Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #501 Share Posted May 16, 2020 5 hours ago, Wepwawet said: For reference I am using the 2015 edition of James Allen's The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts This edition has some major differences from the 2005 first edition, notably the numbering system. I'll link to the PDF of the first edition where the relevant texts can be found beginning on page 80, and with the reference to the "Great Saw Shrine" on page 81 recitation 198. Now that we can all read this sequence of texts in context, it can be seen that there is no mention, or allusion, to the sawing of stone or wood. James Allen PT first edition This is a good resource for the PT for those who don't already know https://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/tools.html Within that page we can find a link to all the hieroglyphs in the pyramid of Unas, but the texts being discussed at the moment are from Teti, who does not have a designated page. However, the hieroglyphs from the pyramid of Teti can be found in this PDF of Gaston Maspero's Les inscriptions des pyramides de Saqqarah beginning on page 87, titled La Pyramide Du Roi Teti Maspero PT There, I opened the ways again. Thanks for the detailed information Wepwawet. Given Cladking's devotion to dismissing anything about the Giza pyramid that is after their period of construction I guess this is now also beyond the pale and cannot be considered! How about it Cladking? Is it not being during the 'direct' time of the great pyramids and one of the small ones you irrationally hate mean the information is now dismissed from your reasoning? LOL 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #502 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, cladking said: There is no direct evidence any great pyramid was built, intended, or used as a tomb. While a wide array and variety of evidence might have survived there is none. The writing repeats over and over that the pyramids were not tombs and were actually the king himself but we don't believe it. 1932 (Nt. 763). He, he is a pyramid, he protects; We take nothing they said literally. The words are are a virtual soup of meaning as metaphor and each translator takes a different meaning. People want to force these words to agree with the "book of the dead" so every single translator finds the same superstitions that exist in a book written 1000 years later. Maybe the people who wrote the "book of the dead" didn't understand the ancient writing any better than we do. Maybe they made the exact same errors in parsing the text that we do. Maybe something changed over the 1000 years. Where is the 'direct' evidence that they were 'x'. You do know that saying over and over again, 'your theory is wrong therefore my theory must be right' is deeply flawed?Your idea should be able to stand alone without the constant denial of the orthodox theory. ....yet you never present it. I think we both know the reason for that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #503 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, cladking said: It is my contention that it is impossible to translate anything between these language because their fundamental natures are different; we define words and they named them. The closest English equivalent to "he of the great saw palace" would simply be "that which powers the saws in the mason's shop". You mean you've made up a new meaning for the ancient Egyptian glyphs you've never actually seen in a language you cannot read. Totally fraud and fantasy. Quote Remember there is logic and tangible evidence which places the mason's shop at the east side of the great pyramids. Translation: Cladking:I made something up Quote deleted more fantasy ...and so the silliness continues 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #504 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, cladking said: And remember they also told Herodotus that the Great Pyramid was NOT A TOMB! Sorry Cladking but Herodotus was way after the time of Giza and therefor by your own 'rule' is not direct evidence 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #505 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Wepwawet said: So, stepping back on the treadmill in Hell, which will not last long btw, while I provide properly referenced texts from the PT, and link to the adjoining texts for context, you provide not a single shred of evidence other than your own opinion. Did you bother to read PT texts 364 - 374 to see that there is not the slightest reference, even in the most nuanced terms, to stone or wood sawing. How do you explain this, particularly as neither Mercer, Faulkner or Allen translate the original hieroglyphs as mentioning stone or wood sawing. As neither of the three mentioned provide anything that backs you up, what then are your refences. I suggest that the only reference outside of those three is the heiroglyphs themselves, and, if they backed you, it would make Mercer, Faulkner and Allen wrong, and you right, even though you cannot read Old Egyptian. Treadmill in Hell is about right I think. Cladking doesn't do evidence - it tends to trip him up. His opinions are by his own opinion equivalent to FACTS. Your opinion and evidence are all dismissed as not being 'direct' evidence as it comes from after the pyramid age. Now his opinions are based on stuff after the pyramid age too but .........that's okay because, well, he's just special.... Have fun!