Is that where the geysers came from?
Apparently you are using a heretofore unknown ancient definition of the word “debunked”, because simple gainsaying of historical evidence of ramps, to modern ears, sounds like nothing more than denial. Likewise, your use of the term “real science” reflects a discipline that is neither real nor scientific.
so, its all for the birds!
I did not know that. Thanks,
So far as anyone knows there are no pyramid or any other structure of souch vast weight and height as rthe very first great pyramid. Unless there’s something hiding somewhere this constitutes virtual proof that they never used ramps to build a massive object anywhere on earth before the first great pyramid. And after the great pyramids they never built another pyramid even as large as the first one.
Simple fact.
It doesn’t matter how simple a ramp is any more than it matters how simple it is for men to pull them straight up the side one step at a time or how simple a water operated balance system is. What matters is whatr system did they use. What matters is ramps are debunked and ignoring the debunkment changes nothing.
What also matters is whatever system was used was something they knew would work before they started as evidenced conclusively by the very first being a great pyramid. Ramping systems fail at the top and they would have known there were issues with a ramping system before they started. So why was the first pyramid a great pyramid? It’s completely illogical to imagine a technology was born full blown. If it wasn’t technology and just bumpkins toying around with trial and error like Egyptologists believe then where are the trials and errors? How was it possible to start with a great pyramid?
If that doesn’t work just drag it with your mouse.
You deserve a little credit for playing along. So how about trying to apply scientific method to your research and work out what you would need to convince someone with stricter standards of proof that your hypothesis holds water.
I’m rather taken aback by your total ignorance of the existence of earlier pyramids.
I use the glyphs as copied by Sethe and a heiroglyphic dictionary with Gardner’s transcriptions.
I use all the ancient writing but especially the Pyramid Texts because the PT are almost all the ancient writing. I primarily use Mercer’s translation but also Sethe’s, Faulkner’s, and Allen’s. There are also oddball translations.
I recent years I’ve been studying the Coffin Texts a little even though these are mostly modern language. I’ve also recently started using Egyptological writings about the gods. These writings are physically painful for me but they do contain some keen insights and linguistic information that I don’t know about. I used no Egyptological interpretation other than translation for several years.
I just keep reading the PT over and over until it makes sense or I get an idea for further research to solve sticky points. Mostly I feel I have an excellent framework for its understanding. Some passages I believe I understand as well as a slower Egyptian.
You mean Ra-mouses.
There are no earlier “pyramids”.
The tiny little things Egyptologists euphimistically call pyramids to obfuscate the facts have no bearing on the great pyramids. The tiny little things that came later aren’t even relevant.
My theory could be proven tomorrow (at least by the end of next week) if they would just run a few simple $200 tests and measurements. I can predict things like the exact chemical composition of the ben ben or the water and moon dust in the Osiris Shaft.
Of course I can’t expect Egyptologists to give a whit about my theory and I don’t expect them to go out of their way in the least to falsify it. I merely expect them to do their damn jobs and that’s applying modern science and modern techniques to solving these mysteries. This means doing the infrared and ultraviolet imaging. I can predict the results of these tests as well and they will be consistent with my theory, probably. They should be doing microscopic forensics which will tell us the conditions inside the pyramid during construction and subsequent use. They could be doing all sorts of tests that scients would do like excavating the cave in the Tomb of the Birds or resuming excavation of the cave in the Osiris Shaft. There are dozens of tests from barometric studies of the Bent Pyramid to chemical analysis of the ground around the pyramid. There’s a geyser right north of the pyramid they’ll need to dig up eventually.
Science is not being done at Giza. While what Lehner is doing is “science” it is not the indicated work and it is not in keeping with the spirit of Petrie who measured everything even if it was nailed down. If he had modern tools and instruments he’d have solved this already.
That is not how this works. You are making the wild claims; you invest the time to provide supporting documentation.
For that matter, you have made numerous claims about what other people have said while refusing to provide a link or citation. For all that the other posters can know, you could be inventing straw man arguments, just as you could be inventing all the “explanations” you keep posting. This forum is Great Debates not My Flights of Fancy.
If you continue to refuse to support your claims, this thread will be shut down (unless there is a groundswell of calls that it be moved to The BBQ Pit).
[ /Moderating ]
This is wrong, and it really does sound more like all the ideas posted recently by you are like a clock chiming 13 times every hour.
That site BTW is full of new age and “mysterious” explanations for other subjects so the fact they they do acknowledge what is going on among serious researchers is noticeable.
