Date: January 06, 2017 08:32PM
Steve Clayton Wrote:
> It is all speculation, as none of us were there at
> the time. I guess the thrust of my post, is my
> bewilderment how many of my peers, jump into the
> "it must have been" fire with both feet. They seem
> to have abandoned any and all logic, and/or
> significant evidence.
I certainly agree. Nothing to do with the pyramids is really "settled science" and never will be. However there are lots of "best guesses" and we each must choose our poison. Why so many people are so certain about their assumptions and conclusions is beyond me.
To me no conclusion is more suspect than Egyptological's "they mustta used ramps". And when this is tossed out it opens up a wide array of new aspects and perspectives. Egyptology made a very very bad turn with they assumed ramps were the only technology that could be used by the Egyptians. It led them on a woinding and twisting detour to nowhere.
How ironic that when you toss out this assumption one can see more evidence rather than less. This is the nature of good scientific theory; good theory embraces far more evidence while bad theory explains only some things. Egyptology is bad theory; very very bad theory which came from bad methodology. It came from an unscientific >methodology and is being perpetuated by an antiscientific power structure.
I agree with much of this, though tend to cut them slack, as for the most part, they were not engineers. It's easy to make assumptions, when you can't explain something as complex as the Pyramids. Mr. Lehner and others, have shown us that, there is no evidence of large ramps. He uncovered, what he thought is/was, the remains of a small ramp in the back of G1 close to G2.
So, they are not all propagating ramps, and willing to go where the evidence leads them. These things take time.