> That is a pretty wild assumption many men and
> women are completely nuts
They only appear to be on the surface because you don't understand their premises.
> Chuckle, ah yeah, ah Cladking you made that
Yes, I made that up out of logic and evidence and even predicted it in advance. Remember this is the chief reason I wanted them to do infrared scanning.
Don't get me wrong, there's a whole lot more important things that will show up on scans if done properly (yes, I can even tell you what they are) but this one is easiest to find and shows the most important facts of all.
> #1: Your first assumption that water was used to
> lift stones - you have yet to provide evidence
> that this occurred. Yet you continue to assume
> they did despite a lack of said evidence.
More accurately I assumed ballast was used as a counterweight and the sole easy ballast is water.
> #2: Your assumption that you have special powers
> of insight and can determine what the PT actually
> means - when you cannot read the underlying
> language and lack basic knowledge about the
> culture and religion (assumption #2a denial of the
> ancient Egyptian religion)
I don't think like you do.
> #3: Your assumption that the PT is a construction
> manual placed in Pharaoh Anas' tomb 150 years
> after the pyramids were built.
Nonsense. I assumed the PT was the blatherings of sun addled bumpkins until I began to understand it.
> #4: Assumption that any mention in the PT about
> water is somehow related to the geyser lifting
> system you imagine but have no proof of.
No, not an assumption.
Only about 90% of the mentions of water are about geysers but there are far more than you could imagine because the word "water" doesn't necessarily appear. For instance the word "set" or "seth" meant standing water or expelled water.
> #5: Assumption that water was the key ingredient
> to everything, not in irrigation but architecture.
> You are unable to process the idea that there is
> no sign of geysers at Giza.
Water is key. Just as in the deserts of ancient Egypt where water was life it still is today, everywhere.
> #6: Assumption that the quarry dug partially
> around Djoser's pyramid enclosure has something to
> do with your water fantasy.
This is a tentatice conclusion based on many observations, not an assumption.
> #8: Finally your assumption that you can translate
> a language you cannot read is beyond ridiculous
> that one items pretty much derails all your
> pretense to being scientific.
I can only translate a few words. The rest I discovered their meaning through context.
> #11: A claim to have debunked ramps and yet you
> never link to where you did this - on the
> assumption if you keep ignoring the need to answer
> it - it will go away
I've linked this for you numerous times and you choose to ignore it.
I made no special assumptions whatsoever about the Egyptians or their work. All my "assumptions" are actually more observations from a lifetime of thinking about such things. I never assumed things like they were changeless and superstitious and dragged tombs up ramps. This is Egyptology that has made such assumptions. I have extensive experience in many areas and especially moving heavy objects. I know for a fact that you don't fight heavy objects whether you want to move one or 2 1/2 million of them. You aren't fighting the object you are fighting the "heavy" and heavy is merely a measure of how hard it will fight back. If you don't believe fighting 70 tons up a hill is difficult then ya oughtta try it.