Ancient Reality

[cladking]

and you are sure of this?....how...

I am sure of nothing.

I know as simple fact that they had no words or synonyms of "belief", "thought", nor taxonomic words. Vast categories of modern vocabulary are not represented in Ancient Language and it breaks Zipf's Law. Apparently this is because they didn't think like Egyptologists think. Ancient Language is just like the computer code that drives the program we are using in that very very few words are needed. As such most of the language was nouns and this is why it breaks Zipf's Law. Egyptologists never noticed any of this because we all see what we expect to see. We see our beliefs preferentially to reality itself.

I believe that animals and ancient man survive by means of consciousness largely because this would explain vast swathes of observation and experiment.

ancient people did not know the word.... belief
but they understood theory?

Yes and no. Mostly "yes" but it should be remembered that a tool defines what job it can do and animal science (ancient science) is distinct from modern science. Our's works on observation > experiment and their's was observation > logic and it only works because the digital animal mind is perfectly logical. The animal brain reflects its wiring which was created by the same natural logic as reality itself. For practical purposes it can be said ancient people modeled reality itself and we model our beliefs.

and we could include a classic scenario.....
eat of the fruit.....and you will not die
even though you have been told that you will

Oddly enough all of Genesis appears to be from the exact same source; ancient science. Eat the fig and you will not die from the perspective of people but you will from the perspective of the serpent.

The primary means by which Ancient Language became confused to modern language speakers is that it had a "floating perspective". Perspective could be redefined with almost every sentence and you must know the grammatical rules to keep up with it. You must know that the language can't be parsed or deconstructed because every word had one fixed concrete meaning and represented its referent in a sentence. A "serpent" was the colloquial word for a flow of fluid and defined the action and perspective of the sentence. Every thing had three words and one defined the subject, one the action, and one the meaning. "Iuasas" was the scientific term for "fluid flow" so defined the subject.

It's hard for people now to even imagine a language that can't be parsed because that's how we communicate. Every word you see here must be defined on a real time basis as you read it or the meaning of this sentence will escape you. This is how modern language works and our brains are programmed by it. Hence we must think in one dimension. Ancient people thought differently and from their perspective they didn't even experience "thought" at all. For most practical purposes "thought" is the process of comparing sensory input to our models and beliefs. They had no models and no beliefs. Their language was a manifestation of reality itself as they understood it based on a few simple axioms and 40,000 years of "animal science".

Language became increasingly complex because it was metaphysical and fewer and fewer people could understand it until about 2000 BC when the official language was changed to its pidgin form in an event we know only as the "tower of babel".

Reality (amun) has always been hidden from us and only science (real science) can provide glimpses of it.

 

[gnostic]

ALL PYRAMIDS ARE STEPPED. There are "great pyramids" and tiny little piles of rubble that were also probably all stepped but they are piles of rubble (tiny piles) so it's difficult to tell.

There is no such thing as a "true pyramid" and this is just a term invented by Egyptologists to hide the fact that the great pyramids are older than the tiny piles of rubble.

All this BS is anachronism.

The ancient Egyptians NEVER REFERRED ANY PYRAMID AS "GREAT", "TRUE", "STEP",

All these words to denote size or design are all modern contexts and vocabulary.

Any time, they mentioned pyramid, were just called PYRAMID.

Second, I have already mentioned before (older replies), but the only time, anyone mention "Great Pyramid", they are only referring to the pyramid of Khufu in Giza, the largest of the 3.

All other pyramids are not called Great Pyramid. It is just Khufu's pyramid that people called it Great Pyramid.

Modern archaeologists referred to the designs as "step pyramid", "true pyramid", "bent pyramid", etc.

The main differences between these two designs, is that a true-shaped pyramid have exterior limestone facing or cladding, that give it the smooth finish and looks. These facing or cladding tended to erode over time, but there are evidences of them being present, since not all the facing disappeared.

Khufu's father, Sneferu has a pyramid in Dahshur. The Egyptians didn't call it the "Red Pyramid". Archaeologists gave this name to his pyramid, because of the iron oxide that are present in the rocks. Since, there are little inscription within the Giza pyramid complexes, no names were ever given to the designs, shapes or colors of the pyramids.

Khufu's design is based on Sneferu's last pyramid, the Red Pyramid, because it was Sneferu's ingenuity to change from the usual step-type pyramids of the 3rd dynasty.

Anyway, I think your should stopped using conspiracy theories of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval. Neither of them are archaeologists, and all they present are New Age pseudo-archaeology and psuedoscience craps.

