902 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

It's impossible to say what it will change until you do it. What are they afraid of?




No!!  Science is about the systematic study of something.  It is not just looking for ramps.

Is it going to change the fact that the Egyptians built it?  No. Is it going to change the fact that it was built in the 26th century BC? No. Is it going to change the fact that you apparently don't know the difference between the 2nd Dynasty c.2750 and the 4th Dynasty c.2550, when it was built? I doubt it since you haven't gotten it right yet. So what else are you looking for?

cormac

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 12 February 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Nope. Predictions are accurate. Math has shown it to be EASILY possible.

No.  The so called ramp theory predicts that they would have found tombs of people like overseers
of stone draggers.  No such jobs exists so theory failed.  Across the board the theory has failed.  Not
burying it is like wearing an albatross.  Call it what you want but it still stinks.

Quote

Your Bias is showing. You've already made up your mind, so anything less then proof of your theory is to be discounted? Because no one is going after information that YOU would like to have, then there MUST be a conspiricy to maintain ignorance?

Come on Clad.....

I'm not sure of your point here.  Are you saying we shouldn't call a spade a spade?  If they
won't do simple measurements and systematic study are we supposed to just sit back and
figure they must have all the answers?

Why shouldn't people complain when they aren't doing their job or even making excuses
for not doing it?  There hasn't been word one out of Egypt since 2010 and it wasn't an answer
nor addressed any issues.  Sure Lehner is still doing research that is still denying that ramps
were used and that there was water running from the plateau but he was looking for ramps at
the time he found it.  Sure, they again paid to have an engineering study just this past summer
to say they could have used ramps just this summer but this isn't science.

The last science done at Giza was Bui's gravimetric scan in 1986.  Mebbe they're skeered.

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 12 February 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

Is it going to change the fact that the Egyptians built it?  No. Is it going to change the fact that it was built in the 26th century BC? No. Is it going to change the fact that you apparently don't know the difference between the 2nd Dynasty c.2750 and the 4th Dynasty c.2550, when it was built? I doubt it since you haven't gotten it right yet. So what else are you looking for?

I just won't know anything until they actually study something. Then I'll pray to my gods
that I can properly interpret the results and not read into them conclusions that aren't there.
I'm so literal that I take the carbon 14 studies as possibly being accurate.  I don't believe in
nor invent excuses for results not being what I expect.  I try to factor them in as they exist.
If it affects my beliefs, I change them.  If it destroys my beliefs, I abandon them.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

I just won't know anything until they actually study something. Then I'll pray to my gods
that I can properly interpret the results and not read into them conclusions that aren't there.
I'm so literal that I take the carbon 14 studies as possibly being accurate.  I don't believe in
nor invent excuses for results not being what I expect.  I try to factor them in as they exist.
If it affects my beliefs, I change them.  If it destroys my beliefs, I abandon them.

In other words, this is all just for YOUR satisfaction, it has no bearing on anyone else. Most of us already figured that out. It also isn't going to change what I said in my last post, so it's not the big history altering idea you've made it out to be. Hypothetically speaking we could take the entire GP apart and possibly find out, to a reasonable degree, how many blocks there were in it and how it was built block by block. But at the end of the day it doesn't change "who" built it nor even "when" it was built. Nor does it explain why you don't know the difference between the 2nd and 4th Dynasties. And those are the only really important questions for me and many others.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 12 February 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

In other words, this is all just for YOUR satisfaction, it has no bearing on anyone else. Most of us already figured that out. It also isn't going to change what I said in my last post, so it's not the big history altering idea you've made it out to be.

Where do you get this idea?  It's ALL the science not getting done at Giza, not just science
that would prove or disprove my theory.  The only thing they are doing is trying to prove ramps
and this isn't science.  It could be if they proposed an experiment and carried it out while also
considering other interpretations but none of this is going on.

Quote

Hypothetically speaking we could take the entire GP apart and possibly find out, to a reasonable degree, how many blocks there were in it and how it was built block by block. But at the end of the day it doesn't change "who" built it nor even "when" it was built. Nor does it explain why you don't know the difference between the 2nd and 4th Dynasties. And those are the only really important questions for me and many others.

