Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Cladking was right - All That Water!


Scott Creighton

Recommended Posts

Cladking has long proposed there was an abundance of water close to the pyramids.

Seems he was right:

https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/the-discovery-of-the-ahramat-nile-branch-a-hidden-ancient-waterwa

IFL Science

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might never get tired of hearing that.  😉

It's kindda old news though. What I find stupendous about it is that for the first time Egyptologists are recognizing that the "Valley Temple" was really a "valley port" and the "Holy Walkway" leading up to the pyramid was actually a "ramp".

Next I expect then to admit that the "Mortuary Temple" was really a "mason's shop".  

 

After that mebbe the "Pavement of the Holy Precinct" could be a "reference point" or even the "ssm't-apron" that held several acre feet of water. 

The sky is the only limit to a linear funicular.  

 

Miracles do happen.

Edited by cladking
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing that revolutionary, since canals were already posited leading from the nile to the general area and the khufu branch was identified over a year ago. This is, however, unless I'm misreading, a former pert of the nile located in the valley, so unless it flowed uphill to the pyramids and back down again like something out of One Piece, it has little bearing on clad's pet project, the point of which being for water to do the lifting rather than having to be lifted.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Nothing that revolutionary,...

Not to put too fine a point on it but remember every couple years they announce it has been discovered how the pyramids were built. Most of them have me in stitches but the funniest was when they discovered  a few years back that if you put enough water on sand that it's easy to drag stones up dunes. This was invented just to save the Valley Temple from the profane fait of having been a port. Everything at Giza has always been holy, sacred, blessed. or consecrated. There's no infrastructure or sign of construction because every technique was magical or religious.  These didn't leave physical evidence but only a pyramid that is no more and no less than Petrie described. It's the world's first miracle cast in 6 1/2 million tons of tomb dragged up ramps.  

It's a tiny step from seeing a port that could handle vast amounts of stone and supplies with a "ramp" that could take them right to the pyramid to the realization that ALL the physical evidence is related to how the pyramids were built.  If the Mortuary Temple can be polluted by masons (Sculptors) then it can't be too long until they notice the king's body was said by the builders to have been burned meaning the pyramid can't possibly be a tomb. 

Reality has a funny way of falling into place one little bit at a time especially when it has been  misapprehended for so very very long.  

Sure this has been known a long time and I've mentioned right here on this site many many times but we don't see things piecemeal, we have to see them all at once. It might be interesting to note as well that almost all known CO2 geysers are adjacent to rivers.  

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Cladking has long proposed there was an abundance of water close to the pyramids.

Seems he was right:

https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/the-discovery-of-the-ahramat-nile-branch-a-hidden-ancient-waterwa

IFL Science

SC

He said there were CO2 geysers on the Giza Plateau - there isn't any evidence that there were - the Nile being closer was theorized long before and these fine fellows just provided the evidence that the suspicions were true. Moving water up from the Nile to run his magic funicular would have been a remarkable waste of effort. So, seems you are wrong.

Brilliant idea: Since you are desperately searching for some idea to propel yourself in Fringe Gurudom why don't YOU write a book on his brilliant theories? He too smart to waste his time doing so but why don't you? LOL

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Yeah… this article doesn’t say what you claim it does. Shocking, I know. But to you 2+2 always equals 138. 

On a side note, you deciding to randomly crawl out from under the bed just to drop this nugget of dog poop in front of everyone in some lame attempt to defend Cladking is just plain weird. Do you owe him money or something?

He' s hoping against hope this will give him a chance to spew out all his ideas again.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Yeah… this article doesn’t say what you claim it does.

Of coursew it does.  And if Egyptology ever puts two and two together they'll figure out all of the caves at Giza (that the pyramid builders named "Mouth Of Caves" were not only created by water but connect to deep aquifers.  Indeed, maybe some day they'll even run simple modern analysis of the water and even use proper sampling techniques but I'm not holding my breath what with Zahi obsessed with the air shafts and drilling holes in everything.  

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

He said there were CO2 geysers on the Giza Plateau - there isn't any evidence that there were

As long as there's an argument about what caused all that erosion downhill and the floods 9imn the workers village there's certainly no possibility any of caused by carbonic acid.  Everyone knows everything and neither Denny nor Schoch believe in geysers so it can't be anything else.    Despite the facts there are cisterns that were filled only by running water downhill from G2 there's no reason to believe that there was actually running water or that any running water that did exist wasn't the result of magic or bucket brigades.  Water tight enclosures around all the great pyramids were obviously not designed to hold or channel water because it's already known these were tombs in a desert that had no water.  Never mind that there is water erosion in canals leading downhill from the pyramids mere feet away because nobody believes there was water.

