> Why do you chop out the rest of that sentence
> which says:
> ...and also bring you to the floor of the QC
> and its passage which was most certainly the
> beginning of a change in work flow and
Because you are imagining a change that doesn't exist and is irrelevant to how they raised stones at any level at all. You crop out much of everything I say and then chide me for cropping an irrelevancy that isn't even true.
I have my own opinion about this change you perceive and it isn't relevant to the discussion either. So I chopped out part of your sentence and responded to what was relevant.
> You are arguing over nothing. Bring these blocks
> by ramp to this point and use other methods to
> install them.
And I still don't care how the bottom stones were lifted.
I care how the hard ones above 80' were lifted.
> At Meidum, as I argue, its "function" is as a
> structure unto itself and was not originally
> intended to be a pyrmaid.
I seriously doubt this for reasons already stated.
How do you suppose it was possible to incorporate this tower you see into the masonry of the surrounding steps if they weren't built simultaneously?
What are the rough regions if not where the tower core was attached to "external" masonry?
I will never ceased to be amazed at peoples ability to see only what they believe and then to not recognize they are doing it.
Look and See Science will always fail and this is why even in this day and age we still don't know how pyramids were built. Everyone thinks that with enough education and a degree in Egyptology you can just look and see how they were built and what the Egyptians were thinking. No amount of expertise will ever allow anyone to just look and see. "Looking" and "seeing" are different in nature. We engage only our eyes when we look and only our brains when we "see".
> They used ramps but most get it at some
> point at a certain height this model breaks down
> and other solutions are required so just stop with
> the nonsense for once. You are arguing with
"Ramps" are nonsensical twaddle that lack any sort of substantiation. So how can you write the above without agreeing with me? Isn't it logical to assume that any means used to lift stones above 80' which you agree they mustta had could have been adapted to lift stones at lower altitude? Why would they struggle on 80' ramps if they had a viable means to lift stones at 81'?