Why "osiris" Didn't Exist Before The 5th Dynasty.

[cladking]

34 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Otzi’s brain was found relatively intact AND NORMAL

Nonsense.  He had just received a massive head wound.  It is impossible with today's technology to see how the brain was organized or how he thought.  You are simply assuming that the lack of a broccas area could be seen in such a situation.  

It has taken many years just to show he had a massive head wound.  They aren't capable of analyzing how undifferentiated tissue where the broccas area could have been was a second speech center or not.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

Nonsense.  He had just received a massive head wound.  It is impossible with today's technology to see how the brain was organized or how he thought.  You are simply assuming that the lack of a broccas area could be seen in such a situation.  

No, it’s really not. Any Anthropologist, Medical Examiner or geneticist could make such a determination. There is an extensive list of Otzi’s medical findings, NONE of which support your fantasy, even remotely. 
 

cormac

[cladking]

10 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

There is an extensive list of Otzi’s medical findings, NONE of which support your fantasy, even remotely. 

Perhaps but I wager they haven't even dissected the brain yet.  Were you aware that they recently found brain damage?   You're suggesting technology and knowledge improved a thousand fold in months.  

In ANY CASE the fact is the theoretical framework for identifying the brocas area doesn't exist.  Even in living people you need to stimulate cells and ascertain the response.  

[cormac mac airt]

57 minutes ago, cladking said:

Perhaps but I wager they haven't even dissected the brain yet.  Were you aware that they recently found brain damage?   You're suggesting technology and knowledge improved a thousand fold in months.  

In ANY CASE the fact is the theoretical framework for identifying the brocas area doesn't exist.  Even in living people you need to stimulate cells and ascertain the response.  

That wasn’t recent that was 10 years ago. 
 

Another lie. 
 

Quote

Location: While Broca's area is found in the posterior part of the frontal lobe on the left side of the brain, Wernicke's area is part of the superior temporal gyrus in the left hemisphere.

https://www.verywellmind.com/how-the-broca-s-area-of-the-brain-functions-7503358#:~:text=Location%3A While Broca's area is,gyrus in the left hemisphere.

cormac

Edited November 2, 2023 by cormac mac airt

[cladking]

23 hours ago, cladking said:

Speaking of shard rich land here's another video that proves Egyptology is wrong about every single thing.  It also shows I'm wrong about at least one thing but Egyptology is wrong across the board.

 

It's remarkable how people and Egyptologists can ignore this or just shrug it off.  It's just like all the physical evidence that today we have the ability to see and quantify; it is all shrugged off because it doesn't fit the narrative of highly ignorant and superstition people dragging stones up ramps so their god king, OsirisN, can have a large space in which to bounce around at night eternally.  All the infrastructure is written off as "holy this" and "sacred that' while they can clearly point to the sacred ramps which must have existed and the dead pharaohs in the pyramids they knew were there before the thieves who must have robbed their tombs also stole their bodies.   It all makes perfect sense if you follow on the heels of et als in good standing.  Of course ancient people squished their toes in corpse dripping.  They had to get stinky feet somewhere.  Of course they spoke in incantation.  That's what primitive superstitious people do.

 

But thermal anomalies, complex pyramid shapes, precision vases, and none of the evidence support dogma so the solution is to ignore it, quit looking for more evidence, and don't publish the results of nearly decade old studies using century old technology.  I don't understand how smart people can possibly support Egyptological findings,  Egyptological methodology, or Egyptology itself. 

[Antigonos]

18 minutes ago, cladking said:

I don't understand how smart people can possibly support Egyptological findings,  Egyptological methodology, or Egyptology itself. 

Obviously.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

It's remarkable how people and Egyptologists can ignore this or just shrug it off.  It's just like all the physical evidence that today we have the ability to see and quantify; it is all shrugged off because it doesn't fit the narrative of highly ignorant and superstition people dragging stones up ramps so their god king, OsirisN, can have a large space in which to bounce around at night eternally.  All the infrastructure is written off as "holy this" and "sacred that' while they can clearly point to the sacred ramps which must have existed and the dead pharaohs in the pyramids they knew were there before the thieves who must have robbed their tombs also stole their bodies.   It all makes perfect sense if you follow on the heels of et als in good standing.  Of course ancient people squished their toes in corpse dripping.  They had to get stinky feet somewhere.  Of course they spoke in incantation.  That's what primitive superstitious people do.

