Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Are the pyramids really tombs or are the experts wrong
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:

Show your workings for your assertions.


Simply stated I understand the Ancient Language because I solved it. It required tens (even hundreds) of thousands of google searches to identify the meanings of the words in the Pyramid Texts. It took me years and it’s an ongoing process but I now understand more than 90% of each sentence and 75% of the “paragraphs” we call “utterances”.

This was really incredibly simple and anyone with a computer could have done it. You just read it over and over until meanings start to emerge and then you solve words in terms of this. One of the very first words I solved was “shu”. In Ancient Language “shu” meant “upward” or “natural phenomenon of the normal force”. There is no perfect translation because it’s impossible to translate from a natural language into our languages. We believe “Shu” was an imaginary consciousness that controlled the air and wind. This is wrong. Every word in AL had exactly a single meaning and every thing had three words. “Shu” was the category of words used when “upward” was the subject of the sentence. Shu meant upward everywhere it appears in the PT because every word had one meaning.

Even if I’m completely right it hardly means that whatever M found can’t also be right. If I’m wrong M can be correct as well. I believe it is only by everyone comparing notes that we’ll ever know anything at all about the pyramid builders and the mysteries they left.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
I, nor anybody on a forum such as this dealing with reality, needs to answer to you, as it is beholden to you to provide the evidence that will upset accepted facts.


You speak of “accepted fact” as though there is some sort of proof the pyramids were tombs and then instead of evidence we are presented with architectural observations and lack of any direct evidence of any sort.

Meanwhile I can show exactly why there’s no direct evidence they were tombs: They weren’t tombs. The builders said repeatedly and coherently that the pyramids were the king and not his tomb. This is consistent with my understanding of the language which says the pyramids were a mnemonic to remember the dead king by day and a star assigned to him was the mnemonic to remember him by night.

They always covered all their bases and always did things the easy way. This explains not only why they literally said the pyramids weren’t tombs but it also explains the physical evidence and is consistent with logic and the so called laws of nature.

Of course it’s “accepted fact” the pyramids were tombs but accepted fact has been shown to be wrong all through history.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:


A little bit more should be there already. Otherwise, maybe you just found your own religion, with believers who do not question?


My points are being brushed aside or explained away. A rebuttal to an argument is not proof. A different interpretation still doesn't explain why the language breaks Zipf's Law and why Egyptologists never even noticed it.

How did they never even notice there was no infrastructure in language for thought and belief? These are simple facts that can't be brushed aside as though I haven't said it repeatedly.

Science took a bad turn in the 19th century and we're still suffering the effects. Nobody can see what we don't expect and Egyptologists expect tombs dragged up ramps by highly superstitious people who were just like the authors of the "book of the dead".
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 374

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cladking, you are as usual flashing mirrors and throwing up a cloud of smoke in an attempt to hide the fact that you have no evidence to present. You are the one making these bizarre assertions therefore it is for you to provide evidence, but you will not because you have nothing. I'm not going to debate with you point by point as you have a mind completely closed to evidence and common sense. Please, go back to the cesspit of the GH forum and take the troll of a thread starter with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 374

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And for god's sake, if you won't read Hornung or Assmann, at least read "The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt" by Richard Wilkinson, particularly the part about Shu, no, all of it, very carefully, and then "Giza and the Pyramids" by Lehner and Hawass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
You are the one making these bizarre assertions therefore it is for you to provide evidence...


EXACTLY what bizarre assertions are this?

You can’t show they had a single word that meant “thought’ or a single one that meant “belief” so you are merely making the claim I must be wrong. Why not show the builders didn’t say the king was the pyramid, they had taxonomic words, and knew the meaning of belief instead of trying to paint my argument as “bizarre” and me as a crank?

Did ya' ever notice how the gravimetric scan simply proves that they built pyramids the easy way by pulling stones up one step at a time just like they said in the Pyramid Texts? I could see this because I wasn't expecting something else. All the evidence and all the logic support the literal meaning in the PT and you call my interpretation "bizarre". Maybe what's truly bizarre is a mountain of evidence that includes nothing to show that pyramids were tombs. What's bizarre is that Egyptology is married to an idea they can't prove or show and that flies in the face of logic.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
And for god's sake, if you won't read Hornung or Assmann, at least read "The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt" by Richard Wilkinson, particularly the part about Shu, no, all of it, very carefully, and then "Giza and the Pyramids" by Lehner and Hawass.


I'm quite familiar with Egyptological beliefs and assumptions. I don't disagree through ignorance, I disagree because I believe they are completely wrong.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4174
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
... I disagree because I believe they are completely wrong.

Why then do you use the work / translation by Egyptologists for your, in friendly words, strange ideas?
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 374

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Ikon wrote:
And for god's sake, if you won't read Hornung or Assmann, at least read "The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt" by Richard Wilkinson, particularly the part about Shu, no, all of it, very carefully, and then "Giza and the Pyramids" by Lehner and Hawass.


I'm quite familiar with Egyptological beliefs and assumptions. I don't disagree through ignorance, I disagree because I believe they are completely wrong.

