Soft "Science" and Evidence of Your Own Eyes.

[Ophiolite]

Oops. I intended to give cladking a neg. rep, but inadvertently applied it to Mootanman's post that contained the target post of cladking. Would someone please reverse that with a positive rep on post #23 please. Sorry about that Moontanman.

[studiot]

 

Oops. I intended to give cladking a neg. rep, but inadvertently applied it to Mootanman's post that contained the target post of cladking. Would someone please reverse that with a positive rep on post #23 please. Sorry about that Moontanman.

 

 

Done, that will be one beer

 

Edited September 27, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

It is apparent the cartouche is used to identify kings. I just happen to know that there are other theories that dispute even this but I do agree at this time the symbol identifies a king.

 

The question is why did they use this symbol and how did it originate. The symbol means "unite" as a glyph so the king is a "uniter".

 

 

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...

 

You're in good company but there isn't a lot of evidence aliens did it. There's a famous guy with funny hair that seems to believe not saying aliens did it supports the idea that aliens did it. I don't watch the show but I heartell.

[Strange]

It is apparent the cartouche is used to identify kings.

It isn't just that the cartouche identifies kings; THE NAMES CAN BE READ. So your claim that "So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols" is, once again, shown to be wrong.

 

I see you also ignored the Rosetta stone. Awkward when the evidence shows you are lying, isn't it.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Strange

[cladking]

 

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.

 

 

I question it.

 

I should have said that there's no question to reasonable people.

 

397a. N. is the bull of heaven, who (once) suffered want and decided (lit. gave in his heart) to live on the being of every god,

397b. who ate their entrails (?) when it came (to pass) that their belly was full of magic

397c. from the Isle of Flame.

398a. N. is equipped, he who has incorporated his spirits.

 

Translators by definition are people who try to put the sense of one language into another. This translator believes the author of this passage believes that a dead king lives on the essence of non-existent beings by eating their magic laden entrails. What part of the translator's belief doesn't include a superstitious person?

 

Sorry, but no matter how you parse egyptological belief it can still be summed up as people used to believe in magic and gods but we're all better now, Now we use science to analyze ancient superstitions because we know so many things given to us by science. We may not know what a cartouche or even an ankh is but we have science so some day we will.

 

They are wrong across the board and if they did just a little bit of simple science they would know they are wrong too. They continually make claims that lack evidential support and no one seems to mind in the least because everyone seems to know ancient people were highly superstitious, squished their toes in corpse drippings, and could only have built tombs by dragging them up ramps. When you know the answers evidence and logic are irrelevant.

[Ophiolite]

 

Done, that will be one beer

 

Couldn't manage the beer, but I hope the +rep compensates.

[Strange]

 

When you know the answers evidence and logic are irrelevant.

 

That about sums you up.

[cladking]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I do not claim to be an expert in anything other than the literal meaning of the PT and how that meaning relates to the evidence.

 

Egyptologists have extensive expertise in a range of different things related to the great pyramid builders. I believe all of their expertise is irrelevant to the points I make. The specific pot types made in 2400 BC simply don't matter to my arguments. The labels and other extensive knowledge of things unrelated to pyramid building and what the people believed is relevant to many things but is not relevant to pyramid building.

 

Most people are highly misled by Egyptologists. Egyptologists continually intimate that they have a mountain of evidence for their conjectures but this simply is not true. Just keep remembering that the ord "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age and there is absolutely no direct evidence of any sort that the great pyramids were built as tombs. They believe the presense of "sarcophagi" and the absense of grave goods prove they were tombs but the former are just stone boxes (for which they refuse to do forensic examination) and the absense of evidence can't prove that evidence once existed.

 

This is the point; there is no record before 2000 BC. There is no original fixed point because the first comprehensible writing doesn't appear until later

Oops. I intended to give cladking a neg. rep, but inadvertently applied it to Mootanman's post that contained the target post of cladking.

 

Perhaps it would be a learning experience for me if you attacked the evidence or logic.

 

A negative rep is just a new kind of irrelevancy to the argument.

 

If something is "unscientific" then why not say in what way it's unscientific?

It isn't just that the cartouche identifies kings; THE NAMES CAN BE READ. So your claim that "So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols" is, once again, shown to be wrong.

 

I see you also ignored the Rosetta stone. Awkward when the evidence shows you are lying, isn't it.

 

No! Obviously the words can be read. I said the origin of the simplest symbols is unknown.

 

 

The Rosetta Stone is irrelevant because the language was well known before any extensive writing from the great pyramid building age was discovered.

People don't care about the evidence.