 

But thermal anomalies, complex pyramid shapes, precision vases, and none of the evidence support dogma so the solution is to ignore it, quit looking for more evidence, and don't publish the results of nearly decade old studies using century old technology.  I don't understand how smart people can possibly support Egyptological findings,  Egyptological methodology, or Egyptology itself. 

The Adena, Hopewell and Koens-Crispin made precision atlatl weights.

The Koens-Crispin made precision ocean going canoes whose wave breaking prow design can't be improved and  is used on USCG pursuit craft.

It's about having a good eye. Not about religious beliefs. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Piney
brain fart

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

The Adena, Hopewell and Koens-Crispin made precision atlatl weights.

The Koens-Crispin made precision ocean going canoes whose wave breaking prow design can't be improved and  is used on USCG pursuit craft.

It's about having a good eye. Not about religious beliefs. 

But again, this is more than just a "good eye" though as the evidence shows not just implied use but the physical use of tooling.  

#55

Quoting Petrie again:

...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops. The diorite bowls and vases of the Old Kingdom are frequently met with, and show great technical skill. One piece found at Gizeh, No 14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centring, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centrings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface. Another detail is shown by fragment No 15; here the curves of the bowl are spherical, and must have therefore been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed centre while the bowl rotated. This centre or hinging of the tool was in the axis of the lathe for the general surface of the bowl, right up to the edge of it; but as a lip was wanted, the centring of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc, and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl. That this was certainly not a chance result of hand-work is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off, as would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking the curves.

#73

The same can be said of larger stone work as well, Abu Roash for example:

 

[cormac mac airt]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

It's remarkable how people and Egyptologists can ignore this or just shrug it off. 

What’s really remarkable is how you tried to promote a lie about your nonexistent mutation, then didn’t understand the interconnectedness of the Broca’s Area with Wernicke’s Area nor even the location of the Broca’s Area. You also didn’t know the brain damage Otzi experienced that was found 10 years ago was to THE BACK OF THE HEAD, That’s NOT where Broca’s Area is located. And all of that to support the fantasy that you understand AE language. You should be a standup comedian, you’re nearly there already. 
 

cormac

[cladking]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

What’s really remarkable is how you tried to promote a lie about your nonexistent mutation, then didn’t understand the interconnectedness of the Broca’s Area with Wernicke’s Area nor even the location of the Broca’s Area. You also didn’t know the brain damage Otzi experienced that was found 10 years ago was to THE BACK OF THE HEAD, That’s NOT where Broca’s Area is located. And all of that to support the fantasy that you understand AE language. You should be a standup comedian, you’re nearly there already. 
 

cormac

So you believe they can identify the broccas area in 5000 year old tissue and you further believe they did find it and didn't report it!!!

If you don't have evidence then I am not interested.  

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

But again, this is more than just a "good eye" though as the evidence shows not just implied use but the physical use of tooling.  

#55

Quoting Petrie again:

...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops. The diorite bowls and vases of the Old Kingdom are frequently met with, and show great technical skill. One piece found at Gizeh, No 14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centring, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centrings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface. Another detail is shown by fragment No 15; here the curves of the bowl are spherical, and must have therefore been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed centre while the bowl rotated. This centre or hinging of the tool was in the axis of the lathe for the general surface of the bowl, right up to the edge of it; but as a lip was wanted, the centring of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc, and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl. That this was certainly not a chance result of hand-work is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off, as would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking the curves.

#73

The same can be said of larger stone work as well, Abu Roash for example:

 

A lathe isn't that far of a jump from a potter's wheel. If you think about it a NA reed and sand bow drill for drilling out pipes and bannerstones is a simple lathe. Thinking about it now, the AE probably had them. 

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, cladking said:

So you believe they can identify the broccas area in 5000 year old tissue and you further believe they did find it and didn't report it!!!

If you don't have evidence then I am not interested.  