In more serious settings we have to check on the evidence found on the ramps by Houdin:
Well, with that I think you’ve jumped the shark fully (hell, you leaped it like Superman). I mean, personally I think you jumped the shark around your 2nd or 3rd post, but others engaged you anyway even as you spun more and more towards the wall of woo. But seriously? You don’t acknowledge any pyramids built before those on the Giza plateau? And you expect to be taken seriously? This is a level of ignorance that goes beyond the mundane into the truly sublime.
I have offerred to support anything relevant to the argument. I am not going to support statements like “metaphysics is the basis of ancient and modern science” because these are contingent on definitions and perspective. I am not going to get involved is semantical arguments and irrelevancies.
Every post I’ve made is support for my argument. I will provide documentation for any specific question but I can’t retype every one of my posts when someone looses the thread.
Somehow or other it always seems evidence like water worn canals and vertical lines above water collection devices get lost is a sea of “it mustta been ramps”. Even pictures of ben bens can’t hold a candle to the concept that ramps are the only possible means. I can quote a line writrten by the builders themselves of how they lifted the stones, “the earth is made high under the sky by means of the arms of tefnut”, but this means nothing when perfectly intelligent Egyptologists say they mustta used ramps.
What exactly does anyone want documentation for?
Please remember if an idea is derived from evidence I can only cite the evidence from which it is derived. This is all my own work and there’s no site on the net that I’m reading it from. There are no Egyptologists who believe in anyt of this so I can cite Allen saying that “sky arcs” are rainbows. I can only tell yoiu that every single timne the concept of rainbows arises that Allen uses “sky arcs” and Mercer and Faulkner use “bows”.
Anyone who wants the Straight Dope can try to understand what I’m saying. Maybe I’m wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time.
The irony here is I’ve already cited hundreds of pieces of evidence and logic to support my position. ALL of the evidence supports my position. I’ve even shown it couldn’t have been ramps. But ramp proponents have nothing at all except the contention “it mustta been ramps”. How in the world do I compete with this.
I’ll check back in.
“‘Skin me, Brer [TOM],’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, ‘snatch out my eyeballs, t’ar out my yeras by de roots, en cut off my legs,’ sezee, ‘but do please, Brer [TOM], don’t fling [THIS THREAD] in dat [BBQ PIT],’ sezee”
Apologies to Joel Chandler Harris
What you have claimed to have offered and what you have actually provided are light years apart.
I am not even that interested in support for your personal fantasies regarding the construction. However, you have repeatedly made silly claims about what Egyptologists have said and, with one brief exception that did not support your claim, you have utterly failed to provide evidence that they have actually said what you attributed to them.
I understand now.
I’ve run into this before of course. I guess it should have been expected on a site that’s “fighting ignorance”. Egyptologists are the experts and the scholars and nothing I ever say or prove will change this. As experts and scholars they deserve respect if not people kowtowing to their every pronouncement. My perspective isn’t so very much different but after you get beaten about the head enough times with “ramps”, cultural context", “superstitious builders”, and “tombs” enough times and each time loaded with insult and innuendo it changes the way you talk about things.
I don’t really know any Egyptologists very well and don’t read much of their writing but some of their beliefs become very obvious as you get pummeled and study the available literature. One of these things is that every single one of them believes the ancient gods were imaginary and powerful consciousnesses in which the ancient people believed. Of course I don’t have a means of proving no Egyptologist exists who thinks they didn’t believe in imaginary beings but I’m perfectly willing to make exceptions if one wants to come forward. This is, by my definition calling the ancient people “superstitious”. Perhaps this isn’t everyone’s definition but using the word “superstitious” is my short hand way to refer to belief in fantastic things that can’t be proven. This means Egyptoilogists believe the ancient people were superstitious. Maybe some Egyptologist doesn’t believe this but I think such a bewlief would make him stand out from the crowd enough he’d be well known. Egyptologists also believe that the great pyramids were tombs worked on during peak growing season with no crop in the ground. This might not be as universal but it’s a general belief and reflects a poor opinion of the people. They believe these tombs were for dead kings whom the people believed lived forever despite the fact that no direct evidence of any type exists that these were tombs. This is just the fact. I can almost quote everything the people ever said to show no direct evidence but this is beyond the scope of this post or thread. I’ve never been contradicted on this except for many people citing the extensive circumstantial evidence that they are tombs.
