If the stone blocks were lifted by means of shadoof-like cranes, the Egyptians would have needed vast quantities of very strong rope-what materials did they have that could be used to make the ropes required?
There’s an excluded middle there that’s larger than the Sahara.
There are two things that haven’t been recreated or figured out; how they drilled in stone and how they lifted the huge stones as high as 481’. I believe these two things are directly related. They drilled the holes that allowed water to get to 81’ 3" and they used its weight to lift the stones.
We don’t understand the culture or how they developed the knowledge for their accomplishments.
You’re right that modern science won’t change except for two things. Our perception of experimental results will change and our appreciation of metaphysics will change. If I’m correct that science can be performed with logic then it’s possible that computers can be programmed with a logical based language. It’s possible that modern science and ancient science could be run in tandem as checks on one another. Humans can’t handle the complexity of a modern metaphysical language but computers might be able to. Modern science doesn’t really have any better explanation for how gravity works than the great pyramid builders. Now days cosmology is bogged down postulating an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinbite number of ramps. The irony is sublime. Even if such nonsense could be proven it probably wouldn’t lead to an understanding of gravity.
Most of the known ropes were hafagrass but they used several plants and animal fibres. Ropes up to about 4" diameter are known but there’s no reason they couldn’t have made the 5 1/2" diameter ropes needed to lift the stones about 20 tons at a time as is implied by the evidence and the PT. The ropes were about 80% as strong as modern hemp. It appears the main ropes were tarred and converted to slings (loops on the end) and were about 100’ long. I believe they used a chain across the top of the pyramid to save wear and tear on ropes.
Indeed.
And the middle is virtually unoccupied. There are almost no hypotheses between orthodox opinion that “they mustta used ramps” and “aliens did it”.
There are a lot of new theories in the last few years that are in this middle ground and a few even propose ramps but it’s still a vast wasteland of ideas and Egyptologists are not seeking any of them.
That’s not even remotely close to what I was talking about.
Obviously, he doesn’t know what your post says, but he knows what it means.
[QUOTE=cladking]
And the middle is virtually unoccupied. There are almost no hypotheses between orthodox opinion that “they mustta used ramps” and “aliens did it”.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s that they DID use ramps. There is archeological evidence of ramp use. There is Egyptian art with ramps on them depicting them in use. And, of course, there are actual ramps IN their temple construction. The excluded middle you are missing is that they used ramps AND they used OTHER METHODS AS WELL. You seem to be claiming that they used no ramps at all, and in fact that ramps were kind of low grade tech or something, while the reality is that many civilizations before and after the Egyptians used the things.
Thus far the only evidence you’ve provided that they didn’t use ramps is your own translations of Egyptian writings and some pictures we are supposed to look at and see…something. Most experts in Egyptology I’ve seen say that ramps were used in the construction of the pyramids, that there is evidence of ramps being used on the Giza plateau, but that the Egyptians did a lot of construction in an ad hoc manner, meaning they used various different technologies to get the job done. THAT’S the excluded middle you seem to be missing.
Oh.
I am pretty dense.
I’m not sure there is very much in between stinky footed bumpkins and rationality. Certainly today ideas and beliefs run the gamut from an extreme of seeing the world in terms of numbers/ theory and superstition/ belief. There are everything from priests with degrees in physics to religious physicists. Sometimes the difference is enormous and sometimes subtle.
But, I believe this wasn’t really possible with the ancient language; there was no middle ground. Everybody was on the samne page and spoke the same language. Since there was no superstition actions were based on knowledge.
As to the middle ground it almost doesn’t exist. The few people who believe the ancients weren’t superstitious believe they were primitive and ignorant. Everyone says the ancients were cool or noble but this is mostly political correctness run amuk because they always go on to define superstitious bumpkins.
I believe every single Egyptian was a scientist just like every single rabbit or beaver. Most weren’t capable of doing it for a living. They had no magic, no beliefs, and no religion. The language simply wasn’t able to embrace such concepts and the people weren’t able to think outside of language. If an Egyptologist tells you they invented pyramids through trial and error it might sound like the middle ground but it isn’t because theory is required to make a trial and observation to see the error.
I bet I know exactly what you mean. 
Yet you claim to understand and correctly interpret a language you can’t actually read. Are you psychic?
Drilling holes in hard stuff is something people have done since before they were proper people. Nothing mysterious about it. I’m beginning to think you don’t know nearly as much as you think you know.
[quote=“XT, post:148, topic:706559”]
No, it’s that they DID use ramps. There is archeological evidence of ramp use. There is Egyptian art with ramps on them depicting them in use.
