MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 1. The absence of semi-circular hollows at the top
> of the east wainscot


I think Dieter Arnold has suggested wooden chocks, or stone chocks, that took the place of the carefully carved chocks on the west side. These may have been left out to keep the logs easier to maneuver in such a tight area, and then put in afterwards to keep them properly spaced.



> 2. The levels to which the pilasters have been
> chipped away, top and bottom


Yes, what those pesky tomb robbers won't do to get big blocks of granite out of the way.



> 3. The scooped effect of the bottom of the grooves
> in the south wall

You mean the way they shallow out before getting to the bottom? You can't think of any other explanation for why this might have done this?

I can.


> 4. The state of the top of the Granite Leaf


What about it? The entire granite leaf was fairly irregular, including the boss left on it. Have you actually compared this portcullis to other portcullis systems from the Old Kingdom? Or are you analyzing it in isolation?




> 5. The absence of portcullis fragments in the
> immediate area

Now that's just ridiculous. There's no sign of the lid of the sarcophagus, either..but it's quite clear it had one. The granite, when not being tossed down various passages for fun, was being broken up by tourists and robbers as souvenirs.

Let's talk about the portcullis stone found in the Descending Passage. Was it found above or below the split off of the Ascending Passage? Answer: below. That's because it was slid down the AP, dropped into the DP, and then pushed down there to get it out of the way of the REAL fun tourist site, the Grand Gallery and the two upper chambers.





> 6. That the Antechamber was initially shorter


Do you know this for a fact, or is it something you are asserting based on your mathematical calculations?



> 7. The Granite Leaf was a late introduction
>


Again, this sounds like your assertion based on your mathematical hypothesis, not based on the evidence we actually possess from the time and site in question.


>
> I wrote, ‘Of course, as we know the blocks were
> slid into the Passage from above, then it is
> glaringly obvious they were stored in the Grand
> Gallery.
>
> You comment, ‘Or on the floor of the Grand
> Gallery, leading into the QC.’
>
> As you like to get your facts right, please allow
> me to correct you here.
> What you describe as “the floor of the Grand
> Gallery, leading into the QC” is actually the
> floor of the Queen’s Chamber Passage.
> This is, however, a minor detail.

This is a question of semantics, not of accuracy.



> The main error with your statement is that because
> of their height and combined length the three
> granite blocks could not have been stored in the
> area you claim;

You're absolutely sure it could not have been done in any way. Are you so sure of that?


> they would have blocked off the
> end of the top of the Ascending passage

Only if they were allowed to.


> and
> blocked the opening to the Queen’s Chamber
> Passage.

Are you sure that mattered?





> You also failed to consider the ramp in the floor
> at the north end of the Gallery.


I failed to consider nothing. I failed to mention it, though.

Just for the record, I think the blocks were stored on a wooden ramp system that was built across the opening leading to the Queen's (2nd) Chamber. The cutouts in the walls on the east and west side of this area were probably intended to hold wooden supports that were part of this heavy-duty extension of the Gallery floor.



> If these blocks were stored in the Grand Gallery,
> then they would have been on the GG floor proper –
> more than 22 feet sloping from the north wall of
> the Gallery.
>

Which I've just explained above. The slots shown in this image:

[www.egyptarchive.co.uk]

Would have been perfectly adequate for the support framework of wood, the thickness of which would have supported granite blocks of the magnitude we see in this picture:

[www.egyptarchive.co.uk]






>
> I wrote, ‘Of course, we know that the Well Shaft
> was the escape route for the men who released the
> blocks down into the Ascending Passage.’
>
> You reply, ‘It is the logical conclusion’.
>
> No, Anthony, it is a logical conclusion based on a
> particular interpretation of the evidence.


In the absence of other evidence, it is THE logical conclusion. RLH has already pointed out one mistake in your thinking on this topic: [www.hallofmaat.com]




>
> A stronger logical conclusion is that this Shaft
> was designed to act as, and was used as, a
> ventilation shaft for the men working in the
> Pyramid’s Subterranean Passages and Chamber.
>


First, the shaft was clearly not constructed until AFTER the passage was completed down to the Subterranean (1st) Chamber. We know this because they "missed" in their attempt to dig down the precise distance. Had it been an original inclusion, the two would have been dug simultaneously and they wouldn't have overshot their target. Clearly, it was a later addition... and as RLH pointed out, a later addition for air circulation would not have been put all the way up to the Grand Gallery.



>
> I wrote, ‘The portcullis system known as the
> Antechamber would not have worked, and so the KC
> could not have been sealed off the King’s
> Chamber.’
>
> You wwrite, ‘I have addressed this above.’
>
> Yes, but most unsatisfactorily, IMO.


