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 -

Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016


Hanslune
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 minute ago, Harte said:

Reminds me of that mutant chick in "Total Recall" - Schwarzenegger version.

Harte

 

The only version worth watching, really. But can you imagine how that woman will look when she's 87?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The only version worth watching, really. But can you imagine how that woman will look when she's 87?

Your such a glass half empty kind of guy. Just enjoy the view you had when she was younger and move on to the next movie...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The only version worth watching, really. But can you imagine how that woman will look when she's 87?

Hard to say really, I don't know that we have enough objective data to come to a firm decision as of yet. Then one would also need to calculate differences in the effects of the gravity on Mars.:D

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
Fat fingers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
11 minutes ago, Harte said:

"Firm" wouldn't be a part of that decision, whatever that decision might be.

Harte

And that's my point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The only version worth watching, really. But can you imagine how that woman will look when she's 87?

You nearly made me vomit up my sorbet. I'd have to send you a bill to have my rug cleaned. LOL!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
Just now, Lord Harry said:

You nearly made me vomit up my sorbet. I'd have to send you a bill to have my rug cleaned. LOL!

Then my work here is done. :devil:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

Then my work here is done. :devil:

LOL! Actually the "sorbet" I referenced is merely orange juice I poured into a glass and purposely left in the freezer for a few hours. It's actually quite nice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

LOL! Actually the "sorbet" I referenced is merely orange juice I poured into a glass and purposely left in the freezer for a few hours. It's actually quite nice.

You know what works better.

Instead of a glass, pour 250ml orange juice in a one liter bottle.

Then add 750ml Vodka and put that in the freezer for a couple hours to chill.

:D

Edited by Jarocal
All Hail our Past Basset Masters, may their ears be ever long!
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

You know what works better.

Instead of a glass, pour 250ml orange juice in a one liter bottle.

Then add 750ml Vodka and put that in the freezer for a couple hours to chill.

:D

That sounds like an outstanding idea! Vodka is good, it essentially takes on the flavor of whatever it is mixed with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

That sounds like an outstanding idea! Vodka is good, it essentially takes on the flavor of whatever it is mixed with.

Normally the process is add two shots of vodka from a brand new bottle to a half gallon carton of orange juice, the top off the vodka bottle with two shots from the orange juice carton you just mixed the vodka into. 

But since you were waxing poetic with fanciful near fringe conjectures last night after a couple beers I thought we should probably up the Orange juice percentage...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

You know what works better.

Instead of a glass, pour 250ml orange juice in a one liter bottle.

Then add 750ml Vodka and put that in the freezer for a couple hours to chill.

:D

We used to get a friend to inject a 40 into a bag of oranges then chill put them in a cooler and go out to the park.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

You nearly made me vomit up my sorbet. I'd have to send you a bill to have my rug cleaned. LOL!

(gives you a hard stare)  Bless your little heart, child.  But if I were you, I'd ease up on the unflattering comments about older women... before you get yourself a "Come to Jesus".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

(gives you a hard stare)  Bless your little heart, child.  But if I were you, I'd ease up on the unflattering comments about older women... before you get yourself a "Come to Jesus".

Jesus was an old woman? That would definitely bring the shroud of Turin into question...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/12/2017 at 10:02 PM, kmt_sesh said:

 

Kmt_sesh: I'm not sure what more I could add to that topic. I searched my books and can't find an explanation.

SC: Your input here is appreciated.

Kmt_sesh: Hieroglyphs often aren't literal depictions. What matters most is how it's used in context, within an inscription, and especially with other bi/triliterals and phonetic complements.

SC: Indeed. And the O250 sign has clearly been found in a context that compelled scholars to classify it as a building (Gardiner's 'O' classification) and not as a mound of grain on a mud floor in which case it would surely have been classified under Gardiner's 'M' signs (plants and trees). Let me emphasise this - scholars, having read the AE texts and having seen and understood the context in which the sign O250 has appeared in those texts decided to classify the O250 sign as a building.

Consider the lower part of the sign - the mud floor.  If we are to accept the pyramid-shaped element as a mound of grain on the mud floor, WHY would those scholars, having read the texts and understood the context in which this sign appears, decide to classify O250 as a building? If O250 sign is a mound of grain lying on a mud floor, why didn't these scholars classify this sign under 'Trees and Plants' (Gardiner's 'M' signs)?

The mud floor, incidentally, represents the ridge and trough of furrowed earth in a ploughed field. You can see these earth/mud furrows in the image below (bottom row):

UmVNcyi.jpg

From here (p.29).

In short, if O250 is meant to symbolise a mound of grain on a mud floor then it would have looked something like this:

fnN0azg.jpg

... a mound of grain (with ROUNDED top) and it would never (and could never) have been classified as a building.

Kmt_sesh: If the pointy glyph is clearly used in the context of the spelling Snwt, then it's definitely representing a granary.

SC: Clearly the mud furrow indicates that the pyramid-shaped building is to be considered in an agricultural context. Not a typical granary but, imo, certainly as some kind of agricultural depository.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2017 at 0:38 PM, Scott Creighton said:

Over and above which, the original interpreters of AE texts have clearly classified O250 (along with O51 & its variants) as a BUILDING and NOT as a ‘Tree or Plant – ‘M’.