I would really really like to see you "take apart" any Egyptologist, let alone such giants as Assmann and Hornung. the "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt" was first published in 1971 by Hornung, and do you know why it is still in print and widely used and referred to? It's because he knows what he's talking about, he is an expert, that means a person who has devoted themselves to the subject as has mastery over it. You and the rest of the fringe despise experts in the subject, yet pretend that it is you who are the "real" experts, what arrant nonsense, you are you trying to kid here. This crap may pass muster on GH, but not here, and you are wasting your time trying. You want to be taken seriously, then stop using the terms, Egyptologist, expert and orthodox as terms of abuse, and start providing your evidence, that's real evidence, not just you saying something is so, which is what you always do and try to turn this back on the person asking for your evidence. It's you who are making assertions against the orthodox view, it is you who should back up you assertions, which are utterly bizarre, all of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
You and the rest of the fringe despise experts in the subject, yet pretend that it is you who are the "real" experts, what arrant nonsense, you are you trying to kid here.


Does Hornung or Assman actually address my arguments anywhere in their monumental works? Do they explain why they believe the pyramids are tombs despite the lack of direct evidence? Do they explain why there were no words of belief or thought and why the builders said the pyramids were not tombs?

Of course they don't and they never noticed the language breaks Zipf's Law. They have their interpretations that are ultimately based on the"book of the dead". I've got logic and evidence.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
...yet pretend that it is you who are the "real" experts, what arrant nonsense, you are you trying to kid here...


Nonsense.

I do not claim to be any kind of expert at all. Egyptologists are the experts.

But Egyptologists are wrong and I know because I solved the PT. They still believe it is incantation but in actuality the PT are just the ritual read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies.

I've got the evidence on my side. The language breaks Zipf's Law because Zipf's Law only applies to languages that are formatted like our languages. It doesn't apply to computer language or Ancient Language.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
cladking wrote:
... I disagree because I believe they are completely wrong.

Why then do you use the work / translation by Egyptologists for your, in friendly words, strange ideas?


They were a starting point.

I don't believe the Ancient Language has ever been translated. Indeed, it can't be translated into any modern language because every utterance had a single meaning and nothing can be said in any modern language that has a single meaning.

Egyptology even misunderstands many of the glyphs like the circle and star is no a hole in the ground full of dead imaginary consciousnesses but rather it is the arm of nut in the sky and "spirits" emanating from it. F46 -F50 are actually links of a chain that went across the pyramid top to lift stones. I could go on but I (and no one else) can translate or can ever translate the language. I can understand it because I modeled it not because it can be translated.

Essentially anyone can understand AL after a fashion because they meant EXACTLY what they said. When they said the king was the pyramid so he can live forever they meant it literally that as the pyramid the king can live in the only way dead things can live; as a memory.

It is we whom are superstitious and have tens of thousands of words to express superstitions. They had none at all. They lacked the very infrastructure of belief.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 374

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Simply stated I understand the Ancient Language because I solved it. It required tens (even hundreds) of thousands of google searches to identify the meanings of the words in the Pyramid Texts.

Can you read Hieroglyphs by yourself?

If so, do you think you have that level of mastery that you can decypher a meaning in the pyramid texts that not a single trained expert egyptologist has yet managed?

Can you provide here hieroglyphs with the orthodox translation, and then your own translations, that's not you making your own interpretation of an existing translation, such as Faulkner's, but your own translation.

Do you really think that any amount of time spent googling a subject equates to actual book learning, lecture learning or being there on site, let's say in the pyramid of Unas reading the hieroglyphs first hand?

Do you have a library extensive enough, and of recognized experts in the subject, to be able to so completely understand them that you can just trash them all, as you have done. Do you even realise how massively arrogant and conceited that is? No, of course not, otherwise you would not make posts in which you set yourself above every egyptologist that lives and has ever lived.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 374

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Ikon wrote:
...yet pretend that it is you who are the "real" experts, what arrant nonsense, you are you trying to kid here...


Nonsense.

I do not claim to be any kind of expert at all. Egyptologists are the experts.

But Egyptologists are wrong and I know because I solved the PT.

So, they are the experts, but they are all wrong and you are right. See my post above...

If you've solved the "riddle of the pyramid texts", where is your peer reviewed paper, ah, I forgot, the fringe don't recognize peer reviewed papers as having any validity. So, where is your book so we can all see your workings, or if no book, a blog where you have published all your work, or even a collection of forum posts that can be compiled so we can see your workings. You see, you or anybody can say that hieroglyph X means something different to what it is known to mean, but you have to be able to go into the intricate details of how you come to this conclusion, and all I see is you saying it is so therefore it is so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 374

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Ikon wrote:
You and the rest of the fringe despise experts in the subject, yet pretend that it is you who are the "real" experts, what arrant nonsense, you are you trying to kid here.


Does Hornung or Assman actually address my arguments anywhere in their monumental works? Do they explain why they believe the pyramids are tombs despite the lack of direct evidence? Do they explain why there were no words of belief or thought and why the builders said the pyramids were not tombs?

Of course they don't and they never noticed the language breaks Zipf's Law. They have their interpretations that are ultimately based on the"book of the dead". I've got logic and evidence.

That post is so insulting and bizarre that it should just not be allowed to stand in this forum. You damn well dare to trash giants when you have nothing but fringe garbage, and that's being very very polite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 3 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group