cladking

It wouldn't matter if it were an argunent that was improperly applied because it's not what I'm saying. Existing science is correct by definition at least within its metaphysics. There's nothing here that is outside of science. Indeed, it's the only theory in history that respects two different sciences!!!!! There's nothing invalid about your objections. This is why I answered them. Certainly some of these things are hardly unique. There is an enormous sinkhole just north of the Fayuum (in the "Land of Horus") whose Arab name translates as "The Anus (vulgar) of the World". This appears to be relatively recent judging from sand deposition and could be what stopped the water from spraying about 2600 BC. Getting information is impossible so this is speculative. Sand deposition in the area is about 1" annually but being north of an large irrigated area and lakes it would be much lower. While fissures and other karst features are prevalent in limestone it is unique to have these features extending to such depth at a location with two aquifers under it.

I'm not sure where to start. I suppose starting in more recent geological times is best since if you go back too far data is more speculative. People should remember that things here are unlike other places ancient people were more cognizant of things like the river flowing north and flooding in the summer. This is caused by rain patterns far away in Ethiopia and central Africa. These monsoon like rains come in the summer. They are related to sunspot activity and peak with sunspots which probably accounts for the close solar observations in ancient times (and maybe why we think they were sun addled). The drainage basin for the Nile once extended all the way to the Congo but only a mere 15,000 years ago a volcanic mountain range rose and cut off a large part of it forming Lake Kivu which is one of only three carbonated lakes in the world. It also contains vast amounts of methane and could be a ticking time bomb. CO2 often accumulates in low lying areas in this region and kills insects, animal, and people (especially children since they are shorter). The PT advises people to tiptoe. The Nile lies along the Great African Rift which is a transform plate boundary and will in the near future cause the entire Horn of Africa to take off at high speed. This process is already beginning. It appears the Nile once flowed into the Fayuum Depression only some 30 miles south of Giza. How this is possible isn't clear but geologists believe simple evaporation might account for seasonal flow into it. I'm skeptical. The river suddenly changes its course aboiut every hundred years and sevewral major tributaries have disappeared. A river called the Ur Nile probably flowed west to east just north of Giza and may have flowed even as recently as when the pyramids were built. At the Ur Nile Headwaters Libya has created what's known as the Great Manmade River Project which is pumping ancient water from deep underground and is transforming the desert. There are two major aquifers under Giza with one being a series of basin aquifers that extents all the way to Lake Kivu and the other being the Libyan Aquifer. The former is believed to contain 400 times as much water as the Nile dumped into the sea before construction of the Aswan High Dam. Further backin time the Mediteranian Sea was cut off from the oceans due to declining ocean levels. This caused the Nile to plunge 800' to the lower sea level and to carve a massive canyon all the way back to the first cataract. This may be the largest canyon ever on the planet (maybe). It was certainly huge. Since caves form from the acidic actiuon of decaying organic material near the water table and the water table at Giza went from 225' to -800' this allowed the formation of caves to great depth in the limestone. I don't know the thickness of the limestone here but the crust is among the thinnest on earth and only 20 KM deep. Three plate boundaries join at about the Sanai and earthquakes here can be massive though they are a little unusual considering. The damage to the G2 is apparently from the p-wave of such a quake in the 8th century. I believe this shows how the pyramids were completed from the top down but it's hardly convincing. The cladding was almost certainly intentionally stripped as well to rebuild quake damaged Cairo. It's unclear where quake damage begins and ends. There is carbonated water under the plateau even today as well as the percolating ben ben below the pyramid. After the canyon was complete the sea filled in creating a fiorde and this was eventually filled by sediment washing down the river. Ancient reports say water came up out of the ground and the PT specifically say that the inundation came to the uplands. It's not possible that water would come up in the river valley because it's all tightly packed sediment so along the river banks (on the horizon) is the only possibility. The ground has hardly moved apparently since the pyramids were built but the river has risen some 17' through deposition. It has also moved from the base of the pyramid to several miles away.

I could never in a million years have rediscovered how the great pyramids were built from the physical evidence alone. Little survives and it has been changed by men and time. This was the most heavily disturbed site on the face of the planet even before the Great Pyramid was built. Even geologically it is remarkable in its numerous virtually unique features. Trying to separate relevant data from irrelevant when information is so sketchy is beyond most humans and far beyond me. The important parts of the jigsaw are missing or changed. Seeing the patterns is not possible for me. There was a lot of serendipity here. But I found the key in the ancient writing. This is what told me where to look and this is how I solved it and found all the information is relevant. Some is simply less important. It would seem that if the theory is proven correct it will lend great credence to the means I used to develop it also being correct. The ancient "mustta" really been using a metaphysical language if I'm right, so we need to retranslate their words to reflect what the authors actually meant. There are some staggering implications here beyond simply what it means to be human or how we communicate or even what science is. The words contain their knowledge and I'm only citing that knowledge related to pyramid building. If the work is retranslated a great deal more ancient knowledge will emerge. You are basing your statements on your understanding of what language is. The ancient language is outside your experience. The ancient language was metaphysical so communication required scientific understanding. Modern language simply makes statements and the statements are deconstructed by the listener. When language changes from one type to another who's to make predictions about how the change will proceed? Add in the fact the vocabulary barely changed at first and it can become invisible to anyone not looking at it from the proper perspective. This isn't strictly about language at all but about the way people think and once thought. How do you propose to see something outside the way you think? You can't even see language from where you think because modern people thought themselves into existence "I think therefore I am" doesn't give any credit at all to your parents or those who taught you language so you could think. Ancient people would have said "I am therefore I think" if their idea survived the confusion in language. They took reality as a given where we take our virtual omniscience and ability to think ourselves into existence as a given. Ya' can't get there from here and ya' can't see what I mean from your thinking. You would have to change several basic premises. This is why it might be best to just stick with the evidence of your own eyes rather than anyone's beliefs or perspectives. Let's try to stick with the facts as much as possible though I do like to talk about these differences in language and the implications so I'd be happy to engage you so long as we stick to logic and facts. And, yes, I am well aware that linguists don't believe there was a different kind of language but then humans are supposed to be smarter than animals and we have an easier time teaching them English than learning even the simplest languages; http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/researcher-decodes-praire-dog-language-discovers-theyve-been-calling-people-fat.html This seems to imply that all animal languages are metaphysical just as the first complex human language was. This seems to imply that there really was a "tower of babel" when all ancient science and history were lost. It would explain how humans invented agriculture and cities and completely forgot our entire history from before 2000 BC. It doesn't matter if this all seems so strange because it all fits a pattern and we live in a single world (probably) where the the pyramids were built with water. Some implications will be resisted but over time the facts will win out. One of these facts is that we speak what our ancestors described as "confused language". When I'm around this is never in dispute.