Hopefully now you've been given sufficient reason to rethink your opinion.



>
> You continue, ‘It would have worked just fine.’
>
> Have you seen or read or heard of this being put
> to a practical test?



Have you?



> If so, perhaps you could provide details.

Can you?



> I don’t know of any such test.


You can't. So you are dismissing it's functionality based upon theoretical mental models, rather than "boots on the ground" facts like, "it's there, they built it, it must have worked somehow".


> My conclusion is based on the actual appearance
> and condition of the Antechamber and the Granite
> Leaf; plus the fact I "know" it was originally
> shorter and the GL was a late addition.
>


Well, what you "know" from modern, extracontextual mathematical calculations really doesn't help us understand what they did or why. There are centuries of wear and tear on the features of these chambers. How they looked when they were finished 4500 years ago is something that you appear to be ignoring in your hypotheses.




>
> You write, ‘If, as you say, they were trying to
> fool people, why build an apparently obviously
> non-functioning portcullis system?’
>
> If you can opine “It would have worked just fine.”
> Then its designer certainly fooled you.


I resent your insinuation that I am anybody's fool. You appear to be misleading yourself so as to further your mathematical design speculations, but that's between you and your intellect.




> Anyway, to answer your question, the so-called
> Antechamber was initially designed to be a
> portcullis system.

You'll have to pardon me if I take a moment to giggle at the content of the previous statement.



> It was shorter than what we now see (5rc instead
> of its final 5.62rc) and had four (not 3 as the
> final product has) grooves running the full height
> of the wainscots.


This is your speculation, and is not a fact in any way, shape or form.



> At some point around the construction of the
> King’s Chamber, the portcullis system design (on
> which work had started) was abandoned and work
> started on a new scheme which involved, amongst
> other things, the introduction of the Granite
> Leaf.


Again, your speculation, and not any form of fact supported by evidence or solid theory.



> For reasons unknown the work was not completed and
> the “Antechamber” was left as we now see it.
>


Actually, it was finished and it has been damaged by repeated tomb robbers over the ages.




> I wrote, ‘The Antechamber was altered in length
> and the Granite Leaf was a late introduction to
> the scheme’
>
> You reply, ‘That is your supposition. I do not
> agree.’
>
> Actually, it is a hypothesis based on available
> evidence, but never mind, eh.
>

No, it is based upon modern mathematical calculations that you have superimposed over an ancient structure, but never mind, eh.






>
> I wrote, ‘The Ascending Passage is not steep
> enough for blocks to slide down it.’
>
> You write, ‘Would you like to test that hypothesis
> by standing in front of one, after it's been
> slicked with oil and is being pushed from behind?
> Remember... they only needed one at a time to go
> down, and they could have been inched along if
> they got stuck anywhere along the way. I think we
> discussed this about a year ago, and you admitted
> you hadn't considered that scenario.’
>
> I had completely forgotten about lubrication,
> etc.
> I think this particular statement of mine can be
> safely crossed off my list, don't you.
>

As I did when you asserted it over a year ago...






>
> I wrote, ‘The Well Shaft was closed off above the
> Grotto, and built over for approx. 15 layers of
> core blocks because it was, apparently, no longer
> required, but it was later re-opened by tunnelling
> down through the 15 or so layers and building a
> shaft up as far as the north end of the Grand
> gallery.
> This doesn’t fit the “workers
> post-sealing-the-Ascending-Passage escape route”
> scenario at all well.
>
>
> You write, ‘It does if they changed their minds
> about a method of egress for the workers, exactly
> as you have suggested here.’
>
> I don’t think the Well Shaft was ever intended to
> act as a “method of egress for the workers”
> because it was never necessary.

Your speculative foundation (that it was "never necessary") is wrong, as has been demonstrated repeatedly and never refuted by yourself, ergo your follow on arguments are also wrong.



> If, there was a change of mind about how the
> workers who supposedly released the blocks into
> the Ascending Passage were to egress the Pyramid,
> what, in your opinion, was the original plan?
>

If you study other pyramids, you wouldn't ask that question.

Other release systems were all activated from the outer side of the entrance passage. At some point in the construction, it was deemed that this particular situation wouldn't work for this particular pyramid design. Ergo, they began tunneling down through the masonry and bedrock to find the point they had determined would be farthest away from the very well-concealed burial chamber above, and most difficult for robbers to utilize.

