The Great Pyramid's Greatest Secret (Hidden in Plain Sight)

[Windowpane]

Quote

#265 

Quote

This paper quotes such traditions from passages of Platon, Herodotus, Ovid, papyrus Ipuwer, Gilgamesh, the Bible, American Indians and other civilizations. Far from being exhaustive the examples show that apparently strange traditions can report observed facts. This connection is of mutual benefit for science and humanities.” - Willy Woelfli, Walter Baltensperger, Traditions connected with the pole shift model of the Pleistocene, https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5078

 

(SC): There are many, many more such papers and articles from modern scientists who are now (slowly) coming to the view that pole shifts / crust displacements or Earth inversions are not, in fact, the impossible event that most scientists of the 19^th and 20^th century believed ...

 

For further discussion of similarities between ancient legends, see "The Story of the Flood" (pg 224/PDF 234) in: The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Heidel, 1949).

[Scott Creighton]

On 10/6/2023 at 4:13 AM, Kenemet said:

I did.

I also studied image processing and have had to do quite a bit of it.  No, relative ratios don't appear the same if your monitor has a different resolution.

Here's a visual from a site on computer gaming (https://www.thetechedvocate.org/which-display-resolution-is-best-for-gaming/)

You might not do as much gaming as I do, but the visuals are REALLY different in proportion if you switch monitor resolutions.  Characters can appear squashed or strangely plump, etc.  They're all using the same signals, but different resolutions and different monitors produce different results.

 

To quote from another site (on monitors https://tru-vumonitors.com/43-vs-169-aspect-ratio/)

So, no.  An image from one source does not necessarily transfer correctly to a different source.

Now... this is a pretty obscure point and not one that anyone is likely to know unless they were into photography and image processing.

Somewhere on these boards (buried in the bit bucket bin) is a message from someone trying to prove the Golden Ratio on all sorts of things, including the Great Sphinx.  The overlay of the golden ratio spiral on the sphinx undoubtedly looked perfect on his screen, but when he uploaded it here, the proportions were a very obvious failure.

Now... technical nitpicking aside, I think my point still stands that you do better to simply explain and not try to do a "sly hint" with a picture.

And we'd all like to know just what this has to do with your original idea (as stated) which involves air shafts but not the actual pyramid itself.

Now you merely attempt to hide your error behind a blizzard of obfuscation and irrelevant diagrams. It’s simple. The scale or resolution is moot. The relative ratios will always remain the same. Learn it. Understand it: 

 

SC

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Saru
Removed personal attack

[Scott Creighton]

14 hours ago, Kenemet said:

SC: Someone else, it seems, who does not properly read things. Show me where I have ever stated that I would provide scientific papers that would show that the Earth had flipped?  Take your time.

Kenemet: Err... so... uhm... Barberio et alia are either not scientific papers or you're not using them after declaring them part of your evidence? 

Again, read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

Quote

 

Hans: There is no evidence or any physical method that our planet mass could have flipped over or the plates gone skipping around the crust.

SC: That view may have held sway in the 20th century but it's outdated. There are now many scientific papers that have been published over the past 10 years or so that demonstrate (from a maths/physics analysis) that the Earth can indeed rapidly invert itself and that it can do so without requiring the catastrophic effect of a direct impact with another mass object, thereby vapourising all life on the planet. Indeed, the process involved - a very specific form of planetary precession - not only results in the Earth inverting north and south, but it also causes the sun to swap horizons (rising in the west and setting in the east).  And here's the kicker - it all happens without ever violating the law of the conservation of angular momentum. Yes, the sunrise changes horizon with the Earth continuing to rotate in the same direction.

 

Do you get why I have emphasised here the word ‘can’ in the above post of mine (in red and by underlining it)?  Do you see that I am not saying that these published papers are actually claiming that such an event DID occur, but merely that (according to the various authors’ theories), it CAN occur and in such a way as to not vaporise every living organism on the planet (which was the point of my comment to Hans). As I’ve told you before – stop skimming and read things properly.

No one here has yet presented a full rebuttal to the mathematics in any of the papers presented. Many eminent mathematicians have challenged Barbiero (including an Astro-physicist at NASA). From what I read of that exchange, it seems Barbiero held his own (though I’m no mathematician/physicist).

The point here is that if just one of the papers presented is actually right (and there are other inversion theories that have not been presented and there may be many more I’m unaware of) – but if just one of the theories in the papers presented is right, then we do have (at least) one viable inversion mechanism.  And having that viable mechanism might help explain why we have so many traditions from all over the ancient world that tell us of this extraordinary event.  But as I have also said repeatedly (and which you clearly never saw/read), my personal view is that the mechanism is probably similar to the Dzhanibekov Effect. Scientists currently say the Earth cannot be affected by the D.E. because it rotates around one of its stable axis. But in the Veritasium video, we saw that a rotating bottle in space that is filled with liquid can suddenly switch from rotating around its stable axis to then rotating around its intermediary (unstable) axis. The Earth has a molten/liquid core (as well as surface oceans) which I think may have the potential to cause a similar effect at a particular point in the Earth’s precessional cycle (i.e. its precessional tipping to and fro). I think our present science is probably missing something with regards to the Dzhanibekov Effect and needs to consider it much more closely. And no. I have no proof of this—it’s just (presently) a hunch.

Quote

We spent an awful lot of time on the bad physics of Rubber Ball Earth, as I recall.

Yes. And as I recall, I’m still awaiting your detailed paper (in fact any paper) that debunks the maths in those papers. I’m still not holding my breath though.

Quote

And you have never actually shown us a timeline.  I'd like to see one.

Well, begin with this:

Hint: If all these world cataclysms occurred between ~2500-2300 BCE (as much archaeological, geological, climatological and perhaps even geomagnetism supports), why should the Giza Timeline show us the date of 3100 BCE as the date of the last cataclysm and not ~2500 BCE? (It’s not a trick question).

