Secret Caves under the Pyramids

[cladking]

.

again, you're thinking of a single ramp instead of one that spirals around the pyramid.

No. This is the nature of all ramps. They can only access the pyramid at the point they

join the pyramid. This is virtually true by definition.

Of course in theory you can bury the entire thing under a mountain of ramp and then re-

carve the ramp to access all points but in practice it would be a nightmare. And you still

have the pyramid hidden under a mountain of ramps.

You just can't make it work.

[shrooma]

nope, can't see the carbonated water thing at all i'm afraid, at least not in the volumes and pressures required.

again, it would be a matter of heft. carbonated water, indeed heavily carbonated water as you say, just wouldn't have the weight to volume needed for the task due to its enormously reduced density.

[kmt_sesh]

.

it seems obvious to me that you don't really have any understanding of engineering.

why would navigating a corner with a block present a problem? I can think of three different solutions straight away.

why would cladding the pyramid on the way down be an 'impossibility'? cladding it on the way down is MUCH easier than cladding it on the way up as you've already got a ramp in place to work from, dismantling the ramp as you work down towards the base.

there are only a 'long laundry list of problems' to people who don't understand basic engineering precepts.

in what way are dragging 1.5t stone blocks 300ft up the side of a slope easier than sliding them up a shallow gradient on a lubricated carriage??

I'm sure there were any number of ways to maneuver the blocks around the corners on the ramps. By necessity it's theoretical, but I think it was on the This Old Pyramid television special where a probable technique was demonstrated. The video was interesting to watch. It was a colleague of Mark Lehner's, and while it took him awhile to figure it out, it was not difficult to bring a block around the corner of their ramp.

They also did some experiential trials of moving individual stone blocks, some of which worked better than others. The most successful was loading the block onto the type of wooden sledge we know the Egyptians used (and which is known to have been used at least as far back as Dynasty 4). Around a dozen or so ordinary Egyptian men were recruited to do the pulling. Most pulled, a couple stood at the back to help lever the block forward, and one or two others stayed near the front to feed timber rollers underneath the sledge. Using this technique, the team had little difficulty moving and maneuvering the stone block, and they could pull it surprisingly fast. The same was true when they did so on inclines, to approximate ramps.

The point is, all of this has at least some foundation in physical, archaeological evidence: the remains of ramps, the remains of timber rollers inside ramp fill, wooden sledges, depictions on tomb walls of sledges in use, et cetera. We've spent years trying to show cladking these very basic things while at the same time trying to get him to see that the entirety of his geyser theme is not in evidence. But when you've rigidly wedded yourself to confirmation bias, you tend to worry more about saving face than about accepting the inevitable.

[SHaYap]

Look Boss !!! ..... Da plane ! Da Plane !!!

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

There are actually quite a few that appear to support this idea. Most are difficult to extract because

of the nature of the language which expressed meaning in context rather than by direct statement,

I believe. Essentially these lines all say that the dead king was transformed into Atum/ Osiris (the gey-

ser) when he was cremated on top of the incomplete pyramid at the east side 'iskn.

The most dramatic and easiest to see is;

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.

2053b. They take N. to heaven, to heaven-on the smoke of incense.

376 and 377 come from utterance 269, a censing prayer, and in full it reads -

The fire is laid, the fire shines;

The incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

Your perfume comes to me, O incense;

May my perfume come to you, O incense.

Your perfume comes to me, you gods;

May my perfume come to you, you gods.

May I be with you, you gods;

May you be with me, you gods.

May I live with you, you gods;

May you live with me, you gods.

I love you, you gods;

May you love me, you gods.

I put incense in bold just to emphasise that what is written about here is the smoke from incense, not a body, this is why it is a censing prayer.

And in 2053, well, it is better to read from 2051. Notice the part about embalming.....

Utterance 684, An ascension text.

This King ascended when you ascended, O Osiris; his word and his double are bound for the sky, the King's bones are iron and the King's members are the imperishable stars. If the King be caused to be embalmed, the Great One will fall before the King, for the King's mother is Nut, the King's father is Shu, the King's grandmother is Tefnet, they take the King to the sky, to the sky, on the smoke of incense. (not any burning body)

Edited February 21, 2013 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[shrooma]

But when you've rigidly wedded yourself to confirmation bias, you tend to worry more about saving face than about accepting the inevitable.

