Anthony Wrote:

> Indeed, this is not the only reason, either, for
> the absence of evidence for ramps at Giza. What
> you've created here is a false dichotomy: "Ramps
> or Hydraulics". Certainly not the case at all.

No. I've said they didn't use ramps and that it would be essentially
impossible to have levered them up the side at a sufficient rate to
finish the task. Hence what's needed is a theory consistent with both
the facts and ancient technology.


> The universe is full of possibilities. Good
> theory, however, is built on probabilities. The
> hydraulic methods for pyramid construction lack
> any evidence whatsoever to support them.

This is not true. There are numerous natural fissures and caves. There
are the grooves on the side of the pyramid. There are reports that stones
were moved up to the pyramid a bowshot at a time and they were built with
great machines. There is "foreign" sand found around the queen's chamber.
There's the fact that great causeways were built down to the river and the
interesting fact that Menkaure's causeway was built only so far as Khufu's
quarry. There are the boats and the fact that the pyramid crews were named
after the parts of a boat. There's the fact that the overseer of the bathes
was so important that he warranted a mastaba at Giza. There's extensive wat-
er erosion on the Sphinx enclosure. There's the fact that years were named
after a unit of lenght with no other plausible theory of its meaning. There's
the ancient reports of salt encrustation in the queens chamber.


> Pure speculation. Where is the evidence that any
> of this ever occurred at Giza?

> "May have", "could have" and "might have" are not
> the proper foundations for a good historical
> theory. "The evidence shows THIS:" is the way to
> begin a good theory.

You're wrong. Good theories start with good hypotheses. From here
tests and experiments are designed and evidence is gathered. Whether
or not this is a good hypothesis is a matter of opinion even if inform-
ed opinion might be against it. Once it's tested then it becomes a mat-
ter much more of fact than opinion.

> But with the absence of evidence for said event,
> the probability of this having occurred at Giza is
> nearly zero.

The absence of evidence in this case has little bearing since almost
no evidence would survive.

> The pyramids were built during the timeframe you
> refer to as "recorded history". There is no
> mention of such an event in the historical record
> of Egypt.

The eruptions might have occurred centuries earlier.

It is really impossible that we have been misinterpreting the religious
beliefs of these people? Isn't an interpretation that "the horizon" re-
fers to Giza and other areas outside the Nile Valley plausible?

> I fail to see where your hypothesis stands on any
> grounds.
>
> Anthony


Again the basis of the theory is simply that the pyramids are orders of
magnitude greater than primitive people should be able to achieve with the
simple tools which have usually been ascribed to them. Other such structures
in other places have also been found to have underground water supplies.

I just can't believe counter-weights are such a preposterous idea. This would
seem to follow pretty naturally from the invention of a rope.




____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.