SC

Edited October 6, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

14 hours ago, Kenemet said:

There's a huge problem here that I'm surprised no one has brought up:  the part about Osiris being cut into pieces was not a part of the legend until the New Kingdom, long after the Gizamids.

From Wikipedia: "By the end of the New Kingdom, a tradition had developed that Set had cut Osiris's body into pieces and scattered them across Egypt. Cult centers of Osiris all over the country claimed that the corpse, or particular pieces of it, were found near them. The dismembered parts could be said to number as many as forty-two, each piece being equated with one of the forty-two nomes, or provinces, in Egypt.[36] Thus the god of kingship becomes the embodiment of his kingdom.[34]"

If we look at what Pinch says (the book is available at Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/egyptianmytholog0000pinc/page/78/mode/2up?q=pieces) we find that Diodorus Siculus is the first one to report on this dismemberment (he lived about 50 BC) and he says that Osiris was cut into 26 pieces and Set gave a piece to each of his followers (page 79).  Plutarch (who wrote sometime after 55 AD) is the one who reports the body being ripped into 14 parts and scattered.

So the pyramids could not have been associated with the parts of Osiris.

 

This is simply lazy and dull group think.

What is clear from the Pyramid Texts (and other ancient sources) is that Osiris N (the deceased king) had to have his body re-assembled, an Osirian rite of the deceased king that implies the same once must have been done for the original Osiris (or, at least, the PTs clearly show that the original 'Osiris' was diassembled). Now, it stands to reason, that if a body has to be re-assembled, that suggests the body is already in a state of having been disassembled.

The PTs may not explicitly state that the body of Osiris was dismembered or give the number of the body parts but it is self-evident from even a cursory reading of the PTs that the body of Osiris (i.e. the allegorical body) was originally considered to have consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled. See examples here:

Horus, take him with you to the sky. I am that one who will save your father, who will save Osiris from his brother Seth. I am that one who bound his feet and bound his arms, and put him on his side in Lion-land. Horus on the cushion of the sky’s standard, give your arm toward this Pepi, that this Pepi may go up to the sky. Nut, give your arm toward Pepi with life and authority, join together his bones, assemble his limbs, join his bones to his [head] and join his head to his bones, and he will not decay, he will not rot, he will not be ended, he will have no outflow, and no scent of his will come out. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.133

This Pepi’s bones have been joined together, his limbs have been assembled, and this Pepi will sit in the midst of his place. He will not decay, he will not rot, and Pepi will not be encircled by your wrath, gods! Pepi has come to you, mother of Pepi. He has come to Nut. May you elevate the sky for Pepi and hang down the stars for him. His scent is that of your son’s scent, who came from you: Pepi’s scent is that of Osiris, your son who came from you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.183

Stand up, raise yourself, father Osiris Pepi! Your bones have been assembled for you, [you have] received your limbs, [and the earth] that is on your flesh has been cleared away! – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.195

I have come for you that I might clean you, cleanse you, revive you, assemble for you your bones, collect for you your swimming parts, and assemble for you your dismembered parts. For I am Horus who saves his father: I have struck for you him who struck you and so I have saved you, father Osiris Nemtiemzaf Merenre, from him who did what is painful against you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.226

Ho, Neith! Your bones have been assembled for you, your limbs gathered for your, your teeth bequeathed to you, and you have received your heart for your body. The earth on your flesh has been cleared away. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.322

Raise yourself, Neith, for your bones have been assembled and your limbs collected. Raise yourself, Neith, for you have received your head. Use your arms [as you wish. Lift] your face. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.326

Oho! Oho! Lift yourself, Teti, Take your head, collect your bones, Gather your limbs, Wipe the earth from your flesh! – Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, p.90

O N, your mother comes to you ; see, Nut has come so that she may join your bones together, knit up your sinews, make your members firm – Spell 850, Coffin Texts, Faulkner.

Horus has counted the gods for thee, so that they cannot get away from thee, from the place where thou wast drowned. Nephthys has assembled for thee all thy limbs, in her name of “ŚŠȝ.t, lady of builders.” She has made them well for thee. Mercer, PT615d-6c.

. . . the protectress of the great comes to thee, thou shalt not be in need. She protects thee, she prevents thy need, she gives back thy head to thee; she assembles thy bones for thee, she unites thy limbs for thee; she brings thy heart into thy body for thee. – Mercer, PT835a-c.

United for N. are his bones, assembled for him are his limbs; - Mercer, PT 980b.

. . .unite the bones of N., assemble his limbs, - Mercer, PT1514b.

. . . that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs, - Mercer, PT1684b-c.

To say: He is assembled: This thy going; He is assembled: These thy goings, are the goings of Horus in search of his father, Osiris. – Mercer, PT1860a-c.

Thy bones have been collected for thee; thy limbs have been assembled for thee; - Mercer, PT1908b.

Behold, N. exists; behold, N. is assembled; - Mercer, PT1969b.

Behold N., who is before the gods, equipped as a god, his bones assembled, is like Osiris. – Mercer, PT2076c

N. comes; he is equipped like a god; his bones are assembled like [Osiris]; - Mercer, PT2097a.

 

I think it is fairly clear that the ‘body’ of Osiris consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled.

But how many parts? As we know, Plutarch gives 14 pieces for the dismembered body and Diodorus gives 16 pieces. Where these numbers come from, no one can say although, once again, there may be a hint of this much earlier in the Pyramid Texts:

                                     Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, Vol 1, p.99

 

SC

Edited October 6, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[cladking]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I don't think you understand when the AE are being literal and when they are engaging in metaphor, which they do use in huge doses. However, they were very down to earth folks, and quite a deal of what they wrote, even on esoteric matters, was expressed plainly and can be taken literally.