 

Petrie HimSelf said that there were water eroded canals leading away from G1;

 

 

 

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.

 

This information was so surprising to him that he hid it in a 92 word sentence.

 

But new researchers outside of Egyptology are finding evidence for water everywhere when they look at the great pyramids.

 

I fear we just lost a very important one today to an early death. Apparently Chris Jordan has died. His primary interest started with the Cambodian artefacts and usage of solar power but like many others he found that this knowledge was widespread and applied to other places such as Egypt just as I've found weirs on top of the Acapana Pyramid in the new world and a water collection device at Machu Pichu.

 

This is a simple concept that water was of critical importance to ancient people and the sun was available nearly everywhere.

 

RIP, friend.

[Ophiolite]

 

Perhaps it would be a learning experience for me if you attacked the evidence or logic.

 

A negative rep is just a new kind of irrelevancy to the argument.

 

If something is "unscientific" then why not say in what way it's unscientific?

I did. You ignored it, other than responding with further unscientific statements and unsupported statements. I only apply neg. rep. for consistent failure to provide support for assertions, or for self delusion, or for cherry picking, or for failing to directly address objections, or for being rude. You have not been rude.

[Strange]

I said the origin of the simplest symbols is unknown.

 

No you didn't. Your words are there for everyone to see. And of course, the origins of the symbols are irrelevant. (Although, as it is a pictographic system, the origins are pretty bloody obvious in most cases.)

 

 

The Rosetta Stone is irrelevant because the language was well known before any extensive writing from the great pyramid building age was discovered.

 

It is not irrelevant because it is concrete proof that your claims are untrue.

 

It is rather sad the way you dismiss all contradictory evidence as irrelevant.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Strange

[Sensei]

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

 

Imagine such device:

 

Each block of rock used to build has average 2.5 tons.

We can lift it up on little "boat", place rock on it, surround it by wood walls, fill container with water, and block is 1 level up. It's moved to it's place. Water is released. Boat goes down. New block of rock is placed on boat, and it's filled by water again, and cycle is repeated.

We can imagine row of such water-lifters, around whole pyramid.

Obviously when one level is finished, new lifters have to be build on above level.

 

We would have to pump water to the top most lifter. Egyptians were using pumps since ever to irrigate grain fields, so technology is present.

Water released from lifter in above level, can flow to below lifter, so it's reused, and less water have to be pumped.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Sensei

[studiot]

 

Each block of rock used to build has average 2.5 tons.

We can lift it up on little "boat", place rock on it, surround it by wood walls, fill container with water, and block is 1 level up. It's moved to it's place. Water is released. Boat goes down. New block of rock is placed on boat, and it's filled by water again, and cycle is repeated.

We can imagine row of such water-lifters, around whole pyramid.

Obviously when one level is finished, new lifters have to be build on above level

 

 

Thank you, I am quite capable of understanding hydraulic lifting techniques.

The 'little boat' would not be so little.

Rock has a density of around 2.4 - 2.6 so a two and a half ton (tonne) block would be approcimately 1 metre cubed.

This would require something like 3 cubic metres displacement to allow handling stabilty, may be up to 5 cubic metres if you include the weight of the raft etc.

 

But all this misses my point.

 

Which is that since time immemorial builders have constructed temporary works they have removed when the permanent works are complete.

 

I listed several possible lifting technologies, available to the Ancient Egyptians, including noting that the Harappans used this on the Indus and Ganges.

 

But hydraulic lifting alone will not cut it for the final placement of the blocks.

 

On a different note the siege of Rochester Castle provides an interesting demolition technology - pig fat.

 

If I was really to play detective and try to determine how the pyramids were built, I would not start at the pyramids.

The blocks must have come from something bigger so they must have had the capacity to handle bigger things.

So I would try to start at the quarry and see if there were any relics of their cutting, handling and transport methods to be found.

Transporting the blocks by raft from the quarry to the construction site would be a good solution.

Edited September 28, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

I did. You ignored it, other than responding with further unscientific statements and unsupported statements. I only apply neg. rep. for consistent failure to provide support for assertions, or for self delusion, or for cherry picking, or for failing to directly address objections, or for being rude. You have not been rude.

 

Thank you for the response. I provide fact after fact to support my contentions and usually support them logically and explain how they "tie together" into an interpretation. I can expand on any of it and have in many cases. But somehow people think that just repeating orthodox beliefs and how they came to believe it is a counterargument. It often seems like people are thinking they can refer me to the dictionary so I can put their argument together for them. ...Or are making the argument; many Egyptian words exist on the Rosetta Stone > Egyptologists understand the Rosetta Stone > there can be no error in our belief the ancient language is understandable despite the fact it's believed to be incantation.

