Ancient Reality

[cladking]

Actual information as opposed to your confusion of willfully misinformed opinions and belief systems about the pyramids.

If you really found any data I know it supports my theory.

If you think you found anything that doesn't support it then why don't you list it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you really found any data I know it supports my theory.

If you think you found anything that doesn't support it then why don't you list it?

I am putting you on my list.

 

[tas8831]

If you really found any data I know it supports my theory.

Writes the guy that thinks his writing something on the internet = citing evidence.

 

[gnostic]

You still have it wrong. I said millions have read my posts and one thread alone has nearly half a million views. I am exactly correct and you are STILL wrong.

Excuse me, but there are not million members at RF, not even a thousand members.

And most of the views are those members have already been contributing to the thread, on and off.

 

[tas8831]

Excuse me, but there are not million members at RF, not even a thousand members.

And most of the views are those members have already been contributing to the thread, on and off.

Delusional is as delusional claims.

 

[cladking]

150b. Make the sky mount for N.; place the stars upside down for him.

The "sky mount" is the pyramid and from up here they could see the circular rainbow but also the upside down bubbles that created it. The ways of the bows were made firm as the sky mount. It's really kindda poetic. The "sky arc" were partial circles with the observer's shadow in the dead middle but the circular rainbow might seem to be upside down arcs made by upside down water droplets still with the observer's shadow right in the center. In a way they really were.

It all hangs together and hangs with the physical evidence because it was science.

People have the idea that it doesn't matter what the pyramid builders said because it was all superstitious nonsense just as Egyptology avers. Egyptologists say these are magical incantations that must be parsed in order to learn what ancient people believed and how they came to believe it but so far Egyptology has failed to identify the origin of any of the icons, sceptres, and most of the ideas that underlie ancient beliefs, magic, language, and incantation. It has been a dismal failure for 150 years as they continue to interpret the words of the pyramid builders in terms of a book from 1000 years later called the "book of the dead".

Meanwhile I have shown that the words when taken literally can be used to predict the real world condition and nature of the pyramid itself. The builders said the pyramid was NOT a tomb of the king but was actually the king himself. They said the pyramid is the king: "He (the king) is the pyramid.". Egyptology dismisses this as a superstition and a part of a magic spell.

They also said The king as the pyramid supports the sky;

1454a. ... The hands of (the king) support Nut (the sky)...

1528c.(the king) supports the sky

The king/ pyramid ascends to heaven as permanent as the earth itself.

1416b. (the king) truly ascends to heaven, permanent like the earth.

This is the ancient reality and it IS what the pyramid builders really believed. Everything we've been told by Egyptologists is nonsense caused by making poor assumptions. There is no evidence the pyramids were tombs other than weak and circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence ramps were used. There is no evidence the people were superstitious other than interpretation of what Egyptologists admit they believe is magic. There is no evidence that supports the notion that there was no change in the language or religion. Indeed, we know for a fact there was a major discontinuity in the governance and language of Egypt in about 2000 BC and that there is no evidence there was a religion at all in the great pyramid building age. Egyptology refuses to systematically apply modern science and technology to understanding how or why the pyramids were built. Every time some sort of technology is haphazardly applied it shows I am right and they are wrong.

It just can't be simpler. The pyramids were built with linear funiculars exactly as the builders literally described using literal language. They were scientists, Egyptologists are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The purpose of the test was to disprove Pierre Houdin's theory that there were internal ramps.

What you seem to not understand is that they succeeded completely in disproving Houdin's theory because there are no ramps. If internal ramps existed there would be hot spots at every corner tracing the route of the ramps. But their strategy backfired. It backfired because the very things predicted by my theory DO actually exist!!! They were so flabbergasted by these things they called "anomalies" that they issued an urgent plea for Egyptologists to make hypotheses as to their nature and existence. There are still six years later no hypotheses to explain this data I predicted in advance and then campaigned for years to get the science done.

I am right and Egyptology isn't even wrong. And they intend to leave it this way because no one cares. Nobody cares about the pyramids, the builders, or the truth least of all any Egyptologist who aren't even being allowed to see the data.

Citation needed.In other words find sources that support all of these claims. You really appear to have no clue here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"If internal ramps existed there would be hot spots at every corner tracing the route of the ramps."