I know you are big fan of Hancock and Bauval, because you use the same handle ("cladking") on Hancock-Bauval fansite's blogs.

I just can't believe that you are their fan of these two quacks, but it does explain all the baseless claims you have made.

 

[paarsurrey]

There are no elephants in tea cups and there were no ancient beliefs.

They didn't even have the word "belief" or any of it's synonyms.

This is Proof that there were no ancient beliefs. Semantics are irrelevant. These are verifiable facts stated as tautologies.

One is engaged in the semantics! Isn't it, please?

Regards

 

[sooda]

Quit while you're ahead. Like Kiwais only 400 years old.


Treacherous Waters: A Dangerous Treasure in Lake Kivu ...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/treacherous-waters-a-dangerous-treasure-in...
Treacherous Waters A Dangerous Treasure in Lake Kivu. There is a wealth of methane trapped in a lake in the heart of Africa. Engineers hope to transform the gas from the depths of the lake into ...

Carbonate rock is NOT carbonated water.. So where are these Egyptian aquifer you are talking about?

 

[cladking]

All this BS is anachronism.

The ancient Egyptians NEVER REFERRED ANY PYRAMID AS "GREAT", "TRUE", "STEP",

All these words to denote size or design are all modern contexts and vocabulary.

Any time, they mentioned pyramid, were just called PYRAMID.

Second, I have already mentioned before (older replies), but the only time, anyone mention "Great Pyramid", they are only referring to the pyramid of Khufu in Giza, the largest of the 3.

All other pyramids are not called Great Pyramid. It is just Khufu's pyramid that people called it Great Pyramid.

Modern archaeologists referred to the designs as "step pyramid", "true pyramid", "bent pyramid", etc.

The main differences between these two designs, is that a true-shaped pyramid have exterior limestone facing or cladding, that give it the smooth finish and looks. These facing or cladding tended to erode over time, but there are evidences of them being present, since not all the facing disappeared.

Khufu's father, Sneferu has a pyramid in Dahshur. The Egyptians didn't call it the "Red Pyramid". Archaeologists gave this name to his pyramid, because of the iron oxide that are present in the rocks. Since, there are little inscription within the Giza pyramid complexes, no names were ever given to the designs, shapes or colors of the pyramids.

Khufu's design is based on Sneferu's last pyramid, the Red Pyramid, because it was Sneferu's ingenuity to change from the usual step-type pyramids of the 3rd dynasty.

Again you refuse to discuss any evidence and again you engage in semantics.

You simply refuse to make a distinction between a huge pile of stone that looks like a pyramid and a tiny little pile of rubble that Egyptologists call "pyramids".

Some of these "true pyramids" as pronounced by Egyptologists are mere piles of rubble less than 20' tall. The great pyramids that can't even be seen by Egytologists are as much as 481' high (minus a few courses).

Anyway, I think your should stopped using conspiracy theories of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.

What conspiracy is that? You keep saying I believe in a conspiracy but you are just saying it without basis. And you repeat it without defining it or showing evidence.

I know you are big fan of Hancock and Bauval, because you use the same handle ("cladking") on Hancock-Bauval fansite's blogs.

And you are a fan of Egyptologists so you believe in ramps. You conspire with others to call tiny little piles of rubble "true pyramids".

I am a fan of neither Bauval nor Hancock. Bauval is insightful but I believe he's no really correct. Hancock is even more insightful and could be right about some things. I've read one of Bauval's books and was unswayed. I've read none of Hancock's books but that's probably my loss.

You ignore my argument AND make false statements.

I just can't believe that you are their fan of these two quacks, but it does explain all the baseless claims you have made.

Exactly what "baseless claims" are those? You've never addressed one of my claims that I remember.

 

[cladking]

Exactly what "baseless claims" are those? You've never addressed one of my claims that I remember.

You attack my words. This is called a semantical argument.

You make false statements. This is ad hominin.

You repeat Egyptological belief which I have shown to be a circular argument.

You do not address the point of my posts, the evidence, or the logic.

 

[cladking]

One is engaged in the semantics! Isn't it, please?

Regards

I don't play word games. Please proceed without me.

 

[gnostic]

Some of these "true pyramids" as pronounced by Egyptologists are mere piles of rubble less than 20' tall. The great pyramids that can't even be seen by Egytologists are as much as 481' high (minus a few courses).

You are ignoring history and archaeology that sometimes Egyptian builders will take stones from other structures of previous generations to be used in their own buildings, instead of mining and chipping/carving them into shapes, from different or existing quarries.

