Nemtinakht Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You claim with "authority" that the pyramids were
> not built using ramps. How exactly can you type
> this with a straight face?
I am always discussing this with people whose default position is "they mustta used ramps". Most people simply assume ramps are the only possibility and they further assume that ramps were actually used because there were no alternatives in the ancient tool box. If I use a word that allows people to think "ramp" they will think of ramps with teams of bumpkins dragging stones. It is ingrained in people. So when I say something like "all the evidence shows stones were pulled straight up the sides" they still hear and see "ramps". When I say the pyramids were stepped to have a surface from which to work they imagine ramps connecting the steps. How ironic that the very data that proves the pyramids were stepped and that stones mustta been pulled up the side is interpreted to show internal ramps and the fat that internal ramps have been disproven means nothing. They still see men dragging stones in their sleep. There were no ramps and no evidence any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid by means of ramps. The word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age. Ramps are only in peoples' minds. The actual physical evidence shows there were no ramps and the evidence currently being suppressed apparently proves it since it would otherwise be released.
I "claim with authority" because this is my writing style. I attempt to normally use tautologies to communicate. OBVIOUSLY some of my declaratory sentences are really derived from my beliefs and those beliefs are based on the stated evidence and logic. I can say there were no ramps because ramps are debunked and it's been shown stones were dragged straight up the sides (the easiest and shortest way).
> You claim there is no
> evidence for ramps. But there is far more evidence
> for ramps than there is for geysers and
> funiculars.
And this still isn't about geysers, carbonated aquifers, or water at altitude. It is about what is under G1 that is consistent with the paradigm that relies on ramps, tombs, and changeless superstitious people. The FACT that the PT is coherently describing a world with geysers is irrelevant to what is under G1 or what we believe about the builders.
> The remains of ramps have been
> excavated.
How do you reassemble these things in such a way as to show men dragged stones on them? Why is the usage of ramps to build great pyramids at odds with the physical evidence and the culture itself? How is it possible for countless tens of thousands to live and die on ramps without leaving a clue? Why are these questions ignored?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard the "explanations" and some are actually plausible but they paint a picture where the facts don't want to fit. They are all disjointed and unconnected to everything and suggest that ancient people were moribund, superstitious, and not as smart as we are. All these "explanations" force us to consider beliefs more powerful than knowledge, theory, and understanding.
The real world doesn't work this way. ...And never did.
> They may not be fully intact or point
> to exactly where Cladking would expect them to,
> but this is a flaw in your own logic, not in
> Egyptologys. On the other hand, there have been a
> grand total of ZERO geysers or the remains of
> linear funiculars excavated anywhere near Giza.
> This is a FACT no matter how you attempt to spin
> it.
A linear funicular is exactly what the current evidence likely suggests. It was to find this evidence that I sought to get this work done.
Of course the term "linear funicular" could include using the weight of water from any source at all and could even include using stone or sand for ballast. It is simply my opinion (~70% confidence) that the funicular operated on ballast called "seker" that was powered by "I3.t-wt.t".
> Keep in mind that Giza was an active necropolis
> during the Fourth Dynasty.
Before it was a "necropolis" there were structures where G1 now stands. I believe one of them was the 2nd Sphinx but I'm curious what other people think it was.
> To
> expect that any external ramps would be fully
> intact and resting against the side of the
> pyramids after 4500 years defies all logic and
> reason.
Things leave evidence. If there had been ramps there would be evidence in the infrared scan and Egyptologists would be tripping over one another to release the data.
There were no ramps and no evidence.
> The word ramp is attested from the Old Kingdom. If
> you refuse to believe this than your problem is
> with James Allen, the world's foremost authority
> on the Egyptian language. I highly doubt that you
> Cladking understand the language more than he
> does.
Thank you.
Can you show me where Allen translates anything as "ramp"?
____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.