> I don't, lol. What sort of rational person would
> obsess over the bunch of self-important,
> self-aggrandizing, pompous, ceremonious,
> gold-plated, back-stabbing stinky-footed inbreds
> that Egyptologists have made the AEs out to be?
> They ought to be struck from history and forgotten
> if that's how they were - "disremembered" is how I
> think ancient Americans are supposed to have put
Well, I doubt Egyptologists are any crazier than the rest of us. Someday "Egyptologist" will be the punchline of every joke but this will be to show how self deluded we all are. We are all slaves to our beliefs and we could do far better if we each recognized this simple fact.
> Who cares if they were great architects if they
> were no one you'd ever care to know personally? I
> couldn't get near the subject if I couldn't harbor
> the delusion that they were a bit different that
> I've been told.
I agree that Egyptology paints an ugly picture of our ancestors. I believe that if the ancients knew this they'd be laughing in their graves. But more and more are taking umbrage and spinning ever faster.
What I find far more disturbing is the ugly picture they paint of us. They believe that it is magic and superstition that make people strong rather than understanding and knowledge. They believe they can understand the ancients through osmosis and parsing a book of magic rather than through the application of science and human knowledge.
It's bad enough they malign our ancestors.
> That heavens Zahi found the receipts for the
> workers or we'd still have to suffer the shame of
> the source of our great fascination having been
> achieved at the end of a whip because
> someone (hint: I don't think it was alts)
> went and made far too much of this or that mural
> as if the ancients had no capacity for whimsy or
Part of the problem is that most alts accept Egyptological nonsense so long as it doesn't contradict their own beliefs or theories. If we'd each consider that maybe Egyptology is wrong about every single thing we might get at a solution more quickly.
> I've been told repeatedly that the AEs discovered
> the stinky-footed version of pencillin. Is that
> so? Perhaps the next question should be, did they
> wear it out in 50 years like we did, or do they
> still have some science left to teach us?
I have little doubt they had far more knowledge about every subject and that their knowledge was direct rather than symbolic and perspective dependent like ours. Their knowledge was experiential knowledge for the main part.
> cladking, I'm sorry that this buffoonery keeps
> distracting from some important points you've
> made, your detractors seem to like to mock you for
> suggesting geysers while forgetting that it comes
> from the same kind of effort to take the AEs
> seriously when they speak that the "bona-fide"
> archaeos like to claim they engage in.
Of course I can be wrong about anything and everything. Only Egyptologists are necessarily correct.
> In other words, I think it's a very respectable
> and admirable effort you're making to address
> questions the establishment seems to ignore, and
> I'm very curious what you're on to with that. Do
> you think it might be possible that rainbows got
> into the ancient discussion because they were
> using some sort of levered device relying on water
> that might have hit the ground hard when a load
> was removed and then threw a spray into the air
> when it did?
I don't know, but I believe they were pretty clear when they said the rainbow encircled the primeval mound.
I've found only a couple new things about rainbows since this subthread;
> The only other thing that seems to come to mind
> for rainbows if someone can't produce a geyser or
> a pressurized pump of some kind, is saponification
> and soap bubbles but I can't quite see how
> anything like that might have contributed to any
> savings of labor unless they found it advantageous
> or economical to soap runners or rails or some
> moving parts of the proposed machinery?
They made soap out of natron. No doubt they saw rainbows in soap bubbles.
> It really seems to me like you and Steve are onto
> something very real and important, it's just that
> I still can't quite form a complete picture even
> though I think you may have all the pieces?
I can't see the entire picture either. It might come into much clearer focus if they released the infrared data they deny even to Peers but the fact is the ancients were so dissimilar to us that the nature of their consciousness will never be clear to anyone. I've put a lot of thought into what it would be like to live with no taxonomies, no thought, and no belief and my only conclusion is that you have to stop thinking to even approximate it. I already thought similarly to ancient people and I can't do it so it's going to be even harder for most people. Babies and animals have a better sense of what it was like to think like an Egyptian.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04-Jun-20 20:41 by cladking.