Egyptologists also promulgate the idea that there is extensive evidence for their beliefs. They actually refer to “cultural context” and a “mountain of evidence” despite the fact the word “ramp” isn’t even attested from the great pyramid building age. Again I can’t cite all the known writing in this post but it is simply factual that the word isn’t attested and no one has ever contested this point. Obviously if they used ramps to build and the word “ramp” isn’t attested then it follows there is no mountain of evidence. The same applies to “cultural context”. If they knew what the people were like and how they thought then they must understand the superstitions they say were universal. Egyptologists should be abble to say when a shm-sceptre was preferable to a nbht-sceptre or how to administer an eye of horus. They can’t. They don’t agree on the nature of the eye of horus and I linked a “book” written on the subject several posts back. Even the most basic terms have no meaning to Egyptologists. It is a simple fact that Egyptologists don’t agree on such details as it applies to the great pyramid building age. Later cultures are well understood because you can just read what they wrote but the pyramid builders aren’t understood. The meaning of words like “ankh” are clear enough but how they arose is a closed book. One Egyptologist thinks it’s a sandal strap (half right in a left handed sort of way) and another thinks it’s a map of the Nile (completely wrong). Indeed, there just isn’t agreement on many details. Modern translations don’t even look much like older translations.
Of course no Egyptologist is really going to agree with much of this. They’ll admit they don’t know things like the meaning of the eye of horus but then they’ll tell you it’s because it’s incredibly complicated and the concept meant something different to each Egyptian or locale. I would ask why they even bother studying the book if the most basic terms are insoluble. If nbo sense has bewen made of it to date because as they believe it’s just magic and incantation then whyt study it? Magic doesn’t work, right? So why do they try to make sense of magic? How can they say they understand a culture based on a book of mahgic they themselves never possibly understand and can never make effective.
Most Egyptologists say things like the people were made strong by their beliefs.
Egyptologists describe these people in very poor terms (IN MY OPINION) and they say things like they were intelligent and sophisticated. If you go googling this is what you’ll see. They’ll say the people were obsessed with death. They believed in magic. They believed in Gods. They believed they needed to make a huge tomb for their dead king who lived eternally and knocked around in the pyramid at night. They say the people endangered themselves and their families by expending vast resources in peak growing season with no crop in the ground. They say that the only means to build pyramids was the simplest possible; ramps. They say they were uneducated. They say they inscribed grammatical errors and misspellings in stone. They imply they were very primitive ans backward and that individual rights were unimportant. They suggest women were subjugated. Do all Egyptologists believe all these things? Pretty much. Of course there’s some individual variation in all groups but there isn’t really any variation to speak of with the major assumptions. Egyptology is essentially a science founded on the assumptions that the Egyptians were superstitious and changeless people who dragged tombs upo ramps. In the last few years they are trying to backpeddle from ramps but each still believes that a muscle based means of lifting stones was used.
How am I supposed to show this? No Egyptologist will actually say the ancients were stinky footed bumpkins but then they’ll translate the ancient writing as an entreaty to the gods not to walk in corpse drippings!! Imagine how insulting that would be to these people if they are wrong! Egyptologists descrivbe them in these terms and then call them sophisticated or some such term.
This is the state of affairs. Ask an Egyptologist if the ancients believed in magic.
Sure someone can say superstition has always been with us and they aren’t sayting anything worse about the Egyptians but this simply isn’t true. They say they were led by priests and were moribound by death and the industry of death. They paint a picture of people who spent their lives thinking about death and they do this because almost everything we know came out of tombs. It is SAMPLE ERROR. They do this because they misinterpret the evidence in the tombs and imagine even “the house of life” (the pyramid) was a tomb. They misinterpret the evidence to say thatr when they weren’t busyt dying to get in a tomb they were working themselves to death to build the tombs. They believe this because dragging 6 1/2 million tons up a ramp is hard work. It would take decades and tens of thousands of men workjing in the desert summer heat.
I believe anyone familiar with Egyptology will see the truth in these words. Some of it is remarkable easy to show. That all Egyptologists believe the people were superstitious is apparent. Of course No Egyptologist will agree with the perspective of this post but the fact is it is accurate. Some can be shown and in my opinion all of it is justified.
Here’s the state of the art in Egyptology today. This just happened last night I believe. It’s a very sad display. It will make you cringe;
[quote=“cladking, post:599, topic:706559”]
Here’s the state of the art in Egyptology today. This just happened last night I believe. It’s a very sad display. It will make you cringe;
[/QUOTE]Of course it made me cringe, you are defending another recognized crank:
Graham Hancock :smack:
It looks like debunked ancient aliens proponents, walk like debunked ancient aliens proponents, sound like debunked ancient aliens proponents, but we have to assume that this supports your pyramid water theory. :rolleyes: