Soft "Science" and Evidence of Your Own Eyes.

[cladking]

Somewhere along the line people came to believe the conjectures of archaeologists. Probably this was caused by the fact that everyone calls themselves a "scientist" and we all know that experiment can't be done in the historical contexts. Since experiment isn't possible then some won't even do simple testing.

 

You might be surprised to learn that the concept ramps must have been used to build the Great Pyramid has been disproven and simpler more efficient means are in evidence. Indeed, the use of ramps at all for building great pyramids has been debunked. It appears they used water filled counterweights and funiculars on the causeways instead. There is extensive physical evidence and, I believe, there is extensive cultural and historical evidence to support it.

 

So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols of the ancient Egyptians from the simplest to the most complex. Almost no writing of any sort exists and they don't understand it. They have been scrambling for a couple years since ramps were debunked to try to reestablish the concept but so far the efforts are amusing at best.

 

One of the ancient concepts was the ben ben stone which sat on the primeval mound. Despite the fact that not only the chemical composition of this can easily be deduced but I can point them to one that exists now. It exists and is growing in the Sphinx Temple below the Great Pyramid today;

 

 

It's a little hard to see if you don't know what it is because that's the nature of the perspective imparted by language.

 

I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers.

 

 

http://www.egyptiandawn.info/chapter7.html

 

 

[Strange]

 

You might be surprised to learn that the concept ramps must have been used to build the Great Pyramid has been disproven and simpler more efficient means are in evidence. Indeed, the use of ramps at all for building great pyramids has been debunked.

 

I wasn't aware it was ever proven in the first place. There, and always have been, multiple hypotheses. Many of them supported by calculations and computer modelling.

 

 

So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols of the ancient Egyptians

 

This sort of blatant lie is why I refuse to discuss your "theory". What is the point of trying to discuss an idea with someone who makes up their own meanings for words and lies consistently.

 

EDIT

You might be surprised to learn that the concept ramps must have been used to build the Great Pyramid has been disproven and simpler more efficient means are in evidence. Indeed, the use of ramps at all for building great pyramids has been debunked.

 

This is not a subject that I know anything about but a few seconds reading show that this is a lie as well:

 

 

Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the methods to raise the blocks, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete method that must be supplemented by another device. Archaeological evidence for the use of ramps has been found at the Great Pyramid of Giza^[20] and other pyramids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

Edited September 27, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

Somewhere along the line people came to believe the conjectures of archaeologists.

An interpretation of reaction to archaeological theory that is simultaneously snide and irrelevant.

 

Probably this was caused by the fact that everyone calls themselves a "scientist" and we all know that experiment can't be done in the historical contexts.

More snide irrelevancy. It seems to be your speciality.

 

Experiments are routinely done in historical contexts. Either you are lying, or ignorant. In either case it wholly devalues your opinions in these matters.

 

Since experiment isn't possible then some won't even do simple testing.

As noted, of course experiment is possible. And why should every archaeologist conduct testing, if the relevant testing has already been conducted by others?

 

You might be surprised to learn that the concept ramps must have been used to build the Great Pyramid has been disproven

I would not be surprised. I would be amazed. Please provide appropriate citations to support your claim. Include citations that refute the points made by Strange about the evidence for ramp use. Alternatively, and preferably, admit you are wrong.

 

It appears they used water filled counterweights and funiculars on the causeways instead. There is extensive physical evidence and, I believe, there is extensive cultural and historical evidence to support it.

Provide the citations to justify this claim.

 

So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols of the ancient Egyptians from the simplest to the most complex. Almost no writing of any sort exists and they don't understand it. They have been scrambling for a couple years since ramps were debunked to try to reestablish the concept but so far the efforts are amusing at best.

More snide ignorance. I am at a loss as to why your nonsense is tolerated.

 

One of the ancient concepts was the ben ben stone which sat on the primeval mound. Despite the fact that not only the chemical composition of this can easily be deduced but I can point them to one that exists now. It exists and is growing in the Sphinx Temple below the Great Pyramid today;

Huh?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Cladking - you have made bold assertions that have been countered, and you have been asked to back up your argument. Please do so.

 

 

I am at a loss as to why your nonsense is tolerated.

 

Being wrong is not against the rules - I am still here aren't I?