There's nothing inside the Great Pyramid (other than probably the mafdet linx and
the hall of records) but there's nothing that's going to answer our questions unless
there are internal ramps or a crashed space ship.  The solution isn't the destruction
of evidence but its systematic measurement and study.  Why can't they do simple in-
frared study?  Why are they so afraid?

Edited by cladking, 12 February 2013 - 05:13 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Where do you get this idea?  It's ALL the science not getting done at Giza, not just science
that would prove or disprove my theory.  The only thing they are doing is trying to prove ramps
and this isn't science.  It could be if they proposed an experiment and carried it out while also
considering other interpretations but none of this is going on.



There's nothing inside the Great Pyramid (other than probably the mafdet linx and
the hall of records) but there's nothing that's going to answer our questions unless
there are internal ramps or a crashed space ship.  The solution isn't the destruction
of evidence but its systematic measurement and study.  Why can't they do simple in-
frared study?  Why are they so afraid?

Nope, most Egytologists only claim that ramps were used to some degree and don't attempt to get into the specifics. It's YOU who don't like the fact that ramps were used TO ANY DEGREE and feel you have to make up ridiculous means of constructing the GP. That's the difference. And you are the only one obsessed with exactly "how", which still isn't going to change the "who" or "when". What is there for Egyptologists to be afraid of, since even an infrared study isn't going to change the fact that the AE built it?

cormac

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

It's impossible to say what it will change until you do it.  What are they afraid of?

I don't think they are scared of anything. I think they just need to provide resources and schedule the work.

Quote

No!!  Science is about the systematic study of something.  It is not just looking for ramps.

You've said before that Egyptology has it right in most situations, just Not in the Great Pyramids.... So then how can Egyptology have done good science on Most of their projects, but exceptionally badly in regards to Only the Great Pyramids??

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

No.  The so called ramp theory predicts that they would have found tombs of people like overseers
of stone draggers.  No such jobs exists so theory failed.  Across the board the theory has failed.  Not
burying it is like wearing an albatross.  Call it what you want but it still stinks.

As far as I know Ramp Theory does not attempt to Predict anything. It is just the idea of looking at the evidence and making a guess at how the Egyptians did it. Pinning the debunkment of ramps on a lack of overseer grave markers is pretty thin if you ask me.

The fact is that Egyptians knew the technology of the Ramp, they had the people and the resources and the motivation. So they made it happen. No more advanced technology then a ramp, rope, and very good organization was needed. Math prooves this.

Quote

I'm not sure of your point here.  Are you saying we shouldn't call a spade a spade?  If they
won't do simple measurements and systematic study are we supposed to just sit back and
figure they must have all the answers?

If it is simple, then perhaps you could outline a Plan? A plan to collect the simple data you desire. If you can't provide a Plan, or if such a plan would be simple for someone of specific education... Then that would actually point to the Plan NOT being simple. If making such a plan needs an expert, then You, as not an expert, would not be qualified to judge as to if it actually would be simple, or not.

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 12 February 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Nope, most Egytologists only claim that ramps were used to some degree and don't attempt to get into the specifics. It's YOU who don't like the fact that ramps were used TO ANY DEGREE and feel you have to make up ridiculous means of constructing the GP. That's the difference. And you are the only one obsessed with exactly "how", which still isn't going to change the "who" or "when". What is there for Egyptologists to be afraid of, since even an infrared study isn't going to change the fact that the AE built it?

Egyptologists might only be right about who built it and why it was built if they are correct
about how it was built.  That they refuse to investigate all theories related to building and
refuse to gather basic evidence that might prove their own "theory" reflect poorly on them.

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 12 February 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I don't think they are scared of anything. I think they just need to provide resources and schedule the work.

They've made no announcements concerning scheduling this work or any preliminary
results or investigations whatsoever.

Quote

You've said before that Egyptology has it right in most situations, just Not in the Great Pyramids.... So then how can Egyptology have done good science on Most of their projects, but exceptionally badly in regards to Only the Great Pyramids??