They know where the Broca’s Area is located. They also know the brain damage discovered WAS NOT where the Broca’s Area is located. And no, they DO NOT have to slice a persons brain in sections to see whether the Broca’s Area exists, that’s just asinine even for you. They wouldn’t report it if it WASN’T missing, abnormal or damaged. 
 

cormac

[Piney]

7 minutes ago, cladking said:

So you believe they can identify the broccas area in 5000 year old tissue and you further believe they did find it and didn't report it!!!

If you don't have evidence then I am not interested.  

"Broca area" and why wouldn't they considering it's location? At the Windover Pond "wet site" the brains of Archaic Indians were almost complete and they are about 7,000 years old. 

[cladking]

It is impossible to make a lathe with the materials known to be available to the Egyptians that can create tolerances in the thousandths of an inch. 

It is simply not possible.  

It is established fact that the casing stone was placed on G1 with "optical" precision but this doesn't mean they used stone pounders and bronze chisels. 

I'm going to attempt to bring this back to "osirisn" because there is a great deal more evidence about the nature of horus, atum, osiris, and the dead king.  Showing the meaning of the compound "gods" like "osirisn" is far too complex for this thread chiefly because you must first understand the natures of the "gods" (natural phenomena) before considering combinations.  

The justified king (a mummified king whose heart had already been used to calibrate equipment) was a natural phenomenon and represented by the pyramid under construction and a star.   He merely had to prove his heart was no heavier or lighter than a feather to become "justified".  This dead king (living in their eyes) also became the source of the water (atum) that created the primordial mound (nb-wt.t) and was creating the pyramid (N).   As such he was "atum N" which we know only as "osirisn".  

These were remarkable people who lived till they died and even then lived.   Interpreting their culture in terms of the "book of the dead" is a grave disservice.  

[cladking]

6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

They know where the Broca’s Area is located. They also know the brain damage discovered WAS NOT where the Broca’s Area is located. And no, they DO NOT have to slice a persons brain in sections to see whether the Broca’s Area exists, that’s just asinine even for you. They wouldn’t report it if it WASN’T missing, abnormal or damage

Ever hear of contrecoup injury?  

You don't know.  You think you know but you don't know what the condition of any area of the brain was other than the wound which was marked by a little blood.  

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

Ever hear of contrecoup injury?  

You don't know.  You think you know but you don't know what the condition of any area of the brain was other than the wound which was marked by a little blood.  

The injury hasn’t been determined to be a coup or contrecoup injury and in either case would not remove the Broca’s Area of the brain from the brain itself. You should really stop using words or concepts you know nothing about it works against you every time. 
 

cormac

[Piney]

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

Ever hear of contrecoup injury?  

You don't know.  You think you know but you don't know what the condition of any area of the brain was other than the wound which was marked by a little blood.  

I should. I was a fire-rescue and IRC medic for 30 years.

And just because your brain slams into the side of your skull doesn't make that part disappear. Just mucks up the function. 

Otzi's blow was to the back of the head. Not the side where the Broca area is. 

[Piney]

26 minutes ago, cladking said:

It is impossible to make a lathe with the materials known to be available to the Egyptians that can create tolerances in the thousandths of an inch. 

It is simply not possible.  

You can achieve those tolerances with a bow drill or any other circular cutting device as long as it's mounted.

And how is a lathe more complexed than a pottery wheel? 

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

The justified king (a mummified king whose heart had already been used to calibrate equipment) was a natural phenomenon and represented by the pyramid under construction and a star.   He merely had to prove his heart was no heavier or lighter than a feather to become "justified". 

 

When in their history did they introduce the concept of the weighing of the heart, and show evidence of when you think this occured.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Showing the meaning of the compound "gods" like "osirisn" is far too complex for this thread chiefly because you must first understand the natures of the "gods" (natural phenomena) before considering combinations.

No, it is not "far too complex for this thread" as the majority of posters actually know something about the AE, it is however far too complex for you to understand, not least because you do not want to understand, and are clearly incapable of understanding. Dozens of times you have been shown that there is no god by the name of "Osiris N", which you curiously render as "osirisn", and then call it a compound. Well, it is if you manipulate transcriptions, transliterations and translations to suit yourself. Perhaps you can explain why the formula "osirisn" does not exist, just as "Osiris N" in hieroglyphs does not exist. Be careful when/if you answer that you don't strangle yourself with your own twisted string of lies.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Wepwawet

[cladking]

25 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

When in their history did they introduce the concept of the weighing of the heart, and show evidence of when you think this occured.