Never mind that osiris was called "cool effervescent water" b6y the very people who made the pyramid who also said he stood and tossed an inundation in the middle of June right at the Mouth Of Caves.  

As long as all the facts and evidence is ignored there can be no evidence for water.  

 

Yes!  This information has been available for a very long time and was instrumental in reverse engineering the pyramids.  Knowing that stones could be transported from the Turah Mines right to the base of the structures is key to interpreting all the evidence.  From this it follows that the Mortuary Temple is a mason's shop and from here the stones mustta gone straight up the side. If all they were doing is shaping the stones they would have done it down by the river and sent the stones up0 a ramp rthat led to the top of the pyramid rather than the bottom.  All of this is really painfully obvious once you see it.  Until you do see it you only see sacred, holy, and magic.  

There was no religion and no magic except in the eyes of those who can't see infrastructure.  

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cladking said:

Of coursew it does.  And if Egyptology ever puts two and two together they'll figure out all of the caves at Giza (that the pyramid builders named "Mouth Of Caves" were not only created by water but connect to deep aquifers.  Indeed, maybe some day they'll even run simple modern analysis of the water and even use proper sampling techniques but I'm not holding my breath what with Zahi obsessed with the air shafts and drilling holes in everything.  

You insisting it does doesn’t make it so.

You’re immersed in your own fantasies.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

You insisting it does doesn’t make it so.

You’re immersed in your own fantasies.

Yep, he lives in a fantasy land of his own making. Best to just let hm scream by himself.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

 

++You insisting it does doesn’t make it so.

We can agree with that!

Now can we agree that your denying it doesn't make it false? 

 

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2023 at 3:25 PM, Scott Creighton said:

Cladking has long proposed there was an abundance of water close to the pyramids.

Seems he was right:

https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/the-discovery-of-the-ahramat-nile-branch-a-hidden-ancient-waterwa

IFL Science

SC

I'm not convinced he "predicted" it. 

This map has been around for many years and shows that the Nile flowed near the pyramids during that time period:
https://brilliantmaps.com/nile/

How The Nile Has Changed Course Over The Past 5,000 Years

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I'm not convinced he "predicted" it. 

Yes.  This is old information.  

 

What's different is that I knew all along there was no "Valley Temple"  and it was actually a port.  It appears Egyptology now agrees.  

 

There was no magic or religion and they didn't even have any abstractions in the language. 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2023 at 12:51 AM, Oniomancer said:

Nothing that revolutionary, since canals were already posited leading from the nile to the general area and the khufu branch was identified over a year ago. This is, however, unless I'm misreading, a former pert of the nile located in the valley, so unless it flowed uphill to the pyramids and back down again like something out of One Piece, it has little bearing on clad's pet project, the point of which being for water to do the lifting rather than having to be lifted.

Remember back around 2013 when the University of Amsterdam announced they had discovered how the pyramids were built and turned out it was "wet sand".  ROFL. Instead of profaning the "Valley Temple" with vast amounts of tura cladding stones passing through or allowing the "Holy Walkway Causeway" to be a funicular track and stone storage media they had stones being delivered to the workers barracks. When I pointed out that there are no ports with no roads they invented (voila) wet sand.  

It is (or at least would be) very revolutionary for Egyptology to admit the builders mightta actually needed infrastructure to build the pyramids and all this infrastructure had names perhaps like Ro She Khufu perhaps that might be best translated as "The Port of the Mnemonic Khufu".  The word "ramp" doesn't only not appear in the Pyramid Texts it's not even attested in the language.  The causeways are mentioned but none specifically just generically as the "Ladders of Set'. All the infrastructure can be found not only in the Pyramid Texts but also in ruins.  

The biggest surprises await discovery in the "Winding Watercourse" though the Knsti-Canal (at G1) has been destroyed in modern times. Even the air shafts are mentioned!

Edited by cladking
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I'm not convinced he "predicted" it. 

Scott is just being dishonest to start trouble. His nonsense has nothing to do with it and the Giza part of the branch has been known about for a long time. 

Quote

This map has been around for many years and shows that the Nile flowed near the pyramids during that time period:
https://brilliantmaps.com/nile/

Discussed several times: On the Waterfront: Canals and Harbors in the Time of Giza Pyramid-Building

1-fcb1f8e2e9.jpg

Nothing new as this was understood since at least the first early 19th century topographical maps if not earlier:

czNmcy1wcml2YXRlL3Jhd3BpeGVsX2ltYWdlcy93

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

His nonsense has nothing to do with it and the Giza part of the branch has been known about for a long time. 

Yet Egyptologists up until now have said that they mustta used ramps and the Valley Temple" was sacred.  

