> I think that some of the things you say are true
> and that you are not at odds with Egyptology on
> those despite what you think. Egyptian funerary
> texts describe the gods as immanent. They
> literally and physically represent the forces of
> nature, the ntr's. This is not disputed by modern
> Egyptologists. In fact not understanding the
> immanence of the religious texts leads to a
> misunderstanding of them as superstitious
> mumblings which is what you have been saying. The
> texts are distinctly scientific actually once you
> realize that the gods of Egypt were really one and
> the same with the forces of nature.
> Also, the book of the dead is not a fool-proof way
> to read the PT and CT because the phonetic
> resonances invoking secondary and hidden meanings
> such as Heka magic for example, are lost and now
> read more flat as incantations without the old
> depth. Here also you would not get too much
> objection from at least the modern language
> For example the so called Book of Two Ways cannot
> be properly read from a preset of expectations
> generated by the BotD.
> So on these two major points in your theory you
> are probably not only correct, you are in good
> company even if you think they are not. Soon, you
> may feel vindicated. I am in the final phase.
I've known all along that I'm in a great deal of agreement with Egyptologists. But when I speak of the fact that we agree on most everything other than interpretation of evidence people simply dismiss me as a crackpot and don't think about what I'm saying. Nothing seems to work so I emphasize the differences so at least everyone understands that I DON'T AGREE WITH EGYPTOLOGISTS. Everything they know is really pretty close to being exactly right but their interpretations are all off kilter. They did all the hard work but they then saw all the results in terms of assumptions that aren't correct.
As soon as I say they're wrong people think I'm condemning them and that I don't believe in science.
So long as you disagree with them you're crazy.
They accept your work much better because you're following in the footsteps of the et als and trying to reinterpret their work and incorporate the latest findings. I followed nobody to get to this point. I was living a perfectly quiet life as an eccentric when I stumbled into this enormous void full of speculation, assumption, and "questionable" methodology. When I pointed out the flaws and possible misinterpretations they turned on me.
I've said many times there are definitely errors in my interpretations simply because this theory has too many facets with too low a probability to be completely right. Your work has a much higher probability of being more globally correct but it doesn't go so far as mine. I believe we really are a different species than the pyramid builders using OUR DEFINITIONS and understandings. We simply can't think or act like the pyramid builders and this just never occurred to Egyptologists. I believe there are revolutions coming in human understanding and science that will arise from coming to know how and why the pyramids were built. Everything we know will be stood on its ear. This is simply because most of what we "know" is dependent largely on perspective and definition.
I wonder how young a person needs to be to have a fair chance of living to see the infrared data on G1 published.