I don't believe there is a single sentence in the Pyramid Texts that Egyptology takes wholly literally and as a statement of fact and reality.  In other words the only statements they take literally are ones like 'shu embraces all things" which they take to mean "an imaginary consciousness in which all ancient Egyptians believed was believed to have had arms like humans who could and did hug everything".  This isn't "literal" in any common definition of "literal".  There were no imaginary consciousnesses and no reason to believe they would have had arms except for metaphoric interpretations in terms of the "book of the dead"  It is all a construct created by non-literal interpretations.  No I don't understand that they even had a concept of "metaphor" and I see no evidence they did.  You can take such statements for evidence but I do not.  

Picking and choosing word definitions based on context and definitions from later eras while picking and choosing what is metaphor and what is literal is how Egyptology has no mangled the study of ancient Egypt so badly their theories make no predictions, fail to explain existing evidence, and create mysteries about everything.  Egyptology can't even say where the terms originated!!  If they can't say how the glyphs and words arose then why should anyone believe they've solved the meaning of the language?  It is highly illogical to use such poor methodology and then shout down everyone who tries to interpret it differently.  Imagine some Egyptologists actually believe the symbol for "life" is derived from a sandal strap!!!! But this is exactly the sort of circular reasoning and speculation that appertains to Egyptology.  The "cartouche" which is a French word for "bullet" was a symbol denoting a king!!!!!!   How do they even come up with such claptrap?  How does it make sense that only Egyptology is allowed to speculate about the meaning of the Pyramid Texts and this speculation must dovetail not with the literal meaning or the actual context of the words but rather with centuries of Egyptologists in good standing often called "et als".  

Meanwhile you are ignoring the fact that more and more translators and interpreters are coming up with ENTIRELY different meanings for the Pyramid Texts.  Ofttimes these alternative explanations are more in keeping with the actual cultural and physical context.   

No, they do not take the meanings literally because if they did everything would be contradicted.  

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

So you will not respond with an analysis of the PT that I quoted, I thought not. Need this go further, not really.

 

3 hours ago, cladking said:

I can not reply because it disagrees with Egyptology and is hence irrelevant.  This will be the last time I point this out because I'll be accused of being irrelevant saying I can't reply.  

Suffice to say that I agree with this much more than almost anything else ever written by an Egyptologist or in support of Egyptology.  

In other words you know you're wrong but you just can't bring yourself to admit it - its okay Sam we've known it for 15 plus years

[cladking]

54 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

What is clear from the Pyramid Texts (and other ancient sources) is that Osiris N (the deceased king) had to have his body re-assembled, an Osirian rite of the deceased king that implies the same once must have been done for the original Osiris (or, at least, the PTs clearly show that the original 'Osiris' was diassembled). Now, it stands to reason, that if a body has to be re-assembled, that suggests the body is already in a state of having been disassembled.

Indeed!  This is exactly correct.  

And this is exactly where the writers of the "book of the dead" and later writings got the idea.  The Pyramid Texts led to the "book of the dead" but this is hardly proof that their meanings are the same.  

[Wepwawet]

46 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

This is simply lazy and dull group think.

What is clear from the Pyramid Texts (and other ancient sources) is that Osiris N (the deceased king) had to have his body re-assembled, an Osirian rite of the deceased king that implies the same once must have been done for the original Osiris (or, at least, the PTs clearly show that the original 'Osiris' was diassembled). Now, it stands to reason, that if a body has to be re-assembled, that suggests the body is already in a state of having been disassembled.

The PTs may not explicitly state that the body of Osiris was dismembered or give the number of the body parts but it is self-evident from even a cursory reading of the PTs that the body of Osiris (i.e. the allegorical body) was originally considered to have consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled. See examples here:

Horus, take him with you to the sky. I am that one who will save your father, who will save Osiris from his brother Seth. I am that one who bound his feet and bound his arms, and put him on his side in Lion-land. Horus on the cushion of the sky’s standard, give your arm toward this Pepi, that this Pepi may go up to the sky. Nut, give your arm toward Pepi with life and authority, join together his bones, assemble his limbs, join his bones to his [head] and join his head to his bones, and he will not decay, he will not rot, he will not be ended, he will have no outflow, and no scent of his will come out. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.133

This Pepi’s bones have been joined together, his limbs have been assembled, and this Pepi will sit in the midst of his place. He will not decay, he will not rot, and Pepi will not be encircled by your wrath, gods! Pepi has come to you, mother of Pepi. He has come to Nut. May you elevate the sky for Pepi and hang down the stars for him. His scent is that of your son’s scent, who came from you: Pepi’s scent is that of Osiris, your son who came from you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.183

Stand up, raise yourself, father Osiris Pepi! Your bones have been assembled for you, [you have] received your limbs, [and the earth] that is on your flesh has been cleared away! – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.195

I have come for you that I might clean you, cleanse you, revive you, assemble for you your bones, collect for you your swimming parts, and assemble for you your dismembered parts. For I am Horus who saves his father: I have struck for you him who struck you and so I have saved you, father Osiris Nemtiemzaf Merenre, from him who did what is painful against you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.226

Ho, Neith! Your bones have been assembled for you, your limbs gathered for your, your teeth bequeathed to you, and you have received your heart for your body. The earth on your flesh has been cleared away. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.322

Raise yourself, Neith, for your bones have been assembled and your limbs collected. Raise yourself, Neith, for you have received your head. Use your arms [as you wish. Lift] your face. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.326

Oho! Oho! Lift yourself, Teti, Take your head, collect your bones, Gather your limbs, Wipe the earth from your flesh! – Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, p.90

O N, your mother comes to you ; see, Nut has come so that she may join your bones together, knit up your sinews, make your members firm – Spell 850, Coffin Texts, Faulkner.

Horus has counted the gods for thee, so that they cannot get away from thee, from the place where thou wast drowned. Nephthys has assembled for thee all thy limbs, in her name of “ŚŠȝ.t, lady of builders.” She has made them well for thee. Mercer, PT615d-6c.