How in the hell am I supposed to find a "citation" for logic and common sense? Am I supposed to go to the "Egyptology Internal Ramp Site"? I'm sure you wouldn't take an engineer's word for simple science you can't understand.

Nothing I say is rocket science. If it were complex I couldn't understand it. And if I did (I wouldn't) then you wouldn't understand it anyway.

What you really want is for nine out of ten Peers to say the pyramids were built with funiculars because this is what all the evidence shows.

How is that either of those? You need to support claims with evidence, not assertion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't understand simple science I would explain it to you.

LOL! There is some first rate projection for you. If you cannot explain it you do not understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hot air rises. It expands as it warms making it lighter so it either floats up or transfers its energy to other air which floats up like a bobber on water. Since Houdin's theory says there are internal passages that approach each corner then these passages will necessarily have warm air at the top and cooler air at the bottom. Infrared is a visual representation of temperature. It's like sticking millions of thermometers all over what the camera is pointing at. Areas that are warm show up as warm. Since air necessarily stratifies it follows the corners must show this evidence or no such internal ramps can exist. They do not show up therefore there are no internal ramps.

But this is what they didn't see and is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is what they DID see and what was seen is EXACTLY what I predicted. They are NOT anomalies to me because I knew they were there exactly as they show up. I know a great deal more that I've not mentioned yet as well because my theory makes lots of predictions.

I would suggest that you edit this and apologize. You are the last person that should be making such false accusations. If you do not do so I will not report this flagrant breaking of the rules here. If you don't do both I will report the post.-

 

[gnostic]

Good theory makes good prediction and good prediction proves good theory.

No.

Good predictions are part of theory, not separate from theory.

All scientific theories (as well as all hypotheses, which are new proposed models) should include predictions.

A theory and hypothesis should include the following contents:

• the explanatory parts
• the prediction parts

What mathematicians and scientists called “proof”, are the mathematical equations that can be found in either the explanatory modeling or the predictive modeling of the theory or hypothesis.

Predictions don’t validate theories and hypotheses, observable EVIDENCE do.

EVIDENCE are what test a theory or hypothesis.

You can only tell if the predictions are GOOD or BAD with empirical evidence, which are evidence found through fieldwork or evidence through lab experiments.

The evidence will either verify the theory being probable, or refute the theory as being improbable.

The evidence actually test both the explanations and the predictions of the theory or hypothesis. If the evidence support the explanations and predictions, then and only then, can you say the predictions are good.

You cannot say predictions are good without testing them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing with "logic" is that it is virtually automatic with understanding. Perhaps you could understand if you actually read the posts to which you are gainsaying. TLTR, is not an excuse for ignoring an argument. Maybe if you can't read it you should avoid comment or at least avoid offering to tase me for "spouting nonsense". I can explain why internal ramps would show up on the infrared if you like but then I risk TLTR and your snappy comebacks.

Then by your own standards you do not understand this since you could not explain it. Handwaving and insulting is not an explanation.

Do you remember how you yourself confirmed that you do not even have a hypothesis much less a theory, which means that you do not have any evidence for your model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I don't remember that. Perhaps you can show me where it was.

I don't know a simpler way to say that a ramp is by definition sloped and hence the upper end inside an enclosure will usually be warmer and will usually show up in the infrared.

If it were complicated I could neither understand nor explain it.

That is only because you do not understand what evidence is or what a theory is. Would you care to learn? Others noticed that you admitted this they even commented on it.

And are you sure that it would be warmer? There are other factors to consider in mass that it that large. Also, a ramp that was covered with material as the pyramid grew would not have air spaces, would it? It appears that at best you only refuted a strawman version. I don't know of any Egyptologist that thinks that the ramps were left open.

 

[cladking]

Good predictions are part of theory, not separate from theory.

This is another false statement made without regard to metaphysics. Prediction is not a part of theory and merely tends to be correlated to it. By the same token theory is not a part of prediction nor is theory necessarily confirmed by prediction. I can hypothesize the sun will come up because the rooster crows but the sunrise following the crowing (even consistently) does not mean the sun is controlled by chickens.

But I still predicted the hot spots and Egyptology still doesn't have an hypothesis or even a good guess why they exist or why they are where they are. Their theory fails across the board.