.

I don't know enough about the subject to consider myself knowlegeable to be honest, I was merely looking at it from an engineering perspective.

the core fundament of engineering is problem solving, finding the simplest, most effective solution to achieve the desired end result. that applies just as much 5000yrs ago as it does today, and ramps, scaffolding, and plain hard graft seems to me to be the simplest solution.

by I go by evidence, and have no problem changing my stance on a subject when i'm given better evidence, even if it's totally at odds with my current viewpoint, which is the main reason i'm on this site,

to learn.

Edited February 21, 2013 by kmt_sesh
Fixed duplication

[shrooma]

sorry about the multiple reply by the way, my phone seems to be spazzing out on me for some reason!

Edited February 21, 2013 by kmt_sesh
I fixed your previous post, shrooma.

[Harte]

Nonsense.

I've provided this link to you more times than I can count. I have no doubt you'll spew the same thing ad infinitum anyway;

http://www.ronaldbir...oto/plate8.html

I've also demolished that nonsense about having found a ramp a dozen times before.

And you still don't see the downward trend of that bar graph as you move left to right (bottom to top.)

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

.

I don't know enough about the subject to consider myself knowlegeable to be honest, I was merely looking at it from an engineering perspective.

the core fundament of engineering is problem solving, finding the simplest, most effective solution to achieve the desired end result. that applies just as much 5000yrs ago as it does today, and ramps, scaffolding, and plain hard graft seems to me to be the simplest solution.

by I go by evidence, and have no problem changing my stance on a subject when i'm given better evidence, even if it's totally at odds with my current viewpoint, which is the main reason i'm on this site,

to learn.

It's certainly beneficial to understand the culture of the people who built the thing, as well as the time in which they lived and the technology available to them. Still, approaching the subject from a clinical engineering perspective is highly useful and you've already displayed your acumen in that regard. I know the archaeology and culture but am not as well versed in engineering. That's how all of us posters can complement one another.

You might be interested in a book called How the Great Pyramid Was Built. It was written by a seasoned engineer named Craig Smith. Many who've studied ancient Egypt and continue to study it are not even Egyptologists but specialists in all manner of scientific fields. Smith was granted full access to the Great Pyramid and spent years studying it. His book is the summation of how he, as an engineer, believes the monument was built based on the technologies, logistics, and industries of the Early Bronze Age.

I see you're new to UM, shrooma (and welcome, by the way), but trust me when I tell you we've been at this for years with cladking. Cladking's geyser theme involves everything from geology to linguistics, and I know he hates it when I say this, but he's been proven wrong at every turn. We've even had geologically savvy posters demonstrate how the geological environment at Giza could not support a cold water geyser. This sort of geyser is very uncommon to begin with, but of those that are known, they aren't exactly impressive.

I think you can intuitively see the sheer implausibility of the whole geyser thing. One doesn't need advanced scientific degrees to understand this. I don't tend to participate in most of the geyser discussions anymore because they haven't changed in years. Cladking argues the same points, and the rest of us continue to demonstrate the same ways in which he's wrong. Been there, done that, in other words.

Which reminds me, I'm not exactly being helpful in this thread myself. I should know better as a Mod. This discussion is not about cladking's geyser theme, nor should any of us be encouraging him. Whatever happened to the "caves" under the pyramids?

[bee]

No. This is the nature of all ramps. They can only access the pyramid at the point they

join the pyramid. This is virtually true by definition.

Of course in theory you can bury the entire thing under a mountain of ramp and then re-

carve the ramp to access all points but in practice it would be a nightmare. And you still

have the pyramid hidden under a mountain of ramps.

You just can't make it work.

Probably an impossibility....you don't have to be an engineer or builder to appreciate the difficulties..

The higher the 'ramp' got, the more unstable.... and with all the weight and movement, not just the

stones but the men and equipment as well...

Can't see it myself.

(so I agree with you over the 'ramp' thing )

.

[bee]

The point is, all of this has at least some foundation in physical, archaeological evidence: the remains of ramps, the remains of timber rollers inside ramp fill, wooden sledges, depictions on tomb walls of sledges in use, et cetera. We've spent years trying to show cladking these very basic things while at the same time trying to get him to see that the entirety of his geyser theme is not in evidence. But when you've rigidly wedded yourself to confirmation bias, you tend to worry more about saving face than about accepting the inevitable.