Truth wins out in the long run. Maybe science and scientific knowledge are causing the duration of the "long run" to collapse but this would primarily apply to those things which fit existing paradigm.

This has absolutely nothing to do with creationism and is only tangentally and incidentally related to "religion". To describe the difference in formatting is easy enough but people don't seem to readily grasp it. In all modern languages which originally appeared (perhaps by edict) about 2000 BC words acquire their definition through context. The meaning of the sentence is expressed directly. In the single ancient language which arose from a simple animal language as a result of mutation each word had a fixed meaning. But every concept or object had multiple words for which it was a referent. These words were scientific, colloquial, or vulger and their order and place in the sentence determined the meaning. Ideas weren't communicated directly but were compared to ideas already in existence so meaning was indirect. The ancient language was also metaphysical because new knowledge was incorporated right into the language and the language was internally consistent logically. As a metaphysical language it was the very basis of an ancient science based on observation and logic (language) rather than observation and experiment. To understand the language was to understand all human knowledge and this was the inherent flaw; the invention of writing caused human knowledge to explode. Language became much more complex with even little improvements in knowledge. The language became so complex that it failed. Since people think in language and modern language has a vasly different perspective this can't be readily seen. It is vaguely remembered in ancient Sumerian writing related to the tower of babel which may or may not be the basis of the Bible story. The Bible version appears to be a confused translation of the way the change would be described in the ancient language. Since the two languages are incompatable and the newer language is "confused" it can't be stated with certainty exactly what the Bible story is. I could decode it for you but prefer to distance myself from what people might understand as religious precepts here. There are several other portions of the Bible that appear to be confused translations of ancient writing. Religion itself may be a confusion of ancient applied science or what we call "philosophy". The new languages simply appeared almost overnight as each dialect of the ancient language solved communication deficiencies in different ways. Then since there was no longer any science to tie the languages together (therewas no longer science at all) these languages quickly splintered and divided in many different direction based on users and geography. The change isn't obvious to linguists because the vocabulary underwent very little change, especially at first. The ancient language needed very few words just as a computer program requires very few words since meaning is in context rather than in the words. The vocabulary was insufficient to express meaning in the new languages so many new words arose to mitigate confusion. We are left with languages in which we think but can't see that we think in them and which defines a perspective from which some things (especially human things) are very difficult to see. This perspective colors all of our thinking and perception. We simply tend to elevate beliefs to the status of reality and are blind to contradictory evidence because we see only what we know about already. Perhaps I could add that learning to understand the ancient language was far easier for me than learning to cite the ways in which it is different. One can think in Egyptian or in English but both at once is not so easy. Just as translation isn't direct, seeing the differences in how meaning is expressed isn't direct. I'm working largely from translations that are highly flawed since the translator can't see the original meaning and it is expressed inour "confused" language. Perhaps part of the reason I discovered this at all is that I've always tweaked definitions of the words in which I think to make thought easier and more fluid. This is a sort of metaphysical thought so it meshed well with the metaphysical language. Add in the fact that I pick up clues about what people are thinking from how concepts are expressed and it's pretty natural that I rediscovered the language. Of course I'm still a little concerned other people aren't picking up on this but once it's proven that water was used to build the pyramid everything will quickly fall into place. I don't know. I don't have a strong opinion. Obviously the entire ship would have to be stabilized before attempting to drag a 70 ton stone off of it. Personally I believe everything was done very highly highly efficiently or the pyramids couldn't exist at all. They appear to tell a story about improvements in man-made techniques and processes. The actual words used were scientific and scientific words are mistaken as "gods". They spoke the words of science. They had no religion, no magic, and almost no beliefs at all. "Thot"was human progress and his feminine conterpart was "seshat" which was writing. Before writing seshat was probably just oral tradition. It's a shame the language didn't fail before writing or we might not have lost our history in addition to our science.

This is indeed true but it's also true that at every turn most of the human race has been dragged kicking and screaming from the status quo. The greater the change, the greater the resistance.

