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). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
cladking wrote:

> charly wrote:
>
> > I know you believe that, no need to repeat that in every
> post.
>
> If you don't like the builders saying they weren't tombs take
> it up with them. They're all spinning in their graves so stop
> one and tell him the complaint. Hell, ask him why they didn't
> think pyramids were tombs.

The builders say no such thing, you just think / immagine they do.

> > Why would that be immpossible? Building a complicated machine
> > that was geyserpowered using water as counterweights is a
> 1000
> > times more "impossible". Especially since there's no evidence
> > for geysers and no evidence for complicated machinery.
> Pulling
> > stone blocks up ramps is realistic and reasonable.
>
> But it's unevidenced.
>
> What's evidenced is using balance.

Ramps are there, were's the balance?

> > Problem is: you assume that the PT must be taken literaly
> which
> > is of course a wrong assumption.
>
> NO!!!


YES!!! ;-)

> What I've done is show that the Pyramid Texts have a literal
> meaning and suggested that about the only possible cause is
> that they were meant literally.

And why does almost everyone think it's your immagination instead of the literal meaning?

> > Then you procede to give
> > hidden meanings to Gods, sceptres etc. which has nothing to
> do
> > with literal meaning but everything with personal
> > interpretation (I know that you don't accept this, don't know
> > why though since it's obvious for almost everyone).
>
> These are not "hidden meanings". They are stated in the plain
> English of the translations. It's orthodoxy that looks for
> hidden meaning in a metaphoric interpretation.

No, Cladking they don't state Osiris is a geyser, you make that up. You try to re-write the whole concept of AE religion; a religion you haven't even tried to study or understand.

> I'm just reading it in black and white. When they say that the
> king flew up to heaven in a boat that is the actual literal
> meaning. If they say stones fly like swallows it's because
> that's what they look like flying up tpo the pyramid being
> pulled by counterweights. But it doesn't stop here; almost the
> entire work has a coherent literal meaning.

Flying and being pulled up a pyramid the same??? Immagination needed here, no literal meaning and so it goes on with every aspect of the PT you mention...

> > Using a
> > method like this you make "fit" whatever you want of course.
>
> It's orthodoxy with free reign in interpretation. I am bound
> by what they actually said. If they describe a rainbow, and
> then define a rainbow in perfectly accurate terms and then name
> it a bow or a sky arc then logically there is a damn good
> chance that they mean "rainbow". Just because Osiris is
> adorned with a rainbow and sweats yeast gas onto the sand
> doen't prove anything but it certainly is a pretty good reason
> to get out there and look for geysers.

You think they describe a rainbow, that doesn't make it a fact. For Osiris sweating yeast gas goes the same.
BTW IIRC you already had your theory about geysers, before you "discovered" them in the PT.

> > Then you continue to claim this "literal meaning" concerns
> the
> > so-called "great pyramids" and not the pyramids the PT were
> > found in...
>
> There is a very obvious difference between great pyramids and
> the little pointy things built later. Why does orthodoxy not
> see this.

Egyptology does see this, but you apparantly don't see that the 4th and 5th dyn pyramid-complexes have more in common than those of the 3rd and 4th dyn.

> > Egyptologists are very carefull when claiming a certain part
> of
> > the PT is older; there has to be evidence for the existence
> of
> > the gods / rituals etc. mentioned for example.
>
> Good for them. I like it when scholars take care in making
> pronouncements. But it still doesn't answer why so little is
> known.

Why so little is known? A lot has been lost over the milennia, some answers we may never find due to the partial or total destruction of the evidence. For some mysteries a reasonable assumption or best guess is all we gonna get. The real danger is proclaiming these reasonable assumptions or best guesses to be proven facts. Of course beginning to make up stuff is worse still.

> Even if I'm right about the PT and no one else is I'm not
> really an expert on them. One needs more knowledge than I on
> this subject to be a proper expert. But some of these are very
> datable if the intent is literal. Some might actually be dated
> to the day they were written someday if I'm right. You can
> just tell which pyramid and how far along sometimes.
>
> > Even then they
> > are carefull to make conclusions since atributes and meanings
> > of gods are known to evolve.
>
> Evolution isn't nearly so large a factor as locale in this
> instance probably. Religion was local and the PT are the local
> religion where water sprayed from the earth. They evolved for
> decades before our first copy but most of this evolution was
> apparently removing a live Atum and replacing him with a less
> live Osiris. Atum kicked the bucket as it were.

