Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Alright. Let's approach this systematically to see
> what we can make of it since eyeofhorus33 made the
> effort to post it.

> There is a clue you can use to date this stele
> without knowing anything else. Look at the last
> word in the first register which bleeds over to
> the second: "Abdju". That's Abydos. The entire
> first row literally reads:
> "King-Royal Offering- that he
> gives-Osiris-foremost westerners-lord of Abydos"
> A bit more smoothly: An offering that the king
> gives (easier "a royal offering")...Osiris,
> foremost of the Westerners, Lord of Abydos....
>
> The clue is that in the Middle Kingdom, Djer's
> tomb at Um-el-Qa'ab (Abydos) was 'suddenly'
> attributed to Osiris. So this stele cannot be
> older than the 11th Dynasty. The stele is
> dedicated to Nhee-Ptah-Zokar-Pepi and his wife and
> four children. So this appears to have been by a
> family tomb. His main claim to fame comes from his
> title: "Imir-Kdw" the chief of the potters.
> Another clue as to his status is that he was born
> to the Mistress of the House of "Ay" which implies
> that his mother was a prominent personality of the
> time.

Thanks for the info.

Ancient Language never really died but it was wholly replaced as a day to day language in the event we call "the tower of babel". It was never used after 2000 BC except by what we call the "Niphilim" who were the few individuals who could still manipulate the metaphysics. They died out as well without ever finding a means to bridge ancient knowledge and modern superstitious language. Only the ancient technology survived.

Many concepts from Ancient Language survived into the book of the dead but these were invariably changed because later people had no science and didn't understand ancient science. "True of Voice", "justified" etc are terms that were preserved with new meaning. If one were "true of voice" he could speak "the words of the gods" and thus have power and ability. If he were "justified" it means he used good science and lived a good life. It means his "prophesies' came true and he was a productive member of a society of scientists and metaphysicians.

> This is an interesting thought. The Mouth Opening
> Ritual and the Heb Sed both also may have had much
> more literal and concrete prehistoric roots and
> some Egyptologists have entertained this
> possibility so you have a precedence there with
> your theory. Looking at what looks to be ritual
> killings on First Dynasty oil tags and evidence
> thereof in the form of retainer graves, you can
> postulate a gradual "taming" of the violent
> rituals by "formalizing" them with more symbolic
> rituals, language and spells. However, you have to
> ask what purpose the weighing of the heart served
> after dying. Could weighing have been another way
> of saying that the chest actually does feel heavy,
> pressured, and tight when one is burdened by
> guilt, sadness, or anger?

Thanks for the information.

> Somewhat of possible interest to you: There are
> two versions of an oil tag attributed to Den. On
> the earlier one two lotus buds are shown. In the
> later version, the two are replaced by two
> pyramid-like symbols actually X8, which means
> "give". The context is that under Den there was in
> fact a written language reform. This particular
> example is a fascinating glimpse into the
> stylization of the depiction of the physical
> world. In this case, the lotus is shown with a
> geometric symbol which is later used to mean "to
> give". And you see this symbol on
> Nhee-Ptah-Zokar-Pepi's stele in the first and
> second register where it means exactly that....to
> give. You can also see the lotus itself on the
> offering table and his wife Hapy is holding one to
> her face.

Thanks again.

> Your theory is that the pyramid is the king's ka.
> In one version of the Hermopolitean Ogdoad
> cosmogony, the lotus is the first being created
> and from it springs the Sun.

I have to believe this is a misinterpretation as well. The lotus probably could be representative of the water and it was atum Himself which defined the earth and the sky and gave birth to shu and tefnut. If this is true then it was CO2 that sprang from the lotus. CO2 was a solar element so it is easily confused with the sun Itself.

> So if the lotus had
> anything to do with inspiring the pyramidal shape
> then there is a bridge and path to your theory.
> One interesting observation is the eight-sided
> pyramid at Giza. Was that meant to symbolize the
> Ogdoad (the eight) in the form of an
> eight-petalled lotus and the king's ka was that
> which emanated from it like Atum in the moment of
> creation?

Thanks again.

> I think there are some things you tapped into
> which ring true to me. It is obvious that you have
> not convinced others. My message to you is this:
> There is a method called the scientific method.

Showing this with observation and experiment (modern science) is next to impossible when Egyptologists control Giza and refuse to do science. Ironically it is already virtually proven using ancient science. People don't seem to realize that a 75% probability of me being right in this case is tantamount to "certainty" in most people.

Building on the work of two centuries of scholars after I've shown that two centuries of scholars are wrong might be a fool's errand. But, far more importantly, I'm no scholar. It would take me two lifetimes or longer to build on others' work and then show that the pyramids were built with the weight of water. Then I'd still be left to show that ancient people weren't superstitious.

I fully understand the belief of most people that I can't be right because science is always a collaboration among scientists and gifted scholars. It seems impossible a disabled ditch digger can come along and overturn it all. To most people theory is established fact that can't be overturned and only be added to or amended to suit specific conditions. It simply doesn't occur to people that cosmology is stuck in the 1920's and most of the rest of science is bogged down in the 1890's. They see startling new technology and mistake it for understanding, science, and theory. People can't see that we use analog language or that every sentence is understood differently by every individual. They can't see the nature of humanity or the nature (metaphysics) of science. They can only see their beliefs and they believe in human perfection, omniscience, and intelligence.

I can't battle this by building on the work of others. This simply requires everything known to be rewritten and reinterpreted. History becomes an entirely new subject as do several other fields. How do I build on such rubble?

Meanwhile, as I wait for everyone to catch up, all this work, work enough for millions goes begging. It can't be done until the truth is seen. One man against this mountain of work is as absurd as one man dragging stones to build a great pyramid. There's simply nowhere to start.

The ONLY hope to get this work started is to get others, anyone, to see it can't be logically disproven simply because it is correct. That's what this thread is for; to help people see we are all mistaken about everything.


> Someone on this thread, I think it was Warwick,
> said to you that it would be better to build on
> some kind of recognizable foundation and use some
> sort of reasoned construct that everyone can
> recapitulate. Egyptologist are not necessarily the
> best scientists, but you have to remember that
> they cannot easily devise experiments to test and
> falsify models to shape their theories. Aidan
> Dodson just told me a couple of days go that there
> are many myths in Egyptolgy which still linger
> because they were once loudly pronounced and but
> only quietly withdrawn and that means a lot of
> folks in the field still cling to them. One such
> myth, Robert and I took to task to at least even
> the keel a bit and allow others to approach the
> subject with a fresh start.
>
> Why don't you start learning a little bit about
> hieroglyphic at least and look up some of the
> literature on the beginning of Egyptian writing,
> like Dreyer, Helck, Kaplony. Jim Allen has a great
> essay on the evolution of understanding on
> Egyptian verb forms. It is a difficult essay to
> read at first, but at least you get an inkling
> that the field is definitely aware of its
> short-comings and becoming more open-minded and
> less dogmatic about things. Make peace Cladking,
> not war. It might more swiftly take you to where
> your ideas lead you with many great discoveries on
> the way. In any case, I applaud your desire to
> break frontiers and explore new ideas. I love that
> spirit in you.

I would love to make peace but I'm sure there will be no peace until I get back in line. Until I march with all the rest of we lemmings I will stand out as the oddest ball with the oddest theory about how they built the pyramids. And one of the things that makes it oddest is that it would be so easy to test it.