The Gods Are Mad

[Analogue Boy]

‘Foreign sand’ you say?
The advantage of sand as ballast is it goes in sacks offering different weights without leaking out. The sandbags would also be reusable.
It’s surely an easier solution and a more managable commodity than relying on geysers intermittently spraying water metres into the air.

I remember the Coalmen delivering sacks of coal to our bunker back in the black and white days of my youth so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine many hands making light work.

 

[Mythopoeika]

A fountain squinting Perrier 10s of metres up the sides of a pyramid is a great image, but not one I can readily accept.
If, and it's a very big IF, water was employed in some capacity as a counter-balance, wouldn't a series of shadoofs (or just possibly an early Archimedian screw, which apparently predated Archimedes) be more likely to elevate water?

Yes - I was just thinking along these lines myself.
Also - where are these carbonated aquifers today?

 

[mummyknave]

Yes - I was just thinking along these lines myself.
Also - where are these carbonated aquifers today?

See post #165

http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/the-gods-are-mad.64336/page-6

Geysers are very ephemeral and very temporary. They are very fragile.

The same applies even to CO2 vents and magma movement within the earth. Things come and go and today there is only enough CO2 seeping up here to bubble up water from below in the Sphynx Temple. There is only enough to kill insects that try to get the water moving through the Osiris Shaft which is between the two large pyramids at Giza. The anaerobic decomposition of these insects has apparently caused a dust to sit on the water. This water is reported to bubble when stones are tossed into it.

All five known carbonated lakes are in Africa as is Egypt.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Yes - I was just thinking along these lines myself.
Also - where are these carbonated aquifers today?

I've been following this thread closely. The way I see it, mummyknave has obviously invested a fair bit of time into this and clearly cares passionately about his theory. This drives his sometimes florid use of language. However, the core notion of water being used as a counterweight is not beyond the realms of possibility and, given the paucity of hard evidence for pyramidal construction techniques, should not be rejected.

 

[mummyknave]

‘Foreign sand’ you say?
The advantage of sand as ballast is it goes in sacks offering different weights without leaking out. The sandbags would also be reusable.

The sand is unlike any sand found in the desert around. Indeed the 1 to 100 micron quartz grains in the walls of the horizontal passage is unlike any sand in 100 miles of Giza. Are we to believe they imported sand to a desert and put it inside these walls where it can't be seen. The contaminant in this sand are very interesting and include calcium carbonate and vaterite which is extremely unstable and breaks down in exposure to air.

It’s surely an easier solution and a more managable commodity than relying on geysers intermittently spraying water metres into the air.

In theory a geyser can spray nearly continuously. The PT mentions several things they did to prolong eruptions and there is more in the literature from later eras or observed by Egyptologists such as the clay and straw mixtures used to seal leaks in the area.

I remember the Coalmen delivering sacks of coal to our bunker back in the black and white days of my youth so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine many hands making light work.

Hands require room and it's quite doubtful they could crowd enough hands around the pyramid to do so much work. The amount of work required is the equivalent of 55 Horse Power running 16 hours per days for 20 years. It's unrealistic to believe you can project so much power on ramps. It could be done on step tops but then this still means they never used ramps.

 

[mummyknave]

I've been following this thread closely. The way I see it, mummyknave has obviously invested a fair bit of time into this and clearly cares passionately about his theory. This drives his sometimes florid use of language. However, the core notion of water being used as a counterweight is not beyond the realms of possibility and, given the paucity of hard evidence for pyramidal construction techniques, should not be rejected.

I believe there's only a "paucity of evidence" because we're not looking and when we do we look in all the wrong places. From the very beginning it was merely assumed there was no other means than ramps so we invent explanations of why we can't find evidence for ramps rather than reevaluating the evidence and our interpretations.

I believe in ten years everyone will say it was obvious they used linear funiculars and that we overlooked it. I would hope that people will be beginning to understand that we see what we expect preferentially to what exists. It will eventually be generally agreed that ramps are one of the superstition that built homo omnisciencis.

 

[bagins_X]

I believe there's only a "paucity of evidence" because we're not looking and when we do we look in all the wrong places. From the very beginning it was merely assumed there was no other means than ramps so we invent explanations of why we can't find evidence for ramps rather than reevaluating the evidence and our interpretations.

