> Manu Wrote:
> > Let me ask you something: Are you more
> > in the truth or that your theory will be proven
> > right?
> When I started I ONLY wanted to know how the
> pyramids were built.
> Since I started I have gained a great deal of
> interest in the builders of the pyramids. These
> people were so remarkable and so different than
> us. We could learn a lot from them about love,
> understanding, and science. We could learn to see
> things from their highly fluid perspective.
> The people are more interesting than even their
> understanding and how they made it manifest.
> > You have made this into a cult with slogans.
> > is not how you stay objective. It actually
> > prevents you from accepting new evidence.
> New evidence but the same old thinking. Nothing
> has changed since the 1882. We are locked into a
> single reality that isn't going to change despite
> anyone's effort because there is NEVER GOING TO BE
> ANY EVIDENCE that can't be interpreted in terms of
> our assumptions. There's really no substantial
> difference between the debate about the existence
> of ancient superstition and the existence of God.
> We each pick the evidence we consider
> determininative and brush aside all else.
> Slogans are irrelevant. What is relevant is that
> we all see the world in terms of our expectations.
> It makes perfect sense to people that
> superstition provides the willingness and ability
> to do anything because that's the way we see
> reality. In a sense it's even true. We can each
> and collectively achieve virtually anything we set
> our minds to. So we assume ancient people were
> just like us.
> > The Khufu quarry was to the south. The only
> > option was to go to the nearest wide open space
> > and that was the west side where now is the
> > Field. South + West = Southwest.
> I'm not sure what you mean. Please rephrase and
> > This again is the cult you made for yourself.
> > 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.
> > is the very same problem you accuse
> > "Egyptologists", your Boogeymen, of.
> So I say you could be right and you respond with
> Let me elaborate. I believe it is nearly as
> likely that aliens built the pyramid as it is that
> superstitious bumpkins dragged them up ramps.
> There is about a 2% chance that the evidence could
> have been left as it is and ramps were used. Even
> that they used magic and caused the stones to grow
> wings is no more than about 2% less likely than
> they used ramps.
> The evidence CLEARLY shows stones were pulled
> straight up the sides of five step pyramidfs one
> step at a time. There is an 85% probability that
> the ramps they used were at 70 degrees and the
> only other major possibility is the ramps were 52
> Egyptologists are whistling past the graveyard of
> at least one FAILED ASSUMPTION. They did not use
> an illogical and inefficient means to build these.
> > That is finally the right question to ask.
> > The answer appears to involve a combination of
> > ramps and another method and that method may
> > depended on the size of the stones which tends
> > decrease as you go up....see Petrie's data
> > shows gradually diminishing waves of course
> > thickness
> "Gradually diminishing" means "regular". There was
> no significant chang at any point going up.
> If they used ANY ramps toward the top then "ramps
> are still the meand to build pyramids. You've not
> answered or addrssed the question but merely
> reasserted ramps.
> > This is why someone should attempt
> > to calculate the number of stones in each
> > and their average weight based on some simple
> > assumptions and run a statistial analysis on
> > of assembly as a function of height.
> I have said this for years. I don't understand
> why they refuse to use any methods of modern
> science to study these structure. While
> statistics are a weak sister of science they are
> more closely related to science than "it looks
> > No they are not. Highly irregular and varying
> > waves. Come one Cladking. Did you look at
> > Plate 8?
> "Waves" is another term for "regular". A pendulum
> is always a pendulum no matter which way it
> > Ramps cannot explain the whole story, that much
> > 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
> > it. I even posted photos of it here. You never
> > took notice.
> It's "full of" ramp debris that has never been
> defined or measured. It is quite impossible to
> determine the slope of a ramp from the debris it
> generates or to determine if it was ever trad at
> all. Why wouldn't a funicular operate on ramps?
> How is it possible to even generate hypotheses
> about the nature of the actual ramps by "full of".
> Egyptology has never used science to address any
> of these issues. They made basic assumptions and
> NEVER SOUGHT TO FALSIFY THEM. It is THEIR
> methodology that is flawed.
> > They are testing as we speak. A full exterior
> > pyramid scan is one such project.
> One of these "projects" was completed at least
> three years ago. There are still no data
Cladking, you are trying to win an argument of words. Fine, I surrender. This isn't about words, this is about the actual evidence and how it fits into the overall model. If Egyptologists told us no ramps were used in the construction, frankly, I'd be way more concerned that you may be right about what you say about them. I stood inside of that ramp, Cladking. I touched the mortar. I walked on the Khufu quarry. I went down on my knees to pick up trash left by the tourists. That wasn't a natural ground, Cladking. It was man-made.
I really hope, one day you go to Egypt and see your theory unfold in front of the real thing.