Hi Anthony,



> > I was under the impression, that there arw
> those
> > who do understand the construction and yet
> look
> > rather favourably on Houdin's theory.
>
>
> They are very culturally oriented. There aren't
> many who really delve heavily into the physical
> aspects. I'll bet Dieter Arnold would tear the
> internal ramps apart. If not, then I'd be very,
> very disappointed and shocked.


My above posting was somewhat modified and I'd like to re-frase my question: don't you think Stadelman is familiar BOTH with the cultural aspects of the pyramid as well as the pure constructional (is that a word?) aspects of it? As far as Brier goes.... well, I don't give hoot about what he says!
As for Arnold, Isler and Lehner, who's words I'd personally most rely on this, I guess we'll just have to wait. They are (or seem) awfully quiet, though....




>
> I see where Dr. Peter Brand (who is in Egypt right
> now) has walloped Houdin a good one in his recent
> EEF posting. Granted, he's in favor of either the
> spiral or the zig-zag ramp theories in general,
> but he minced no words when it came to the logical
> destruction of Houdin's hypothesis.



And since then he has been countered on EEF. And since then Magli has also stepped in the discussion giving his view of the new theory, which turned out to be negative. What I'd like to point out, though, is that all these are the first reactions and may be based on the short version of the theory. I believe I read somewhere that it took J-P four hours to explain the whole theory with it's details. There may be something convincing in those details....



> > They know ancient
> > Egypt and they (or at least Stadelman) know
> the
> > GP, and yet they are favourably interested
> in
> > Houdin's work.
>
> I think they're interested in it. I don't see a
> lot of definitive "he's got it, by George!"
> statements coming out of either of them. Even
> Brier's article in Archaeology has major caveats.
> One is the title itself "How to Build A
> Pyramid"... not "How Khufu's Pyramid was Built".
> The other comes after his reference to the
> straight or spiral ramp theories:
>
Quote:Modern scholars have favored these two
> original theories, but deep in their hearts, they
> know that neither one is correct. A radical new
> one, however, may provide the solution. If
> correct, it would demonstrate a level of planning
> by Egyptian architects and engineers far greater
> than anything ever imagined before.
>
> "If correct" it "may provide".... Writing about
> it, and endorsing it, are two very different
> things.


Of course writing about it and endorsing it are two different things. However, it seems that Stadleman is favourable to the idea (with a couple of, so far, non-named Egyptologists closely linked to the pyramids). It seems to me, that they have found some merit in Houdin's theory and are willing to take a closer look and consider it. Instead of debunking it right off. Which I find very, very refreshing and knowing the ususal procedure inside the Egyptological establishment.... very intriguing!




> Yes... those two. I think we're talking about the
> same two...
>
> Of course, one of "those two" also said the
> pyramid of Khufu was made of only 750,000 blocks.
> Simple math says that means the average block
> weighed 7 tons or more. After the first course,
> there isn't a single block that big in the entire
> visible core masonry of the entire pyramid. Take
> it for what it's worth...


I believe Houdin's work was started by his father and only now has Jean-Pierre been able to publish it in the format we see today. What if the count of 750.000 blocks is based on the empty spaces created by the tunnels in the pyramid? What if, after all, the "big guys of the plateau" do know something you don't?




Ritva