This isn't recorded just as virtually nothing else is recorded either.  There does exist the invention of the "min" which Egyptologists believe is a "god" holding its penis that is recorded on the Palermo stone as "the birth of min" probably about 2850 BC.   The dating is based on the great pyramid construction and C14 dating so is somewhat tentative.  This device was used to load the dndndr-boat overseen by nephthys.  This was tied to isis' boat and constituted the "Bull of Heaven" which lifted the stone. The Bull of Heaven was the linear funicular that went to and fro maintaining maat (balance) at all time.  This balance was checked at the beginning of the season by placing the king's heart in the dndndr-boat and a feather in the 3nw-boat.  Of course it wouldn't really move if the king's heart didn't weigh as much as a feather but the leaders could be sure it would move if they believed the king was unjust or a poor king.  If the boats stayed in balance the king was "justified" and the pyramid under construction became his pyramid, his mnemonic, the king himself.  This was the origin of the weighing of the heart ceremony but later superstitious people were confused and misunderstood Ancient Language because they had NO SCIENCE WHATSOEVER to understand anything. 

Osiris oversaw the ceremony for later people   because atum was dead. They threw the heart into the muck that accumulated in the winding watercourse before the first purification of the year when atum stood again in the uplands bringing the violent inundation  at the w3g-festival and green to the eye in the midst of the field. The purification filled the reservoirs and flushed the awful and stinky things that had accumulated in the watercourse.  If the king were not justified (the funicular moved) they continued building the pyramid but it would be the next king's pyramid, not the king who just had his heart tossed from the scale into the foul water and Lake of Reeds below.   

It is unknown exactly when this ceremony changed from being literal and the incarnation of "atumn" to being confused into "osirisn".  There is evidence that other structures were made with linear funiculars that pre-date the great pyramids and it is apparent that such a device may have been used at Hatnub as well.  Egyptology doesn't study anything scientifically so there's no data to tell.  It was certainly the means by which Khafre was justified but before this there is only speculation.  It appears in multiple places in the PT so I'd guess it goes back even before writing was invented.  The Egyptians expected quality out of their kings,.  If they weakened or did stupid things they practiced regicide and got a better king.  But a great king who was removed because he grew too old to succeed the Heb Sed might still be "justified" if the people loved him.  Kings were cremated so they could ascend to heaven on the smoke of incense.  It's all in plain English right in the pyramid Texts.  

[Wepwawet]

5 minutes ago, cladking said:

This isn't recorded

 

So I cut a lot of smoke and mirrors from your reply so as to concentrate on the question I asked you, being when did the weighing of the heart ceremony appear. As a reminder, you said this "He merely had to prove his heart was no heavier or lighter than a feather to become "justified". As you abhor any of their texts after the PT, then, and in context with the rest of your post, and all your posts on the PT, I think it reasonable to assume that your statement that I quote refers to the PT, even if you say it "isn't recorded". If it isn't recorded, why then use this ceremony to, "prove your point", if you don't know when it first appeared, not least because it might have first appeared long after the PT.

Stating that "This isn't recorded" is an unwise thing to do, why, because with all texts there is a first known example, and the first known example of the weighing of the heart ceremony appears in Coffin Texts in the Middle Kingdom, and the first illustration of the ceremony does not appear until the "Book of the Dead" in the New Kingdom. So while you rant on against using texts later than the PT, you've done just that, why, because you just don't know enough. I did warn you not to strangle yourself with your own twisted string of lies, and you went ahead and did just that, well done, and you did this again, again, again, again.......

 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

No, it is not "far too complex for this thread" as the majority of posters actually know something about the AE,

I wager you didn't even read the last post far less understood it.  "Atum N" is both "the Natural Phenomenon of Violent Inundation" but also "The Natural Phenomenon of N".   "Atum N"/ "osiris N" are a perspective from which both are the same exact thing.  This is also true for "horus sr/ horus jr" and "re/  midday re"  any two phenomena can be seen from a perspective that includes them both.  

