Ancient Science and Metaphysics.

[Swede]

You're mistaken.

Houdin has offered to do this work for free. The permit was initially granted and

then, apparently, rescinded.

This sort of work would cost next to nothing and if done properly would almost certainly

show how the pyramid was built no matter what method was used. It's hardly "precious"

research funds they are guarding, it's the status quo being protected at all costs.

I'm still working on becoming completely ignorant ...

1 & 2) You have credible documentation that a formal permit was actually issued and then rescinded? Am personally unaware of such, but perhaps you can inform us. Note that "rumors" on Houdin's "mouthpiece" website may not be the most credible. One must also take into account the current socio-political environment of the area under consideration.

In regards to Houdin's proposed methodology, and to quote:

"If the pyramid is a solid structure, then according to our computer simulations, in the summer at noon it will be hotter at the top as there's less mass, and cooler at the bottom, where the cold ground helps to cool it from below.

"But if there's an internal ramp, it will be the other way around - the pyramid will be cooler at the top." (Houdin 2011).

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-14334046

You do understand the questionable temporal/thermal mass/known construction/technical limitation aspects of this proposal, do you not?

Which results in the following commentary:

Setting up a few cameras may seem simple enough, but for this next step to succeed, the joint international venture must be okayed by the Egyptian authorities - who have so far been reluctant to give any kind of positive response.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-14334046

It should also be noted that the research design/logistics/equipment/expertise/analyses involved go far beyond "setting up a few cameras". You apparently have no idea of the actual costs involved. That Houdin may wish to absorb this cost himself is questionably admirable as he has left his previous professional position in order to apparently pursue a potentially more lucrative career in a more sensationalistic environment.

For those who may wish to further explore Houdin's current "affiliations":

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-14334046

3) We know.

.

[cladking]

I haven't actually communicated with M houdin in some time but my understanding per

published reports is that he did in actuality have the permits at one time. There have been

hints that these have not been honored by the powers that be at this time. I have no special

knowledge of the situation but can assure that if he makes a statement it is most probably

true and what he believes to be true. He has as much integrity as any Egyptologist. You

might be interested to know that he considers himself an Egyptologist (per published reports)

and this is likely the primary reason he gained the permit initially.

I'll comment further on your post probably after reading the links.

[cladking]

"If the pyramid is a solid structure, then according to our computer simulations, in the summer at noon it will be hotter at the top as there's less mass, and cooler at the bottom, where the cold ground helps to cool it from below.

I believe he is misthinking this. While he's not necessarily wrong he's overlooking numerous

more important points The gravimetric scan is showing density difference and since the bulk

make up of the pyramid is essentiually the same density this will prove the most striking fea-

ture of the entire pyramid. There will be incredibly many bands and layers of horizontal regions

disclosed. There will be a horizontal line or even two for every course and there will be the five

steps. It's these five steps that will be most dramatic especially on daily changes because the

heat transfer throiugh the tops of the steps will be visible due to their proximity to the surface.

There will also be a neat band on the west side near the bottom between the second and third

step that looks just like a ramp. It will be caused by the mud "trampled into winding watercourse"

to stop microleaks at night.

420a. To say: N., I have trampled the mud of the water-courses. Thot is the protector of N.,

420b. when it is dark, when it is dark.

This apparent "ramp" will be where the water lifters worked to raise the water as high as 162.6'

There are even more interesting features that will be disclosed and proive I'm right. If I'm

wrong I predict it will also prove this. If Houdin is right the proof will be extremely dramatic

but he is not right because no ramps were used to build any great pyramid. Even if my theory

is proven tomorrow this test still needs to be done immediately. Even if a signed affidavit by

the archetech appears saying they used ramps and tells where to find it it still NEEDS TO

BE DONE because it is anti-human and anti-rational to just make guesses and not do the

science. There are no possible excuses. They don't deserve tourists if they just want to keep

the guesses for the status quo.

Setting up a few cameras may seem simple enough, but for this next step to succeed, the joint international venture must be okayed by the Egyptian authorities - who have so far been reluctant to give any kind of positive response.

