> SC: Clincher? Fantasy land again. “Cemented in place”? What
> cement then did the ancient Egyptians use 2,500 years before
> the Romans invented it? Is that the same cement that they used
> to create their limestone blocks as proposed by Joseph
> Davidovitts? Or is it perhaps some modern Portland cement? Have
> you had this “cement” analysed?
> SC: So do tell – what is this “cement” of yours that “cemented
> in place” the Granite Leaf? Is it some cement the ancient
> Egyptians used that we are hitherto unaware of or is it more
> likely to be the ‘modern’ Portland Cement used by Waynman Dixon
> on the Granite Leaf some 11 years before Petrie made his own
> observation? What do you think more likely?
Only some seem unaware of it.
> If the Granite Leaf was intended to be immovable then it would
> have been inserted as a single granite slab and not one on top
> of the other.
Assumption only. Good one but still an assumption trying to be passed as fact.
>The fact that the upper slab – the Granite Leaf –
> has a raised boss and rebates at each side is a strong
> indicator that the upper slab was intended to be levered
> upwards in a manner probably not too dissimilar to this:
Agreed. Doesn't mean it was raised at all or even for the reason you think. But either way is cool with me as long as they remain what they truthfully are....indicator/assumption and not evidenced facts.
> SC: Ah, so we’ve now gone from cement to plaster – plaster in
> the grooves. Such mortar was used as a lubricant to assist in
> the reduction of friction of a moving (stone) object – you
> should know that.
Plastered(action) is not the same as plaster(object).
MJT: The Boss on the north face of the Leaf's upper
> section projects only 0.94" to 1.1", and its edges slope
> slightly outward from front to back, and is, therefore, clearly
> inadequate as a point at which to place the upper end of a prop
> (note: Similar bosses exist in other parts of the Antechamber
> and inside the King’s Chamber).
Would like to see any info(real tested not assumed/guesstimated) on how much the palm wood's(most prevalent I believe) density allowed it to withstand before rupture/splintering/breaking.
Is a 1 inch section enough to hold the weight of the top half of the leaf without failing while the other directional stresses on the board from the leaf and the lever below it?
> SC: As stated above – boss’s were used as leverage and anchor
> points to move/raise stone. If anything this shows that the
> boss has become worn through extensive use.
How far out does the "boss" protrudes on this picture?*(editted out pic instead of diagram, oops!)*
It looks deeper then 1 inch, just curious. Also the diagrams with ropes are not having the full weight on the ropes at the boss juncture while dragging. That should only be possible with the block off the ground. So the boss would act more as a stop for rope slippage. Ropes sliding back and forth could account for the wear as well.
MJT: There is only a 20" gap between the north wall of
> the Antechamber and the north face of the Leaf.
> SC: Enough of a gap for a man to climb up and over the top
> whereupon the portcullis system would be fully at his mercy.
But is it enough room to lever up the leaf as high as your idea warrants/indicates in the diagrams animated drawings? How long of a beam could be used to fit under the boss, but still sit on your lever and still function with the narrow distance? Once raised to maximum height allowed by the beam and lever application what next? I do not think the 20 inch distance and short length of the beam would allow much height being achieved for the leaf. Is it 10 inches, 40 inches, somewhere inbetween?
When fully raised the upper section of the Leaf would be
> free of its grooves and unstable - no explanation is offered as
> to how this would have been controlled adequately.
> SC: Releasing the Granite Leaf from its grooves would probably
> be required from time to time in order to remove the build up
> of the mortar lubricant that had dried. Easily done with a
> copper chisel.
First, assumption for the "lubricant. But how would they maintain the leaf in a stable position completely out of the grooves. That's a heavy piece of rock in a narrow area. Standing in your tub holding a small Porsche above your head on it's nose without it falling over comes to mind.
MJT: The grooves above the varied-in-level top of the
> Leaf are well-finished and clear of any signs of wear and have
> no traces of plaster or cement – this implies strongly that the
> Leaf was not raised once it was in place.
