902 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 14 February 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

Look at the image at the top of the page. You can see that right under it he specifically forbids
anyone from adding the five steps.  I'm not the one who doesn't like the facts.  It's the status quo
that doesn't like the fact that this is a five step pyramid.  I've got the picture right here and would
post it in a heart beat except I'm confident it's forbidden specifically.  So if you want to see it then
you have to draw your own.  I would hurry though as I expect this information to be removed from
the net altogether since everyone is afraid of the pyramid and afraid of the truth.  There are no
ramps and they lifted each stone one step at a time as proven by the facts.  They did not have to
use ramps and they didn't use ramps.

G2 used to be called "the Great Pyramid".  The difference in size is not great.

I have a copy of the densitogram and I've checked out your 81' 3" claim per step, quite a while back. THEY DON'T MATCH. They do exactly what I said they do. They slowly spiral counter-clockwise from base to peak. You really shot yourself in the foot when you claimed they were at 81' 3" intervals.

G2 was never called "the Great Pyramid" by any elementary, middle school, high school, college or university I've ever been in or visited. And I've lived in at least 12 different states and 3 times in Europe. Must be a local thing for you Hoosier's.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 14 February 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

I have a copy of the densitogram and I've checked out your 81' 3" claim per step, quite a while back. THEY DON'T MATCH. They do exactly what I said they do. They slowly spiral counter-clockwise from base to peak. You really shot yourself in the foot when you claimed they were at 81' 3" intervals.

They are plainly visible even if you don't draw them in.

Are you looking at the picture on top of the page?

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

Quote

G2 was never called "the Great Pyramid" by any elementary, middle school, high school, college or university I've ever been in or visited. And I've lived in at least 12 different states and 3 times in Europe. Must be a local thing for you Hoosier's.

It was called the Great Pyramid in olden times.  It's only in the last few centuries that the term
has been applied to G1.  I'm told that if you're standing on the plateau that an optical illusion
makes G2 appear larger.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 14 February 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

They are plainly visible even if you don't draw them in.

Are you looking at the picture on top of the page?

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/



It was called the Great Pyramid in olden times.  It's only in the last few centuries that the term
has been applied to G1.  I'm told that if you're standing on the plateau that an optical illusion
makes G2 appear larger.

Yes and it shows exactly what I said.

That's because the base of G2 sits at a slightly higher elevation.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 14 February 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

Yes and it shows exactly what I said.

...And just as I said there are far more lines defining a five step pyramid than any ramp.

There are 51 lines supporting a five step pyramid with only a few that are inconsistent with
this interpretation.  This, of course, includes the half steps and regular partial steps.  There
are only three bands supporting the concept of ramps and one that goes the wrong way.  If
these lines are supporting ramps as you believe then how do you accoiuntb for the green
band on the bottom half way up that runs the wrong direction.  Surely you are supposing
that they got tired of dragging them up hill so dragged them down hill for a while!!!

What will be you position when internal ramps are disproven?

[third_eye]

you guys are just trying to make a car using only screwdrivers,

you need more than just screwdrivers to put a car together just as you need more than ramps only, ropes only, wooden sleds only, or people only, to stack up a pyramid, any pyramid, or any other megalithic construction for that matter.

To know the know how, from stone on quarry to stone in it's place in the structure, every step of the way.
No CGI trickery.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 14 February 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

...And just as I said there are far more lines defining a five step pyramid than any ramp.

There are 51 lines supporting a five step pyramid with only a few that are inconsistent with
this interpretation.  This, of course, includes the half steps and regular partial steps.  There
are only three bands supporting the concept of ramps and one that goes the wrong way.  If
these lines are supporting ramps as you believe then how do you accoiuntb for the green
band on the bottom half way up that runs the wrong direction.  Surely you are supposing
that they got tired of dragging them up hill so dragged them down hill for a while!!!

What will be you position when internal ramps are disproven?

If you're referring to the PT, don't. I'm not interested in another reinterpretation of a religious text for Unas that you want to believe was a construction manual.