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted May 16, 2020 #506 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Wepwawet said: This is smoke and mirrors. Of course they did saw stone and wood, but you are saying that PT recitation 366 references, basically, a stone cutters workshop. To avoid repetition, see my posts above. I would suggest that in ~2750 BC when G1 was built that the mason's shop at G1 was the greatest saw palace in all of Egypt by orders of magnitude. Indeed, the greatest saw palace in all of Egypt was always the masons shop at whatever great pyramid was being built. I do not suggest that the quoted utterance "references" this "saw palace". Ancient Language didn't work this way and these "utterances" are merely the recitation of the rituals read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies. These are the ceremonies in which the dead king was transmogrified into a living pyramid. There are no corpses because they were burned in these ceremonies. The words are intended literally. They are formatted in a way that is alien to the way we think and speak which makes their literal meaning difficult to discern. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted May 16, 2020 #507 Share Posted May 16, 2020 4 hours ago, cladking said: There is no direct evidence any great pyramid was built, intended, or used as a tomb. While a wide array and variety of evidence might have survived there is none. The writing repeats over and over that the pyramids were not tombs and were actually the king himself but we don't believe it. Ok then, if this is an idea you propose (clearly) then what were the pyramids intended to be then? What's your opinion? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted May 16, 2020 #508 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Trelane said: Ok then, if this is an idea you propose (clearly) then what were the pyramids intended to be then? What's your opinion? They are EXACTLY what the builders said they were but we don't understand because they didn't think or talk like we do; they were the dead king. To put it in our own terms that we understand we might say they were "mnemonics" to remember the dead king. They said that the pyramid was the dead king by day when the stars couldn't be seen and a specific star was the dead king by night when the pyramid could not be seen. We might possibly call the concept a "cenotaph" but, I believe, their concept can't really be put into English at all. The pyramid allowed the dead king to live forever since nothing at all was left of a man after death except his memory and the pyramid with its star allowed the man to be remembered eternally so long as there were people. It seems to have worked well enough for Khufu. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted May 16, 2020 #509 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, cladking said: I would suggest that in ~2750 BC when G1 was built that the mason's shop at G1 was the greatest saw palace in all of Egypt by orders of magnitude. Indeed, the greatest saw palace in all of Egypt was always the masons shop at whatever great pyramid was being built. I do not suggest that the quoted utterance "references" this "saw palace". Ancient Language didn't work this way and these "utterances" are merely the recitation of the rituals read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies. These are the ceremonies in which the dead king was transmogrified into a living pyramid. There are no corpses because they were burned in these ceremonies. The words are intended literally. They are formatted in a way that is alien to the way we think and speak which makes their literal meaning difficult to discern. The language they used was Old Egyptian, that is a fact acknowledged worldwide without dispute, and one person on the internet denying this does not count in any way as dispute. I went through the bother of providing good resources, I properly referenced those parts of the PT that I mentioned so that anybody, even without Allen's 2015 edition, can easily find the texts and read them in context. I even provided links to the hieroglyphs. You use Mercer's badly outdated translation and do not clearly reference, let alone cross reference, your quotes, which are presented in isolation to avoid context. And now you still fail to present any evidence, only your opinion in the form of fiction. "Crowds at the king's ascension ceremonies", really, and where is the evidence for these crowds. We have crowds at the funerals and crowning of monarchs or swearing in ceremonies of presidents, did they? Who was present at these rituals and were they held in open spaces or enclosed ones, hint, look at temple architecture and ritual, of which we do in fact have reasonable knowledge. The "Window of Appearance", yes, a public appearance by the king, but not his enthronement, and certainly not his funeral. At Giza I do not doubt that may people would have lined the banks of the Nile to see the royal barque with the king's mummy, and they would have the journey from where ever it left the west bank to when it arrived at the Valley Temple. But what after that? well that's the last they would have seen. There would be rituals inside the temple, then the mummy carried up the covered causeway to the mortuary temple, more ritaul, then the interment carried out with yet more ritual. We cannot prove this is so, but such a reconstruction is well within the bounds of what we do know, and common sense. Show evidence that the bodies were burnt, that means a forensic dissection of the PT explaining each element that leads you to believe they practised cremation, not just you coming out with a load of guff about how we cannot understand them, but, miraculously, you can. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted May 16, 2020 #510 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Trelane said: Ok then, if this is an idea you propose (clearly) then what were the pyramids intended to be then? What's your opinion? G1 is different because it is BOTH a mnemonic and a time capsule. They left all their knowledge and the means they used to acquire it along with samples and specimens under the NE corner. Djoser's Pyramid is also different because it was probably the only great pyramid intended and used as a tomb. I'd guess it was Imhotep's Tomb but I don't know. No other great pyramid was constructed as a tomb and the individual for whom they are named was cremated right in the "iskn" on the first step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted May 16, 2020 #511 Share Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Hanslune said: Cladking doesn't do evidence - it tends to trip him up. His opinions are by his own opinion equivalent to FACTS. Your opinion and evidence are all dismissed as not being 'direct' evidence as it comes from after the pyramid age. Now his opinions are based on stuff after the pyramid age too but .........that's okay because, well, he's just special.... Have fun!! I'm jumping off this infernal treadmill very soon, but at least I can tick the box on my CV that says "Engaged with cladking on the interwebz". I don't know how some of you peeps have maintained sanity over so many years of this. Edited May 16, 2020 by Wepwawet 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted May 16, 2020 #512 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Wepwawet said: The language they used was Old Egyptian, that is a fact acknowledged worldwide without dispute, and one person on the internet denying this does not count in any way as dispute. I don't dispute this. I dispute that Egyptological interpretation of author intent is correct. Why would they continually say the pyramid isn't a tomb and is the king? 3 minutes ago, Wepwawet said: You use Mercer's badly outdated translation and do not clearly reference, let alone cross reference, your quotes, which are presented in isolation to avoid context. And now you still fail to present any evidence, only your opinion in the form of fiction. Every translation says the same exact thing; the pyramid is the king. In your identity of the one in the Enclosure of the Eldest of Bulls— may your arms be about the meal, your daughter; provide yourself with it: This Pepi is the hill of land in the midst of the Great Green,... The translators each circumscribe the meaning and the meaning is that the king is the pyramid. 7 minutes ago, Wepwawet said: Show evidence that the bodies were burnt, that means a forensic dissection of the PT explaining each element that leads you to believe they practised cremation, not just you coming out with a load of guff about how we cannot understand them, but, miraculously, you can. There are four or five lines that say the king was cremated. You interpret each of them to mean something else despite the literal meaning. When they said "the king ascends on the smoke of incense" you simply dismiss it because it makes no sense to us. But it is literally true and was meant literally as well. What is left of the corporeal king is ascending to heaven as the smoke and heat which drives it upwards. It seems to me that the fact the whole PT makes sense when taken literally virtually proves it was meant literally. I believe I understand them because I assumed they made perfect sense in terms of their premises. I was supremely surprised to find they made sense in terms of science and reality. Egyptologists assumed they made sense in terms of the "book of the dead" so this is exactly what they found. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted May 16, 2020 #513 Share Posted May 16, 2020 3 hours ago, Hanslune said: Thanks for the detailed information Wepwawet. Given Cladking's devotion to dismissing anything about the Giza pyramid that is after their period of construction I guess this is now also beyond the pale and cannot be considered! How about it Cladking? Is it not being during the 'direct' time of the great pyramids and one of the small ones you irrationally hate mean the information is now dismissed from your reasoning? LOL Middle Egyptian is dissmissed as not being relevant to the PT as it is a "different language", apparently, and so the Coffin Texts are dismissed as "irrelevant" to understanding the PT. Yet, and I'm sure I mentioned this before, there is only about two hundsreds years from the Old Egyptian of the times of Unas to the introduction of Middle Egyptian, and about the same period of time backwards from Unas to the Great Pyramid. No language changes overnight, and we could easily converse with anybody who speaks the same language as us even if they were four hundred years ago. We don't, for instance, have any problem with Shakespeare. Yet for some odd reason the AE were different and the language changed so much for them in four hundred years that it was "no longer the same language". Even odder given that there was no invasion of non Egyptian speakers during that time to alter the language, as the Normans changed Old English. The difference between Old Egyptian and Middle Egyptian, I'm sure you know, is one of dialect, not of any fundamental change in the language. I would love to see evidence put forward of just how Middle Egyptian "changed" so much from Old Egyptian that it became a "foreign language". Then of course Unas is at this half way stage, so, according to this linguistic madness, there must be quite a change taken place from G1 already. Oh, dear, how can we ever understand anything, who will guide us...... 