Ancient Reality

[Truly Enlightened]

Cladking

Every time you open your mouth, you prove my points. I actually read the words you put in the sentences that sound meaningful, but have no real connection or relationship with each other. You use the language as a tool to create a perception of truth, by making incoherent statements using unrelated terms and poor sentence structure. These are called nonsense sentences. Such as, "The horse raced past the barn fell", or, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", or "Everyday a grape licks a friendly cow". All gibberish, and all nonsense. Shall I post the list of your similar sentences?

I haven't even finished this sentence yet.

Beavers and ancient humans were not "self-consciously aware". They don't (and didn't) experience "thought" at all. If you asked one if they existed you'd get a blank stare. Indeed, you couldn't ask an ancient because the question would break the laws of grammar and they lacked the vocabulary.

Now you are just in denial, and shifting the context of your comments. Just like you did when I corrected your "Broca's -Language error. You obviously now realize just how silly your comments sounded. Being consciously aware(passive) and having thoughts(active), are two different concepts you are trying to conflate. Even a child knows that Beaver's don't invent dams, so it is good that you've come to now realize this. Or that animals don't create their own habitat, they simply adapt to it. What are the rules(not laws) of grammar that you would break by asking an ancient(?) anything? How does their lack of vocabulary break the rules of grammar? Again, I don't expect a direct answer to this gibberish. I've always wanted to ask you, is there consciousness without language? And why, or why not?

When you say ancient language, what exact ancient language do you mean? And, unless you know ALL the words, combinations of words, and the words omitted from the "Ancient" language, then you don't have a clue to what words are not represented in the language. Do you? Especially, since you claim that the language can't be translated at all. More nonsense, and Trump-logic. When you speak of PT, do you mean that the symbols in Hieroglyphics are not phonics? How do the rules of grammar apply to pictorial representations?

When are you going to understand, that no one cares about your baseless critique of Egyptologists, homo omniscience(made up), Ancient ones(made up), your "dead king" gibberish, ramps or no ramps, whether the meek will inherit the earth, human progress or linear reality, or your confused view about "look and see" science agenda? Your avatar is a perfect representation of your method of discourse. It goes nowhere and means even less. You are like the person claiming to own a pink polka dot, homo omniscience, invisible flying dragon, who just can't understand why people would have so many questions. Why can't they just read it and see what I see. EVIDENCE PLEASE.

What experiments did you use to confirm your beliefs? More science hypocrisy. What is the evidence that I've missed? And please, no default evidence, they are all fallacious. What is this logic and evidence that I am ignoring? If it is just your contention that make-believe things are fascinating, then we're done here. You are a curiosity at best, and an example of why ignorance is not always bliss at worst. I think that posting on any science thread will always require more than just the assertion of objective evidence to support any claim. Your views might be more suitable on hundreds other threads where the assertion of evidence is enough.

So unless you are willing to directly address any of my questions(or others) without nonsense caveats, or provide objective evidence to support your claims, then your ideas are just your opinions, and nothing more. Never be afraid of the truth, it will set you free.

 

[cladking]

"The horse raced past the barn fell"

If I had actually typed such a sentence then your mind should recognize it as an error and corrected it;

"The horse racing past the barn fell"

Or maybe a mere typo; "The horse racing past the barn which fell"

Or maybe there's a flower known as "barn fell". "The horse raced past the barn fell."

I don't know. You made it up out of thin air. Why don't you show me one of sentences you don't understand and I'll fix it and/ or explain it.

Some people are very poor at this. It is the reader/ listener's job to deconstruct a sentence in context so it makes sense. Any sentence can not make sense or make sense depending on the recipient. Just remember I'd rather you not understand a sentence than to understand it incorrectly. This is why my sentences get so convoluted. ...well... ...this, and I ain't no writer.

I use unusual sentence structure to try to force the reader to follow my points. Without it they would probably have deconstructed it wrong anyway so it little matters when I lose somebody.

How many times do I have to say and in how many ways do I have to say that there was a single digital, universal, worldwide, metaphysical, and unparseable human (homo sapien) language before everyone takes the meaning? Most people aren't even trying to understand me so so what that I lose some.

 

[cladking]

. You obviously now realize just how silly your comments sounded. Being consciously aware(passive) and having thoughts(active), are two different concepts you are trying to conflate.