I'm not even really sure if you consider your question answered or not. Communication is always difficult and often fails but it's more apparent and more common with me. I think intuitively almost exclusively. I see what's between the lines but it's contingent on my literal unstanding of each term. I'll assume a question exists and address the words associated with a question mark. The Nile, a tributary, or a canal connected to the Nile probably existed at every great pyramid site. There was apparently a tiny port for each pyramid right at the water's edge so called the "valley temple". For each great pyramid this port was connected by a causeway right up to the mason's shop on the east side. This causeway was very elaborate, composed of tura limestone and at some point was coverd with walls and a ceiling. Information about these is sketchy and all are in total ruin, apparently. They are no more than about half a mile in lenght. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=29.977702&lon=31.137373&z=17&m=bs Some people believe they used water operated vehicles called funiculars to unload the ships and bring the stone up the causeway. I'm not yet entirely convinced but I do believce they used some method that employed the weight of water to lift the stone up the 4.6 degree causeways. That they seem to use this angle which matches the kinetic friction of cu on cu seems to support their contention. Nothing is established here but all of my best hypotheses on this subject are thrown out the window because Herodotus said these causeways were still intact in 400 BC and all my best hypotheses use the causeway largely as a marshalling area for the tura limestone casing that wasn't applied in large quantity until the last three years of construction. If I missed something please let me know. It's never intentional. I love input. I especially like input from people with great knowledge and/ or great experience. As always opening up a dialog can be difficult.

You can almost say that consciousness itself acts as a filter to what we see. Consciousness occurs in language now days and all the unconscious derives first from the conscious. While the two are intimately connected it is actual thought patterns and language that prevent us from seeing new things or changing physical habits or habits of thought. Some of this is mere termoinology and is a result of perspective.

There were no "boats" so there was no "hydraulics". The devices were called "boats" and used by "boat operators" but there were no boats used to build any great pyramid. As an aside they probably used movable sails in the so-called boat pits to make short stone movements but there is physical ecvidence other than that it might be "apparent" they did so. If you're talking about the actual "boats" used to haul stone from the quarries then almost nothing whatsoever is known and I haven't even attempted to work on assembling the tiny bit known. I suspect based on the thinking of some new theorists that the stones were stored at a 5 degree angle so they could be pulled straight off onto a funicular path but thius is still speculative. Only a few types of boats are known from the great pyramid building age and, to my knowledge, none can be used to haul large stones. That they did it is unquestionable. By some means stones did cross the Nile for use on the pyramid and others came down the Nile from Aswan. It was widely assumed they traveled by boat until very recently a ship's captain's diary came to light that specifically stated he was loading at Turah and taking stone to Giza in the 24th year of "Khufu's" reign. There is simply nothing new here at all except that the stone was inspected at an island before its final destination! I suspect this was because the port was tiny and they wanted to avoid trouble with captains over unloading order and collisions. People have the mistaken notion that there is vast and deep information about the pyramids because Egyptologists are always going on and waxing poetic about "cultural context". The fact is there is no cultural context outside interpretation of almost no evidence at all. And they aren't willing to gather new evidence. I thought it might be implied by the previous post's statement that; "The ancient language can't be directly translated into any modern human language because they are based on different formatting which is incompatible." I don't want anyone to think I said I can translate something that can't be translated. How this different formatting can be reconciled with my contention I can understand it is relevant to this statement. I wouldn't necessarily "expect" any sand at all to appear. That it does strongly suggests they either needed it for some function or that it was a byproduct of a natural process. It certainly seems that most functions that can be served by sand can be served by just about any sand so why would they haul sand from a far away desert to their own desert? This isn't to say that it mustta come up with the water merely that the gravimetric scan suggests this sand might extend all the way to the entrance as would be predicted by my theory. My theory is far more extensive than I usually let on especially among scientists. This is because it is derived from what Egyptologists believe is a book of magic. The ancient language could be highly expressive and many words were virtually sentences. Some concepts would have been almost impossible to express at all and even simple concepts could talke several sentences. By the same token some sentences could express a great deal of information and paint whole pictures. They aparently called G1 "the sandbank of horrible face bringing water" and this isn't even the ancient language but a confusion of it. There are numerous clues in the PT about what chemicals are in the 1% impurities; Copper sulfate, calcium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium decahydrate, salt, sodium bicarbonate, copper hydroxide, siderite, "silicone" etc, etc... It should be a whole cocktail of chemicals that are implied or derived from what the builders actually said. I can't prove this because the tests won't get done. The reality is there but like "amun" it can't be seen. The Egyptians couldn't see it because it was hard to see, we can't see it because we refuse to look.

The primary tool I used to solve the ancient language was by identifying the scientific terms through context. This was difficult because their scientific knowledge was extensive and deep. It required many thousands, many tens of thousands, of google searchs and some direct help. The type of scientific knowledge they possessed was made by a very foreign metaphysics which also served to mask it as well as to provide very different knowledge from a different perspective.

I looked for commonalities between the great pyramids to arrive at my theory. I speak a lot about G1 (The Great Pyramid) and Djoser's Pyramid because the evidence is best preserved at these two sites. I also speak of the Meidum Pyramid a lot because the interior can be seen and the Bent Pyramid because casing is visible. I believe Egyptology has copyrighted the interior of G1 but I'll try to find a version of the horizontal passage. http://www.wlym.com/archive/pedagogicals/pyramid.html The horizontal passage (#13) is in line with and slightly higher than #1 the original entrance. I believe this was the first leg of the "winding watercourse" that encircled the pyramid and exited at the "wdn.t-offering" in the marsh of offerings by the "knsti-canal" which was the canal hidden in Petrie's 92 word sentence. This is a good drawing and probably accurately represents the reality. Many of these drawings are high;ly speculative and are not based on evidence. There is a little problem with the drawing not showing the entire hill and other nits to pick. It is most highly artificial. The bedrock was scraped down nearly flat with small depressions carved to accept and hold firmly the imported tura limestone which was the visible portion of this "pavement". The pavement even extended under the pyramid so was the firsrt thing built. In some caces this pavement probably preceded the pyramid itself by centuries. The "pavement" is the level from which the pyramid is measured but it also was the "horizon" to the builders. They called the "pavement", "Ssm.t" which meant something like "integral apron" or perhaps "integrated water catchment device". While every word in the language had a single meaning there were various words that applied to any object. Each concept had a scientific, colloquial, and vulgar term associated with it and the choice of terms pointed the listener to the meaning. This isn't the way any modern language works. In modern languages words have many meanings and the intended meaning becomes apparenrt through context. There used to be one language spoken everywhere and carried there by humans. Then the very basis of communication changed after the great pyramids were built masking our human past. The ancient language can't be directly translated into any modern human language because they are based on different formatting which is incompatible. Because the ancient books couldn't be translated they don't survive. The Greeks had a little limited understanding of the ancient books just as did the Egyptian priests but they couldn't be translated into our "confused" languages . It's this masking and formatting as well as the inability to communicate that is continuing to hide the reality. The reality is hidden from our perspective and this is complicated by the fact that fundamental beliefs and perspectives are shown to be simply belief and perspective.

