cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hanslune Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Nothing complicated huh?
>
> A Rube Goldberg device can be a sight to behold
> but it is really nothing more than many simple
> machines and conveyances jammed together to
> accomplish a single task. These devices are
> powered by falling balls and falling weights.
> They are an excellent analogy for how the pyramids
> were built and how I solved the language and the
> question of how they were built. The Egyptians
> simply had a simple process to lift stones to
> build mastabas. As time went by they added lots
> of bells and whistles and worked out the bugs
> until one fine day Imhotep realized he wasn't
> limited by the height of the water source and
> built the first step pyramid.
>
> Solving the Pyramid Texts was really quite similar
> to watching a Rube Goldberg device from a
> disadvantageous angle during a sanstorm. Each
> word had to be solved by context and some words
> had very little context. Naturally I solved the
> easy ones first. These solutions helped in
> solving the others. The only assumption all along
> was that everything mustta made perfect sense. I
> often say we are stupid stinky footed bumpkins and
> I really believe it but this applies to us only in
> aggregate. I've "never" met a stupid person or a
> stinky footed bumpkins. I simply assumed this
> applied to the ancients as well and this is why I
> assumed it all made sense. Imagine my surprise
> when I slowly discovered they weren't stupid and
> they didn't squish their tores in corpse drippings
> individually or in aggregate! Each and all of our
> ancestors were scientists who carried around
> everything they knew on the tip of their tongue.
>
>
> Some of the solution of the PT was actually quite
> complex and I couldn't have done it if I had to
> reason out every single step. Solving a sentence
> with three unknowns can be quite tricky when all
> you know is how the sentence modifies meaning.
> But google and intuition did most of the heavy
> lifting. The whole thing was a sort of 6 1/2
> million ton jigsaw puzzle. The physical evidence
> and scientific fact was often instrumental in each
> step. The total amount of evidence is really
> quite staggering but we can't see it and don't
> realize it's evidence at all. We interpret the
> facts differently because of our preconceptions
> about ancient people. We simply assume they were
> primitive versions of ourselves and this is wrong.
>
>
> > You've claimed to have
> > retranslated an ancient language and made it
> > correct and that all previous work is wrong.
>
> The ancient language can't be translated. It is
> three dimensional and our language is one
> dimensional. It could be put into logic flow
> charts but it is much simpler to "interpret" it.
>
>
> > The
> > only problem is only YOU can translate it...
>
> I doubt anyone else has actually tried. People
> run away from this. Some people have told me that
> it makes their head hurt or something similar.
>
> We must unlearn the ancient language in order to
> learn modern language. This appears to be a one
> way street for most individuals. Most of us use
> reason and language to think since this reflects
> modern language. "Reason" essentially means you
> follow a path of logic and evidence. Thinking
> this way is not conducive to understanding ancient
> language. There's also the problem with the
> ancient world being so different and alien to us.
> We don't share referents and it's difficult for us
> to see from their perspective. We all try to
> share a perspective but the ancients simply
> defined a perspective. The differences between
> the language lead modern language speakers astray
> almost immediately.
>
> ...
>
> >
> [grahamhancock.com]
>
> >
> [grahamhancock.com]
>
> ...
>
> > I mean in the previous post and your first one
> you
> > seemed to contradict yourself.
>
> There is no contradiction. The horus in the
> referenced utterance is horus the elder and is not
> stone.


So that contradicts your previous contention that in the ancient language words had only one meaning.