Let me render this sentence in AL; . You ... now ... just how ... your comments .... / ... ... ... and having ... are two different ... you are trying to ...

It's rare I see so many referents that are impossible to translate in a single sentence. This is what most Egyptological sentences look like after removing such words as well. I only point this out because no matter how many ways I try to deconstruct it I can not figure out to what you are referring.

Even a child knows that Beaver's don't invent dams,

Yes. This is what we teach them. But even if we didn't teach them this they would still have the tools of language which suggest animals aren't even "human" and only we are intelligent. They'd still see birds living in trees and moles under the yucky dirt.

 

[cladking]

What is this logic and evidence that I am ignoring?

ALL OF IT.

We could start with the gravimetric scan or the fact water flowed away from the great pyramids. I'm sure I've mentioned the foreign sand and vaterite.

We can't even get past the fact that no words exist for belief or thought, categories, taxonomies, or myriad other modern words. I feel like the poor Egyptologist who has to explain to tourists that the pyramids couldn't have been built with lost high technology because there is not only no evidence for the technology but no evidence for how it was invented nor the metaphysics required.

Again ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND ALL EXPERIMENT SUPPORT MY THEORY. My theory makes accurate prediction because good science "prophesizes". Bad science creates mysteries.

How odd I find the proof of ancient low technology yet I am dismissed as a wooster crank without even considering the argument, evidence, or logic. How ironic my theory explains all the mysteries but people don't care. What we really are looking at is ruins of the pyramids and the ruins of the infrastructure that built them but people CHOOSE to see HOLY RELICS and SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE instead.

 

[cladking]

The words “thought” or “belief” don’t have to appear in the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts, to have “thought” or “belief”, or to have a religion.

Have you actually tried to think this through? How does an individual think up beliefs and faith with no words for belief or faith? How do two individuals get together and invent religion with no words for religion? I can't imagine how this would be possible or where to start.

Can you provide an outline for such a religion without pointing at the Pyramid Texts that you BELIEVE is religion and magic? After you invent it how do you communicate it to people who lack the vocabulary?

Simply claiming and believing the PT is religion doesn't make it so.

 

[cladking]

You are being ridiculous, especially when you consider that many of the gods do appear in the Pyramid Texts, as well as in the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts and New Kingdom Book of the Dead, as well as many extant papyri of non-funerary nature.

And I have PROVEN Egyptology uses flawed methodology to understand the PT and the so-called "gods" that Egyptologists invented with it. Try to keep up with me here.

They don't understand the words in the Pyramid Texts in the context of the PT. There is no experiment to show the "gods" in the PT are the same gods from the book of the dead which they used to interpret and translate the PT. This is bad methodology on a Biblical scale. This is proven over and over and over again. I believe the most dramatic instance is "rennenutet". This is the feminine principle that was was invoked to keep the mks-sceptre afloat. It channeled CO2 from the upper eye of horus to the Nurse Canal. This real meaning is wholly unknown to Egyptologists because they never even tried to solve it in context. It's not really relevant exactly what the renennutet really was. What is relevant is that renennutet was mentioned three times in the PT (twice by the scientific term and once by the vulgar). In no instance is there sufficient context to show that this word meant the same thing to the authors of the PT and the authors of the book of the dead. Yet they still translate the word as being an imaginary stinky footed goddess!!!! How bad does their methodology have to be before anyone can say that king has no clothes?

It's FAR WORSE vis a vis physical evidence. Infrared theory is some 150 years old and imaging has been possible for nearly a century. It has been commercially available for more than 80 years but Egyptology has never even published infrared studies of any pyramids so that other Egyptoplogists can vote on what it all means!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a "science" where reality is voted on by peers yet they are withholding data from peers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can they ever vote properly without information?

How will the rest of us know what's real until they take the vote?

Egyptology is quickly becoming irrelevant to understanding the pyramids and soon enough they will be seen as irrelevant even to linguistics. A house divided against itself can not stand and Egyptologists live in a very shaky house.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Cladking

"Reality is digital; either it exists or it does not". They are neither, since we have not decided if quantum particles are real enough to encode information at all. Are the particle's discreteness(digital) in reality simply the Fourier transform of compactness? Or is the Quantum field(analog) reality simply a mathematical construct? A word with no referent wouldn't be necessary if we saw reality digitally.". Meaningless gibberish. "Your ability to see that from some perspective, no two things exist does not seem to exist.". Meaningless gibberish. "It is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is. It doesn't matter how anything came to be because it is what it is.". Double talk, nonsense and more gibberish. "Egyptologist don't care about testing and nobody noticed that "science" oscillates as fast as some pendulums.". "So Look and See Science was born and "peer review" was added to reality itself.". "Even the specific electrons that are flowing through your monitor matters because every electron is different. If you get a heavier one instead of a light one it will cause two galaxies to collide in a billion years.". This is just confusing and incorrect. All electrons are the same, and no evidence suggest they alone causes galaxies to collide. "We don't have digit higher brain functions because we have to translate reality itself into models and beliefs.". More nonsense without evidence. "Most people aren't even trying to understand me so so what that I lose some.". Just gibberish.

These quotes were taken from only 3 of your posts. Imagine how many nonsense and gibberish sentences I can quote from all your posts. Although I don't think being confronted with your own quotes will have any effect on your lack of integrity, intellectual honesty, or your hidden agendas. This one is my favorite nonsense sentence in response to "Even a child knows that Beaver's don't invent dams". "Yes. This is what we teach them. But even if we didn't teach them this they would still have the tools of language which suggest animals aren't even "human" and only we are intelligent. They'd still see birds living in trees and moles under the yucky dirt.". Pure nonsense.

It is just arrogance and elitism to assume people must have poor comprehension skills if they can't deconstruct the gibberish you make up. Why should they bother? Do you think you should have a responsibility to your readers, to make sure that your thoughts and ideas be as clear and as unambiguous as possible? I personally believe that you just make up this nonsense to get attention, and use gibberish to control and deflect any questions that ask for evidence. Also, it is irrational and inconsistent to think, that by making your sentences MORE convoluted, that this would help people to understand your thoughts even better.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a "gravimetric scan, or scanner", except in science fiction. Exactly what would we be scanning? Spacetime, or a Graviton? You cannot scan the force of Gravity, you can only calculate it. Water flows away from the Great Pyramids? If all water flowed towards the pyramids, that would be interesting. Foreign sand and vaterites? No ancient words were used to describe modern words? Evidence, or sheer nonsense? Maybe you can explain these other debunked claims?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/no-really-there-is-no-secret-code-in-the-pyramids-17662247/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lasCXujNPfs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52V9jmrgSbI

I'm afraid I have no idea what PT, ancient language, or why not having a word for "belief" would be evidence for no belief at all. I have no idea why any of this is significant to life. And, I certainly have no idea what your specific scientific(experimental) theory really is. Or what predictions you can make? But since you are never going to provide any evidence supporting any of these claims, I'm not going waste any more of my time asking for any. But don't let that stop you from continuing to claim that you have evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Cladking

"Reality is digital; either it exists or it does not". They are neither, since we have not decided if quantum particles are real enough to encode information at all. Are the particle's discreteness(digital) in reality simply the Fourier transform of compactness? Or is the Quantum field(analog) reality simply a mathematical construct? A word with no referent wouldn't be necessary if we saw reality digitally.". Meaningless gibberish. "Your ability to see that from some perspective, no two things exist does not seem to exist.". Meaningless gibberish. "It is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is. It doesn't matter how anything came to be because it is what it is.". Double talk, nonsense and more gibberish. "Egyptologist don't care about testing and nobody noticed that "science" oscillates as fast as some pendulums.". "So Look and See Science was born and "peer review" was added to reality itself.". "Even the specific electrons that are flowing through your monitor matters because every electron is different. If you get a heavier one instead of a light one it will cause two galaxies to collide in a billion years.". This is just confusing and incorrect. All electrons are the same, and no evidence suggest they alone causes galaxies to collide. "We don't have digit higher brain functions because we have to translate reality itself into models and beliefs.". More nonsense without evidence. "Most people aren't even trying to understand me so so what that I lose some.". Just gibberish.

These quotes were taken from only 3 of your posts. Imagine how many nonsense and gibberish sentences I can quote from all your posts. Although I don't think being confronted with your own quotes will have any effect on your lack of integrity, intellectual honesty, or your hidden agendas. This one is my favorite nonsense sentence in response to "Even a child knows that Beaver's don't invent dams". "Yes. This is what we teach them. But even if we didn't teach them this they would still have the tools of language which suggest animals aren't even "human" and only we are intelligent. They'd still see birds living in trees and moles under the yucky dirt.". Pure nonsense.

