> Maybe, it wasn’t
> ‘easy’ to build the Pyramids but maybe it
> wasn’t impossibly hard either. Maybe the truth
> is somewhere in the middle?
This is what I've been saying all along.
Egyptologists keep saying "they mustta used ramps" but this would be a wasteful, inefficient, illogical, brutal, and contraindicated method.
I don't really believe stacking 6 1/2 million tons of stone into a 480' pile is "easy" for primitive people using primitive techniques and primitive materials but it's painfully obvious that whatever means was used was within the realm of physics and necessarily left a great deal of evidence. I'm merely saying that no matter what means was used it mustta been highly efficient because the pyramid is far too large to represent the kind of waste and inefficiency that we employ or ramps would dictate.
The pyramid is simply too big to reflect a means of construction that wasted far more than the effort required to build it. The facts are too numerous to support ideas that they had to have built ramps as the causeway sat sacred.
We have been going about all this backward. We started with the conclusion and we're trying to force fit the evidence to suit. There is no evidence to support the paradigm and no logic either. But still we keep looking for support of our beliefs rather than looking at the actual facts. Why should a ramp go up the steep cliff face when they had a perfectly good "causeway" that went straight to a "temple" that apparently sat at the water's edge? It is Ro She Khufu (the Port of Khufu) that sat at the end of the causeway. This offends people but the logic says that what we see is infrastructure, not religious gobbledty gook. The facts agree with the logic.