> SC: So how do you think the wear came about below this level?
> The Granite Leaf does not have to go all the way to the ceiling
> to function.
True but to gain maximum use from it the leaf would need to go as high as allowed by the grooves and still stay stable(falling forward or backwards within the Ante chamber). All that work to get the leaf 1 inch up to drop back down to move one of the other slabs 1-2 inches is a lesson in patience most would give up on quickly when, as you have stated they could crawl over it to the last stone.
MJT: There are no semi-circular hollows in the top of
> the east wainscot.
> SC: Because they were obviously not required.
for what reason/application are they not required?
MJT: If the east end of the logs were cut and put into
> place as suggested (see most recent images posted), then the
> logs would drop in level W-E by about half the radius of the
> semi-circular hollows at about 4.4” over a distance of about
> SC: There are all manner of possibilities that do not require
> semi-hollows in the east wainscot. Here’s another:
> And I am sure many other possibilities could be imagined.
Yes and another hollow cut is one of them. You want round logs to stay put you either block their travel by limiters on either side or cut recesses for the log at both ends NOT one end only.
The log would quickly, and dangerously, start moving once any ropes were tensioned, pulled on as the angle away from the vertical axis below it.
Tie a rope to the slab below it and run the rope up, over and back down the other side and pull straight down. You may get away with minimum slippage being careful.
Run that rope up, over the log above then angled towards the leaf and that log will be pulled down and over towards the leaf as tension is applied. The end in the hollow would pull against and downwards within the hollow carved into the wall and slide along the top of the other wall.
Carving it to a square would help but not eliminate the slippage by itself and as for taking a 9 inch log and cutting half of it away at one end to lay flat on the non-hollowed wall just cut your lifting ability of that log by over half do to the thinner diameter(semi-diameter) plus the increased likelyhood of the log splitting along the length of the log down the same axis of the flat part of the log laying on the non-hollowed wall.
> But yes, it’s a puzzle why the builders simply did not place
> semi-hollows in the east wainscot as, on the surface, this
> would seem the simplest thing to have done. But they didn't and
> there has to be a practical/logical reason why they did not.
> However, having semi-hollows on both sides of the chamber might
> result in the beams rotating – even if tightly jammed in - and
> this might be what the builders were trying to avoid.
Why? Logs set into hollows on both walls with that "lubricant" you were talking about above would lessen the work.
> The above indicates that it would not have done so.[/quote]
> SC: The above indicates nothing of the sort.
Actually it does. Something is missing somewhere. What? I don't know and have no burning need/urge to stuff any old possbility in there just to be the one to fill the gap.
> SC: Why secure the chamber any more than is necessary? They are
> not trying to prevent entry, merely restrict airflow. The
> Portcullis system was already there serving its primary
> function (probably as a counter-weight system) so it could be
> utilised to adequately seal the chamber (from air) without
> recourse to anything else. And that is what was done. And
> having sealed the chamber (from air) in this manner, allowed
> easy access to it later which is consistent with the RVT but is
> entirely contradictory with the tomb theory.
Really? You need to lever, strain, repeatedly to raise the slabs. Repeatedly! OR drag a single block out of the doorway by ropes and that "lubricant" on the floor and all the people you want out in the grand gallery.
One is clearly easier regardless of what MAY have already been there.
> SC: And I hope my rebuttal shows that you are somewhat
> over-stating your case.
Not really but if so it is by a far less amount then the process used to move the leaf and 3 slabs.
Also, there was, not sure on here or HoM, a discussion of the Ante Chamber and the leaf being used to hold ropes between the upper and lower halfs of the "Leaf" in tension with the slabs suspsended with the ropes as the chocks were removed from under them to lower the slabs in place.
I thinking that is where I was asking why a rotating drum basically wedged in the lower entry, where you have the fulcrum on your lever, not work to allow a larger number of workers to control the weights of the slabs? The leaf was spoken about as a brake/lock for the ropes at any point along the travel.
Just a thought.