Soft "Science" and Evidence of Your Own Eyes.

[cladking]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Bignose]

"Experimentation" is by definition the isolation of variables in the lab for study. What this describes is NOT experimentation.

citation needed! Who defines it this way? This would not be my definition at all... this seems to be just another case you choosing the define words how you see fit.

 

my theory makes accurate predictions and "ramps" do not

something that you need to back up with more than your story telling to date if you want anyone to take it seriously.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Bignose

[studiot]

It would seem that we cross posted as you added to your post whilst I was responding to your first line.

 

Pressing the post button is easy to do, I have done it too early myself.

 

So I am sorry if my last post came over as a tad strident.

 

However you have still not responded to my main points.

 

Hard information such as the distance from the pyramids to the quarry would really enhance discussion.

Can you also list the height of the lift (ie to the top of the pyramid) and the rock material the blocks are composed of?

 

Is there any evidence as to whether the blocks were cut/split and dressed on site or at the quarry?

It would make sense to transport the stone by canal to site, but the canal would be at a fixed elevation, it would not run uphill as the work progressed.

 

As I understand the history of engineering, the Ancient Egyptians were quite capable of using a loading/lifting derrick of the type in my logging link

These could also have been deployed on the developing structure.

 

A further possibility is that a very large ramp (as in Masada), larger than a pyramid, could have been constructed and the blocks lowered down to place.

 

If you really want to explore the posiibilities, now is your chance.

[cladking]

Hard information such as the distance from the pyramids to the quarry would really enhance discussion.

Can you also list the height of the lift (ie to the top of the pyramid) and the rock material the blocks are composed of?

 

 

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.

 

Is there any evidence as to whether the blocks were cut/split and dressed on site or at the quarry?

It would make sense to transport the stone by canal to site, but the canal would be at a fixed elevation, it would not run uphill as the work progressed.

 

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.

As I understand the history of engineering, the Ancient Egyptians were quite capable of using a loading/lifting derrick of the type in my logging link

These could also have been deployed on the developing structure.

 

 

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.

 

A further possibility is that a very large ramp (as in Masada), larger than a pyramid, could have been constructed and the blocks lowered down to place.

 

 

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.

 

citation needed! Who defines it this way? This would not be my definition at all... this seems to be just another case you choosing the define words how you see fit.

 

 

something that you need to back up with more than your story telling to date if you want anyone to take it seriously.

 

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.

Edited September 28, 2014 by cladking

[studiot]

 

ALL of the evidence supports the use of water.

 

I'm sorry but I require considerably more convincing than your selective proclamations.

 

That does not mean I support any other theory I treat them all the same.

 

Nor does the use of ramps require men to drag anything.

What do you know about the mechanics of 'dragging'?

 

You say both that it is impossible to use canals and that canals have been found.

 

I have never been to the pyramids so I do not know the site. You keep referring to cliffs, but I see no cliffs in any photos.

You have (I think) told me that most of the stone is limestone quarried from within a few hundred yards of the pyramids.

 

I was thinking the stone had travelled further.

 

You state that derricks were not used, so how did they load and unload their ships?

In particular how did they put large blocks of stone on board?

If you try to drag a large weight aboard, all you will achieve is capsizing the boat or pushing it away.

 

I am still waiting for the details of the boats capable of transporting 20 ton blocks.

[cladking]

I'm sorry but I require considerably more convincing than your selective proclamations.

 

 

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.

Nor does the use of ramps require men to drag anything.

What do you know about the mechanics of 'dragging'?

 

 

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.

 

You say both that it is impossible to use canals and that canals have been found.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I have never been to the pyramids so I do not know the site. You keep referring to cliffs, but I see no cliffs in any photos.

 

 

(with thanks to Karen H Taylor)

 

You have (I think) told me that most of the stone is limestone quarried from within a few hundred yards of the pyramids.

 

 

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.

You state that derricks were not used, so how did they load and unload their ships?

In particular how did they put large blocks of stone on board?

If you try to drag a large weight aboard, all you will achieve is capsizing the boat or pushing it away.

 

 

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.

 

I am still waiting for the details of the boats capable of transporting 20 ton blocks.

 

 

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;

 

[studiot]

And how did the sled-boat in your sketch displace enough water to float?

 

Edit

I am trying to take your ideas seriously so I wish you would stop disparaging egyptologists and ramps in your replies to me.

I really don't know or care whether ramps or egyptologists were used.

 

I have to discard more than half your posts as chaff to find some kernal to think about.

Edited September 28, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

And how did the sled-boat in your sketch displace enough water to float?

 

 

 

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

And what is your evidence for this claim?

 

Keep in mind the following:

 

Evidence is not a belief.
Evidence is not a desire.
Evidence is not an opinion.

Evidence is not a suspicion.
Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.
Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.

Evidence is not an idea.

Evidence is not a majority opinion.

Evidence is not a minority opinion.
Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis

 

So what is the evidence for your assertions?

[cladking]

And what is your evidence for this claim?

 

Keep in mind the following:

 

Evidence is not a belief.

Evidence is not a desire.

Evidence is not an opinion.

Evidence is not a suspicion.

Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.

Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.

Evidence is not an idea.

Evidence is not a majority opinion.

Evidence is not a minority opinion.

Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis

 

So what is the evidence for your assertions?

 

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.

Edited September 29, 2014 by cladking

[studiot]

I really am confused now.

 

Your sketch seems to me to indicate a (water lubricated?) ramp, where a sled is pulled up by suitable lines.

 

I said earlier that there was no need for a slave army of men to pull the lines.

I now understand your earlier reference to a funicular and a counterweight.

There are many simpler ropage mechanisms they could have used, as in my earler references.