 

 

 

[cladking]

It's surprising people discount the philosophical construct of connected knowledge (visceral knowledge). It didn't even take two hours in the middle of the night for someone to quote wiki about how the pyramid was really built rather than addressing the physical evidence which lies outside of peoples' experience and knowledge. As I said I have a lot of experience arguing this and I know from this experience that people aren't so much looking at the evidence as they are looking at what they believe and what they already know/ It simply isn't seen that this is outside of their knowledge just like all of the physical, cultural, and historical evidence is outside of their knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

I would not be surprised. I would be amazed. Please provide appropriate citations to support your claim. Include citations that refute the points made by Strange about the evidence for ramp use. Alternatively, and preferably, admit you are wrong.

 

This may all seem snide to you but it is experience. Egyptology is science > science is always factual > Egyptology is factual. I'm left to argue with God.

 

I debunked ramps. I have proven that ramps are not the only means the pyramids could have been built by identifying a much simpler and far more efficient way they could have been built. Indeed, I've identified several means that don't require men dragging stones up ramps. More importantly than these identifications of simpler or easier means is that these simpler and easier means are actually well evidenced rather than contingent on the 19th century concept that they "mustta used ramps". If this sounds snide it's only because experience tells me this evidence will not be addressed and I will be met with different irrelevancies and a refusal to look at the actual evidence. Wiki may be a wonderful tool and resource but it is just pop-science phrased in terms anyone can understand. It is not a virtual modern day Bible as most people seem to think.

 

There is no one piece of evidence that proves that Egyptologists are wrong. More accurately, Egyptologists won't test or examine any piece of evidence that could only prove they are wrong and haven't even been willing to test evidence that would prove they are right since 1987. It would seem this is because they fear they are wrong.

 

The conclusive proof that ramps aren't the only means to build is a well eidenced means to build that uses simpler technology than unevidenced and contradicted ramps. This other means is right in front of our eyes but we can't see it;

 

 

It appears all of the great pyramids were built as step pyramids. This is very "obviously" because it was far easier to stand on top of the pyramid and drag stones straight up the side than it was to build ramps and drag entire teams (and their living quarters) up them.

 

Look at the picture here but remember the copyright holder of the picture misinterprets it so it might be best not to even confuse the issue with his misunderstanding. This thread is about the evidence of your own eyes and not about anyone's interpretation anyway. I can go on endlessly citing facts and presenting pictures and all Egyptologists can do is speculate about what shape the escheresque ramps mustta taken.

 

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

 

I'd be happy to discuss this evidence and how it shows it's a five step pyramid and the logic that says they had to build steps because they needed a spot from which to work and the step tops provided this spot.

 

In the meantime let's just agree that it is disproven that they had to use ramps. This concept that they had to use ramps is really the only "evidence" that they did use ramps so the ramp "theory" has been dealt a fatal blow.

 

Additionally I can debunk the contention that ramps were used based on the physical evidence and logic. The physical evidence simply excludes ramps. Logic excludes ramps. No pyramid builder "believed" ramps were used to build great pyramids. This belief exists only among Egyptologists and those who believe modern perspectives.

[studiot]

Cladking,

 

Do you have any idea how the Clifton Suspension Bridge, The Maillart Elastic Line Bridges, The Forth Bridge, The Tay Bridge, the Kocher Valley Viaduct (amongst others) were built?

 

And is there any on site evidence today of this?

 

Oh and I have never called myself a scientist.

Edited September 27, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

...you have made bold assertions that have been countered, and you have been asked to back up your argument.

 

 

It might not seem possible but how they built the pyramid isn't even about simple facts, logic, and the evidence of our own eyes because all the facts, all the evidence, and even what we see that applies to the reality that is the pyramids lies outside of our experience. All of our "connected knowledge", our language, and the perspective of several centuries of science says that ancient people were sun addled bumpkins who were so incapable and powerless they required magic and religion to band together and drag stones up ramps.

 

This is all confusion born of a confused language and the perspective forced on people who use this language for thought.

 

There is a mantra among Egyptologists that goes "they mustta used ramps"... ...well... ...while loomking at the pictures in this thread just keep repeating to yourself one simple irrevokable fact; "the word ramp isn't even attested from that time".

 

These are bold claims stated in bold terms because the concepts suggested by these claims overturn most of the human thought that arose centuries ago and still persist. Humans are not what we think and reality is not directly percievable from our perspective. We see it through a kaleidoscope of language.

[Sensei]

So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols of the ancient Egyptians from the simplest to the most complex. Almost no writing of any sort exists and they don't understand it.

