How did the Egyptians build the pyramids?

[cladking]

And 2^7 = 128 and so it continues. Deepity

Well, if you were an Egyptologist you'd cringe. My understanding is medical doctors until recently used this symbol for Rx's but I might have misunderstood.

32/ 64 + 16/ 64 + 8/ 64 + 4/ 64, + 2/ 64 + 1/ 64 = 63/ 64 so one 1/ 64th is missing. I found it in Ancient Language because they said 1.56% of the water drips from the eye of horus drips on the tuft of the dn.w-plant.". 3% is lost to evaporation. 6% is used for dust suppression, 13% is used to pull stones from the quarry. 25% is used in the main pyramid funiculars. And 50% is used in the cliff face counterweights.

The dn.w-plant grows around various leaks in the system. In a desert water is life because the sun always shines. Just as consciousness is life in a desert water is life that attracts living plants and animals. It brings green to the eye in the midst of the field. They depicted the water source which meant "life".

The top is the rainbow that encircles the primeval mound which is the mound of creation and calcium carbonate deposited by carbonic axcid as CO2 comes out of solution. The horizontal section is the horizon which was defined as the land up out of the Nile Valley where sunrise and sunset could be seen. The lower part are the waters of the abyss (nun) or what we would call the CO2 saturated water beneath the ground.

Posts like this are really hard on Egyptologists because on some level they know i must be right.

 

[Pogo]

You just can't even imagine a world where the Bible is more accurate than scientific consensus. This is because we know everything except that science is based on a bunch of 19th century assumptions that are false. We are not the Crown of Creation and ancient people were not stinky footed bumpkins. The Bible is based on ancient science not silly superstitions. We'll probably never be able to deduce most of it but it is mostly based on fact and verifiable evidence. It is difficult to understand because the authors copied it from ancient texts that couldn't be translated. They tried to preserve the meaning but this was impossible since they didn't know the meaning.

Nor Lord of the Rings or Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. They all have truth in them but no, I am not going to massage the messages into some form of forcefit explanation of reality.

 

[gnostic]

Nah Graham is cool and leaves room for doubt and allt of his stuff is based on gacts and oberavarjona and patterns not glorified egl

Hancok is a journalist, not a historian, nor an archaeologist.

The “his stuff” is only very superficially “based on facts”…

I hated it when people use the phrases, like “based on fact”, “based on true story”, or “based on science”.

What “based on…”, there may be a bit of truth or even science, but the rest that “are added to” the fact, are most likely of dubious or suspect or even of fictitious nature.

Take for instance, Shakespeare wrote some plays of historical figures, like Julius Caesar or Richard III, which are “based on true stories”, however not everything in his plays are true, as he clearly added lines that he had invented himself, for literary dramatic effects.

it is the same with Hancock. Some of it, what he wrote may be based on facts, but many speculations and claims, that are clearly misrepresentations of those facts.

Fact, like science, required observed evidence - to verify that it is true. Archaeology, deal with physical sites and objects, hence they relied more on archaeological evidence, more so than they would rely on “written history”. Archaeological evidence can confirm or debunk written history.

That’s not what Graham Hancock or Robert Bauval have been doing. Hancock and Bauval are just making claims that have not been verified, and cannot be verified. Hancock and Bauval have twisted a lot of the facts, to suit their storyline, to profit from their book sales. They are exactly the people that give archaeologists and historians bad image.

Archaeology, history and science, all require some means of verification.

So, IF YOU ADD “something” like a claim ON TOP OF THE FACT, then you will need to verify this claim itself with evidence too. So, if you cannot verify the claim, then such a claim is nothing more than speculation or assumption.

And if you were to add a new hypothesis ON TOP OF ACCEPTED SCIENCE (an “accepted science” is actually a well-tested and verified “scientific theory“), then you would have TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS (itself), to find out whether a hypothesis is true or false, and that means more observations are required - more evidence, more experiments & more data.

And what Hancock has written in his books, are largely speculative claims, assumptions he has dreamed up…any facts that are there, are misrepresented.

Do you know what are “misrepresentations of facts“, IamYourYahaweh?

They are MISINFORMATION!

Misinformation is the basis of all pseudoscience, pseudohistory, pseudosrchaeology. Add one piece of truth, sandwiched in between pieces of lies.

Unverified claims, speculations & assumptions, are not facts, IamYourYahaweh.