I know you want the thread to get back on topic but I just wanted to say that finding all of the above doesn't

automatically mean that any of those things were actually to do with building the pyramid itself.

Perhaps there were smaller items like statues etc that were originally around the pyramid in its hey day...

they would have needed a path to travel to bring them and they could have used sledges.

What I'm saying is that the evidence you have sited above is circumstantial and not conclusive...

IMO

.

[bee]

Whatever happened to the "caves" under the pyramids?

Bit of a mystery....those 'caves'....

[Harte]

The cladding rests on the cladding below so it is impossible to set a stone without the stone below already in place.

A ramp gives you access to the pyramid only where the ramp top meets the pyramid. If the ramp meets the pyramid on the east side you don't have access to the west side to put in cladding stones.

You do if if you place the exterior stones at the same time as the interior ones.

[shrooma]

The higher the 'ramp' got, the more unstable.... and with all the weight and movement, not just the

stones but the men and equipment as well...

.

when you build a ramp, you don't build it out of sand, you build it from more suitable material.

the rubble from the quarried stone, being plentiful, and local, would be ideal. as the ramp gets heavier, it doesn't become more unstable, it compacts, becoming more stable.

silbury hill in wiltshire is just as old as the pyramids, one quarter its size, just as steep-sided, and built entirely from piled dirt and chalk rubble, and is very stable indeed!

[Harte]

This doesn't work. If you think about it you'll see numerous intractible problems with

this explanation. Most notable is that a spiral ramp would completely fill this water collection

device. It wouldn't make sense to create pools of water in the hot dry desert anyway since

evaporation rates would be extremely high and the water would get very hot. I could go on.

You DO go on.

The above (bolded) is patently absurd. A spiral ramp would hardly extend past the footprint of the pyramid, and then only on one side.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Harte

[SHaYap]

But Mr Harte, wouldn't that just make a slippery slope much more slippery ?

[Harte]

The easier to slide the stones up!

Harte

[TheSearcher]

376 and 377 come from utterance 269, a censing prayer, and in full it reads -

The fire is laid, the fire shines;

The incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

Your perfume comes to me, O incense;

May my perfume come to you, O incense.

Your perfume comes to me, you gods;

May my perfume come to you, you gods.

May I be with you, you gods;

May you be with me, you gods.

May I live with you, you gods;

May you live with me, you gods.

I love you, you gods;

May you love me, you gods.

I put incense in bold just to emphasise that what is written about here is the smoke from incense, not a body, this is why it is a censing prayer.

And in 2053, well, it is better to read from 2051. Notice the part about embalming.....

Utterance 684, An ascension text.

This King ascended when you ascended, O Osiris; his word and his double are bound for the sky, the King's bones are iron and the King's members are the imperishable stars. If the King be caused to be embalmed, the Great One will fall before the King, for the King's mother is Nut, the King's father is Shu, the King's grandmother is Tefnet, they take the King to the sky, to the sky, on the smoke of incense. (not any burning body)

In context it makes a lot more sense actually.

-SNIP-

Which reminds me, I'm not exactly being helpful in this thread myself. I should know better as a Mod. This discussion is not about cladking's geyser theme, nor should any of us be encouraging him. Whatever happened to the "caves" under the pyramids?

You know that with Clad it invariably goes back to pyramids and geysers, Kmt

But you're not doing that bad a job, you're calling us back on topic after all, old chap

[shrooma]

thankyou kmt_sesh!

:-)

I can see how this kind of thing would be prone to stagnation, with both sides adopting a seige mentality that their pov is right and the rest be damned, and when you mix it with the fact that there will be very little new evidence coming to light due to the fact that it's been practically excavated to death, i'll consider this a lesson learned, climb off the merry-go-round, and go pester the cryptozoologists instead....!

.

have fun, you crazy kids!

:-)

[cladking]

nope, can't see the carbonated water thing at all i'm afraid, at least not in the volumes and pressures required.

again, it would be a matter of heft. carbonated water, indeed heavily carbonated water as you say, just wouldn't have the weight to volume needed for the task due to its enormously reduced density.