 

What a nonsense you are writing..

 

How we would know names of kings and pharaohs without being able to identify symbols.. ?

 

Have you heard about Rosetta stone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

[cladking]

Cladking,

 

Do you have any idea how the Clifton Suspension Bridge, The Maillart Elastic Line Bridges, The Forth Bridge, The Tay Bridge, the Kocher Valley Viaduct (amongst others) were built?

 

And is there any on site evidence today of this?

 

Oh and I have never called myself a scientist.

 

This may appear to many to be an irrelevancy but it isn't. You are suggesting that logic implies that the means to build things can disappear virtually overnight. It is a very valid point however it may not be at all relevant to great pyramid building. I have addressed this issue and the logic related to it and the evidence extensively and will be happy to go through it again here. This is one of the concepts I turn against those who cite irrelevancies as argument; the lack of ramp evidence proves they used ramps just as lack of evidence for tombs proves they were tombs.

 

For right now let me just say that bridges built with modern materials and engineering and great pyramids built with stone and ancient materials are fundamentally different in nature. Of course the techniques used to build a bridge are likely to not be apparent after completion. But how do ancient people lift 6 1/2 million tons of stone some 160' and leave no evidence. Indeed, the only thing which appears it might be evidence is "ramps" leading to the base of the pyramids. If this is actually evidence then logically they must have had a different means to get stones up onto the pyramid or the "ramps" wouldn't lead to the base but to some point above the base.

 

I'd be happy to discuss this further of course. The subject will come back because it appears a few times in the debunkment of ramps. This is one of the primary reasons 19th century scientists leaped to the wrong conclusions.

[studiot]

 

You are suggesting that logic implies that the means to build things can disappear virtually overnight

 

Indeed yes.

 

In fact modern practice is to construct what is known as 'falsework' in order to build the permanent work.

This is a bit like building a giant jig as a metalworker or carpenter might do to fabricate a door or some other work.

 

The falsework is deliberately removed at the end of the construction, because no one want to see temporary support holding up the nice new bridge.

 

How do we know that the ancient Pharoh's didn't also cause this to happen because all they wanted to see was pyramid?

 

We know that the Egyptians, the Harappans and the Babylonians all used temporary works in their respective river management, but often left them in place afterwards, perhaps for the opposite reason ie these were utilitarian works not showpieces.

Edited September 27, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

 

What a nonsense you are writing..

 

How we would know names of kings and pharaohs without being able to identify symbols.. ?

 

Have you heard about Rosetta stone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

 

 

There's a big difference between translators being able to "circumscribe" the meaning of the language and understanding it. I couldn't understand it if they hadn't already done all the work.

 

There's a big difference between reading the heiroglyphs and knowing what the symbols mean. For instance I've identified the origin and meaning of several heiroglyphs based on knowledge of what the builders actually meant. Some of these it's surprising that Egyptologists didn't deduce them since there was ample evidence even without understanding. For instance the "cartouche" in which the king's name was written originated with a device that was used to attach stones together which was a type of belaying loop. But their ignorance hardly stops with many of the "letters" of the language but extends to every single one of the 27 different sceptres that exist in the literature (mostly Pyramid Texts). I can identify the origin and function of most of them and they know neither the origin nor function of all of them. This situation exists because they don't understand the ancient language. They circumscribe the meaning but don't recognize that it is formatted differently so everything lies outside of their experience. The ancient language breaks down if you try to analyze it because it is a metaphysical language.

 

I'd best get back to facts and pictures since any discussion of the PT lies outside everyone's experience.

 

 

 

How do we know that the ancient Pharoh's didn't also cause this to happen because all they wanted to see was pyramid?

 

 

 

 

For the reasons mentioned!!!

 

The "ramps" point at the bottom of the pyramid.

 

Also because they removed "ramps" (natural ground) even before construction began.

 

I can't post a picture of it right now but the entire north and west sides of the second pyramid at Giza was extensively excavated far below bedrock even before the first stone went in. This was necessary because water had to be able to flow all around the pyramid before they could lift the first stone. That water flowed around it is established throughout the physical record but let's save this.

[Strange]

It didn't even take two hours in the middle of the night for someone to quote wiki about how the pyramid was really built rather than addressing the physical evidence which lies outside of peoples' experience and knowledge.

 

It wasn't the middle of the night here.