EVIDENCE are what test a theory or hypothesis.

No, not really. More accurately evidence IS what is used to create hypotheses. ONLY experiment can test an hypothesis and theory.

Yes, "theory" is the experiments that support a particular model or understanding but a single experiment can also tear down that model.

The fact is good prediction still "proves" good theory and Egyptology has very bad theory. Egyptology is not really a science at all and is a branch of linguistics that ALSO is not a science. Good prediction is especially noteworthy where no other other prediction exists such as where someone predicts hot spots in specific locations and then campaigns for years to get the evidence gathered. How do you think I was four for four on these predictions. Good luck? If I were really lucky I wouldn't be getting attacked for no reason when I post. People would read what I write and then comment on that instead of changing the subject. If I were that lucky you'd address the simple question.

 

[cladking]

Then by your own standards you do not understand this since you could not explain it.

I answered the question. You didn't even read it.

Many times I'll type out a comprehensive answer to a question or opinion that takes 25 minutes to compose and type and five minutes to read and get a "response" that is not even related to what I had said in just a minute or two. It is rare anyone even responds on topic to one of my posts and I can't remember anyone ever answering one of my questions. It's not a discussion so much as everyone trying to lecture me at once without even saying where I went wrong.

This is much of the reason people are immune to changing their opinion. It's not only that they perceive reality in terms of their opinions but when ideas contradict their beliefs and premises they can't even see it. We are blind to everything that runs counter our beliefs and have a near perfect ability to interpret everything from the mundane, and anomalies to ghosts in terms of our beliefs.

The fact is there is evidence of a global language and Egyptology never noticed this language, called the "words of the gods" breaks Zipf's Law. They never noticed it has almost no vocabulary and no abstractions. They didn't notice because they believe that ancient people thought exactly like Egyptologists. They never noticed because they saw all of ancient reality in terms of what they believe.

Just like the boy who could see the king has no clothes I can see the kings' assumptions and beliefs are in error. This is why there are the same "doodles" in caves all over the world; people took the natural human metaphysics with them all over the world before and after the advent of complex language. It was modern language that caused us to forget our past and lose our natural science and logic. It was the advent of modern science that restored a scientific (experimental) basis to most beliefs. It is modern language that divides people. There are now 7 billion different realities where there was once one which people could only glimpse and only to the degree they commanded the universal language.

I would invite anyone who finds my posts too long to read to not even comment.

While my theory is remarkably simple in every way and in every aspect it still requires a significant number of points to make. It is based on actual evidence rather than assumptions like that ancient people mustta been primitive and superstitious. If ancient people were as superstitious as we are we couldn't be here because without their inventions (cities and agriculture) we would have become extinct at the "tower of babel". Yet anthropologists almost to a man and all Egyptologists believe ancient people were highly ignorant and superstitious. Why does it never occur to them that these are not survival traits? Here is the one exception of which I am aware and he's dead;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Lévi-Strauss

Unfreezing the ice age: the truth about humanity’s deep past

"One of the few mid-20th-century anthropologists to take seriously the idea that early humans were our intellectual equals was Claude Lévi-Strauss, who argued that mythological thought, rather than representing some sort of pre-logical haze, is better conceived as a kind of “neolithic science” as sophisticated as our own, just built on different principles. Less well known – but more relevant to the problems we are grappling with here – are some of his early writings on politics."

Ancient people were much smarter than we are and couldn't even talk or act without a much greater understanding and knowledge base than we have. People were expected to be productive not only to themselves and the commonweal but also of ideas and new science. Ancient reality was a single thing experienced by millions of different individuals with individual desires and abilities. When they conversed they were all on the exact same topic and everyone understood one another or they asked for clarification (which often meant proper grammar). Few people know what I'm talking about because they don't read, they just lecture.

 

[cladking]

Few people know what I'm talking about because they don't read, they just lecture.

And when they do read they parse the sentences so that they make no sense.

Perhaps if they tried to parse them to make sense they'd at least respond on topic.

 

[cladking]

The day will come that expert and layman alike agree that the great pyramids were obviously built with linear funiculars. If science were being applied this day would have come 25 years ago.