It's the nature of the beasts.  They are applying about the same tactics to studying the great
pyramids that they applied to everything else. These tactics work elsewhere.  They do not work
when there is a virtual vacuum of information and much of what does exist is believed (by them)
to be irrelevant.

Quote

As far as I know Ramp Theory does not attempt to Predict anything.

Every theory makes predictions by its very nature.  If you believe the stars rise and set because
the earth is spinning then you must revise your theory if you see the planets moving in the opposite
direction.

Quote

The fact is that Egyptians knew the technology of the Ramp...

They also knew how to pound their chests and howl at the stones.  It is believed they knew how to
chant and make incantations at the stones.  What we don't know is how they lifted them.

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 12 February 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Math prooves this.

Math does not prove ramps.

Quote

If it is simple, then perhaps you could outline a Plan? A plan to collect the simple data you desire. If you can't provide a Plan, or if such a plan would be simple for someone of specific education... Then that would actually point to the Plan NOT being simple. If making such a plan needs an expert, then You, as not an expert, would not be qualified to judge as to if it actually would be simple, or not.

Of course it is simple.  Anyone properly trained in second grade science could lead it. You
simply start at what is known and try to expand on this.  The first things you investigate are
anomalies.  The most glaring question of all is why would the builders leave evidence they
pulled stones up the side as demonstrated by Bui's scans if they had used ramps.  This in-
dicates you immediately commission another more complete gravimetric scan with the latest
in technology; preferably employing Bui again if he's available.  Simultaneously you immedi-
ately allow infrared imaging to occur with the proviso that it is done on a continuing basis and
the results are made public in real time.  You do the easy stuff like a chemical analysis on the
water in the Osiris Shaft.  Stop all other work that might interfere with bringing 21st century
technology to Giza.  Do a photographic study including all light spectra of G1 to determine
the nature of the marking.  Do a chemical analysis of these lines.  Do a barometric study of
the Bent Pyramid to determine the source of the air movement in it.  Do a forensic stiudy of G1.
Of course on the very first day you sample the caves to see if you can begin immediate exca-
vation.  You immediately begin excavating the bottom of the Osiris Shaft.

There are numerous other studies that can be run concurrently (such as C14) but by the time
these are ready to be startewd in just a few weeks there will be new more important anomalies
coming in from the science actually geting done that need to be studied first. A real scientist
needs to coordinate this work.  The trult ironic thing is that there will be hundreds of millions
of dollars saved becayse drilling holes, desicrating graves, and troweling for ramps is much
more expensive and labor intensive than actual applied science.  This isn't rocket science or
magic and we aren't going to ever find the answers with rocket science or magic unless, of course,
levitation or incantation affects the stones permanently somehow.

Edited by cladking, 12 February 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[DieChecker]

Fun discussion Clad! Please don't feel like I am trying to be rude or angry. I like the discussion for the discussions sake, but also love learning new stuff and talking about it.

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

They've made no announcements concerning scheduling this work or any preliminary
results or investigations whatsoever.

Perhaps you have failed to read the news coming out of Egypt in the last 2 years? Revolution? People (Americans/Europeans/Christians) being killed/targeted?

It would be amazing if anything new/noteworthy was being done right now.

Quote

It's the nature of the beasts.  They are applying about the same tactics to studying the great
pyramids that they applied to everything else. These tactics work elsewhere.  They do not work
when there is a virtual vacuum of information and much of what does exist is believed (by them)
to be irrelevant.

I just don't see it that way. The study of the physical structure of the Great Pyramids and the surrounding geology/geography, are clear evidence that the pyramids were built just like they appear. And there exists numerous bits of evidence that point at ramps being used, at least at the base level of the pyramid. Ramps at higher levels are just theoretical. But the nearby quarry contains enough fill material for large ramps for all 3 of the great Giza pyramids. If not ramps, then what was all that fill material for? Why would they make fill material and put it into the quarry for no reason? Landscaping?