 

And the reference I provided included physical evidence.

 

As I said I have a lot of experience arguing this and I know from this experience that people aren't so much looking at the evidence as they are looking at what they believe and what they already know

 

That can't be true in my case because, as I said, I don't know anything about the subject. But a quick check of your claims shows them to be incorrect.

 

Egyptology is science > science is always factual > Egyptology is factual.

 

Then it should be easy for you to provide the evidence requested. Intead of your usual evasiveness ("maybe if I waffle on for long enough people won't notice that I haven't answered the question." Have you considered a career in politics?)

 

I debunked ramps.

 

As so many of your statements are obviously false (if not deliberate lies) you will have to forgive me if I don't believe you.

 

I have proven that ramps are not the only means the pyramids could have been built

 

I'm not sure anyone claims they are the only means they could have been built. The Wikipedia article lists a number of possibilities. It could even have been a combination of methods.

 

In the meantime let's just agree that it is disproven that they had to use ramps.

 

Nope.

 

This concept that they had to use ramps is really the only "evidence" that they did use ramps so the ramp "theory" has been dealt a fatal blow.

 

What about the physical evidence of ramps referred to earlier?

 

The physical evidence simply excludes ramps.

 

What about the physical evidence of ramps referred to earlier?

 

Logic excludes ramps. No pyramid builder "believed" ramps were used to build great pyramids. This belief exists only among Egyptologists and those who believe modern perspectives.

 

That is not "logic", it is an assertion/guess abut what people thought. Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

[studiot]

 

This is very "obviously" because it was far easier to stand on top of the pyramid and drag stones straight up the side than it was to build ramps and drag entire teams (and their living quarters) up them.

 

 

 

How would one stand on the top of something before it was built, in order to drag stones up it, to build it?

 

Alternatively if it was already built why drag stones up it?

Edited September 27, 2014 by studiot

[Sensei]

 

There's a big difference between reading the heiroglyphs and knowing what the symbols mean.

 

Have you bothered reading Rosetta Stone article, I provided?

There are 3 languages used on it, and more or less, the same content.

[Delta1212]

 

 

How would one stand on the top of something before it was built, in order to drag stones up it, to build it?

 

Alternatively if it was already built why drag stones up it?

I think he means you stand on top of what has already been built and drag the stones up the side until the reach the current top, then place them, stand on too of those, and repeat.

 

Of course, that's just using the pyramid itself as a ramp, and one with a much steeper incline, so patently more difficult to use than a more graduated incline, which is the entire point of using ramps.

 

I'm going to take a page from Colbert and say that 'visceral knowledge' may more accurately be named knowiness.

[studiot]

 

studiot, on 27 Sept 2014 - 5:05 PM, said:

 

 

 

How do we know that the ancient Pharoh's didn't also cause this to happen because all they wanted to see was pyramid?

 

 

 

 

For the reasons mentioned!!!

 

The "ramps" point at the bottom of the pyramid.

 

Also because they removed "ramps" (natural ground) even before construction began.

 

I can't post a picture of it right now but the entire north and west sides of the second pyramid at Giza was extensively excavated far below bedrock even before the first stone went in. This was necessary because water had to be able to flow all around the pyramid before they could lift the first stone. That water flowed around it is established throughout the physical record but let's save this.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I don't follow this response either.

 

I didn't say they did or didn't use ramps.

 

(I do know the Romans used them in their construction as in the siege of Masada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Masada)

 

But what do you mean by a ramp and what do you mean by pointing down or that they were removed before construction began?

 

It is normal construction technique to this day to create a level 'formation' (the modern word)

 

So what?

 

As a matter of interest in the building of interlocking masonry structures in difficult circumstances by primitive methods,

 

Smeaton's Tower is worth a read

 

https://wordery.com/smeatons-tower-christopher-severn-9780954275099?currency=GBP&gtrck=VmREc2dBTE1tU1BtdG9BWSsxREF6UFpKV0YrQi9YQzdtbWYvSXdacjFYUnpDYXM0YzVhZnNPdVltU1hhbThrdUFVb2hWc24ycWFEYk1yMVU0ZXU3R2c9PQ&gclid=CJX83qjugcECFafnwgodsi0Aig

Edited September 27, 2014 by studiot

[Strange]

 

It might not seem possible but how they built the pyramid isn't even about simple facts, logic, and the evidence of our own eyes because all the facts, all the evidence, and even what we see that applies to the reality that is the pyramids lies outside of our experience.