It is just arrogance and elitism to assume people must have poor comprehension skills if they can't deconstruct the gibberish you make up. Why should they bother? Do you think you should have a responsibility to your readers, to make sure that your thoughts and ideas be as clear and as unambiguous as possible? I personally believe that you just make up this nonsense to get attention, and use gibberish to control and deflect any questions that ask for evidence. Also, it is irrational and inconsistent to think, that by making your sentences MORE convoluted, that this would help people to understand your thoughts even better.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a "gravimetric scan, or scanner", except in science fiction. Exactly what would we be scanning? Spacetime, or a Graviton? You cannot scan the force of Gravity, you can only calculate it. Water flows away from the Great Pyramids? If all water flowed towards the pyramids, that would be interesting. Foreign sand and vaterites? No ancient words were used to describe modern words? Evidence, or sheer nonsense? Maybe you can explain these other debunked claims?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/no-really-there-is-no-secret-code-in-the-pyramids-17662247/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lasCXujNPfs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52V9jmrgSbI

I'm afraid I have no idea what PT, ancient language, or why not having a word for "belief" would be evidence for no belief at all. I have no idea why any of this is significant to life. And, I certainly have no idea what your specific scientific(experimental) theory really is. Or what predictions you can make? But since you are never going to provide any evidence supporting any of these claims, I'm not going waste any more of my time asking for any. But don't let that stop you from continuing to claim that you have evidence.

My laptop is slow, and has been playing up, so I don’t watch much videos, particularly YouTube on it.

But that link from the smithsonianmag article does seem to apply to cladking, his with all Egyptologists hiding evidences, his “Ancient Language” conspiracy theories, and his nonsensical and nonexistent “homo omnisciencis”, is the one seeing patterns that are not there.

 

[sooda]

If I had actually typed such a sentence then your mind should recognize it as an error and corrected it;

"The horse racing past the barn fell"

Or maybe a mere typo; "The horse racing past the barn which fell"

Or maybe there's a flower known as "barn fell". "The horse raced past the barn fell."

I don't know. You made it up out of thin air. Why don't you show me one of sentences you don't understand and I'll fix it and/ or explain it.

Some people are very poor at this. It is the reader/ listener's job to deconstruct a sentence in context so it makes sense. Any sentence can not make sense or make sense depending on the recipient. Just remember I'd rather you not understand a sentence than to understand it incorrectly. This is why my sentences get so convoluted. ...well... ...this, and I ain't no writer.

I use unusual sentence structure to try to force the reader to follow my points. Without it they would probably have deconstructed it wrong anyway so it little matters when I lose somebody.

How many times do I have to say and in how many ways do I have to say that there was a single digital, universal, worldwide, metaphysical, and unparseable human (homo sapien) language before everyone takes the meaning? Most people aren't even trying to understand me so so what that I lose some.

You have it backwards. its the speakers responsibility to make what he's saying understood.

 

[sooda]

Have you actually tried to think this through? How does an individual think up beliefs and faith with no words for belief or faith? How do two individuals get together and invent religion with no words for religion? I can't imagine how this would be possible or where to start.

Can you provide an outline for such a religion without pointing at the Pyramid Texts that you BELIEVE is religion and magic? After you invent it how do you communicate it to people who lack the vocabulary?

Simply claiming and believing the PT is religion doesn't make it so.

Apparently they were communicating here:

Pyramid Texts - Wikipedia

 

[sooda]

Cladking

"Reality is digital; either it exists or it does not". They are neither, since we have not decided if quantum particles are real enough to encode information at all. Are the particle's discreteness(digital) in reality simply the Fourier transform of compactness? Or is the Quantum field(analog) reality simply a mathematical construct? A word with no referent wouldn't be necessary if we saw reality digitally.". Meaningless gibberish. "Your ability to see that from some perspective, no two things exist does not seem to exist.". Meaningless gibberish. "It is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is. It doesn't matter how anything came to be because it is what it is.". Double talk, nonsense and more gibberish. "Egyptologist don't care about testing and nobody noticed that "science" oscillates as fast as some pendulums.". "So Look and See Science was born and "peer review" was added to reality itself.". "Even the specific electrons that are flowing through your monitor matters because every electron is different. If you get a heavier one instead of a light one it will cause two galaxies to collide in a billion years.". This is just confusing and incorrect. All electrons are the same, and no evidence suggest they alone causes galaxies to collide. "We don't have digit higher brain functions because we have to translate reality itself into models and beliefs.". More nonsense without evidence. "Most people aren't even trying to understand me so so what that I lose some.". Just gibberish.

