cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "What numbers do you need? I have all of that.
> > Cladking is only supporting my concept."
> >
> > Hans' point is blatantly obvious to anyone who
> has
> > been paying attention.
> >
> > Cladking is ONLY supporting your concept
> because
> > it supports his obsession about Ramps.
> >
> > In 15years he is yet to present his MATHS.
> >
> > If you are willing to overlook that just to
> count
> > his support.....
> >
> >
> > Isn't that special
>
> Your entire post is special.
>
> I support funiculars because I believe that is how
> they built the pyramids. I support Steve Clayton
> because I believe most of his outline is plausible
> and he's brought a lot to the discussion.
>
> I don't need support to destroy "ramps" because
> "ramps" was never any sort of theory and were
> never established in ANY way. Indeed, I have
> debunked ramps and the fact Egyptology won't admit
> their error in no way changes this equation. They
> assumed there were ramps and the assumption has
> proven to be untenable. The contention that only
> ramps could have been used is wholly disproven.
>
>
> I ignore the poster because he ignores every point
> I make and/ or can't understand.
>
> 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.

Hi Cladking,

I couldn't have said it any better. Yes, Ramps are unproven and fail any close scrutiny. They are only for those who have a low IQ, and are too lazy or unable to do the math.

Fairy Tales are more appealing than the truth.

Ramps. LOL