> Manu Wrote:
> > Steve, the word for ramp is st3 which is three
> > coiled ropes. This word is also used for
> > Cladking is ill-informed.
> I would really appreciate more information on
Cladking, I had spent a lot of time putting that together for you last time and it looks you simply brushed over it. Not gonna do it again. It is in the Pyramid Texts
> What is the inscription? Even if Lehner's highly
> dubious translation is exactly correct Why can't
> "entrance to the haul" refer to the operation of
> Steve Clayton's funicular?
I gave you the reference and it is obvious you did not look it up. This isn't Lehner talking this is Lehner citing Edwards.
> I still don't don't see any ramps and don't
> understand why so many do.
I stood inside of that ramp you genius.
Remnants of its extension have been excavated in the SW corner of the Great Pyramid. This is the physical evidence you don't want to acknowledge because it does not fit your theory. You are not the only one who comes here who does that. This happens when you marry your theory.
> > Clearly ramps were used up to a certain course
> > level. The archaeological evidence is solid.
> > you can see a ramp out of the quarry so
> > stones were dragged up on it.
> It is apparent and very well evidenced the pyramid
> was constructed largely from the east side at low
> level. It appears that stones were pulled
> directly out of the quarry directly toward point
> 20' north and 10' east of the NW corner. There is
> no evidence teams of men dragged them up this
> straight line. Almost all of the stone was taken
> to the pyramid toward this point, toward a point
> 100' east of it, or toward the masons shop on the
> east side. This is how they built the pyramid but
> there were no teams of draggers and no evidence of
This is simply false. The quarry ramp extends all the way to the SW corner and I posted the evidence for it. If you brush over these things you will not be able to modify your model of how this was done.
Let me ask you something: Are you more interested in the truth or that your theory will be proven right?
> The existence of a "ramp" neither cause nor
> reflects "stinky feet".
You have made this into a cult with slogans. This is not how you stay objective. It actually prevents you from accepting new evidence.
> Why would they drag stones toward three points
> (four eventually) unless there was something at
> these points that caused the stones to move or
> were the location of the next process that moved
> them? Why would they drag stones to points that
> aren't even on the pyramid and couldn't "possibly"
> be associated with lifting them higher?
The Khufu quarry was to the south. The only viable option was to go to the nearest wide open space and that was the west side where now is the West Field. South + West = Southwest.
> I would grant that all of these "ramps" could have
> been operated "manually" by superstitious people
This again is the cult you made for yourself. You have created a stereotypical response to the concept of ramps and dragging and that mental trigger does not allow you to evaluate evidence objectively. This is a huge problem Cladking. This is the very same problem you accuse "Egyptologists", your Boogeymen, of.
> but we are still left with a simple problem; how
> did they lift the hard stones at the top.
That is finally the right question to ask.
The answer appears to involve a combination of ramps and another method and that method may have depended on the size of the stones which tends to decrease as you go up....see Petrie's data which shows gradually diminishing waves of course thickness
> Obviously the lower stones were all "easy" to drag
> right up on tiny little ramps. Sure thousands of
> men would live and die on them but that was their
> problem and we believe life is cheap. But those
> stones at the top were not easy and we are left
> with no means to lift them.
The Red Pyramid construction timing computed by Rolf Krauss supports your statement. The bottom was much faster to assemble than the top. This is a clue as to the method used. Even though smaller blocks might have been used, there were more of them, perhaps? This is why someone should attempt to calculate the number of stones in each course and their average weight based on some simple assumptions and run a statistial analysis on rates of assembly as a function of height. That may reveal and as of yet unappreciated clue as to the method used.
AND I would remind
> you that course thicknesses are regular and show
> that there was no significant change in any
> methods from quarrying to lifting, to placement.
No they are not. Highly irregular and varying in waves. Come one Cladking. Did you look at Petrie's Plate 8?
> Even if you could show that stones were dragged up
> by teams it still leaves a pyramid with no top.
Ramps cannot explain the whole story, that much is clear. But they played a part. This is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Khufu quarry is full of ramp debris. You can see a ramp coming ouf it. I even posted photos of it here. You never took notice.
> Egyptologists simply ignore all of this and
> prevent scientists from doing even the simplest
> testing. The attitude is that we already know
> they could only have used ramps and we need no
> testing. They have dragged their belief up the
> most monstrous construct ever devised by man and
> now they realize they designed no means to get
> back down. Egyptians don't live and die on ramps,
> Egyptologists did.
They are testing as we speak. A full exterior pyramid scan is one such project.