cladking

The "current body of accumulated study" contains no evidence whatsoever related to how the pyramids were built or what they were for. Essentially "the current body of accumulated study" is an analysis of the scant evidence with the assumptions that the pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by superstiutious and changeless people. The accumiulated study has no meaning outside of these assumptions. Don't get me wrong there is extensive expertise in the analysisof pot shards and in how bodies are arranged in their graves. This is real expertise and I don't pretend to have any of it. While I'd love to share it the fact is that it is not in any way relevent to how the pyramids were built nor is it relevent in any way to what I believe the authors' intent was in writing the PT. The assumptions are merely a framework to which they attach their knowledge and expertise but each of these assumptions is wrong. The actual evidence is there for anyone to look at. There's not much but it is what I've built my theory on. There simply is no hard evidence on which to base a theory. It's ironic but looking at the evidence from the perspective of the builders meaning what they said can be a sort of "hard evidence" and it agrees with the physical evidence. I think if/ when the geysers are proven people will say it was obvious all along. Everything ties in and constitutes a sort of hard evidence. If you think about it, why shouldn't the only work that survives from the great pyramid building age that was actually found in the area of the great pyramids have hints about what the people thought and how they built pyramids? The PT simply says that to build the king you need a cool effervescent column of water and to tie the boiats together. You need to build a ladder to heaven. This ladder is visible in the gravimetric scan. The only thing I find surprising is that people can't seem to consider the words of the builders might be meant literally. Yes, it's true that my misunderstanding could lead me to believe that the correct understanding is only correct in a left handed sort of way. We are both using the exact same evidence and the exact same words to make our "conclusions". But I pointed this out largely to show that we are using the exact same evidence. It's not that Efgyptology is necessarily wrong but that they are necessarily wrong if each of their assumptions are not correct. The pyramid must be a tomb dragged up ramps by superstitious and changeless people for them to be correct. But I've debunked ramps and can show beyond doubt that the assumption they are changeless is an absurdity. I can't prove the great pyramids weren't tombs but I can show where the builders said repeatedly and coherently that they were not tombs. I can point out that there is no good quality evidence that they were tombs. An empty stone box is the best piece they have and it was reported empty by the first person known to be inside. It's impossible to show the builders were superstitious if their words are not understood. Without the assumptions they can't show they were superstitious. Where Egyptologists need all the assumptions to be correct the fact is one is absurd, a second is debunked and the other two are dependent on interpretation. It's dependent on an interpretation that has failed to make any accurate predictions for 150 years. Meanwhile a slightly different interpretation that must be correct in at least a left handed sort of way answers all the questions and successfully makes numerous accurate predictions. It is consistent with the literal meaning of the builders' words because the theoiry is built largely around the builders' words. These are all strong implications that the new interpretation is the correct one and that the new interpretation makes accurate predictions is virtual proof. No!!! Absolutely not. I do not use any orthodox opinion to try to determine the meaning of the words. I use the orthodox opinion as a sort of roadsign for whgere to look. I've not lost sight of the fact that the experts are the ones with the real expertise. My sole expertise is the literal meaning of the PT which pales in significance to the amount of knowledge wrapped up in translation and interpretation as held by the real experts. But it should be remembered that their opinions are still wrong. Most of their knowledge is still correct but their opinions are simply wrong. If I take your meaning, then yes, it seems like I've merely been able to interpret the PT into another form that no one else understands. But there's a huge difference here because understanding this work has allowed me to determine how they built the pyramid and given me a great deal of insight into how they thought. Much of the problem here is that the work is sorely in need of retranslation. I could publish it in a form that would be more recognizable by simple reinterpretation but the words are translated in terms of author intent. The very definition of "translation" is to put something in another language in terms of author intend so any reinterpretation I did would be putting the cart before the horse. It's seems apparent that there is a little fundamental problem even with the translation of words. I've barely scratched the surface and it will take decades of intensive study by many people to make much sense of all this. It has profound implications across the board. It deserves a lot more effort to reconstruct human history than one person working with google. Meanwhile Egyptology simply won't do even the most basic science and there seems no clamor to get them to do so. Thje status quo is so deeply entrenched that no change is even possible. They won't do science because they are apparently afraid of the results and meanwhile they hold these sites hostage and won't let anyone do any science.

Before launching into this I need to make a few things clear. First and foremost I know very little orthodox Egyptology. There are several reasons for this but chief among them is that virtually no evidence exists from the era of great pyramid building. Yes, there are known familial relationships and pot shards. There are orientations of the dead and a great deal of information about mummies. If it was in a tomb or a grave then a lot is known but otherwise the relevent and important information simply doesn't exist. Another reason and this one may be primary, is that I intentionally avoided learing any of Egyptological interpretation until only two years ago because I was aware from the very beginning that ALL of their interpretation is wrong. Some of it is as seductive as a pod from Invasion of the Body Snathchers so I avoided it altogether. I have studied it for the last two years and find their work to often be correct in a left handed sort of way. I believe I can exclude all of their opinion which is the only reason I'm consulting it now. It has been helpful in solving some of the more arcane and esoteric concepts. It's apparent that there is some writing that must exist of which I am unaware or that some concepts from later eras are relevant to the great pyramid building age or both. This has not been a significant source for the solution of the language however: it is simply welcome help. The PT is not comprehensible in its current form. The first time I read it I scratched my head a lot. Phrases and sentences make perfect sense but they simply don't tie together. Even the sentences as they stand are generally contradicted elsewhere. There is simpy no coherent meaning in modern language. Egyptologists express this by saying the book is mere incantation and magic. They say that these are spellsand prayers that were necessary to get the kinfg into heaven but they can't tell you what prayer was needed in what place or how an incantation worked or what any individualsceptre was for. There are 27 sceptres in the PT and the function nor origin of even a single one is known. There are countless icons and these are unknown as well. Even the most basic concepts like the eye of horus is wholly opaque to Egyptological understanding. They don't appreciate how opaque it is because they don't mind havinfg the meaning change from one usage to the next. The ancients wrote an incomprehensible book of incantation so why shouldn't the meaning of even the most basic terms change from instance to instance. They simply accept these dancing meanings as par for the course; http://www.academia.edu/3071019/The_symbolism_of_the_Eye_of_Horus_in_the_Pyramid_Texts Like most Egyptological work, this one is probably good quality but it confirms that they expect nothing to make sense without analysis and then they expect that thing to be contradicted and not partr of a coherent whole. ""Although we can approach its grammar in an orderly fashion (...) we are often puzzled and even frustrated by the continual appearance of exceptions to the rules." This was written by Allen who is generally assumed to be the best translator alive. I have little reason to doubt this other than his work has simply revolutionized the older standards like Sethe or Mercer. It's impossible that the new translations are right if the old ones are. This change is a continuing process; http://eegyptology.blogspot.com/2012/02/shmakov-critical-analysis-of-allens.html Van Den Dungen http://maat.sofiatopia.org/wenis.htm Furthermore, despite major grammatical discoveries, Egyptian writing is ambiguous qua grammatical form. Some of its defects can not be overcome and so a "consensus omnium" among all sign-interpreters is unlikely. The notion of "semantic circumscription" was derived from this quote by Gardiner : "If the uncertainty involved in such tenuous distinctions awake despondency in the minds of some students, to them I would reply that our translations, though very liable to error in detail, nevertheless at the worst give a roughly adequate idea of what the ancient author intended ; we may not grasp his exact thought, indeed at times we may go seriously astray, but at least we shall have circumscribed the area within which his meaning lay, and with that achievement we must rest content." I believe the difficulty would be to find two Egytologists who agree about much of anything except that the pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by superstitious people who never changed. This is why the PT are only understood in terms of a book of magic that wouldn't exist for 1250 years. I believe that the fact a coherent meaning exists almost proves that this meaning was the intended meaning. If so then there was a change in the language and we are misapprehending the ancient people. The PT is no book of magic but it is a book of ritual; Utterance 618. 1746a. To say: Now be still, men, hear -------------------- Indeed. it is so obviously a book of ritual that this has been one of the few areas that I seem to be making some inroads. These were rituals read to the crowds at the various ascension ceremonies for the dead king (N). As such a coherent meaning begins to appear that answers all the basic questions and many specific questions such as the nature of the sceptres and icons. But it also suggests that the Egyptians had a distinct way of speaking where meaning existed in context. It suggests a different mode of consciousness and a very sophisticated science. This actually all makes perfect sense once you can accept it since no primitive bumpkin could ever have dragged stones up ramps to make a tomb for a king who lived eternally. The very nature of the great pyramids argue against the concept that they were built without science or through trial and error. We simply don't see it because we never looked where we needed to look.