Hymin to the Nile flood

The Hymn to the Nile flood

Hymn to the flood Hail flood!
emerging from the earth, arriving to bring Egypt to life,
hidden of form, the darkness in the day,
the one whose followers sing to him, as he waters the plants,
created by Ra to make every herd live,
who satisfies the desert hills removed from the water,

The water that powers the funiculars "emerges" from the earth and waters the desert hills.

When he rises, then the land is in joy,
then every belly is glad,
every jaw has held laughter,
every tooth revealed.

Only when the water rises from the earth...

While he is in the underworld,
sky and earth are in his charge.

The water starts in the under world.

The mountains are quarried by his flooding,
without him being glimpsed,
without workers, without management for him.

Funiculars are used to quarry as at Hatnub Quarry without the need for workers.

One who carries off in secrecy,
and the place that is his is not known,
nor can his cavern be glimpsed in writings

The water emerges "secretly" from caverns which are not mapped or written about.

The one who spouts and causes the marsh to drink,
the one who strengthens everybody.

The water "spouts". It shoots out of the earth exactly as ancient historians said.

Illuminator coming out of the darkness

The spouting water makes the fire-pan burn after it arises from the darkness underground.

All work is possible by him -

There was very little "work" in ancient Egypt except to move stones around and to cut them. All work was done by the spouting water.

He who enters into the cavern, and come out on top
constantly striving to emerge in secret;

Indeed!!

The Flood in his cavern is the mighty one.
His name is not known in the underworld,
and the gods do not emerge with it.

The flood arises from caverns all up and down the Nile River including everywhere there is a great pyramid today.


People read the ancient writing and parse it and they parse it with the belief the writers were highly ignorant and superstitious. We are mistaken.

 

[cladking]

It's not only the Hymn to the Nile that says water spouted up but almost every ancient source. Most importantly is the Pyramid Texts themselves;

1551a. To say: This thy cavern there is the broad-hall of Osiris N..
...
1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

The water comes from a cavern and tosses.

Horapollo said;

"Egyptian language NOUN, and which, when interpreted, signifies New, they sometimes pourtray a LION, and sometimes THREE LARGE WATERPOTS, and at other times HEAVEN AND EARTH GUSHING FORTH WITH WATER. "

"And they depict three waterpots, and neither more nor less, because according to them there is a triple cause of the inundation. And they depict one for the Egyptian soil, as being of itself productive of water; and another for the ocean, for at the period of the inundation,"

Hieroglyphics of Horapollo: Book I: XXI. How the Rising of the Nile

The concept that this cool water was "osiris" (osiris N) permeates the PT.

507a. To say: N. is come forth to-day at the head of the inundation of the flood.
...
507c. effervescent, proceeding from leg and tail of the Great (One) who is in splendour.
508a. N. is come to his watercourses, which are in the land of the flood, in Mḥ.t-wr.t,
508b. to the places of satisfaction, with green fields, which are in the horizon,
509a. that N. may make green the herbs in both lands of the horizon,
509b. (and) that N. may bring the green to the great eye which is in the midst of the field.

692c. He is effervescent; he is effervescent; Shu, let thy arms be about N.

868b. thy water, thy cool water-libation is the inundation of the Great One (who) which is come forth from thee.

They even name him "fresh water"!!!!

25a. Osiris N., take to thyself thy natron, that thou mayest be divine.
25b. Nut has made thee to be as a god to thine enemy (or, in spite of thee) in thy name of "god."
25c. Ḥrnp.wi recognizes thee, for thou art made young in thy name of "Fresh water."

They also describe an "efflux" that falls from him and powers his ascent to the sky;

2109. The sky trembles, the earth quakes before the god, before N.
2110a. N. [is not enveloped] by the earth;
2110b. ’Iḫ.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by the earth.

The water is "N" and is driven by his efflux " ’Iḫ.t-wt.t"

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.

This efflux which they also associated with foam on beer and bubbles in bread (CO2) drives the gods and collects in low lying areas at night when the wind dies. This creates pockets where all animal life will die.

2111. [O] Osiris, the overflow comes, the inundation hastens, Geb groans.

The inundation tosses!



There was a single Ancient Language that was metaphysical in nature and based on the logic of the wiring of the human brain. It is a natural language that is still used by all other life on earth but in much simpler forms and tailored to the needs of specific species. This writing from the PT is a confused translation of Ancient Language.