People accuse me of "waffling" but I do mean everything I say so I never say anything that isn't part of what I mean. These sentences will be deconstructed by each reader to have almost no meaning so it seems I'm using a lot of words to say nothing. I'm merely trying to leave a trail of bread crumbs and I always imagine someone will decode my words and not deconstruct them. The first paragragh was inspired from this nonsense that says nothing and was the first that turned up on a search; "The Japanese team also believed that they detected what appeared to be a cavity beneath the floor of the horizontal passage about 1.5 meters below its surface. They believed this cavity might be as much as three meters deep and that it was probably filled with sand. The sand became an issue with many alternative thinkers. Many rumors about the sand surfaced, including that it was radioactive. This was not true, but when the Japanese team examined the sand and compared it to samples in the Giza and Saqqara area, they found that is differed considerably from that material. Apparently, the sand may have been brought in from some distance. The Japanese team also believed that they detected what appeared to be a cavity beneath the floor of the horizontal passage about 1.5 meters below its surface. They believed this cavity might be as much as three meters deep and that it was probably filled with sand. The sand became an issue with many alternative thinkers. Many rumors about the sand surfaced, including that it was radioactive. This was not true, but when the Japanese team examined the sand and compared it to samples in the Giza and Saqqara area, they found that is differed considerably from that material. Apparently, the sand may have been brought in from some distance. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xm0OCN-iDUoJ:www.touregypt.net/featurestories/secretchambers4.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us The only thing you need to know is that it is quartz sand between 1 and 100 microns in size of rounded and partially rounded grains. It is 99% pure and my theory even is capable of predicting the impurities and relative concentrations but such tests have not been done. None of this is mentioned in the article even though it is therelevant information. I believe the sand came out of the north wall about 8" above the bottom of the passage and 15' west of the "great step". It apparently was laid down episodically (as also predicted by my theory) since there was debris between strikings of sand. (Think of a pile composed of sand and debris alternately being thrown on it). Perhaps a little background here will help people understand why I often sound "snide" about Egyptologists. The Japanese research team that found this sand apparently released their results without permission from the lead Egyptologist and were banned from further research and the results are simply not discussed in polite company. It took me three years of research to get the little data I have and I still get little tidbits from time to time. This is the way you have to get all hard data about the pyramids; catch as catch can. The attitude is Petrie did plenty of science and we don't need to do any more. They simply don't allow science to get done and even the data that does exist tends to be hard to access. Part of this is natural because all the experts are Egyptologists and all Egyptologists believe in ramps. But it appears to go farther than this and especially since the mid-'80's. For years I thought that Egyptologists could prove me wrong and simply preferred to leave me hanging. Unfortunately my ideas do not seem very intuitive to anybody so all I really have is my debunkment of ramps from which they are still reeling. It may seem counterintuitive but I have a great deal of respect for almost every living ands deceased Egyptologist but I still believe they are all fundamentally wrong about everything they believe as it applies to the great pyramid builders. It's almost incredible they could learn so much while being so wrong. I can't imagine how they did it. But they are still wrong. The "pavement" surrounds and lies under the Great Pyramid. The bedrock was leveled and then tura limestone imported from across the river was laid down on this leveled bedrock to form a water tight enclosure. This enclosure was surrounded by a dam to form a water catchment device. Part of this pavement on the middle of the east side is composed of sawn and fitted basalt. You can see the basalt pad on the left just below the middle; I believe this was the site of the "Great Saw Palace". I suspect they used some basalt on the working pyramid top for sliding stones as well. Most stone movement was done by machine but some were too incidental to bother so they just pushed them. The sand came up out of the ground with the water and had to be shoveled out of the "winding watercourse" on top of the pyramid. This sand ended up in the walls of the horizontal passage which conveyed the water to the storage facilities; so called queens chamber. At Saqqara about 15 miles south there was so much sand that it had to be dumped all around. There was no known use for sand in pyramid building other than irt was likely used for polishing granite and sawing. This type of sand has not been shown to be used for this purpose and logically (intuitively) it would seem unrounded grains would be needed. It is impossible (highly couterintuitive) they'd have separated spent polishing sand and shoveled it onto debris piles in the walls of the passage. Hence they imported distant sand or it sprayed up with the water and had to be intermittently shoveled out. Other explanations are improbable based on actual evidence. Some of this sand may exist in the area but it is not the type of thing that gets reported. Quartz sand of this type does compose a small percentage of the surrounding desert but there's no apparent mechanism for it to become mixed. An approximate breakdown of the volume of the pyramid; Turah Limestone casing (99.95% missing) ~2% Voids between stones ~4% Voids as passages and chambers <<.5% Gypsum mortar 1 to 2% Granite visible << .5% Granite predicted by my theory <.5% Basalt <<.1% Natural bedrock which is part of the hill it's on 5% Limestone core stone from local quarry 85+% "Missing" top <<.5% It's really not known what's inside and there is a lot of nonsense written about this subject. Much of it doesn't even agree with what can be seen. One idea that Egyptologists have is that there is a pyramid shaped hill under it and it's largely composed of this hill. This is based on my theory which holds that it is a five step pyramid as described by the gravimetric scan and that the step tops were filled in as lightly as possible to avoid excessive weight on the 70 degree step sides.