 

So you reject the physical evidence because it conflicts with your personal ideas.

 

All of our "connected knowledge", our language, and the perspective of several centuries of science says that ancient people were sun addled bumpkins who were so incapable and powerless they required magic and religion to band together and drag stones up ramps.

 

Please provide a reference to an academic source which describes the Egyptians as "sun addled bumpkins".

 

There is a mantra among Egyptologists that goes "they mustta used ramps"...

 

You have been asked to support this claim before. Will you do it now?

 

...well... ...while loomking at the pictures in this thread just keep repeating to yourself one simple irrevokable fact; "the word ramp isn't even attested from that time".

 

So I thought to myself, "surely, with all those hills, they must have had a word for 'slope'." So I checked an online dictionary. And of course they do (, sqd). And words for ramp (r stA / smA).

 

Surely you must have realised by now that it is very easy for people to check that you are lying.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Strange

[Delta1212]

 

So you reject the physical evidence because it conflicts with your personal ideas.

 

 

Please provide a reference to an academic source which describes the Egyptians as "sun addled bumpkins".

 

 

You have been asked to support this claim before. Will you do it now?

 

 

So I thought to myself, "surely, with all those hills, they must have had a word for 'slope'." So I checked an online dictionary. And of course they do (, sqd). And words for ramp (r stA / smA).

 

Yes, but the word 'ramp' itself didn't exist back then. So there you go.

[cladking]

 

 

 

So I thought to myself, "surely, with all those hills, they must have had a word for 'slope'." So I checked an online dictionary. And of course they do (, sqd). And words for ramp (r stA / smA).

 

Surely you must have realised by now that it is very easy for people to check that you are lying.

 

 

There are four basic and erroneous assumptions made by Egyptologists as it concerns the great pyramid builders; that they were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never chnged. There are numerous other assumptions as well but so far as I know they are either correct nor irrelevant to this discussion. That these assumptions exist is beyond question. They translate the entire culture as being about magic and gods. This is superstition by defintion. Egyptologists don't use the words "superstitious bumpkins" but it doesn't change the fact that they are being described mgic believing gods fearing misanthropes whose only known means to lift a tomb is dragging it up ramp.

 

Here is the most dramatic example of calling them stinky footed bumpkins;

 

722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through,

722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.

p. 140

723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star).

 

Here they interpret this passage to tell a "god" not to walk through corpse drippings unless he tiptoes through it! This is in effect the Egyptological belief about these people. Elsewhere it says the corpse dripping drippings smell good. Rather thn question their beliefs about the meaning of these seemingly enigmatic words that just try to wrap their heads around a belief that these were noble people whose gods squished their toes in rotten meat. If the Egyptological interpretations are correct then these people were exceedingly superstitious. Their superstitions were so complex that 150 years of intensive study by Egyptologists has failed to even idenify any specific superstitions. Every concept as Egyptologists understand them is contradicted by the same people who wrote the words that mention any superstition. No one has a problem with this so it seems apparent they must not understand my words. These concepts must lie outside of peoples' comprehension.

 

I have tried the tactic of showing pictures before but this will be the first time on a science site.

 

Egyptologists have to believe in the changlessness of the great pyramid builders because nothing of the culture is comprehensible except thin slices of data that positively says ramps couldn't have been used. From these thin slices that contradict their beliefs and extrensive incomprehensible gobbledty gook (the PT) they have concluded that the pyramids were tombs. Nevermind that the PT specifically state the pyramids were not tombs and tht the kings were cremated. Later Egyptians had perfectly comprehensible beliefs which were superstitious so later beliefs are projected back onto the builders. This is done in myriad ways but the most common is to simply assign the same word meanings to ancient writing that were used in much later times. If Rennenutet was an imaginary conscious entity who controlled the ability of people to breath and recover from illness in 1500 BC then "she" must be the same "renennutet" who existed in the PT even though there is no reason of any sort to believe this. Common concepts fropm later eras are always contradicted somewhere in the PT and no one sees that the PT does have a coherent meaning.

 

Much of this is beside the point that Egyptologists are describing people who believed magic actually worked and imaginary forces and consciousness were effective in the real world!!! ...That reality was bent by the will of many gods and all manner of magic so complex that 27 different magic wands were needed and we canb't deduce the function or origin of any of them!!!!!!!!!