[quote]
These statements are false. The last one is intentional misdirection by Egyptologists. There are no depictions of ramps concurrent withthe great pyramid building age. Some 98% of all the lifting to build pyramids was done on the great pyramids but Egyptologists down play this by talking about volume or height rather than work.
Temples are low buildings, hollow, and require very little lifting of stone.
There’s no evidence for ramps and very little for other methods.
Ramps are still used. They are often the simplest solution to bridge between two different and adjacent levels.
One of the big weaknesses in believing in ramps is that the first pyramis was a great pyramid. They didn’t warm upon 100’ pyramids anbd went straight to a 200’
one.
The pyramids are sitting on huge water collection devices. These had to have been built first. The pyramid is a five step structure because it had to be to pull stones up one step at a time. The evidence is all there.
It was the PT that told me where to look to find it. It was the PT that tied the histirical, cultural, and physical evidence together. The PT won’t be evidence itself until Egyptologists understand it and attempt a new translation.
There’s just no real evidence that ramps were used to lift even a single stone on a single great pyramid. The ramp remains that exist are too flimsy, point in the wrong direction, or point at the BASE of the pyramid. My theoiry can account for almost every single one of these “ramps”. Indeed, I even know the ancient name of one which was the “ladder of set” and it was operated by the “knsti-canal” at the end of the winding watercourse. They weren’t used by bumpkins to drag stones hother and yon. They were used by counterweights to position stones for the main counterweights. There were funiculars operating on the causeways that unloaded barges and brought stone to the “Great Saw Palace” (“the factory where many stones were cut” in English).
Proof that ramps weren’t used must wait for the powers that be to use 1970’s technology to prove beyond doubt the route of the stones and mode of lifting. They are currently not seeking such information but a virtually air tight case can be made against ramps by observation and logic alone. While innumerable signs point away from ramps I’ll try to limit the discussion to only the major points.
Historical accounts say that the stones moved to the pyramid 300’ at a time after a priest attached a piece of paper to them. This is inconsistent with ramps. Indeed, there are no historical accounts until more recent times that involve ramps. Herodotus’ description almost precisely matches the usage of counterweights. (they were shaped like the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper and composed of “short pieces of wood”.) They were built in “battlements” (steps) and the lifting devices could be moved between them.
The culture has no word for “ramps” as applied to lifting objects. There is no such record for the use of this term. While they, no doubt, physically used ramps to lift objects the lack of the word is glaring omission. There is no “god of ramps” and not a single drawing of a ramp from the great pyramid building age.
Far more importantly is there is no overseer of ramp builders, ramp architects, or ramp dismantlers buried anywhere in Egypt. There are no overseers of basket makers, no overseers of harness makers or salve makers. There is not even a single stone dragger or his overseer in evidence. The pyramid town had equal numbers of men and women and was a tiny fraction of the size that would be required to drag stones and build ramps. The town is hardly large enough to supply such a large army with water and supplies far less do all the work themselves. It is little larger than a couple soccer fields. Indeed the builders’ town was a mere 300’ by 700’. By today’s standards this would accomodate only 933 people in an office building. People need far more space where they live. Only about 40% of the population was men so there wouldn’t even be nearly enough labor to supply food and water to the thousands necessary to build ramps and drag stones up them. You say ancient people didn’t mind being cramped up. Modern sanitation and processes are more efficient than they were in 2750 BC but let’s say they were willing to be jammed in cheek to jowel. This only increases occupancy to about 2800 men which is still grossly insufficient. With so many people in close contact disease would spread like wildfire. Since there were storage and production fascilities in the town as well it’s highly improbable that there were numbers even approaching these levels.
Logic says that on a gargantuan project that a highly efficient means must be used. Ramps not only are hugely inefficient due to the high friction and high cost of building and dismantling ramps but also because the weight of the team dragging stones to the pyramid top is simply wasted as they walk back down on already constricted and overused ramps. Getting the manpower necessary to build this requires massive ramps because 55 HP being done by men at extraordinarily low efficiency requires vast numbers of men. They couldn’t even see the pyramid to build it under the amount of ramping that would be needed to project so much power. Logic says it would be far easier to just drag stones up the side from the top. Friction is reduced to almost nothing since the route of the stones can be greased. The men don’t have to lift their own weight and can pull much more effectively from a level surface. The concept that they must have used ramps is absurd when there are numerous better evidenced and easier means.
Maitaining this level of efficient power with muscles alone would require massive ramps and a means for the workers to get back down. Then there is the impossibility of cladding the structure with any possibly evidenced ramping system. Anything that required cladding stones as they went would leave nothing for ramps to adhere to and any other means would require the ramps to be rebuilt to apply the cladding.