 

[Pogo]

Well, if you were an Egyptologist you'd cringe. My understanding is medical doctors until recently used this symbol for Rx's but I might have misunderstood.

32/ 64 + 16/ 64 + 8/ 64 + 4/ 64, + 2/ 64 + 1/ 64 = 63/ 64 so one 1/ 64th is missing. I found it in Ancient Language because they said 1.56% of the water drips from the eye of horus drips on the tuft of the dn.w-plant.". 3% is lost to evaporation. 6% is used for dust suppression, 13% is used to pull stones from the quarry. 25% is used in the main pyramid funiculars. And 50% is used in the cliff face counterweights.

The dn.w-plant grows around various leaks in the system. In a desert water is life because the sun always shines. Just as consciousness is life in a desert water is life that attracts living plants and animals. It brings green to the eye in the midst of the field. They depicted the water source which meant "life".

View attachment 100189

The top is the rainbow that encircles the primeval mound which is the mound of creation and calcium carbonate deposited by carbonic axcid as CO2 comes out of solution. The horizontal section is the horizon which was defined as the land up out of the Nile Valley where sunrise and sunset could be seen. The lower part are the waters of the abyss (nun) or what we would call the CO2 saturated water beneath the ground.

Posts like this are really hard on Egyptologists because on some level they know i must be right.

And stupid chemistry teachers.

 

[cladking]

Nor Lord of the Rings or Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. They all have truth in them but no, I am not going to massage the messages into some form of forcefit explanation of reality.

I think this may be the problem. You're expecting their words to fit YOUR reality but they don't. They fit Ancient Reality. They fit a different way of seeing reality than science or religion. It's a logical way of seeing reality in terms of human needs, human consciousness, and human conditions.

I keep calling is "science" for lack of a better term. But it's not like our science based in observation and experiment but rather it is based in consciousness and a "scientific" perspective derived from humanity. I also keep pointing out the differences between homo sapiens and homo omnisciencis and this ,might be a mistake as well because we have so much in common. Even though they didn't experience thinking and we don't experience consciousness they still thought and we still have consciousness. They had a scientific perspective and we have a scientific perspective usually even if we are more religious than scientific.

I just can't imagine how people can see these words and take the wrong meaning. The very first time I read the PT back in 2006 I knew there was something seriously wrong but I had no clue what it could possibly be. I read it dozens of times until it started making sense and a hundred times before I began understanding a few of the "gods". I believe if someone had told me the solution I came up with after the very first reading I'd have known it was right. Maybe not.

Making sense of stuff that is jumbled up is one of my stupid human tricks. I don't need much data before I start seeing patterns which is why I've always excelled at reverse engineering not only machines but processes and events. The pyramids were right up my alley because at a glance there is little data but when you start researching there's quite a bit of data hidden in bad sources, tomes, and in nook and crannies. Egyptology has done a remarkably poor job of presenting the data. I suppose Dr Lehner has done a little better than most and brought it to the public but a great deal of opinion is presented as the final word.

The simple fact is though that the words of the PT are chiseled in stone and you do the builders a massive disservice when you dismiss their words. When they said the dead king is the pyramid it is incumbent on every reader to parse this so that the meaning is consistent with the words and this same thing applies to the whole work. There is nothing "force fit" and in point of fact I'm saying every single word chiseled in stone s meant literally. It is Egyptology that force fits metaphoric and symbolic meanings that are continually contradicted. It is Egyptology that has meanings with which no two people agree and I say "He is the pyramid" just means the king is changed into the pyramid in a ceremony. They quit referring to his mummy that was just cremated as the king and refer to the pyramid as the king. This is consistent with the names of the pyramid what are things like "Khufu's Horizon" and not one is ever referred to as a tomb by name or by words. They said the king lives because he was changed into a pyramid shaped mnemonic.

It is illogical for us to dispute the words of the pyramid builders when they are consistent, coherent, and chiseled into stone. It illogical to presume these words are riddled with grammatical errors. It is illogical to interpret them in terms of a book from 1000 years later. I have met the force fitters and they are us.

 

[cladking]

And stupid chemistry teachers.

None of the chemistry is very difficult though I admit I needed help from scientists for some of the more complex reactions. Even in my heyday I couldn't have figured all of them out. You can do the math for reactions that don't occur.

 

[Massimo2002]

They used dump trucks and construction cranes.