> No! Direct evidence could be anything. For instance Khufu's
> brother could be buried right next to G1 and an inscription in
> his tomb might read that he wanted to be buried next to his
> brother. Well guess what? Khufu's brother really is buried
> right next to G1 but the inscription says he wanted to be
> buried next to "Khufu's Horizon".
"Khufu's Horizon" is the name of Khufu's funerary complex, why woudn't his brother use that name? Nothing weird about that.
> There is no direct evidence of any type that any great pyramid
> was a tomb. If there were mortal remains or something that
> would constitute proof as well as direct evidence but
> egyptology isn't even seeking such evidence since it is just
> assumed these were tombs.
If you dismiss architectural evidence then there's indeed no proof, but it's there and it won't go away no matter how much you would like that Cladking.
> > No, there's archaeological evidence for ramps while there's
> > evidence for geysers or complicated machinery. Geyser powered
> > machines exist only in your (and some others) immagination.
> > Machinery some more some less complex (even with
> > counterweights) have been proposed by egyptology, but at
> > they admit there's no evidence that such technology was
> > available in the OK.
> So if you know so much and have all this information that
> proves what was and wasn't in existence praytell what's under
> the tons of bat guano in the cave by G2? Why were there no
> ramp builders buried? What were the sceptres for? Wht's an
> ankh? Why is there no proof of what the pyramids did?
What has any of this to do with what I wrote just above?
> Have you really forgotten you can see the evidence of
> counterweights with your own eyes. Just google pyramids egypt
> images and look at all those vertical lines. Just lines didn't
> just form there after constrution. They are built right into
> it. This is exactly the evidence you'd expect to have been
> left by counterweights.
Let's assume for arguments sake that the lines where made by some kind of machine using counterweights, then you still have no evidence that such a machine would use water as countyerweights or was somehow "geyserpowered".
> > There are answers, not to everything and yes there are
> > assumptions and guesses and egyptology has never denied that
> Maybe after the big questions are answered I'll have some
> interest in the little questions that egyptology has done a
> superb job of investigating. But I started this with a simple
> question and egyptology has still not answered me or lifted a
> finger to learn; how did they lift the stones for G1.
> Answer this first. It just might have some bearing on what the
> ancients believed and it might help answer the little
How did they lift the stones for G1 (and pyramids in general)? Egyptology has no conclusive answer, ramps were involved but other means such as some type machinery are not excluded. But you already knew this of course.
> But I want a real answer or at the very least that someone is
> seeking one.
Egyptology is seeking answers Cladking, whether you believe it or not...