooked together? Ropes

don't lose trenght because they are long. They don't not work just be-

cause they are larger or longer. The more rope the more youcan pull

further. This is the nature of ropes and no amount of complaining will

change it.

It's the same thing across the board. I present an argument and it is

denied for generally specious reasons. People seem to be looking for

reasons that it's impossible instead of ways it might have worked. If

this were the attitude at NASA we not only would never have gotten to

the moon but we'd never have gotten anything off the launchpad. You

can't even build a 10' pyramid with ramps if you have this attitude.

Youhave to show me where I'm wrong because I don't believe in orthodoxy.

I don't believe in ramps and superstition. I don't believe in tombs.

This isn't rocket scioence. If I can do it then it's a safe bet it's

very very simple. So show me. Show me one place I'm wrong.

However, I think he's wishing that the ones doing the critiquing were professional academics. He wants them to take notice. I've gone round and round with cladking on this issue, but the gist of it is, (1) professional scholars do not troll the internet to look at the crazy crap out there, and (2) they do not give notice to ideas entirely lacking in substantive evidence. In point of fact, cladking has to bring his ideas to them.

There are some very very professional and intelligent people looking at

this. You yourself have a professional bearing and are quite knowledge-

able. I want only to know how G1 was built and this idea is being con-

sidered. While I'm waiting for a response I've been continuing to work

on it and continuing to find supporting evidence.

At some point I'll just go to the mass media. No, not to sella book but

to let people know how G1 was actually built. My confidence simply keeps

growing and this will occur when it gets sufficiently high. It might be

the first time in human history when the common man knows the truth and

the leaders are stuck in the past.

It would be a scary proposition, at best. If we posters are able so easily to dissect and disprove cladking's arguments, imagine how brutal professional scholars would be.

I can see it now; Nowhere in your dissertation did you even mention that it

mustta been ramps, Cladking you are accused of heresy against the Gods and

Egyptology.

It would be one very brief and decidedly unpleasant peer-review experience. Nevertheless, if cladking wants his theory "to be noticed," he has no other recourse but to submit himself to the process. Complaining to us certainly won't help, and in fact it's become very annoying. We've done our jobs, so now the ball still remains in cladking's court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

Of course it works. It's the only thing that does work. Go back and actually look

at what's there.

CO2 is a liquid that can be carried in a basket. It is dangerous and divine. It

will be associated with odors and be driven from water (Osiris) explosively with the

addition of natron. It is talked about by dayand feared by night. It is the only

thing that does fit. Nothing else fits.

There! See? You're doing it again!

Again youare obviously wrong.

And again!

No!! In the PT all serpents are "leaks" from the natural and man made systems to

control this water and gas. Even Nehbekau is a representation of the hydraulic

cycle and his multitudinous coils are the clouds.

Right. Leaks. Hissing. Come on Kmt, get with the program!

This isn't to say there's been no real help or nop one considering it at all but no one identified the real weaknesses in my theory. What does that tell you?

It's difficult to spot a subtle problem when there are so many glaringly obvious ones staring you in the face. It's like a coroner missing potassium chloride poisoning in a man who's head's been blown off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.