902 replies to this topic

[cladking]

Quote

What about the average blocks is unworkable. The supposed average size of a block is 2.5 tons, right? At limestone density that is a little bit bigger then a meter on a side. Sure the bottom blocks are huge, but then wouldn't that average number mean the top blocks are much smaller? Maybe the topmost blocks were only 1.5 tons? Like moving a dead cow... not too hard. The sleds needed would have only been 4 feet wide and 5 feet long.

There is no significant variation between average course thicknesses at the top and
bottom. No matter how many times you igmore the evidence this fact is immutable.  The
stones at the top appear tiny because they are far away which is because the pyramid
is so tall.

IT IS IRRELEVANT ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If the the stones actually were smaller at the top (which they are not)
it would merely mean they'd have to lift more stones.  Egyptologists
intentiobnally divert, distract, and obfuscate the facts with such word
games and irrelevancies.,


There is no evidence either sleds or ramps were used at Giza.  The word ramp isn't
even attested before the 5th dynasty.  We are being sold a bill of goods that needs
to be stamped "undeliverable" and "faulty merchandise".  Ramps are debunked and
you can't change this by pretending it never happened.

[Swede]

mlauzon, on 23 December 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

He may not 'hold the position' as you say, but he's still got to much power & influence, I see things maybe changing once he dies.

A few factors to bear in mind:

1) On a broader scale, the Egyptian government is currently in a period of, shall we say, unrest. At such times, archaeological research (unfortunately) falls rather low on the priority list.

2) As Cormac has already pointed out, Hawass is in no significant position to influence/direct any further investigations. Additionally, while he may be a bit of a "showman" with a fondness for the popular media, his record of qualified research is, for the most part, rather sound.

3) Properly conducted archaeological research routinely entails extensive evaluative processes prior to any invasive (and potentially damaging) procedures. Quite a number of non/minimally- invasive geological evaluations of the Giza Plateau have already been conducted.  

4) Given the well documented karst nature of the (in particular) Mokattam formation, the presence of naturally formed voids within this formation is consistent with its formational/post formational history.

.

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 23 December 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

My point was that if someone REALLY wanted to explore and proove those caves existed, they would only need a crowbar and a camera with video capability to proove it.

Regarding bats... Mr Collins supposedly traversed hundreds of yards of cave tunnels and took pics at points, and there was no piles of guano in the pics, just stone floor. Perhaps your bat comment is further proof that Mr Collins made up this story??

You need jack hammers to break up most bat guano.  I don't want to get distracted from
thje point but I suppose it depends on the diet of the bats, lenght of time, and conditions
in the cave to determine just how hard this material is. In my extraordinarily limited experience
and knowledge on the subject I believe bats intentionally block their roosts with the guano to
keep predators and large animals out.  They simply take over caves for their own use like beavers
or termites transform their enviroments (or man builds cities).

[cladking]

mlauzon, on 23 December 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

It's not really the government that won't allow it, it's that damned idiot Zahi Hawass, maybe once he kicks the bucket, then things will change for the better, at this point he's got way to much power.

Dr Hawass is out and they apparently have a new man to block any science ever getting done.

It's still early and I don't want to jump to conclusions though  as this guy's barely had time to
unpack his bags.

Zahi Hawass held everyone who wasn't an Egyptologist as a moron.  He had absolutely no re-
spect for the opinions of people who weren't Egyptologists.  He hired engineers and the like
to do his bidding.

In my opinion the pyramids are far too important to leave in the hands of Egyptologists.  They
not only won't consider outside opinions but they've been destroying evidence, desicrating graves,
and failing to do even the most basic science on site.  We need scientists out there under the
control of the Egyptian government and not Egyptologists who have been promoting a failed theoy
far too long.

[cladking]

Swede, on 23 December 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

3) Properly conducted archaeological research routinely entails extensive evaluative processes prior to any invasive (and potentially damaging) procedures. Quite a number of non/minimally- invasive geological evaluations of the Giza Plateau have already been conducted.  

I'm not sure why you'd describe the filling of holes built for an unknown purpose with
concrete to be "minimally invasive".  When we finally have to jackhammer all this cement
out of the holes a great deal of evidence will be permanently lost.  And then there's re-
moving the western boat placed there 4700 years ago which can hardly be called min-
imally invasive.  I suppose swatting the beetle was hardly worthy of note just as is digging
up grave after grave and removing the occupants.  Then there's the sheer lunacy of de-
ciding there must be another chamber with a dead king in it because a book of fiction
written 1000 years after the pyramid was built can be interpreted to mean this.  On this
basis they send robots up the shafts and drill holes.

