> the point is..if you CAN establish conclusively that there is
> no place where one could have been..then further debate on the
> subject would be closed.
> these logistics question are of far more import than ,the
> mundane in comparisson question of the method for elevating
> Ie the identity of the builders of both the Gizamids and the
> Sphinx...and When each was built.
> and the more important Why build pyramids at all.
It has never been shown that it could be possible to build the great pyramids with ramps. There is at least one refutatrion of the possibility of building them with ramps and you'll love this; by a qualified engineer. (and no I can't cite it). There's no evidence that ramps were actually used to raise stones on the pyramids and no evidence in the culture that ramps were used.
Ramp proponents simply believe ramps were used and showing where they didn't exist in space will have has much effect as showing they never existed.
If there had been a ramp it really could have been anywhere at all other than right over the quarry. Indeed, they could have even put it over the quarry since most of the stone was used early before the ramp was very long.
The place to look for a quarry in the real world would be at the end of the ramp but this doesn't fit the evidence just as ramps don't fit the evidence. All the assumption in the world won't change the facts. And all the believing won't either.
This might sound harsh as I am prone to do on this subject but this is simply because ramps were assumed and 150 years of contrary evidence is simply being brushed aside as coincidental or irrelevent. Nothing shakes the orthodox belief in ramps.
I'm still wondering if there was actually a statue of the "overseer of the boats of Neith" in the workmen's cemetary. I'd wager if they dug up a spaceship with nw-boat stenciled by the door and a dead pilot with the name of Seker that orthodoxy would remain unshaken.
This isn't to say that the question isn't legitimate to someone who wants to figure out how the pyramids were built. I've merely been addressing the individual points as they arise. The author has a valid point that there would be advantages to having ramps to the west ((SW, anyway) but that doesn't change any of the facts. Yes. Looking toward the SW and W for ramps might be a good idea but there are so many basic experiments and tests that need to be done that are far higher priority and far more likely to yield results that aren't being done either.
Logistics are entirely and utterly meaningless until you know how they were built. It's like supplying an army in Greenland by shipping supplies to Antartica. Frankly I suspect this might apply on a far broader scale than you think. Glossing over essential questions with answers like "they must have used ramps" is risky business. Does this sound reasonable to you or are you so married to orthodoxy that it's just insane rampblings of a heretic.