As long as you don't have any geological evidence for geysers at the sites of the so-called "great pyramids", no one is going to take your so-called "literal meaning" of the PT seriously.

> > A god in the PT that we know
> > existed already in the 2nd dyn might not have had a certain
> > attribute, meaning etc. in the 2nd dyn that is ascribed to
> him
> > in the PT.
> > Yet you somehow seem to know how to pinpoint the parts that
> > concern the "great pyramids"... I don't think so.
>
> No. The entire work is ritual. There's no magic in it.

erm... ritual and magic are closely connected...

> > Fact is: you don't have a shred of archaeological evidence
> to
> > support your claims.
>
> All the archaeolgical evidence supports the concept. None of
> it supports ramps or even sheds any light on the sceptres or
> icons. These icons are explained in terms of the literal
> meaning as are several of the sceptres (machine parts).

There's no archaeological evidence to support your concept. Show the evidence please.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 441 cladking 16-Feb-11 03:38
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 190 Pete Vanderzwet 16-Feb-11 06:05
BTW... 195 Pete Vanderzwet 16-Feb-11 06:16
Re: BTW... 251 cladking 16-Feb-11 06:19
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 219 cladking 16-Feb-11 06:18
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 232 Pete Vanderzwet 16-Feb-11 06:31
To save time.. 188 Pete Vanderzwet 16-Feb-11 06:35
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 199 cladking 16-Feb-11 06:46
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 219 Titus Livius 16-Feb-11 16:06
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 183 cladking 16-Feb-11 16:46
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 182 Pete Vanderzwet 17-Feb-11 03:32
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 227 cladking 17-Feb-11 05:14
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 176 Pete Vanderzwet 17-Feb-11 05:22
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 187 cladking 17-Feb-11 05:39
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 206 Ronald1 17-Feb-11 08:21
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 154 Avatar 19-Feb-11 01:59
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 157 Elizabeth Newton 20-Feb-11 02:16
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 172 cladking 20-Feb-11 03:19
The Abu Simbel Experience 181 will2learn2000 16-Feb-11 16:19
Re: The Abu Simbel Experience 238 cladking 17-Feb-11 05:28
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 193 Ronald1 16-Feb-11 23:46
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 207 cladking 17-Feb-11 05:17
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 203 Ronald1 17-Feb-11 07:43
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 263 cladking 17-Feb-11 22:42
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 148 Ronald1 18-Feb-11 06:56
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 196 cladking 18-Feb-11 17:29
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 208 Ronald1 18-Feb-11 18:03
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 204 charly 19-Feb-11 10:54
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 183 cladking 19-Feb-11 16:39
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 207 MJT 19-Feb-11 22:37
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 227 cladking 20-Feb-11 00:47
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 196 Ronald1 19-Feb-11 23:50
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 224 cladking 20-Feb-11 00:49
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 143 Ronald1 20-Feb-11 08:13
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 190 OCaptain 17-Feb-11 14:25
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 227 cladking 17-Feb-11 22:47
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 179 Ronald1 19-Feb-11 12:42
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 219 MJT 19-Feb-11 13:38
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 186 cladking 19-Feb-11 16:26
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 176 MJT 19-Feb-11 21:43
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 253 cladking 19-Feb-11 23:22
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 204 MJT 22-Feb-11 09:35
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 208 cladking 22-Feb-11 16:15
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 218 cladking 22-Feb-11 16:26
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 218 MJT 22-Feb-11 20:49