It should also be noted that the research design/logistics/equipment/expertise/analyses involved go far beyond "setting up a few cameras". You apparently have no idea of the actual costs involved. That Houdin may wish to absorb this cost himself is questionably admirable as he has left his previous professional position in order to apparently pursue a potentially more lucrative career in a more sensationalistic environment.

Taking pictures isn't rocket science. There's a lot of data that can be gleaned from time exposures

but this merely requires you leave the shutter open when you go home at night. This could be done

very very precisely or haphazardly but the important element is to catch it under different conditions

and especially under extremely wide temperature swings. A single picture could be enough. One from

each side (like the sons of horus) would be even better.

For those who may wish to further explore Houdin's current "affiliations":

I don't understand the need for skeptics and Egyptologists to denigrate everyone who doesn't agree

with every single piece of the latest thinking about ancient Egyptians. I understand why they exclude

nonbelievers from peer review but does it really matter if the ba ascended in the sould shaft or a false

door? Gimme a break. This stuff is treated like gospel and we don't know what any of them believed

and odds are pretty good they believed different things. How is anyone supposed to memorize hundreds

of spells so he can get into the afterlife. By the time he learned all these he'd be ready for his pyramid.

So Houdin believes in a spiral ramp and this makes him a heretic. Bauval believes the pyramids are

pointed at a star so he's out. Indeed, Hawass laughed at everyone's opinion about everything if they

weren't Egyptologists. He called them "amateurs" and he didn't grant them permits to do even the sim-

plest science.

It's 2013 now and the dark ages are supposed to be behind us. Why has nothing been done since 1986?

They must see it's a five step pyramid and this is why they are hiding. It is not consistent with ramps and

is the straw that broke the camel's back. I may be slow but I've gotten to where they must have been in '86.

What are they afraid of? People are infinitely adaptable and will get used to most anything.

[cladking]

The only thing I or anyone else has to remember is that you are in no way qualified to make pronouncements on a subject your not remotely competent in. And using Mercers translations and then saying that along with others he is also wrong, when I've shown he said the same thing the others did, is hypocritical to say the least. Not that that's the least of your failings in regards to AE culture, it isn't.

OK. Then you show that the authors of the book of the dead did understand the PT. I seriously

doubt this is possible. Yes. We believe that there was no change in the religion or culture and this

is the basis of our translation. Yes. The vocabulary is similar and the heiroglyphs are much the same.

But it's impossible to show that the beliefs are the same unless you can show what the beliefs were

initially and this can't be shown because the language is not understood. The PT have simply been

interpreted and translated to fit a molde of what is understood. Still they have yielded no useful

knowledge and no accurate predictions. Our interpretation simply does not fit the physical evidence

and this is why I say our assumption and interpretation is wrong. Even if I'm totally wrong it's still

possible that our understanding is mostly wrong. There is no post upon which all this data can be

nailed. It is all held together with what seem like a few reasonable assumptions. It is assumed that

the pyramids are toms built with ramps by people who were very superstitious. These four assump-

tions appear to be wrong. The people said they were not tombs and that they used water. Nothing

contradicts this and the physical evidence (weak as it is) saupports it. This implies things changed

and once this is accepted then the idea that they invented cities with magic just goes away. They

were not superstitious. Modern man is superstitious. Wouldn't you want to know if this were true?

Seriously; wouldn't you want to know?

[cladking]

Would you care to attempt another fabrication (read - lie) as your previous one isn't remotely panning out, as seen from the comparisons below:

Allen is no nincompoop. He's held in great esteem by a lot of Egyptologists so he is most probably

one of the best.

It's my opinion that each translation is further hiding author intent. This isn't being done intentionally

or stupidly but rather because they find words and interpretations that make the most sense to them.

They believe the ancient language was incantation so obviously they will try translate it this way. There's

no evil cabal and Allen isn't working to lead us in the wrong direction. Much of the progress he has made

is probably completely legitimate and will be used to decipher the metaphysics if I'm right.

All of the translators missed author intent so why should Allen be different? All scholars abnd all researchers

work on the shoulders of those who came before. It was never my contention that anyone was a nincompoop.

