> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > It does for a single sample. Don't confuse a
> > single sample with the statistical analyses of
> > whole project.
> No, it doesn’t. Detecting outliers checks data
Read part 2 of the first section..
Another scenario wherein only two samples were taken one of which was our outlier.
Or another where 1000 samples were taken.
Or another in which there was absolutly no pre conception of the age of the subject.
> > The summit is still there .. Or it was last time
> > looked. Furthermore if I were an OK pharaoh I'd
> > consider it somewhat of an eyesore.
> You are not an Old Kingdom Egyptian and we are not
> in the Old Kingdom. We are not seeing the pyramid
> as it was in the Old Kingdom. Does this simple
> fact escape you? We are seeing the pyramid as it
> is more than a millennium after the casing was
We see a summit casing in disrepair. We have no idea how long it has been in that condition.
> And for your information, the summit is not still
OK the upper section.. I'm not playing word games.
> What I find remarkable is how crisply defined some
> of the blocks remain, at the edges in particular.
> This does not look like erosion by wind or rain.
> What do you think did it? Termites?
It is in considerable disrepair. One could argue in need of repair. One method would be to pour plaster slop into the cracks. which would obviously seep into the core. Which after total casing removal could be sampled by slop sampling RC dating teams. which would account for the higher dates being older, and the presence of large areas of what appears to be casting.
> > That's the issue .. When was it new??
> Given your failure to distinguish between (a) how
> the pyramid of Khafre looks today and (b) how it
> looked 4,000 years ago, I doubt you have anything
> useful to say on the question. You are not
> considering it in any realistic framework.
I don't have any 4000 year old photo's with which to compare.
I'm considering a possible scenario.
The realistic framework is .
Based on the absence of 4000 year old photos.
The p'mid is much older.
The p'mid was in disrepair 4000 years ago. Say 50% of disrepair we see today.
The pyramid was repaired 4000 years ago ..(or more).
The pyramid was repaired top down.
Which accounts for the sample date trending and the appearance of casting.
> > Fact is that if the casing were in a semi
> > state (similar to the summit of G2 today) and
> > repair slop were poured into the cracks, it
> > find its way onto the first core layer. Which
> > the outer layer today. Which is then sampled
> > RC dated.
> If, if, if, if, if, if, if.
> Need I remind you again that this is fantasy?
Forget the IF.. I'll say will.
The application of plaster repair slop on something similar to G2 summit (upper extant casing).
Will result in repair slop finding it's way down into the outer core.
Not exactly watertight is it ?
> If this was their procedure, why do we see no sign
> of it on G2? You know, the one you’re holding
> up as an example of the need for it? Or at the
> Bent Pyramid, your example of actual repairs?
Because it is beneath the extant casing.
Or another possibility..
G2 did not require repair at that time.
Different repair strategy.
> For your information, when the exterior stones of
> a medieval cathedral are badly eroded, they
> don’t “repair” them, they replace them.
> Same for pyramids. Faced with your (entirely)
> conjectural super-ancient pyramid with badly
> eroded casing stones, a sane mason would replace
> them—not try to “repair” them or pour
> “slop” over them.
He probably did repair replace small sections as we see on the Bent. The pouring of slop (cement/concrete today) is a method of binding loose disarranged masonry. It's even used to repair steel ships.
A cathedral repair carried out today is done by skilled masons who's priority is in maintaining the ancient construction integrity and practices of the building for the purposes of preservation of ancient technique as well as the structure itself.
If history and heritage were not a priority, poured concrete would provide at least a short term repair.
As was done, (inappropriately by todays standards), in the past, Stonehenge, Sphinx, Colosseum to name but few.
> Care to specify the composition of this magic
Whatever the composition of the samples is.
> > During construction the casing was placed
> > followed by the core.
> You know this for a fact? Care to provide some
> evidence for it?
Look at the Bent and ask an engineer.
The task of placing a casing on an already constructed uneven core, even course by course would be lunacy or next to impossible.
The core consists of non constant courses and blocks of greatly varying dimensions.
Every casing block retrospectively fitted to the G1 core would have to be precision custom made.
However if the casing courses were laid first and then back filled this custom stone cutting would be totally unnecessary.
It's very obvious on the Bent.
Case first and then back filled.
Remove the case .. Result.. What we see today.. An uneven core.
> > It's throwing repair slop around with abandon,
> > plastering over the cracks. Some of it is going
> > sink in deep.
> . . . and somehow [i]all[/i] of the charcoal
> samples were from this [i]some[/i] of it. A hint
> here maybe on the composition of the “slop”:
> it has to have those bits of charcoal in it to
> fulfil its explanatory function.
OK then what was the function of the slop other than to bind blocks and fill cracks/voids??
> > Remove the casing.. (which eventually happened)
> > and you have in places what appear to be
> > blocks.
> > (Hence the pre cast block debate) Which I
> > you do not adhere to and neither do I..
> All we need now is the composition of “slop”
> and evidence that the blocks are made of it.
I Personally doubt that the blocks were pre cast.
What sometimes appears as pre casting is in fact the result of void filling repair slop being poured in and the subsequent removal of the outer casing exposing the hardened and formed repair slop.
> > I doubt it .. the OK didn't have pressure
> > injection. No, just throwing it into cracks,
> > joints and crevices will do fine.
> > If fact you have a hell of a job keeping it
> > Where else would they have taken plaster slop
> > samples from other than plaster slop.?
> You’re sure you’re not confusing the pyramid
> with a Swiss cheese?
No it's Egyptian not Swiss. Check it out on any good map.
Swiss things tend to be in Switzerland.
> > It flies .. It flies Well.. Aerobatic.
> A flying Swiss cheese and a sloppy theory.
Yes.. lots of "Sloppy" poured in as a repair procedure. Subsequently exposed as the casing was removed, even more subsequently sampled and tested. Mistaken by some today as evidence of pre-casting, which is understandable because in a way it is. Just a different intention, similar result.
I'm glad you agree with the "Sloppy Theory".
All good evidence of an ancient repair campaign or a number of ancient repair campaigns.
Great minds think alike.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jun-16 06:03 by Jon Ellison.