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted May 16, 2020 #514 Share Posted May 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, cladking said: This Pepi is the hill of land in the midst of the Great Green,... Can you explain what the Great Green is, check back a page and I gave the answer actually, and what the pyramid of Pepi would be doing in it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 16, 2020 #515 Share Posted May 16, 2020 22 hours ago, cladking said: I've had to adjust many of my beliefs to account for this. I used to believe people (especially scientists) were far more desirous of being right than finding their beliefs were wrong. I was wrong. People are so wrapped up in their beliefs they can't even see anything that doesn't support them. If they do see something anomalous they'd rather write it off as an unexplained mystery than examine their beliefs and premises. Of course there are numerous other reasons people don't see this. Ancient thought and language is wholly alien to us. We don't understand animals and we don't understand pyramid builders. It's far easier to just believe they were highly superstitious than to consider it is we who are superstitious rather than they. So nobody has much problem with the lack of bodies and lack of evidence that they were tombs. Neophytes are simply told there is a mountain of evidence to support our assumptions so there's no need to examine them in detail. This situation can't last because young people form new beliefs based on new research and new ideas. Things change demographically or "one funeral at a time". Eventually someone will stumble on the proof just as I stumbled on the literal meaning through reverse engineering and the solution of words in context. One sentence and two paragraphs of your usual vapid rhetoric based solely upon your flawed opinions, with precisely zero credible supportive data. The pattern continues. . 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted May 16, 2020 #516 Share Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, cladking said: Egyptologists assumed they made sense in terms of the "book of the dead" so this is exactly what they found. You keep making this statement that the PT is understood only in the context of the "Book of the Dead". This is just not so. It strikes me that as the "Book of the Dead" is well known by name if nothing else, and that mostly to Hollywood, and the Coffin Texts, let alone the Books of the Netherworld, are virtually unknown, then you have latched onto this book and misuse it. What about all the evidence from many other sources that inform us about AE culture. Besides, while we can see the origins of later traditions in the PT, despite your singular refusal to believe that we can understand the PT, later texts are not necessary to this understanding. Your comment is really really wrong. Edited May 16, 2020 by Wepwawet 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 16, 2020 #517 Share Posted May 16, 2020 17 minutes ago, Wepwawet said: Middle Egyptian is dissmissed as not being relevant to the PT as it is a "different language", apparently, and so the Coffin Texts are dismissed as "irrelevant" to understanding the PT. Yet, and I'm sure I mentioned this before, there is only about two hundsreds years from the Old Egyptian of the times of Unas to the introduction of Middle Egyptian, and about the same period of time backwards from Unas to the Great Pyramid. No language changes overnight, and we could easily converse with anybody who speaks the same language as us even if they were four hundred years ago. We don't, for instance, have any problem with Shakespeare. Yet for some odd reason the AE were different and the language changed so much for them in four hundred years that it was "no longer the same language". Even odder given that there was no invasion of non Egyptian speakers during that time to alter the language, as the Normans changed Old English. The difference between Old Egyptian and Middle Egyptian, I'm sure you know, is one of dialect, not of any fundamental change in the language. I would love to see evidence put forward of just how Middle Egyptian "changed" so much from Old Egyptian that it became a "foreign language". Then of course Unas is at this half way stage, so, according to this linguistic madness, there must be quite a change taken place from G1 already. Oh, dear, how can we ever understand anything, who will guide us...... You are crediting Clad with far more knowledge than he actually possesses. Remember, he prides himself on his slothful research and his ignorance. . 