Keep in mind that G1

[bee]

.

when you build a ramp, you don't build it out of sand, you build it from more suitable material.

the rubble from the quarried stone, being plentiful, and local, would be ideal. as the ramp gets heavier, it doesn't become more unstable, it compacts, becoming more stable.

silbury hill in wiltshire is just as old as the pyramids, one quarter its size, just as steep-sided, and built entirely from piled dirt and chalk rubble, and is very stable indeed!

anything is...only as strong as it's weakest point...and the weakest point is what would keep the ramps in place and the rubble from shifting.

which in itself is very very heavy...

Isn't it all supposed to have been built in 2o years according to the orthodox view..?

There wouldn't have been time to build a Silbury Hill around the pyramid.

And if Silbury Hill had had massive weights moved up it and round it at any time I don't think it would look the same.

It would be wrecked...

You're not even supposed to climb up it now on foot...because of damage and possible subsidence...

.

[cladking]

nope, can't see the carbonated water thing at all i'm afraid, at least not in the volumes and pressures required.

again, it would be a matter of heft. carbonated water, indeed heavily carbonated water as you say, just wouldn't have the weight to volume needed for the task due to its enormously reduced density.

Keep in mind that they had twenty years years to collect water and that G1 is right next

to a cliff face which also probably had counterweights operating on it. In other words they

could use this water at nearly 300% efficiency!!! They'd have about 80% efficiency using

its weight from 81' 3" and about 90% efficiency using its weight from 225'. Of course this

required it actually existed but this is the basis of my argument; that it did. This is what's

in evidence.

Additionally I believe some of this water was relifted manually with about a 60% efficiency.

In other words I doubt that the amount of human effort expended in lifting the building blocks

exceeded about 5% of the total amount of lifting and that almost all of this 5% was done by lifting

water rather than stones.

[cladking]

I think you can intuitively see the sheer implausibility of the whole geyser thing.

... Whatever happened to the "caves" under the pyramids?

Everybody, including me can see the implausibility of using geysers at Giza. It's very far-fetched and

anyone who disputes this hasn't studied too much of anything, probably. But the question isn't whether

or not it's so implausible as what theory best represents all the evidence. I don't know why geysers fit

the facts so well nor why two out of three professional geologists have never even heard of CO2 geysers.

What I know is the news (such as caves at Giza) is still supporting the idea that they used water and not

the idea they used ramps.

Another thing I don't know is why the powers that be won't simply prove me wrong and be done with it.

The argument that they aren't even aware of it holds no water since Hawass referred to the theory in 2009

yet never did a little simple testing to prove it wrong. What I don't know is why there is so much resistance

to a simple crackpot idea that fits the evidence. There's more and more evidence to support this every day

and now that many peoiple are looking for evidence of water it just comes flooding in faster and faster.

This theory is going to stand of time even though it is far-fetched.

[cladking]

"

The cladding rests on the cladding below so it is impossible to set a stone without the stone below already in place.

A ramp gives you access to the pyramid only where the ramp top meets the pyramid. If the ramp meets the pyramid on the east side you don't have access to the west side to put in cladding stones."

You do if if you place the exterior stones at the same time as the interior ones.

If there is a claddfing stone in place to place another on then you are adding them fromn the

bottom up which isn't the subject. If there could be a single fact to disprove ramps no one would

ever have proposed ramps in the first place.

[cladking]

.

when you build a ramp, you don't build it out of sand, you build it from more suitable material.

the rubble from the quarried stone, being plentiful, and local, would be ideal. as the ramp gets heavier, it doesn't become more unstable, it compacts, becoming more stable.

silbury hill in wiltshire is just as old as the pyramids, one quarter its size, just as steep-sided, and built entirely from piled dirt and chalk rubble, and is very stable indeed!

You're right back where we started. If you build it out of nice stable rubble then it won't adghere

to the cladded pyramid side. Ramp proponents keep changing the perspectives each time they

are challenged. It's all perspective and in the real world you have to stick witha single one or you

end up with something like this;

It's as impossible to build this as it is to build the pyramid with any ramping system. Even if it were

possible you'd still be stuck with a lack of evidence and you'd be lkedft with a building method that

required for more work than the pyramid itself just to use an inefficient method.

Why wouldn't they just stand on top and pull the stones up? Why won't anyone answer this question?

What is evidenced is they pulled the stones up one step at a time so why fight it?

What is the power that highly inefficient, wasteful, and unevidenced ramps hold over people?