Hans_lune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------

> 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

...And in your opinion they show a internal spiral ramp despite the fact that this is an impossibility.

So long as you persist in believing impossibilities it will be impossible for you to see what is really there.

> In your opinion please quote Bui saying this.

Bui is also mistaken in his interpretation of these facts. It doesn't matter who believes that parallel lines depict ramps it is still impossible.

There are an infinite number of possibilities for what caused these lines but none of them are "ramps". The most likely interpretation is that it discloses a step pyramid. Need I remind you yet again there are no known great pyramids or large megalithic projects anywhere in the world that doesn't have steps? This proves G1 is yet another large structure made with steps.

There must be some logical reason that these steps exist and are 81' 3" high. Perhaps it's as simple as the fact their ropes were limited to 100' in length and this is the highest they could pull stones up the pyramid with them. As long as you remain fixated on internal ramps that have already been disproven by the infrared images then you'll ignore the facts.

Visible horizontal and vertical loins are consistent with pulling stones up the side and this is a fact whether you call it "opinion" or a "unicorn". They are not consistent with ramps and, yes, this too is a fact.

> >The fact is there are no titles
> > of the builders that are consistent with
> >dragging
> > stones.

> In your opinion

No. This is another fact. There is no "overseer of ramps" nor so much as a "chief of stone draggers". The word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age. Fact!

> It is a fact that stones were obviously
> > pulled up to the top of G1 and then laid east
> > to
> > west.
>
> In your opinion

Again this is a fact and not an opinion. People who look at the photo say it is obvious stones came up the south side and were laid sequentially. You can call it an opinion I suppose but people who look at the pictures agree it is obviously true,. Which is exactly what i said; "it is obvious". Anyone can choose not to see it and see only evidence for ramps but this doesn't change the facts.

> > 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

More accurately this would be called an "hypothesis" but a series of hypotheses supported by experiment, prediction, physical evidence, and logic is a theory. Part of my theory for how the pyramids were built is that there was no valley temple but another a port and no mortuary temple but rather a "Great Saw Palace". My theory says there are no "sacred" artefacts concurrent with the construction of the great pyramids,. Everything we see is infrastructure and the ruins of infrastructure. Everything had a function.

It is hard to see this function because we don't know how the pieces fit together but chiefly because we don't think like the ancient Egyptians. We are nothing at all ,lik3e the pyramid builders. We are essentially an entirely different species with no memory before 2000 BC.

> . 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

Denying it is a fact is a reflection on you. The fact is that mechanical advantage necessarily increases total work. You can wail and moan but it is a fact. And another fact is that there is probably no less efficient method to build a pyramid than to drag stones up ramps.

> 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

Fact.

There might be a ramp that points up to the mid ranges of Meidum but then the exception proves the rule.

> > There was never any "study" needed to solve how
> > the pyramids were built because the facts speak
> > for themselves.
>
> In your opinion

Until you show I and Charlie R are wrong it is effectively a fact. Ramps have been debunked for over a decade and the means to build has been solved. Stones were pulled up five step pyramids one step at a time.

Why don't you argue the facts instead of denying they exist?

> > The presence of steps within the pyramids
> severely
> > weaken them.
>
> In your opinion

Reality is not dependent on anyone's opinion.

a few simple thought experiments should show you the statement is factual.

> 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

I suppose you need experts and studies to tell you stone is hard and dense too.

If I made the statement you'd claim it was opinion.

> 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

Again it is a fact. In saving weight from resting on something (mafdet) they built the east side much weaker. The stones on surrounding the first step will stabilize it but there is little stone on the east side stabilizing the second step. The second step on the east side is far and away more likely to fail in an earthquake than any other region other than the second step on the north side which is nearly as weak.

> > So why did they introduce
> > five weak steps of 81' 3"?
>
> You made up that number - I was there when you did
> so.

I've also published the exact height of each step.

> 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.

The top of the pyramid was obviously built in the exact same manner as the rest of it. Course thicknesses follow a regular pattern. If stones came up on the south side (quarry side) at the top then logic suggests this was generally the case. If they can pull stones up 480' then why would they drag them up 240'?

Logic dictates that they used an efficient and robust means of lifting all of the stones and not just the top ones.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.