Did you read the post? Better yet, did you read what the ancient people actually said? Did you read, "I have swamped the fire, I have lightened the darkness among those who come with offerings when ma'at is brought to him who crosses the waterway."? Do you believe that ancient people were so stupid that they thought swamping a fire would lighten the darkness? When you solve "Ma'at" by context you find that it is the "phenomenon of balance" (fem). Osiris tows the earth by means of maat. If you want to hear "made up" ask an Egyptologist what these words mean. I wager you can't find two of them who agree with one another. Ask him how he knows the ancients were superstitious if they don't understand any of their words. All you'll get is references to Egyptologists and not one fact. What you see above is fact gathered by original research and deduction. What the builders said they meant. It is we who are the superstitious bumpkins and not our distant ancestors. #294 The shape of the swallow is given to me by the flaming one, mistress of the isles who ascends in the flame which is on the battlements of the sky. I'm sure you missed this too. "Battlement" is the exact same word that Herodotus used to describe how they built the pyramids; in steps, and lifting stones one step at a time. There was actually another usage of the term with the fire-pan but I deleted it because people don't like more than one line at a time; 1778a. N: is the great falcon, who is upon the battlements (or, cornice blocks) of the house of "him of the hidden name," ... 1779b. his neck is like that of the mistress of the nbi-flame; There were no ramps and the concept is an absurdity.

Of course I've made it all up just as Alexander Graham Bell made up the telephone, Sir Isaac Newton made up the calculus, or Imhotep made up shorter ropes so he could stack mastabas. The biggest difference is where they invented new things I've merely rediscovered what once existed. It was the result of reverse engineering the pyramids and not deconstructing the words of the builders. When you try to analyze the words of the builders they all come off as gobblety gook and nonsense obviously written by stinky footed bumpkins but when you take the words at face value and solve them by context they are internally consistent and consistent with the physical evidence. I know far more about the fire-pan than I've let on as history virtually revolves around it in a sense. It was only important to building the mastabas and great pyramids but it became increasingly famous and important as time went by. Much of the reason is that its nature was confused but, for now, let's just look at some more of the evidence. Sekhmet was the phenomenon of the power of water at altitude. Sekhmet manifested as the water spraying through the upper eye of horus where the fire-pan sat. Here are a few of her names; Empowerer Sparkling One (remember the floating willow tree oil) Lady Of The Magic Lamp Lady Of The Waters Of Life Ruler Of The Chamber Of Flames Sekhmet, Who Rouseth The People Flaming One Awakener (remember those with ready hands stand to make an offering to the dead king) Inspirer of Men She was the "Lady of the Magic Lamp" who rouseth the people; 558a. To say: Bdš.t comes; the fire-pan burns. 558b. Those with (ready) hands stand to give an offering to N. If the fire-pan didn't burn right before sunrise there was no water and the men went back to bed. The fire-pan would go out if it weren't swamped! (Coffin Texts) #1094 I have swamped the fire, I have lightened the darkness among those who come with offerings when ma'at is brought to him who crosses the waterway. #283 ...there is a flame for N when he goes up from the horizon. #294 The shape of the swallow is given to me by the flaming one, mistress of the isles who ascends in the flame which is on the battlements of the sky. The shape of the swallow can't be seen except by the auspices of the "Mistress of the Swimming Flame": 1779b. his neck is like that of the mistress of the nbi-flame; Without the swimming flame you can't even see the person next to you; 26. O Sekhmet, at whose setting the darkness appears, in such a way that if someone nods his head (lit., makes a nod of the head) to his neighbor, they will not see one another! The nbht-sceptre sits near the fire-pan in the mn-canal and signals water flow by day by shaking brightly painted boards, while the "mks-sceptre" signals by night; 134c. (thy) mkś-sceptre and thy nḥb.t-sceptre in thy hand, commanding those of secret places. The fire-pan sat in Anubis' chest. Anubis was the phenomenon of direction of pyramid building operations from the pyramid top. His daughter was the phenomenon of water pressure over the weir that retained the willow tree-oil. The height of the water over 81' 3" was directly proportiuonal to water pressure. There was a ceremony to get out the fire-pan at the beginning of pyramid building season; 1961b. he has seen the preparation of the feast, and the preparation of the fire-pan, This device was extremely fragile and it's impossibler to have used it as a bowl. It required careful packing away at the end of the season; 2118b. at the (feast of the) month, at the (feast of the) half month, at the (feast of) covering the fire-pan, at the (feast of) Thot, at the wȝg-feast, It just keeps going because this is the nature of real science. Real science makes predictions but saying they mustta used ramps because they mussta been superstitious and changeless is just words. These particular words have no predictive value whatsoever so we have no answers and only questions. They won't do the basic science that could prove they are right because they know they're wrong. I could go on for hours about the fire-pan and this is just a tiny piece ofall the proof that our ancestors did know paleontology and many other things. They would have written (and did write) numerous books about numerous such subjects but by mere quirk of fate all that actually survives is what they would consider a silly little book of ritual which we misinterpret as magic and incantation. They had an important scientific work that would have been something like the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics but it's lost. It was called the "Book of Thot" which means the the book of the phenomenon of human progress. The PT hints that a surviving copy might exist and there is some physical evidence to support this but instead they are destroying the artefacts and still looking for treasure. People really should mind. Good!!! I must be doing something right.