From a purely logical effort/result point of view (as someone with an engineering background) the use of two ramps would be all thats is needed just dont assume that they were staight, if they were rapped round (and don't assume that they are not wooden) thus extending as greater height was achieved (one could be abandoned as less material is required), removed as the casing was finnished, remember the pyrimids of Giza were not stepped but finnished smooth.
Wm.

ps they used sand as a cutting agent when cutting stone with their copper saws, being a bronze age civilisation the did not have the use of Iron.

 

[mummyknave]

From a purely logical effort/result point of view (as someone with an engineering background) the use of two ramps would be all thats is needed just dont assume that they were straight, if they were rapped round (and don't assume that they are not wooden) thus extending as greater height was achieved (one could be abandoned as less material is required), removed as the casing was finnished, remember the pyrimids of Giza were not stepped but finnished smooth.

Even if ramps weren't debunked by the evidence the fact remains they are contraindicated by the nature of the project. How do you build smooth sides on a five step pyramid and clad the whole thing going up? It's impossible. We'd have to believe they first built a five step pyramid for no reason at all and then they smoothed it out to a straight sided pyramid and then finally clad the entire thing! They'd have had to build and tear down the ramps three times. And they had to do this while never leaving the word "ramp" in the physical evidence. They had to completely remove all traces of ramps from all great pyramids.

Ramps would have been a highly illogical means to build and they are a far more illogical solution to the question of how they were built. Dragging stones on the ground is back breaking work and it gets no easier if you have to build the ground yourself and it's uphill the whole way.
People say that the ancients must have used ramps because they had no other technology but in reality the contention says everything about us and nothing about the builders. It says we aren't thinking this out and are not looking at the totality of the evidence. Most ramps proposed by Egyptologists can be called "eschereque" because they are impossibilities. Some have one way traffic to the top and no means for the stone draggers to even get back down!!! No matter their designs when they are challenged the designers just twist and distort the designs to fit your objections until they are as pretzelesque as they are escheresque.

Ramps are debunked and the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age. It has already been shown that whatever means was used they dragged stones straight up the sides of five step pyramids one step at a time. The gravimetric scan is virtual proof of this.

 

[mummyknave]

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

You can build a grid with five perfect steps that lays right over this. I've even got one and could post it except I don't have permission of the authors. This image shows the intermediate steps to building G1 where the only reason for such intermediate steps is that they were necessary to construction. Specifically the work was done on the tops of steps and not on ramps. Indeed, it was the counterweight falling off the first step on the north side that performed the lion's share of all the work. Stones were pulled up from the quarry on the south side and then up on top of the first step before being relayed one step at a time to the top.

 

[mummyknave]

ps they used sand as a cutting agent when cutting stone with their copper saws, being a bronze age civilisation the did not have the use of Iron.

If you're suggesting vast quantities of sand was hauled to the desert and then left spread around in Djoser's Courtyard or in the walls of the horizontal passage for use as a cutting agent then I'd just have to say I doubt it. That they used sand is merely an hypothesis. I'd agree it's likely they did but this would not explain the nature or location of the sand that has been found. The sand in the walls is mostly rounded grains which would be less effective as a cutting agent and the sand in the courtyard is spread far and wide.

None of the actual physical evidence actually fits today's beliefs. Across the board the evidence doesn't fit with the notions that the Egyptians were a 3000 year civilization that was moribund and very highly superstitious as they dragged tombs up ramps. The evidence says that the great pyramid builders who came first were scientists and metaphysicians. The logic supports it and casts doubt on vast swathes of modern beliefs.

I've been making quite a bit of progress recently and will try to find time to add some of the new material here later today.

 

[hunck]

There was a prog on tv the other day [ch 4 I think] re pyramids/egyptology. Not the building of but more the supply chain. Fragments of [so was claimed] the oldest papyrus scroll ever found a few years ago have been pieced together & translated. It was to do with a man [can't remember his name] who was head of transport for the cap stones which were quarried upstream on the Nile.

The scroll contained boat building scenes - the boats used to transport the stones were tied together with rope. They built a boat to the specs given & at first it shipped some water but after the wood had thoroughly soaked & expanded, it became watertight enough.

They then quarried a large block of limestone of the correct size from the same quarry using copper chisels. It took them a few hours, but surprisingly less than I'd have thought. admittedly they did crane it onto the boat, then sailed it downstream successfully. They'd found evidence of canals running off the Nile & stated as fact that these canals ran close to the pyramid site.