Meanwhile none of the important work is being done because Egyptologists already believe
it's a tomb built with ramps so anything that can't support this doesn't get measured and
doesn't get studied.  It's a shame the damage going on but it's a bigger shame the import-
ant work not being done.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 23 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

There is no significant variation between average course thicknesses at the top and
bottom. No matter how many times you igmore the evidence this fact is immutable.  The
stones at the top appear tiny because they are far away which is because the pyramid
is so tall.

IT IS IRRELEVANT ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If the the stones actually were smaller at the top (which they are not)
it would merely mean they'd have to lift more stones.  Egyptologists
intentiobnally divert, distract, and obfuscate the facts with such word
games and irrelevancies.,


There is no evidence either sleds or ramps were used at Giza.  The word ramp isn't
even attested before the 5th dynasty.  We are being sold a bill of goods that needs
to be stamped "undeliverable" and "faulty merchandise".  Ramps are debunked and
you can't change this by pretending it never happened.

You might want to back up and try that again. The average thickness of the top 20 levels is 21.395 inches while the average of the bottom 20 levels is 36.45 inches. That's a significant difference in course thickness, contrary to your claim.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 23 December 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

You might want to back up and try that again. The average thickness of the top 20 levels is 21.395 inches while the average of the bottom 20 levels is 36.45 inches. That's a significant difference in course thickness, contrary to your claim.

Reread what I said.

I said there is no significant difference in the  thickness of the AVERAGE course from the top to the bottom.

This means you throw out the outliers.  In this case all the outliers are extremely thick courses and the
thickness of these extremely thick courses does decrease significantly toward the top.

In simple terms this means the average stone near the top is likely about the same size as the average
stone at the bottom.

It is irrelevant anyway.   If they had used smaller stones (which they didn't) they simply have to use more
stones.  It's surprising that people who imagine a mountain under the pyramid might think the top was in
any way easier than the bottom (other than the pyramid really does get smaller toward the top).

Edited by cladking, 23 December 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[socrates.junior]

"No significant difference in the thickness of the AVERAGE course from the top to the bottom."

I might be missing something, but isn't that the whole point of an average? It really doesn't seem like anything groundbreaking.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 23 December 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Reread what I said.

I said there is no significant difference in the  thickness of the AVERAGE course from the top to the bottom.

This means you throw out the outliers.  In this case all the outliers are extremely thick courses and the
thickness of these extremely thick courses does decrease significantly toward the top.

In simple terms this means the average stone near the top is likely about the same size as the average
stone at the bottom.

It is irrelevant anyway.   If they had used smaller stones (which they didn't) they simply have to use more
stones.  It's surprising that people who imagine a mountain under the pyramid might think the top was in
any way easier than the bottom (other than the pyramid really does get smaller toward the top).

I read it the first time. And it's just as ignorant the second time around. One doesn't get to "throw out" anything in relation to the size of the blocks. And since the course thicknesses depend on your so-called "outliers", throwing them out makes anything further you have to say meaningless. They are what they are and they DO show a decrease from bottom to top.

cormac

[mlauzon]

mlauzon, on 23 December 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

He may not 'hold the position' as you say, but he's still got too much power & influence, I see things maybe changing once he dies.

Changed 'to' to "too".

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 23 December 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

I read it the first time. And it's just as ignorant the second time around. One doesn't get to "throw out" anything in relation to the size of the blocks. And since the course thicknesses depend on your so-called "outliers", throwing them out makes anything further you have to say meaningless. They are what they are and they DO show a decrease from bottom to top.

Really!?!

Now you're telling me how to do math, eh?

You're missing the point.  Course thicknesses are not random.  They do not
deviate around some given point and they don't approach a given point.  There
is a regular pattern to them that Egyptologists are simply trying to hide just as
they try to hide the difference between a 200' pyramid and a 450' pyramid.

Each course all the way to the top is almost exactly the same thickness except
there's a slight tapering off with altitude.  This is a fact and you can't change this
fact with words or trying to hide it by talking about fill, massiffs, and voids in the
pyramid which also don't exist and/ or are irrelevant to the scope of the job or the
means of accomplishing the job.  The pyramid hides behind a smaokescreen of
words emitted by Egyptology.

In addition to these near equally thick courses over the entire height of the pyramid
there are several extra thick courses.  These extra thick courses go all the way to
the top as well however there is a significant decrease in the thickness of these extra
thick courses as you go up.  This is a fairly consistent decrease just as the decrease
in typical course thicknesses.

All these words just because everyone wants the pyramid hidden behind words and the
stones at the top look smaller when you look up.

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

Rather than do basic science they engage everyone in a wall of smoke.  Instead of looking
in the caves they put in a gate.

The jig is up.

[Swede]

cladking, on 23 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

1) There is no significant variation between average course thicknesses at the top and
bottom.

