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 -

Giza Pyramid construction


Paul Hai
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Truer words have never been typed.

Thank you.

When someone says things like "building a pyramid on top of a hill is easy" it usually seems to make sense because we parse it that way.   But when words are so jumbled we believe it is just incantation we must be very wary of making deductions about what the author mustta been thinking.  Ezekiel I really has little literal sense as well and mustta been a metaphor.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

The fact that clad’s decade-long modus operandi is lying is well-established. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

Funny how you calling me a liar is the topic here but if I address the irrelevancy and inaccurate on multiple levels statement to which you responded by calling me a liar then I'm off topic.   

Let's get back to the subject which is evidence for how the pyramids were built.  Did I ever mention that not only does the word "ramp" not appear in Ancient Language from the great pyramid building age but the words "thought" and "belief" also don't appear.   For most practical purposes there are no taxonomic nor reductionistic words either and the language breaks Zipf's Law?   It seems to me there are an awful lot of questions that need to be addressed before ANY text is cited even if such a text actually existed and for which we have  no evidence.   

 

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

Funny how you calling me a liar is the topic here but if I address the irrelevancy and inaccurate on multiple levels statement to which you responded by calling me a liar then I'm off topic.   

Let's get back to the subject which is evidence for how the pyramids were built.  Did I ever mention that not only does the word "ramp" not appear in Ancient Language from the great pyramid building age but the words "thought" and "belief" also don't appear.   For most practical purposes there are no taxonomic nor reductionistic words either and the language breaks Zipf's Law?   It seems to me there are an awful lot of questions that need to be addressed before ANY text is cited even if such a text actually existed and for which we have  no evidence.   

 

Zipf’s law fails to account for the most common word in the spoken English language being “um” being stunningly absent from most written sources, which means an analysis of written language does not always reflect correctly upon the spoken word.

 

Take the word “Frenchwoman”, the earliest written record of it was Shakespeare, yet I suspect that the word “a Frenchwoman” existed in the spoken form for a lot longer than that.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cladking you are lying again.

It's a key point: it indicates you have no idea what you are talking about - so you tell silly whoppers. Does the PT contain the entire AE language? Can you answer that? You seem to imply it is so why don't you elaborate on that?

You KNOW it doesn't yet you keep pretending it does.
Oh then tell us when they appeared and where. I mean you're claiming to be an expert on the AE language right?

J2a9eqk.jpg
2uz2qat.jpg
RRyucEs.jpg

This should be easy - all you need to do is refer to your research you did to verify this before you said it.........

Evidence shows those words are in the language just not the PT. How many separate words in the PT vs the full language? Tell us what it is. What you've never researched that? LOL

The words chicken, snail and others aren't in the PT does that mean they don't exist?

Ramps existed and had a name you've been debunked on this hundreds of times - lying about it doesn't help you at all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Zipf’s law fails to account for the most common word in the spoken English language being “um” being stunningly absent from most written sources.

He doesn't know what the Z-law even is he heard some one else mention it a while back. Ask him to provide evidence that the AE language violates it and watch him run...its fun.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, cladking said:

I'm willing to wait to see how Paul Hai answers the question.  I can imagine several means to reduce damage to the rollers and ropes.   For instance there can be several sizes of rollers and stones can be oriented to fit one or another size.   

 

Why not show us the engineering calculations for your ideas - oh wait you already know they don't work which is why you always run when asked to provide them.

Cladking's methodology ='s make a claim don't provide evidence and run when asked for it and instead restate the claim as fact.......chukcle

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Zipf’s law fails to account for the most common word in the spoken English language being “um” being stunningly absent from most written sources, which means an analysis of written language does not always reflect correctly upon the spoken word.

 

Take the word “Frenchwoman”, the earliest written record of it was Shakespeare, yet I suspect that the word “a Frenchwoman” existed in the spoken form for a lot longer than that.

Cladking has been screaming and yelling about this for a decade yet he refuses to understand that the PT is only a fraction of the full AE language. He continues to keep up the lie that the entire PT is somehow the entire language! Nutty in the extreme.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who gives a hoot how the pyramids were built? There are no more pharaohs around to be buried, and it's a lot easier and much more economical to just get cremated, if anyone thinks they know how to build one, and wants one. What useless, and dated dead activity.   

By getting one of these one can do away with all the Egyptidiots around here.

idiot's guide to AE.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Who gives a hoot how the pyramids were built? There are no more pharaohs around to be buried, and it's a lot easier and much more economical to just get cremated, if anyone thinks they know how to build one, and wants one. What useless, and dated dead activity.   