 

There's a great deal of illogic in the interpretation of the data and in our estimation of the ancients. These non-sequiturs are inconsistent with nature and the physical evidence.

 

I'm not sure which question you consider inadequately addressed. There is a huge amount of data that supports my theory and I often say it ALL does but, of course, this isn't strictly true because what the king had for breakfast is normally irrelevant to how the pyramid was built. But my theory is certainly able to include far more of the physical evidence than orthodoxy which can't even fond the word ramp anywhere.

 

Historical accounts say that the stones moved to the pyramid 300' at a time after a priest attached a piece of paper to them. This is inconsistent with ramps. Indeed, there are no historical accounts until more recent times that involve ramps. Herodotus' description almost precisely matches the usage of counterweights. (they were shaped like the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper and composed of "short pieces of wood".) They were built in "battlements" (steps) and the lifting devices could be moved between them. The evidence they were built in steps is pervasive in the physical evidence and historical accounts. The builders referred to “battlements” in the Pyramid Texts and historical accounts say they were built in “mounds”. Herodotus says machines were moved from one step to another.

 

The culture has no word for "ramps" as applied to lifting objects. There is no such record for the use of this term. While they, no doubt, physically used ramps to lift objects the lack of the word is glaring omission. There is no "god of ramps" and not a single drawing of a ramp from the great pyramid building age. The word "ramp" simply isn't even attested until centuries after the great pyramids were all built.

 

Far more importantly is there is no overseer of ramp builders, ramp architects, or ramp dismantlers buried anywhere in Egypt. There are no overseers of basket makers, no overseers of harness makers or salve makers. There is not even a single stone dragger or his overseer in evidence. The pyramid town had equal numbers of men and women and was a tiny fraction of the size that would be required to drag stones and build ramps. The town is hardly large enough to supply such a large army with water and supplies far less do all the work themselves. It is little larger than a couple soccer fields. Indeed the builders' town was a mere 600' by 900'. By today's standards this would accommodate only about 1000 people in an office building. People need far more space where they live. Only about 40% of the population was men so there wouldn't even be nearly enough labor to supply food and water to the thousands necessary to build ramps and drag stones up them. You say ancient people didn't mind being cramped up. Modern sanitation and processes are more efficient than they were in 2750 BC but let's say they were willing to be jammed in cheek to jewel. This only increases occupancy to about 3500 men which is still grossly insufficient. With so many people in close contact disease would spread like wildfire. Since there were storage and production facilities in the town as well it's highly improbable that there were numbers even approaching these levels.

 

Logic says that on a gargantuan project that a highly efficient means must be used. Ramps not only are hugely inefficient due to the high friction and high cost of building and dismantling ramps but also because the weight of the team dragging stones to the pyramid top is simply wasted as they walk back down on already constricted and overused ramps. Getting the manpower necessary to build this requires massive ramps because 55 HP being done by men at extraordinarily low efficiency requires vast numbers of men. They couldn't even see the pyramid to build it under the amount of ramping that would be needed to project so much power. Logic says it would be far easier to just drag stones up the side from the top. Friction is reduced to almost nothing since the route of the stones can be greased. The men don't have to lift their own weight and can pull much more effectively from a level surface. The concept that they must have used ramps is absurd when there are numerous better evidenced and easier means.

 

Maintaining this level of efficient power with muscles alone would require massive ramps and a means for the workers to get back down. Then there is the impossibility of cladding the structure with any possibly evidenced ramping system. Anything that required cladding stones as they went would leave nothing for ramps to adhere to and any other means would require the ramps to be rebuilt to apply the cladding.

Then comes the physical evidence which just puts a nail into the heart of the ramp ideas. Perhaps most glaringly is the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for ramps on the pyramid. This wouldn’t be such a glaring void if not for the existence of numerous vertical lines visible in the pyramids. These lines tend to appear in pairs with one on opposite sides. This is consistent with counterweight operations where one line marks the counterweight and the opposite the route of the stones. It is most highly inconsistent with any ramping ideas. Simply stated ramps wouldn’t leave such lines no matter how they were configured except for ones that can be ruled out by logic such as integral ramps. The grooves on the Great Pyramid are also these routes of the stones that the builders called the “ladders of the Gods”.

 

 

　

　

Simply stated you can see the routes of the stones right up the middles and in two places above the boat museum. You can also see that these pyramids are five step (battlement) pyramids on some pictures but especially in the gravimetric scan half way down the page here;

 

H. D. Bui

 

I have a truly beautiful depiction of these five steps drawn on the scan but can't get permission to use it. But this is still conclusive proof that it's a five step pyramid which is more than adequate to debunk ramps. They would not have used steps unless it was necessary and the only reason steps might be necessary is that they could lift the stones only 81' 3" at a time.

