> Let me ask you something: Are you more interested
> in the truth or that your theory will be proven
When I started I ONLY wanted to know how the pyramids were built.
Since I started I have gained a great deal of interest in the builders of the pyramids. These people were so remarkable and so different than us. We could learn a lot from them about love, understanding, and science. We could learn to see things from their highly fluid perspective.
The people are more interesting than even their understanding and how they made it manifest.
> You have made this into a cult with slogans. This
> is not how you stay objective. It actually
> prevents you from accepting new evidence.
New evidence but the same old thinking. Nothing has changed since the 1882. We are locked into a single reality that isn't going to change despite anyone's effort because there is NEVER GOING TO BE ANY EVIDENCE that can't be interpreted in terms of our assumptions. There's really no substantial difference between the debate about the existence of ancient superstition and the existence of God. We each pick the evidence we consider determininative and brush aside all else.
Slogans are irrelevant. What is relevant is that we all see the world in terms of our expectations. It makes perfect sense to people that superstition provides the willingness and ability to do anything because that's the way we see reality. In a sense it's even true. We can each and collectively achieve virtually anything we set our minds to. So we assume ancient people were just like us.
> The Khufu quarry was to the south. The only viable
> option was to go to the nearest wide open space
> and that was the west side where now is the West
> Field. South + West = Southwest.
I'm not sure what you mean. Please rephrase and elaborate.
> This again is the cult you made for yourself. You
> have created a stereotypical response to the
> concept of ramps and dragging and that mental
> trigger does not allow you to evaluate evidence
> objectively. This is a huge problem Cladking. This
> is the very same problem you accuse
> "Egyptologists", your Boogeymen, of.
So I say you could be right and you respond with this.
Let me elaborate. I believe it is nearly as likely that aliens built the pyramid as it is that superstitious bumpkins dragged them up ramps. There is about a 2% chance that the evidence could have been left as it is because ramps were used. Even that they used magic and caused the stones to grow wings is no more than about 2% less likely than they used ramps.
The evidence CLEARLY shows stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids one step at a time. There is an 85% probability that the ramps they used were at 70 degrees and the only other major possibility is the ramps were 52 degrees.
Egyptologists are whistling past the graveyard of at least one FAILED ASSUMPTION. They did not use an illogical and inefficient means to build these.
> That is finally the right question to ask.
> The answer appears to involve a combination of
> ramps and another method and that method may have
> depended on the size of the stones which tends to
> decrease as you go up....see Petrie's data which
> shows gradually diminishing waves of course
"Gradually diminishing" means "regular". There was no significant change at any point going up.
If they used ANY ramps toward the top then "ramps are still the means to build pyramids. You've not answered or addressed the question but merely reasserted ramps.
> This is why someone should attempt
> to calculate the number of stones in each course
> and their average weight based on some simple
> assumptions and run a statistial analysis on rates
> of assembly as a function of height.
I have said this for years. I don't understand why they refuse to use any methods of modern science to study these structure. While statistics are a weak sister of science they are more closely related to science than "it looks like" or "it seems like'
> No they are not. Highly irregular and varying in
> waves. Come one Cladking. Did you look at Petrie's
> Plate 8?
"Waves" is another term for "regular". A pendulum is always a pendulum no matter which way it swings.
> Ramps cannot explain the whole story, that much is
> clear. But they played a part. This is proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt. The Khufu quarry is
> full of ramp debris. You can see a ramp coming ouf
> it. I even posted photos of it here. You never
> took notice.
It's "full of" ramp debris that has never been defined or measured. It is quite impossible to determine the slope of a ramp from the debris it generates or to determine if it was ever trod at all. Why wouldn't a funicular operate on ramps? How is it possible to even generate hypotheses about the nature of the actual ramps by "full of".
edited to add- Need I point out that if the quarry is "full" of ramps then the ramps are the size of the pyramid? How did they configure these ramps to build straight under a five step cladded pyramid? It is a logical impossibility and would require building pyramids the same volume as the pyramid at least three times. It is patently nonsense. Nobody then or now could build anything under a great pyramid sized pile of anything at all. Much less a five step perfectly true cladded pyramid. This is even considering the effort to lift the pyramid and the mountainous ramps.
Egyptology has never used science to address any of these issues. They made basic assumptions and NEVER SOUGHT TO FALSIFY THEM. It is THEIR methodology that is flawed.
> They are testing as we speak. A full exterior
> pyramid scan is one such project.
One of these "projects" was completed at least three years ago. There are still no data available.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-Mar-20 20:06 by cladking.