Not many agree that the causeway was a ramp that led to the mason's shop at the bottom of the pyramid and then every single stone went straight up the side.  That Mortuary Temple wouldda been a busy place what with all those saws operating and stones whizzing by in every direction.  

 

Everything you need to know is in plain sight.  That the valley ports are right on the river os a dead giveaway. Oh, no, wait...there were no dead and no tombs.  It was all about life and was called the House of Life.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

1-fcb1f8e2e9.jpg

Nothing new as this was understood since at least the first early 19th century topographical maps if not earlier:

 

Let me say this another way.  

Sure it was known but Egyptologists didn't put two and two together.  One valley port and one ramp to the pyramid plus one Great Saw Palace and one pit to load boats  equals no ramps to drag stones up pyramids.  

This is very simple.  

It would follow that whatever means was used to lift loads of stones straight up the side would also be even more effective for lifting stones from the quarry and the valley port.  

This is more than simple arithmetic it is the simplest way to build pyramids using ancient technology and ancient materials.  

The real problem for Egyptology right now is to explain why the lowest uneducated laborer could see this while the kings that run Egyptology are stuck on ":they mustta used ramps".  It's like the boy who cried "the kings have no clothes".   The boy didn't have better vision, more training, nor was he more intelligent.  He simply wasn't blinded by a belief in the kings' fine new clothes.  Now instead of covering up I wager they'll take more bows.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cladking said:

Yet Egyptologists up until now have said that they mustta used ramps and the Valley Temple" was sacred.  

Not many agree that the causeway was a ramp that led to the mason's shop at the bottom of the pyramid and then every single stone went straight up the side.  That Mortuary Temple wouldda been a busy place what with all those saws operating and stones whizzing by in every direction.  

 

Everything you need to know is in plain sight.  That the valley ports are right on the river os a dead giveaway. Oh, no, wait...there were no dead and no tombs.  It was all about life and was called the House of Life.  

Horse****.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cladking said:

Let me say this another way.  

Sure it was known but Egyptologists didn't put two and two together.  One valley port and one ramp to the pyramid plus one Great Saw Palace and one pit to load boats  equals no ramps to drag stones up pyramids.  

This is very simple.  

It would follow that whatever means was used to lift loads of stones straight up the side would also be even more effective for lifting stones from the quarry and the valley port.  

This is more than simple arithmetic it is the simplest way to build pyramids using ancient technology and ancient materials.  

The real problem for Egyptology right now is to explain why the lowest uneducated laborer could see this while the kings that run Egyptology are stuck on ":they mustta used ramps".  It's like the boy who cried "the kings have no clothes".   The boy didn't have better vision, more training, nor was he more intelligent.  He simply wasn't blinded by a belief in the kings' fine new clothes.  Now instead of covering up I wager they'll take more bows.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Scott’s using you for flame bait and you’re so desperate for attention you’re letting him do it. Get some dignity ffs. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Scott’s using you for flame bait and you’re so desperate for attention you’re letting him do it. Get some dignity ffs. 

Or maybe Scott Creighton is looking for answers no matter where he may find them and knows they won't be in the narrative. 

I'm to the point that I tend to write off whatever Egyptologists believe because the only interest is in the status quo.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to deny the "Valley Temples" just happen to be in the ideal spot for a port for every great pyramid and they're each connected with a ramp?! 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The_Spartan said:

looks like it is a monologue.

He does that a lot he had several long running threads at Graham Hancock where he posts to himself - hundreds of posts. He has abandoned most of them as he now seems to concentrate on modern politics. https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1143658,

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2023 at 12:51 AM, Oniomancer said:

This is, however, unless I'm misreading, a former pert of the nile located in the valley, so unless it flowed uphill to the pyramids and back down again like something out of One Piece, it has little bearing on clad's pet project, the point of which being for water to do the lifting rather than having to be lifted.

 

There are actually numerous ways water can perform work. Because it is heavy its weight can be used but this heaviness also allows its motion to be used to perform work. The Pyramid Texts even refers to capillary action as in an oil lamp like the mks-sceptre;

1659a. Horus has given the gods to thee; he has caused them to ascend to thee, as (reed)-pens,

1659b. that they may illuminate thy face (cheer thee) as temples.

 

 

...and refers to the hydraulic cycle as well;

 

 

1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.

...

1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;

1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;

 

Many of the characteristics of water were known and utilized by the pyramid builders who even employed the buoyancy of water  to get stones across the Nile River from the Turah Mines.  Much of what they knew is "alluded" to in the Pyramid Texts but is unseen by modern eyes because we think differently.  Indeed, it is the buoyancy of water that is the very subject of this thread.  If water weren't buoyant and boats  pulled downhill by moving water there would be no need for harbors in the "Valley Temple" and, of course the pyramid could not exist.  

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.