> > > > It does for a single sample. Don't confuse
> > > > single sample with the statistical analyses
> of the
> > > > whole project.
> > >
> > > No, it doesn’t. Detecting outliers checks
> > > quality:
> > >
> > >
> > Read part 2 of the first section..
> > Another scenario wherein only two samples were
> > taken one of which was our outlier.
> > Or another where 1000 samples were taken.
> > Or another in which there was absolutly no pre
> > conception of the age of the subject.
> Why would I read it? The statistics don’t
> matter, remember?
Exactly .. There's no point whatsoever in you reading it.
> > We see a summit casing in disrepair. We have no
> > idea how long it has been in that condition.
> Of course we do. We know roughly when most of the
> casing was torn off. Isn’t that the event most
> obviously implicated? I think so.
The reference was to the condition of the ruinous summit.
Not when the lower casing was removed. The two cannot be assumed to be directly related.
> > OK the upper section.. I'm not playing word
> > games.
> Yes, you are. Have you never heard of a language
Clairvoyant??? Your supernatural abilities astound me.
> > > What I find remarkable is how crisply defined
> > > of the blocks remain, at the edges in
> > > This does not look like erosion by wind or
> > > What do you think did it? Termites?
> > It is in considerable disrepair. One could
> > in need of repair. One method would be to pour
> > plaster slop into the cracks. which would
> > obviously seep into the core. Which after total
> > casing removal could be sampled by slop
> > RC dating teams. which would account for the
> > higher dates being older, and the presence of
> > large areas of what appears to be casting.
> Do you not have a theory for Khafre’s pyramid?
> Is it not as old as Khufu’s? It certainly
> presented very similar problems to its builders.
> If your assumptions are the same in each case,
> then surely you must assume that the casing of
> Khafre’s also was ancient and in disrepair in
> the Old Kingdom—and repaired then, by slapping
> “slop” on it. Where are the signs of this? I
> can’t see them.
You are making assumptions about my alleged assumptions..???? A rare talent..
> > I don't have any 4000 year old photo's with
> > to compare.
> > I'm considering a possible scenario.
> > The realistic framework is .
> > Based on the absence of 4000 year old photos.
> > The p'mid is much older.
> > The p'mid was in disrepair 4000 years ago. Say
> > of disrepair we see today.
> > The pyramid was repaired 4000 years ago ..(or
> > more).
> > The pyramid was repaired top down.
> > Which accounts for the sample date trending and
> > the appearance of casting.
> No comment.
> > Forget the IF.. I'll say will.
> > The application of plaster repair slop on
> > something similar to G2 summit (upper extant
> > casing).
> > Will result in repair slop finding it's way
> > into the outer core.
> > Not exactly watertight is it ?
> I can scarcely believe you’ve never used the old
> Polyfilla in your life. I mean old style, when
> you had to mix it up yourself. Make it too thin
> and runny (which is what you need for your trickle
> down theory) and it’s no damn’ good as filler.
You seem have experience with Polyfilla.
> They were scarcely in a position to put the
> pyramid in a rotating positioner, so what’s
> stopping the stuff just running down the face of
> the pyramid?
It may well have done, we cannot know for sure as the G1 casing is today , Non Existent.
Then we’d see what runoff looks
> like—and doubtless great pools of the stuff at
> the bottom. Any evidence of them?
No G1 Casing... Gone... Not there anymore... Core only...
> > > If this was their procedure, why do we see no
> > > of it on G2? You know, the one you’re
> > > up as an example of the need for it?
G2 an example of fissures and cracks. Not an example of repair.
> > > Bent Pyramid, your example of actual repairs?
> > Because it is beneath the extant casing.
> > Outer core.
The localised repairs are visible on the outer casing of the Bent. Indicating that localised repairs were carried out in ancient times.
> So, repairs to make good the exterior surface are
> not on the surface? Are you sure you meant to say
There is no extant original outer surface on G1, I would have thought you'd have noticed this.
There are ancient localised repairs on the exterior surface of the Bent.
> Unlike in the case of the Bent Pyramid, where they
There is an extant original outer surface on the Bent, complete with ancient localised repairs.
I used the ruinous condition of the summit of G2 to demonstrate cracks and fissures between casing blocks.
I used the repairs to the Bent to demonstrate that ancient pyramid casing repairs had been carried out.
I did not claim that identical repair methods were used on all three structures. There's no evidence of identical repair methods, due to the lack of a G1 casing.
> > Or another possibility..
> > G2 did not require repair at that time.
> But Jon, why would it not?
You tell me. Make another assumption.
Are you saying that
> this pyramid is much younger than Khufu’s? How
> many eras of pyramid building are you positing?
No, I'm not saying that as there is no evidence at present to date the construction of either G1 or G2 or the chronological order in which they were constructed.
> Khafre’s is nearly as big as Khufu’s and would
> have presented much the same problems to its
> builders. Economy would suggest that it belongs
> to much the same era—and so, at any given time,
> was just as old and eroded as Khufu’s.
There is no evidence to date either G1 or G2 or the chronological order in which they were constructed.
I'm not saying anything about G2 at present . You are as per usual jumping to unfounded conclusions, making assumptions and deflecting.
> > Or another.
> > Different repair strategy.
> Like replacing the casing entirely?
What??? I seriously doubt that a casing could be replaced.
> > He probably did repair replace small sections
> > we see on the Bent. The pouring of slop
> > (cement/concrete today) is a method of binding
> > loose disarranged masonry. It's even used to
> > repair steel ships.
> Interesting. Ships could be made of concrete.
> They have been:
Yes ships can be made of concrete. Ships can also be repaired by pouring concrete as can ancient monuments. However today it is not considered desirable to do so.
> > A cathedral repair carried out today is done by
> > skilled masons who's priority is in maintaining
> > the ancient construction integrity and
> > of the building for the purposes of
> > of ancient technique as well as the structure
> > itself.
> > If history and heritage were not a priority,
> > poured concrete would provide at least a short
> > term repair.
> > As was done, (inappropriately by todays
> > standards), in the past, Stonehenge, Sphinx,
> > Colosseum to name but few.
> Poured concrete needs retaining. No rotating
> positioner for a pyramid, so no relying on gravity
> to do it, while the Swiss-cheese pyramid would
> make the whole procedure problematic. Put the
> pyramid in a big mould?
We are talking about the direct pouring of slop into open fissures to facilitate binding and securing of loose outer masonry, not direct intentional molding or casting.
> > > Care to specify the composition of this magic
> > > “slop”?
> > Whatever the composition of the samples is.
> But Jon, the samples are charcoal. Are you saying
> that the “slop” is charcoal?
The slop contains charcoal. That is what was sampled.
> I have to ask at this point, does anyone (if
> anyone) still reading this find that Jon’s
> elaborations make his position more (and not less)
> Further comment deferred until I feel the
You find your position untenable ..??
At least we can agree on that.
You lack the technical competence required to continue the conversation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jun-16 18:05 by Jon Ellison.