902 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 03 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

You're right that it is not proven. Indeed, if I knew nothing except the appearance of the gravimetric scan
I wouldn't estimate over about a 55% probability it shows a five step pyramid.  This is a very low confidence
level and I didn't mean to imply that the evidence is very strong.  However I know a great deal more than just
the information on the scan which includes evidence that other great pyramids are step pyramids as well s
professional opinion that this and others are stepped.  My opinion is also influence by the knowledge that
ramps are highly improbable due to the lack of evidence for them and their inefficiency.  Basically, when I
put all this evidence together it comes up a better than 95% probability that it's a step pyramid and most pro-
bably a five step pyramid.

Until it is actually studied and the tests are run it is perfectly legitimate to say "it mustta been a five step pyra-
mid" because they had to lift the stones one step at a time.  This is the reality now even though few realize
the playing field has changed and the ball is still in Egyptology's court.  Logic and evidence transcend opin-
ion and assumptions and the logic and evidence flies in the face of ramps whether it's widely understood
yet or not.

Yet you continue to present it as if it has, therein lies the problem.

You've done it so often you've effectively negated your own attempt at back-pedalling. Sorry, but this can't be taken seriously.

No, they didn't "have" to do anything. That they could (theoretically) have done it that way is just one of several possibilities. And since you've shown no actual, verified evidence for the existance of a geyser on the Giza Plateau it's all a moot point. But enough of taking this thread off topic to make it another attempt at promoting your unevidenced theory.

cormac

[Swede]

samspade, on 03 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

so can you clarify what conflict in my position ?

a null is well known in computer terms.
i mention before the null in computer terms is a null, a absence of data, a unknown value.


they said adam lanza was a smart and seem nice then he did horrible bad things.

1) professional research because the conclusions of fringe writers have basically no research value?

...anyhow from a analyst point of view, i  cant trust the majority orthodox view (Samspade #782) (Emphasis added).

The "orthodox view" is based upon extensive professional research. Ergo, it would appear that you are in conflict with the results of this research/methodology. Without providing any credible research to the contrary.

2) The null hypothesis, as originally defined by Fisher, is primarily utilized as a basis for statistical analysis. It is essentially a default position against which variances in populations (which take numerous forms) or phenomena are evaluated. The null hypothesis is utilized in a broad range of statistical analyses in a broad range of fields.

Given your experience with computer-related matters, would you be so kind as to provide us with a direct and cited definition of the utilization of the term as applied to computer science?

3) This attempt at disparaging Kmt's personal values and standards is irrelevant and could be interpreted as libelous.

.

[samspade]

Swede, on 03 March 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

your experience with computer-related matters, would you be so kind as to provide us with a direct and cited definition of the utilization of the term as applied to computer science?

I strongly suggest you reread my previous posts in the last 4 pages,
i Have covered issues about data,evidence, views, condictions among experts;lack of evidence, possible undisclosed evidence etc

i included various statements that support my case in regards to null, and data. i included the definition of null in computer terms.

i have mentioned that in past as well.

Edited by samspade, 03 March 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[DieChecker]

samspade, on 03 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

kmt try to divert to something in the past where i clarified it, was offensive on his part, so his comment there was offensive when one understands the past comments.

Do you think perhaps you use of all caps with the word Liar was also a bit offensive? More so then needed to be?

[DieChecker]

samspade, on 03 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

when something is a unknown value you cant claim what it without fact and evidence.

Still what he posted was Opinion. And you said the opinion was flawed. It was an opinion based on the Orthodox timeline of Ancient Egypt, from someone who has read and studied more about Egypt then any ten or twenty of the rest of us. In my opinion that makes him the local expert. I say this because I've read thousands of his posts and followed up to read the links and googled much else, and it has all turned out the be straightforward and well backed by Archeology and Egyptology.

Maybe before you chose to call someone's opinion flawed you should research the knowledge base of that person.

I can see where you are coming from in that everything should be suspect till shown to be true. But does what has been shown to be "true" need to be re-shown to every new Member and in every new Thread?

Edited by DieChecker, 04 March 2013 - 01:08 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

A reminder to all posters: do not resort to name-calling or other forms of derogatory remarks. If you have a personal issue with a poster—be that person a Mod or a regular member—either PM that individual or use the Report feature. Do not use the public forum for personal bickering.

I regret that I, myself, did not put an end to this sooner. Saru has commented, and I intend this post to be my last on the matter. I will delete further posts that add to the fracas because they are not relevant to the topic of the discussion.

Thank you.

kmt_sesh

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 03 March 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

Unsurprisingly it doesn't include the actual evidence like secret caves.

Good job bringing that Thread Topic back around.