By getting one of these one can do away with all the Egyptidiots around here.

idiot's guide to AE.jpg

95428917-EAAA-4299-A802-E909F6224FB8.jpeg.2c5aa7be6a9346d7a86238f16a334f9d.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

95428917-EAAA-4299-A802-E909F6224FB8.jpeg.2c5aa7be6a9346d7a86238f16a334f9d.jpeg

I come here to this internet bar to drink and get drunk on knowledge. But somehow I can never quench my thirst.....too dry material being served by the many bartenders on duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

He doesn't know what the Z-law even is he heard some one else mention it a while back. Ask him to provide evidence that the AE language violates it and watch him run...its fun.

He clearly doesn’t know what it is and how it’s used. He’s a bit like a five year old with an unabridged dictionary. That or he suffers Mario’s Little Knowledge Disease. 
 

Or, more to the point, that it isn’t used in linguistics any more. (It is in information science.) Never really was, as its underlying principals are unclear, so if doesn’t generate new knowledge. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Who gives a hoot how the pyramids were built?

I should hope everyone who reads this thread would have at least a little.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:


 

Or, more to the point, that it isn’t used in linguistics any more. (It is in information science.) Never really was, as its underlying principals are unclear, so if doesn’t generate new knowledge. 

Zipf's Law is an observation.  "Law" is really a misnomer but then it was invented by linguists and NOT me.

It really doesn't matter what you call it the ancient writing still breaks it.  Everybody wants to get hung up on words and semantics and ignore what is outside their expectations.  People can't imagine dragging stones straight up the side so they create semantical arguments about how it's impossible.   

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, cladking said:

 Everybody wants to get hung up on words.   

One might argue that’s precisely a linguist’s job...

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, cladking said:

Zipf's Law is an observation.  "Law" is really a misnomer but then it was invented by linguists and NOT me.

It really doesn't matter what you call it the ancient writing still breaks it.

You are again challenged to show how the AE language  breaks it. You're just saying so simply isn't evidence of anything. If you refuse you AGAIN prove you are lying.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

One might argue that’s precisely a linguist’s job...

—Jaylemurph 

He doesn't think he even understands what Linguists do - I mean people who learn an ancient or foreign language and delve into its structure - I mean he just reads English and makes up stuff - why do all the studying!  - I believe he thinks they are some sort of tart fruit.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

You apparently agree then that Ezekiel and other writing is continually changing and being reinterpreted.  

As older versions and fragments of versions are discovered, yes.  And as our language changes ("awful" originally meant "something that filled you with awe" and not "really terrible")

Quote

If any ancient writing didn't make sense in 1890 and doesn't make sense today then what possible reason do you have for believing it is getting any closer to the intent of the author? 

I agree that things like the Voynich Manuscript, which exist as a sole copy and no other copies and nothing similar to it has ever been found, don't make sense and any interpretation is as bad (or good) as any other interpretation.

But if you're trying to claim that no hieroglyphic texts have been discovered since 1890 and no new pyramid texts or coffin texts have been discovered since then, you're sadly mistaken.  It's the additional material (including copies of things that appear in multiple languages) that let us better understand what was intended.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

 

But if you're trying to claim that no hieroglyphic texts have been discovered since 1890 and no new pyramid texts or coffin texts have been discovered since then, you're sadly mistaken.  It's the additional material (including copies of things that appear in multiple languages) that let us better understand what was intended.

 

Is it your contention then that translations by Masperro, Sethe, Faulkner, and Allen would be exactly identical except for new manuscript finds and changes in "English"?

Can you provide a single sentence of a single utterance where this is true?   

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cladking said:

Is it your contention then that translations by Masperro, Sethe, Faulkner, and Allen would be exactly identical except for new manuscript finds and changes in "English"?

Can you provide a single sentence of a single utterance where this is true?   

No, and I'm not sure how you misread my statement so badly -- but you clearly misread it.

I'm saying that Allen's translations are much better because we have such a huge volume of hieroglyphic texts that have been discovered and translated and studied in the 120 years since Budge's publication (which has a lot of problems) that allow us to tweak and correct certain passages to make them closer to what the Ancient Egyptians intended.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

No, and I'm not sure how you misread my statement so badly -- but you clearly misread it.

I'm saying that Allen's translations are much better because we have such a huge volume of hieroglyphic texts that have been discovered and translated and studied in the 120 years since Budge's publication (which has a lot of problems) that allow us to tweak and correct certain passages to make them closer to what the Ancient Egyptians intended.

Again with Budge!

Every single thing written after the great pyramid building age is wholly irrelevant to the great pyramids and their builders.  This is exactly where Egyptology went completely wrong.   It is poor methodology to translate the ancient language in terms of later writing.  It is even worse methodology to interpret the writing of the great pyramid building age in terms of later writing.  

Budge is irrelevant.  He translated nonsense from centuries after any great pyramid was built.   

