Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Corpuscles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well yes you retracted an error Sbey highlighted.
I did no such thing. Two factys are simultaneously true;
1.,= the word "ramp" is unattested in the great pyramid building age.
2.,= the PT are from a later time.
> Except that similiar utterances and texts are
> found in 6th Dynasty pyramids and tombs! Are you
> aquainted with Teti Pepi I and all those ? If so
> why do you assume ( example of your
> superior logic?) they are all 5th dynasty?
I have very7 limited knowledge of EVERYTHING AFTER THE OLD KINGDOM. I try to limit what I say about these later periods because I have little knowledge.
> Why in dynasty 1 2 3 4 is there no pyramid or tomb
> with simimilar utterances in pyramids you claim
> the PTs relate to their construction method?
The old language could be related without change. We play Chinese telephone so writing was invented when modern language was invented.
> If they are ancient what happened to the
> originals? How much more ancient than 5th D, were
> such ancient variations of AE heiroglyphic
> language?
My opinion?
It's apparent some utterances were associated with specific structures and the oldest such is for Djoser's. Some utterances are probably even older and one probably applies to a mastaba the precedes the great pyramids.
> Why is it "obviously ancient"?
This is difficult to explain. There are numerous ways they are obviously more ancient but I usually refer people to Egyptologists who believe they are more ancient.
> Also how does that
> in your 'superior logic' does it beome "most
> probably ancient" in the space of 15 of your
> garbled words ? Again how can any thing "follow" a
> most probably?
I don't understand the questions.
There's only one logic but it can be deucedly tough to see.
> Again if they relate to the great
> pyramid age why no inscription in the great
> pyramids?
Again. Ancient language needed no written form.
Don't forget, too, that these utterances underwent extensive amendment after the great pyramids when the geysers dried up. The function of the writing was different and it did not involve being inscribed in the walls of time capsules.
There may be a papyrus copy of them with the Mafdet Lynx.
> If someone else you know here (also prolific in
> his superior logic and views) wrote or reworded
> it into a fat meaningless unsupported claim such
> as:
Where in the world did you get the idea anyone thinks my logic is "superior"?
> However it is also true that the utterances
> which comprise the PT were obviously from a
> lost civilization maybe millions of years old
> when they were inscribed in the 5th and 6th
> dynasty tombs. Since
> these words and ideas were most probably
> from a separate culture altogether but was adopted
> by the civilization we call AE it follows that
> many of the concepts and even the utterances
> themselves all about lost flying saucers and high
> technology originally arose during the great
> pyramid building age millions of years ago.
I can't follow this but the culture that built the great pyramids was nothing at all like the stinky footed bumpkins described by Egyptologists. I doubt that it was extremely ancient or alien but then I DON'T KNOW. All I did was reverse engineer the pyramids using the PT for the format.
>
> How would that be any more worthy or or reliable
> than the unsupported illogical mumbo jumbo of your
> original?
The ancient language could not support mumbo jumbo or illogical concepts. If what you wanted to communicate did not resound with nature it could not be stated at all. The rules of grammar, metaphysics, and logic prevented such misstatements.
> Who was the author? What was his or her intent?
> How do you determine or guess "most probably" what
> you imagine it was?
There were several authors and editors. Each author thought very very similarly and the intent was to mark the ascension of the king through ritual.
> In what I have seen of your version of PT you talk
> about ceremonies and kings ascention where is the
> dividing line of supersitious?
I define "superstitious" as believing things without evidence and "believing" as the driving force in what we experience. They was no superstition and no belief. They wouldn't understand the concept of belief.
> When is a religious ceremony deemed not
> superstitious?
It wasn't religious.
> We know with certainty later Dynastys (Book of the
> Dead, Embalmed mummies, provisions for the
> afterlife etc) held religious (is that what you
> call supersitious?)
Later people were stinky footed bumpkins and we still are!
> Your imagined geyser powered funicular built
> structures called Great Pyramids were suddenly
> replaced by smaller relatively insignificant (but
> still astounding eg Chamber Roof blocks of Unas,
> Sahure etc) and versions yet you think somehow
> the builder of Unas wanted to splash his whole
> chamber with a detailed account of how to build
> GREAT pramid in a sub standard replica? That seems
> logical to you!!!!????
First of all there are no parallels between real pyramids and the tiny little piles Egyptologists call "pyramids" except for their original shapes.
The function of these rituals underwent change. They were a tie to the past; tradition. The king still wanted to be remembered even as he rotted in the earth.
> Are you suggesting the scribe and all concerned
> didn't know what they were writing (painting)?
No. This is what Egyptologists believe.
> If
> so, why didn't they utilize the secrets that
> only they and YOU know? Did the geysers disappear
> (you know the many thousands of them) required to
> build all OK megalithic structures?