Everyone believes they are right.

Funny how that works.

[Swede]

I haven't actually communicated with M houdin in some time but my understanding per

published reports is that he did in actuality have the permits at one time. There have been

hints that these have not been honored by the powers that be at this time. I have no special

knowledge of the situation but can assure that if he makes a statement it is most probably

true and what he believes to be true. He has as much integrity as any Egyptologist. You

might be interested to know that he considers himself an Egyptologist (per published reports)

and this is likely the primary reason he gained the permit initially.

I'll comment further on your post probably after reading the links.

Thus, as per the non-bolded, you have no readily available support for your empirical statements. Typical.

As to the bolded, "considering oneself " to be an Egyptologist must truly rank as one of the most frail attempts at credibility.

You may also choose to make yourself aware of the difference between "published reports" and credible white papers.

.

[cormac mac airt]

The PT have simply been interpreted and translated to fit a molde of what is understood.

Wrong, the PT have been interpreted and translated based on what they say and not some pre-existing mold. Before the Rosetta Stone was found the language wasn't readable which invalidates any such mold.

Still they have yielded no useful knowledge and no accurate predictions.

The PT isn't meant to yield any useful knowledge of the kind you'd like to believe, but it does allow us a better understanding of their beliefs. Nor is it meant to many any predictions. Which means that you're still attempting to make it do something it was never meant to.

The people said they were not tombs and that they used water.

The people say no such thing. That is and will likely always remain you interpretation based on the fact that you refuse to understand their religion and religious texts.

Seriously; wouldn't you want to know?

What I'd like to know is how anyone, and in this case you, could be so devoid of any meaningful understanding of the Ancient Egyptians that you would warp same in an attempt to make it more palatable to yourself, then declare everyone else wrong. I think it goes beyond ego at this point.

cormac

[cladking]

Thus, as per the non-bolded, you have no readily available support for your empirical statements. Typical.

As to the bolded, "considering oneself " to be an Egyptologist must truly rank as one of the most frail attempts at credibility.

You may also choose to make yourself aware of the difference between "published reports" and credible white papers.

.

This is the statement I made that began this conversation;

"The infrared scan isn't getting done because the powers that be are afraid of the results."

Am I to assume, then, that you support not gathering basic information?

You don't seem to have any problem with millions spent to look for a room full of gold

that was suggested by a fictional work written countless centuries after the pyramid was

built but spending a little to take pictures that should reveal positively how the pyramid was

built is just a waste.

I guess when you know they used ramps because only ramps are possible then your perspective

changes quite a bit.

I don't believe it really matters if Houdin got a permit or not. It's simply beside the point because all

that is required is to do the work. I personally believe it's inane to even need a permit for such basic

things that are accessable to the public. Indeed, in all probability US military already has stored plenty

of data to make this determination. This just isn't rocket science and there's no excuse for the data not to

already exist or to be gathered immediately. Perhaps even NASA has it.

It's remarkable that all this information doesn't turn up with a simple google search. Ultraviolet and harmonic

frequencies should be common knowledge. Why did science stop in 1986?

Why can't they do barometric studies and microscopic forensics? Why can't they do simple chemical analyses ?

Why can't they update the gravimetric study with newer equipment and on all the great pyramids?

Why guess when we can all have actual answers?

[cladking]

Wrong, the PT have been interpreted and translated based on what they say and not some pre-existing mold. Before the Rosetta Stone was found the language wasn't readable which invalidates any such mold.

Think about this a moment: If they don't make any sense and are inconsistent then

why believe we necessarily understand them? It's entirely possible that the writers

never made sense ever but that they don't make enough sense that we even know

what the basic terms mean then why believe they are understood?

I'm not saying it's impossible that they are incantation. I'm saying that they "hang to-

gether" in a reinterpretation. I'm mostly just saying that you can't know they are like

the book of the dead if they aren't understood. It's obvious what the book of the dead

is. It's not obvious what the PT are except that they are ritual. It appears to me that

they are written in metaphysics rather than the way we talk.