It wasn't rainfall they were catching; it was "the inundation that tosses". The writers of the Pyramid Texts make it very clear that the "cool effervescent water" on the "uplands" "sprayed" "violently" into the sky. This water was apparently seasonal and was even mentioned by Horapollo who called himself the last Egyptian priest thousands of years later. There were probably about 1.25 million people living in the delta and nearby Egypt with a few more up by Luxor and some in various oases in the area. The economy was probably not nearly so primitive as is normally believed since the PT suggests extensive trade within thousands of miles. The only other significant source for information is the Palermo Stone which also suggests trade with modern day Lebanon. It's difficult to paint a picture of the economy which was primitive yet robust and it's outside the scope of this thread anyway. Suffice to say that marshalling an army to drag stones would have been impossible and outside the defining characteristics of the economy. Such an army would consume some 20% of the economy and taxes were fixed at 10% so far as is known. Pyramid building occurred during peak growing season when no crop could be in the ground due to "high Nile". It would have been foolhardy to expend such resources with no crop and no means of knowing if there'd be a crop failure. These crop failures were common because too high of floods or too low would cause disaster. It would be like buying a new car after you get laid off. Nile water was foul before the flood which came in early summer. There were also dangerous animals like crocs and hippos in the water not to mention schistosomiasis. After the onset of the flood the water would be better but would be warm and muddy. Many people had no choice but to drink this water but it's likely it was avoided. The water of the "inundation" was "like wine" and was "cool and refreshing". It was "effervescent" because it had "imperishable stars" (bubbles) in it. It created "sky arcs" (rainbows) when it sprayed out of the earth and was the "light scatterer of the sky". The water sprayed naturally in this region that the pyramids were built ("land of horus") but humans "buried themselves in the ground" and invented a tool "to bring the phenomena forth using long claws and sharp teeth" to turn these natural geysers into something much more "stable and enduring". This device to control the water was called a djed which means "stable in four dimensions". It was a pipe with a choke at the top which protected the well from backflow; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqPFlzwWAy4 You can see a djed in operation today. This is ancient high tech. This is the source of the "I3.t-wt.t" (CO2) that made the water effervescent and fell from "osiris" when he stood in the "mouth of caves". For most practical purposes all of Egypt is a desert with a river flowing through it. Almost all the people live down in the river valley even today. They called the land up above the valley "the horizon" because it's where the true sunrise and sunset could be seen. At the time the Great Pyramid was built the "desert" at Giza was a dry savana and supported some wildlife. A river likely flowed to the east just north of Giza. Whatever you call it Giza gets less than an inch of rain annually today. D'oh. Perhaps I wasn't clear about the sand. The nearest above ground source of this type of sand found in the walls of the horizontal passage is 150 miles to the NE in the Sanai Desert. It was eithwer imported for unknown use or was a byproduct of the "horrible face bringing sand" if my theory is correct.

I'm sure I understand your perspective/ position. The bottom line is very simple; there isn't much evidence at all to determine how these were made. It doesn't matter why there isn't in this instance, there just isn't. This lack of evidence applies to everyone and every perspective. It is my contention that even though the evidence is so shallow and low quality it still exists in a very wide range if you change your perspective. For instance from the orthodox perspective sand in the walls of the horizontal passage is just unrelated data. We don't need to know why it's there because it has nothing to do with ramps or any known religious practice. All religious practices are unknown. There is some speculation of why the builders would import sand to a desert but it'd hard to imagine hauling sand from 150 miles away and then up 71' into the Great Pyramid for any purpose at all when it is already a desert. Certainly it's possible that they used this sand for some important purpose so they imported it. Certainly the high density at the entrance to the north could be caused by something other than this same sand just as the pockets of density variations along the horizontal passage might also be independent of the quartz sand. We don't know and there aren't even hypotheses to address these questions for the main part. This is considered simple irrelevancy but this is interpretation of evidence. Just because orthodoxy believes this sand is irrelevant, it does not cease to exist except to those who have their minds made up. There is still sand in the walls and quite possible this sand extends all the way to the entrance. This condition is "predicted" or explained by my theory so it becomes evidence for my theory. It is a means to test my theory. I might add that this foreign sand also exists at Saqqara, the site of the first great pyramid. Later Egyptians even referred to (apparently G1) as "the sandbank of 740' by 740' of ugly face bringing water". This applies to all of the physical evidence I've cited. Orthodox theory simply interprets it as irrelevant but it is still as real as a 100,000 ton water collection device that still exists underneath the pyramid. That orthodoxy believes it's irrelevant is irrelevant. They call it the "sacred pavement" and believe it served an unknown religious function. While it is perfectly level and perfectly flat it undulates in width so any religious usage might be exceedingly complex. I believe the builders called it the "integral apron" and it served as the starting point for the stones and defined the "3b3w" (height of heaven) (81' 3"). The apron also defines the amount of lifting that could be done by the counterweights on the cliff face. People don't believe their eyes. They believe what they know. I searched a lot to get a picture of the pyramid sitting on the water catcher but this is a very hard picture to find on the net for some reason and my last one no longer works. I found a couple but this site wouldn't allow them. It is a fact though that the so-called flat pavement were built first because they couldn't build unless they first caught the water. These sites were about water and not tombs. This shows how they leveled the site and build the water catchment first. This is highly inconsistent with any ramping system whatsoever but it is required for using water;

