[QUOTE=cladking]
I can LITERALLY make a far stronger argument for aliens than anyone has made for ramps. I seriously doubt Aliens built the pyramids.
[/QUOTE]
Except, as far as I can see you’ve been singularly unsuccessful in convincing anyone (except maybe FXM, which is not great shakes) to your view point. I have no doubt that you can make a far stronger argument FOR YOURSELF that aliens were more likely than ramps, but, well…you are already converted. You’ve made your case for the supposed debunkment of ramps in Egypt and thus far only YOU believe it (with the one noted possible exception…and he might just be doing so to tweak Gigo).
Ceremonies were held outside the pyramid. Kings were murdered and then they wewre cremated on the pyramid top. I know they were murdered because they each died right on schedule. Khufu ascended long before the kings chamber was even started. Egyptologisyts have it all wrong and everything they say is contradicted by the LITERAL meaning of the pT.
Egyptologists believe these are magic the king needed in the afterlife. It would seemn he better remember them when he got there.
I absolutely hate doing this. The simple factr is EVERY alt researcher has some keen insights and parts of his hypothesis are likely correct. If I name anyone I’ll leave everyone else off the list.
Let me put it this way; even the more obvious cranks like Sitchen can see some things more clearly than others. His work on the ben ben stone is terrific. By the same token even the best scientist in a hard science is wrong sometimes.
I believe most of the alternative thinkers have a more plausible paradigm than the incredible belief they were changeless and superstitious bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps. These are concepts are absurd. They were invented by 19th century bigots and they are propogated by the confusion of language.
It’s hard to get out of a rut with ramps. All the ramps point farther into the rut and they’re digging themselves in ever deeper.
Except they have evidence behind them, and you have bupkis. You can state your premise as many times as you want, but you haven’t made anything remotely resembling a case for it, besides that fact that there is lots of evidence directly contradicting your hypothesis, you have no understanding of the language or culture of ancient Egypt, and you don’t seem capable of presenting your case without contradicting yourself multiple times.
This isn’t a debate, since you’re not presenting debatable items. You’re ranting against unnamed Egyptologists who are mired in a some truth-hiding groupthink paradigm for unspecified reasons. It’s a classic conspiracy theory; unfalsifiable and self-contradicting.
What logic failure was that? The existence of drills? The existence of eviudence for water? The evidence gfor the existence of running water? The evidence for the existence of flooding? The evcidence that the builders thought a cool effervescent column of water named osiris built the pyramid? The existence for the usage of water to lift stones or move them to rthe pyramid?
What evidence exactly do you think isn’t logical or factual?
I think the pyramids were created by very intelligent and creative Egyptian engineers who used a whole lot of manual labor to execute their very intelligent and creative engineering ideas. It was really a marvel of intelligent and creative engineering that manual labor was able to accomplish such an incredibly huge and long-lasting structure.
I don’t know what you mean. G2 is a step pyramid just like all the others.
[quote[
And that indeed would be an experiment that can be confirmed, so you need to contact experts in the field to help you model how the drilling will be made.
But I’m not holding my breath to see you do that ever.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously suggesting I drill my own geyser to prove the point or take over someone else’s. I can tell them “all” the ancient science in the PT to make themn continuous but do you think there’s a chance they’ll ask or do it if I volunteer the information!?
They don’t care if it’s continuous or not. Things are much different today.
I made numerous assertions. Which do you want me to support.
The easiuest to support is that the king was cremated. They said he was freed from his bandages which is a description of the burning mummy. Here’s another descriuption of a burning king;
376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;
376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.
376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.
377a. Your fragrance comes to N., O ye gods; the fragrance of N. comes to you, O ye gods.
377b. May N. be with you, O ye gods; may you be with N., O ye gods.
377c. May N. live with you, O ye gods; may you live with N., O ye gods.
378a. May N. love you, O ye gods; love him, O ye gods.
Of course if you know in advance this is superstitious gobbledty gook it’s not necessary to even try to understand it.
365a. A stairway to heaven shall be laid down for him, that he may ascend to heaven thereon;
365b. he ascends on the smoke (incense) of the great censing.
2053b. They take N. to heaven, to heaven-on the smoke of incense.
What do I need to do? Draw a picture?
The PT are consistent and logical but they are like poetry written by people who don’t think like Egyptologists.
Except they have evidence behind them, and you have bupkis. You can state your premise as many times as you want, but you haven’t made anything remotely resembling a case for it, besides that fact that there is lots of evidence directly contradicting your hypothesis,…QUOTE]
Ramps were debunked in post #152.
Why don’t you address the facts in it or show why they aren’t relevant or logical?
ALL the evidence supports pulling stones up one step at a time.
There was no debunking in post #152 – just a bunch of uncited assertions. You made a whole lot of assertions about Egypt and Egyptian history without any cites to support them. We’re not going to just take your word for it.
Perfectly reasonable. But if you want me to take you seriously you have to invent a means they could have done it consistent with the evidence.
The deck is stacked against you because the evidence allows for only a few thousand men, women, and children. What kind of work can be done by children? Why was there as much womens’ work as mens’?
[QUOTE=cladking]
What do I need to do? Draw a picture?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, yeah…I would love to see a picture of how your geyser to water counterweight lifting stones to build the pyramid thingy is supposed to work, and how close my white board of it is (I bet you don’t have helpful crocodiles or befuddled Egyptian workers being washed away by water).
But, what you were asked for was a cite of evidence that the Egyptians burned the mummies of their kings on the top of the pyramids (having removed the large capstones, no doubt, to make this process easier). Do you have any actual evidence. Not your conjecture or your interpretation of, no doubt, your own translation of some cryptic Egyptian writings, but real evidence. Perhaps a picture of the Egyptians performing this ceremony on top of the pyramid? Maybe and expert agreeing with you and offering some archeological information on it? Perhaps you could sacrifice a goat and let us know the exact position of the entrails pointing to this? Something? Anything?
Even Egyptologists won’t engage me on this because they actually agree with all those assertions. Most of them are statements of what Egyptologists know rather than what they believe.
Have at it.
Egyptologists took the men out of the workers village after this debunkment arose and I consider this one of thew weakest points in it. When I pointed out there were no roads so it couldn’t be a port they invented dragging stones on wet sand.
Let’s just say the debunkment is quicksand for orthodox beliefs.