They then got a team of men to haul the stone uphill on a wooden sled on wooden rails & rollers & found it not overly difficult. They didn't go into the method of placing on the pyramid.

It was more to do with how the pyramid construction had huge knock-on effects driving development, technology, food production etc in other areas & advancing the civilisation.

Slightly off topic, it was an interesting prog.

 

[mummyknave]

There was a prog on tv the other day [ch 4 I think] re pyramids/egyptology. Not the building of but more the supply chain. Fragments of [so was claimed] the oldest papyrus scroll ever found a few years ago have been pieced together & translated. It was to do with a man [can't remember his name] who was head of transport for the cap stones which were quarried upstream on the Nile.

The scroll contained boat building scenes - the boats used to transport the stones were tied together with rope. They built a boat to the specs given & at first it shipped some water but after the wood had thoroughly soaked & expanded, it became watertight enough.

They then quarried a large block of limestone of the correct size from the same quarry using copper chisels. It took them a few hours, but surprisingly less than I'd have thought. admittedly they did crane it onto the boat, then sailed it downstream successfully. They'd found evidence of canals running off the Nile & stated as fact that these canals ran close to the pyramid site.

They then got a team of men to haul the stone uphill on a wooden sled on wooden rails & rollers & found it not overly difficult. They didn't go into the method of placing on the pyramid.

It was more to do with how the pyramid construction had huge knock-on effects driving development, technology, food production etc in other areas & advancing the civilisation.

Slightly off topic, it was an interesting prog.

I think this is very relevant because it shows how the modern mind connects the dots. Since Egyptologists already know everything (Hawass has actually said exactly this) every piece of evidence that arises is force fit into existing knowledge. The diary simply doesn't say what Egyptologists and the program says it says. It doesn't even say that Merer (the ship's captain and author of the diary) was picking up stone and taking it to Giza. It does say he picked up at least one stone and took it to "Ro She" and it's probable this was an island or valley port for construction of the Great Pyramid but most of the diary suggests he was doing much different work associated with the transport of Tura Limestone to Giza. Specifically he was probably mostly staging stones for the ships that took it to Giza and (probably) providing the power to load some of these ships. It appears he used wind and river currents to pull the stones onto the wharf and onto waiting ships.

There is simply no support for the status quo in this diary. There is no mention of ramps and no illustrations of boats or transportation of stone. There is no conclusive evidence that these stones were even used to build G1 or anything else at Giza. Indeed the only thing certain is that the belief that Khufu served only 24 years is disproven because the document specifically is dated to the 27th year of his reign.

It's highly improbable that the technology used at Giza had wide applications elsewhere. They could build high only because they had water at altitude. This is a most unusual situation in Egypt because even then Egypt was mostly very dry savannah and desert. The river meandered slowly to the sea so water at altitude was confined to the Land of Horus which stretched some 30 miles along the western coast of the Nile where ALL of the great pyramids were built.

 

[mummyknave]

It really should be noted that there was an entire papyrus scroll found in a tomb from 3200 BC. Unfortunately the scroll is blank. It should also be noted that until the Diary of Merer was found that NO COMPLETE PAPYRUS OF ANY SORT WAS KNOWN FROM THE GREAT PYRAMID BUILDING AGE. In other words there are not even any dots to connect, there are only the assumptions of Egyptology which are best summarized by saying they believe "changeless and highly superstitious people dragged tombs up ramps". They make these assumption despite the fact no writing exists and is understood, there are no superstitious words of any sort in the language, the PT literally says the pyramids are not tombs, and the word "ramp" is unattested.

The dots being connected are all assumptions and some are highly illogical.

 

[PeteS]

There was a prog on tv the other day [ch 4 I think] re pyramids/egyptology. Not the building of but more the supply chain. Fragments of [so was claimed] the oldest papyrus scroll ever found a few years ago have been pieced together & translated. It was to do with a man [can't remember his name] who was head of transport for the cap stones which were quarried upstream on the Nile.

The scroll contained boat building scenes - the boats used to transport the stones were tied together with rope. They built a boat to the specs given & at first it shipped some water but after the wood had thoroughly soaked & expanded, it became watertight enough.