The PT isn't meant to yield any useful knowledge of the kind you'd like to believe, but it does allow us a better understanding of their beliefs. Nor is it meant to many any predictions. Which means that you're still attempting to make it do something it was never meant to.

No, the PT aren't supposed to make predictions any more than the script of a play. But if

you read a script and understand what it's about then your understanding makes predictions.

My understanding of the PT makes predictions about what the pyramid is and how it was

built. My understanding says the people we believe built it actually believed that the gods

built it and that it built itself like the primeval mound. Both views are right with the former

being the scientific perspective and the latter being the colloquial perspective. When they

spoke they embedded meaning in context revealed by perspective. To us it looks like gob-

bledty gook but this was the natural human language that existed for 40,000 (or whatever)

years. Like prarie dogs ya' just had to be there;

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/researcher-decodes-praire-dog-language-discovers-theyve-been-calling-people-fat.html

[cladking]

The people say no such thing. That is and will likely always remain you interpretation based on the fact that you refuse to understand their religion and religious texts.

Of course they said they weren'rt tombs. They said it over and over consistently and with no contradiction.

We've been through this many times and I'd be happy to garther the quotes again but they clearly stated

the tomb of the king was in the sky and that the king did not decay in the earth. Why should we just dismiss

their actual words? Why assume we know better than they? How can we dare fix their grammar and force

the text to say what we expect?

If we don't understand them then why assume it's their fault?

There are actually lines in the PT that we interpret to mean that their gods needed to be warned to tiptoe

through corpse drippings. I'm sorry but if I translated something like this I'd know I had to be wrong. No

people could believe their own gods tiptoed through the efflux of rotting bodies whether the bodies were

those of men or gods. This just flies in the face of human nature and puts a whoile new meaning to the

phrase "God fearing". It's not the omni[potence so much as the stench.

1272a. If Isis comes in this her evil coming;

1272b. do not open to her thine arms; that which is said to her is her name (of) "wide of ḥwȝ-t (evil-smelling)."

Tiptoeing in corpse drippings can do that to a girl (evenif she is a beloved Goddess).

[cladking]

What I'd like to know is how anyone, and in this case you, could be so devoid of any meaningful understanding of the Ancient Egyptians that you would warp same in an attempt to make it more palatable to yourself, then declare everyone else wrong. I think it goes beyond ego at this point.

It was the lack of knowledge and "understanding" that made it possible to see a deeper meaning.

If I were a little smarter or had more knowledge I might never have found it.

You may see this all as confirmation bias and there is likely some sort of truth to this even if I'm right.

At every juncture I solved the text by what they said with the assumption that they were not superstitious.

I always assumed it made perfect sense so I found perfect sense.

Funny how that works!!!

We always see what we look for whether we're right or wrong.

I believe Egyptology is wrong and I know the ball is in their court. Just a tiny bit of simple science can

prove me wrong or prove they're right. They have plenty of money to pursue non-science but not a nickel

to use actual science and gather data.

I do not understand the foot dragging.

[cormac mac airt]

If they don't make any sense and are inconsistent then

why believe we necessarily understand them?

That they don't make sense to you has no bearing on the fact that, for the most part, much of it makes sense to Egyptologists and all of it made sense to the Ancient Egyptians and that's all that matters. They weren't written for you specifically, nor for your modern culture, nor even for your timeframe. Which means you're still force-fitting a 21st century understanding on texts that were never meant for you.

If we don't understand them then why assume it's their fault?

I've assumed no such thing. Neither have Egyptologists. The only assumption here is that you understand them at all which is nowhere in evidence. What is in evidence is that you want an unevidenced means of construction to be the answer to "how" the GP in its totality was built badly enough that you will go to any length to debase AE religion and language in order to validate your idea. It doesn't.

No need to quote the PT to me as you've never shown any actual understanding however miniscule of the people, their language or religion and therefore any interpretation on your part is meaningless.

It was the lack of knowledge and "understanding" that made it possible to see a deeper meaning.