What I find intriguing is there's no mention of anyone in recorded history discovering the block in the Descending Passage that originally concealed this "secret entrance" to the burial chambers. This leads me to the conclusion that it was "historically" discovered sometime after Strabo and before Mamun.




>
> I wrote, ‘The large block of granite that blocked
> the Well Shaft above the Grotto (and is now in the
> Grotto itself it’s too big to have been introduced
> via the Well Shaft at the north end of the Grand
> Gallery.’
>
> You reply, ‘Too big? Can you share the dimensions
> so we can see if others arrive at the same
> conclusion? I'll be happy to do it in private if
> you wish.’
> My conclusion is based on a) different photographs
> of this block in the Grotto (with people next to
> it, enabling perspective) b) the actual
> dimensions of the passage leading to the top of
> the Shaft at the north end of the Grand Gallery c)
> the varying width of the Shaft and the course it
> takes down to the Grotto d) the Edgar brothers
> detailed account of how they had the block shifted
> from its jammed position in the Shaft and into the
> Grotto d) various details and scaled drawings
> provided by Petrie, Lepre, and others.
> I have yet to find published details of the
> block’s actual dimensions, but it is quite clear
> from photographs and scale drawings that it could
> not have entered the Shaft from the top.


Then I suggest, based on your lack of empirical data, that you not declare this to be an absolute. Gravity tends to work wonders on heavy objects, and this block would be no exception.



>
> BTW, why should I want to share details “in
> private” – I don’t understand.
>


In case it was pertinent to your work and you didn't want it out on the web, that's all. Just a friendly offer.



>
> You write, ‘So far I don't see anything very
> convincing in what you have said, so "going on"
> may be what is required.’
>
> Fair enough.
> I intend to start a thread dealing specifically
> with the Well Shaft in the near future (which will
> tie in with the AP being blocked before the
> alleged funeral)

I'd be most interested in seeing that. I have my own observations on the shaft and it will be interesting to see if you've noticed any of the same things I have.





>
>
> I wrote, ‘There are problems, inconsistencies with
> the scenario you and others hold on to.’
>
> Only so far as minor details are affected by
> individual choices 4500 years ago. …
>
> As you may expect, I see these things as rather
> more than “minor”.
>



But you have yet to prove any of them as anything more than minor, so I don't think people will be jumping to change their minds any time soon.


>






>
> You write, ‘You are welcome to prove otherwise,
> but you'll have to go outside the pyramid and
> research the culture to do it. You can't just
> provide more measurements from inside the pyramid
> and expect it to be considered anything but a
> stack of coincidences.’
>
> Like everybody else – including you - with access
> to the same evidence re Khufu’s pyramid, I cannot
> prove anything.


There you are absolutely and demonstrably wrong. Sometimes a re-arranging of the evidence is all that is necessary.

Trust me on that one. It's a fact.



> What I can do (and hope to do in the not too
> distant future) is provide a highly detailed
> hypothesis on how the interior of Khufu’s pyramid
> was designed.


But it will be meaningless, and it will most certainly be ignored, without answering the question of why the Dynasty IV Egyptians would have done it that way.



> It just happens that this hypothesis seriously
> questions many of the current orthodox and
> alternative views on it.


There's no such thing as an "orthodox view". There is an orthodox methodology that excludes speculations as evidence, it excludes irrational leaps of faith as logical argumentation, and it doesn't allow for modern ethnocentric projections to explain the actions of ancient cultures.

If you are contradicting "orthodoxy", then that is what you are contradicting, and therefore your theory isn't worth the pixels on the screen it occupies.



>
> In the last three years or so I have devoted a lot
> of time and energy finding out as much as I can
> about 4th and 5th Dyn Egypt; what I have so far
> learned does not appear to date to effect my
> hypothesis one iota – but, then, who knows what
> tomorrow may bring…
>



Then that probably means your hypothesis has nothing to do with "4th and 5th Dyn Egypt". If you were on the right track, you'd find things that were slightly different than what you expected or predicted, and you'd have to modify your ideas accordingly. If what you say is true, then you are almost definitely on the wrong track.



> As for your comment, ‘and expect it to be
> considered anything but a stack of coincidences.”
>
> Any fool can dismiss a thing as a coincidence



Actually, lots more people are fooled by coincidences into thinking they are intentional than those who are willing to label them coincidences when they clearly are.



> because it contradicts their view, belief,
> hypothesis, theory or whatever.

No, MJT, it contradicts the facts. You can try to sidestep that all you want with these clever diversionary words, but it won't change that glaring bit of reality.




> I am not, I assure you, a fool, Anthony.
>


Yet you accuse me of being one.... We can't both be right.

Anthony

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