. . . the protectress of the great comes to thee, thou shalt not be in need. She protects thee, she prevents thy need, she gives back thy head to thee; she assembles thy bones for thee, she unites thy limbs for thee; she brings thy heart into thy body for thee. – Mercer, PT835a-c.

United for N. are his bones, assembled for him are his limbs; - Mercer, PT 980b.

. . .unite the bones of N., assemble his limbs, - Mercer, PT1514b.

. . . that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs, - Mercer, PT1684b-c.

To say: He is assembled: This thy going; He is assembled: These thy goings, are the goings of Horus in search of his father, Osiris. – Mercer, PT1860a-c.

Thy bones have been collected for thee; thy limbs have been assembled for thee; - Mercer, PT1908b.

Behold, N. exists; behold, N. is assembled; - Mercer, PT1969b.

Behold N., who is before the gods, equipped as a god, his bones assembled, is like Osiris. – Mercer, PT2076c

N. comes; he is equipped like a god; his bones are assembled like [Osiris]; - Mercer, PT2097a.

 

I think it is fairly clear that the ‘body’ of Osiris consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled.

But how many parts? As we know, Plutarch gives 14 pieces for the dismembered body and Diodorus gives 16 pieces. Where these numbers come from, no one can say although, once again, there may be a hint of this much earlier in the Pyramid Texts:

                                     Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, Vol 1, p.99

 

SC

Manipulative fringe drivel. These texts are primarily about the dead king whose texts they are, not the actual god Osiris, and the dead king was not chopped up, as even a cursory reading shows. Your  manipulations yet again shows what a very shallow understanding you have of the AE, but just enough to make mischief to further your fantasies. I suspect though that your manipulations, your prestidigitation, is not for forum members posting in this thread, but for your "fans" lurking, who never join, even to give a like. I guess that this army of your fans are so gullible, ignorant and thick headed that they think you are making truthful posts, instead of rank garbage.

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Scott… look at the content of Cladking’s posts… and this is the  only one who accepts your ideas. And not because he understands them or thinks they have merit, he doesn’t even care enough to discuss them; he’s just hobbyhorsing his usual garbage taking up space in your thread.
 
I guarantee he doesn’t buy your book, nor has he read your previous ones. 

Everyone gets it, you’re promoting your book. At this point it’s safe to say nobody relevant agrees with what you have to say or thinks there’s any reality to what amounts to another fantasy scenario you’ve invented. You’ve offered nothing to back up your claims. End of story.
 

Ah but that isn't why he is here- he just likes (loves) to talk about his ideas like they are real. Look at the long years of his beating the Vyse horse to death. He knew it would have no effect on history but he just kept going over and over it.

[cladking]

1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Ah but that isn't why he is here- he just likes (loves) to talk about his ideas like they are real. Look at the long years of his beating the Vyse horse to death. He knew it would have no effect on history but he just kept going over and over it.

Or maybe he's just looking for an argument that is actually relevant to his theory.  

God knows there won't be very many.   

[Wepwawet]

23 minutes ago, cladking said:

Meanwhile you are ignoring the fact that more and more translators and interpreters are coming up with ENTIRELY different meanings for the Pyramid Texts.  Ofttimes these alternative explanations are more in keeping with the actual cultural and physical context.   

 

What I cut out was the usual garbage, what I left was also garbage. These "more and more translators and interpreters" are rather fringe are they not, and I'll name them as Susan Brind Morrow, who you have already mentioned, and Manu Seyfzadeh, who firmly showed you the door on the Hancock forum when he grew tired, as we all do, of your monomania and extreme obtuseness. I actually have his book, and it is very interesting, he knows what he is talking about, he can read hieroglyphs, I just think he is wrong about a "Hall of Records" a shame he has used his undoubted knowledge of the AE and linguistic talents for the "dark side". Show me any mainstream Egyptologists who have come up with "entirely different meanings for the PT" that in any way shape or form back up your incoherent ramblings, or that of any fringe charlatan.

Edit: What Susan Brind Morrow has done is provide a translation of the PT in the vernacular for greater understanding by the more general reader. The standard translations by Sethe, Faulkner and Allen are not for the general reader and need a certain degree of knowledge of the AE. How do I know what Morrow has done? I've read her book, have you, have you read Seyfzadeh's ? can you point to anything in their books that backs up any of your fantasies, if you can, please quote from the relevant part of their books so I can check, and have fun with Morrow's as she does not directly corelate what she has written with the normal PT numbering system, but you knew that, didn't you?

Edited October 6, 2023 by Wepwawet

[Hanslune]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

Or maybe he's just looking for an argument that is actually relevant to his theory.  

God knows there won't be very many.   

No much like you he feels if he just repeats it over and over again, and ignores negative points and spends years saying the same thing IT WILL IN TIME MAGICALLY BECOME REAL. You tried that too and failed miserably.

[Hanslune]

Just now, Wepwawet said:

What I cut out was the usual garbage, what I left was also garbage. These "more and more translators and interpreters" are rather fringe are they not, and I'll name them as Susan Brind Morrow, who you have already mentioned, and Manu Seyfzadeh, who firmly showed you the door on the Hancock forum when he grew tired, as we all do, of your monomania and extreme obtuseness. I actually have his book, and it is very interesting, he knows what he is talking about, he can read hieroglyphs, I just think he is wrong about a "Hall of Records" a shame he has used his undoubted knowledge of the AE and linguistic talents for the "dark side". Show me any mainstream Egyptologists who have come up with "entirely different meanings for the PT" that in any way shape or form back up your incoherent ramblings, or that of any fringe charlatan.

"Manu Seyfzadeh, who firmly showed you the door on the Hancock forum when he grew tired, as we all do, of your monomania and extreme obtuseness". Yes I witnessed his attempt to bring clarity and reality about the Egyptian language to Cladking - Cladking knew he was wrong and his ideas were being demolished so he lied, ranted and acted like a screaming child until Manu gave up.