A lack of knowledge and understanding in order to BS your way into relevancy won't make you relevant no matter how hard you try.

cormac

Edited November 26, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[cladking]

That they don't make sense to you has no bearing on the fact that, for the most part, much of it makes sense to Egyptologists and all of it made sense to the Ancient Egyptians and that's all that matters. They weren't written for you specifically, nor for your modern culture, nor even for your timeframe. Which means you're still force-fitting a 21st century understanding on texts that were never meant for you.

I've assumed no such thing. Neither have Egyptologists. The only assumption here is that you understand them at all which is nowhere in evidence. What is in evidence is that you want an unevidenced means of construction to be the answer to "how" the GP in its totality was built badly enough that you will go to any length to debase AE religion and language in order to validate your idea. It doesn't.

No need to quote the PT to me as you've never shown any actual understanding however miniscule of the people, their language or religion and therefore any interpretation on your part is meaningless.

A lack of knowledge and understanding in order to BS your way into relevancy won't make you relevant no matter how hard you try.

Let me try it this way then.

When you were in school the teacher would write out a simple little test to see how

well you understand something. I can write out such a test about the simplest concepts

in the Pyramid Texts and no Egyptologist can pass it. He can't pass it because he

doesn't understand the material. He can provide an opinion for each answer but there

will be things in the PTY that contradict it.

But an Egyptologist can't write out a test that I can't answer every question and support

it with what the builders actually said.

[cormac mac airt]

Let me try it this way then.

When you were in school the teacher would write out a simple little test to see how

well you understand something. I can write out such a test about the simplest concepts

in the Pyramid Texts and no Egyptologist can pass it. He can't pass it because he

doesn't understand the material. He can provide an opinion for each answer but there

will be things in the PTY that contradict it.

But an Egyptologist can't write out a test that I can't answer every question and support

it with what the builders actually said.

No one would take your test as you've never shown any meaningful knowledge of the subject. Making up a test based on your interpretation doesn't make your interpretation correct.

cormac

Edited November 26, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[cladking]

No one would take your test as you've never shown any meaningful knowledge of the subject. Making up a test based on your interpretation doesn't make your interpretation correct.

NOT BASED ON MY "INTERPRETATION". Based on the actual words in the PT.

I'm talking about really basic questions like "what is the eye of horus?". I could even make

it multiple choice and they miss every question.

Indeed, it could even be an open book test for them and I can take mine from memory alone.

They can't win because they can't answer the simplest question.

In fact an Egyptologist could write the test and none of them would pass because for the main

part they don't even agree with one another. A few of them like Shmakov and Allen are in fairly

close agreement but only because Scmakov is building on Allen's work. But keep in mind that

the PT does contradict itself over and over in their interpretation so they can't ask for simple an-

swers like "what's a dm-sceptre" or "what color is the the eye ofd horus". Heaven forfend you

give them a question that actually requires understanding like what direction does the boat of re

travel or why is the floor of its bow turquois. They can't even tell horus the elder from horus the

younger and they could get into fisticuffs arguing the points.

Horus gets hundreds of mentions but they can't even tell you whose eye the eye of horus is.

Don't believe me, ask them. To whom was isis referring who had no arms and no feet and

how did this individual get around. Who were horus (the elder's) parents. Why did most gods

have two three or four mothers. Who were the four mothers of horus the younger.

They simply can't answer basic questions and I can answer them from memory alone. This is

because they don't understand it and it makes no sense to them, not because I'm so smart. It's

not rocket science but it is not understood by Egyptology. You can say my answers are

wrong but the fact is they are supported by the actual text in every case. That's because the

actual text is how I learned what it said. My "interpretation" is based on the actual text and noth-

ing else. Mine has to fit and their's doesn't fit. This doesn't make me right but it makes me able

to pass the test that they can't.

I don't know how to be more clear. I believe they are wrong and the PT are ritual that disclose

a different way to think and show the ancient language was the metaphysics of the ancient science.

This is supported by the physical evidence and was discovered through logic alone. It's hard for

people to cast off their 21st century point of view and look at this from an ancient perspective. But

it's never going to make sense from a modern perspective if I'm right. All we can do is the science

that will show who's right. Modern science will easily answer these questions.