Then comes the physical evidence which just puts a nail into the heart of the ramp ideas. Perhaps most glaringly is the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for ramps on the pyramid. This wouldn’t be such a glaring void if not for the existence of numerous vertical lines visible in the pyramids. These lines tend to appear in pairs with one on opposite sides. This is consistent with counterweight operations where one line marks the counterweight and the opposite the route of the stones. It is most highly inconsistent with any ramping ideas. Simply stated ramps wouldn’t leave such lines no matter how they were configured except for ones that can be ruled out by logic such as integral ramps. The grooves on the Great Pyramid are also these routes of the stones that the builders called the “ladders of the Gods”.
Simply stated you can see the routes of the stones right up the middles and in two places above the boat museum. You can also see that these pyramids are five step (battlement) pyramids on some pictures but especially in the gravimetric scan half way down the page here;
I have a truly beautiful depiction of these five steps drawn on the scan but can’t get permission to use it. But this is still conclusive proof that it’s a five step pyramid which is more than adequate to debunk ramps. They would not have used steps unless it was necessary and the only reason steps might be necessary is that they could lift the stones only 81’ 3" at a time.
Each of the great pyramids after Djoser’s were five step pyramids. There is simply no reason to build these as step pyramids unless the height of each step defined the height they were able to lift stones. In order to lift stones to the top they must have needed to be relayed the greatest distance they could lift. Of course this could be as simple as the length of the ropes by which they lifted them up the side. No matter the actual reason it simply isn’t consistent with ramps. It is highly consistent with counterweights and using water for ballast since the geyser sprayed 80’ and this is the height of the steps. It might be consistent with locks that lifted 81’ 3" at a time or any water or ballast lifting system limited by natural laws or infrastruture/ materiel concerns. It is not consistent with ramps.
Ramps can’t explain the various infrastructure all around and within the pyramid. They are inconsistent with the history, culture, logic, physical evidence, and the evidence left by the actual on-site builders.
Perhaps the greatest inconsistency is the cultural evidence right on site. In the pyramid builders cemetery is the “Overseer of the Boats of Neith”. This would be the loader on the south side in all probability but it could have nothing to do with ramps. There are canal overseers, overseers of metal shops, director of draftsmen, inspector of craftsmen, controller of a boat crew, controller of the side of the pyramid, inspector of metal workers and a host of other jobs that reflect a sophisticated and intelligent culture. Most tellingly is that there is a “Weigher/ Reckoner”. This job would be critical on a device that was said to be sensitive enough to tell the difference in weight of a “heavy heart” from a feather. The quarrymen who shaped the stones were called “sculptors” and the “Chief of Sculptors” is buried on site. They found a standard weight in the queens “air siphon” and a hook. Every job is accounted for but the word “ramp” isn’t even attested in the great pyramiud building age.
In point of fact there simply isn’t anything consistent with ramps. While the evidence isn’t deep it is very broad that counterweights were used and the vertical lines on the great pyramids are simply sufficient to say ramps are debunked. This scale is tipped so much you’d think there’s nothing on the ascender at all. There were no ramps. They are debunked.
As the earth spins X becomes hidden from sight.
The X makes things grow.
X is 93,000,000 miles away.
I can see the dew in the morning X.
You simply don’t need to be psychic. You just need to read the thing. Egyptologists went to a great deal of trouble to translate it and then never bothered to read it. It looked like nonsense so they assumed it was nonsense while it was still being translated the very first time.
Ironically there actually were a few individuals early on who suspected the language was metaphysical in nature but they were excommunicated by the establishment.
Actually, it’s a safe bet I know far more than I think I do because I think I know nothing at all.
It’s not just a few beads with holes in them we’re talking about here. It’s 3" diameter holes several feet deep in solid granite. There are also granite “sarcophagi” that are nearly perfect with flat even thickness walls and close fitting lids. I have no visceral understanding in this area and have to defer to experts. It appears experts don’t agree very well on these things.
Do your research: http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/pdfs/25-3/ancient.pdf Tubular copper drill using a wet abrasive, with a bow drill (stone age technology). We even have some of the cores that were taken out.
Sarcophagi and their lids were sawn, then smoothing was done with a wet abrasive. Slow work, but well within the abilities of the ancients. If you’ve seen one you’d know they weren’t so painstaking on the inside.
Oh, and statements like, “but they were excommunicated by the establishment,” generally mark one as a crackpot. You might want to watch that lest someone gets the wrong idea.
I have read the orthodox explanations. My concern is that no one can duplicate the existing evidence which includes not only large numbers of existing vases and cut holes but also significant numbers of cores. To say they were within the capabilities of the ancients assumes that their time and labor had virtually no value at all.