 

Each of the great pyramids were five step pyramids. There is simply no reason to build these as step pyramids unless the height of each step defined the height they were able to lift stones. In order to lift stones to the top they must have needed to be relayed the greatest distance they could lift. Of course this could be as simple as the length of the ropes by which they lifted them up the side. No matter the actual reason it simply isn’t consistent with ramps. It is highly consistent with counterweights and using water for ballast since the geyser sprayed 80’ and this is the height of the steps. It might be consistent with locks that lifted 81' 3" at a time or any water or ballast lifting system limited by natural laws or infrastructure/ materiel concerns. It is not consistent with ramps.

 

Ramps can’t explain the various infrastructure all around and within the pyramid. They are inconsistent with the history, culture, logic, physical evidence, and the evidence left by the actual on-site builders. Ramps are not consistent with the fact that the great pyramids get progressively larger. Each of the great pyramid grows substantially with G1 having required 45 times as much lifting as Djoser’s Pyramid (the first great pyramid). There is no property of ramps that can be tweaked and improved upon until their efficiency increases 45 fold. To state it another way; it is apparent that whatever means used could be improved upon and this is not consistent with ramps.

 

Perhaps the greatest inconsistency is the cultural evidence right on site. In the pyramid builders cemetery is the “Overseer of the Boats of Neith”. This would be the loader on the south side in all probability but it could have nothing to do with ramps. There are canal overseers, overseers of metal shops, director of draftsmen, inspector of craftsmen, controller of a boat crew, controller of the side of the pyramid, inspector of metal workers and a host of other jobs that reflect a sophisticated and intelligent culture. Most tellingly is that there is a “Weigher/ Reckoner”. This job would be critical on a device that was said to be sensitive enough to tell the difference in weight of a “heavy heart” from a feather. They found a standard weight in the queens “air siphon” and a hook.

 

In point of fact there simply isn’t anything consistent with ramps. While the evidence isn’t deep it is very broad that stones were lifted from above making the vertical lines on the great pyramids and are simply sufficient to say ramps are debunked.

While ramps are debunked what we do have is evidence that water was used everywhere. The great pyramid are built right on top of water collection devices and surrounded by a cofferdam. There's one pretty obvious lock lying along the route which the western cliff face counterweight appears to have dragged stones. There is water erosion in canals leading away from the pyramid base.

We need to do the science to determine the exact means by which the water was used to build.

 

Of course you can reinterpret every single point in this and claim that ramps were used but people not beholden to orthodoxy seem to consider this case virtually air tight. There simply is no evidence that ramps were used to lift stones on the great pyramids which is concurrent wirth the era in which they were built. They did not use ramps and the belief that ramps are the only thing they could have used is not evidence and it is insulting to the builders and to those who use logic.

 

The question even more than how the pyramids were built is why won't Egyptologists allow real scientists to get in and gather the data that would answer the question.

[Strange]

 

I provide fact after fact

 

I think you mean, "opinion after opinion"

 

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that many of your opinions are factually incorrect. And yet you keep repeating them.

[cladking]

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

[Strange]

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.

 

So we can add "science" and "evidence" to the words that you have your own personal definition of. Maybe you should publish a bilingual English-Cladkingese dictionary.

 

Evidence (n): A cake made of bananas.

Science (n): The house where ghosts live.

Scalar question (n): A type of motorised water vehicle.

Visceral knowledge (n): The pleasure found in scratching a scab.

Egypt (n): A mythical planet inhabited by giant spiders.

Alphabet (n): Indecipherable marks on paper.

Language (n): A flexible material related to rubber.

 

And so on.

[cladking]

 

I think you mean, "opinion after opinion"

 

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that many of your opinions are factually incorrect. And yet you keep repeating them.

 

 

Perhaps you can provide an example of this?

 

Most things people respond with are not even relevant to the point I made.

 

So we can add "science" and "evidence" to the words that you have your own personal definition of. Maybe you should publish a bilingual English-Cladkingese dictionary.

 

Evidence (n): A cake made of bananas.

Science (n): The house where ghosts live.

Scalar question (n): A type of motorised water vehicle.

Visceral knowledge (n): The pleasure found in scratching a scab.

Egypt (n): A mythical planet inhabited by giant spiders.

Alphabet (n): Indecipherable marks on paper.

Language (n): A flexible material related to rubber.

 

And so on.

 

 

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.