I'll assume you're talking to me even though most of what I've posted so far is obvious evidence. How much more real can evidence be than 100,000 ton water collection devices that sit underneath the pyramid? That they sit underneath is proof they were built even before the pyramid. What can be better proof of the means to lift stones than a gravimetric scan that shows step tops from which men can work? It's all evidence. Just because I add a little speculation to make it easier for people to follow doesn't detract from the facts which seem to disclose the reality. I've got tons of supporting facts though they are open to interpretation. The alternative to all these facts fitting a pattern that I've identified is that there is no evidence for how they built the pyramids. All the evidence like the sand in the horizontal passage is simply dismissed as trivia by the paradigm. There's really little more to the paradigm regarding construction than "they must have used ramps". Meanwhile little FACTS like the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age are simply swept under the rug. The perfectly flat water tight and dammed volume around the base of the pyramid which could hold about 60 acre feet of water and is KNOWN to have held enough water to cause erosion in a canal ("knsti-canal) is simply ignored. How can such massive evidence be ignored and dismissed? It's not opinion this device held water and channeled it to the cliff face. It's not opinion that the builders buried people with titles like "Overseer of Canals", "Overseer of the Metal Shop", "Weigher/ Reckoner", And Overseer of the Boats of Neith". These are facts and it's also true they buried NO overseer of ramp builders. They buried no overseer of stone draggers. There were no such titles anywhere in Egypt and this is fact. Just like all the other facts like a stone growing below the pyramid from water percolating up from below. True, this last is interpreted to apply to the geology of the plateau just as the FACT that the water under the plateau is carbonated to this day. What there are no facts to support is the nonsensical idea that they must have used ramps. There are no facts to support the concept that the culture didn't change so that it must be legitimate to understand them in terms of later people and later ideas. There is no direct evidence that any great pyramid was a tomb. There is no logic in the assumption that the builders had no science and little more than stone age technology. This last is opinion only because language is a mess. People in the future will see it's obvious the human race didn't invent agriculture and cities using religion ansd magic. These are superstition and superstition can only destroy. It requires science to create and to create the technology with which to create. This was obvious to ancient people and they said such things in a language people today can't understand. That thissounds absurd is irrelevant to all the facts and logic but it does explain why it hadn't been discovered previously. Whether you accept the facts about writing and language and my interpretation or not the fact remains that all the evidence, facts, and logic support the concept of using water to build. The more important fact is that ramps are debunked. The pyramids exist and they weren't built with ramps so it's time to do the math. If the powers that be ran a few simple tests we'd have a positive answer to how they were built. We'd have proof of something instead of the mystical "they mustta used ramps". In the meantime my best guess is all the evidence really is relevant and they used waterfilled counterweights falling down the pyramid, the cliff face, and the causeway. But make no mistake; this is what the evidence, facts, and logic suggest. It is simply beside the point that this isn't yet proven.

They were called "boats" by the builders. Every word in the ancient language had a single meaning but words could be modified by appending another word to them. Machine parts were called "sceptres" but there were many kinds of machine parts and 27 different survive in the record. Neither the dndndr nor the 3nw boats had anything to do with water except the "3nw-boat" was a counterweight that was filled with water in order to lift the stones. This countrerweight was set on the side of the first step at the top where it was filled with water. When it bacame heavier that the sled full of stones (dndndr-boat and horuses) at the base of the pyramid the rope that connected these boats transferred enough force to lift the stones. These were mostly 20 ton loads and two primary systems operated almost all the time. If one was down for maintenance the other operated twice as fast. There were various other systems in place to keep these two primary lifters working all the time during working hours.

I've been distracted a lot so far by showing ramps weren't used. But the evidence for water is absolute; "From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement." A canal leading from the water catchment device surrounding the pyramid leads to the cliff face where a counterweight worked. There is a long run (ramp) straight down to the Sphinx Quarry to mark this position as well. Force, friction (static and kinetic)(.08 cu/ cu), vector of weight. It's pretty simple stuff for the main part. The definition of "ramp" is as ephemeral as the definition of all words. I say "there were no ramps" because anything less direct leaves everyone picturing men dragging stones up man made surfaces. There were surfaces for dragging stones but in every case they were dragged by machines like the "funiculars" that dragged stone on the 4.6 degree causeways. But people didn't drag stone uphill or down to build great pyramids. This romantic idea is deep in peoples' minds but it never happened. Both statements are correct. The pyramids are on top of hills so all canals lead downward from them. These canals transported water from the water catchment devices on which the pyramids were built. (with thanks to Karen H Taylor) Yes. About 97% of the mass of the pyramid is limestone quarried very nearby. Most of the rest was tura limestone imported from across the river. There are trace amounts of things like basalt that was apparently used to slide stones upon in the mason's shop on the east side. Some believe there was a little sandstone used internally and there is "foreign sand" (whispering sand) quartz sand of rounded and partyially rounded griains between 1 and 100 microns embedded in the walls of the horizontal passage and, I believe, this extends all the way through the pyramid to where the source of water existed on the north side 10' from the pyramid and 35' east of the N/ S centerline. I believe there were a few different types of derricks that were used but no trype was used tolift stone on the pyramid. It is Egyptologists who don't believe in any tool that doesn't survive in museums or tomb paintings. Are you referring to the "dndndr-boat"? This was merely a large sled that was hoisted by the counterweight on the opposite siude of the pyramid. It was composed primarily of cedar while the "3nw-boat" (counterweight) was made largely of "short pieces of wood" which composed what looked like the dorsal exoskeleton of a grasshopper and was also built on a large sled. This contrivance in its entirelt was known as the "Bull of Heaven" where heaven was 81' 3" or the height of the water pressure. ie- the first step of the five step pyramid. Here's the henu boat; This is an old concept from before I realized it was at 70 degrees. The pyramids all had to be built in steps because they needed the step tops to work and to relay stones up one step at a time; This is consistent with the gravimetric scan that shows 81' 3" steps;

