> Greetings Cladking,
> And thank you for your detailed reply to my post.
> 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.
That would be an erroneous assumption Usi, which you shall soon find out. Just because one does not agree with Egyptology does not mean one is ignorant of it.
> Ramps are in fact the most reasonably efficient
> method of construction that has been proposed thus
Says who? The Egyptologists? And what do they know of construction and engineering? All they know is pottery and hieroglyphs.
> The amount of work required to drag the
> stones would have been lessened considerably by
> the incline of the ramps themselves. With full
> consideration of the weight of the stones in mind,
> it has been estimated that it would have taken a
> mere 10 to 20 men to drag a single block of stone.
Then let's see the Egyptologists do it. Take a mere 10 or 20 of them, and lets see them drag 50 tons up a ramp. Ok that's impossible, so let's see them drag the sarcophagus, in sandals with ropes. But first, lets see them build a ramp. Would it be mud or gravel? Hell they don't know. They wouldn't know how to make a mud ramp, let alone a gravel one. Yet they are sure there were ramps.
> And far from being unattested, the archaeological
> remains of several of the external ramps have been
> discovered on the Giza Plateau.
Your link says nothing about several ramps found. A little imagination goes a long way
> Based upon your post, I would assume that you are
> under the assumption that the Great Pyramid could
> only have been built by aliens.
Wow, that's an outrageous assumption to make. Swinging to the extreme.
> 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. Your claim
> that the inclusion of arsenic into the copper
> smelting process was "accidental" is entirely
> unconvincing. 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. 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.
Which is it? Significant amounts or traces? How does a trace become significant? Is .0001% significant, or does .05 become significant. At what point does a "trace" become significant enough to affect the hardness of copper to the point that it will cut granite? Only in the mind of an Egyptologist.
> The 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.
Then why has no one been able to do it?
> 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.
By now you've shown you have no idea what the fringe denies or accepts. It would be better if you asked the fringe questions instead of assuming you learned all about them in class.
> 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." In
> 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
Boy you guys bank everything on the PT's. Too bad they don't say anything about ramps or the pyramids. Meanwhile you completely ignore the engineering, the inexplicable stone cuts, design of the passages, etc and so forth. It sounds like you have no idea what the fringe disagrees with and why.
> I should let you know, that I am in fact a PhD
> candidate currently working towards his doctorate
> in Egyptology.
And? This makes you an engineer? Or perhaps an expert in granite? Or maybe a mathematician? Or maybe it gives you considerable expertise in construction? Personally I think an engineering degree would get you much closer to understanding the construction of the great pyramids. Unless Egyptology has figured out how to build one with pottery and hieroglyphs.
> And as such I am well aware of most
> of the available evidence concerning the royal
> ideologies and mortuary beliefs of the Old
Which has absolutely nothing to do with construction, engineering and tools. Ideologies and beliefs themselves cannot build a great pyramid.
> 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.
Now that is one of funniest things I've heard come out of Egyptology!
You're making some outlandish assumptions. Did they teach you those assumptions in class? If so, I'd have to say, take a different class, you were hoodwinked.
> However, having read his book, I can
> assure you that it is rife with errors. For
> starters he assumes that it would have taken the
> Great Pyramid 600 years for Bronze Age people to
> build. In fact, as I mentioned earlier it took 20
You say that ONLY because Herodotus wrote it. Now tell us, how would Herodotus know?
> He also, mistakenly mentioned Alexandria
> as being contemporary with Egypt's Fourth Dynasty.
> Alexandria didn't even exist until 331 BC. During
> the Old Kingdom the area where Alexandria would be
> built was an isolated fishing village. There was
> no major port there. I mention this because von
> Daniken claims the ships carrying Cedar of Lebanon
> would not have been able to reach the Nile from
> Alexandria. 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?
You're wasting your time talking about Von Daniken.
Wow guys, do you believe it!