I believe a lot of the difficulty here is my own tentativeness and lack of certainty. I'm only 75% certain that the basis of all these beliefs is real but if it is real then it is a virtual certainty that there was an ancient science that progressed uninterrupted for 40,000 years and language was its metaphysics. Most of my research has gone toward trying to get inside the minds of the writers of the Pyramid Texts since this is the only thing that survives but I've spent significant effort in trying to figure out the precedents for later works. This means a lot of thinking about the Bible, Koran, holy books, and the various early Christian writings and hermetic texts. Much of this contains extensive fragments of ancient concepts. I believe the great 19th century scientists were closing in on making the some deductions that would lead them in this same direction but something went horribly wrong. Budge, GRS Mead, and several others appear to have had a more accurate understanding than later scholars. For instance there's a device that was used to signal the workers to report to work in the morning. It was colloquially known as the "fire-pan" and its scientific name was "mks-sceptre". It was a floating oil lamp that burned willow tree oil that was in a thin film on top of the water. It held 1.1 gallons of air under it to keep afloat but had a device called a "rennenutet" that funneled CO2 from the nearby upper eye of horus to replace the small amount of air that escaped up the wick with the oil. This lamp was shaped so that it could only be refueled by violent rocking caused by the water falling on top of the pyramid. This lamp just happens to be the origin of the word "God" in most modern languages! GRS Mead had this to say about some later writing that obviously came from this concept; Here's a translation that follows; invocation to the light 1. I invoke thee, O God, the living one, 2 who dost show forth thy splendour in the fire, thou unseen Father of the Light! Pour forth thy strength; awake thy daimon, and come down into this fire; inspire it with [thy] holy spirit; show me thy might, and let the house of the almighty God, which is within this light, be opened for me! Let there be light,— [thy] breadth-depth-length-height-ray; and let the Lord, the [God] within, shine forth! Simply stated the evidence that there was an ancient science is very very very broad. It just happens to be everywhere and the reason it's not seen is not so much that the light has gone out but that the language has changed. The conventional wisdom today is that ancient people were superstitious and sun addled. The conventional wisdom is wrong.

There's really quite a few statements about the pyramids and their nature as made by the actual builders. Egyptological assumptions are everywhere contradicted by these statements. 1249c. To say four times: N. mounts to heaven; 1559c. that N. may rest in heaven, as a mountain, as a support. Just as the column of water known as "Atum" defined the sky and the earth through eruption the dead king as the pyramid supports the sky. 1296a. (And) men will construct with their arms a stairway to thy throne. 990b. The earth shall rise under the feet of N.; Over and over the Pyramid Texts say that the pyramid is not a tomb and that it was built in "battlements" or as steps to heaven yet Egyptology persists in believing the builders were so primitive they could only have used ramps. The only evidence that can remotely apply to the builders is in the PT yet it isn't believed because it doesn't fit the assumptions. The physical evidence doesn't fit the assumptions either but rather than do the testing or performing the science they ignore any idea that doesn't fit their beliefs. Egyptology has more in common with a religion than a science as it applies to the great pyramids. It is based on four false assumptions which they refuse to try to falsify or investigate. I believe this is extremely important but the status quo is immovable. Egyptology is blocking science at Giza. They won't do it themselves nor let anyone else. They are destroying the artefacts and the cultural heritage while a little bit of non-destructive testing would positively answer the questions of how they were built and who built them. Each year they bury more evidence in concrete and tourist centers and drill more holes looking for loot they are sure is hidden away. Meanwhile the important discoveries lie inches away or in plain sight undisturbed. The paradigm has failed for 150 years but it is still sacrosanct. 1834a. The earth [produces] N.; he shall be chief of the gods who are in heaven,

Yes, and no. The water came out of the eye of horus because the eye of horus was any opening through which the geyser flowed. The ankh is a representation of the geyser and the eye is only a small part of it. No! Hermes was a god and there's no proof any religious based god ever existed much less that one wrote books. This isn't to deny the possibility of (G)od(s), merely to state none are factual in the sense we think of and no evidence exists of writing other than One using a finger to enscribe the ten commandments (weakly evidence). Hermes was born in a cave (like atum) and the name means column (like atum was a column of water). Yes. The Emerald Tablets appear to be written in our modern confused language but they appear to be a direct and good translation of something from the ancient language. As such the tablets describe building using water from a geyser. Go back and read it. It is higfhly improbable that the translator of this work understood its meaning which is why we don't understand its meaning. You can't easily translate between computer code and any modern language. Any attempt will result in flow charts and logic charts and be mostly incomprehensible to most people. This is why we don't understand any of the ancient writing that exists; it is not and can not be properly translated. A far better job can be done when the meaning is known. There is most probably no entrance on the south side. I'm not sure what the confusion is here but will try to research this when I have the time. It might be the source of Vyse's conviction that there was a southern entrance which led him to dynamite (probably nitroglycerin actually) a massive hole on the south side. There is one entrance implied in the PT that isn't known on the north side but there are only two known known entrances both on the north side and one being made by the Caliphate. There were also two tiny air shaft entrances that lead out and two others similar during construction that only reached the flat top. I believe there are poorly sealed canals leading nearly to the outside in several locations at 80 feet and 160 feet. Again, I don't believe any evidence exists that the ancient Egyptians thought this way. We have interpreted the PT in terms of the religions that didn't even exist when the PT was written. This is not legitimate research. More importantly though it has yielded no knowledge of the ancient beliefs and failed to make any predictions. It is quite apparently in error. All we have from two centuries of study of the pre-2000 BC Egyptians is endless mysteries and inconsistencies in the paradigm. Perhaps your words apply to later eras but they would have no meaning to earlier people. There are so many logical inconsistencies with time keeping I hardly know where to start. Of course there are only "hundreds" of time zones when viewed from a maritime perspective. Most countries have strict rules about time keeping in port and these can vary over short distances. There are areas that use daylight savings and some that don't. These can be mixed. The time zones are not all linear based on longitude. Perhaps, one of the weirdest phenomena associated with out definitions is the international date-line which causes one to gain or lose a day when crossing. No provision exists for adjusting this for rapid movement such as a high spewed conveyance or a person circling one of the poles (earth's axis). I really don't see any practical advantage to using our definitions. It seems somewhat akin to trying to define the earth as flat and making the math work out. A place can be on either side of a time zone so you don't know sunset or sunrise by knowing the time there. If we all used the same time then there would be less confusion and "local" time would come to mean its offset from greenwich time. If you're -6.5 hours then you'd know sunset and sunrise. Life revolves around the sun rather than local time which varies the sunset many hours over the course of the year. Of course there would still be latitude differences but these are estimatable. We would still need to define midnight as part of the day; either 0:00 or 24:00. It's remarkable that time definitions are as good as they are but then there's still the problem with the various calenders in use as well. I believe if we went to standard time there would be a lot less confusion all around. Perhaps people would pay more attention to accuracy as well. As is, it can be extremely difficult to determine the exact time anything happens and this especially applies when the event is half a world away. I'm not sure I see any benefit to current definitions other than to keep the terms AM and PM. These terms have little meaning when we change the clocks twice a year. I think most people would be more likely to know when noon and midnight actually occur on standards time.

