cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

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

Nope I don't favor a spiral ramp. Never said I did
>
> > 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.

So says you but then no one believes anything you say. Remember you have a solid reputation as a teller of porkies.
>
> 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.

No it means a lot of structures look like they have steps it doesn't mean all of them were. That is called 'bad logic'
>
> There must be some logical reason that these steps
> exist and are 81' 3" high.

You don't know that you made it up


> 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".

No they are not - lets see your detailed study that shows it - just saying it doesn't make it true - explain if you would have dragging limestone blocks up would have left marks on the stones.

>
> > >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!

There is no overseer of the funicular and there were oversees of sides. Construction involves a lot more than just a ramp
>

> 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".

Nope opinion all you do is state things and think they are facts - you are sadly mistaken


>
> 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.

So? Your making statements are not facts and that IS a fact

>
> 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.

In 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.

Sorry I don't believe you - lets see the engineering studies and simulations? What you don't have any? Yeah we know your opinion is utterly worthless
>

> > In your opinion
>
> Fact.

Then show them - your statements are not facts. Show evidence or be wrong.
>
> There might be a ramp that points up to the mid
> ranges of Meidum but then the exception proves
> the rule.
>

> 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.

Nope you have to show evidence to support your opinion. I don't have to show you are wrong.
>
> Why don't you argue the facts instead of denying
> they exist?

You present no facts just opinions - where is your data, research, engineering studies and computer simulations? None all you do is make empty claims
>
Reality is not dependent on anyone's opinion. Yep
>

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

No I know that in general but if I want to know how hard and dense they are you need a study.
>
> Again it is a fact.

Nope no fact just your opinion

In saving weight from resting
> on something (mafdet) they built the east side
> much weaker.

make believe
> >
> > You made up that number - I was there when you
> did
> > so.
>
> I've also published the exact height of each step.

Did you know so where is it? Link to this publication which shows you made up something?
>
> The top of the pyramid was obviously built in the
> exact same manner as the rest of it.

Your opinion

Course
> thicknesses follow a regular pattern.

no they didn't they appear to be random but in general thinning towards the top.

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

Yep and we don't know what systems they used. You pretend you know but we don't take you seriously.