What do you have that's concurrent with the great pyramids that supports Egyptology?   There is nothing.   If you have something show it.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, cladking said:

Again with Budge!

Every single thing written after the great pyramid building age is wholly irrelevant to the great pyramids and their builders.  This is exactly where Egyptology went completely wrong.   It is poor methodology to translate the ancient language in terms of later writing.  It is even worse methodology to interpret the writing of the great pyramid building age in terms of later writing.  

Budge is irrelevant.  He translated nonsense from centuries after any great pyramid was built.   

What do you have that's concurrent with the great pyramids that supports Egyptology?   There is nothing.   If you have something show it.  

 

You stalwartly refuse to demonstrate any basic competence in any field you discuss, and yet you seem to expect people to understand and appreciate whatever historiographic critique you can throw together. Do you understand the irony of that, or are you just unable to appreciate how most people engage the world?

We recently had a poster draw our attention to how we treat people here who may not be nuerotypical, so I’m trying to be respectful of that, and that may well be how we should treat you. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

What do you have that's concurrent with the great pyramids that supports Egyptology?   There is nothing.   If you have something show it. 

..and you have nothing to show us you got anything that supports cladkingology world of fantasy? Since you've shown your translation of PT are just random words with no common meaning. Your lack of data and publishing your research clearly indicates you have nothing.- which is why you've been childishly repeating the same claims endlessly while refusing to provide any evidence to support your bizarre statements.

 

Your tactics of constantly demanding other provide evidence so you can dismiss it while refusing to provide any support for your own claims is evident of your turn towards just being a troll.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, cladking said:

Again with Budge!

Do you actually read my posts or are you just responding based on my name?  

This is a serious question because I've responded twice now and you don't actually seem to have read what I wrote.

 

(on the snarky side, I realize that it's quite a time saver but it does nothing for your arguments and contributes nothing to the board)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Do you actually read my posts or are you just responding based on my name?  

This is a serious question because I've responded twice now and you don't actually seem to have read what I wrote.

 

(on the snarky side, I realize that it's quite a time saver but it does nothing for your arguments and contributes nothing to the board)

That's funny, I always wonder if anyone reads what I write.  The poster right before you (jaylemurph) wanted to know my qualifications for saying that cause precedes effect!

I'm familiar with Allen and IMO he is not better than Mercer or Faulkner.  In my opinion he is actually quite a bit worse.  Not because he is stupid or a bad scholar but because methodology now is getting worse instead of better.  As Egyptologists believe they are getting closer and closer to author intent they feel justified in using later material for translations.   This would be almost legitimate if they were getting closer but I believe they are getting further and further away because these continuing changes in translation are further hiding the fact that the language and the way meaning was formatted changed.  I believe that the language and the way people think was stood on its head but that the old vocabulary remained nearly unchanged.  THIS is the source of stories like Ezekiel I.  The old holy books are interpretations of ancient writing and that writing was in a language wholly dissimilar to any current language even though vocabulary still has an eerie similarity.   It was improperly interpreted so it looks like something written by a sun addled bumpkin.  He was merely trying to stay as close to the literal meaning of the writing as he could.  

I have far more respect for Egyptology and all experts than people seem to think.  I know expertise doesn't come easy in ANY subject at all.   I know that experts have huge amounts of knowledge in their field and many have extensive knowledge in related and even unrelated fields as well.  But if I say this people ask me why I argue with them.  So instead I must say I believe Egyptology is wrong and getting more wrong all the time.  "Budge" is one of my favorite Egyptologists for many reasons but he never translated the Pyramid Texts or anything directly related to the PT or the great pyramids.  His work is irrelevant to great pyramids and their construction,    Yes, I am aware bits of the book of the dead are PT-like but I believe this is largely because Egyptologists have forced the PT to reflect beliefs from the book of the dead and because the authors of the book of the dead misunderstood and mistranslated the PT in the exact same way that Egyptologists misinterpret.  

There are no Egyptologists I dislike though there are a very very few whom I believe are doing Egyptology and science a huge disservice.   

Edited by cladking
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cladking said:

That's funny, I always wonder if anyone reads what I write. 

Ah Sam why would anyone listen to or take you pronouncements as serious statements on this subject?

You cannot read ancient Egyptian - your knowledge of the culture and religion is deeply, deeply flawed but here you are trying to pontificate on a language YOU CANNOT READ.

Do you know what the word bizarre means?

Additionally your failed idea about ancient language has been debunked and you seem to think that pretending it hasn't been, lying essentially - won't be noted by others?

Again utterly bizarre.

We are not obliged in anyway to go along with your fantasy that you are some great metaphysical AE scholar you ain't....you're an internet eccentric who use to be amusing but is now just boring - nothing more.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.