Quote

It doesn't consider that there's no evidence that there were ramps on the pyramids nor does it consider the ample evidence that ramps would be impossible to build five step pyramids and leave no tell tale evidence.

Of course it does not consider those, because there IS evidence of both. What do you call the quarry full of tafla and debris? A parking lot for chariots? That stuff came from building something and then tearing it down. It is not the same stuff as used for building buildings, or monuments, or even roads. It is stuff only used to build ramps and to strengthen enbankments and such. Since that area has no need of enbankment strengthening, the best... simplest... probably correct... assumption is that it came from something connected with building the pyramids. And the only thing that would require so much construction materials is... an external construction ramp.

Why would construction of a step pyramid require tell tale evidence? What would such evidence look like?

I bet if we could take the GP apart, we'd find that evidence. With tafla mixed with the mortor where the ramp ran up around the pyramid.

Quote

This doesn't prove they were dragged by thirsty farmers in 110 degree heat with the sun almost directly overhead.  

True enough. But the thirsty farmers model does fit the evidence that exists and understood currently. It is the most probably choice of the many choices. Even your water driven counterweight idea is a reasonable choice, but it has so much less evidence that it is not the leading choice.

If more evidence comes forward then perhaps those choices might change, but with the given evidence right now, ramps are what is the leading choice. Specifically an external spiral ramp.

Myself, I like a switchback ramp system, as it would require only one side of the pyramid be covered, and would be able to deliver stones almost as fast as a spiral ramp.

Quote

All the evidence suggests they used hydraulic means which is rather remarkable in that they've studiously avoided ever even looking or investigating hydraulic means.  They boiard up caves and can't run a $200 analysis oif the water in the Osiris Shaft. The new ben ben stone just sits in the Sphinx Temple because Egyptology doesn't really want to know about the ancient Egyptians; they only want to find proof of their assumptions.

Come on now Clad... "All" the evidence??

I'm sure eventually when the political atmosphere levels out over there, and resources become available, they will dig out those caves.

Are you one of those people that think the Dead End Hallway in the Underground Chamber is actually a water tunnel? Several guys think that the short tunnel has a false door at the end and actually leads out to the Nile.

I thought a benben stone was like a topmost point of a temple. Specifically the one temple (of the Sun?) in Heliopolis.

Edited by DieChecker, 04 March 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 03 March 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Just as having been built on a hill doesn't prove they must have used ramps discovering voids in the construction in a region that is exceedly low density is hardly evidence of a ramp.  

It might be very good evidence of a ramp. Perhaps due to the ramp, fill material had to be used at certain points, because it was too hard to manuever stones over to that area.

I guess the answer is that we simply don't know. We can only create possibilities and see which the evidence fits best.

Quote

They had some good reason to be concerned with the ability of the cliff face to support the weight since there is only about a five safety margin.  

I'd not have thought that the cliff was so dangerous to the pyramids. After all they have lasted almost 5000 years now, right?

It looks to be on solid stone to me.

Quote

When you compute those power saws be sure to count the horse power.  

Doesn't matter, because the comment referenced modern day.

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 03 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

You're right that it is not proven. Indeed, if I knew nothing except the appearance of the gravimetric scan
I wouldn't estimate over about a 55% probability it shows a five step pyramid.  

My opinon is more like 10% to 15% likelyhood of a step pyramid.

Even if it was a step pyramid, how, functionally is that going to be different then a layer by layer pyramid? You still have to go back and fill in those sides of the pyramid and clad them, just as you would with a layer by layer pyramid. Actually a step pyramid would create extra work, since you would have to drag stones up higher then they will eventually sit, or use little ramps on each step to move the blocks up into place.

EDIT:
KMT Read this, and give an opinion:

That made me think a little more.... What if there WAS a step pyramid, and the steps are what supported the ramp? Not the cladding as most assume? And what if the lower density on the scan is the actual remaines of the Ramp walled up behind 10 or 12 layers of blocks? This could explain why the density changes, because fill would be sitting on the step. Heaped up against the inside wall of the step. And it would explain the lack of ramp evidence on the outside of the pyramid, because it was never on the outside. And it would allow the surveyors to make the outer edges sharp because those parts of the pyramid would be going up last. Also this might explain why the Queen's chamber shafts don't go all the way to the outside. They only go to the step....

Edited by DieChecker, 04 March 2013 - 01:15 AM.

[Nean]

I think the thing to remember about ancient Egyptians is they were the superpower of their time and also smarter than you'd think. Probably much smarter than us when it came to architecture because to achieve anything they had to find ways to make their physical labor go a long way.

Any fool can muscle up a 30 ton rock with an enormous crane, but that doesn't mean you require an enormous crane. And when you have a large supply of surplus labor in the population due to better farming etc. and spent enough time on it then it becomes a lot easier.

