> Yep. I have worked in construction and heavy
> industry for most of my life, as has my brother
> and our father. From the first breaking of ground
> to the completion of final touches, we are
> intimately aware of what is required in all phases
> of the erection of large buildings, including many
> things most people don't even think about. The
> problems inherent in the tranportation and
> handling of extremely heavy loads is impossible to
> understand without having taken part in it; the
> "examples" given in archaeology where some
> professor uses slave labor(undergrads) to shift a
> block or statue weighing a couple of tons across a
> few yards of flat surface in order to "prove" the
> contention that ancient people could have built
> this or that megalithic edifice using the
> million-guys-with-ropes method just drive me
A lot of people who work in construction, industry, or architecture can see that the modern belief in ropes and superstitious supermen just don't work. I have some experience with work crews as well and my observation is every individual will just go along for the ride. One or two will pull but the rest will either lean against the ropes or even use the ropes to pull themselves up.
Even if it were possible to configure a system to build pyramids using ramps you still couldn't find crews to operate it. Dragging a 2 ton stone up a steep hill would be like trying to pull a pickup truck up hill and upside down. Then you need to remember you not only have to drag the truck up hill but you have to make the damn hill. After you've made the hill you have to take it down and then put it back up to install 100,000 even larger cladding stones.
Your work still isn't done since you have to remove the hill again.
> The difficulty of heavy load handling does
> not scale directly proportional to the weight of
> the load, it is more like an exponential or
> logarithmic scale relationship. Moving 100 tons is
> not 10 times more difficult than moving 10 tons,
> it is many many thousands of times more difficult,
> especially when you reach the point where
> materials begin to fail(wooden log rollers would
> be flattened by 100+ ton blocks, for example).
> Thus, handling a 5 ton weight does not demonstrate
> that, given 4 times the manpower, a 20 ton weight
> can be handled, much less lifted, moved through
> treacherous terrain, or be placed with minute
> precision. But there are many examples of people
> dragging a few tons back and forth and then
> claiming to have "proven" the concept. It's akin
> to carrying a brick across your backyard and then
> claiming you have proven you could build a house.
Yes. This is another concept few people understand. There is always some point, some critical mass, beyond which a task becomes impossible. An elephant is all leg because smaller legs wouldn't support it. A larger beast would have to live in the water which supports it (like a whale). If an ant were scaled up to be larger its legs couldn't support it. Hauling a few stones up a ramp can be done but as you scale up the ramp has to become logarithmically larger to accommodate the additional traffic.
Lehner is right about one thing. There sure wouldn't be enough room for men to work on ramps but they might sleep an army of stone draggers. ;)
> But generally people don't know these things, and
> academia especially is full of people who
> specialize in theory rather than
> reality(mechanical engineers who couldn't change
> out a flat tire on a car, for example).
> Archaeology especially seems reluctant to reach
> out to the relevant specialties for consultation
> when constructing their narratives of history.
> Hell, they don't really want their academic
> collegues involved for the most part, as we can
> see in Egypt where modern tech has been only
> sporadically utilized, if at all. They definitely
> don't want construction contractors in there
> laughing at their notions of how the pyramids were
There are a great number of details to build, operate, or maintain anything. I can hardly even imagine the highly constricted ramps that come to a standstill every time the surface needs reworking, a man falls out, or even the tiniest malfunction stops a stone. Even when they actually operated you'd need load after load of ramp construction material because the ramp would have to continually grow.
But Egyptologists just hand wave it all away because they knew before they ever started that "they mustta used ramps" so this study has no interest to them whatsoever. They won't allow scientists to come in even to take the measurements needed to understand what Egyptologists already understand; that they had no technology other than ramps. Nevermind the evidence doesn't fit with the beliefs because we know the builders were stinky footed bumpkins as proven by everything they thought and wrote. There could be no science and no technology.
So instead of facts, evidence, and measurement we get semantics. We are now told they had science and ramp technology yet no Egyptologist can find any sort of scientific language in their superstitious musings! We are told the science didn't need any methodology or metaphysics because it was based on trial and error. It was truly a magical science used by those who were highly superstitious. Their leaders were priests, seers, and cantors (if you can believe it). They lacked proper terminology because they were superstitious.
It all makes perfect sense, no?
> Ignorance of some details and the willful
> obfuscation of others, plus politics as usual and
> the desire for money and power, have led to this
> prevailing notion of linear development and the
> automatic relegation of our ancestors to
> sun-addled hairy dudes in buttflaps with stinky
> feet. So people stand before the pyramids and
> figure, it couldn't have been that hard, we could
> definitely do it if we wanted to. After all, we
> have pants and boots and daily hygiene. This is
> what I think JAW was illustrating when he joked
> about modern "advanced" civilization with its
> "striped toothpaste and bobble-head dolls" .
More and more the problem looks intentional. People who want answers, hypotheses, and theory would be well advised to sty away from all of the Egyptologists and their little et als too and read people like JAW, Hancock, Dunn, Cadman, Bauval, and numerous other alternative writers who each have the answer or at least a part of the answer. Ancient people were not changeless and superstitious bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps so you'll find nothing in Egyptology to answer the real questions or shed light on the mysteries.
Looking for answers in Egyptology just seems to suck people in and replace them with a replicant. This happens because almost every sentence contains one or more of their assumptions couched in words that sound completely plausible especially when couched in words to express uncertainty. "We don't know how they built these sepulchers but the only technology available during the 3000 years of Egyptian history that could be used by the highly religious people was ramp technology".
It just goes on and on and on.
Before long you're agreeing and your spot is taken by a replicant bobble head.
> Yeah. Don't you feel like you could toss up a few
> pyramids if you felt like it? You got clean feet,
> you have pants. Can't be that hard, right?
I wouldda by now but don't wanna get my hands (and feet) dirty.
> One could almost think they don't want the
> answers modern techniques could provide, or
> something, isn't it?
At this point they can't handle the truth. No matter what it is it's not going to agree with their beliefs so they'd rather just not know. There are too many careers and too much funding at stake. There are too many encyclopedias and wiki articles to change. It's much safer to just sit back and let the status quo and all the et als march forward to a brave new past.
> I'm sure there were bumpkins in ancient times, no
> need to prove that. But I'm also sure the people
> who built the pyramids or Sacsayhuaman or
> Tiahuanaco were not bumpkins.
I believe the human race were homo sapiens but now we are homo omnisciencis. "All" people spoke Ancient Language until is started becoming too complex around 3200 BC.
Much of the reason we are so "unwise" (nonwise?) is the lack of the ability to communicate. Human knowledge is the result of generational learning and Ancient Language could be used to discuss things like the nature of humanity. There was even human progress in philosophy!!!
Today we are alone and must start virtually at square one to learn about ourselves because our language is too confused to pass knowledge generationally.
> They may have had stinky feet tho, and were
> periodically sun-addled. After a day's work in the
> heat, I sometimes come home sun-addled with stinky
> feet(I never feel compelled to don a buttflap
It seems apropos that most adults have tinea and medications or it is a billion dollar industry.