You're either sandbagging a lot or you have a natural talent for this. You've got the thread ends and they just need to be tied together like fire and water making stars. ...Like Re' and the moon makes bubbles. Before I get back to all the new stuff in the thread let me just address these. Re' is not a god of the underworld. This is a confusion of the ancient language. There is no religion, there is no magic,and there is no underworld. It is Re' which adorns the ben ben with a rainbow. The ben ben is the life's work (ka) of Atum who is the natural phenomenon of the geyser. This word for "geyser" in it's scientific form was the "D3.t" which is misinterpreted as the "duat" in modern times. When Atum stood on the Giza Plateau as the "D3.t" he was not only the ben ben on the primeval mound but also the column of water offgassing CO2 and the water which built the ka of the king (tthe pyramid) as well as the Marsh of Offerings where the water collected (as the wdn.t-offerings). Meaning was expressed differently in Egyptian and they had a different "mode of consciousness". This is part of what is hiding the obvious meaning. The specific lines misinterpreted as saying that Re' is a god of the underworld are all through the PT. Essentially Re' is simply connected with everything that takes place outdoors during the day. 372c. he makes, the ka of N. clean in the lake of the Dȝ.t. 372d. He rubs down the flesh of the ka of N. and his own 372e. with that which is near Rē‘ in the horizon, that which he (Rē‘) took, The geyser was composed of several "natural phenomena" but when the CO2 level dropped below a critical point all that was left were dead "gods" and Nun (natural phenomenon of water of the abysss) under the ground. The term D3.t morphed into a new concept that meant dead gods under the ground after the water dried up, the language changed, and religion was invented to try to preserve the ancient knowledge. This new concept is the "duat". It is a modern word for a symbolic place. NONE of the definitions assigned by Egyptology apply to the language in which the PT was written. Sure, many of the verbs and like are highly similar in meaning but the words are used differently to express meaning. It is similar to computer code. Essentially in order to understand the ancient language you need to go through the PT line by line and word by word determining what words have to mean for the statements to be logical and express coherent meaning. The way Egyptologists do it simply doesn't work. In 150 years they've made no sense of it at all. There are 27 different sceptres and they don't know the origin or meaning of a single one of them but using the technique of solving for referents has yielded definitions for 15 of these so far. It has also solved the origin of several of the icons such as the symbol for "life" (the ankh) is the geyser. Water in the sunny desert is life. The PT seen in this light is answering such basic questions as how and why the pyramids were built but all Egyptology has is the assumptions that changeless bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps. These assumptions have no evidence in support. Our ancestors simply changed after they built the pyramids one step at a time and we are the bumpkins. The Caliphate Al Mamuum was likely the first modern person in the Great Pyramid in the 13th century AD. He foreced an "entry" below the main entrance on the north side. There is a significant probability that the upper reaches were accessible by means of the grotto and so-called escape tunnel but he made the hole to remove something rather than to get in. I mention this because the lid of the so-called sarcophagus is missing and the Emerald Tablets are traced to the Caliphate. The lid would not fit out without the new "entrance" even if the descending corridor was open which it likely was not. I do have a lot of doubt that the Caliphate had any means to translate any text that might have been on the lid. But we don't know what else was in the so-called king's chamber so there might have been an older translation of the lid into Syriac or some other ancient language. It appears he spoke a few languages. Whatever the case the Emerald Tablets of Hermes appear to be a fairly faithful translation of an ancient text written in the ancient language. They describe how to build using a geyser!! Indeed a corrolary of Newton's third law of motion is #8 on the tablets; The water ascends to heven and its energy is used in a counterweight to lift an equal quantity of stone. It's interesting Newton himself studied the pyramid looking for help with his law of gravitation. There's a curious inscription near the main entrance which might state this mathematically. Newton's translation of #8 is less good; Remarkably a couple even mention the rainbow!!! It orders the lights above!!!!!! Once you see it it all becomes rather cut and dried. It's not really so outlandish once you remember that things change and the evidence is all there. I still find I have a few superstitions left. Just recently I realized that I see the universe very mechanistically which is most probably in error especially in light of the newest science. The Egyptians saw the universe as a massive dance and until you can see this you can't understand several lines in the PT. It will be tempting to belittle the ancient science when we finally start trying to reinvent it but, I suspect, it holds some knowledge we've yet to discover and it will hold some important keys to the future. It will apply much more closely to humans than modern science. Of course, I've been wrong before. http://www.the-book-of-thoth.com/content-157.html

It's funny that in this modern world we can't seem to agree on a single thing. There are hundreds of time zones throughourt the world which shows we can't even agree it's the same time everywhere. Nobody knows what day midnight falls on because it is undefined in such terms but everyone thinks he knows. We can't agree on word usage, pronunciation, best authors, or war and peace. Once in a while scientists might agree on something but there are just as many priests to disagree. But there's one thing that almost every modern person will agree with; our ancestors were ignorant and superstitious. There are countless ways we believe and say this and new ones are dreamed up every day. Of course the new superstition is to never insult any group even if they've all been dead for tens of thousands of years so when we say they were superstitious we usually append "not that there's anything wrong with that", or that they were brilliant and sophisticated despite being ignorant and superstitious. The bottom line remains exactly the same; they could not have done what they did with ignorance and superstition. These traits lead to regression and death, not to building and improvement. It is most highly improbable they passed down science, engineering, and paleontology through oral tradition and preserved only their superstitions and religions in writing. If this were so then where is all the ancient sacred writing? why wasn't it preserved? Why do no books survive? It doesn't matter if these words are understood or not. It doesn't matter if they are believed or not. What matters is how did the builders of the great pyramids see their own work. The answer is that there are clues throughout their entire culture as gleaned from their tombs. The answer is that the Pyramid Texts that was inscribed in stone is simple ritual written by highly scientific people whose science was observation and logic and its metaphysics was language. This is why it looks like religion and magic to us and it's why we don't understand either the ancient religion nor the ancient magic. Does it really make any sense at all that we could have a thick book on the ascension of the king and not understand the simplest terms in the book ansd have no clue at all about their beliefs, their magic sceptres, the icons, or anything? Does it really make any sense that all the writing from the era is gobblety gook and lists? Does it really make any sense that they left nothing related to their knowledge? What is wrong with this picture? I believe you might make a pretty good Egyptologist. You've figured out something that took me 6 years to deduce; the ancient elements. Egyptologists don't know about these elements because they believe all the writing is religion and incantation. They believe that Re' was just the sun "god" and had limited manifestation. I can't speak extensively on this subject because there are few clues in the rituals which we call the Pyramid Texts about their "chemistry" as it applies to the elements. They speak of compounds much more often than the rules for understanding the elements. However, it appears that water was not itself an element per se, or if it was, it was always represented by the moon. It's a tough call and not one I understand yet. Egyptologists do not even recognize that the eye of horus is connected to water!!! They believe that word changes meaning by context and over time. Yet none of these meanings is clear. Even if you were right (it's quite possible) that some uses of the word "water" in the PT do not apply to H2O the fact remains that the important ones are extremely well defined and do neceesarily apply to H2O. There is only a single liquid that can form a pillar on the horizon and off gas CO2 . They called it "water like wine", "cool effervescent water that came to the uplands", and various other things that simply have only one real world referent. They either had geysers and a funny way of saying it or a shared hallucination that persisted for centuries and resulted in all their books being destroyed by later generations.