They then quarried a large block of limestone of the correct size from the same quarry using copper chisels. It took them a few hours, but surprisingly less than I'd have thought. admittedly they did crane it onto the boat, then sailed it downstream successfully. They'd found evidence of canals running off the Nile & stated as fact that these canals ran close to the pyramid site.

They then got a team of men to haul the stone uphill on a wooden sled on wooden rails & rollers & found it not overly difficult. They didn't go into the method of placing on the pyramid.

It was more to do with how the pyramid construction had huge knock-on effects driving development, technology, food production etc in other areas & advancing the civilisation.

Slightly off topic, it was an interesting prog.

I saw that as well. Very interesting and a fascinating insight.

 

[bagins_X]

Even if ramps weren't debunked by the evidence the fact remains they are contraindicated by the nature of the project. How do you build smooth sides on a five step pyramid and clad the whole thing going up? It's impossible. We'd have to believe they first built a five step pyramid for no reason at all and then they smoothed it out to a straight sided pyramid and then finally clad the entire thing! They'd have had to build and tear down the ramps three times. And they had to do this while never leaving the word "ramp" in the physical evidence. They had to completely remove all traces of ramps from all great pyramids.

You haven't considered that most of a spiral ramp could have been PART OF THE COSTRUCTION and filled as work was compleated, or as it would have been on the sides perhaps it was all that sand you seem so worried about? (altho just because this is what i woud do dosen't mean they did or did not do it this way). also a copper saw and sand will cut stone very nicely, including granite,(in the 19th centry a method like this was was used to cut glass for lens blanks) they also used pipe drills for borring holes, this is all born out by forensic examination of finnished blocks from the area, they were quite addapt at putting large rocks together in interesting ways.

 

[mummyknave]

You haven't considered that most of a spiral ramp could have been PART OF THE COSTRUCTION and filled as work was compleated, or as it would have been on the sides perhaps it was all that sand you seem so worried about?

No internal ramps show up on the recent thermographic imaging and no evidence exists they used such ramps. There could not have been external ramps because the ramping material would have hidden the work making it impossible to build straight. Remember they'd have been needed to be built three times to build the core, the straight sides, and the cladding. It is an absurdity that ramps could have been used much less that they actually were. Ramps sprang from the minds of 19th century European Egyptologists who couldn't imagine the ancestors of modern day Egyptians having built the pyramids. They simply couldn't imagine the ancestors of these people using any method that wasn't primitive and brutal. They couldn't imagine they used any means that wasn't apparent and they defined "apparent" as the most primitive means "possible". Rather than question such assumptions they were simply adopted since they already fit in well with the assumptions that the people were just like later people, built pyramids as tombs, and were highly superstitious.

The word "ramp" isn't attested and there's no evidence the number of people needed to drag all these stones ever assembled. There's no reason to assume that a primitive economy could even muster the resources necessary and concentrate them on a small site like Giza. It's illogical to assume they dragged stones but buried "weigher/ Reckoners". There is no way in which "ramps" can account for the visible horizontal and vertical lines in all the great pyramids. There is no configuration of ramps that is EITHER logical or consistent with the available evidence. "Ramps" are a 150 year old modern day Egyptological superstition that was never consistent with logic, evidence, the historical record, or even the cultural context.

The real culture, the culture that built the great pyramids had no words for "belief" or "superstition". They had a language which breaks Zipf's Law. They had no words for thought processes of any kind. They were incapable of understanding such inanities as "I think therefore I am". They would stare at you blankly if you used the word "believe". Remarkably they also lacked most taxonomic words! This is all explained very simply; their language and the way they thought were wholly unlike ours. They operated on knowledge and we operate on belief. They thought and communicated digitally and we are analog. We don't understand their language because it can't be translated. Egyptologists never noted any of the real nature of the language because they deconstructed it to agree with the book of the dead.

Even if they had had ramps there were no bumpkins to drag 6 1/2 million tons on them.

also a copper saw and sand will cut stone very nicely, including granite,(in the 19th centry a method like this was was used to cut glass for lens blanks) they also used pipe drills for borring holes, this is all born out by forensic examination of finnished blocks from the area, they were quite addapt at putting large rocks together in interesting ways.

Much of what they did with saws of various types and drills has never been duplicated by researchers. Some of the objects would have taken then months to complete using methods consistent with modern hypotheses. This is one of the things Egyptologists have always done; throw more primitive Egyptians at problems. They had a population of only 1 1/2 million but Egyptologists would have us believe they all worked 24/ 7 and still hired most of it out.