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #518 Share Posted May 16, 2020 4 hours ago, cladking said: I would suggest that in ~2750 BC when G1 was built that the mason's shop at G1 was the greatest saw palace in all of Egypt by orders of magnitude. Indeed, the greatest saw palace in all of Egypt was always the masons shop at whatever great pyramid was being built. I do not suggest that the quoted utterance "references" this "saw palace". Ancient Language didn't work this way and these "utterances" are merely the recitation of the rituals read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies. These are the ceremonies in which the dead king was transmogrified into a living pyramid. There are no corpses because they were burned in these ceremonies. The words are intended literally. They are formatted in a way that is alien to the way we think and speak which makes their literal meaning difficult to discern. Ah, Cladking why would Teti have that inscription in his tomb? Oh and as noted many times before there isn't anything called 'ancient language', that is something you made up and have always refused to support with data or research. You saying it exists doesn't quite cut it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #519 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Wepwawet said: You keep making this statement that the PT is understood only in the context of the "Book of the Dead". This is just not so. It strikes me that as the "Book of the Dead" is well known by name if nothing else, and that mostly to Hollywood, and the Coffin Texts, let alone the Books of the Netherworld, are virtually unknown, then you have latched onto this book and misuse it. What about all the evidence from many other sources that inform us about AE culture. Besides, while we can see the origins of later traditions in the PT, despite your singular refusal to believe that we can understand the PT, later texts are not necessary to this understanding. Your comment is really really wrong. It's just one of 'catch phrases' he repeats over and over again. He's been challenged to write up his support for this but he finds it easy to just keep repeating it ad nauseum. In 'Cladworld' nothing exists outside of the few things he mentions. 99% of the AE culture simply doesn't exist in his weird view of reality. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #520 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Wepwawet said: Middle Egyptian is dissmissed as not being relevant to the PT as it is a "different language", apparently, and so the Coffin Texts are dismissed as "irrelevant" to understanding the PT. Yet, and I'm sure I mentioned this before, there is only about two hundsreds years from the Old Egyptian of the times of Unas to the introduction of Middle Egyptian, and about the same period of time backwards from Unas to the Great Pyramid. No language changes overnight, and we could easily converse with anybody who speaks the same language as us even if they were four hundred years ago. We don't, for instance, have any problem with Shakespeare. Yet for some odd reason the AE were different and the language changed so much for them in four hundred years that it was "no longer the same language". Even odder given that there was no invasion of non Egyptian speakers during that time to alter the language, as the Normans changed Old English. The difference between Old Egyptian and Middle Egyptian, I'm sure you know, is one of dialect, not of any fundamental change in the language. I would love to see evidence put forward of just how Middle Egyptian "changed" so much from Old Egyptian that it became a "foreign language". Then of course Unas is at this half way stage, so, according to this linguistic madness, there must be quite a change taken place from G1 already. Oh, dear, how can we ever understand anything, who will guide us...... Yes, Cladking is a good example of a fringe believer who supports his ideas with magical thinking. If he imagines something then all reality is then changed to support it. About a decade ago he was screaming and ranting that ramps didn't exist and refused to acknowledge any evidence that they did. He felt his determination that they didn't exist meant all copies of it everywhere simply disappeared. However, today he accept ramps existed but weren't used for building the pyramid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #521 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, cladking said: It seems to me that the fact the whole PT makes sense when taken literally virtually proves it was meant literally. If this is so how come when your stated meanings of word are used in all the places in the PT the sentences don't make sense? You suggested the experiment and it was done and it didn't work why do you now pretend it didn't occur? http://www.hallofmaat.com/forum/read.php?6,625509,625617#msg-625617 You really shot yourself in the foot - but then that is what science is - trying to prove your ideas wrong - and you did. However, your ego prevents you from acknowledging it. No problem WE know. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted May 16, 2020 #522 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, cladking said: They are EXACTLY what the builders said they were but we don't understand because they didn't think or talk like we do; they were the dead king. To put it in our own terms that we understand we might say they were "mnemonics" to remember the dead king. They said that the pyramid was the dead king by day when the stars couldn't be seen and a specific star was the dead king by night when the pyramid could not be seen. We might possibly call the concept a "cenotaph" but, I believe, their concept can't really be put into English at all. The pyramid allowed the dead king to live forever since nothing at all was left of a man after death except his memory and the pyramid with its star allowed the man to be remembered eternally so long as there were people. It seems to have worked well enough for Khufu. This is kinda funny as our good man has spent years scream and yelling that Egyptology is wrong about everything to do with ancient Egypt, YET, their English translations of their writings are absolutely perfect and just perfectly suited for him to change the meaning of word - in a language he cannot read.....pure lunacy. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted May 16, 2020 #523 Share Posted May 16, 2020 30 minutes ago, Hanslune said: 99% of the AE culture simply doesn't exist in his weird view of reality. This is the same for all the fringe as they only discuss G1 and the Great Sphinx to any length, followed some distance behind by the Saqqara Serapeum and then the Osireion. Dendera raises it's head from time to time with those who still think the AE had submarines and helicopters, and once in a blue moon we have "phasers" depicted in the Books of the Netherwold, but usually ascribed to the "Book of the Dead" because the AE had no other literature, apparently. I've been hoping that the "phasers" would raise their head here so I could launch a broadside of photon torpedos in response. But, with introspection, we are just following them, reacting to their attempt to steal ancient Egypt from the Egyptians, whom the fringe treat with utter contempt, my main complaint against them as I really don't care about all their wrong headed ideas, we can all believe what we want, but trying to take away the achievements of the AE and ascribe them to "aliens" or "the ancients" is despicable. They don't really touch Amarna, except for the "weird" art, yet there is so much potential woo in Amarna. But then, it's not a great big stone edifice to enthuse about, it involves knowing about the culture, researching images and boring inscriptions on tomb walls, reading history, and in general terms, knowing stuff about stuff and things. Far too difficult when you can point at a Pyramid and chant, "not a tomb" "10,000 years old", "Prove me wrong", "Hawass hides secrets from all humanity", "Egyptologists know nothing" "I don't have to prove what I am saying, you have to prove what you are saying, and Egyptologists all lie so you cannot prove anything", all done with eyes closed, fingers in ears and jumping up and down going la la, la la ,la. That's it, a demon has just told me that the infernal treadmill is about to be upgraded with fiery blasts, so I'm outa here, well, the off topic discussions. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 17, 2020 #524 Share Posted May 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Wepwawet said: This is the same for all the fringe as they only discuss G1 and the Great Sphinx to any length, followed some distance behind by the Saqqara Serapeum and then the Osireion. Dendera raises it's head from time to time with those who still think the AE had submarines and helicopters, and once in a blue moon we have "phasers" depicted in the Books of the Netherwold, but usually ascribed to the "Book of the Dead" because the AE had no other literature, apparently. I've been hoping that the "phasers" would raise their head here so I could launch a broadside of photon torpedos in response. But, with introspection, we are just following them, reacting to their attempt to steal ancient Egypt from the Egyptians, whom the fringe treat with utter contempt, my main complaint against them as I really don't care about all their wrong headed ideas, we can all believe what we want, but trying to take away the achievements of the AE and ascribe them to "aliens" or "the ancients" is despicable. They don't really touch Amarna, except for the "weird" art, yet there is so much potential woo in Amarna. But then, it's not a great big stone edifice to enthuse about, it involves knowing about the culture, researching images and boring inscriptions on tomb walls, reading history, and in general terms, knowing stuff about stuff and things. Far too difficult when you can point at a Pyramid and chant, "not a tomb" "10,000 years old", "Prove me wrong", "Hawass hides secrets from all humanity", "Egyptologists know nothing" "I don't have to prove what I am saying, you have to prove what you are saying, and Egyptologists all lie so you cannot prove anything", all done with eyes closed, fingers in ears and jumping up and down going la la, la la ,la. That's it, a demon has just told me that the infernal treadmill is about to be upgraded with fiery blasts, so I'm outa here, well, the off topic discussions. Chuckle! Clad has a long reputation of disrupting topics based upon his own delusions. There is a reason why he has been "deleted" from a number of venues. . . . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted May 17, 2020 #525 Share Posted May 17, 2020 19 minutes ago, Swede said: Chuckle! Clad has a long reputation of disrupting topics based upon his own delusions. There is a reason why he has been "deleted" from a number of venues. . . . If by "delusions " you mean a blinding cacophony delivering entertaining, fallacious, grandiose, heretical ideas... bah, I ran out of adjectives by the letter j. Was hoping to make it at least to the letter t. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now