The pyramids were stained red below double the height of zero kebehwet (twice the height of a step)(162' 6"). The heiroglyph for "pyramid" has the same region colored red. The angle of the pyramid is 52 degrees or the color red on the secondary rainbow and the arris angle up the corners is 42 degrees or the color red on the primary rainbow. The former is not coincidence because there was siderite in the water but the latter are probably coincidences. It would be nice if we studied these to find out. Just to be clear on this point I should point out that NO egyptologist believes the ancients were talking about rainbows. When Mercer used "bow" he believed is was referring to one of the "enemies" of Egypt, and, I believe, when Allen uses the term "sky arc" it is as a theoretical place between earth and heaven. I'm not certain he's ever defined his understanding of the term but keep in mind that Egyptologists believe there was no concrete meaning to the ancient words. They write whole books describing how a simple concept like the eye of horus (the opening for water) changes meaning with each usage in the PT. They also don't believe in CO2 or the hydraulic cycle known as "nehebkau" (Nḥb-kȝ.w); 1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus. ... 1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water; 1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils; There very much is a land of rainbows still lying under the desert sand. The water failed in 2600 BC and then the language changed in 2000 BC so it was forgotten. But in every important way it is still there and still critical to the species.

Egyptologists believe in stinky footed bumpkins as evidenced by a translation that suggests even their gods aren't smart enough to not walk through corpse drippings. 722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through, 722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris. 723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star). Indeed, the author sems to be suggesting that walking gods should squish their toes in the corpse drippings. Most people who study ancient times though other than Egyptologists seem to subscribe to the sun addled bumpkin theory. These people simply spent so much time out in the desert that they saw people turning into pillars of salt and falling towers causing changes in the language. There are newer theories that suggests the ancients were stoned and there are known to be hemp ropes dating back many centuries as well as magic mushrooms and toads with questionable taste. Many people see trial and error. All you'd need is 4.2 X 10 ^ 807,000 th monkeys and typewriters to get War and Peace so how many bumpkins does it take to build a pyramid? These are probably impossibilities. But none of these ideas are addressing the evidence. Why does the literal meaning of the PT actually explain the physical evidence???! Why did the builders consistently say one thing and we believe another? This is exactly what the builders described; CO2 geysers. This is what the ancient historians recorded. This was the "secretion" that came from Osiris that required people to tiptoe or die. 2110b. ’Iḫ.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by the earth. 2110c. Thy fame is by day; thy fear is by night, as a god, lord of f ear. 2110d. Thou commandest the gods like the mighty one, chief of the mighty. 2111. [O] Osiris, the overflow comes, the inundation hastens, Geb groans. "I’ḫ.t-wt.t," is "risings begetter" that caused cake and bread to rise. It caused foam to rise on beer. It is defined in numerous contexts as CO2. It caused the overflow of water from Osiris. No other concept fits in every place they used the term "’Iḫ.t-wt.t," therefore it meant CO2. This was the scientific term and colloquially it was Osiris' sweat or efflux (corpse secretion). All adaptive behavior of groups is based on logic and observation. It is probably impossible to build a civilization through superstition and hallucination will not aid in any way. The "theory" that they mustta used ramps is debunked. It is wholly disproved. It is apparent they pulled the stones up one step at a time and this is consistent with what the builders actually said. If as you yourself say, they actually had geysers then this would be conclusive proof of my theory and virtual proof they meant what they said. All the physical evidence is in agreement. In twenty years the concept of ramps will be quaint. People will wonder what we were thinking but we're what thinking is that we are the pinnacle of creation and the ancients were bumpkins who just didn't know better. Again, all the physical evidence is either neutral to how they were built, denies ramps were used, supports that they used counterweights, or both denies ramps and supports counterweights. Essentially the argument for ramps is that the people were too primitive to invent any other means. All the evidence cited for ramps is assumptive and/ or anachronistic. There are two apparent arguments for ramps but they disintegrate on closer inspection. One is that there is fill on the cliff face on the NW corner of G1. This is the site of a counterweight that ran down the cliff face and pulled stones up an inclined plane from the quarry. The fillwas needed to resghape the cliff face for counterweight operation. The nature of the fill is largely debris like broken pottery. The other argument is the oft repeated story that the main quarry east of G2 was filled with "ramping material" but no analysis of this material is known. There were temporary structures of various sorts used as infrastructure at Giza. Most of these were made of tura limestone and cannibalized to build the cladding on the pyramid but some were made of material like tafla and stone chips such as the 80' loading platform on the south side of G2. All the evidence says they used counterweights. Much of this evidence is actually fairly good quality. There's an excellent sampling of builders' jobs that reflect using water and not one single job consistent with ramps. It is apparent that few men were employed at this task and there is extensive evidence for water all over the plateau. It's what the builders said.

I apologize for losing track of this post. I believe the Egyptian civilization borrowed heavily from earlier civilization, most of which were African. Like all peoples they also imported ideas from trading partners and others they encountered. Egypt then became much of the basis of the Greek civilization but, again, each civilization has built on what came before. The Greeks gave little credit to earlier peoples. I believe that civilization really started as soon as complicated language arose around 40 to 50 thousand years ago because it was the language that encoded al the science that was required for progress. Some of this is talked about here; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78437-ancient-beliefs-and-evolution/ There are an infinite number of ways to say something in modern language. There are strict limitations on how something is worded in computer code or in the ancient language. There are a few other similarities as well. I haven't done computer code since the days of fortran and wasn't especially good at it. I'm a little more familiar with hardware but equally out of date. Directions for computers and electronics are often written in an indecipherable language that looks like computer code translated into English. This is similar to how the Pyramid Texts read. I believe almost all computer languages are strictly brutal when it comes to logic. Almost any logic error in almost any computer program will cause it to fail. GIGO. The ancient language is the same way; it is dependent on understanding the entire sentence and each sentence can sometimes hinge on other sentences. Any error of "logic"; any choice of the wrong word will cause the entire sentence to be meaningless. It's possible for a progran to have a function despite an error and it's possible to express some meaning in the ancient language with an error but usually neither have any meaning at all with even the smallest error.