This was a primitive economy and they lacked the resources to even build and rebuild the same ramps, much less to actually use them.

 

[bagins_X]

This was a primitive economy.

Define primititve, i would say more pre-idustrial, as i would say judging by what they actualy did they must have had a quite sophisticated economy.

 

[mummyknave]

"

Define primititve, i would say more pre-idustrial, as i would say judging by what they actualy did they must have had a quite sophisticated economy.

There wasn't much profit in the ability to lift 2 1/2 ton stones 480' in the air. Making a vase that would last for 10,000 years has little value in the here and now. Massive tombs have no value to a real economy.

Economies now function and have always functioned by creating wealth. They do this by the nature of exchanges (buying and selling) to profit both parties. There is no profit to anyone in burying the wealth of a nation in massive headstones.

"Primitive" simply means they had no computers, no printing presses, and no coins. Most of the actually known economy would have centered on the production and distribution of food. Even here they had very primitive means to store, process, and ship the food. They had primitive knowledge (from our perspective of modern science), primitive materials, and primitive techniques (as known by Egyptology). They had highly primitive thinking (according to Egyptologists) and highly primitive beliefs (according to Egyptologists). From our perspective and according to Egyptological KNOWLEDGE everything about them was highly primitive.

But this primitiveness is obviously in error or we'd actually know how they made vases that would last 10,000 years. We'd know how they marshalled the resources to build 6 1/2 million ton headstones and what "primitive" processes were used to do so.

 

[bagins_X]

Economies now function and have always functioned by creating wealth

A common misconception economies are about moving wealth, to para phrase Newtonian physics, wealth can neither be created nor destroyed , only accumulated or dispersed

 

[mummyknave]

A common misconception economies are about moving wealth, to para phrase Newtonian physics, wealth can neither be created nor destroyed , only accumulated or dispersed

A man profits by trading his effort for food to stay alive.

An economy profits from creating more than it destroys.

The modern economy is orders of magnitude greater than the ancient economy.

But it doesn't really matter what has created our complex modern economy the fact remains ancient economies were highly primitive in comparison.

 

[hunck]

The modern economy is orders of magnitude greater than the ancient economy.

But it doesn't really matter what has created our complex modern economy the fact remains ancient economies were highly primitive in comparison.

That goes without saying - but surely they were highly developed for their time, not primitive..

 

[mummyknave]

That goes without saying - but surely they were highly developed for their time, not primitive..

I'm not comparing them to other economies but to ours.

I believe I know quite a bit about the comparison of the Egyptian economy to some others of the time but it is mostly predicated on my theory so is mostly irrelevant. I would agree that the Egyptian economy was pretty sophisticated for its time but that's about like saying termites with their air conditioned cities and agriculture are pretty sophisticated compared to most insects. It just has little meaning.

I would guess that other than foodstuffs there were no more than a couple hundred widely available products. This is based largely on the artefacts actually found. Of course the entire economy produced far more products than this. It appears there was a significant amount of world trade of the time but most of these products were food or specialty products and luxuries.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Evidence of ramps discovered...

A new graphic reveals the complex system of ramps and pulleys that may have been used by the Egyptians to construct the ancient pyramids.
It follows the recent discovery of Ancient Egyptian stoneworking ramps dating back 4,500 years in an alabaster quarry in the country's eastern desert.
The system raised stone blocks weighing several tonnes hundreds of feet into the air via enormous sleds, archaeologists believe.
This same technology may have allowed the Egyptians to haul blocks up steep inclines to build the Great Pyramid - the only surviving Wonder of the World.

A new graphic reveals the complex system of ramps and pulleys that may have been used by the Egyptians to construct the ancient pyramids. The system raised stone blocks weighing several tonnes hundreds of feet into the air via enormous sleds, archaeologists believe

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...e-blocks-uncovered-4-500-year-old-quarry.html

I find this quite ingenious, the posts allow a team to pull in two directions at once. Add pulleys and the system becomes even more efficient. It may not be the solution to how the Pyramids were constructed but it does show that ramps were in use.

 

[stu neville]

Wonder if mummyknave made it across the Red Sea to join us? I'm sure he'd have something to add to that.