You can see that stones been stolen from pyramids, to be reused by someone else’s tombs or palaces. That picture posted up presented as two possibilities:

1. The pyramid was either never completed in construction,
2. or later generations of builders have stolen and reused stones for different structures, including another pyramid.

And you are a fan of Egyptologists so you believe in ramps. You conspire with others to call tiny little piles of rubble "true pyramids".

Once again, you are ignoring that I am neutral about the use of ramp in pyramid building. I have never stated that I have supported the use of ramps. This is a strawman and false statement.

How many times I have to tell you, I have never supported the idea of ramps being used, because I don’t give a bloody sh## about your bloody ramps strawman?

I don’t know how they build it. All I know is that they quarrying the stones, worked them into shapes, before masonry take place.

I don’t know if they use a ramp or not, because I don’t care if they used ones or not.

All I am concern with is the finished structures, not how they were built.

Man, you like to repeat nonsense, false nonsense.

I have never disclosed any Egyptologist sources relating to engineering of construction whom I followed, because I have none. The only sources from Egyptologists that I read are translations of Egyptian literature, be they of funerary or religious nature, and none of them contain any instructions on any structures were built.

I don’t give a sh## if there were ramps or not. Are you so lame that you cannot understand what I am writing?

 

[gnostic]

Again you refuse to discuss any evidence and again you engage in semantics.

You are the one playing anachronistic semantics.

The ancient Egyptians simply called pyramids, regardless if they were shapes step or true or bent. They have never called any pyramid “great”, “red” or any other adjectives.

Calling it Great Pyramid, Red Pyramid, Bent Pyramid or Step Pyramid are modern names used by archaeologists, not used by the ancient Egyptians.

All they might have are names of whose tombs (in the Old Kingdom period, in pyramids or mastabas) it belonged to, inscribed on the walls with their names (most often their Horus names), sometimes within cartouche.

The pyramids of the 5th (Unas) and 6th dynasties (Teti, Pepi I, Pepi II and some queens’ pyramids), at Saqqara, contained funerary texts (Pyramid Texts) on how they appealed to gods for resurrection and ascension.

They are similar to funerary literature of the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts and New Kingdom (and later) Book of the Dead, again appealing to the gods for resurrection and ascension.

These funerary texts contained no building instructions, because there are no ancient construction manuals.

Anyway, applying “great”, “red”, “step”, “bent” to the word “pyramid” weren’t used by ancient Egyptians themselves. These adjectives used with “pyramid” are modern constructs, hence you are playing semantics and using anachronism.

 

[gnostic]

One is engaged in the semantics! Isn't it, please?

Regards

Yes, he is using semantics.

If there were no belief, then why would any funerary text appeal to the gods, like Ra, Shu, Nut, Anubis, Osiris, Isis, Horus, etc.

Just because they don’t used the word “belief”, doesn’t mean they didn’t believe in anything.

It would be pretty stupid of anyone who read verses, utterances or prayers to their gods, and say there are “no ancient belief”.

It just simply false claim in which cladking have been caught doing, playing word games.

In Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, not once they used the word “belief”, but they do pray to their gods and make sacrifices, and sometimes the gods would directly interact with them, but not once did the author explicitly use the word belief.

Does it really matter if “belief” is used or not?

 

[cladking]

If there were no belief, then why would any funerary text appeal to the gods, like Ra, Shu, Nut, Anubis, Osiris, Isis, Horus, etc.

I use evidence and logic to show it's not a funerary text and you IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND LOGIC and then repeat your vacuous claims as though they now are real.

If it's a "funerary text" then why are most of the words in the Pyramid Texts related to life and love rather than death?

Now you'll ignore this and repeat your beliefs and/ or your belief and trust in Look and See Science. Or you'll repeat the nonsense that I believe in a conspiracy you can't even define or name.

You don't even realize you're doing it do you?

Everything is perfectly obvious to you since all you need to do is look and see.

 

[sooda]

You attack my words. This is called a semantical argument.

You make false statements. This is ad hominin.

You repeat Egyptological belief which I have shown to be a circular argument.

You do not address the point of my posts, the evidence, or the logic.

1. In Photos: Beautiful Pyramids of Sudan - Live Science
   https://www.livescience.com/26900-ancient-pyramids-sudan.html
   This aerial photo shows a series of pyramids and graves that a team of archaeologists has been exploring at Sedeinga in Sudan. Since 2009 they have discovered at least 35 small pyramids at the ...
   
