M. J. Thomas Wrote:

> > > Hello Romulus the 2nd,
> > >
> > > Why are you ignoring the cold, hard fact that
> > the
> > > King's Chamber is not and never has been
> > > watertight?
> > >
> > > Robin (MJT)
> >
> > How do you know that it's never been
> watertight?
> > How about 'symbolically' watertight?
> > How about it flows in and then drains out
> again?
>
> See modern photos of excavation/s under north end
> of sarcophagus and area between sarcophagus and
> Chamber's north wall.
> Add in gap between raised floor and base of walls,
> and irregular and rough limestone core blocks
> under granite floor slabs.
>
> Robin (MJT

How can a 'modern photo' determine that it has never been watertight?
As in your "cold hard fact" above.
How can a modern photo be evidence of the possible ancient condition of the chamber?
A "cold hard fact"??
There's nothing hard or factual about it at all.
It's a photo of the present internal condition of the chamber.
Does a photo of the exterior condition of the pyramid provide a "cold hard fact" that a casing was never applied?

I'm not claiming that the chamber was ever watertight.
We just don't know.
No "cold hard facts".

Could it be possible that water entered the chamber as outlined by Romulus, and subsequently drained at the same rate?
As part of a process, even a symbolic process?
Does a modern ornamental fountain eventually flood an entire city?

The Titanic in it's present condition can be said to be suffering from a degree of lack of watertight integrity.
However it can be argued that for an albeit short period of time, it was perfectly watertight.
Therefore at some point, one state of affairs changed into another.

Could it be possible that unknown original equipment has been removed and what we see today is a bare stripped out shell?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 15-Aug-17 20:43 by Jon Ellison.