Edited November 26, 2013 by cladking

[cladking]

d'oh

Edited November 26, 2013 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

NOT BASED ON MY "INTERPRETATION". Based on the actual words in the PT.

~SNIP~

BS. You've not shown you know what the actual words in the PT are. Your basing it all on your interpretation of Mercers translation of Ancient Egyptian (Mercer of which you said earlier was as wrong as the rest of the translators, which undermines your own argument), but you need to show it based on knowledge of the actual language itself (i.e. Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics). Unless you can show you have a better understanding of the language itself than Egyptologists, who do this every day, then you're talking out your posterior. It really doesn't matter what you believe as you've not shown anyone here that you have a sufficient understanding of AE culture to even remotely undermine 200+ years of translations.

cormac

[cladking]

BS. You've not shown you know what the actual words in the PT are. Your basing it all on your interpretation of Mercers translation of Ancient Egyptian (Mercer of which you said earlier was as wrong as the rest of the translators, which undermines your own argument), but you need to show it based on knowledge of the actual language itself (i.e. Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics). Unless you can show you have a better understanding of the language itself than Egyptologists, who do this every day, then you're talking out your posterior. It really doesn't matter what you believe as you've not shown anyone here that you have a sufficient understanding of AE culture to even remotely undermine 200+ years of translations.

You're slipping into word games again.

If Allen knew the answer to who are horus the elder's parents then he could write

it out in heiroglyphs which I can't. But he doesn't know who they are or what it means

because he doesn't understand his own translation.

I can discourse at lenght about any of these concepts and put them into terms any

English speaker can understand but Allen will fail even the simplest test that can be

devised no matter who writes it. I can pass his test but he can't pass mine.

Horus' father was atum and he was born at zep tepi by springing forth between the

thighs of the natural phenomena (gods) of the earth and the sky. Nun saw this event

as the waters of the abyss. Egyptologists don't know this because you have to actually

understand the translation to know it and you can't understand the translation unless

you know that it is metaphysical.

[cladking]

Horus' father was atum and he was born at zep tepi by springing forth between the

thighs of the natural phenomena (gods) of the earth and the sky. Nun saw this event

as the waters of the abyss.

In modern terms the "two enneads" (groups of natural phenomena) were the originator (feminine)

of horus the elder, and atum (the geyser), was the masculine originator. Horus was born at the time

of the first eruption which defined the earth and the sky by showing them to be different things. The

sky was separated from the earth, and Nun in the watery abyss (think Osiris Shaft) saw this through

the eye of horus (the opening through which water sprayed). Horus the elder is the concept of the

"Land of Rainbows". He is the region on the horizon where the great pyramids were built. He is

"Lord of the Duat (geyser)".

This is exactly what the PT say. But you won't find an Egyptologist who can answer basic questions

because they don't understand their own translation. They simply don't realize it's metaphysical in

nature and that it doesn't express meaning like English and all other modern languages. It doesn't

express meaning like the modern language in which the book of the dead was written.

This looks "heavy" to us but it's actually a fast means to think. It allows a lot of knowledge to all be

applied simltaneously which is closely correlated to intelligence. In other words thinking this way

would make one effectively a faster thinker or effectively more intelligent.

There are a virtual infinite number of ways to think but no one ever thought like we believe the ancients

did. No culture could survive in the ancient world if they were superstiutious.

You need to try to "think like an Egyptian" to understand these people or the PT. Nothing else works.

Edited November 26, 2013 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

You're slipping into word games again.

If Allen knew the answer to who are horus the elder's parents then he could write

it out in heiroglyphs which I can't. But he doesn't know who they are or what it means

because he doesn't understand his own translation.

I can discourse at lenght about any of these concepts and put them into terms any

English speaker can understand but Allen will fail even the simplest test that can be

devised no matter who writes it. I can pass his test but he can't pass mine.

Horus' father was atum and he was born at zep tepi by springing forth between the

thighs of the natural phenomena (gods) of the earth and the sky. Nun saw this event

as the waters of the abyss. Egyptologists don't know this because you have to actually

understand the translation to know it and you can't understand the translation unless

you know that it is metaphysical.

