Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > This is yet another example that supports the
> > notion of a pre-dynastic provenance. I think
> > Steve's model has merit in that the tools and
> > methods are plausible and there is physical
> > evidence in the causways (size, shape,
> > termination, and incline angle), but the timing is
> > off. I'd feel a lot better about this model if it
> > was placed well before the Dynastic era, early
> > enough for any trace of those tools to be
> > absorbed/resorbed and early enough to allow for
> > technological amnesia before the Dynastics arrived
> > at the scene.
>
> The only reason for my conversation with Steve was
> to show that it is extremely easy to fill in the
> evidence gaps with imagination. As Egyptologists
> do. Or, it is equally easy to ignore the gaps and
> construct plausibility based on status quo.
>
> What is plausible to you, (basically what is
> within your reality threshold), is not realistic
> to others with different plausible boundaries.
> This is difficult to describe; the tools and
> methods Steve uses may fit within his and yours
> realistic threshold, but the tools and methods Von
> Daniken uses may not. This seems to be at the core
> of hostilities here, when insults are thrown and
> someone is called stupid crazy. Because one
> possibility is not within the boundaries of another.
>
> Now I could fill in many gaps with my imagination,
> but mine would not include ropes and wood. CK has
> been all but crucified for his tools and methods
> as they do not fit within the reality of most
> here. If we are going to fill the gaps with
> creative possibilities, then I say we should pull
> all stops and go full board. Bring in Von Daniken
> and ETs, why should we be limited to 'simple'
> evidence replacements.
>
> Personally I do not consider ropes and wood,
> primitive (simple) machines to be plausible
> because they are incongruent with the
> sophistication of the buildings. It's like saying
> a finely cut diamond was made with simple flint
> stone tools. "Simple" is the new primitive.
> "Simple" is politically correct. 4th dyn Egyptians
> were not superstitious bumpkins, they were
> "simple". However, the great pyramids are not.

I totally agree with everything you said in that post, especially the part I bolded. Here's my take on Steve's model...

I defend my appreciation for Steve's model to the extent that within the main scope that he tried to cover (e.g., transit of stones from river to construction site), the tools and methods that he proposes are actually able to do what he says they did. He's not doing what Stocks and others did when they tried to convince us their proposed tools could actually do something they clearly weren't capable of doing. In the very least, Steve's model is far more plausible than Houdin's when you consider how their approach addresses the scope of their respective claims. And I think his model gives us a far more credible alternative to "20 thousand slaves hauling multi-ton blocks up ramps on wooden sleds".

On the other hand, sure, wood and rope become very problematic very quickly when considering other construction issues that are critical to the early pyramids, but Steve didn't really address those within the narrow scope of his model, and so his model for transporting stone hasn't hit those other hurdles yet. And as I said in my previous post, I look at Steve's model simply as a logical example of a "funicular system" and not specifically a "wood and rope" system. That is, we are free to consider the funicular counterweight system generically in that we can apply other materials for a similar result since we are not restricted to a 3rd millennium BC provenance; I form my own perspective of his model but I apply different "skin". Rope and wood is just a 'preferred embodiment', but it's not the only possibility. When you consider just the logic of the model as a "funicular system" (and not its physical manifestation), it suggests a practical purpose for the causeways and also renders meaning to the 4.6 degree incline we see on several of them. It's something that I think warrants further consideration. (btw, I think the segment of G1's so-called "causeway" in the valley may be the result of later adaption after the Nile level receded).

One thing driving my thinking about the pyramid construction is the energy source used by the builders to achieve such work. And I'm wondering how likely it is that they had access to energy as rich as our own fossil fuels today. If they didn't have an abundance of fossil fuel, how did they acquire the mechanical advantage to achieve all those projects, and how much time did their methods require to complete those projects? I think about what we would need to achieve today under those same conditions. In other words, how would we be able to build those pyramids today if we had never discovered electricity and fossil fuels in the abundance required to complete such an enormous scope of work?

Regarding the spectrum of feasibility and probability of each alternate paradigm, I think it's a matter of establishing priorities based on the physical evidence and logical contradictions rather than being strictly manichaean about it. I actually do consider aliens to be a possibility, although not a high probability. I think rather than invoking ETs, there's a better chance that megalithic construction may have occurred far enough in the past to have been another intelligent terrestrial species (e.g., of hominid) that hit a dead end. The point is that we simply don't know with any real certainty. And a recent discussion revealed that all too well when we probed the problematic nature of establishing provenance.

I think it's ok to fill in the voids with imagination when pursuing a hypothesis as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that the imagination has crystallized into fact in lieu of solid evidence. But I think it's even more important to spot the contradictions in a given paradigm. That's because "imagination" is like Schrodinger's Cat in that it might or might not be true, but at least it's a possibility. But a contradiction throws a barrier to "possibility" and therefore must be reconciled before such "possibility" can stand.