 

Ancient people are being described as sun addled bumpkins and you can use any terminology you wish but this is the fact. They had no science and used trial and error in a framework of magic and superstition. This is illogical but people speaking modern lnguage can't see it from our perspective.

 

The word "ramp" simply isn't attested fro m the great pyramid building age because the word was so inconsequential it was never written down anywhere that it survived. This is the simple fact. The fact that later Egyptians are known to have the word is irrelevant to this argument.

 

And the reference I provided included physical evidence.

 

 

 

No, it didn't.

 

It's not that there aren't facts that can't be construed as evidence for ramps but the fact of the matter is there is no evidence that any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using ramps. You can't find evidence to contradict this because there is none. If you read the articles suggesting ramps carefully they always say that the builders must have used ramps. They always say that the configuration is unknown and sometimes admit ramps are insufficient to the evidence but the evidence for ramps is that these Godless pagans with no science and nothing but a king who was god had no other means than to use ramps. This is DISPROVEN. They had other means and these are in evidence at "every" great pyramid.

 

ALL of the evidence points to water as the means to build.

 

 

 

Nope.

 

Just ignore the evidence provided and list irrelevancies.

 

Why no comment on the pictures that show how it was built? This is extensive evidence and data and you simply choose not to see it and maintain "it mustta been ramps". This is the literal meaning of your word here and the implications. There is even better evidence that they used water but here you are stuck on "they mustta used ramps". This means you can't possibly see anything that doesn't involve ramps.

If you look at this picture you can see the excavation done on the west and north side of G2.

[studiot]

I see no evidence of the constructuion method any more than I do in my quoted examples of later constructions.

[Strange]

There are four basic and erroneous assumptions made by Egyptologists as it concerns the great pyramid builders; that they were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never chnged.

 

The passage you quote does not appear to support that. Nowhere does it say that they had smelly feet, nor does it refer to them as bumpkins.

 

That these assumptions exist is beyond question.

 

I question it.

[cladking]

 

Indeed yes.

 

In fact modern practice is to construct what is known as 'falsework' in order to build the permanent work.

This is a bit like building a giant jig as a metalworker or carpenter might do to fabricate a door or some other work.

 

The falsework is deliberately removed at the end of the construction, because no one want to see temporary support holding up the nice new bridge.

 

How do we know that the ancient Pharoh's didn't also cause this to happen because all they wanted to see was pyramid?

 

We know that the Egyptians, the Harappans and the Babylonians all used temporary works in their respective river management, but often left them in place afterwards, perhaps for the opposite reason ie these were utilitarian works not showpieces.

 

 

The fact that "falsework" is missing is mere interpretation and assumption. I believe almost all of this falsework is still there right before our eyes but Egyptologists believe it all had religious functions rather than construction functions. The causeway supported funiculared used to off load cargo. The huge bifurcated hole just east of G1 was an hydraulic leveling device called the "min". The "sacred pyramid enclosure" was the water catchment device. The "mortuary temple" was the "Great Saw Palace". It goes on and on but the infrastructure to build sits right before our eyes and there were no superstitious bumpkins.

 

It's impossible to build a pyramid with superstition and magic. What we believe is evidence of superstition is actually a science that became too complex for words; literally. What we believe are religious artefacts are the means the ancient science devised to build.

 

In the future this will be obvious to everyone. But it will require study, proof, and a new perspective.

[Moontanman]

It's surprising people discount the philosophical construct of connected knowledge (visceral knowledge). It didn't even take two hours in the middle of the night for someone to quote wiki about how the pyramid was really built rather than addressing the physical evidence which lies outside of peoples' experience and knowledge. As I said I have a lot of experience arguing this and I know from this experience that people aren't so much looking at the evidence as they are looking at what they believe and what they already know/ It simply isn't seen that this is outside of their knowledge just like all of the physical, cultural, and historical evidence is outside of their knowledge.

 

 

 

 

This may all seem snide to you but it is experience. Egyptology is science > science is always factual > Egyptology is factual. I'm left to argue with God.

 

I debunked ramps. I have proven that ramps are not the only means the pyramids could have been built by identifying a much simpler and far more efficient way they could have been built. Indeed, I've identified several means that don't require men dragging stones up ramps. More importantly than these identifications of simpler or easier means is that these simpler and easier means are actually well evidenced rather than contingent on the 19th century concept that they "mustta used ramps". If this sounds snide it's only because experience tells me this evidence will not be addressed and I will be met with different irrelevancies and a refusal to look at the actual evidence. Wiki may be a wonderful tool and resource but it is just pop-science phrased in terms anyone can understand. It is not a virtual modern day Bible as most people seem to think.