[Hanslune]

5 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

What I cut out was the usual garbage, what I left was also garbage. These "more and more translators and interpreters" are rather fringe are they not, and I'll name them as Susan Brind Morrow, who you have already mentioned, and Manu Seyfzadeh, who firmly showed you the door on the Hancock forum when he grew tired, as we all do, of your monomania and extreme obtuseness. I actually have his book, and it is very interesting, he knows what he is talking about, he can read hieroglyphs, I just think he is wrong about a "Hall of Records" a shame he has used his undoubted knowledge of the AE and linguistic talents for the "dark side". Show me any mainstream Egyptologists who have come up with "entirely different meanings for the PT" that in any way shape or form back up your incoherent ramblings, or that of any fringe charlatan.

It's best not to try to have rational discussions with Cladking he lives in his own fantasy world which has a population of one, himself. I've collected several hundreds pages of his 'ideas and theories' from the early days and intend to write a book about his imaginative ideas but will set it in the late 1840s where a different view on the meaning of the Hieroglyphs might be accepted more so than today. Madness an eccentricity is very hard to write convincingly - unless you are  mad and eccentric - and he does it perfectly.

 

[cladking]

51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

These "more and more translators and interpreters" are rather fringe are they not

Of course they are fringe.  I've listed the requirements to be a member in good standing many times.  Do you really need me to repeat them?  

51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

and Manu Seyfzadeh,

If you really believe Manu is "fringe" then Egyptology might be even more insular and moribund than I ever imagined.  He fits every single one of the defining characteristics of "Egyptologist" other than having doctorate in the subject.  He makes more sense than most Egyptologists and is more insightful than almost all of them (if not all).  

51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

who firmly showed you the door

We don't agree.  He is an Egyptologist so exactly what would you expect?  We have many points in common otherwise.  

51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

What Susan Brind Morrow has done is provide a translation of the PT in the vernacular for greater understanding by the more general reader.

You can call it what you want but she has completely changed the meaning of the PT.  

This is getting more common;

https://www.scribd.com/doc/4638150/The-Pyramid-Texts

 

Each translator has continued to completely revolutionize translations of the Pyramid Texts.  These don't even look like the same passages being translated in many cases because they are so changed and Allen translates things into a language that isn't even English in every case.  I don't know if it's because the material is too complex to even approximate in English or if his English skills are substandard.  How can anyone believe that it is properly translated when there is upheaval in translation every generation?  Despite these facts Egyptologists expect to control the conversation by citing "cultural context" which now and has always meant the interpretation of evidence in terms of prevailing Egyptological assumptions and the Pyramid Texts in terms of the "book of the dead".  If you think about it you'll see that more and more people rejecting prevailing interpretations of a book of incantation is wholly natural.  Why did Egyptology ever base their beliefs on a book of incantation anyway?  It is illogical and it is very poor methodology especially in light of the fact the book of incantation was translated in terms of a much later book.  

Egyptology is a massive non sequitur.  It is maintained through semantics, tactics, and obfuscation.  They storm out of meetings and refuse to systematically apply modern science and have failed to do so since Petrie left Giza in the 19th century. 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by cladking

[Wepwawet]

26 minutes ago, cladking said:

Of course they are fringe.  I've listed the requirements to be a member in good standing many times.  Do you really need me to repeat them?  

If you really believe Manu is "fringe" then Egyptology might be even more insular and moribund than I ever imagined.  He fits every single one of the defining characteristics of "Egyptologist" other than having doctorate in the subject.  He makes more sense than most Egyptologists and is more insightful than almost all of them (if not all).  

We don't agree.  He is an Egyptologist so exactly what would you expect?  We have many points in common otherwise.  

You can call it what you want but she has completely changed the meaning of the PT.  

This is getting more common;

https://www.scribd.com/doc/4638150/The-Pyramid-Texts

 

Each translator has continued to completely revolutionize translations of the Pyramid Texts.  These don't even look like the same passages being translated in many cases because they are so changed and Allen translates things into a language that isn't even English in every case.  I don't know if it's because the material is too complex to even approximate in English or if his English skills are substandard.  How can anyone believe that it is properly translated when there is upheaval in translation every generation?  Despite these facts Egyptologists expect to control the conversation by citing "cultural context" which now and has always meant the interpretation of evidence in terms of prevailing Egyptological assumptions and the Pyramid Texts in terms of the "book of the dead".  If you think about it you'll see that more and more people rejecting prevailing interpretations of a book of incantation is wholly natural.  Why did Egyptology ever base their beliefs on a book of incantation anyway?  It is illogical and it is very poor methodology especially in light of the fact the book of incantation was translated in terms of a much later book.  

Egyptology is a massive non sequitur.  It is maintained through semantics, tactics, and obfuscation.  They storm out of meetings and refuse to systematically apply modern science and have failed to do so since Petrie left Giza in the 19th century. 

 

Like Hans I read the exchanges between you and Manu, and he very firmly showed you the door in an exchange that was less than friendly. I doubt he would appreciate being referenced by you in a manner that suggests you could equals, let alone on friendly terms. The question remains, have you read his book.

And the same question again, have you read Morrow's book.

The link you supplied led to fringe drivel.

Stop flooding this thread with your monomania about the PT and the BoD, but of course you are doing Creighton a service by adding to the smoke and mirrors, you should get on topic or get out. So no need to answer my two questions as if you had read their books you would have already said so, and provided quotes, but nothing, as usual. Just go, or is Creighton "paying" you to faff around here, as he may be "paying" another poster, oh yes, "Danger, sniper at work".

That'll do for me, so go discuss with your mate Creighton about how great he is, not.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Wepwawet

[cladking]

7 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Like Hans I read the exchanges between you and Manu, and he very firmly showed you the door in an exchange that was less than friendly. I doubt he would appreciate being referenced by you in a manner that suggests you could equals, let alone on friendly terms. The question remains, have you read his book.

