Author: Audrey wrote:
Date: January 13, 2017 01:03AM
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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).

It's possible, that the ruins found in the valley were a later adaption. This would mean that G1 was built dangerously close to the cliff, so close that hardly any allowance was made for a Nile flood. I find it hard to believe the builders would not have factored in possible flooding. What has bothered me is the abrupt end or disappearance of the causeway.

It looks like the pyramids were built before the Nile was 50' higher, and the rest of the causeway was then washed away by a higher Nile.

There is another possible explanation for the causeways.
The FIRST thing, the first necessity on a construction project is access. You're not going to build anything if you can't readily get to it. Access roads are the first thing to go in. Considering the amount of traffic on a pyramid site, with not only the laborers but also the supporting workers, and considering the pyramids are in a sea of sand, it would not be desirable to have personnel trudging through sand to get to work. It would be efficient to lessen the travel time by avoiding the sand. Also, you would not want to drag all the supplies through sand. All the food, sandals, tools, mortar mix, baskets/buckets, anything you can think of would be transported daily to the site.

The causeways may have been roads. I'm not seeing any other signs of access roads.



Hi Audrey.

Well presented. Why does the causeway end where it does. Erosion, a higher Nile at the true time of construction? Did the causeway bend, or was it straight? If it did bend, where is the evidence? Just finding an area with a basalt floor, is not reasonable to conclude Kufu's shoreline Temple was there, and therefore we need to bend the causeway. That area found could have been something else. It's positioned, as the land makes a turn.

It could have been part of Kufu's Harbor.




The dates above are 3 months before discovery of the Causeway at El Haraneya. 9/14/2014 Lower right hand corner.



Here is the picture. Notice the location and where it would be if you were looking back at G1. Now look at this news release, and look at where the man is on his roof looking back. We determined, they are one in the same. How could that have been predicted, if the 4.6 angle was not accurate, as that was the angle used.

[www.ancient-origins.net]


[grahamhancock.com]

They have never released where the location was, though I, Dune, Cladking, Jon Ellison, Origyptian, and Eyeofhorus33, Graham Chase, (to name a few) were able to locate it.

I have never felt the area below Kufu's hillside, should be built on.



[grahamhancock.com]
[grahamhancock.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 13-Jan-17 17:42 by Steve Clayton.