> What's ironic is that with all the bolding you've
> done, you missed the key point:
> "eastern sides".
Just missed bolding it, not that it's significance was missed. To suggest these mark would or could have been put there without moving the blocks is just plain nonsense which I should note even your apologists are smart enough not to jump on that sinking ship.
> And by the way, the "2.5
> ton" is "average" which means 50% of them were
> more than 2.5 tons, and many were
> much heavier than 15 tons, many
> weighing as much as 80 tons and made of granite
> placed 160' above ground level.
No, this is not what this means.
Stone size:The stone blocks usually are larger in the lower layers (1.5m = 3 cubit) and smaller in the upper layers. Most are between 1.5 and 2 cubit large [i.e. the smallest] (average of 127 x 127 x 71cm). 1 cubit = 0.524m
Weight of the stone blocks: With an average density of 2,6 - 2,9 t/m³ the large limestone blocks weighted 6.5 - 10 tons and the smaller ones about 1.3 tons. For all calculations on this website an average weight of 2.5 tons was used.
For example, if I have 150 1.5 ton blocks and 50 6 ton blocks my average weight is 2.6 tons. To achieve an average of 2.5 tons this means that half would average around 1.5 tons, which is what most of the blocks are, and the other half around 3.5 tons.
It also means that no, not "many" were above 15 tons, but in reality by comparison but a fraction of the total blocks which with the exception of the first few rows of casing stones and the interior blocks of the chambers otherwise none.
> Nevertheless, based on the evidence I've seen so
> far, the geometry of the southern boat pits
> indicate other possibilities besides an
> "indisputable" 4th dynasty provenance.
Please do not misrepresent what I wrote. I never said the pits, just the boats inside and the blocks on top.
> So you're acknowledging that those southern pits
> may indeed have already been there for the
> dynastics to repurpose after their original
No, this is not what I am "acknowledging" Origyptian and you know this is not and anyone can even read for themselves it is not:
Yes, the southern pits are different in shape which does suggest they may have had a different function originally, but the fact is the AE buried boats inside of them and covered them with dozens of 15-20 blocks nonetheless. Why waste a perfectly good trench just to build another for a boat that will easily fit?
Where does this say in any way shape or form I am suggesting these were made prior to Dynastic Egypt left there for the "Dynastics" to find? Are you lying because it is quite clear this is not what I said.
> and so they may in fact
> not have been originally designed
> to house boats.
Wow. You make it seem as though the Great Pyramid was built in a day. When construction began these pits may have had a different function, however, sometime after construction was completed and it came time to bury boats these pits were converted to boat graves. Hence it is no mystery why quarry marks with Djedefre's name are found all over these blocks. Granted, I do not beleive construction began under Khufu's rule anyways, but even accepting the traditional view, if these pits were first dug as part of the first phase of construction it would have been decades after the fact before boats were buried in them.
You bore me. I have other things to do.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 13-Sep-16 01:45 by Thanos5150.