   • Author: Owen Jarus
2. Pictures of Sudan's forgotten Nubian pyramids | | Al Jazeera
   https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2015/04/forgotten-pyramids-sudan...
   Pictures of Sudan's forgotten Nubian pyramids. Few visitors make the trek out to Sudan's secluded Nubian pyramids in ancient Meroe, the capital of the Kingdom of Kush.
   

 

[gnostic]

I use evidence and logic to show it's not a funerary text and you IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND LOGIC and then repeat your vacuous claims as though they now are real.

If it's a "funerary text" then why are most of the words in the Pyramid Texts related to life and love rather than death?

Now you'll ignore this and repeat your beliefs and/ or your belief and trust in Look and See Science. Or you'll repeat the nonsense that I believe in a conspiracy you can't even define or name.

You don't even realize you're doing it do you?

Everything is perfectly obvious to you since all you need to do is look and see.

The Pyramid Texts have nothing to do with science. The frequent used of gods indicated it is theological and spiritual in nature, not scientific.

It is a funerary texts for the kings, which often talk of resurrection and ascension, from each of the pyramids, that have the Pyramid Texts inscribed within the chambers.

Despite the size of each monument (pyramids), all the chambers are far too small to serve as either as palace for the rulers, and too small to serve as warehouses to hold grains.

So what other possible purposes could these pyramids served?

Bauval and Hancock thought the 3 large pyramids in Giza were supposed to correlate with the Orion’s Belt. These are nothing more than conspiracy theories.

These two quacks ignored the other hundreds of pyramids in Egypt, which has nothing to do with Orion’s Belt or the Orion constellation, which tells us they seeing far too much in the pattern of the Giza’s pyramids, and have twist them out-of-proportion, with their pseudoscience interpretations.

Why are these Orion’s Belt pattern repeated with the pyramids of Saqqara or those at Dahshur and other places in Egypt?

The 3rd dynasty pyramid of Djoser, is the oldest one, but there are no pattern of Orion’s Belt.

You are no better than Hancock and Bauval, making up things about the Ancient Language, Ancient Science or the bloody Ancient Reality, just another quack theory.

You tell me that people have been misinterpreting the purpose of the pyramids and the texts of pyramids, and yet presented no evidences that substantiated your pseudoscience baseless claims.

 

[cladking]

You tell me that people have been misinterpreting the purpose of the pyramids and the texts of pyramids, and yet presented no evidences that substantiated your pseudoscience baseless claims.

I have debunked ramps, shown the language is misinterpreted, shown Egyptology is wrong and how they went wrong, and proven the builders said the pyramids were the dead kings and not their tombs. Of course just proving Egyptology is wrong came after I rediscovered the reality of pyramid construction and ancient understanding. I was able to show how they are wrong because the builders and the evidence show what is right. Even the methodology of Egyptology has shown to be highly flawed and incapable of coming up with the correct answer.

"Look and See Science" is NOT SCIENCE AT ALL but you are continuing to tell me to look and see instead of presenting actual facts and logic.

I have a tremendous amount of evidence to support my theory but we've barely touched on it because you are just ignoring what has been presented. You CLAIM it doesn't matter how the pyramids were built but I am telling you it DOES MATTER because they used linear funiculars and ACTUALLY SAID JUST THIS, but Egyptologists have exceedingly poor reading comprehension and never noticed. They are good enough translators but they can't read simple ENGLISH.

So again you have simply ignored ALL OF THE EVIDENCE I have presented and gainsaid it.

So what other possible purposes could these pyramids served?

Principally the great pyramids were MNEMONICS to remember the king and human history all the way back 40,000 years to "adam" and "eve" (S3h and Sopd.t) .
Additionally they were industrial sites that were easily transformed into mnemonics. They dried meats and canned foods. They bottled water. They were used as laundries and saw mills. They were used for some and variousa types of recreation. They represented not only the genius of the ancients for future generation but also the might of Egypt to their enemies.

The specific uses of the pyramids varied slightly between each. The Great Pyramid itself (G1) was a time capsule. It is the most important time capsule on the face of the earth. Indeed, it's the most important site on the planet to modern man. Just under the NE corner is all the data we need to redevelop ancient science. There are even tens of thousands of samples and specimens that could be of inestimable value to modern science. There is also the "cheat sheet" to unravel all of 40,000 years of human history almost up to the tower of babel.

The pyramids had other tertiary uses as well but according to their builders NONE WERE USED AS TOMBS. The effort to build them was insignificant.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[cladking]

You CLAIM it doesn't matter how the pyramids were built but I am telling you it DOES MATTER because they used linear funiculars and ACTUALLY SAID JUST THIS, but Egyptologists have exceedingly poor reading comprehension and never noticed. They are good enough translators but they can't read simple ENGLISH.