[dreamland]

I want to share two interesting videos :
*snip*

Second video is more interesting:
*snip*

starting from 24m and 30s video shows mysterious slots inside the grand gallery..it is solid evidence...they are there. Looking at this video,sometimes it makes me think twice,if ramps were used or not..but i am not convinced yet. It is possible that grand gallery was used to pull these heave stones up,but i still believe that some more advanced technology was used.
At the beginning of the video,there is a talk about the ramp,and he even says that he is convinced that a single ramp is impossible.I need to hear your new ideas after watching these two videos..

Edited by Saru, 04 March 2013 - 10:21 AM.
Removed copyrighted video links

[DieChecker]

That Josh Bernstein is criminally lucky to have gone to so many of the secret places of Giza, with Hawass as a guide even.

[dontworryaboutit]

cladking, on 03 March 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

Unsurprisingly it doesn't include the actual evidence like secret caves.

It doesn't consider that there's no evidence that there were ramps on the pyramids nor does
it consider the ample evidence that ramps would be impossible to build five step pyramids and
leave no tell tale evidence.

Almost no one is suggesting the stones flew to the pyramid or took the subway.  This mostly
leaves only a ground route that starts at a different altitude than it ends because the pyramid
is on a hill.  Essentially what you're saying comes down to "the pyramid was built on a hill so
they mustta used ramps".  I know it's on a hill and the stones moved near the ground.  This
doesn't prove they were dragged by thirsty farmers in 110 degree heat with the sun almost
directly overhead.  This is all your imagination and the imagination of Egyptology.  There is
no evidence of any sort that any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using ramps and
wishing won't make it so.  All the evidence suggests they used hydraulic means which is rat-
her remarkable in that they've studiously avoided ever even looking or investigating hydraul-
ic means.  They boiard up caves and can't run a $200 analysis oif the water in the Osiris Shaft.
The new ben ben stone just sits in the Sphinx Temple because Egyptology doesn't really want
to know about the ancient Egyptians; they only want to find proof of their assumptions.

go away for alittle bit come back to some great posts by clad once again! oh what a treat.

from the article which was posted that you never read and continued to bash anyway and i quote:

Quote

"III. 1
Previous discussion on the ramp.
Scholars propose two theories: a straight ramp or a spiral ramp. Both present their own problems. The first theory proposes a single large ramp sloping up against one face of the pyramid. This proposal has the advantage that all four comers and the three sides of the pyramid remain clear during the construction allowing builders to monitor and check the rise of the sides and the diagonals. Careful surveying during construction was essential; otherwise, a twist might occur and the diagonal lines would not meet in a point at the top. There are problems with this proposal. One is that to obtain a functionally low enough slope - one that rises one meter every six meters, the ramp would have to be extremely long extending over and beyond the quarry.
The other theory posits a ramp spiraling around the pyramid in some way. The most popular form of this idea has a ramp starting at each comer thereby creating four ramps spiraling upwards and resting on the unfinished outer casing blocks for support.
These blocks would be smoothed as the ramps were dismantled after the apex of the pyramid had been reached. This theory leaves most of the pyramid's face clear, for measuring purposes, during construction and the necessary double-checking of lines and comers.
The first problem with this theory is that the unfinished faces of the pyramid could not support the ramps which these theorists believe were made of mud-brick or debris.
Also a spiraling ramp increases the distance over which the blocks had to be hauled and creates unnecessary strain for the team pulling each multi-ton block. It also increases the difficulty of pulling the blocks with extended ropes around the sharp comers of the pyramid's diagonals. ¹⁸ Other theories are proposed by Lehner and Stadelmann. I believe that the ramp rises from the quarry about thirty meters above the pyramid's base at its Southwest comer, and the discovery of the ramp South of the Great Pyramid proved that the last theory is the correct one.
III. 2. The Discovery of the Ramp.

