Ritva Kurittu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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?


Not if he thinks Houdin's idea has merit.


> As
> far as Brier goes.... well, I don't give hoot
> about what he says!



I personally like his quote about ramps.


> 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....



Isler? He's a sculptor from Manhattan who wrote a book in the 90's on pyramid construction, to which Dieter Arnold wrote the forward. I think you must have mistyped.

And, as far as Arnold and Lehner go... we'll wait and see. If they miss the obvious errors in Houdin's theory, then I'll have to review my assessment of their expertise.



>
>

>
>
>
> And since then he has been countered on EEF.


Not in any substantive way.


> And
> since then Magli has also stepped in the
> discussion giving his view of the new theory,
> which turned out to be negative.


Giulio and I have very different conclusions, but he sees many of the same flaws as quickly as I do in many theories, so I have to give him credit for that. Especially since he sees them in Italian and then writes them in English.

If we could only get the Germans to do that...


> 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.

Short version or long version, a flaw is a flaw. He predicts tunnels that have no evidence anywhere in Egyptian history. Those of us who have climbed over the pyramids. He claims uses for the Grand Gallery that ignore the cultural context and historical precedents for the structure. These are serious flaws that fancy computer graphics will never fix.


> 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....


Yes, but we all know how slow his graphics are to download....lol.




>

> 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).

All we really know is that Stadelman has one quote, taken out of context, that looks good. WE know he has agreed to have his group's name put on the petition for further investigation of the pyramid.

He's going to end up with egg on his face, in all honesty, and I hope it doesn't damage his reputation too much to be seen as an endorser of this idea.


> 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.

Well, they know that ramps are flawed and if something can salvage them without having to create an environment whereby all Egyptologists must honestly throw up their hands and honestly say, "We really don't know how they built the pyramids", they're probably willing to accept it as an "advancement" of ramp theory.

In other words, before anybody can offer a new idea, they must now demonstrate why THREE ramp theories are wrong: Straight, Spiral and Tunnel. Those who want to explain the reality of pyramid construction have now had their work made harder, unfortunately.




> Instead of debunking it right off. Which I find
> very, very refreshing and knowing the ususal
> procedure inside the Egyptological
> establishment.... very intriguing!
>


Frankly, I find it almost an act of desperation. Ramps are dead, they all know it, so this is their last, best hope for resurection.



>
> 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.


Something like that.


> What if the count
> of 750.000 blocks is based on the empty spaces
> created by the tunnels in the pyramid?

Goodness gracious. The tunnels would have to take up 4/5ths of the entire mass of the pyramid. It would never have survived the first earthquake... let alone the first blast of Vyse's TNT!

Also, the beautiful archaic "x-ray" of the pyramid provided by Al-Mamun tells us the blocks are the same size through to the center. Anybody who knows the pyramid would have been aware of this serious flaw in a heartbeat. Yet a "prominent Egyptologist" came out with it as a matter of factual statement a few years back.

Houdin's idea will blow over soon ... but the other unfortunate aftershock is that these aforementioned Egyptologists will be that much more reluctant to endorse any new ideas that come down the pike... even if the new idea is demonstrated to be conclusively correct. That's Houdin's real legacy here.


> What if,
> after all, the "big guys of the plateau" do know
> something you don't?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ritva




Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.