> I rarely respond to such nonsense from this poster
> because I can predict exactly what the response
> will be; he'll ignore every single point and every
> single question and just return, insults,
> semantics, and illogical non sequiturs.
You respond to me all the time I'm one of the few people who has actually read the majority of your contradictory illogical mess that is your 'ideas'... I point out your errors of logic, lack of evidence and reliance on your imagination to make up stuff you need to make it seem 'plausible'. If so that is what I do.
> They "came to that conclusion" because this was
> what the little tiny imitation pyramids had
> attached to them.
You mean they have a theory about how all pyramids had mortuary temples so G1 had one too? That is what theories do
It is part of their assumption
> that CHANGELESS and stinky footed bumpkins dragged
> tombs up ramps.
Nope. Too silly to respond to
These things I maintain don't
> apply to the great pyramid builders and the
> structure on the east side was the mason's shop
> as suggested by the Pyramid Texts.
'Suggested' translate into 'what I made up'...correct Cladking?
> The ruins are there.
No they ain't you pointed to a ditch
They appear in Petrie's
> writings and they still exist.
Well link to it then, your word on this matter is useless. I mean you've had eleven years to write up coherent research - but you refuse to do so.
They are of
> exactly the correct dimensions to do exactly the
> job I describe.
No they are not. All you do is SAY that, lets see the evidence and engineering studies. Remember your word on this just ain't good enough you have a long long history of making stuff up Cladking and everyone is very aware of that.
> And when they finally announce I'm right about the
> infrared scanning I've screamed for them to do for
> years you'll still not believe I have any
I have a strange feeling they won't mention you. Lol
At the present you have a below 0 credibility rating. If you don't believe me go to the Hall of Ma'at and ask them. If by a miracle the infra shows anything that supports you ideas that would still mean everything else you made up is STILL wrong.
You don't even know the meaning of
> the word "metaphysics" so you can't understand the
> concept that any theory which generates
> predictions is accurate.
Sorry my friend but you don't understand 'scientific methodology', 'research', 'study', 'theory' or 'metaphysics'
Indeed, the definition
> of "theory" a model that makes accurate
> predictions but you don't know this either.
Sure I know that but your ideas doesn't predict anything. Cladking all you do is make up stuff and take stuff from other people and pretend you thought of it first....
> You won't understand the references to the Great
> Saw Palace, knsti-canal, and winding watercourse
> so I have no incentive to try to explain it to
Because only you believe in them because you live in a fantasy world of your own creation. In that world you are a great scientist....but you aren't.
> Magic of the kind Egyptologists accuse the
> ancients of believing in isn't real.
Yep that's known for a long time but you cannot seem to grasp it.
> parse the PT for centuries and they'll find no
> effective magic and no evidence the ancients
> believed in effective magic.
Sure they did they had this thing called religion which has in it 'magic'
> If Egyptologists don't believe in magic then why
> can't one of them explain how the pyramids were
> built without waxing poetic about superstitious
...because they built the pyramid for religious reasons - but why are asking this you already know this. You've had this same conversation hundreds of times with me and others.
> Magic did not build the pyramids.
belief in religion inspired them to build the pyramid it was the purpose to honour the Pharaoh who was a god on earth
> knowledge, and technology built the pyramids. But
> no Egyptologist will say this without talking
> about "ramp technology" and how they were so
> stupid and ignorant that they mustta used ramps.
Evidence for ramps ecist and you are ranting again Cladking, tsk tsk
> ...And this despite the fact that ramps are
> debunked and I have shown that stones were pulled
> straight up the sides of five step pyramids.
Yet you cannot link us to where you did the debunking, again you have no credibility - its an empty claim.
> Who believes in magic; magical ramps that leave no
> evidence and magical beliefs that make them
Plenty of evidence which you refuse to look at - I have lots of links to where threads were closed because you refused to look at evidence or answer questions. You have a real problem with evidence you don't like...lol
> All Egyptology has is semantics and insults.
Okay lets see your hydrology calculation that show that x amount of water will flow down said ditch in y time.
I would also remind you that for many years you belittled and attacked science and Egyptology. People get upset with because you refuse to answer question, you refuse to look at evidence and then the BIG reason. You endlessly repeat the same claims, not a dozen times, not a hundred times but hundreds of times. Endlessly repeating the same thing while refusing to provide evidence. That is why you are so disliked - you waste people's time.
Then you hit the big problem no source of water.....rainwater nice but not constant.
> At least when I say the answer is in a book it's
> really there rather than the Egyptapolgists who
> link boioks that don't support their claim.
...and again you failed to support your claim for overseers of canals in the context of G1....I guess you conceded then? Since you refuse to provide the evidence of that?
> This is what Egyptologists claim.
No you claim that Cladking
> shared superstitions gave them the ability to band
> together and drag tombs up ramps. They get way
> worse than this because a surprising number of
> Egyptologists do believe in magic, it appears.
None at all unless you mean those who hold to their own religion - is that what you mean or are you babbling?
> Do you really need an answer here?
Yep you seem to think it was something easy to do and everyone could do it so what ancient cultures did so?
Romans, Greeks, Han? Who?
IF you look at that you will find you need a plentiful use of water. Something you don't have on the Giza plateau
> It's right there.
But its too small. Unless you like to show us your hydrology study that says other wise? Could you also point to the drainage ditches that you would need on any relatively flat area covered with rock - when it rains?
It not only will conduct water
> but exactly to the point it's needed to operate
> the "ladder of set". Not only does it exist and
> did I already prove it but its overseer is buried
> on site and it's mentioned dozens of times in the
> Pyramid Texts.
Which were written 150 years after the pyramid was built - is the term oversee of canal attested in the great pyramid's time of construction? But of course you have yet to provide those links - I mean you have them right?
There are no ramps, death,
> mortuary temples and other such nonsense in the
A book of magical religious ritual...okay
> Simply stated Egyptologists hold these people in
> such low regard they refuse to consider the
> possibility that the PT was meant literally and is
> exactly accurate.
Yet you cannot put any of that into a coherent study that establishes it. All you can do is just make empty claim after empty claim. 11 years and not one sheet of written research, a website or in a pdf to support anything you say. Very sad
They see death and superstition
> where there is only life and science.
People die Cladking. That is on reason they had religion to explain what happens when you die.
Waiting for you to get off your lazy butt and provide the evidence.