cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans_lune Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your calling all the evidence like visible
> horizontal and vertical lines has no effect on the
> reality. Stones were still obviously pulled up on
> the south side of the top of G1 and laid starting
> on the opposite side and laid east to west.

That is your opinion. Lets see your paper defining the parameters you used to make that determination.

You
> can use a different word than "obviously" but it
> doesn't change the fact that many things about how
> the pyramids were built are clearly visible,
> easily deducible, or well evidenced.

Which you have not done. If you have then present that data, research and material now. What? You refuse? Yeah we know....
>
> It just astounds me that most people won't even
> accept that stones were apparently delivered to
> the valley ports and then moved up the
> "causeways". That these exist might be how the
> notion that ramps mustta been used even arose.
> Yet most people won't accept such mundane things
> on a sacred walkway.

You opinion and maybe just maybe they weren't completed as causeways until they were finished and they were just ramps before...
>
> Everything detectable is evidence and no evidence
> of how these were built is more important than the
> fact there is an underlying step pyramid. This has
> been solved.

That is your opinion

Ramps are debunked by the physical
> evidence and logic.

In your opinion and in other people's opinions you're a clueless nut

There was never a good reason
> to presuppose that ramps had been used.

In your opinion, again explain how the first tier was 'pull up the side', how about the second tier?
>
> The evidence is conclusive but instead people
> don't want to believe.

Odd you never present this evidence you just keep saying your opinion

> I'm not even trying to get the voluminous evidence
> in a single post and it has almost all been cited
> before anyway.

You never cite it you always said you did it somewhere else - we know by long experience you have no such evidence - if you did you'd post a link to it

You never do

> Now everything in this post will be ignored and
> called "opinion" rather than the facts and obvious
> deductions that they really are.

Yes Cladking because they are your opinions and not evidence.

Yawn. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Remember the SHU experiment and the failure of your basic idea to work - all your 'opinions' are based on your claim that you can read AE 'in context'.

You cannot. Your ideas have been falsified.