Quote

Every theory makes predictions by its very nature.  If you believe the stars rise and set because
the earth is spinning then you must revise your theory if you see the planets moving in the opposite
direction.

I guess you are correct that predictions, or suppositions, are going to be part of a good theory. But, even though a theory should predict what kind of evidence should support it, it does not mean that a lack of the predicted evidence in one area out of many areas is confirmation of failure of a theory.

Evidence = Proof of Theory
Lack of Evidence =/= Fail of Theory

The way to proove failure of a theory is to Prove a competing theory, using evidence.

Quote

They also knew how to pound their chests and howl at the stones.  It is believed they knew how to
chant and make incantations at the stones.  What we don't know is how they lifted them.

The problem being that chanting at stones has never moved a single stone, yet ropes and ramps are used to this day to move heavy objects into place.

Edited by DieChecker, 12 February 2013 - 08:05 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Egyptologists might only be right about who built it and why it was built if they are correct
about how it was built.  That they refuse to investigate all theories related to building and
refuse to gather basic evidence that might prove their own "theory" reflect poorly on them.

This is a bass-akwards approach. "How" it was built won't determine "who" built it, particularly since there is no evidence for a civilization in Egypt prior to the Dynastic Period. And the earlier cultures that did exist in Egypt were not of a significant size nor technological level to match what we do know of AE. And since we also know that Khufu's name is located in areas of the relieving chambers that couldn't have gotten there by any other means than the builders placing the blocks as they did at the time, there's no reason to doubt the AE are responsible for its construction.

cormac

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 12 February 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

Math does not prove ramps.

You are right again. Math does not prove anything in this case. It only shows that using ramps is Plausible.

Yet combined with the physical evidence of ramps used in various locations on Great Pyramids, math points to ramps being the Most Likely way they built the pyramids.

Quote

Of course it is simple.  Anyone properly trained in second grade science could lead it. You
simply start at what is known and try to expand on this.  The first things you investigate are
anomalies.  

I am not sure that is proper scientific method. Usually the anomolies are discounted till a theory of the general data is built and then the anomolies are attempted to be inserted, and they may make adjustments to the first theory as exceptions or as a change to the whole theory.

Quote

The most glaring question of all is why would the builders leave evidence they
pulled stones up the side as demonstrated by Bui's scans if they had used ramps.  This in-
dicates you immediately commission another more complete gravimetric scan with the latest
in technology; preferably employing Bui again if he's available.

There you go making an assumption. You are already convinced that the marks are there from dragging stones. When they could be there for any number of reasons. Perhaps from looters taking the limestone, perhaps for aesthetic reasons, perhaps because the designer was insane, perhaps because of some construction method.... Immediately commissioning a scan is also bad science. Good science would be examining all the choices and then examining all the testing that might need to be done, and then coming to agreement on the testing schedules. Then examining the data to see what choice/theory was correct. Immediately going to testing off of opinon is bad science.

Quote

Simultaneously you immedi-
ately allow infrared imaging to occur with the proviso that it is done on a continuing basis and
the results are made public in real time.  You do the easy stuff like a chemical analysis on the
water in the Osiris Shaft.  

So who is going to pay and perform these tests? That is part of archeology... Coming up with resources and experienced people. What if Bui is not available? What if he and none of his people are available for 2 years? What then? What if he needs a 100,000 dollar grant to do the testing, and the Antiquities commission only has 20,000 set aside for remote scanning, so it takes 5 years to pay for the scan? Organizing all this stuff takes time and money. That is why it takes so long to get things done.

Quote

Stop all other work that might interfere with bringing 21st century
technology to Giza.  Do a photographic study including all light spectra of G1 to determine
the nature of the marking.  Do a chemical analysis of these lines.  Do a barometric study of
the Bent Pyramid to determine the source of the air movement in it.  Do a forensic stiudy of G1.

Same comments to these remarks. Who, when and How?

Quote

Of course on the very first day you sample the caves to see if you can begin immediate exca-
vation.  You immediately begin excavating the bottom of the Osiris Shaft.