You want to make this about me but it's not about me or Manu.  It is about Egyptology and its methodology and that they want to control not only their own narrative but that of the fringe as well. Let's stay on topic.

9 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

And the same question again, have you read Morrow's book.

No.  I probably never will unless I happen to run into it.  I have read some papers by her but find few points of agreement other than Egyptology is all wrong and that there are other ways to interpret the PT.  Frankly, I suspect she really is on to something but even if I understood all if her work it would likely be of little help to me.  I believe there are many  (virtually infinite) ways to properly interpret the literal meaning and she has found one of them.  

I don't know.

12 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

The link you supplied led to fringe drivel.

It is another new interpretation and by an actual translator.  I believe much of it is "inspired" unfortunately the result is probably highly misleading.  

Egyptology is in the habit of labeling everything that doesn't accept all of the assumptions as "fringe".   If any of the assumptions is wrong, and NONE are well supported, then Egyptology is probably wrong about everything.  

16 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

That'll do for me, so go discuss with your mate Creighton about how great he is, not.

Usually the MO is to divide and conquer.   

I support Scott Creighton's right to an opinion.  I find most of his work insightful.  I don't agree with all of it.  

Your tactics are showing.  

[cladking]

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

This is simply lazy and dull group think.

What is clear from the Pyramid Texts (and other ancient sources) is that Osiris N (the deceased king) had to have his body re-assembled, an Osirian rite of the deceased king that implies the same once must have been done for the original Osiris (or, at least, the PTs clearly show that the original 'Osiris' was diassembled). Now, it stands to reason, that if a body has to be re-assembled, that suggests the body is already in a state of having been disassembled.

The PTs may not explicitly state that the body of Osiris was dismembered or give the number of the body parts but it is self-evident from even a cursory reading of the PTs that the body of Osiris (i.e. the allegorical body) was originally considered to have consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled. See examples here:

Horus, take him with you to the sky. I am that one who will save your father, who will save Osiris from his brother Seth. I am that one who bound his feet and bound his arms, and put him on his side in Lion-land. Horus on the cushion of the sky’s standard, give your arm toward this Pepi, that this Pepi may go up to the sky. Nut, give your arm toward Pepi with life and authority, join together his bones, assemble his limbs, join his bones to his [head] and join his head to his bones, and he will not decay, he will not rot, he will not be ended, he will have no outflow, and no scent of his will come out. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.133

This Pepi’s bones have been joined together, his limbs have been assembled, and this Pepi will sit in the midst of his place. He will not decay, he will not rot, and Pepi will not be encircled by your wrath, gods! Pepi has come to you, mother of Pepi. He has come to Nut. May you elevate the sky for Pepi and hang down the stars for him. His scent is that of your son’s scent, who came from you: Pepi’s scent is that of Osiris, your son who came from you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.183

Stand up, raise yourself, father Osiris Pepi! Your bones have been assembled for you, [you have] received your limbs, [and the earth] that is on your flesh has been cleared away! – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.195

I have come for you that I might clean you, cleanse you, revive you, assemble for you your bones, collect for you your swimming parts, and assemble for you your dismembered parts. For I am Horus who saves his father: I have struck for you him who struck you and so I have saved you, father Osiris Nemtiemzaf Merenre, from him who did what is painful against you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.226

Ho, Neith! Your bones have been assembled for you, your limbs gathered for your, your teeth bequeathed to you, and you have received your heart for your body. The earth on your flesh has been cleared away. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.322

Raise yourself, Neith, for your bones have been assembled and your limbs collected. Raise yourself, Neith, for you have received your head. Use your arms [as you wish. Lift] your face. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.326

Oho! Oho! Lift yourself, Teti, Take your head, collect your bones, Gather your limbs, Wipe the earth from your flesh! – Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, p.90

O N, your mother comes to you ; see, Nut has come so that she may join your bones together, knit up your sinews, make your members firm – Spell 850, Coffin Texts, Faulkner.

Horus has counted the gods for thee, so that they cannot get away from thee, from the place where thou wast drowned. Nephthys has assembled for thee all thy limbs, in her name of “ŚŠȝ.t, lady of builders.” She has made them well for thee. Mercer, PT615d-6c.

. . . the protectress of the great comes to thee, thou shalt not be in need. She protects thee, she prevents thy need, she gives back thy head to thee; she assembles thy bones for thee, she unites thy limbs for thee; she brings thy heart into thy body for thee. – Mercer, PT835a-c.

United for N. are his bones, assembled for him are his limbs; - Mercer, PT 980b.

. . .unite the bones of N., assemble his limbs, - Mercer, PT1514b.

. . . that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs, - Mercer, PT1684b-c.

To say: He is assembled: This thy going; He is assembled: These thy goings, are the goings of Horus in search of his father, Osiris. – Mercer, PT1860a-c.

Thy bones have been collected for thee; thy limbs have been assembled for thee; - Mercer, PT1908b.

Behold, N. exists; behold, N. is assembled; - Mercer, PT1969b.

Behold N., who is before the gods, equipped as a god, his bones assembled, is like Osiris. – Mercer, PT2076c

N. comes; he is equipped like a god; his bones are assembled like [Osiris]; - Mercer, PT2097a.

 

I think it is fairly clear that the ‘body’ of Osiris consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled.

But how many parts? As we know, Plutarch gives 14 pieces for the dismembered body and Diodorus gives 16 pieces. Where these numbers come from, no one can say although, once again, there may be a hint of this much earlier in the Pyramid Texts:

                                     Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, Vol 1, p.99

 

SC

I could probably find more of these but this is my favorite;

616a. Nephthys has assembled for thee all thy limbs,

616b. in her name of "ŚŠȝ.t, lady of builders."

616c. She has made them well for thee.