One geyser probably built G1 and G2. There were dozens of geysers over centuries that came and went in the land of rainbows and then they all dried up after G2 was built. The scientific word for geyser was "duat" and when it quit spraying it became dead gods (natural phenomena) under the ground.
> If the PT are about the method of pyramid
> construction techniqu as you claim Then how did
> they get Aswan huge slabs granite to Giza or
> Seqqara , how did they cut and polish it,
> transport it? Why don't you know or why doesn't
> that critical part of the operation mentioned?
The Great Saw Palace was powered by water. I don't know much more than this about it.
> Just one , and makes much more sense in the
> aggregate context of confirmed consistent Ancient
> Egyptian culture over millenia, than your pyscho
> babble fantasy.
Exactly. If you don't accept that these stinky footed bumpkins never changed then you have to admit you know nothing at all about them. Egyptologists invent a context that doesn't exist and leaves the word "ramp" unattested!
> If a new find was made today containing
> heiroglyphs seeming to be consistent with PT
> would you be able to read it and decipher it?
Yes, but remember I am neither fluent in ancient metaphysics nor ancient science. I'd have trouble even recognizing a chemistry text much less understanding it while more mundane writing should usually be fairly easy for me. I'd also do very poorly if much math were involved such as astronomy or their version of logic. My understanding is highly specialized but all of their writing wouldn't have been.
> Or would you have to wait for someone else to read
> and publish it so you could google it and put your
> spin on it?
I wouldn't bother to try to translate it if that's what you mean. I'd seek out a more stilted (literal) translation.
> It is like you hammering a nail into a house and
> then claiming you built it!
I used to tell the story that I built the John Hancock building in Chicago because I retrieved a rivet that fell off the elevator for a man.
No man is an island. I stole or borrowed most of what I know. I see little bits and pieces of many people I've known all through my theory including some of my best teachers.
I built nothing at all except a theory. I merely rediscovered ancient science and the means to build the pyramid.
> If you ever come up with a fact not clouded by
> your opinion then there will celebration on the
> interwebs from folks all over the world.
I am opinionated but hoped that didn't show in my posts... ...well... ...not all of my posts anyway.
There aren't so much any "opinions" in my theory but rather extrapolations though some of these are a stretch. I keep a few that are big stretches because in my opinion they are beautiful and elegant.
373 huh? I might.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Mar-17 01:32 by cladking.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well yes you retracted an error Sbey highlighted.
I did no such thing. Two factys are simultaneously true;
1.,= the word "ramp" is unattested in the great pyramid building age.
2.,= the PT are from a later time.
> Except that similiar utterances and texts are
> found in 6th Dynasty pyramids and tombs! Are you
> aquainted with Teti Pepi I and all those ? If so
> why do you assume ( example of your
> superior logic?) they are all 5th dynasty?
I have very7 limited knowledge of EVERYTHING AFTER THE OLD KINGDOM. I try to limit what I say about these later periods because I have little knowledge.
> Why in dynasty 1 2 3 4 is there no pyramid or tomb
> with simimilar utterances in pyramids you claim
> the PTs relate to their construction method?
The old language could be related without change. We play Chinese telephone so writing was invented when modern language was invented.
> If they are ancient what happened to the
> originals? How much more ancient than 5th D, were
> such ancient variations of AE heiroglyphic
> language?
My opinion?
It's apparent some utterances were associated with specific structures and the oldest such is for Djoser's. Some utterances are probably even older and one probably applies to a mastaba the precedes the great pyramids.
> Why is it "obviously ancient"?
This is difficult to explain. There are numerous ways they are obviously more ancient but I usually refer people to Egyptologists who believe they are more ancient.
> Also how does that
> in your 'superior logic' does it beome "most
> probably ancient" in the space of 15 of your
> garbled words ? Again how can any thing "follow" a
> most probably?
I don't understand the questions.
There's only one logic but it can be deucedly tough to see.
> Again if they relate to the great
> pyramid age why no inscription in the great
> pyramids?
Again. Ancient language needed no written form.
Don't forget, too, that these utterances underwent extensive amendment after the great pyramids when the geysers dried up. The function of the writing was different and it did not involve being inscribed in the walls of time capsules.
There may be a papyrus copy of them with the Mafdet Lynx.
> If someone else you know here (also prolific in
> his superior logic and views) wrote or reworded
> it into a fat meaningless unsupported claim such
> as:
Where in the world did you get the idea anyone thinks my logic is "superior"?
> However it is also true that the utterances
> which comprise the PT were obviously from a
> lost civilization maybe millions of years old
> when they were inscribed in the 5th and 6th
> dynasty tombs. Since
> these words and ideas were most probably
> from a separate culture altogether but was adopted
> by the civilization we call AE it follows that
> many of the concepts and even the utterances
> themselves all about lost flying saucers and high
> technology originally arose during the great
> pyramid building age millions of years ago.