These quotes were taken from only 3 of your posts. Imagine how many nonsense and gibberish sentences I can quote from all your posts. Although I don't think being confronted with your own quotes will have any effect on your lack of integrity, intellectual honesty, or your hidden agendas. This one is my favorite nonsense sentence in response to "Even a child knows that Beaver's don't invent dams". "Yes. This is what we teach them. But even if we didn't teach them this they would still have the tools of language which suggest animals aren't even "human" and only we are intelligent. They'd still see birds living in trees and moles under the yucky dirt.". Pure nonsense.

It is just arrogance and elitism to assume people must have poor comprehension skills if they can't deconstruct the gibberish you make up. Why should they bother? Do you think you should have a responsibility to your readers, to make sure that your thoughts and ideas be as clear and as unambiguous as possible? I personally believe that you just make up this nonsense to get attention, and use gibberish to control and deflect any questions that ask for evidence. Also, it is irrational and inconsistent to think, that by making your sentences MORE convoluted, that this would help people to understand your thoughts even better.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a "gravimetric scan, or scanner", except in science fiction. Exactly what would we be scanning? Spacetime, or a Graviton? You cannot scan the force of Gravity, you can only calculate it. Water flows away from the Great Pyramids? If all water flowed towards the pyramids, that would be interesting. Foreign sand and vaterites? No ancient words were used to describe modern words? Evidence, or sheer nonsense? Maybe you can explain these other debunked claims?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/no-really-there-is-no-secret-code-in-the-pyramids-17662247/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lasCXujNPfs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52V9jmrgSbI

I'm afraid I have no idea what PT, ancient language, or why not having a word for "belief" would be evidence for no belief at all. I have no idea why any of this is significant to life. And, I certainly have no idea what your specific scientific(experimental) theory really is. Or what predictions you can make? But since you are never going to provide any evidence supporting any of these claims, I'm not going waste any more of my time asking for any. But don't let that stop you from continuing to claim that you have evidence.

A gravicmeteric scan is a star treck word.

 

[cladking]

A word with no referent wouldn't be necessary if we saw reality digitally."

You're not trying to understand. This statement was made in context of "star" and the fact that no two things are alike. Therefore the word "stars" has no referent; ie there is no such thing as "stars". Not, there are no such thing as stars because this is a relic of our language here. "There is no such thing as "stars". Ancient Language used a stated perspective in every sentence defined by the colloquial word chosen. We never define the perspective in most instances. We say "fire" which can mean almost anything from "this building is on fire" to "light my cigarette", to "shoot the prisoner". We expect to be understood in context and many people have died because of the confusion. Even when I clearly spell out context there is still confusion. There is no way to avoid confusion in modern languages because any attempt to force a proper deconstruction simply adds more words to be parsed wrong.

We don't even notice when a conversation is about different topics or messages are relayed so badly that the original meaning is wholly changed. We each take a different meaning and then we rarely notice. And then people die because of the confusion. It goes on and on but it's easier to deflect, ignore, and misunderstand than to consider or do something.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a "gravimetric scan, or scanner", except in science fiction.

This has been posted before;

H. D. Bui

It is virtually sufficient to prove my theory. It shows a five step pyramid indicating stones were pulled up the" height of heaven" ("3b3w")(81' 3") successively to each step top but it is misinterpreted because everyone believes in ramps. Across the board the evidence clearly show the use of linear funiculars operated by horus, isis, nephthys, osiris, seker... et al but we see ramps and stinky footed bumpkins dragging stones up them.

I simply don't know what words to use. I try one after another but they all add up to something people choose not to be able to see. They add up to something that shakes beliefs and shows us to be no smarter than beavers and little more industrious. They show that people used to be a different species that was in tune with nature and had a very sophisticated science that we can never understand (but we can program a computer with it).

I keep asking what words would you use but I get no answers because people don't want the truth when it conflicts with their precious models and beliefs.