445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w.
445c. N. is on the way to the place of Seker, chief of Pdw-š.
445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert.

The Egyptians did not build bridges in the desert.

1965c. and how shall he (the dead king) be assembled?
1966a. Then let this copper be brought ------ the ḥnw-boat --- with it.

The Egyptians used boats and copper to build pyramids not dead kings.

450a. He will rebuild N.(the dead king); he will cause N. to live every day.

1376a. The ropes are knotted; the boats of N. are tied together

494a. bring this (boat) to N. Which boat shall I bring to thee, O N.?
494b. Bring to N. that which flies up and alights.

These last two describe a linear funicular. Two boats are tied together and the one laden with stones flies up and alights.

But Egyptologists have the reading comprehension of those who read Dick and Jane books. They're so busy looking and seeing that they don't know what they are seeing.



Every word in the Pyramid Texts is just like these. They all say the king IS THE PYRAMID indeed one line actually is "the dead king is the pyramid". They said over and over and over again that the pyramid IS NOT A TOMB but IS THE DEAD KING. But Egyptologists can only see what they believe to be true in the words.

Now you'll ignore this just as you ignore everything else and pretend it doesn't exist because you BELIEVE that the ancients were changeless and superstitious stumble footed bumpkins who mightta or mustta dragged tombs up ramps. This is the Look and See Science I battle. You have no evidence, no cultural context, and nothing from history to support your beliefs. Your beliefs are illogical because they fly in the face of what many call natural law and known facts.

 

[gnostic]

I have debunked ramps, shown the language is misinterpreted, shown Egyptology is wrong and how they went wrong, and proven the builders said the pyramids were the dead kings and not their tombs.

And you still don’t understand I don’t give a crap if the Egyptians used ramps or not.

No one really know how they built them, the engineering side of pyramid building, and I don’t really care to explore that area. I have told you of the -teenth that argument is strawman, and yet you keep bringing up ramps.

Are you suffer from ADS? Are you illiterate? Or do you simply lack integrity, that you cannot move beyond this bloody ramp strawman?

You keep wanting to talk about ramps, when I don’t, just demonstrate your lack of honesty and integrity. I told you that I don’t advocate ramps being used, but you ignore it anyway. I don’t give a blood sh## that you debunked ramps in pyramid construction, because it was never interest of mine on what tools were used.

I will talk to you about step vs true design, I will talk about the contents of the pyramid texts, but I don’t want to discuss how they were constructed.

Let me tell you one more time:

Stop talking about ramps!​

 

[gnostic]

I have a tremendous amount of evidence to support my theory but we've barely touched on it because you are just ignoring what has been presented. You CLAIM it doesn't matter how the pyramids were built but I am telling you it DOES MATTER because they used linear funiculars and ACTUALLY SAID JUST THIS, but Egyptologists have exceedingly poor reading comprehension and never noticed. They are good enough translators but they can't read simple ENGLISH.

You really think all Egyptologists are English speaking translators?

There are only very few translations in English. Most of the critical or scholarly translations of the hieroglyphs are in German, seconded by French. In English, you can count the number of translation with one hand.

This is another narrow view you have.

 

[cladking]

You really think all Egyptologists are English speaking translators?

There are only very few translations in English. Most of the critical or scholarly translations of the hieroglyphs are in German, seconded by French. In English, you can count the number of translation with one hand.

This is another narrow view you have.

Let me rephrase this.

German Egyptologists can't understand German. Spanish Egyptologists don't understand Spanish and Japanese Egyptologists don't understand Japanese.

What all Egyptologists have in common is that they don't understand Ancient Language, never noticed it breaks Zipf's Law, and never noticed it has no words for "thought" or "belief".

I could spell this out for you every time if you ever replied to my arguments but until then I'll just say they don't speak English or they have poor reading comprehension. There's a lot of this going around.

 

[cladking]

What all Egyptologists have in common is that they don't understand Ancient Language, never noticed it breaks Zipf's Law, and never noticed it has no words for "thought" or "belief".

They also all engage in Look and See Science and actually believe that "peer review" is important in discovering and understanding reality. They think reality is defined by the vote of educated people.

 

[cladking]

Stop talking about ramps!​

I say Egyptologists believe the Egyptians were changeless and stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and you see only ramps.

Mebbe you're the one fixated on ramps.

You're certainly blind to ALL the evidence and logic I cite.


So tell me, confidentially... ...do ya' think they mightta used ramps?