Ironically I believe the primary impediment to peace has always been caused by a breakdown in communication. We believe we understand the translator and each other but we don't. Other people always have other perspectives and other ideas but we don't understand one another. Rather than trying to understand one another it's easier to send our young men to kill one another.

Like everyone I have a tendency to assume everyone knows what I do. Of course I've been studying all this in depth for eight years so I know a great deal more than most people. I misstook your request for such information. People should remember that Egyptologists don't care about hard facts related to pyramid building so this knowledge is all sketchy. There's also the fact that they believe it's important to gather all this information methodically and to not destroy anything relevant to their primary concerns which is to understand the people who built the pyramids. Between data being considered unimportant and the great care they take in excavation much of the plateau has not been studied to this time. The primary problem, in my opinion, is that they are looking in all the wrong places for ll the wrong things. While current research is scholarly and apt much of the previous work was primarily what I call "digging for ramps". Even today the focus is on things that are considered relevant so "ramps" are a primary focus despite the fact they are debunked and their efforts to rebunk have so far been utter failures. This is the reality. Ramps are debunked based on logic and physical evidence but the testing still isn't being done. Last year they commisioned a computer modeling study which "proved" ramps could have been used and this year there was a claim that the men lived on ramps and stones were dragged over wet sand. I actually have some sympathy for them but the evidence is still the same. There were apparently two primary quarries that supplied the vast majority (perhaps all) of the core stones in the pyramid. The primary quarry I call the "Main Quarry" (often not capitalized). It is horseshoe shaped and due south of the pyramid extending from a couple hundred feet south to a few hundred yards. The tips of the horseshoe point upward (like "ramps") to the two southern corners of the pyramid. The secondary quarry is the "Sphinx Quarry" from around and behind the Sphinx which is a couple hundred yards east of the main quarry. There is evidence of a long "ramp" which extended from here to the eastern cliff face counterweight about 75 yards east of the NE corner. This "ramp" leads to the causeway of the pyramid. Additionally two other quarries supplied a small percentage of stone. The larger was the Turah Quarry near what is downtown Cairo. These "tura" stones were shipped across the river apparently individually and they weighed an average of perhaps 10 tons. A very small percentage of the pyraimd's mass came from an unknown quarry that was almost certainly far upriver near Aswan or what the builders called the "first cataract". This was granite that came in very large pieces of 30 to 70 tons and were flattened and polished on five sides (some are likely all six sides). All the visible ones are lining passages and chambers inside but they compose well under .5% of the weight. I believe there are probably many more hidden inside the pyramid but the total weight is still insignificant. It is probable that all these tura and granite stones arrived at the so-called valley temple and were brought up the causeway. There is still no evidence that any stone was dragged by men at any great pyramid site and the word "ramp" isn't attested from the great pyramid building age. The fact I can't prove it isn't attested is meaningless to the reality that the word doesn't exist from that era. Since it doesn't exist no one can show it does. Almost nothing at all survives, least of all the word "ramp". Ramps are debunked. Unfortunately little evidence exists. It is my opinion based on the fact that the stones appear to be very close together (sometimes touching on all visible sides that the stones were mostly cut before being transported to the pyramid top. There is rubble and some gypsum between these LIMESTONE core blocks which was probably done to provide greater stability. If stone were to move in an earthquake the structure could be destroyed. The massive size (6.5 million tons) suggests to me they would never lift anything not needed and would use everything lifted. There's not nearly enough rubble to suggest they did a lot of shaping after the stones achieved their height. The culture referred to a "Great Saw Palace" which was operated by a "god". I believe this is mistaken for a "mortuary temple" on the east side. It's impossible to use canals to get stones to the pyramid site because the pyramid sites are all on hills. There is a theory (Steven Myers) that water locks were used but there are weaknesses in the theory which make me rather skeptical. It is better evidenced than "ramps" but not by a lot. According to Egyptologists this isn't true. I agree that the ancients were masters of all one part machines that could use primitive materials but Egyptologists discount anything that doesn't exist today in a museum or that isn't drawn in a perspective they understand in the Egyptian art. There's plenty of drawing of lifting stones with water all through the culture but it is interpretation. It's impossible to have built using the technique I propose and then draw it in terms an Egyptologist would recognize because of the difference in perspective, language, and thought between Egyptologists and ancient Egyptians. I don't know if this is possible or not. I tend to doubt it. But being possible or not is irrelevant because ramps are debunked because there is no evidence for ramps. Reality ALWAYS comes down to the facts. This is the nature of nature. It is what the ancients called "amun"; the hidden. The reality of nature is always hidden and it's only through logic they could come to understand it and it's only through experimentation that we can understand it. When we deviate from experimentation we are introducing concepts from language and language is confused. Just as they never used experimentation because it was a perversion of science we should never use logic or language from which it is derived because it is a perversion of science. It is our perversion blinding us to the reality. The words used to define "experimentation" are irrelevant so long as the experiment itself obeys the scientific rules and is appropriate to the conclusion and the hypothesis or theory. Actually this theory has always made more accurate predictions that "ramps". Each time a piece of information has come o light it has almost invariably supported water for construction, denied ramps, or {been wholly irrelevant to one, the other, or both}. There's a simple reason for this; my theory was built around the physical evidence which was quite easy for me to accomplish because I understood what the builders wrote and this directed me to the physical evidence. The order and type of evidence that has been found has also affected my theory so it's hardly surprising that the theory fits the facts and this goes a thouand times over if my "interpretation" of the only writing that survives is correct. But since the theory became essentially complete in 2007 all of the finds side with my theory or are irrelevant. The head of the SCA insisted there were no caves at Giza (the ancients called Giza "Rosteau" which translates as "Mouth of Caves") and then was led into one by the hand on international television in 2010. Just a couple years back there was a cistern discovered which has an inlet along a "creek" leading away from G2 (the middle pyramid). This inlet was much too small to be fill the cistern in a rain event because it has a tiny diameter and rains in the desert run off quickly. This is virtual proof of my theory by itself because the only alternative to fiulling this with running water is that the ancients preferred carrying warm muddy water from the distant river up a long incline. It's also been discovered that the builders village high above the river has been flooded. Canals and other water handling devices are being found at other pyramid sites including a massive "overflow" for the Saqqara enclosure that would have protected the walls from being overtopped. This overflow simply carries water from high inside the walls to the moat that surrounds it. I heartell a canal has been found on the east side of G2. There are a few other things which are largely dependent on interpretyation as wellas things I've probably forgotten. But all this is just in the last few years. Nothing at all has been found to support the concept of dragging stones up ramps and, in fact, nothing has ever been found that supports this concept. The presense of sloped walkways or paths for stone simply doesn't support the idea people dragged stones. This is interpretation. In light of the fact that none of these walkways point up onto a pyramid there is little basis for the interpretation beyond the belief that ancient people were highly incapable of coming up with an idea to use a simpler or more efficient method. ALL of the evidence supports the use of water.