2) There is no evidence either sleds or ramps were used at Giza.


3) Ramps are debunked.

1) Wrong:

http://www.ronaldbir...ata/levels.html

2) Other than (for starters) the ramp leading from the quarrying area?

3) No. That inclined planes were one of the mechanically advantageous "technologies" utilized by the culture under consideration is documented. Period. This does not, of course, preclude the utilization of additional mechanically advantageous applications/tooling such as levers, cribbing, sledges, etc. Temporally related technologies are documented. And it is rather unlikely that any qualified researcher would disavow the potential utilization of multiple applications of mechanical advantage combined with an apparently well organized and well cared for work force.

None of which supports the various and assorted culturally inconsistent "themes" promoted by those not inclined to exert the effort to thoroughly study and evaluate the available research.

.

[cormac mac airt]

Egyptologists aren't trying to hide anything. Here are the course thicknesses, per Petrie, for the 203 levels of the NE corner, (in inches):

21.4
22.5
22.2
22.8
21.6
22.1
23.5
23.9
19.8
18.7
22.6
20.1
21.2
20.4
20.5
20.9
19.7
21.1
20.7
22.2
22.5
23.3
24.7
26.5
20.6
20.1
20.3
20.5
20.3
19.7
20.8
21.2
19.7
20.8
20.5
20
20.6
21.2
21.4
25.8
22.1
23.8
20.7
21.5
20.6
21.6
21.2
21.3
20.5
21.8
22.2
23
24.4
26.6
21.7
21.9
22.1
23.9
24.2
31.1
20.9
23.1
21
21.7
25
26.2
22.3
23.7
21.2
22.8
21.5
23.2
24.9
26.6
22.1
22.8
21.6
24
24.8
24.3
26.2
26.2
29.1
29.8
31.8
35.6
22.4
27.1
22.1
23
23.2
24.1
22.9
23.2
26.6
29.3
24.8
24.8
26.6
26.3
29.3
27.4
33.5
35.6
38.3
37.5
26
23
25.6
26.1
29.4
33.1
34.3
38.5
22.7
23.1
21.9
26.3
22.9
27.8
22.6
23.3
23.2
24.1
23.1
23.7
25.5
23.6
28.4
31
25.3
25.8
28.8
27.8
32.4
30.6
35
23.7
26.2
25.6
26
24.4
26.2
28.1
28.7
28.6
22.5
24.8
25.3
25.7
25.6
26.3
27.2
27.4
31.2
35.5
35.6
27.3
37.9
41.1
33.3
28
30.9
31.9
33.9
36.3
38.2
41.1
49.8
26.2
26.3
26.3
27.8
28.2
28.1
29.2
29.7
30.8
32.3
32.4
33
34.5
23.8
23.5
38.1
31.1
28
28.9
29.3
29.4
29.8
29.7
33.7
36
36.4
37.8
39.2
38
40.2
44
48.2
49.1
58.6

You still want to claim that they're almost exactly the same thickness?

cormac

[dreamland]

1)  I got this from internet :  The Great Pyramid of Giza's location in latitude is about 29° 58′ 45.03″ N or 29.97697709832755 latitude North. The speed of light in meters per second is 299,792,458. In other words...

10,000,756.81 * 29.97697709832755 = 299,792,458.

The Great Pyramid of Giza's exterior slope angle (rise / run) is 51° 51 minutes or about 186,600 arc seconds. The speed of light in miles per second is 186,282. In other words...

1.001707089 * 186,282 = 186,600.

So here is the question:

How in the __hell did people, roughly 4,552 years ago, know about the speed of light?

interesting,huh?

2) I really dont think primitive people could build such a huge structure.Based on these informations from wikipedia:

The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tonnes. The volume, including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic metres.^[3] Based on these estimates, building this in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night....
it is impossible to do it by primitive people without using some superhuman power or knowledge.
We talking about 2.3 millions of blocks weighting few tons each that had to be cut,brink into work place and put together to create such a giant pyramid. Come on guys... its impossible.. some blocks inside the kings chamber weight as much as 60 tons each !!  i watched video of few people trying to push block of stone that weights only 3 tons and it was very hard for them to do it...so how is it posible that primitive people could lift a 60 tons block all the way up that is inside the kings chamber? the only explanation is that ancient egyptians could posses a secret knowledge how to reduce a weight of the block or even levitate them..without that..its not possible...

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 23 December 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

Egyptologists aren't trying to hide anything. Here are the course thicknesses, per Petrie, for the 203 levels of the NE corner, (in inches):

21.4
22.5
...

Here's a picture;



As you can plainly see the course thickness of the typical or average course hardly varies.

I am not going to play words games about this any longer or help count the number of angels
danciong on the head of a pin.  It is what it is.