cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You continue to call the facts, 'opinions".
Because that is what they are
>
> The existence of visible lines on the pyramid is
> not only a simple fact
Yes there are lines there
but it shows how the stones
> were lifted.
This is your opinion - see the difference?
These same lines on the gravimetric
> scan show the exact same thing in a different
> light.
Nope they don't again just your opinion and in my opinion they don't
You can interpret evidence as you choose
> but not facts.
I'm not I see them as facts and you interpret them into evidence by your opinion...
The fact is that a ramp can not
> appear as a line parallel to the base on the
> gravimetric scan.
In your opinion please quote Bui saying this.
The fact is there are no titles
> of the builders that are consistent with dragging
> stones.
In your opinion
It is a fact that stones were obviously
> pulled up to the top of G1 and then laid east to
> west.
In your opinion
By the same token it is obvious the
> builders mightta done it a different way and then
> intentionally made it appear the stones came up
> the south side.
In your opinion
>
> The fact is every indication is the so called
> valley temple was actually a port and the so
> called causeway was actually a "ramp" .to this
> temple. The fact is the so called mortuary temple
> was the most logical place to saw the stones that
> arrived at the valley temple from the Turah Mines.
Yes the stones may have been brought there but we cannot state that as a fact, all we have is a theory
> Everything I'm saying is an obvious fact and
> calling them "opinion" is mere rhetoric
That is your opinion
. It is
> also a fact that pulling stones straight up the
> sides as all the evidence suggests they did is
> several times more efficient than building ramps
> and dragging stones up the pyramid.
In your opinion. Where are the engineering studies that support this? You don't have them. Yet your opinion
I would
> remind you that not only does it save at least
> twice as much work as building a Great Pyramid but
> that every "ramp" points to the bottom of the
> pyramid.
In your opinion
>
> There was never any "study" needed to solve how
> the pyramids were built because the facts speak
> for themselves.
In your opinion
It really doesn't matter how this
> was solved what matters is it was solved. It
> apparently was first solved by Charlie R (Charles
> Rigano) using nothing but logic alone. Kudos! I
> couldn't have done it this way probably. The
> method has an elegant simplicity and a very high
> efficiency.
In your opinion. Lets see this wondrous logic
It is also obvious once you see it
> but Egyptologists are still talking about using
> ramps.
It is one of the existing theories
>
> The presence of steps within the pyramids severely
> weaken them.
In your opinion
It not only provided girdles of
> casing stone weakness but the steps are an
> internal flaw in the distribution of the massive
> weight.
In your opinion - lets see the engineering studies that support your contention? What you refuse? lol
The east side would require a pretty
> small earthquake for the side of the second step
> to bulge out resulting in a catastrophic
> structural failure.
In your opinion
So why did they introduce
> five weak steps of 81' 3"?
You made up that number - I was there when you did so.
Simply stated they
> had no choice.
In your opinion
They had no means of lifting
> stones other than pulling them up from above.
In your opinion - I have no problem with this theory they may have done so and I - in my opinion believed they did so after using ramps to x height. However, I am not so foolish as to pretend it is a fact.
So since you refuse to accept the results of experiments you set up and asked us to do. Why do you not accept that your idea that the new meaning for AE words you made up failed when tested? Therefore destroying the foundation of your entire belief system?