A rather verbose way of saying you've got nothing so your just going to whine about everyone else not playing into your delusion.

Every Egyptologist knows that AE texts were based on competing ideologies and pantheons, and therefore origins, at the same time. Which means obviously that there is going to be contradictions in those same texts. That it's not as nice, neat and acceptable to you is completely irrelevant. Your objections don't remotely matter.

cormac

[cladking]

A rather verbose way of saying you've got nothing so your just going to whine about everyone else not playing into your delusion.

Every Egyptologist knows that AE texts were based on competing ideologies and pantheons, and therefore origins, at the same time. Which means obviously that there is going to be contradictions in those same texts. That it's not as nice, neat and acceptable to you is completely irrelevant. Your objections don't remotely matter.

Actually EVERYTHING is consistent in the PT and the subject does not bounce around

as Egyptologists believe and is apparent by reading their translations. But I could easily

confine the questions on the test to things that don't even seem to be contradicted and

Egyptologists would still miss it. Unfortunately most of the important concepts would have

to be exclude and only it would be largely minutia because their translations make it ap-

pear the ancients couldn't hold even a superstitious thought.

If the PT are based on "competing ideologies and pantheons" then surely they'll be able

to define one of these ideologies!!! They claim to understand the PT and that it's based

on "competing ideologies and pantheons" so they must be able to explain AT LEAST ONE

of them, of course. How convenient it would be to say you don't understand it at all sim-

ply because it is an amalgam of several different superstitions when none of the supersti-

tions is known.

Of course now I'll get a lecture on the ogdoad of which they know nothing more than they

do of the PT.

The fact that there was a somewhat different "religion" believed to have existed in each

city hardly entitles people to say they understand the PT when they very obviously do not.

The PT is about the only thing that exists yet we make excuses for our lack of comprehen-

sion and say it'sd because it's overly comnplex and even a million scholars can't figure it

out. Obviously you and I have no chance against this complexity.

The point you are continually missing is that it is nice and neat. It doesn't contradict it-

self at all. If you want to believe in gods and magic it will always be a hodgepodge of con-

flicting ideologies and contradictions (which by definition can NOT be understood). If you

merely want to know what it means all you have to do is read it and figure out what

each word must mean for it to make sense and to never contradict itself.

So why can't an Egyptologist pass my test or any test but I can pass their's?

Why do you avoid almost all my questions?

[cormac mac airt]

Why do you avoid almost all my questions?

Consider the source, from you it's pretty much "crap in, crap out". Any questions based on a BS interpretation are nothing more than BS themselves.

So why can't an Egyptologist pass my test or any test but I can pass their's?

You've learned how to translate hieroglyphs and more specifically the entire PT then, directly, and can give a competent rendering of the text word for word? As well as show without question that yours is the singularly valid translation of the PT and can detail specifically the words and their meanings "incorrectly" translated by Egyptologists? Where can this line by line translation that invalidates all others be found then?

And no, your interpretation of Mercers translation is completely insufficient. You seem to think you're qualified to do so, so show us the evidence that you've translated the PT, as described above and that it says/means what you claim it does.

cormac

[cladking]

Consider the source, from you it's pretty much "crap in, crap out". Any questions based on a BS interpretation are nothing more than BS themselves.

And these from the previous page are the questions you so studiously avoid;

"Wouldn't you want to know if this were true?

Seriously; wouldn't you want to know?"

Everyone is afraid of the truth so no one wants any science done.

You keep missing the point because you don't want to see the obvious point. The PT can't

possibly be both religious doggeral and magical incantation unless their gods were real and

their magic actually worked and still be understood. Either Egyptologists don't understand it

or it's not magical.

Meanwhile you are using the assumption that it's comprehensible as religious incantation to

argue against a theory that doesn't accept such a premise. Your arguments are specious, ir-

relevant, and illegitimate. To argue you understand it you have to show that understanding

and Egyptology can't pass this test while I can. For most things in it I can provide the Egypt-

ological interpretation, what the authors actually meant in both Egyptian and English, and

how Egyptology got it wrong. I can outquote any Egyptologist all day long.