Trying to show this in detail is simply too complex for the thread but the takeaway here is that "osirisn" is an entity composed of two phenomena.  In this case "osiris" usurped the place of atum because atum died and no more great pyramids could be built.  This is why Pepis, Unas', etc pyramids are tiny little piles of rubble: Atum literally died and was literally replaced by osiris.  If we had Khufu's PT this would be far more apparent but we might be talking about the meaning of atumn instead.  

Is any of this clear?  Did anybody actually read nit and try to understand?  

[Wepwawet]

6 minutes ago, cladking said:

I wager you didn't even read the last post far less understood it.  "Atum N" is both "the Natural Phenomenon of Violent Inundation" but also "The Natural Phenomenon of N".   "Atum N"/ "osiris N" are a perspective from which both are the same exact thing.  This is also true for "horus sr/ horus jr" and "re/  midday re"  any two phenomena can be seen from a perspective that includes them both.  

Trying to show this in detail is simply too complex for the thread but the takeaway here is that "osirisn" is an entity composed of two phenomena.  In this case "osiris" usurped the place of atum because atum died and no more great pyramids could be built.  This is why Pepis, Unas', etc pyramids are tiny little piles of rubble: Atum literally died and was literally replaced by osiris.  If we had Khufu's PT this would be far more apparent but we might be talking about the meaning of atumn instead.  

Is any of this clear?  Did anybody actually read nit and try to understand?  

But I did read all your post, and what I read was a heap of tales made up by you pretending to understand the meaning of translations of the PT, and this really no longer needs to be dissected point by point, particularly when you are incapable of discussion because your mind is sealed tighter than a ducks derriere.

This reply from you does not even address my post at all, you have simply blanked it out I think, but I'll make the point again. You have used as an example to "prove your point" a ceremony that did not enter into the records in text form until the Middle Kingdom, and not in illustrated form until the New Kingdom in the "dreaded" Book of the Dead. Therefore, as you have always stated that their texts after the PT are not of any value to understanding the PT, you are a hypocrite for doing exactly that.

[cladking]

10 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Stating that "This isn't recorded" is an unwise thing to do, why, because with all texts there is a first known example, and the first known example of the weighing of the heart ceremony appears in Coffin Texts in the Middle Kingdom, and the first illustration of the ceremony does not appear until the "Book of the Dead" in the New Kingdom.

Did you read my post?

The weighing of the heart was done even before the invention of writing.   The idea that was literal like EVERYTHING that had existed  in Ancient Language became confused.  The authors of the book of the dead believed the weighing of the heart was metaphoric and symbolic like everything in confused language like we speak.  They took what they "knew" about the weight of the heart and put it in their own language because Ancient Language CAN NOT BE TRANSLATED to confused language.  It was logical, digital, and agreed with the laws of nature as humans understood the laws of nature.  

Essentially these are at least two distinct ceremonies.  The first applies to what "osirisn" in the Pyramid Texts means and the second applies to nothing except a later book about dead and dying written in confused language.  

Egyptologists can't see that the Pyramid Texts existed long before the book of the dead and that it is not dependent on it.  This is the very source of their horrendous and illogical methodology.  So long as they impose their beliefs derived from the "book of the dead" as well as the confused language from every et al and the book of the dead then it's impossible to see the Pyramid Texts in terms of itself.  It must be solved ONLY ibn terms of itself because later language is a different kind of language into which it is IMPOSSIBLE to translate the PT.  

The methodology is non sequitur.  It does not follow to understand a work only in terms of something else from 1000 years later.  Everything had and has been stood on its head.  Egyptology used poor methods for understanding the pyramids and their builders so they arrived at the wrong conclusions.  The physical evidence and literal meaning of the words of the builders are unmistakable.  "Osirisn" was a placeholder for an older concept (atumn) that reflected "tefnut making the earth high by means of her arms".  Osiris min his name of seker towed the earth by means of balance.  It was maat that built the pyramids and seker who sat in the henu-boat as a manifestation of sekhmet.  They worked together to build a new body for the king that might live eternally as a pyramid and a star.  This is what the PT says over and over consistently and coherently but Egyptologists parse the literal meaning out of it.  

The pyramid is the king raised from the primordial mound.