 

There is no one piece of evidence that proves that Egyptologists are wrong. More accurately, Egyptologists won't test or examine any piece of evidence that could only prove they are wrong and haven't even been willing to test evidence that would prove they are right since 1987. It would seem this is because they fear they are wrong.

 

The conclusive proof that ramps aren't the only means to build is a well eidenced means to build that uses simpler technology than unevidenced and contradicted ramps. This other means is right in front of our eyes but we can't see it;

 

 

It appears all of the great pyramids were built as step pyramids. This is very "obviously" because it was far easier to stand on top of the pyramid and drag stones straight up the side than it was to build ramps and drag entire teams (and their living quarters) up them.

 

Look at the picture here but remember the copyright holder of the picture misinterprets it so it might be best not to even confuse the issue with his misunderstanding. This thread is about the evidence of your own eyes and not about anyone's interpretation anyway. I can go on endlessly citing facts and presenting pictures and all Egyptologists can do is speculate about what shape the escheresque ramps mustta taken.

 

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

 

I'd be happy to discuss this evidence and how it shows it's a five step pyramid and the logic that says they had to build steps because they needed a spot from which to work and the step tops provided this spot.

 

In the meantime let's just agree that it is disproven that they had to use ramps. This concept that they had to use ramps is really the only "evidence" that they did use ramps so the ramp "theory" has been dealt a fatal blow.

 

Additionally I can debunk the contention that ramps were used based on the physical evidence and logic. The physical evidence simply excludes ramps. Logic excludes ramps. No pyramid builder "believed" ramps were used to build great pyramids. This belief exists only among Egyptologists and those who believe modern perspectives.

 

 

I have a very "visceral knowledge" that Aliens did it, I'm not saying aliens did it but it sure feels that way when I have a stomach bug...

[Strange]

 

They translate the entire culture as being about magic and gods. … They had no science and used trial and error in a framework of magic and superstition.

 

I have studied the history of science. This included material on the mathematics and science of ancient Egypt. It seems that you are not the "expert" that you claim to be.

 

 

Egyptologists have to believe in the changlessness of the great pyramid builders

 

The changes through the history of Egyption civilization are very well documented. It seems that you are not the "expert" that you claim to be.

 

 

Much of this is beside the point that Egyptologists are describing people who believed magic actually worked and imaginary forces and consciousness were effective in the real world

 

That is true of many people in the world today, and has always been true of large numbers of people.

 

 

Ancient people are being described as sun addled bumpkins

 

Citation needed.

 

 

The word "ramp" simply isn't attested fro m the great pyramid building age because the word was so inconsequential it was never written down anywhere that it survived.

 

The fact that there is no documentary evidence from a particular period is not irrelevant (as any student of historical linguistics would know).

 

 

The fact that later Egyptians are known to have the word is irrelevant to this argument.

 

It is highly relevant. All I need to do is do a bit of research and show that these words have cognates in other Afro-Asiatic languages and your argument collapses. But you know what, it isn't worth the effort.

 

 

This is DISPROVEN.

 

Only in your head.

 

 

This is extensive evidence and data and you simply choose not to see it and maintain "it mustta been ramps". … This means you can't possibly see anything that doesn't involve ramps.

 

I have said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[studiot]

 

The fact that "falsework" is missing is mere interpretation and assumption. I believe almost all of this falsework is still there right before our eyes................

 

Either it is a fact that the falsework is missing or it is not.

 

It cannot also be a matter of belief.

 

I offered you an alternative explanation, not base exclusively on ramps, that I'm willing to bet you had never considered before.

 

I'm willing to bet that the Giza Construction plc woud have had all manner of prehistoric scaffolding, craneage, haulage lines and posts scattered around during construction and would have cleared it all up at the end.

 

Here is another link to simple heavy materials handling in another industry (logging).

 

Whilst skylines were probably beyond GizaCon some is basic and would have been available to them.

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/1974_studier.pdf

 

You should study it along with the book about Smeaton (he used water)

 

Incidentally why is all the falsework also missing from Stonehenge, Karnak, The Parthenon, The Blue Mosque, The Coliseum etc?

Edited September 27, 2014 by studiot