For example there’s a carved object that is called the “tri lobed disc” and the ancients apparently called the “mks-sceptre” which was stored in anubis’ chest. This object would have required thousands of hours of an artisan’s time and huge effort. The common wisdom is that this object is just a misshapen and disfunctional bowl. As an floating oil lamp though every feature is explained including the fact that they had a feast every year when it was unpacked and another when it was repacked. This is what I’m dealing with; Egyptologists clinging to ramps in the rising tide while my interpretation explains almost every detail and all the surviving evidence.
Oh, and I had thought I invented most of the pokes I use at Egyptology. I’ve been at this a while now so I know exactly the M.O. used by Egyptology to continue to put forth their beliefs. Their first line of defense has been to say that anyy outside hypothesis “is not consistent with cultural context”. This I defeated by simply observing that the word “ramp” isn’t even attested from the great pyramid building age and that no direct evidence of any type exists that the pyramids were tombs. The second line of defense was insult. The third line has always been to “divide and conquer”. They pit one alternative theorist against another and still slam them all with guilt by association. They just call them “new age” or woowoo, or say there’s no evidence of alien intervention. It’s true that many of these other ideas are unlikely to be correct but I’ve been making an attempt to unite all the alternative theorists.
It might sound cruel to say since Egyptology considers itself science but it has all the elements of a belief system, a religion. At its best I’d describe it as a “science founded on the assumptions that the ancients were changeless and superstitious people who dragged tombs up ramps”. Their problem isn’t so much that they aren’t scientific as it is that all their assumptions are wrong.
The PT says the weight of water at altitude drives the “Great Saw Palace”. Maybe human life wasn’t really so cheap. Maybe they used their heads as much as their backs.
I should leave this be but I can’t.
When you look at things from the perspective of the ancients nobody sounds more mystical and superstitious than Egyptologists. Religion sounds a little like ancient applied science but Egyptologists sound like they are grinding up concepts and spitting them out at random. “Ancient aliens” is a breath of fresh air in comparison.
There’s a very natural reason for this; Egyptologists have tried to understand the ancient contextual and metaphysical language by taking it apart and examining the pieces. They then apply the ideas they get from it to what the builders “mustta been like”.
It’s been 150 years and no progress is being made in understanding how the great pyramids were built. This is caused by the existence of the teflon paradigm to which no facts adhere. They can find no evidence for ramps or tombs and have made no progress at all in understanding the PT. Yet they continue to stick to it. If they considered the possibility that the people changed and they weren’t superstitious in the beginning perhaps this impasse would become undammed.
It’s pretty hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this.
Perhaps my definition of terms isn’t apparent.
Obviously a great deal more is known now about the physical nature of the pyramids. When I speak of “how the pyramids were built” I am referring to how they imparted the energy to the stones in order to lift 6 1/2 million tons to an average height of about 140’. That they did this and were able to quarry the stones is apparent.
But no means of lifting the stones is apparent and no means proposed by Egyptology has evenb the slightest direct evidence as support. Rather than seeking the data which could answer these questions they are hiring computer teams to model ramps and proposing ports that don’t need roads because stones can be dragged up hill on wet sand just fine. This is the “state of the art” in Egyptology. It sounds absurd because it is absurd.
Meanwhile they keep uncovering new evidence that supports my theory. Some of it is really rather astounding like a cistern high and dry in a desert that can be filled only by running water or caves where Egyptology said no caves can be. There’s even a primeval mound with a ben ben growing in the Sphinx Temple!!!
I can’t imagine what it will take to get them out of their rut with ramps.
There’s actually an ancient description of how they were built in the histories of Heroditus.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2131/2131-h/2131-h.htm
*This pyramid was made after the manner of steps which some called “rows” and others “bases”: and when they had first made it thus, they raised the remaining stones with machines made of short pieces of timber, raising them first from the ground to the first stage of the steps, and when the stone got up to this it was placed upon another machine standing on the first stage, and so from this it was drawn to the second upon another machine; for as many as were the courses of the steps, so many machines there were also, or perhaps they transferred one and the same machine, made so as easily to be carried, to each stage successively, in order that they might take up the stones; for let it be told in both ways, according as it is reported. However that may be the highest parts of it were finished first, and afterwards they proceeded to finish that which came next to them, and lastly they finished the parts of it near the ground and the lowest ranges. *
**cladking **is right about one thing: lifting the stones didn’t use ramps.
Herodotus, the father of history, or the father of lies, got a lot of things right. He wrote bizarre descriptions of Scythia that no one believed until archeologists dug up confirming evidence recently. But he lived after 500BCE, and the great pyramid was built something like 2000 years before his time. So he’s telling stories second hand about how they were built.