I can't follow this but the culture that built the great pyramids was nothing at all like the stinky footed bumpkins described by Egyptologists. I doubt that it was extremely ancient or alien but then I DON'T KNOW. All I did was reverse engineer the pyramids using the PT for the format.
>
> How would that be any more worthy or or reliable
> than the unsupported illogical mumbo jumbo of your
> original?
The ancient language could not support mumbo jumbo or illogical concepts. If what you wanted to communicate did not resound with nature it could not be stated at all. The rules of grammar, metaphysics, and logic prevented such misstatements.
> Who was the author? What was his or her intent?
> How do you determine or guess "most probably" what
> you imagine it was?
There were several authors and editors. Each author thought very very similarly and the intent was to mark the ascension of the king through ritual.
> In what I have seen of your version of PT you talk
> about ceremonies and kings ascention where is the
> dividing line of supersitious?
I define "superstitious" as believing things without evidence and "believing" as the driving force in what we experience. They was no superstition and no belief. They wouldn't understand the concept of belief.
> When is a religious ceremony deemed not
> superstitious?
It wasn't religious.
> We know with certainty later Dynastys (Book of the
> Dead, Embalmed mummies, provisions for the
> afterlife etc) held religious (is that what you
> call supersitious?)
Later people were stinky footed bumpkins and we still are!
> Your imagined geyser powered funicular built
> structures called Great Pyramids were suddenly
> replaced by smaller relatively insignificant (but
> still astounding eg Chamber Roof blocks of Unas,
> Sahure etc) and versions yet you think somehow
> the builder of Unas wanted to splash his whole
> chamber with a detailed account of how to build
> GREAT pramid in a sub standard replica? That seems
> logical to you!!!!????
First of all there are no parallels between real pyramids and the tiny little piles Egyptologists call "pyramids" except for their original shapes.
The function of these rituals underwent change. They were a tie to the past; tradition. The king still wanted to be remembered even as he rotted in the earth.
> Are you suggesting the scribe and all concerned
> didn't know what they were writing (painting)?
No. This is what Egyptologists believe.
> If
> so, why didn't they utilize the secrets that
> only they and YOU know? Did the geysers disappear
> (you know the many thousands of them) required to
> build all OK megalithic structures?
One geyser probably built G1 and G2. There were dozens of geysers over centuries that came and went in the land of rainbows and then they all dried up after G2 was built. The scientific word for geyser was "duat" and when it quit spraying it became dead gods (natural phenomena) under the ground.
> If the PT are about the method of pyramid
> construction techniqu as you claim Then how did
> they get Aswan huge slabs granite to Giza or
> Seqqara , how did they cut and polish it,
> transport it? Why don't you know or why doesn't
> that critical part of the operation mentioned?
The Great Saw Palace was powered by water. I don't know much more than this about it.
> Just one , and makes much more sense in the
> aggregate context of confirmed consistent Ancient
> Egyptian culture over millenia, than your pyscho
> babble fantasy.
Exactly. If you don't accept that these stinky footed bumpkins never changed then you have to admit you know nothing at all about them. Egyptologists invent a context that doesn't exist and leaves the word "ramp" unattested!
> If a new find was made today containing
> heiroglyphs seeming to be consistent with PT
> would you be able to read it and decipher it?
Yes, but remember I am neither fluent in ancient metaphysics nor ancient science. I'd have trouble even recognizing a chemistry text much less understanding it while more mundane writing should usually be fairly easy for me. I'd also do very poorly if much math were involved such as astronomy or their version of logic. My understanding is highly specialized but all of their writing wouldn't have been.
> Or would you have to wait for someone else to read
> and publish it so you could google it and put your
> spin on it?
I wouldn't bother to try to translate it if that's what you mean. I'd seek out a more stilted (literal) translation.
> It is like you hammering a nail into a house and
> then claiming you built it!
I used to tell the story that I built the John Hancock building in Chicago because I retrieved a rivet that fell off the elevator for a man.
No man is an island. I stole or borrowed most of what I know. I see little bits and pieces of many people I've known all through my theory including some of my best teachers.
I built nothing at all except a theory. I merely rediscovered ancient science and the means to build the pyramid.
> If you ever come up with a fact not clouded by
> your opinion then there will celebration on the
> interwebs from folks all over the world.
I am opinionated but hoped that didn't show in my posts... ...well... ...not all of my posts anyway.
There aren't so much any "opinions" in my theory but rather extrapolations though some of these are a stretch. I keep a few that are big stretches because in my opinion they are beautiful and elegant.
373 huh? I might.
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Mar-17 01:32 by cladking.