You may think it's unfair you have no choice but to argue on my terms but that's the way it

works when someone doesn't accept the assumptions. Ultimately all we have to understand

nature are the facts and logic so why not dazzle me with the facts and logic that support any

of what we're discussing or the assumptions which I don't accept. Ultimatelyu the question

isn't really about whether or not Egyptology understands the PT, the question is really how

the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids (and where was their metaphysics). The answers can

be expressed in a single modern sentence which is exactly what the ancients said: In the words

of the gods the gods built the pyramid.

Again, it is obvious that the pyramid was built with water because they first built a water col-

lection device and it is equally obvious that they pulled stones up one step at a time because

of the gravimetric scan. It is on Egyptology's shoulders to allow the science that will prove this.

I know I'd be mighty embarrased to still believe "they must have used ramps" when it's been

shown stones were pulled up one step at a time and this is far easier and more logical than

ramps. They must not have used ramps. This is a fact rather than a plea. You need to believe

in ramps in order to support the other beliefs.

You've learned how to translate hieroglyphs and more specifically the entire PT then, directly, and can give a competent rendering of the text word for word? As well as show without question that yours is the singularly valid translation of the PT and can detail specifically the words and their meanings "incorrectly" translated by Egyptologists? Where can this line by line translation that invalidates all others be found then?

I don't need to do this because it's not my contention that Mercer got all the words wrong. I could

not have solved it if he got all the words wrong. The words are right, the interpretation is completely

wrong. When they said the king needed the boat that flies up and alights in order to get to heaven

they meant exactly this. They meant the king had to have a specific boat (dnddndr-boat) in order to

get to heaven. Later people called this "the ascender" but they didn't really understand any better

than an Egyptologist. This ascender is pictured in the first post. Everytime they used the term it was

used consistently. This boat was lifted by the counterweight or h3n-boat when seker was placed in it.

How would all these terms be consistent unless this is what they meant?

My theory almost proves itself though, obviously others don't see this yet. It's not just that the theory

is consisatent with the physical evidence since this can be explained by the fact there's little physical

evidence. But the theory makes the PT describe exactly this coherently. Eventually this will be seen

as obvious.

I could jot off a book pretty quick explaining the PT in terms that anyone can understand. All I have

to do is remove all of Mercer's explanatory notes and put in a few of my own. With minimal preparation

and a little guidance most people could understand it the first time through. My main problem is that

microsoft doesn't make any software that I can understand. It's all written in a form of gobbledty gook

to me. I shouldda kept my typewriter. Ironically microsoft writes stuff in a form that would be easy for

an Egyptian.

Funny how that works.

[DingoLingo]

I could jot off a book pretty quick explaining the PT in terms that anyone can understand. All I have

to do is remove all of Mercer's explanatory notes and put in a few of my own. With minimal preparation

and a little guidance most people could understand it the first time through. My main problem is that

microsoft doesn't make any software that I can understand. It's all written in a form of gobbledty gook

to me. I shouldda kept my typewriter. Ironically microsoft writes stuff in a form that would be easy for

an Egyptian.

Funny how that works.

I can help with this one.. cannot help you with your other theories..

Try note pad.. the basic word on your computer..

or if you do not like that.. look up open office

http://www.openoffice.org/product/writer.html

[cladking]

I can help with this one.. cannot help you with your other theories..

Try note pad.. the basic word on your computer..

or if you do not like that.. look up open office

http://www.openoffic...uct/writer.html

Thank you.

I've already investigated this and am not quite wholly computer illiterate, just almost. My

problem is this will take a couple weeks (or more) working three hours per day and I can't

get it on a jump drive in case my computer dies. It's taken me eleven years to post a pic-

ture. Egyptologists aren't the only slow people in the world. It's all just a language problem.

Software often just doesn't work, or it doesn't work as it's supposed to or it's incomprehen-

sible and the directions are written in perfect Klingon. I'll google "open office".