> Humour me please what do you mean by "right
> in a left handed sort of way". What does that
> "Americana"(?) mean? Do you mean reached the
> correct conclusion via an incorrect methodology? I
> think not, because you vehemently disagree with
> those conclusions.
It will be easiest to provide an example.
My favorite example is the "M3h-w3wt-cow" or in the book of the dead, the "mehet weret cow".
Egyptologists call this the cow which channels the celestial waters to build the king.
This is exactly and literally correct but they wholly misinterpret it.
The mehet weret was actually a structure built around the water source on the north sides of each great pyramid. This reached the height of "3b3w" which was defined as the height the water sprayed. It caught this celestial water full of the stars "bubbles" that drove it to 80' and then channeled it through the Nurse Canal onto the pyramid top to be used to lift the stones (horuses) that became the pyramid which was the king.
Egyptologists are usually right in a left handed sort of way.
> Dream on, in delusion. I suggest you re-read his
> last paragraph!
Whatever his reason for thinking about it, he's one of very few who really consider what I say who has extensive knowledge of the language.
> No one denies you the right or pleasure to
> fantasise and offer your fantasies. The concern
> however is that you may deceive folk.
The human condition is that we only deceive ourselves.
> Eg I find it dishonourable and deceptive that you
> quote PT lines and do not refer to them exactly,
> before you provide your interpretation, often
> using another claim of quote you have not cited or
> reproduced from the PT. Also you, (albeit it is a
> convention in the translations you read) use "N"
> as the place holder for the particular king the
> text is referring to! If you made it clear it is
> referring to say eg Unas or Teti then the whole
> thrust of your argument or fantasy crumbles.
I just copy and paste the text generally. Sometimes I'll remove translator opinion or sometimes quote from memory but my intent is certainly not to deceive.
It is irrelevant what king appears in any utterance or where they exist on the walls. The utterances were ancient when Unis' or Teti's name was inserted into them. Indeed, using the names would be confusing and another form of obfuscation. It would be like calling the structures in which they appear "pyramids" despite the fact they are just tiny piles of rubble.
I understand part of the reason these weren't solved before me is that they had been redacted significantly before they were used in the 5th dynasty tiny little pyramid shaped tombs that are now rubble. These "Piles of Rubble Texts" have to be analyzed with an eye toward deciphering original meaning and this involves factoring out the redactions and the biases of modern translators. The redactions are simple to factor out; they were simply deleting "atum" which had become a dead water source and inserting the concept of "osiris" in his place. This is why "osiris" shows up in the record when he did. It was when water and great pyramids ended. It was after the "flood" one might say.
> The PT unmistakeably are about kings and the
> religious beliefs of AE.
I'm still of the opinion this argument disproves that "belief" was even possible for the Egyptians. They spoke of what they knew and used tautologies.
> The problem you have is that despite cherry
> picking small sections (which you barely elaborate
> on anyway) will never produce a coherent
> description of your imaginings. This is because
> there is vast slabs and entire utterances which
> are unmistakable in meaning.
There are very few utterances I feel I understand in their entirety. The language was multi-dimensional and highly complex. I'd be interested in what you feel you understand. I can assure you it won't match mine.
I can also assure you I can destroy your interpretation because the words will twist and turn and have other meanings in other places. Words don't have hundreds of meanings like Egyptologists contend. No language can be so complex that Oakley had to write a book to explain a single word.
And it's one of the simplest concepts in the language. The word meant "opening for water" and she wrote a book;
> Carry on. My only interest is avoiding sh!t I read
> here from others sometimes, like " well as
> Cladking says...." to justify even more crazy
Have you considered maybe it's not only Egyptologists who find I'm right in a left handed sort of way. Maybe my theory resonates with others because their "crazy" ideas have a piece of reality as well. Have you considered the fact that I don't make many misstatements about nature or reality. I have some limited training in many areas and a unique way to think that is usually consistent with reality. I also see perspectives most will miss.
You just assume I'm wrong about everything. Mebbe I'm not.
> btw it is rude to call you insane. However I
> actually honestly believe this. It is a warning to
> others rather than any cheap 'insult' to your very
> hardened skin!
I only respond when I must. Usually I don't need to do it twice on the same site.
Besides I have no charisma and no sales ability. I can lead only by example and one insult will destroy a whole lot of example.