During the work of relocating the Sound and Light Show cables at Giza, we were able to excavate their route beginning at the Southwest of the Great Pyramid.
Also at this time we started the re-excavation of the cemetery GIS and the restoration of the tombs there.
As was discussed above the only possible side for the erection of the ramp during the reign of Khufu was the South side. The ramp was constructed of limestone chips, gypsum, and a calcareous clay called Tafla. Due to the hardiness of the construction materials what remains of the ramp, after the Egyptians removed it to build the tombs of GIS, should still exist on the South side.
We started to remove sand for the erection of the cables North of the paved road and South of the pyramid. During the work we found a big part of the ramp used to transport the stones from the quarry to the pyramid base. This part of the ramp consisted of two walls built of stone rubble and mixed with Tafla. The area in between was filled with sand and gypsum forming the bulk of the ramp.
1. The West Wall:
The length of this wall is 1.40 centimeters, built of a stone rubble and Tafla.
The length is 60 centimeters. Mud was used to consolidate the stones.
2. The Eastern Wall
It is located to the East of the West wall about 1.50 centimeters. The width is 1.45 centimeters and it is also built of stone rubble.
On the South side of the paved road, South of Khufu's pyramid, we excavated down about 2.50 meters and found another part of the ramp. This part is in line with the Eastern and Western wall and is of similar construction. This discovery proves that the ramp led from the quarry to the Southwest comer of the pyramid and was made of stone rubble and Tafla.(see plans 2,3) The ramp rises to about 30 meters above the pyramid's base at its Southwest comer. The ramp would have leaned against the pyramid's faces as they rose. Somewhat like accretion layers wrapped around the pyramid with a roadway on top. The weight of this ramp is borne by the ground around the pyramid. Traffic could move along the top of this structure as both pyramid and ramp rose in tandem. The top of the pyramid could be reached with only one and one quarter turns. The slope would rise with each turn from a reasonable 65 degrees, for the first section, to as much as 18 degrees for the last climb to the apex."

If you read choose to read that and post back accordingly this shows evidence from someone who was at the pyramids of ramps. It explains like you said that the pyramids were uphill from the quary so like you said hey whats the best way to get up to the top there? A straight line like a ramp. In the article he states some problems that he sees with doing it this way but after the discovery of the actual ramp itself he is convinced this is how it is done. so who is more than likely right here the guy who has seen the ramps for himself or you the crazy guy who thinks they couldnt possibly have done it that way because it was to easy there must have been some other way. Your not even trying anymore, sad really.

[TheSearcher]

dreamland, on 04 March 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

I want to share two interesting videos :
*snip*

Second video is more interesting:
*snip*

starting from 24m and 30s video shows mysterious slots inside the grand gallery..it is solid evidence...they are there. Looking at this video,sometimes it makes me think twice,if ramps were used or not..but i am not convinced yet. It is possible that grand gallery was used to pull these heave stones up,but i still believe that some more advanced technology was used.
At the beginning of the video,there is a talk about the ramp,and he even says that he is convinced that a single ramp is impossible.I need to hear your new ideas after watching these two videos..

What technology would you have in mind? Considering they had knowledge of cranes, pulleys and such, it narrows the field down a bit.  I doubt they had a diesel engine hidden away

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 03 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

Yet you continue to present it as if it has, therein lies the problem.

You've done it so often you've effectively negated your own attempt at back-pedalling. Sorry, but this can't be taken seriously.

No, they didn't "have" to do anything. That they could (theoretically) have done it that way is just one of several possibilities. And since you've shown no actual, verified evidence for the existance of a geyser on the Giza Plateau it's all a moot point. But enough of taking this thread off topic to make it another attempt at promoting your unevidenced theory.

cormac

cormac mac airt, on 03 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

Yet you continue to present it as if it has, therein lies the problem.

You've done it so often you've effectively negated your own attempt at back-pedalling. Sorry, but this can't be taken seriously.

No, they didn't "have" to do anything. That they could (theoretically) have done it that way is just one of several possibilities. And since you've shown no actual, verified evidence for the existance of a geyser on the Giza Plateau it's all a moot point. But enough of taking this thread off topic to make it another attempt at promoting your unevidenced theory.

I'm happy to settle for baby steps but ramps are so engrained in peoples' minds
it would take high explosives to dislodge them.  I have shown many times that there
are far easier ways to build these pyramids and that the only evidence ever presented
for ramps is that "they mustta used ramps" but it shakes no one's certainty that they must
have used ramps.

If we just forget all the evidence for a moment and ask ourselves what is the easiest way to
build these the simplest answer that doesn't require any technology beyond ropes is that
they pulled them straight up the side.  So why is everyone set on ramps?  ALL the evidence
does support the concept that they did it the easy way so why is everyone set on ramps?
Yes, of course none of the evidence is conclusive and this includes the scan which indicates
that it's likely a five step pyramid but the point isn't that the question is settled but rather that
the evidence is conflict with the belief in ramps.  They didn't have the manpower to use ramps
and the word "ramp" didn't even exist.  There is no evidence for ramps and even if ramps weren't
debunked that fact  remains there are common sense alternatives.

The best argument for ramps has always been that they had no choice.  This argument is wholly
defunct. It is shot full of holes and lies on the botom of the deep blue.  Additionally to ramps be-
ing unbased and thye argument shot ramps have alsao been debunked.

Will refuse to take this first little baby step recognizing the evidence because they know where it
just could end up;  in the secret caves under the pyramid that frighten everyone so.