1650 replies to this topic

[cladking]

samspade, on 28 June 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

[ret] terrace, steps, stairway, the great stairs.

These words all exist in the cultural context (at least inthe PT which is close enough
for government work).  I can't recall right this moment exactly which word "Mercer" used
for "terrace" but he did use the concept.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Yeah cladking you know there's evidence for ramps. You know about the remnants on the GP and you know about the lesser pyramid that has remnants. But since it doesn't jive you say there is no evidence... gotcha. Same old cladking ... LOL. I just realized that cladking is in my autocorrect. Nice.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 28 June 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

These words all exist in the cultural context (at least in the PT which is close enough
for government work).  I can't recall right this moment exactly which word "Mercer" used
for "terrace" but he did use the concept.

Not hardly since it dates to about 150 years after the fact. And you've already said that cultural context only applies to when the Great Pyramids were built. But I can see your reluctance to leave your interpretations of what the PT says out of this, as otherwise you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion.

cormac

[thewatchman7]

cladking, on 28 June 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

It's about "cultural context".

We know the sun shone but that doesn't prove they had solar sails to lift stones
on the great pyramids.

Ramps as a means to lift stones on tall structures being built do not exist in the
cultural context.

Of course there were ramps and one is even mentioned in the PT as a means to
move Gods to a different level.  But there's no mention anywhere of ramps for
pyramid building and no evidence for it.  All we really know is what exists and ramps
do not fit.

Squeezing them in where they don't belong could give us a very warped picture of
the men and women who built G1.  If you take the wholly unevidenced ideas that
these people were changeless and used ramps out of the equation then the real
picture, the real cultural context emerges.  Take out the idea that these were tombs
which is denied by the PT and the last support for the idea the people were bump-
kins is removed.  This is all of orthodox theory lying in a pile of dust.  It opens the
door to all those fringe theories that scarce everyone so much.

It means everyone's guess is as good as everyone else's until they get out there
and do some science.  But when they get out there ramps will already be debunked.
They can't be brought back to life.  "Debunked" simply means they will never find
evidence for ramps because there were no ramps.

now your being deliberatly pig headed.

to culturally develop to steps, the first logical step is a mound. (ergo a ramp)
if we look at the steps, the carvings, of this culture, to assume they didnt have ramps is honestly ridiculous.

to say it didnt exist in there cultural context is rather presumtious. its like saying that everything engineers know today is shown in our art or on tv so we dont have that information? this is a flawed logic. but then you go on to mention that in one of there cultural texts, the pt that ramps are mentioned as a lifting tool.

please just be quite and sit in the corner.

[samspade]

cladking, on 28 June 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

These words all exist in the cultural context (at least inthe PT which is close enough
for government work).  I can't recall right this moment exactly which word "Mercer" used
for "terrace" but he did use the concept.

Clearly one can look at glyphs prior to the GP.

And while the PT followed after the GP we cant ruled out certain glyphs or meanings.

[ret] terrace, steps, stairway, the great stairs

if we assume  Eqyptian ret and ramp do mean the same thing at times, we find this interesting line in the PT.

Perhaps the reason for not finding proof for ramps was because they were destroyed.

279c. stairs for those who would ascend shall be destroyed.

A speculated suggestion, thus i used the perhaps. it may not be true,

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Lmao

[cladking]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 28 June 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Yeah cladking you know there's evidence for ramps. You know about the remnants on the GP and you know about the lesser pyramid that has remnants. But since it doesn't jive you say there is no evidence... gotcha. Same old cladking ... LOL. I just realized that cladking is in my autocorrect. Nice.

There are no ramp remnants on the GP.  You are mistaken.  I don't know why you've stated this many times.

There are ramp remnants  on later and on little pyramids.  This is irrelevant to the great pyramids.  There is
virtually no evidence of any sort for ramps on great pyramids.  We could go over it again and I think I could
get all the "evidence" in a single sentence.

But I don't see anyone addressing the fact that ramps are debunked.  This is the fact.

[cladking]

samspade, on 28 June 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Clearly one can look at glyphs prior to the GP.

And while the PT followed after the GP we cant ruled out certain glyphs or meanings.

[ret] terrace, steps, stairway, the great stairs

if we assume  Eqyptian ret and ramp do mean the same thing at times, we find this interesting line in the PT.

Perhaps the reason for not finding proof for ramps was because they were destroyed.

279c. stairs for those who would ascend shall be destroyed.

A speculated suggestion, thus i used the perhaps. it may not be true,

I'm sure you're right except that I'm equally sure that they meant this literally.