This is the vbest reason to believe my theory and cast "ramps" on the trash heap of history where they belong; my theory makes accurate predictions and "ramps" do not. Nevermind that ramps are debunked because they fail the test of making predictions.

I have nothing against the "soft sciences". Even Egyptology has great deal of scholarship and expertise. "...is a field of study which attempts to generate and test archaeological hypotheses, usually by replicating or approximating the feasibility of ancient cultures performing various tasks or feats." "Experimentation" is by definition the isolation of variables in the lab for study. What this describes is NOT experimentation.

As I said though, the lack of evoidence for temporary devices can't prove that temporary devices existed. It is still my contention that almost all of the temporary devices used to build the great pyramids are still right on site. For instance the builders extended the cliff face out about 20' just north of the NE corner of G1. This was necessary to support the foundation for the western cliff face counterweight. This counterweight is nearly as well evidenced as the eastern cliff face counterweight. There is no reason any ramping system would have needed to extend the cliff face. This is why Egyptologists don't recognize it as evidence at all; it is immaterial to the ramps that must have been used to build the pyramids. Exactly. This is thinking like a scientist. There is scant information available about the quarry because it has never been properly studied or even sampled. My understanding is that it's reported to be mostly filled with debris and tafla (clay) mixed with other materials known to have been used for ramps. However the relative quantitiers of material are not established and never been studied. There is estimated to be in aggregate about the volume of G1 somewhere at Giza. Trying to extrapolate much of anything from such information is an impossibility. No matter what method was used to lift stones on these 10 pyramids at Giza a great deal of waste would have been generated. This site was used for a millineum for various purposes after the pyramids were built. There are a few finds in this area that I believe support my contention but it is largely conjecture beacause the evidence is thin. Some interesting finds have been made that seem to support orthodoxy as well but nothing determinative.

I'm not sure I should get into how the pyramids were really built in this thread for tactical reasons. But I do hate seeing it dismissed so readily. Stones weren't lifted one at a time but many at a time in about 20 ton loads. I have great information about the counterweight because it is described in great detail in the only writing that survives. Such a lifting device appears all through the culture and written record and still is the basis for ceremony in Egypt. It was called the "3nw-boat" or "henu boat" dependent on the translator. It was shaped like the dorsal exoskeleton of a grasshopper and was about 25' long and built on skis to distribute the weight. The "carapace" was a fixed part of this device at the top known as the "I33.t-sceptre" which was a tool to funnel the water into it. The Egyptians built far more assive boats than this and th only difference is the henu boat had the support structure on the inside instead of the outside. I never said it is impossible to see anything new. I said it is very difficult to see things outside our experience. How many gorillas did you count? I didn't support this for the exact reason I previosly stated in the thread it arose; It is common knowledge that can be googled. It was shown by a man in a gorilla suit anyway.

Perhaps you can provide an example of this? Most things people respond with are not even relevant to the point I made. I guess you really are a writer then. What kind of fiction do you write? It was only twelve minutes ago I cited dozens of facts to debunk ramps and you've had time to not only read it but digest it and talk irrelevancies. This is what all "crackpots" are up against.

We are defining "experiment" differently. When it comes to science I am a purists and I don't believe true science even exists outside of its metaphysics. This isn't to say that I don't believe ancient and modern sciences can't be hybridized to study broader spectra of reality merely that no such hybridization has occured to date so the rules are undefined. Nothing from before the current moment (or the current moment in which the lab exists) can be isolated as to its variables so no experiment can be made in an historical context. However there are plenty of scientific tests, scientific processes, scientific measurements and scientific observation that can be done and Egyptology won't allow it.