 

[sooda]

Let me render this sentence in AL; . You ... now ... just how ... your comments .... / ... ... ... and having ... are two different ... you are trying to ...

It's rare I see so many referents that are impossible to translate in a single sentence. This is what most Egyptological sentences look like after removing such words as well. I only point this out because no matter how many ways I try to deconstruct it I can not figure out to what you are referring.



Yes. This is what we teach them. But even if we didn't teach them this they would still have the tools of language which suggest animals aren't even "human" and only we are intelligent. They'd still see birds living in trees and moles under the yucky dirt.

Beavers do build dams.. they can chew down enough piney woods to dam a rivulet until it Becomes a a creek and floods a few acres so the piney woods die.

 

[cladking]

My laptop is slow, and has been playing up, so I don’t watch much videos, particularly YouTube on it.

But that link from the smithsonianmag article does seem to apply to cladking, his with all Egyptologists hiding evidences, his “Ancient Language” conspiracy theories, and his nonsensical and nonexistent “homo omnisciencis”, is the one seeing patterns that are not there.

For the tenth time, there is NO CONSPIRACY other than whatever conspiracy you are imagining.

The CLOSEST thing I see to a conspiracy is a few individuals in charge of Giza refusing to do science and then withholding data from ALL EGYPTOLOGISTS.

One could claim that all the Egyptologists having the data withheld and not complaining or raising hell is a conspiracy. BUT I DON'T CLAIM THIS. I claim humans (including Egyptologists) are not smart so they don't know better than not complaining or calling in the press that wouldn't print real news anyway. The press was bad enough with entertainment and yellow journalism BEFORE the educational system failed. Now it's not just their readers who are ignorant (and not intelligent) but themselves as well. They wouldn't know a news story if it bit them on the nose. If their noses were bitten clean off they wouldn't run the story anyway.

YOU IMAGINE conspiracies. I don't believe anything important can be kept quiet by more than a single individual. You keep imagining conspiracies but please include me out.

 

[cladking]

This is simple enough; we take things at face value. We see what we believe and incorporate this into our consciousness and, if necessary, tweak our beliefs. We don't wonder that we see through solid glass or know nothing more about gravity than ancient people because "It is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is. It doesn't matter how anything came to be because it is what it is." This is our "understanding" and we don't see the complexity of reality because it is what it is and we all know not even experts can predict the future. WHY CAN"T THEY PREDICT EVEN THE SIMPLEST THINGS? Why can't they even agree on what just happened? Why don't Egyptologists comment on the thermal anomaly which they now take for granted because it is what it is.

You probably can't understand the explanation either because your models tell you I'm a flake so there's no need to try to deconstruct my sentences so they make sense. You can't reply on the topic of this post so you won't. Your response is highly predictable. You just keep using words that don't apply to what I say because what I say goes against your beliefs so you can't understand them. You know for a fact that the ancient Gods are proof of superstition and it doesn't matter how we know what "renennutet" is. You know that you understand the PT so it doesn't matter it's a book of incantation. You know what you know what you know and you even know that your species' name should be capitalized: homo omnisciencis describes us all perfectly and differentiates us from the pyramid builders who knew nothing at all but saw reality directly in terms of simple axioms and a 40,000 year old science.

And the hell of it is, if there's something in this post you do understand and disagree with you won't say so.

 

[cladking]

"Egyptologist don't care about testing and nobody noticed that "science" oscillates as fast as some pendulums.".

I guess you missed the several times I said that Egyptology won't run simple tests on the pyramids and it took me years of badgering them before they used century old science called infrared pictures before they did it. And then they refused to release the results. They ignore all science that has been done. When real science suggests the pyramids are actually 300 years older than their assumption they simply dismissed it with a wave of the hand. This is a pattern of behavior but no one faults them because people are afraid of the pyramid. On some level most people know that archaeology and Egyptology are all wrong. Anthropology is is a construct formed by opinion and Egyptology.

 

[sooda]

20 Facts You Thought Were True But Aren't - Part 19
storyforme.com/20-facts/19
19. The Truth About The Egyptian Pyramids . Slaves did not build the pyramids, this ancient construction job was considered a great honor granted only to the respected laborers, who remain entombed near the site today, according to the Egyptologists.