 

[cladking]

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

They said exactly where and when this inundation arrived;

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris. (remember osiris' name is "fresh water")

It came during the w3g-festival (held at Giza) on the epagomenal days starting on the June 21. The spouting water came to Giza but we simply ignore the literal meaning of their words. We ignore it because it looks fantastic and we think we know better than water crowns ("after thou hast taken possession of the white crown in the water-springs, great and mighty, which are in the south of Libya,"). We think we know better than flying boats and historical accounts of stones flying to the pyramid a bowshot at a time. We think we can safely assume they were highly ignorant and superstitious so we never noticed the language even has a literal meaning, breaks Zipf's Law, and contains a virtual handful of words that include no abstractions or words that mean "thought" or "belief". We think superstition made them strong and ignorance made them willing.

Our beliefs are illogical and non sequitur. Our beliefs force us to see the absence of evidence as proof of our beliefs but there is no REAL absence of evidence; we just can't see it. Every assumption about the pyramids and their builders is wrong so every conclusion is wrong. This is why scientific evidence continues to show that "theory" is wrong. Across the board it is wrong.

All the evidence, and there really is extensive evidence albeit shallow, fits an entirely different paradigm.

 

[cladking]

I rarely copy and paste in a post but I'm going to here because I have to link to another site anyway since I can't get permission to use the distribution graph for the words in one section of the Pyramid Texts.

Zipf's law is supposed to apply to every single thing homo sapiens do!!! The fact that it doesn't apply to the authors of the PT shows simply we are not the same species as the pyramid builders or cavemen. It shows in concrete terms ancient reality was distinct from our reality because they didn't think like us. There was only a single way to think rather than eight billion ways to think.

To see the graphs you'll need to click here;

Why Ancient Language Does Not Obey Zipf's Law - Graham Hancock Official Website

In a nutshell it's really pretty simple. Ancient Language was a manifestation of the same logic that underlies all of reality. It is the wiring of the human brain formed in utero expressed as language which is spoken and heard. As such it is perfectly logical and could form the basis of primitive science. It was manipulated largely by the sole natural speech center known as the "wernicke's area". There was no translation necessary to the rest of the brain because almost the entire brain operated digitally and "spoke the same language". There are a few analog brain cells in the cerebral cortex but their function, like all of the brain, is unknown. Bear in mind science doesn't even have a working definition for "consciousness" much less any understanding of what causes it or how it affects the real world or is affected by it. This being said all other brain cells have one mode of operation and two settings; On or off. It is binary and ancient thinking was just as binary as the Ancient Language in which they communicated.

AL failed because it became overly complex but over the centuries in which it failed pidgin languages arose to replace it. Each pidgin language speaker had to convert a small part at the back of the frontal lobe into a translator to change the digital signal from the wernickes area to the now analog higher brain functions. Higher brain functions were simply overridden by a new operating system that was located in this translator; the broccas area. We think analog SO we perceive reality as analog and define reality and axioms in analog terms. We are analog humans. Everything we say, hear, read, write, compose, or DO is analog and driven by the human operating program. The distribution of the words we write is simply an artefact of the operation of this "translator".

I believe with sufficient data we'd find the Zipf's Law isn't really curved so much as it is really composed of three separate lines with blurred edges. The "common" words are operational words that drive sentence structure. The lower line is largely nouns and common abstractions. The center line has many words with multiple meanings and many of them abstractions. It was the lack of abstraction that originally alerted me to the fact that AL does not obey Zipf's Law. It is these middle words that vary most between authors and the lower ones that vary by subject. There is less variation in the upper line as they simply are necessary to tie words together. While words in AL were tied differently they still had to be arranged in sentences which then and now define a complete thought.

I strongly recommend this short article; [linguapath.com]

The lower line is very straight in AL because there are almost no words. There are no words for "thought" or "belief". There are no reductionistic words or taxonomies and no abstractions. On any subject the same words are used except for the least common words and the least common words are rarely translatable. . This is why all the writing looks "religious" and "superstitious".

Ancient people anthropomorphized reality and experienced it in these terms. Our experience is analog and Zipf's Law is imposition of our operating system on our perception and experience of reality.