The green portion, considering where it comes in, could just as well have been an outward progression of blocks from where the Queens/Kings chambers and associated granite had been laid. All of which would follow the direction of the ramp/incline around to the top. Perhaps they changed the method/spacing of block laying starting with the green area. BTW, the highest candy-cane colored turn in the northeast corner of Bui's picture is at the right level for the opening the Brier found at roughly the 270 feet elevation mark on the GP. They wouldn't have completed one level before starting the next. Someone or ones would have been ahead at some point to start the next level. Nothing in this suggests a 5-step pyramid. At best, it's a hodge-podge of methods.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

third_eye, on 15 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

you guys are just trying to make a car using only screwdrivers,

you need more than just screwdrivers to put a car together just as you need more than ramps only, ropes only, wooden sleds only, or people only, to stack up a pyramid, any pyramid, or any other megalithic construction for that matter.

To know the know how, from stone on quarry to stone in it's place in the structure, every step of the way.
No CGI trickery.

Not me. But at some point on your car a screwdriver was used. Even if a robot put the screw in. But I can safely say that there was no geyser that lifted the motor and put it in your car for you.
cormac

[third_eye]

cormac mac airt, on 15 February 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Not me. But at some point on your car a screwdriver was used. Even if a robot put the screw in. But I can safely say that there was no geyser that lifted the motor and put it in your car for you.
cormac

the geysers were common during pee pee breaks, I wonder if the top level workers just let it flow down the sides or just sprinkles off the legdes...
maybe that's the "rain" !!!

Edited by third_eye, 15 February 2013 - 12:37 AM.

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 15 February 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

If you're referring to the PT, don't. I'm not interested in another reinterpretation of a religious text for Unas that you want to believe was a construction manual.

The green portion, considering where it comes in, could just as well have been an outward progression of blocks from where the Queens/Kings chambers and associated granite had been laid. All of which would follow the direction of the ramp/incline around to the top. Perhaps they changed the method/spacing of block laying starting with the green area. BTW, the highest candy-cane colored turn in the northeast corner of Bui's picture is at the right level for the opening the Brier found at roughly the 270 feet elevation mark on the GP. They wouldn't have completed one level before starting the next. Someone or ones would have been ahead at some point to start the next level. Nothing in this suggests a 5-step pyramid. At best, it's a hodge-podge of methods.

cormac

cormac mac airt, on 15 February 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

If you're referring to the PT, don't. I'm not interested in another reinterpretation of a religious text for Unas that you want to believe was a construction manual.

The green portion, considering where it comes in, could just as well have been an outward progression of blocks from where the Queens/Kings chambers and associated granite had been laid. All of which would follow the direction of the ramp/incline around to the top. Perhaps they changed the method/spacing of block laying starting with the green area. BTW, the highest candy-cane colored turn in the northeast corner of Bui's picture is at the right level for the opening the Brier found at roughly the 270 feet elevation mark on the GP. They wouldn't have completed one level before starting the next. Someone or ones would have been ahead at some point to start the next level. Nothing in this suggests a 5-step pyramid. At best, it's a hodge-podge of methods.

No, I don't mean the PT.  I mean there are 51 lines created by the density changes that
support the interpretation that it's a five step pyramid and only three bands (-1 band) that
supports the concept of ramps.  That makes the score 51 to 2 in my favor.  There are no
ramps in this scan.

I think the white area you're looking at isd to high for Houdin's "room".  Don't forget, too,
that white is higher density than green.

[cladking]

third_eye, on 15 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

you guys are just trying to make a car using only screwdrivers,

you need more than just screwdrivers to put a car together just as you need more than ramps only, ropes only, wooden sleds only, or people only, to stack up a pyramid, any pyramid, or any other megalithic construction for that matter.

To know the know how, from stone on quarry to stone in it's place in the structure, every step of the way.
No CGI trickery.

I don't know what GCI is.

There's only one single answer to how they lifted the stones for the great pyramids.  Of course,
they used innumerable means but this is beside the point.  All the evidence quite clearly says that
a single method was used to do the bulk of the lifting and that that method was not ramps.  The evi-
denceis quite clear that the bulk of the pyramid was pulled straight up the side one step at a time.

