> charly wrote:
> > Problem is; you think you know what the "builders" say and
> > consider that a fact. Most of us on the other hand think you
> > have a very vivid imagination when it comes to the PT...
> No! The problem is that orthodox believers refuse to accept
> the English meaning of the builders' words. Sure, you could be
> right that they didn't mean the words literally but the words
> still say what they say. They say the king flew to heaven in a
> boat that flew up and alit for example. All of their words can
> be taken literally and the only ones orthodoxy wantys to accept
> as literal are the only ones that were meant mostly
> metaphorically; the cannibal hymns. The Gods didn't literally
> eat each other as well as men, women, and children but these
> are the words orthodoxy wants to take literally.
Accepting the literal meaning would equate believing in magic, since kings don't fly etc. What you propose: king's body brought to the top pyramid with the geyser powered counterweight device for some hocus-pocus ritual to make him disapear, now that's personal interpretation.
IMHO you are so convinced that you are right, you fail to see that you have crossed the line between literal meaning and personal interpretation...
> > Ramps are quite simple you know ;-)
> Yes, but it would be impossible to leave a vacuum of evidence
There's no vacuum, "scattered remains" are still present as you said yourself. Since ramps are temporary structures they aren't supposed to leave remains behind. Like I said in another post in this thread; it's amazing some "scattered remains" did survive.
> Frankly, even though ramps are simple I'm still not convinced
> it would even be possible to build a great pyramid with ramps.
> But this is a moot question because we know they didn't use
> ramps and stones moved straight up the sides.
You believe they didn't use ramps and believe stones moved straight up the sides, but that doesn't make it a proven fact. So not a moot question at all.
> > Ramps haven't been disproven. Just because you don't like
> > and you don't believe the AE could push blocks on them
> > disprove them.
> > You just disagree, but you haven't disproven anything.
> Ramps can not have existed in the vacuum of evidence that was
> left for them and they would not have left the numerous
> vertical lines visible on the pyrmids today. They have
> essentially been disproven.
concerning the vacuum: see above
You give a hypothesis for the vertical lines, but that doesn't disprove anything.
> What we need is to determine enough facts as to prove how they
> pulled stones straight up the side or now we might have a 150
> years of saying "they mustta dragged stones straight up the
It is not proven they dragged stones straight up the side, it's your hypothesis.
> Even if the builders used rocket science they might
> have left evidence for it so we need to go look. Infrared
> imaging would be a superb place to start. We should already
> have decades of data for this.
All sorts of scans have already been done on the GP but it is often difficult to interpret the results. Example: There's the scan that seems to confirm J.P. Houdin's internal ramps.