> Author: Origyptian ()
> Date: January 10, 2017 11:53AM
> Audrey Wrote:
> > Correction - at least 2.
> > What you call the AE, those who you believe
> > the great pyramids, did have a religion.
> > The actual pyramid builders may not have had
> > religion or beliefs.
> Make that 3.
> Many users here still seem to use "AE" to describe
> those who built the pyramids rather than those who
> simply lived during the traditional timeline's
> Dynastic period. The Dynastic AE apparently did
> have quite a strong belief system that focused
> deeply on a funerary context and the afterlife.
> Virtually everything is a temple run by priests.
> And the Dynastic AE likely had nothing at all to
> do with building those megalithic pyramids.
> Rather, I suspect that the entire funerary context
> was invented simply as a way to explain the
> immense infrastructure that the Dynastics saw all
> around them that was already ancient when they
> arrived at the scene and which they needed to
> explain in the only terms that made sense to
> Hi Phil,
> If I ever finish the drawing, and that's a big
> if...I will include a disclaimer as to the build
> date. Hopefully, that will keep everyone happy.
> The build date is not an issue for me. I'm not
> sure if I have ever argued it in the past, other
> than there is no conclusive evidence one way or
> the other. Usually, I just state the the lack of
> evidence is not evidence. Even that statement,
> makes people mad. Though they already seem mad to
> Begin with.
> I feel I will need to release several "How it was
> done", as after years working on these
> illustration, there are more than one way to get
> the job done. Another disclaimer. Of late, my
> driving force, has been too try and show "how it
> could be done" with the least amount of build time
> and men.
> I remain baffled as too, why are there no
> paintings inside the Pyramids. If one day, a new
> chamber is found and it is decorated, the timeline
> mystery may be resolved.
Thanks Steve. The main reason I like, and try to contribute to, your model is that it's more credible (so far) and still timeless compared to traditional thought. I also believe there's a strong possibility that water had a lot to do with the construction and purpose of those pyramids. Of cousre, contrary to those who believe I've insulted the Dynastics by not acknowledging them as the builders, what those people fail to understand is that I'm giving the actual builders a LOT more credit for having the brilliance to conceptualize, analyze, quantify, organize, and accomplish such work far earlier than the Dynastic period and giving them credit for figuring out problems that are far more difficult than the traditionalists give them credit for. If anything, it's the traditionalists who are insulting the ancients by not giving them the true credit they deserve for their enginuity to overcome challenges to their own survival.
I realize you haven't addressed every detail in your drawings yet, and there clearly are some whoppers that still need to be hurdled, but your funicular is a powerful eye opener. The coincidence of the 4.6-ish degree causeway incline among the pyramids we've looked at so far in combination with the COF of copper/grease interface, and also the fact that only a small handful of humans are required to raise hundreds of tons of stone renders your model too strong to ignore, and it warrants further consideration.
As far as I recall, you seemed to accept the 3rd millennium BC as a default setting but never totally embraced it to the point of arguing against the possibility of an earlier provenance. I hope you continue to keep an open mind on that front.
Meanwhile, even though I think the funicular technology is compelling, I do not think it's necessary to limit the materials and technology to what we know was available to the 3rd millennium BC. And so for example, when I view your models, I also consider how it might be implimented today, such as railroad funiculars, elevator counterweights, etc. In other words, I don't limit it to wood and rope since we don't know who built those things, or why they built them, and so we don't know what technology they had access to that has since been forgotten. And the evidence that all those ancient structures are merely the bones that remain after millennium of picking them clean by locals and bounty hunters makes reverse engineering exceptionally problematic.
Now that you're satisifed that you know Sketchup, I hope that's not the end of you posting updates to your funicular model here. Your models don't need to be complete; they serve an important purpose by just provoking the imagination into considering other possibilities, and that is exactly what we need a lot more of these days.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10-Jan-17 15:39 by Origyptian.