This should not pass without comment.  You can not coherently invoke these “original interpreters” against themselves.  Gardiner identifies O51 as “heap of grain on a raised mud floor”.  If you discount him on this, then you have no business whatsoever invoking his classification of the sign.

Gardiner’s statement would make the graphic element shared by the variants a depiction of a raised mud floor.  This dispenses at once with any suggestion that O250 represents a pyramid.

M.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

In short, if O250 is meant to symbolise a mound of grain on a mud floor then it would have looked something like this:

fnN0azg.jpg

... a mound of grain (with ROUNDED top) and it would never (and could never) have been classified as a building.

. . . and here you are again: ludicrously, risibly, pronouncing upon what the ancient Egyptians could and would and should have done—making up your own Egyptology, making up your own ancient Egypt.

See my other post, which uncannily anticipated your inanity.

M.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

(gives you a hard stare)  Bless your little heart, child.  But if I were you, I'd ease up on the unflattering comments about older women... before you get yourself a "Come to Jesus".

Hey, that was all Kmt Sesh there my friend. I just piled on. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_sesh: I'm not sure what more I could add to that topic. I searched my books and can't find an explanation.

SC: Your input here is appreciated.

Kmt_sesh: Hieroglyphs often aren't literal depictions. What matters most is how it's used in context, within an inscription, and especially with other bi/triliterals and phonetic complements.

SC: Indeed. And the O250 sign has clearly been found in a context that compelled scholars to classify it as a building (Gardiner's 'O' classification) and not as a mound of grain on a mud floor in which case it would surely have been classified under Gardiner's 'M' signs (plants and trees). Let me emphasise this - scholars, having read the AE texts and having seen and understood the context in which the sign O250 has appeared in those texts decided to classify the O250 sign as a building.

Consider the lower part of the sign - the mud floor.  If we are to accept the pyramid-shaped element as a mound of grain on the mud floor, WHY would those scholars, having read the texts and understood the context in which this sign appears, decide to classify O250 as a building? If O250 sign is a mound of grain lying on a mud floor, why didn't these scholars classify this sign under 'Trees and Plants' (Gardiner's 'M' signs)?

The mud floor, incidentally, represents the ridge and trough of furrowed earth in a ploughed field. You can see these earth/mud furrows in the image below (bottom row):

UmVNcyi.jpg

From here (p.29).

In short, if O250 is meant to symbolise a mound of grain on a mud floor then it would have looked something like this:

fnN0azg.jpg

... a mound of grain (with ROUNDED top) and it would never (and could never) have been classified as a building.

Kmt_sesh: If the pointy glyph is clearly used in the context of the spelling Snwt, then it's definitely representing a granary.

SC: Clearly the mud furrow indicates that the pyramid-shaped building is to be considered in an agricultural context. Not a typical granary but, imo, certainly as some kind of agricultural depository.

SC

And, for the avoidance of doubt, this is how Gardiner's sign list describes O51:

sPwSvET.jpg

From here.

Gardiner describes this sign, NOT as a mound of grain on a mud floor, but as a "granary" hence why it is categorised under BUILDINGS.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminder:

On 12/25/2017 at 0:05 PM, mstower said:

Sorry, but, you’ve entirely neglected the distinctive arrangement at the base of the several variants, and you’ve neglected several of the variants, ones which show with tolerable clarity that what’s depicted is one or more heaps on a recessed floor and not the shape of the building containing them.

o02seE.png

http://unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf

I have told you (and kmt_sesh has clarified) what you need to do to make your idio-reading plausible.

M.

. . . and again, Creighton, you ignore some of the variants, such as O51D, where the heap is dotted, and the variants showing double heaps.

Why is this?

Consider O50:

o50.jpg

This depicts a threshing floor.  The dots represent grain.  Did you overlook this?  Really?  You invoke Gardiner’s classification without in the least understanding it.

M.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

And, for the avoidance of doubt, this is how Gardiner's sign list describes O51:

sPwSvET.jpg

From here.

Gardiner describes this sign, NOT as a mound of grain on a mud floor, but as a "granary" hence why it is categorised under BUILDINGS.

SC

From Gardiner:

EMeIAm.png

I quoted Gardiner directly, copy and paste, hence the quotation marks.  For your further information, his Section O covers “Buildings, Parts of Buildings, etc.”

M.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

We used to get a friend to inject a 40 into a bag of oranges then chill put them in a cooler and go out to the park.

jmccr8

We used to take those spiked oranges into the Georgia game at Sanford Stadium.

Harte

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Jesus was an old woman? That would definitely bring the shroud of Turin into question...

Thank God it wasn't see-through.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mstower said:

From Gardiner:

EMeIAm.png

I quoted Gardiner directly, copy and paste, hence the quotation marks.  For your further information, his Section O covers “Buildings, Parts of Buildings, etc.”

M.

I hope someone isn't trying to claim the pyramids were granaries? This is perhaps the easiest of the fringe claims to demolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

I hope someone isn't trying to claim the pyramids were granaries? This is perhaps the easiest of the fringe claims to demolish.

I might summarise Creighton’s theory, were there not drying paint which urgently needs watching.

M.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.