That the side of the pyramid was the ramp.  The side of the pyramid was the
stairs.

I can't understand why such a simple idea is so strongly resisted.  It obvious
by context they mean everything went straight up the side and it is simple com-
mon sense that the shortest route is the easiest and this goes ten times over
in this specific application.

I believe orthodoxy resists the obvious simply because they want to continue
with the idea that the builders were superstitious and backward.  All the assum-
ptions are a part of a whole and they just can't give them up.  When one collapses
they know the rest are tumbling right behind.

[cladking]

thewatchman7, on 28 June 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

now your being deliberatly pig headed.

to culturally develop to steps, the first logical step is a mound. (ergo a ramp)
if we look at the steps, the carvings, of this culture, to assume they didnt have ramps is honestly ridiculous.

to say it didnt exist in there cultural context is rather presumtious. its like saying that everything engineers know today is shown in our art or on tv so we dont have that information? this is a flawed logic. but then you go on to mention that in one of there cultural texts, the pt that ramps are mentioned as a lifting tool.

please just be quite and sit in the corner.

Even if you can show they had a word for "ramp" it wouldn't prove they used ramps to
lift stones.  But the fact they didn't even use the word such that it survives is pretty convincing
proof in itself that they didn't have millions of men building them and dragging stones up them.

Are you also going to calculate the weight of the Gods or how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin?  Your argument just doesn't make sense.  We can sit around and speculate or
we can look at the evidence. Ramps are debunked. This isn't speculation; Ramps are debunked.

Edited by cladking, 28 June 2012 - 04:32 AM.

[thewatchman7]

cladking, on 28 June 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

Even if you can show they had a word for "ramp" it wouldn't prove they used ramps to
lift stones.  But the fact they didn't even use the word such that it survives is pretty convincing
proof in itself that they didn't have millions of men building them and dragging ramps up them.

Are you also going to calculate the weight of the Gods or how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin?  Your argument just doesn't make sense.  We can sit around and speculate or
we can look at the evidence.  Ramps are debunked.  This is speculation;  Ramps are debunked.

your directly ignoring CULTURAL proof of ramps used in a lfting context.

its not about the weight, your missing the point, its that the solution they applied to lifting the god, using ramps.
ramps have never been debunked...

Edited by thewatchman7, 28 June 2012 - 04:55 AM.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Depending on the pin 14 angels with 1 devil to start the dancing... of course that depending on the pin...

[cladking]

thewatchman7, on 28 June 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

your directly ignoring CULTURAL proof of ramps used in a lfting context.

its not about the weight, your missing the point, its that the solution they applied to lifting the god, using ramps.
ramps have never been

The "ramp" mentioned in the PT is anachronistic because the PT as we know it probably
didn't exiist at that time.  If the PT spoke of spiral ramps and all sorts of ramps to build pyr-
amids I'd still give you the point but it doesn't.  The PT speaks of boats and flying.  It speaks
of burning the king atop the pyramid.

The "cultural context" with which you are familiar is ripped from the book of the dead and im-
posed on the great pyramid builders.  The real "cultural context" includes things like the tiny
workmen's village and insights that can be gleaned from the PT.  The real cultural context
must be consistent with the titles and jobs of the men and women buried at Giza.  You are
seeing the great pyramid builders in terms of the authors of the book of the dead and this is
illegitimate.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Who was overseer of burning the king atop the pyramid?

[lliqerty]

jules99, on 27 June 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Hi;
A previous thread started by the L showed 2 men running while dragging a 2 tonne stone. This was achieved by short woods arranged like railway sleepers and lubed with animal fat. The clip is well worth a watch and while no one is saying that the method shown is the method used by the ancients it is a possibility;

I have said repeatedly that moving them is not the problem, it is cutting them on the bottom, and placing them accurately (meaning edge to edge with another one).

You are implying that something can be scaled up from 2 tons to 800 tons. There is no evidence for that. If it is so easy why are you showing this example with one four hundredth of the size in question? In particular, how will you remove the 'sleepers' or ropes from an 800 ton rock once it is in its location? Do you know if wood will support 800 tons and not be crushed?

Edited by lliqerty, 28 June 2012 - 05:11 AM.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Lliqerty you don't really want to discuss anything so why are you so persistent ... there are plenty of ancient stones cut and moved... we just cannot say exactly without any doubt which method they specifically moved it. But there are plenty of theories. Since theories are not what you want then you already know the answer you can only take from this. Meaning your discussion is complete... yes?