They needed lots of tools and used lots of methods but only pulling them up the side is the correct
answer to how they lifted the stones to builsd the great pyramids.

[cladking]

third_eye, on 15 February 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

the geysers were common during pee pee breaks, I wonder if the top level workers just let it flow down the sides or just sprinkles off the legdes...
maybe that's the "rain" !!!

Nothing lifted was wasted.  They were well aware that organic material in the "wdn.t-offering" contributed
to its ability to support plant life.  This was "herb hill" and plants needed more than just the ballast to grow.

[bom shankra]

from full text of heredotus

14. And this saying of the Egyptians about the
Greeks was true enough. But now let me show what
is the case of the Egyptians themselves : if (as I have
already said) the country below Memphis for it is
this which rises should increase in height in the
same degree as formerly, will not the Egyptians who
dwell in it go hungry, there being no rain in their
country and the river being unable to inundate their
fields ? Now, indeed, there are no men, neither in the
rest of Egypt, nor in the whole world, who gain from
the soil with so little labour ; they have not the
toil of breaking up the land with the plough, nor of
hoeing, nor of any other work which other men do
to get them a crop ; the river rises of itself, waters
the fields, and then sinks back again ; thereupon
each man sows his field and sends swine into it to
tread down the seed, and waits for the harvest;
then he makes the swine to thresh his grain, and
so garners it.


So the A.E's were masters of dodging hard work perhaps.  ( who in there right mind wouldn't be?). I can imagine those bumpkins discussing it - "No mate, lets do it the hard way", yea right...

What about John Cadman Cladking?  do you think theres anything in his Ram pump theory? (I'm sure I've seen somewhere like AboveTS where you've had a discussion on the subject?). to me, the weakness was all those Km of underground channels from the lakes that he theorizes about, but the moat around the G.P. is fairly well established isn't it? But if there were natural underground streams, perhaps there might be something to it...

Not trying to knock the guyser theory, but I didn't here of it anywhere else.

Edited by shanka boom, 15 February 2013 - 04:55 AM.

[cladking]

shanka boom, on 15 February 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

from full text of heredotus

14. And this saying of the Egyptians about the
Greeks was true enough. But now let me show what
is the case of the Egyptians themselves : if (as I have
already said) the country below Memphis for it is
this which rises should increase in height in the
same degree as formerly, will not the Egyptians who
dwell in it go hungry, there being no rain in their
country and the river being unable to inundate their
fields ? Now, indeed, there are no men, neither in the
rest of Egypt, nor in the whole world, who gain from
the soil with so little labour ; they have not the
toil of breaking up the land with the plough, nor of
hoeing, nor of any other work which other men do
to get them a crop ; the river rises of itself, waters
the fields, and then sinks back again ; thereupon
each man sows his field and sends swine into it to
tread down the seed, and waits for the harvest;
then he makes the swine to thresh his grain, and
so garners it.


So the A.E's were masters of dodging hard work perhaps.  ( who in there right mind wouldn't be?). I can imagine those bumpkins discussing it - "No mate, lets do it the hard way", yea right...

What about John Cadman Cladking?  do you think theres anything in his Ram pump theory? (I'm sure I've seen somewhere like AboveTS where you've had a discussion on the subject?). to me, the weakness was all those Km of underground channels from the lakes that he theorizes about, but the moat around the G.P. is fairly well established isn't it? But if there were natural underground streams, perhaps there might be something to it...

Not trying to knock the guyser theory, but I didn't here of it anywhere else.

I'm impressed by a lot of the alternative theories on the great pyramids and think many of them
hold a piece of the puzzle.  The pump theory is especially attractive but not as well evidenced as
I'd like to see to say it is likely true.  The same goes for locks and the hydraulic theories in general.
I don't believe geysers are any better evidenced than most of these except I do believe this is or
might be the intended meaning of the PT.  There is water in evidence and there are no other good
theories of how it got there.