 

[cladking]

20 Things Egyptologist Think are True But Aren't - Part 19
storyforme.com/20-facts/19

19. The Truth About The Egyptian Pyramids . Slaves did not build the pyramids, this ancient construction job was considered a great honor granted only to the respected laborers, who remain entombed near the site today, according to the Egyptologists.

19. Slaves, laborers, and stinky footed bumpkins are nowhere in evidence at Giza. Indeed, few men, women, and children were needed so there is a cemetery that reflects this fact and a tiny little village where the skeleton workforce lived according to the actual physical evidence.

The concept of superstitious people made strong by a shared belief in the impossible is not even logical. There is no physical evidence to support the idea that a savage and brutal means was used to build pyramids. There were never 100,000 men dragging about stones. The reality is it was built by a crew smaller than an average 3500 men, women, and children who shared equally in the workload. All of the physical evidence is in strict agreement with what the builders actually said about building pyramids as disclosed in the Pyramid Texts. Meanwhile Egyptologists believe the Pyramid Texts is unrelated to pyramids and is representative of their primitive beliefs, despite the fact the word "belief" was unknown to the builders!

 

[cladking]

19. Slaves, laborers, and stinky footed bumpkins are nowhere in evidence at Giza. Indeed, few men, women, and children were needed so there is a cemetery that reflects this fact and a tiny little village where the skeleton workforce lived according to the actual physical evidence.

The concept of superstitious people made strong by a shared belief in the impossible is not even logical. There is no physical evidence to support the idea that a savage and brutal means was used to build pyramids. There were never 100,000 men dragging about stones. The reality is it was built by a crew smaller than an average 3500 men, women, and children who shared equally in the workload. All of the physical evidence is in strict agreement with what the builders actually said about building pyramids as disclosed in the Pyramid Texts. Meanwhile Egyptologists believe the Pyramid Texts is unrelated to pyramids and is representative of their primitive beliefs, despite the fact the word "belief" was unknown to the builders!

What Egyptologists believe are not facts. They are conclusions drawn from interpretation seen in the light of their assumptions. The reality is there are no stone draggers, ramp builders, or any other occupation at Giza related to Egyptological conclusions. This is a fact. All the evidence fits a different pattern which is why they buried "Sculptors" but not one single "quarry worker" or "rock carver". It's really simple. All you have to do is have limited reading comprehension and read the PT in context;

1128a. To say: It is certainly not N. who asks to see thee
1128b. in the form which has become thine;
1128c. Osiris asks to see thee in the form which has become thine;
1129a. it is thy son who asks to see thee in the form which has become thine;
1129b. it is Horus who asks to see thee in the form which has become thine.
1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones,
1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;
1130c. when thou sayest, "his beloved son is coming," in the form which had become that of "his beloved son"
1131a. they (the "statues") transport Horus; they row Horus over,

Yes. My reading comprehension is quite limited.

Egyptologists have no reading comprehension at all.

Modern beliefs are shaped by language and what we choose to believe. We want to believe superstition makes people strong because we are all highly superstitious. The reality is superstition kills and any strength we have is derived from reason (modern science) or ancient science. We would be far more powerful without the superstition. And not so wholly near-sighted.

 

[gnostic]

You know what you know what you know and you even know that your species' name should be capitalized: homo omnisciencis

Again, this “homo omnisciencis” don’t exist. You are the only person i know that use this pseudoscience species.

And second, you don’t capitalize the species, you should only capitalize the genus.

For instant, the human “Homo sapiens”, you would capitalize the genus “Homo”, and you don’t capitalize species “sapiens”. It isn’t written as “homo sapiens” or “homo Sapiens” or “Homo Sapiens”; all 3 of these examples are wrong.

You wouldn’t also capitalize any subspecies in the name, so the modern human (as a subspecies) would be written like this “Homo sapiens sapiens”.

The correct writing conventions is to only capitalize the genus, not the species or the subspecies. The first word used is always the name of genus, eg Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc.

Look, cladking. I have never being a biology student but even I know how to use the correct writing convention on biology taxonomy.

You need to go back to school at least learn the basic biology writing conventions. Each branches (biology, chemistry, physics, maths, etc) in science, have their own convention, their own terms or vocabulary and their definitions, just as people studying laws or studying engineering do.

So if you are going talk about species, then the least you can do, is use the proper conventions.