> charly wrote:
> > Still the same evidence you chose to ignore, dismiss and
> > ridicule...
> I don't dismiss, ridicule, or ignore any evidence and that
> includes the low grade evidence presented to show the great
> pyramids were tombs. I had no reason to doubt the conclusions
> of the low grade evidence at all until discovering that the
> builders didn't believe these were tombs. The builders
> actually said that the "king truly ascends to heaven, permanent
> like the earth". If they were intended as tombs wouldn't they
> have said the king's headstone or tomb ascends to heaven?
> It's not like this was their only comment on the subject. They
> wrote a whole book about it and they said over and over in many
> ways that the pyramid was the ka of the king. There's not
> really any room for interpretation on this particular matter
> which is why I keep bringing it up. They didn't want to be
> miunderstood and they defined every term very carefully so we
> could understand them. The pyramid is the king's ka. There's
> no compelling evidence that any king was ever buried in a great
> pyramid. There is no direct evidence at all that a king was
> buried in a great pyramid other than the presense of a so
> called sarcophagus in G1. Here is a uniquely designed pyramid
> and it never seemed to be considered that it might have a
> unique purpose or have been constructed in a unique way.
> Instead orthodoxy takes it all in stride and proclaims Khufu
> mustta wanted a tomb farther up in the sky. Sorry, but I'm
> not buying any of it. It might be good enough for people who
> believe superstitious bumpkins can drag 6 1/2 million tons of
> stone into a big pile but it's not working for me. The
> builders said what they did in plain English and all you have
> to do is read it.
> What they said is consistant with the slight amount of extant
> evidence and it is wholly inconsistent with orthodox beliefs.
> Orthodoxy has simply interpreted all the literal meaning out of
> their words. The words were too hard to believe so they never
> tried. It's easier to believe in magical barefoot bumpkins
> than in stones and boats that can fly so that's what we have.
> It doesn't matter that the literal meaning of all of Herodotus'
> words are consistent with flying stones because the ancients
> were sunaddled and this applies to even some of the Greeks.
Problem is, there's no reason at all to take the PT literaly; like I wrote in another thread:
"Accepting the literal meaning would equate believing in magic, since kings don't fly etc. What you propose: king's body brought to the top pyramid with the geyser powered counterweight device for some hocus-pocus ritual to make him disapear, now that's personal interpretation.
IMHO you are so convinced that you are right, you fail to see that you have crossed the line between literal meaning and personal interpretation..."
> I like evidence. If I ridicule something it's probably
> orthodoxy and it's only because they insult me. Orthodoxy
> can't engage in a civilized debate because without their
> assumptions and best guesses there is little left.
If assumptions and best guesses were everything Egyptology has, they would still beat made up evidence and wild imagination...
> They stoop
> to insults and semantics to cover up the vacuum.
No, Egyptology sticks with the evidence, no need to insult anyone or to cover up anything.
> They pretend
> there's a mountain of evidence to support their contentions but
> can't seem to find when challenged.
Well, the evidence has been presented to you time and again in several threads but you don't like it so you refuse to call it evidence or try to downgrade it by calling it "low grade evidence".
> This may seem a little harsh relative the provocation but I
> want to be sure you understand my position.
In the light of the evidence your position is untenable Cladking.