[Strange]

Perhaps you can provide an example of this?

 

Things like your repeated claim that is is impossible to see anything knew. Or that the meanings of Egyptian hieroglyphs are unknown. Or that there is no physical evidence for ramps. Or that there is no word for ramp. Or ... Oh just reread all your threads. You are repeatedly shown to be talking nonsense.

 

 

Most things people respond with are not even relevant to the point I made.

 

Irrelevant (n): A fact that contradicts a dearly held belief.

[cladking]

 

 

Thank you, I am quite capable of understanding hydraulic lifting techniques.

The 'little boat' would not be so little.

Rock has a density of around 2.4 - 2.6 so a two and a half ton (tonne) block would be approcimately 1 metre cubed.

This would require something like 3 cubic metres displacement to allow handling stabilty, may be up to 5 cubic metres if you include the weight of the raft etc.

 

 

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.

 

Things like your repeated claim that is is impossible to see anything knew. Or that the meanings of Egyptian hieroglyphs are unknown. Or that there is no physical evidence for ramps. Or that there is no word for ramp. Or ... Oh just reread all your threads. You are repeatedly shown to be talking nonsense.

 

 

 

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.

[Bignose]

Perhaps you can provide an example of this?

The real problem here is that all the way back to the very second line of your opening post there is an error.

 

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.

Because experiments can be done. There is a whole field devoted to it:

 

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

 

Not to mention the even simpler experiment of "I think x was very important to the culture of this people, and when we dig up the next site, we should find more figures depicting x." You may not think it is, but that is also an experiment because you make a prediction and then you see if it is accurate.

 

------------

 

Now, let's look at this very last post: "Such a lifting device appears all through the culture and written record"... presented with absolutely not corroborating evidence. You just state it.

 

Well, I'm sorry, but in science, that isn't good enough. How can anyone check this statement of yours? It is all opinion and your interpretation. Can you cite 3 or 4 translators that agree with this translation? Can you cite 3 or 4 records where this is mentioned? Etc.

 

More of these narratives you are posting aren't going to convince anyone because it isn't evidence. It is just you telling a story. You aren't doing science here.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Bignose

[studiot]

 

They did not use ramps and the belief that ramps are the only thing they could have used is not evidence and it is insulting to the builders and to those who use logic.

 

If you are serious about holding an adult discussion it would be nice if you would take time out from your florid exchanges with certain others to pursue this.

 

 

I have never said ramps were or were not used, and have made several highly pertinent comments, to which I am still waiting for an answer.

 

Further I am not an Egyptologist (whatever that means) and have no knowledge of the language or languages they used, so I feel rather insulted being lumped in with them.

 

I do, however, have probably considerably more heavy engineering and construction knowledge than you do and could quite easily offer many other scenarios to be tested scientifically.

[cladking]

Which is that since time immemorial builders have constructed temporary works they have removed when the permanent works are complete.

 

I listed several possible lifting technologies, available to the Ancient Egyptians, including noting that the Harappans used this on the Indus and Ganges.

 

 

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.

If I was really to play detective and try to determine how the pyramids were built, I would not start at the pyramids.

The blocks must have come from something bigger so they must have had the capacity to handle bigger things.

So I would try to start at the quarry and see if there were any relics of their cutting, handling and transport methods to be found.

Transporting the blocks by raft from the quarry to the construction site would be a good solution.

 

 

 

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.

Edited September 28, 2014 by cladking

[studiot]

 

As I said though, the lack of evoidence for temporary devices can't prove that temporary devices existed

 

The fact that the pyramids themselves exist suggest that some sort of temporary devices were used to build them.

 

How about addressing my main questions?

 

and please add this one

 

What would be the draft of the boat (you keep using that term in preference to raft why is that?) that can reliably handle up to 40 tons displacement?

Edited September 28, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

The real problem here is that all the way back to the very second line of your opening post there is an error.

 

 

Because experiments can be done. There is a whole field devoted to it:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Possibly truer than you intended.

 

The word cited is an issue here. You cited nothing in that post; you made some assertions. A citation in this context is a quote or link to some kind of substantiating work (preferably a scholarly work, but that depends on the circumstances), and that is generally lacking in your posts. Without some kind of reference, nobody can assess whether what you've stated is indeed factual. Unless you are claiming personal expertise (which you have already disavowed), then such citations are necessary. Otherwise this is simply soapboxing.

 

It is what all crackpots are up against, and sadly, a hurdle they never seem to be able to clear.

 

To all: let's tone down the rhetoric. (as an example, accusations of lying really have no place in the discussion)

 

Do not respond to this in the thread