It probably had many names but the one used predominantly in the PT is "Land of Horus". The newer translation of the word for "rainbows" is "sky arcs" but Mercer used "bows". This was the land of "the horizon" which was the true horizon from which the sunset and sunrise could be seen. Down in the valley these events were obscured by the valley walls. The "land of rainbows" was a triangular area from the Fayuum Depression to Giza. It was about 25 miles on its long axis and less than 10 on the side at the Fayuum. It is the land "under magic" (observation) where all of the great pyramids were built. It is the area where water sprayed from the ground like seltzer water. The PT is exquisite in its detail and refers to the "effervescent water like wine that tosses violently at Giza beginning in the summer each year". The ancients named the years after the (calculated) amount of water that filled the 37 acre Saqqara enclosure during the season. This measurement can be used to provide an estimate of the amount of stone lifting done each year. Yes, this evidence is open to interpretation but what's not really open to interpretation is some the physical evidence which all agrees with it. Scientific definition; 1455a. for N. is a star, the light-scatterer of the sky. Poetic; 1078c. the steps of Nun are open, 1078d. the steps of light are revealed 1078e. by that one who endures always. Everyday usage; 1680b. the apertures of the (heavenly) windows are open for thee; 1680c. broad are thy steps of light; "Poetic" may be something of a misnomer since these lines are used to establish the who, when, what, and why of the subject for the specific ritual. They didn't really write anything we'd recognize as poetry probably in the PT except to the significant degree everything they ever said was a sort of poetry. Their words always rhymed with nature. The concept of rainbows have been vital to my ability to decipher the meaning of the PT and to even follow some of the concept across the change in the language circa 2000 BC. There are many more usages of this concept in the PT and in history. A rainbow is Atum's adornment; 1587a. To say: Greetings to thee, Atum. 1587b. Greetings to thee, Khepri, who created himself. 1587c. Thou art high, in this thy name of "Ḳȝ." 1587d. Thou comest into being, in thy name of "Khepri." 1588a. Greetings to thee, eye of Horus, which he adorned with his two hands completely. Atum is the spraying water from the ben ben on the primeval mound. Khepri is the "natural phenomenon of the same sun each day" which shines down on Atum creating rainbows; It's so ironic that another name for the primeval mound in later Egyptian language was "sandbank of horrible face bringing water".

Modern communication is extremely poor. Language is still nearly as useful as ever for thought, but communication is divided and confused. There is no alternative to saying the same thing over and over for me to be understood. I do use some strange terminolgy but it's an an attempt to be understood correctly and to otherwise be not understood at all. My typing skills are horrendous and I drop words and sentence fragments in trying to correct text sometimes. This is the root of the problem that people can't see this. They have so many basic beliefs that are contradicted by the concept that ancient people were scientific rather than superstitious that they simply miss the points. Modern people have a lot of preconceptions that seem to invalidate the idea that the ancient language was meant literally. But it's not the idea that is wrong it is the myriad preconceptions. In a sense the most absurd preconception is that Egyptology is a science but this is not fair to those in the field who have done so much work and expended so much effort to make it possible to solve this. We have the belief that humans are intelligent but this is not well supported by evidence. We have the belief that we can communicate clearly but this is obviously untrue. We have the belief that everything is known by someone and all we need to do is seek out the person who knows. This is absurd as seen by the ability to obtain opposing expert witnesses on anything from the simplest science to the most complex. We have the believe that invention springs from trial and error rather than through observation and this belief goes 100 times over if we're speaking of ancient people and a million times over if we're speaking of beavers. We believe ancient people were highly superstitious because this is what we've been told and we need to have some understanding of why they were so perfectly primitive. It's seems the simplest explanation for why people would be willing to live without modern conveniences, machines, and infrastructure. It is all of these beliefs that have to laid bare for people to even consider the facts and the science related to reverse engineering of the great pyramids. The toughest thing for people to accept is that there is a single coherent meaning that is expressed in the only ancient writing that exists; the Pyramid Texts. Anyone who reads it sees gobblety gook and the translators who put it into every modern language sees gobblety gook. They see words that must change meaning because they see no consistent meaning. They see it in terms of the religion that existed centuries later that arose from the great grand children of the pyramid builders. In actuality the words express meaning differently than the way we express meaning. They were misinterpreted by the children of the pyramid builders much the same as we misinterpret them. The change in language was as invisible 4000 years ago as it is now. It appears as though all humans spoke the same language. No doubt there would be numerous dialects and differences could be significant but vocabulary was very limited and grammar always the same. This language was simply the natural human language which might be akin to other animal languages. Computer code is "natural" to computers. It was designed that way. It works. Modern human language is different. Words gain their definitions from context. Meaning is often unclear yet it's not noticed by the listener who fills in the meaning as he understands it. This is why the PT sounds like nonsense. Of course there are also translation problems and numerous unknown words. Some of these words have been "solved" by Egyptologists by using concepts from later times further muddying the waters. They never understood the meaning and every translator has stated that the meaning is unclear and they can only circumscribe the meaning. In actuality it appears to be written in language that is not readily translated because it is more complex than simple translation can be accomplished into modern fragmented language. This is as clearly as I can say it but I'm sure there will need to be many more attempts before these concepts are understood. I'll add some examples to this post as I have time and address your other concerns later. What you need to get here is that I've been able to solve how the great pyramidswere built largely through reverse engineering them but also through understanding the actual intended meaning of the builders themselves. This meaning appears to be clear but isn't understood by Egyptologists who all speak modern language. ...Mebbe if there were some computer programmers among them... Here's one of my favorite examples because it is absolutely absurd as understood in modern language; Utterance 538. 1302a. To say: Back, thou lowing ox. 1302b. Thy head is in the hand of Horus; thy tail is in the hand of Isis; 1302c. the fingers of Atum are at thy horns. These should be called "rituals" rather than utterances. Egyptology misunderstands the Pyramid Texts to be spells, incantation, and religious nonsense. They start out "to say" because these rituals were read aloud to the crowds at the many ascension ceremonies of the dead king (N) not because they are incantations that must be spoken aloud. This particular ritual certainly seems to be written by stinky footed bumpkins. There seems to be an implication that three of their most powerful gods are required to overpower an ox. This is entirely wrong and when each of these terms is solved by context you'll find it actually paints a very clear picture of loading the device that lifted stones up the nearly sheer side (72 degrees) of the stepped pyramid. I know a lot about this device because of this utterance and many others. All the terms were solved by context and this context tells a different tale than inept gods threatening small cattle. The "ox" is actually the "bull of heaven" which was the entire device that lifted the stone. It was the "boats of balance" and described as the boats tied together and operated by the "Overseer of the Boat of Neit" and the "ferryman" who filled the counterweight (boat). Meaning was expressed in context and the head of the bull of heaven is defined as the context. The scientific term was "dndr-boat" but this term isn't applicable here because it's not the subject. The "ox" is the actual sled on which they put the stones and/ or the remains of the king to be lifted up the pyramid. It was shaped simiolarly to the head of an ox; Atum was the first god who separated the earth from the sky through definition when he sprayed water high in the air. All gods manipulated things through their fingers and Atum moved this sled through the horns at the back. These horns were simply the attachnments for the ropes from the counterweight on the other side of the pyramid. Horus the Younger was the stone that came from the quarries in the Land of Rainbows where the great pyramids were built. Horus the Elder was the falcon god of the Land of Rainbows. Horus the younger "had no feet and he had no arms" but he sat on his hands (the ability to manipulate the ox through his weight). Isis is the goddess of the counterweight and mother of horus the younger whom she lifted from the nearby quarry. This is all stated directly in the PT and it's stated consistently, repeatedl, and coherently. The ferryman filling the counterweight and a device called the "Min" determined the height of the sled (ox head) as it was being filled. Several stones went into each load and they were all loaded from the same platform on the east side of the pyramid. The ferryman added water to raise the ox and the min was a large "boat" submerged in the water that pushed up on the sled. Each time a stone was loaded the sled (ascender) would sink lower and someone would sometimes recite the ritual above. The ox would make a "lowing sound" as the heavy wooden timbers moved against the "ladder of heaven" upon which it ascended. This language is extremely expressive but if you don't understand it then it's just gobblety gook and you'll get strange ideas about the people and their beliefs. It's not extremely difficult to understand but the powers that be buried their heads in the sand on this issue four years ago and show no sign of coming up for air. It's not so friustrating becuase any number of simple tests can prove I'm right or they're wrong. It's frustrating because there are tests that can answer the questiuons no matter what the reality is. They won't do them because they are afraid of the results. Instead they commission one study after another to prove with math that it's possible to have used ramps. ...Even though ramps have been debunked for two years now.