I believe that something needs to be nailed down.  Some fact must be established so everything
can be anchored.  I believe the best bet to establish anything without interpretation and assumption
is to determine how the stones were lifted and when this is known everything will just fall into place.
The means to do this is just to do the simple testing and measurements as were done by Petrie but
with 21st century instruments.  This will provide a wide range of information which will allow the various
methods to be ruled in or out until only a single possibility remains.  All these theories are falsifiable,
including ramps, but rather than doing the science they are searching for ramps.

There are other means of lifting water using the weight of water using Christopher Jordan's "babylon-
ian pump" or even counterweights full of water to lift water to greater altitudes.  There are also num-
erous mechanical methods the Egyptians might have used to lift water with human or other power.  Jor-
dans new book also proposes CO2 geysers were employed;

https://www.smashwor...oks/view/276831

Whether they explore these caves or not it is likely there will be other hydraulic theories simply because
water is the most harnessable force for the ancients to have used and it is well evidenced on site.  There
is a great deal of work going on on several fronts to show this water was instrumental to building and that
its existence was widespread on the plateau and all the places the great pyramids were built.  While gey-
sers are obviously a most unusual way to obtain water the fact is that almost all others can be ruled out
by various facts.  There just aren't many ways that water can appear at these pyramid bases and even
fewer that would take it as much as 81' 3" over the base.

I actually believe that in twenty years people will consider that geysers here are obvious and that it was
only superstition and inertia that caused people to believe it could have been done with ramps. Horapollo
said that the ancient Egyptians believed water sprayed out of the ground. It is impossible for water to have
sprayed out of the ground anywhere in the lower Nile delta so if the ancients were correct then it must have
occured up outside of the valley.   The water had to go through caves in order to spray out of the ground.

The powers that be could disprove geysers tomorrow if they choose but don't look for it to happen because
any real data being gathered will sup[port geysers and deny ramps just as the current dig at Khentkawes
Town is doing.  This isn't going to stop because ramps are debunked and and the contention only ramps
could have been used is disproven.

There's good reason that geysers aren't popular; they are strange, rare, and absurd.  But stranger things
are real.  Just because they are rare doesn't mean they can't exist.  They aren't so absurd if you take the
builders and their work at face value.  They didn't think like us and that isn't weird or absurd, it just seems
like it.

[dreamland]

Cladking... try to solve the mystery of coral castle ( www.coralcastle.com) before you and many others will move to pyramids of giza subject. I mention coral castle in many places,but most of members just ignore it. Man who build coral castle new the secret of the pyramids. Question to everyone: How can you solve the mystery of the pyramids, if you can't even solve the mystery of coral castle. Thank you.

[third_eye]

dreamland, on 15 February 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Cladking... try to solve the mystery of coral castle ( www.coralcastle.com) before you and many others will move to pyramids of giza subject. I mention coral castle in many places,but most of members just ignore it. Man who build coral castle new the secret of the pyramids. Question to everyone: How can you solve the mystery of the pyramids, if you can't even solve the mystery of coral castle. Thank you.

EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN is not a popular character among the academics. Being a low educated prospect telling the "academics" they're wrong about magnetism kinda made him a laughing stock in the hallowed halls of higher education. Still I am sure Coral Castle has something to offer to common or basic knowledge, the ancient people does things in a different way and achieved greatness arguably greater than all that "modern" practical know how has so far, one thing for sure is that they buildt things to last, be everlasting and eternal. In many instances they succeeded in achieving that. They may not be regarded as having "modern" intelligence but their wisdom is undeniable.
Mr Wallington has proven the point more than adequately.

another site i recommend --> http://forgottenknowledge.net/
Learn something old ...

You'll need some nothing to lose undergrads to start something, I mean it should be much more worthwhile than a thesis on the lyrics of 'Madonna the recording artiste.'

The state got to recognise it as something more than a curios tourist trap, but then many are greedily eyeing the plot of land it's on, it's worth a lot of dollars to a lot of people.
They've been itching to run Coral Castle into the ground for a long time ...

~edit~ typonese

Edited by third_eye, 15 February 2013 - 08:13 AM.