OK, so this is relevant to this thread at least....

Why dig up the caves? What is that going to prove? If you want resources put toward digging, you have to have a reason.

Even if there are tunnels under the plaeau, that does not show water movement, or anything about building a pyramid.

Quote

There are numerous other studies that can be run concurrently (such as C14) but by the time
these are ready to be startewd in just a few weeks there will be new more important anomalies
coming in from the science actually geting done that need to be studied first. A real scientist
needs to coordinate this work.  The trult ironic thing is that there will be hundreds of millions
of dollars saved becayse drilling holes, desicrating graves, and troweling for ramps is much
more expensive and labor intensive than actual applied science.  This isn't rocket science or
magic and we aren't going to ever find the answers with rocket science or magic unless, of course,
levitation or incantation affects the stones permanently somehow.

I'm not sure that actually doing higher tech scientific data gathering is less expensive. I'd think that having Grad Students out trowling around is almost free. And it is the Graves that is at least part of the data set that You say shows current paradym is incorrect.

Do you have a good link to gravimetric scaning? I can't seem to find anything that I like/trust. What would be the cost?

From what I've read Egypt is in bad financial shape with huge budget issues and lack of funds to even keep up the museum and inventory what they already have.
http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 12 February 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

This is a bass-akwards approach. "How" it was built won't determine "who" built it, particularly since there is no evidence for a civilization in Egypt prior to the Dynastic Period. And the earlier cultures that did exist in Egypt were not of a significant size nor technological level to match what we do know of AE. And since we also know that Khufu's name is located in areas of the relieving chambers that couldn't have gotten there by any other means than the builders placing the blocks as they did at the time, there's no reason to doubt the AE are responsible for its construction.

There seems little doubt that the human beings in Egypt at the time the great pyramids were built
were the individuals who actually built it.  But the question remains; who were these individuals and
what were their beliefs.  Germany was a different place with different people in 1939 than are there
today or were there in 1913.  We can't possibly understand  dauchau or auschwitz without under-
standing these differences.  This isn't to say that the Egyptians can't be understood without knowing
how they built the pyramids but at the current point in time there are no facts that can be cited to de-
fine their beliefs or the reasons they would build pyramids.  It is my belief that knowing how the pyra-
mids were built might show who these people were and what they believed.  It is my belief that their
claim that the gods built the pyramids would shine a very bright light on who they were.  But this is all
impossible until we know something like how they built them. We know Nazi Germany because we re-
member adolph hitler but we don't know who built the pyramids because all the writing looks like non-
sense to us.  All the writing is open to interpretation so what these people believed is open to interpre-
tation.

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 12 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Yet combined with the physical evidence of ramps used in various locations on Great Pyramids, math points to ramps being the Most Likely way they built the pyramids.

There is no evidence any ramp was ever used to lift any stone on any great pyramid.  You've had
plenty of chance to cite evidence and none has been forthcoming.  Even if it were true that ramps
are most likely the point is irrelevant until such time as they have been established by evidence and
this is very far from being.  They will never be established because they were not  used and they are
still debunked.

Quote

I am not sure that is proper scientific method. Usually the anomolies are discounted till a theory of the general data is built and then the anomolies are attempted to be inserted, and they may make adjustments to the first theory as exceptions or as a change to the whole theory.

Applied science is not the same as theoretical science.  If we ever apply modern science to Giza
there probably will be aspects of true science involved but for the main part applied science is about
measurement and the observation of anomalies and the unexplained.

Quote

Good science would be examining all the choices and then examining all the testing that might need to be done, and then coming to agreement on the testing schedules. Then examining the data to see what choice/theory was correct. Immediately going to testing off of opinon is bad science.

Science isn't about committees.  We've delayed doing the obvious for decades, how much longer
must we delay?

Quote

Why dig up the caves? What is that going to prove? If you want resources put toward digging, you have to have a reason.

You dig up caves because they are there and you can't see them.

Quote

Even if there are tunnels under the plaeau, that does not show water movement, or anything about building a pyramid.

You can't know until you dig them up.

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/