One of these systems, including yours, could also have led to a vertical lift without a ramp, but it would have been necessary to bring (drag?) the blocks beneath the lifter somehow.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

Edited September 29, 2014 by studiot

[Ophiolite]

 

I'll assume you're talking to me even though most of what I've posted so far is obvious evidence.

 

You have posted almost no evidence. You have posted assertions, claims, opinions, (mis)interpretations, accusations, objections and the like. But precious little evidence. I shall not be wasting any more time on your unsupported delusions.

[cladking]

You have posted almost no evidence. You have posted assertions, claims, opinions, (mis)interpretations, accusations, objections and the like. But precious little evidence. I shall not be wasting any more time on your unsupported delusions.

 

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;

 

[studiot]

Desert

 

Sand

 

Basalt

 

Limestone

 

Your post # 63 picture.

 

I'm having trouble reconciling these geologically speaking, but perhaps our geology specialist can explain?

 

cladking,

 

I have no idea of the human geography of the area at the time of the pharohs, but what do you think was the reason for building water catchment (rainfall?) basins in remote desert?

Edited September 29, 2014 by studiot

[Sensei]

Remote desert? It's just 8 km in straight line from Nile..

Currently the first green trees are 100 meters from Pyramids.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensei

[Ophiolite]

I have no idea what cladking is waffling about. He seems to think there is "sand in the horizontal passage". Moreover, he seems to think this sand came from somewhere other than the immediate vicinity.

 

Questions to cladking:

1. What are you referring to when you speak of the "horizontal passage"? You are aware, are you not, the while there are similarities of internal geometry in the pyramids, each is unique.

2. Please provide a proper citation for the presence of sand in this passage.

3. Please provide a proper citation in support of your claim that it comes from a distance.

 

Back to studiot: cladking is correct that the the greater part of the pyramids at Giza are made of limestone. Elsewhere one or two made of sandstone, and many of mudbrick. Limestone is also commonplace. I don't have the statistics to hand on how many of each type of building material there are. The controlling factor appears to have been which stones of suitable quality were closest to hand. There was also a matter of cost and expediency. I think the later Middle Kingdom pyramids were mainly mudbrick with limestone facings. Of course, many of the mudbrick examples are no more than sad little mounds now.

 

Since cladking seems to have focused on the pyramids on the Giza plateau, I do not know why he mentions basalt. (I can't find where it is mentioned in this thread.) I am not aware of any basalt in the Great Pyramid. Certainly I have never seen any when I have been inside, though that's hardly to be relied upon. Basalt was used to a limited extent, I think, in a handful of other pyramids and almost certainly in the ancillary temples at the Giza site.

 

The interior of the Grand Gallery is lined with granite.

[cladking]

 

 

I have no idea of the human geography of the area at the time of the pharohs, but what do you think was the reason for building water catchment (rainfall?) basins in remote desert?

 

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".

Remote desert? It's just 8 km in straight line from Nile..

 

Currently the first green trees are 100 meters from Pyramids.

 

 

 

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.

[studiot]

My confusion of geology stems partly from this quote

 

 

Post# 63

 

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.

 

I am confused because I am told that the pictures are of a limestone pavement.

 

Limestone, so why is it suprising that they had to import sand if they need it?

Sand does not come from limestone.

 

And partly from these quotes

 

 

Post#33

 

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

 

Quote

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.

 

Post#56

 

 

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.

 

Balsalt pavement in the same location as limestone pavement?

 

Thank you for the comments about the water, as I understand it you are saying the quality of the Nile water was less attractive than artesian or spring water and that the collection basins were not for rainfall but to pond the subterranean water at its outlet.

 

You still have not explained how the shallow draft boat you drew could displace enought water to float.

Did you understand the question?

Edited September 29, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

 

Questions to cladking:

1. What are you referring to when you speak of the "horizontal passage"? You are aware, are you not, the while there are similarities of internal geometry in the pyramids, each is unique.

2. Please provide a proper citation for the presence of sand in this passage.

3. Please provide a proper citation in support of your claim that it comes from a distance.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

My confusion of geology stems partly from this quote

 

I am confused because I am told that the picutres are of a limestone pavement.

 

 

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.

Limestone, so why is it suprising that they had to import sand if they need it?

Sand does not come from limestone.

 

 

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.

[studiot]

Perhaps we should clear up the term pavement?

 

Do you mean an artificial flat area?

 

Or do you mean the natural geographical presentation of the native country rock as here in limestone pavement

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=limestone+pavement&gbv=2&oq=limestone+pavement&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0l10.1110.4250.0.7922.18.12.0.6.6.0.125.1252.5j7.12.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.18.1487.pRHiYbw_3I8

[cladking]

 

1. What are you referring to when you speak of the "horizontal passage"? You are aware, are you not, the while there are similarities of internal geometry in the pyramids, each is unique.

 

 

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.

Perhaps we should clear up the term pavement?

 

Do you mean an artificial flat area?

 

Or do you mean the natural geographical presentation of the native country rock as here in limestone pavement

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=limestone+pavement&gbv=2&oq=limestone+pavement&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0l10.1110.4250.0.7922.18.12.0.6.6.0.125.1252.5j7.12.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.18.1487.pRHiYbw_3I8

 

 

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.

Edited September 29, 2014 by cladking

[studiot]

So why would you expect 'local' sand at this location?

 

And why are you studiously ignoring my requests for hydraulic details of the boats which you allege carried the stones?

[cladking]

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.

[Strange]

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.

 

Is that supposed to be an answer to someone's question?

[cladking]

 

 

And why are you studiously ignoring my requests for hydraulic details of the boats which you allege carried the stones?

 

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.

 

Is that supposed to be an answer to someone's question?

 

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.

So why would you expect 'local' sand at this location?

 

 

 

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.