> Hi Charly
> I must admit to being a fan of Cks approach and persistence in
> the light of all the orthodoxy floating about. A few points are
> worth noting regarding your post.
> ''> The builders of the great pyramids distinctly and
> > said the great pyramids were not tombs.
> ''I know you believe that, no need to repeat that in every
> I would say that it is fair to repeat that every time someone
> posts that the pyramids were tombs. Particularly in respect to
> the lack of evidence that they were, apart from the modern
> constructed evidence.
There is no lack of evidence, the evidence is ignored, dismissed or ridiculed by many "alternatives". There 's nothing modern about sarcophagi constructed in the OK.
>They may well have had a funerary
> function or have been a lasting legacy of some benign soul but
> a wasteful tomb is more absurd than anything functional. Ck is
> not even tackling that specifically but notes it as a side
> issue to the building process and textual refs in the PTs.
"wasteful tomb"? And what do you mean by functional?
> As for water being involved, the salt deposits on the interior
> walls of the chambers that was conveniently cleaned off
> suggests at the very least vapor and most likely water.
Salt deposits are the result of human visitors breathing and sweating, nothing mysterious about that. They have to be removed because the dammage the limestone.
> geology suggests water as well. No one has answered to my
> satisfaction why there would be water in a structure designed
> to preserve a body,it would have the opposite effect.
There was no water in the GP or any other OK pyramid.
> A geyser is not complicated, they are created in nature by
First you have to prove they existed at said sites and even if proven it's another matter yet to prove they found a way to power a complicated machine with said geysers.
> Boats carrying counterweights or even the stones up the side of
> the pyramids in stepped locks is quicker and more energy
> efficient than pushing them up ramps that would require another
> pyramid building team to make them. Side winding ramps would
> leave plenty of evidence that no one seems to have found. Water
> would leave virtually no evidence.
Ramps were temporary structures and were removed after use. Why would they leave "plenty" of evidence?
> As far as I can tell Egyptologists have been careful to
> construct a funeral theme that has done little but bury the
> nature of these devices in holes deeper than they suggest the
> pharoahs were put. Careful attention to naming conventions
> would save us all a lot of trouble in searching for useful
> knowledge, but every name has more than one spelling. I know it
> is minor, but hardly the work of pedantic researchers.
> I would suggest that the hidden meanings you attribute to Ck
> should be aimed at the Egyptologists. They seem to spend more
> time suggesting symbolic meanings than real uses> Most modern
> icons evolve from tangible useful items, why not in the past?
Most AE symbols were in origin probably tangible and usefull, no one is denying that.
> The ancients, according to orthodoxy, spent so much time
> dealing with symbolics that I can not imagine where they found
> the manpower to become the bread basket of the world. Just
> outta curiosity were they a symbolic bread basket?, cos I can't
> find the piles of ash or thousands of ovens that would be the
> necessary infrastructure for such a role. 2 tiny cookers for
> the giza site, it is a joke.
See above: use of ridicule
> I do not think Ck is right on every count, but he is imho a dam
> sight closer to the reality of the ancient world than any
> orthodox prof I have met or read.
If you have realy met egyptologists and read their work and you still think CK is closer to the reality of "the ancient world" then you have more will to immagine than will to learn I'm affraid...