> Your entire post is special.
Unfortunately your aren't with 14+ years of avoidance of facts. You are attempt to maintain ideas that don't work and are simply silly,
> I support funiculars because I believe that is how
> they built the pyramids. I support Steve Clayton
> because I believe most of his outline i s plausible
> and he's brought a lot to the discussion.
If the AE used a counter-weight then we should be able to ascertain whether that is an engineering possibility your ideas were NOT possible. A sand 'powered' counter-weight is possible a geyser one...nope.
> I don't need support to destroy "ramps" because
> "ramps" was never any sort of theory and were
> never established in ANY way.
Sure they were we have lots of evidence for ramps existing - your personal opinion on the matter doesn't make that evidence disappear. Now HOW and where they were used is not known. However there is zero evidence for your funny funicular idea powered by magical geysers. Ramps are theory Geysers are a fantasy.
Indeed, I have
> debunked ramps and the fact Egyptology won't admit
> their error in no way changes this equation.
Sorry Cladking - pure delusion on your part. No one care what you think you have done.
> assumed there were ramps and the assumption has
> proven to be untenable. The contention that only
> ramps could have been used is wholly disproven.
Ramp use was and is a theory - you've done nothing to that theory at all other than scream a great deal and built a sad reputation.
> I ignore the poster because he ignores every point
> I make and/ or can't understand.
No Cladking you ignore me because I have evidence that you lie incessantly, don't know what your are talking about and when experiments were done that clearly show you are wrong you refused to admit it - even though YOU were the person who decided how the experiments would work. Your reaction is childish and as long as I'm force to respond to you I will keep pointing out your actions.
I only engage you here because you are bothering people on other forums that I also post on. As long as you do so I will engage you here. When you stop that I won't.
> The math to operate a teeter totter is too simple
> to bother to publish. If weight A is greater than
> weight B it goes down. If less than B it goes up.
> Thousands of generations of children have
> mastered the concept of a teeter totter even
> before they can add and subtract. If you don't
> understand how a funicular works you are not the
> audience I'm trying to reach.
Your idea is debunked - which is why you won't waste your time on the maths. You've always known that your ideas were crap which is why you've never bothered with research or data and certainly no publishing them.
We understand that. All you are doing now is jumping around screaming you are right.
We are just laughing at you
Now please leave Steve alone to do his work - he might accomplish something you couldn't - provide evidence of a viable system the AE could have used to build the pyramids