> However, it would appear that you are not
> cognizant of the copious amount of archaeological,
> linguistic, and contextual evidence regarding the
> purpose for and manner of construction of the
> Great Pyramid.
You'll have to show me some of this someday. Then I can show you that I have debunked ramps. Yes, I have shown through a preponderance of evidence not only that ramps were not and could not have been used but I also have shown how they were actually built; stones were lifted straight up the side one step at a time.
> Ramps are in fact the most reasonably efficient
> method of construction that has been proposed thus
This is something Egyptologists say. The reality is there is no less efficient means possible to lift stones with ancient technology. ALL mechanical advantage by definition increases the total work load. Building a mountain of ramps to build a mountain must be the least efficient means. ...Other than dragging stones round Europe first.
> And far from being unattested, the archaeological
> remains of several of the external ramps have been
> discovered on the Giza Plateau.
There are inclined planes everywhere and the ancients used them for walkways and many other purposes. There's certainly no evidence of ramps and still no ramp proposal that would work.
> Based upon your post, I would assume that you are
> under the assumption that the Great Pyramid could
> only have been built by aliens.
You aren't so very far off. I believe they were built by a different species called "homo sapiens". Egyptologists, you, and I are "homo omnisciencis". We know everything and they were wise.
> Such a hypothesis
> is both unfounded and unnecessary to even
> consider, especially given the fact that the
> Egyptians themselves possessed all of the
> necessary tools and technical expertize to
> construct massive stone structures.
And you base this on the existence of the pyramid. This is circular reasoning.
> Your claim
> that the inclusion of arsenic into the copper
> smelting process was "accidental" is entirely
I don't know. I'm no expert and not even a specialist. I'm just repeating what I believe is the state of the art in chemical analysis as it applies to ancient artefacts. I've actually had cause to dispute and investigate this but ran into dead end.
> Personally, I find it hard to
> believe that the very people who developed the
> most sophisticated civilization of the Bronze Age
> would not have known how to improve the strength
> and technical efficiency of the metals available
> to them.
I agree to some extent. More importantly I believe they said they used metal that could only have been bronze.
> At any rate, your assumption would seem
> to be negated by the fact that nearly all of the
> copper tools and weapons discovered from the Old
> Kingdom contain significant traces of arsenic.
There are always traces. The question is was there sufficient amount to strengthen the metal or to call it "bronze". If you know something I don't let me know.
> copper tools of the Pyramid Age would have been
> more than capable of working limestone, and the
> addition of quartzite abrasives would have enabled
> the workmen to effectively cut through and shape
> the granite used to construct the King's Chamber
> and portcullises. Neither you nor anyone else on
> the fringe can deny that the Egyptian masons of
> the Old Kingdom employed the use of abrasives to
> work granite, dolerite, and other hard stone.
My knowledge here is extremely limited but I've seen several artefacts that are not explained by Egyptology.
> And as I posted above, all of this was done to
> build a tomb for a man who was believed to be a
> god. Contemporary linguistic and textual evidence
> from the Old Kingdom conclusively demonstrates
> that the Egyptians believed there king to have
> been a living god. The title "Hm.f," in fact
> literally means "His Incarnation." "NTR-NFR"
> translates to the "Good God." Each king also had a
> Horus Name which he chose upon his ascension to
> the throne. Khufu's was Hrw-Mdjw, which
> translates to the "Horus that Strikes."
Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But what they ACTUALLY SAID was that the king was the pyramid and the pyramid was composed of stone called "horuses".
Take it up with the writers.
> addition, the Pyramid Texts, which provide our
> primary source for the religious beliefs of the
> Old Kingdom, prove the king was considered to be a
> god. And yes, he did hold the power over the life
> and death of his subjects in his hands. This is
> demonstrated by the Pyramid Texts themselves which
> declare concerning the king, "He whom he wills to
> live, shall live. He whom he wills to die, shall
155b. "N. comes, an imperishable spirit, like the morning star over the Nile;
155c. the spirits in the waters adore him;
155d. whom he wills that he live, be lives; whom he wills that be die, he dies."
They are referring to a dead king here and a dead king never hurt anybody.
> I should let you know, that I am in fact a PhD
> candidate currently working towards his doctorate
> in Egyptology. And as such I am well aware of most
> of the available evidence concerning the royal
> ideologies and mortuary beliefs of the Old
> Kingdom. And believe it or not, as part of my
> university curriculum, I took a course which
> related all of the current fringe theories about
> ancient Egypt, and which trained me in the most
> effective ways to counter fringe arguments. I in
> fact wrote my class paper on Erich von Daniken's
> "Chariot of the Gods." He is an alternative
> theorist that I assume you and Open Mind hold in
> high regard.
It's always good to have help for the Egyptologists around here.
I don't think I've ever commented on Von Daniken except to say once I like his ideas about the ben ben. I've never read his books.
> As you can see, von Daniken doesn't
> know much of anything about ancient Egypt. This
> kind of puts a damper on his assertion that
> extraterrestrial visitors built the Great Pyramid
> or anything else on earth, wouldn't you agree?
I don't disagree. But even if I agreed it hardly changes the fact we don't really know how or why they were built. I wouldn't rule out aliens until we do know. I wouldn't rule out the possibility they charmed the stones into growing wings until we know. The odds of winged stones might be quite low but I've always wanted to make this argument. I believe I can make a better argument for flying stones than Egyptologists can make for ramps.