I'm unaware of such research. I know from experience that just a few generations of insects are sufficient to cause changes in their behavior through selection. But none of these behaviors I've observed can be considered really complex like dam building. Just a few generations of swatting flies on tables will create a generation that will land on the bottoms of objects rather than the tops. I believe animals are nearly as intelligent as humans and that in some ways some are more intelligent than humans. There have been stories of tremendous intelligence in octopi for centuries, if not longer. Yes, that they would write things down is an assumption. If there were any history from the early days of writing then we would know if they wrote things down. The blackout before 2000 BC is indicative of the concept but hardly proof. It's not like the first writing is a treatise on the unimportance of recording oral history. It seems logical enough that everything important would be recorded in the first few centuries and nothing like this survives. Let's just say it is an assumption based on my understanding of the people and can't stand unless I'm right. When it comes to math and science our ability to communicate is superb. Two computer programmers can communicate complex ideas precisely. People are intelligent, just not nearly as much so as we all think. Most everyday communication is poor. Modern people wade into an indigenous population who speak a modern language and try to force them to accept a written form of that language. How can this possibly be relevant to the inventors of writing? As I mentioned earlier if you had read my post, people don't like change. They resist it but there are various leaders from government to business who have interests in change. While the changes that drive history go from the bottom up, the changes that drive change come from the top down. Demand drives history, leaders drive change. You are trying to force your perspective onto all other people at all other times. This is the same mistake the Egyptologists make. They don't understand the language so they assume the writers must have been stinky footed bumpkins. Since they believed evwen their gods needed to be told not to walk through corpse drippings then they were very superstitious. Everything flows from these misunderstandings.

Thanks for the picture. I might have to quote you extensively on this. Dr Bui is a brilliant man but he is obviously misinterpreting this picture. I can put a grid on it that shows the five steps but can not obtain his permission so anyone who cares how the pyramids were built will simply need to create his on five step grid. This grid clearly shows the impossibility that these represent any sort of ramp at all. It is simply impossible that a line parallel to the base shows a ramp. This scan shows a five step pyramiud and it shows how the great pyramids were actually built; the stones were pulled up one step at a time. If you think about it ramps would be the most highly inefficient means due to the effort to build ramps, the incredible effort of dragging stones on them, and the need to remove them after the work. However a team of men on the top could pull stones up easily. Ramps are debunked and we know stones "mustta been" pulled up a step at a time. Logic, common sense, the physical evidence and the Pyramid Texts are all in agreement. People don't realize just how shallow the argument for ramps actually is. It consists of "there was no other means to lifft stones for such primitive and superstitious people.". This concept has fallen flat. There were countless easier ways for them to build and the other means are actually evidenced. I like the internal ramp theory quite a lot. More genius has gone into this than ANY Egyptological theory of pyramid building in history (which starts in 2000 BC). Unfortunately the theory is incorrect in main part. If they ever allowed its inventor to do the basic science to falsify his theory we would have the answer to how irt was built regardless of what that answer is. This is simple 1970's technology and Egyptology has stood in the way of it being done. While Egyptologists drill holes in G1 looking for treasure this testing is inexpensive, unobtrusive, necessary, and wholly nondestructive. They are scared to death of what the testing will find. It will overturn all their assumptions so they won't do it and won't even let anyone else. These are the facts and they can't be changed by dodging them.

Pictures maybe then; This is a picture of the boat they used to lift the stones but is an artist's rendition. The oryx at the head symbolizes their ability to work with a minimum of water. The bullrepresents the strenght. The stone speaks for itself and is "horus" who sits atop it. Here you can see the water catchment device that surrounds G2. These catchments sat under the pyramids so had to have been built first. They were necessary to catch water. Incredibly this specific "integral apron" is even mentioned in the PT!!! Here you can see the vertical lines on the pyramids stright up their sides which resulted from the finishing operations. All stones throughout the projecrt moved straight up the side. It's impossible ramps could have left such evidence. Here you can see the traces of the route stones took much better. Counterweights moved down and stones moved up. Be sure to look at the top picture here which essentially proves ramps can not have been used. http://hdbui.blogspot.com/ Here's a ben ben stone growing on a primeval mound right this moment. Robert Temple says the water is percolating up from deep underground in the Sphinx Temple leaving this behind. The simple fact is the evidence is virtually conclusive but the tests aren't being done to prove it. Indeed, the last real science done at Giza was 25 years ago when it was shown stones were pulled up one step at a time. This evidence is consistent with the fact that the ancients had difficulty making ropes in excesss of 100'. The evidence is all consistent. The lack of depth of this evidence is reflective of the fact so little is known and that the powers that be are unwilling to do basic science (like infrared imaging) which would show how these were really built.

So far as I am aware there is no known means at this time to read behaviors such as dam building in the DNA of beavers. We say they are hard wired to this and there may well be some truth to this but it's unlikely that the first dam built by a beaver was "hard wired" into it. I'm not denying instinct by any means. I'm merely suggesting that any animal must have some basic understanding to function in unknown situations (other than fight or flight) and complicated behaviors must be learned after the understanding makes the behavior possible. Gunpowder burned rapidly and exploded if it was confined. Perhaps it was an accident caused by the explosion not being completely confined that led to the first rocket but the individual who saw and perfected it had to understand the theory behind it rto accomplish the task. Nothing has ever really changed. What sets man apart is the ability to pass down very complex learning not only through apprenticeship, oral tradition, and various forms of writing but also our relative dexterity and some simple cleverness. It's much too easy to overestimate human cleverness since most of what appears to cleverness is actually learning. There's no evidence other species have such complicated language as we do. Most appear to have no more than a few hundred words. Even if these are arranged in something like computer code the amount of information that can be passed and the complexity of the ideas must surely be rather limited. Perhaps there are other human characteristics that come into play as well but it seems most improbable that language isn't the primary source of our power. Human males have always had a need to impress the females for instance but this is probably not a strictly human characteristic. This is exactly the point though. The first thing a writing system would record is all the knowledge, oral tradition, and history that existed at the time writing was invented. This simply doesn't exist. To my knowledge there simply is no comprehensible writing between 3200 BC and 2000 BC. I know there is nothing Egyptian from this era other than what is said to be religious writing but none of it is comprehensible. Every book fronm before 2000 BC didn't survive. A few ancient works were transcribed early in the 2nd millineum BC but in each case these works are primarily lists. Most of the other surviving writing are titles and labels. Are we to believe the ancients wrote only one word sentences and religious mumbo jumbo? This is most highly improbable. It appears from the PT that the entire vocabulary might have consisted of about 15,000 words. This seems insufficient to express all the ideas we do today. Many words now are highly esoteric or archaic but most people use more words than this in everyday conversation. To me it always comes down to the same question; where is the ancient writing and evidence for their extensive theory. I'm not certain I see the connection. I'm not certain I'm even impressed by most modern communication outside of math and science. It seem most communication is clumsy at best. It seems a miracle anytime two people are on the same subject and doubly so when I'm one of them.