 

[Lb8535]

I am fascinated by the information that clearly shows that there was trade in the ancient world from Scandinavia to China - although not directly. And eventualy Iceland to China. Clearly, there were traders who had a much better idea of the span of human habitation than the philisophers or scholars did right through to the time of European exploration. Trading cities hosted people who had done the Scandinavia to Spain route, the Iceland to Ireland route, or the Russia to Israel route and they met and talked to the people who did the Spain to Israel and the Israel to China routes (speaking very generally). It was very dangerous and I assume very very lucrative. Gore Vidal speculates in Creation that bankers in Babylon knew their counterparts in China and there were mutual acceptance of letters of credit and fairly uniform interest rates (it sounds better when he writes it). Does anyone know if he made this up or is there evidence? By the way I'm not talking about the highly speculative "Egyptian artefacts in South America" stories. The trade routes noted above have major supporting evidence among mainstream archeologists.

 

[mummyknave]

I'm sorry . I made the transition alright but misplaced the icon.

The big problem is not only are the gods crazy but Egyptologists have gone nuts over this "ramp" and it's taken this long to throw cold water on it. I'll get back to this thread ASAP.

 

[stu neville]

Excited at the prospect of your counter-argument, I must say, particularly as this recent discovery does make sense what with practicality, using mechanical advantage, etc.

 

[mummyknave]

Excited at the prospect of your counter-argument, I must say, particularly as this recent discovery does make sense what with practicality, using mechanical advantage, etc.

Mechanical advantage always increases total work because it necessarily decreases efficiency.

The difficulty of lifting all the stones is that there is such limited area to work and this latest "discovery" dramatically reduces the room they have to work. Rather than simplifying or easing construction it makes it far more difficult. There are advantages in have men coming off the ramp doing some work but those going up will spend most of their effort lifting their own weight on such a steep ramp.

What we're seeing here is that the stones were being pulled remotely just like on the pyramids. The men or a contrivance ran along the line leading to the "ramp". It is the straight line visible above. The ropes were directed by the large stones that guided and stabilized them or from pulleys anchored by these stones. There is a suggestion that the force being applied was quite dynamic since there are two such stones.

Here you can see the steep part of the ramp. The posts were along the inside of the stairways that were required to access the quarry during operation. These posts were probably just protection for passersby from broken ropes. A rope under heavy load will whip hard enough to kill a man if he gets hit wrong.

Curiously you can see most of the waste was dragged straight up the sides just like the pyramids.
Another curious thing is that they were mining travertine which is a product of geysers and hot springs. There are other such deposits still being worked today along the Nile on both sides.

 

[mummyknave]

This stuff is going to start coming out faster and faster now.

file:///C:/Users/Leslie/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/C16SON5X/5a3c5c46482c9.pdf

They found triangular structures in the pyramid in plain site. I've been talking about such things for years. This stuff alkl is clearly visible but it isn't seen because people don't expect it.

The triangle in the Great Pyramid at Giza is noticeable in many photographs from 19th and 20th centuries, which were made by various photographers. Why “α” triangles in the Great Pyramid have not been noticed till now? One explanation could be the fact that: what we know affects our visual perception of the world.

The reality is staring us in the face but we can't see it.

 

[mummyknave]

Excited at the prospect of your counter-argument, I must say, particularly as this recent discovery does make sense what with practicality, using mechanical advantage, etc.

I was really hoping that there would be real progress but Dr Hawass just dropped the research when it didn't go the way he expected. My theories were borne out by the muon and thermal scans but these showed that internal ramps were impossible and external ramps highly improbable. They found a passage under the chevrons predicted by my theory (Nurse Canal) which shows up on both types of scans and then refused to use more muon scanning to show it is horizontal.

But there are still a few very exciting developments that support my theory. First someone actually counted words and showed the Pyramid Texts breaks Zipf's Law which essentially proves it was not written by "human beings". I believe the authors were homo sapiens who are now extinct and we are a new species; homo omnisciencis.

Science has also shown that the symbols in caves all over the world are the same supporting my contention that humans arose fropm proto-humans about 40,000 years ago and had a single language all over the world. This language lasted until 2000 BC when it became too complicated for most people. There were no longer enough Ancient Language speakers to even operate the state. Even Merer who was probably a tug boat captain in 2750 BC spoke modern language.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230990-700-in-search-of-the-very-first-coded-symbols/

Egyptology is still dragging its feet but time marches on without them.