Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Manu Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > No they are not. Highly irregular and varying
> > in
> > > waves. Come one Cladking. Did you look at
> > Petrie's
> > > Plate 8?
> >
> > Something discussed many times before:
> >
>
> Stone courses of the
> > Pyramid of Khufu (table)
>
> The Simple fact is that most of these arm chair
> theorists act as if the simple facts don't exist.

None are so blind as he who will not see.

An argument could actually be made that the stones above the 35th course are "different sized". A weaker argument can be made about the 360' mark. But when you take all Petrie's data for course thicknesses there is no point at which you can say there is a significant difference. People stand hundreds of feet below the top and say those stones are little.

There's no evidence the stones are little. When you get up close you can SEE THEY ARE BIG.



This is why Look and See Science fails. There are always optical illusions and we always see what we expect.

Show me the little stones at the top if you think you have anything.



Show me data or show me pictures. Show me anything just don't keep making the same irrelevant assertions. It doesn't matter how big the stones are because it's the EXACT SAME VOLUME ANYWAY.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-Mar-20 21:27 by cladking.