R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You can't just say things without evidence. Please
> provide:
>
> 1. Who these 'new linguists' are

You'd probably consider CH Harvey nothing but a crackpot but now you can add Susan Morrow to the list;

[www.jasoncolavito.com]

> Yes, they believed in gods. You're seriously
> losing the plot if you think the AE's didn't
> believe in gods.

As we understand the term "gods" they are imaginary consciousnesses that don't really exist but form the basis of religion. Yes, there were no gods! There was no magic and they exist only in the heads of Egyptologists. They are confusions of later beliefs. All the words we think are related to "gods" are in fact scientific terms and all the words we think are related to magic are actually metaphysical.

"Shu" was the "god of upward" and "heka" was the ability to make good scientific observation.

> Also,
> saying this 'belief' relies solely an
> understanding by Egyptologists is very strange
> contextualization.

Egyptologists translate "neter" to mean an imaginary consciousness that never actually existed. They translate "shu" as the "God of Air" and "heka" as "magic". Of course people believing ancient people were superstitious and primitive can be laid right at the feet of Egyptologists.

> The more I've read of this
> thread the more I am agitated by your inability to
> string together a sentence, much less try to
> 'interpret' the Pyramid Texts. And I'm sorry I am
> being so tough on you.

In my book you get a lot of credit for even trying to understand. Be tough on me. Even better show me evidence or logic to show I'm wrong.

> > stinky footed bumpkins
>
> Please stop regurgitating this silly, strawmanicle
> phrase.

It might be better to copyright it. ;)

> > People in the future are going to laugh at us.
>
> The irony.

Of course they might laugh at me but it doesn't change the facts and the fact is I might be right. It's not impossible just because it seems so absurd. There are lots of absurd things that are reality itself.

> ...what I think is hard for me to get around is
> that a historical search shows you haven't budged
> in your position (and phrases) in your tenure.

This is very much not true.

When I started back in '06 I knew nothing and had only the vaguest outline of how pyramids were built and why. My theory has since changed very very much even if the words Im use haven't changed as much. The theory has had to change to actually fit more evidence and the implied logic of that evidence. I believe I now have an excellent outline of not only how they built the pyramid but the nature and thinking of the builders and why it has been missed.

> No
> evolution in your learning the subject matter. And
> here I thought you were a new stabber at
> hieroglyphs, but you've been at it with the same
> bizarre renderings from ages ago. Sticking to ones
> guns is admirable when they're right, but when
> you're wrong .... Know what I mean?

Creighton still believes that the glyphs were faked and the pyramid a seed vault. I still believe the pyramid was built with counterweights by scientists. Egyptology still believes in superstitious bumpkins dragging tombs hither and yon in the desert sun despite the fact I have debunked ramps and shown that stones were pulled straight up the side one step at a time. Why aren't you disturbed by Egyptologists sticking to their guns?

Why aren't you disturbed that after not doing thermal imaging for half a century that when it's finally done and shows no ramps they refuse to release enough detail to see how it was done?

My intent is not to disturb people but to get simple answers to simple scientific questions. Unfortunately it appears science disturbs Egyptologists.


They appear tobe afraid of the pyramid.