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 220 cladking 22-Feb-11 22:40
Re: on cenotaphs 212 charly 21-Feb-11 12:49
Re: on cenotaphs 213 cladking 21-Feb-11 16:23
Re: on sceptres 198 will2learn2000 21-Feb-11 17:49
Re: on sceptres 205 cladking 21-Feb-11 23:39
Re: on sceptres 201 will2learn2000 22-Feb-11 08:46
Re: on sceptres 166 cladking 22-Feb-11 16:54
Re: on sceptres 255 will2learn2000 22-Feb-11 17:19
Re: on sceptres 170 cladking 22-Feb-11 18:15
Re: on sceptres 156 will2learn2000 22-Feb-11 19:02
Re: on sceptres 163 cladking 22-Feb-11 19:12
Re: on sceptres 202 will2learn2000 23-Feb-11 17:47
Re: on sceptres 186 cladking 23-Feb-11 21:55
Re: on sceptres & shafts 226 will2learn2000 24-Feb-11 06:23
Re: on sceptres & shafts 174 cladking 24-Feb-11 15:44
Re: on sceptres & shafts 191 will2learn2000 24-Feb-11 18:36
Re: on sceptres & shafts 218 cladking 24-Feb-11 18:57
Re: on sceptres & shafts 223 will2learn2000 24-Feb-11 19:32
Re: on sceptres & shafts 180 cladking 24-Feb-11 19:49
Re: on sceptres & shafts 158 will2learn2000 24-Feb-11 20:09
Re: on sceptres & shafts 208 cladking 24-Feb-11 19:16
Re: on sceptres & shafts 213 will2learn2000 24-Feb-11 19:48
Re: on sceptres & shafts 236 cladking 24-Feb-11 20:12
Re: on sceptres & shafts 159 will2learn2000 24-Feb-11 20:39
Re: on sceptres & shafts 209 cladking 24-Feb-11 21:11
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 232 charly 21-Feb-11 17:54
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 198 will2learn2000 21-Feb-11 18:56
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 231 charly 21-Feb-11 20:39
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 218 cladking 22-Feb-11 01:19
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 221 charly 22-Feb-11 09:38
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 171 Ronald1 22-Feb-11 11:28
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 188 cladking 22-Feb-11 17:32
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 173 Ronald1 22-Feb-11 18:39
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 234 cladking 22-Feb-11 19:04
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 208 Ronald1 22-Feb-11 23:16
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 199 cladking 22-Feb-11 23:40
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 227 cladking 22-Feb-11 17:13
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 215 charly 22-Feb-11 19:41
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 174 cladking 22-Feb-11 22:52
Re: Other ancient Structures 184 will2learn2000 22-Feb-11 18:05
Use of common sense obligatory 199 will2learn2000 22-Feb-11 07:52
Re: Use of common sense obligatory 213 charly 22-Feb-11 09:12
Re: Use of common sense obligatory 184 will2learn2000 22-Feb-11 13:08
Re: Use of common sense obligatory 207 charly 22-Feb-11 13:51
Re: Use of common sense obligatory 163 cladking 22-Feb-11 17:25
Re: Use of common sense obligatory 174 charly 22-Feb-11 19:55
Re: Use of common sense rare 182 cladking 22-Feb-11 23:06
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 198 cladking 22-Feb-11 01:05
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 187 cladking 22-Feb-11 00:16
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 200 charly 22-Feb-11 10:19
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 183 cladking 22-Feb-11 17:37
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 186 cladking 22-Feb-11 17:52
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 189 charly 22-Feb-11 20:00
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 198 cladking 22-Feb-11 23:38
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 210 will2learn2000 23-Feb-11 09:08
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 216 cladking 23-Feb-11 16:11
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 161 charly 23-Feb-11 10:17
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 221 cladking 23-Feb-11 16:06
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 194 charly 23-Feb-11 17:24
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 198 will2learn2000 23-Feb-11 17:51
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 173 cladking 23-Feb-11 21:58
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 200 charly 24-Feb-11 08:53
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 192 cladking 24-Feb-11 15:52
Re: on cenotaphs 187 MJT 21-Feb-11 22:09
Re: on cenotaphs 201 cladking 22-Feb-11 01:21
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 222 cladking 18-Feb-11 18:05
Re: Shemsu Hor 199 Thunderbird 18-Feb-11 19:41
Re: Othodox egyptology is necessarily wrong. 223 cladking 03-Aug-11 03:34


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.