616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave";

It's my favorite because it also suggests what for and how the limbs are being rejoined.  The "Lady of Builders" is assembling something on earth as the king's grave in the sky is being prepared.  

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Again, read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

Well, I am pretty darn sure you wrote in this message "And to round things off, some scientific papers were presented. These papers show how it is, at least from a mathematical perspective, theoretically possible that the Earth can become inverted without the need for a collision with another massive planet that would vaporise everything on the Earth."

The "scientific papers" you are now seemingly denying as being part of your concept.

Also, the drawing of the plain of Giza is not a timeline.  What we're asking for is 

1. When was Khufu's dream?
2. When did the first flip occur (date)
3. When was the GP built?
4. When did the Earth flip back?

Four pieces of data.  Four dates.  Not weird angles drawn across as many landscapes as you found.  Just four dates.

That'd be a good start.

 

 

BTW, Barbiero's "winning the argument" with NASA physicists?  There's no evidence of it (as you, yourself noted.)  What it looks like he did was republish his original paper with a few minor change in another journal and say "So there!"

 

 

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

This is simply lazy and dull group think.

What is clear from the Pyramid Texts (and other ancient sources) is that Osiris N (the deceased king) had to have his body re-assembled, an Osirian rite of the deceased king that implies the same once must have been done for the original Osiris (or, at least, the PTs clearly show that the original 'Osiris' was diassembled). Now, it stands to reason, that if a body has to be re-assembled, that suggests the body is already in a state of having been disassembled.

The PTs may not explicitly state that the body of Osiris was dismembered or give the number of the body parts but it is self-evident from even a cursory reading of the PTs that the body of Osiris (i.e. the allegorical body) was originally considered to have consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled. See examples here:

Horus, take him with you to the sky. I am that one who will save your father, who will save Osiris from his brother Seth. I am that one who bound his feet and bound his arms, and put him on his side in Lion-land. Horus on the cushion of the sky’s standard, give your arm toward this Pepi, that this Pepi may go up to the sky. Nut, give your arm toward Pepi with life and authority, join together his bones, assemble his limbs, join his bones to his [head] and join his head to his bones, and he will not decay, he will not rot, he will not be ended, he will have no outflow, and no scent of his will come out. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.133

This Pepi’s bones have been joined together, his limbs have been assembled, and this Pepi will sit in the midst of his place. He will not decay, he will not rot, and Pepi will not be encircled by your wrath, gods! Pepi has come to you, mother of Pepi. He has come to Nut. May you elevate the sky for Pepi and hang down the stars for him. His scent is that of your son’s scent, who came from you: Pepi’s scent is that of Osiris, your son who came from you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.183

Stand up, raise yourself, father Osiris Pepi! Your bones have been assembled for you, [you have] received your limbs, [and the earth] that is on your flesh has been cleared away! – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.195

I have come for you that I might clean you, cleanse you, revive you, assemble for you your bones, collect for you your swimming parts, and assemble for you your dismembered parts. For I am Horus who saves his father: I have struck for you him who struck you and so I have saved you, father Osiris Nemtiemzaf Merenre, from him who did what is painful against you. – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.226

Ho, Neith! Your bones have been assembled for you, your limbs gathered for your, your teeth bequeathed to you, and you have received your heart for your body. The earth on your flesh has been cleared away. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.322

Raise yourself, Neith, for your bones have been assembled and your limbs collected. Raise yourself, Neith, for you have received your head. Use your arms [as you wish. Lift] your face. . . – Allen, The AE Pyramid Texts, p.326

Oho! Oho! Lift yourself, Teti, Take your head, collect your bones, Gather your limbs, Wipe the earth from your flesh! – Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, p.90

O N, your mother comes to you ; see, Nut has come so that she may join your bones together, knit up your sinews, make your members firm – Spell 850, Coffin Texts, Faulkner.

Horus has counted the gods for thee, so that they cannot get away from thee, from the place where thou wast drowned. Nephthys has assembled for thee all thy limbs, in her name of “ŚŠȝ.t, lady of builders.” She has made them well for thee. Mercer, PT615d-6c.

. . . the protectress of the great comes to thee, thou shalt not be in need. She protects thee, she prevents thy need, she gives back thy head to thee; she assembles thy bones for thee, she unites thy limbs for thee; she brings thy heart into thy body for thee. – Mercer, PT835a-c.

United for N. are his bones, assembled for him are his limbs; - Mercer, PT 980b.

. . .unite the bones of N., assemble his limbs, - Mercer, PT1514b.

. . . that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs, - Mercer, PT1684b-c.

To say: He is assembled: This thy going; He is assembled: These thy goings, are the goings of Horus in search of his father, Osiris. – Mercer, PT1860a-c.

Thy bones have been collected for thee; thy limbs have been assembled for thee; - Mercer, PT1908b.

Behold, N. exists; behold, N. is assembled; - Mercer, PT1969b.

Behold N., who is before the gods, equipped as a god, his bones assembled, is like Osiris. – Mercer, PT2076c

N. comes; he is equipped like a god; his bones are assembled like [Osiris]; - Mercer, PT2097a.

 

I think it is fairly clear that the ‘body’ of Osiris consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled.

But how many parts? As we know, Plutarch gives 14 pieces for the dismembered body and Diodorus gives 16 pieces. Where these numbers come from, no one can say although, once again, there may be a hint of this much earlier in the Pyramid Texts:

                                     Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, Vol 1, p.99

Budge himself was not completely convinced that the dismemberment was that ancient, for he says that "late tradition asserts that the body of Osiris was cut up into fourteen or fifteen pieces."   Others seem to agree with this, possibly based on reading other material from this time period.

Looking at Budge, the source seems to be the "Papyrus of Nu" (http://www.public-library.uk/dailyebook/The Egyptian Book of the Dead.pdf) and Chapter 149 which is titled "The Fourteen Aats."