Well... ...I suppose in the lounge there's less need to stick exactly to the original topic so I'll respond to this. The only nature of the pyramid that is really made up is the assumptions that the builders were too superstitious to use any means to lift stones to build tombs than ramps. This is simply all unevidenced and it's more unevidenced that their religion never changed for a thousand years. These are assumptions were made because man has an insatiable ap- petite to understand everything and especially his past. People want to be able to model reality so they can see how all the pieces fit. The pieces didn't go together without the in- vention of these assumptions that act like a cement. They seemed logical enough with the evidence at hand when they were invented. No one would look at the pyramids and think They had cranes, flying boats, or winged stones. Here's a thread where you can point out errors of logic and fact. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78598-pyramids-through-the-eyes-of-the-builders/ In these two posts I've barely scratched the surface of all the evidence. The pyramid is really much more a times machine than it is a tomb and this is a fact; 1649c. who will cause this pyramid of N. to endure, 8g. endowed with life, endurance, joy, health, like Rē‘, eternally. 1046c. thou commandest (with) words as he who is at the head of the living, eternally. 1369d. (thou) who endurest eternally at the head of the mighty ones. 1693b. so that thou mayest surpass the years of Horus of the horizon, 1661b. so may the name of N. endure, 1661c. so may this his pyramid endure, and this his temple, likewise, for ever and ever. 167a. To say: Atum, this thy son is this one here, Osiris, whom thou hast made to endure and to live. The builders thought the pyramid was a time machine that could transport the king to the future and forever watch over Egyptians. No one wants to talk about what the builders actually said which just happens to be supported by the physical evidence and logic. They don't want to talk about it because of its profound implications. They don't want to talk about it because they need to believe our ancestors were stinky footed bumpkins rather than scientists who built time machines and could hold everything they knew in mind.

If he believes I will have hijacked this thread he's living in an alternative reality as well.

I ain't got much book lernin'. ...but I know which thread I'm in and which way is up.

I hate to break this to you but school is going to get much worse after high school. I don't want to discourage you from college but you sound a great deal like me at your age. In school you are allowed to think for yourself but when you get to college this changes with most of the teachers. Perhaps what you are seeing is similar to what I saw. The root of the problem is that there is so much knowledge today that it is broken up into an ever increasing number of specialties. This is necessary for most individuals to serve a function in a society where most human effort and natural resources are wasted. Most employers don't need efficient employees they need employees who do what they are told. So the situation is that most people get pidgeon holed into some job that is beneath their training no matter how little they've had. Adults lose most of what they learned in school because they aren't allowed to think. This is all great for the status quo which is what most people think they want because no matter how bad they have it they fear change. They fear it will get even worse. It's better to spend 14 hours a day picking through a junk yard for food and scraps than to have no junk yard at all. The problem is specialization. There are no generalists. No one is trained to look at entire systems and see the illogic, waste, and inefficiencies. Each individual tends to see only tiny parts as defined by their field of study. It is not wise to follow in my footsteps but I would make some suggestions. Don't believe anything until it fits with what you really know and has been independently verified. You will believe what you want to believe so always try to believe the truth. You will become your beliefs so it's helpful if they are palatable. Try to not forget whatever you learn even if this means reviewing your favorite (most accurate) text books every few years. In college read some of the reading lists and never be afraid to form your own opinions (don't necessarily report them because they won't be seen favorably). There are only two reasons to be here. We are here to make the world a better place for our children or future generations and to have fun. Don't overindulge or neglect either. Decide now how you want to live your life and select a pursuit that is most favorable to it. Lofty ideals are very out of fashion so try to keep them out of your selection process. Best of luck. I'm sure you'll do great (and have fun).

I'm quite confident that the builders thought of it as a time machine similarly to how a TV can transport you hours into the future. But a television leaves you in worse shape, bored, and older. The Great Pyramid was pure whimsy. What other than whimsy could lead several hundred people to stack up 6 1/2 million tons of stone four and three quarters millinea ago? The Great Pyramid makes time fly and is powered by pure unadulterated whimsy. Without the pyramids it would be a very different world and one where time dragged more often. It would be like an endless bad sitcom.

There is carbonated water today under the Giza Plateau. In ancient times it was apparently so heavily carbonated that it sprayed out of the ground like seltzer. This is described over and over in the PT but the powers that be won't even test this water. There are caves all over the plateau and the powers that be denied their very existence until they were led into one by the hand in 2010. The ancient name of the plateau translates as "Mouth of Caves". Caves figure prominently in the PT but especially in the Coffin Texts. The PT paints a picture of stones being pulled up the side of the pyramid in steps. The last science that was done at Giza was more than 25 years ago and confirmed that the pyramid is composed of five steps wirth each 81' 3" as the PT says; http://hdbui.blogspot.com/ You can see the picture at the top of this page. The author misinterprets it as ramps but if you measure these lines you can see they are parallel to the base so it's impossible for them to represent ramps. It's virtually impossible to build a cladded pyramid like G1 that is stepped with ramps. Ramps are debunked anyway because the evidence points elsewhere. The builders oversaw metal shops, canals, boats and the weighing of material. There are simply no titles whatsaoever consistent with ramps. The builders village is a tiny fraction of the size that it would need to be to build with ramps. There is obvious water handling devices and operation all over the great pyramid building sites that Egyptologists seem unable to even admit. They concoct 92 word sentences to not say water was channeled from a water catchment device that surrounded each pyramid to the cliff face where there is a 300' counterweight run. Ancient source say stones "flew" to the pyramid 300" at a time. I can only scratch the surface with all the evidence in a single post. But, I believe, the more important point is that all this is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts in a different sort of language than we use today. The builders describe how to use this water and how to continue its flow. They do so in a simple to understand language that's like computer code and expresses meaning through description(though it sorely needs retranslation). They said the pyramids were not tombs and were built by the "gods" and this is stated not by superstitious bumpkins as we percieve them but as highly sophisticated scientists who used a natural and primitive language which was the metaphysics of their science. If anyone is interested I've got a great deal more evidence and I'd be happy to cite sources and defend any statement. They could not have used ramps. The concept is simply absurd. The actual method is easily falsifiable through a little simple testing. They said a lot of other things that are probably true and far more startling than using nature to lift stones. People are in for a rude awakening.

I don't doubt in the least that there is some truth to this. However, I believe that at least some conflict is mostly the result of poor communication.