They would need a port in order to transfer them to a barge to be transshipped to the G1 port. OK, so maybe the G2 port was already in existence or there was a Sphinx Port. No problem. But how many stones could be staged at this small area? In order to store a substantial number you'd need to stack them and then you'd need a means to stack and unstack them. There could be no substantial number but even if there were some means to store lots of stones what would be the point? They always had sufficient production from the local quarry to satisfy the needs of the those lifting and placing the stones as proven by the existence of the visible horizontal lines. The only thing that can cause these lines other than the faces having the same angle to the light source is that they are the same texture and color, ie- they came sequentially from the quarry.



If stones were placed haphazardly from how they came out of the quarry you wouldn't see such lines. At least most of them were installed sequentially. This argues against any significant stockpiling of backing stones. And notice as well that this applies to all five steps which are almost visible in close-ups;



I'd certainly agree there's some chance some stockpiling could have occurred early on since they would go on quickly at first when little lifting was necessary. The quarry could be overwhelmed at the very beginning and these stones could be deep inside. But again there was no place to stockpile so it would be more logical to simply have more quarry workers at the beginning rather than trying to save up a few weeks of production.

It's easy enough to take the stones downhill to be loaded on boats and then it was easy enough to load them and haul them to the valley port. It was easy enough to unload them at the valley port. But now they have TO BE LIFTED HIGHER THAN EVER. Instead of 50' up to the pyramid it's 225' up to the pyramid. It's four times as much work not counting the easy work of moving them, loading them, floating them, and unloading them. There's no point to all this extra work that must amount to at least 5 times as much work. Even if water did all the work it still required men to hook up and and operate the equipment. It required men to build the extra equipment and to maintain it after doing all that extra work. It required additional men and additional supplies.

If there's a point to it, I sure can't see it. It's the wasteful use of human effort that brought many of us to challenge doctrine. It's the inefficiency and roundabout nature of ramps that make so many engineers doubt they were used. So why insert inefficiency where it's not necessary?

There IS ACTUALLY A "RAMP" that goes from the quarry straight toward the cliff face and intersecting the causeway. Why propose an extra port, extra steps, and extra work when the evidence shows a simpler, easier, and more direct route? Why not adjust the theory to fit the facts rather than picking the facts that can support the theory? Of course we all do the latter preferentially to the former but logic and a perfectly good ramp in exactly the right position to fit the rest of your theory really could trump your current working model.




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27-Mar-20 00:20 by cladking.