The Papyrus of Nu is 18th dynasty (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA10477-22) -- which his early New Kingdom.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Kenemet

[Windowpane]

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

#1404 

...

What is clear from the Pyramid Texts (and other ancient sources) is that Osiris N (the deceased king) had to have his body re-assembled, an Osirian rite of the deceased king that implies the same once must have been done for the original Osiris (or, at least, the PTs clearly show that the original 'Osiris' was diassembled). Now, it stands to reason, that if a body has to be re-assembled, that suggests the body is already in a state of having been disassembled.

The PTs may not explicitly state that the body of Osiris was dismembered or give the number of the body parts but it is self-evident from even a cursory reading of the PTs that the body of Osiris (i.e. the allegorical body) was originally considered to have consisted of several parts that had to be re-assembled.

 

You might want to consider these explanations.  Apparently, it's extremely doubtful that any references to the dismemberment of Osiris appear in the earlier traditions.  It seems that the idea of his dismemberment might have had its origins in the custom of separately wrapping the bones of distinguished corpses.  Bones aren't the same things as pieces of bodies:

Quote

We are told that the ‘Great One’, i.e. Osiris, fell on his side (meaning that he collapsed dead through some outside agency) on the river bank of Nedyet, identifiable as his cult centre Abydos. 

...

The devotion of his elder sister, the goddess Isis ...  is already present in this early documentation of the myth. After a search she finds Osiris on the river bank and ‘gathers up his flesh’ which seeing that no mention is made of any dismemberment of Osiris’s body, found in the later tradition, probably means that she used her magical powers to arrest his decomposition. (155-6).

And here:

Quote

The ancient traditions do not refer to any dismemberment of the body of Osiris or of Osiris-King. Anthes, ⁷⁶ in the course of an illuminating study of the earliest Egyptian mythology, expresses belief in ‘the predynastic and early dynastic custom of dismembering the corpse of an apparently distinguished man’, but demurs to the process of projecting it into the story of Osiris. Later, however, he has lost this hesitation and boldly speaks of ‘the dismemberment of Osiris’.’’ In view of the interpretation which is being offered here, the existence of a royal funerary custom would be a good reason for assuming that it was projected into the myth of Osiris. The evidence for the custom, however, is highly doubtful. ⁷⁷    At a much later stage, of course, an episode of dismemberment becomes prominent in the myth ... but it cannot justly be said to have figured in the earliest tradition  (24-5).

(76  {JNES 18 3: pp. 169–212; 206: Egyptian Theology in the Third Millennium B. C., Rudolf Anthes}

" ...  the dismemberment of the body
of Osiris may or may not be attested as an
element of the tale of Osiris in the Pyramid
Texts. I have noted it only in reference
to the deceased king, NN. Whether
or not this observation is correct, the dismemberment
must be understood as originating
in the predynastic and early dynastic
custom of dismembering the corpse
of an apparently distinguished man. See
Bonnet, Reallexikon, s. v. "Leichenzerstiickelung,"
and Pyr. 316 c according to
its interpretation in JNES, XIII, 34.
Thus, this item came into the picture from
the tradition of burial customs.")

(77 Anthes, ‘Affinity and Difference between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B.C.’, in PAPS 107 (1963), 60-81. He states on p. 78 that ‘the dismemberment of Osiris can be traced back to a feature which is observed in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods: in a few tombs, the bones were found wrapped up separately and, according to the so-called Pyramid Texts (Spell 316c) apparently the bones of a king were carried in his funeral procession’.) 

 

[Tom1200]

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Many eminent mathematicians have challenged Barbiero (including an Astro-physicist at NASA). From what I read of that exchange, it seems Barbiero held his own

SO much wrong with that post.  SO much.  But I'll focus on just this assertion above.

I've asked you several times to provide evidence for this claim.  Who from NASA, and what did they write?

What precisely did you read of that exchange?  Where did you see it?  Can you provide a link?  Or am I correct in my suspicion that the only source of this claim is Barbiero himself?

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

though I’m no mathematician/physicist

But you consider yourself qualified to determine which maths and physics to promote and which to dismiss?  

 

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

  It is about Egyptology and its methodology and that they want to control not only their own narrative but that of the fringe as well.

 

The topic is Scott's idea. As usual you're trying to steal someone else's thread to discuss your same old failed ideas for the thousandth time.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Hanslune

[cladking]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Manipulative fringe drivel. These texts are primarily about the dead king whose texts they are, not the actual god Osiris, and the dead king was not chopped up, as even a cursory reading shows. Your  manipulations yet again shows what a very shallow understanding you have of the AE, but just enough to make mischief to further your fantasies. I suspect though that your manipulations, your prestidigitation, is not for forum members posting in this thread, but for your "fans" lurking, who never join, even to give a like. I guess that this army of your fans are so gullible, ignorant and thick headed that they think you are making truthful posts, instead of rank garbage.

The PT apparently disagrees with you.

805c. Thy dismembered limbs are collected by the two mighty ones, the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt, as lord of the Bows.

1008b. (it is) thy great sister who collected thy flesh, who gathered thy hands,

1018c. Thy dismembered limbs are collected, thou who hast might over the Bows.

1981a. Thy libation is poured by Isis, [Nephthys has purified thee]--  1981b. [thy two sisters] great and powerful, who collected thy flesh,

 

 

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

The PT apparently disagrees with you.

805c. Thy dismembered limbs are collected by the two mighty ones, the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt, as lord of the Bows.

1008b. (it is) thy great sister who collected thy flesh, who gathered thy hands,

1018c. Thy dismembered limbs are collected, thou who hast might over the Bows.

1981a. Thy libation is poured by Isis, [Nephthys has purified thee]--  1981b. [thy two sisters] great and powerful, who collected thy flesh,

I think that if you go back to your book, in the lines preceding this one, there's the designator "Osiris N."

That means they're talking about the king.