A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

[docyabut2]

The problem is that the pyramid was 200' above the Nile even at high nile.

There is no known means by which the Nile could have flooded the pyramid.

This leaves us either to seek a new means, reinterpret the meaning of the

statement, or discard it altogether.

Connection to the Nile:

In recent years a major discovery was made at the Giza Plateau. The ground water was so low that it exposed a rectangular corridor that had been cut in the solid limestone of the Giza Plateau where the great pyramids sit. It was the opening and passageway to an enormous underground cavern the size of a football field under the pyramids.

There are also shafts in the bottom of the water yet to be explored. At one time in history, when the Nile flowed beside the pyramids, the opening here was deep under the surface of the river, and the enormous chamber would fill up with water, directly underneath the pyramids.

http://earthmilkancientenergy.com/ch4.htm

[cladking]

Your initial statement was:

"There is no job indicative of heavy labor. Prove me wrong". (ck #288). You have now been proven to be incorrect. Again.

Nothing one man or three hundred men can possibly do is "heavy labor".

Heavy labor is lifting 6 1/ 2 million tons to 120'.

These is much question that evwen 100,000 men working themselves to death could do so much lifting using ramps.

There are no jobs that suggest that the men must have engaged in

"heavy labor". There are no draggers of stone, no salve makers, no

basket makers. There are no jobs supportive of orthodox assumptions.

This is a fact and some worn out skeletons do not change the facts.

[cladking]

For the gazelle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorcas_Gazelle

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/507237

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006320787900279

You're right about oryx being extinct there now but they're reported as living in the Sinai as recently as the 19th century.

And you really need to bone up on your desert fauna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib_Desert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

http://www.fjexpeditions.com/frameset/florafauna.htm

These are some interesting links but I didn't see that any of them were relevant to

western desert along the Nile. Even migratory animals will not often wander into an

area that recieves a scant 1" of rain annually. This is a desert.

This doesn't mean that all the land of Egypt to trhe west of the Nile was desert. There

are oases and there are some areas that recieve more raiin due to altitude or proximity

to the sea. I should think these areas are more likely to see mammals.

[cladking]

Connection to the Nile:

In recent years a major discovery was made at the Giza Plateau. The ground water was so low that it exposed a rectangular corridor that had been cut in the solid limestone of the Giza Plateau where the great pyramids sit. It was the opening and passageway to an enormous underground cavern the size of a football field under the pyramids.

There are also shafts in the bottom of the water yet to be explored. At one time in history, when the Nile flowed beside the pyramids, the opening here was deep under the surface of the river, and the enormous chamber would fill up with water, directly underneath the pyramids.

http://earthmilkancientenergy.com/ch4.htm

But you're suggesting water was atop the plateau rather than under it.

I'm the last person you have to convince that there was water under

the plateau and I really don't even need convincing it was on top of

the plateau either but it could not physically have gotten there from

the Nile because there is no known force that can make water flow uphill.

There was water under the plateau and there probably (nearly certainly)

were connections to the Nile. But this water would flow downhill to the

river and the river couldn't flow up to the plateau. If by any means

at all water ever flooded G1 from the river or sea then it also had to

flood the entire planet. There is no evidence of such a flood since the

age of great pyramid building and this evidence would be extensive world

wide if it had occurred. This has to be considered extremely improbable.

Perhaps there really were water stains on the pyramid as are so often

reported but if there were then the water came from the pyramid as it was

being built rather than some cataclismic flood.

Yes, there are other possibilities as well such as a far greater age for

the pyramid but again these are all highly improbable and would require

significant and specific evidence for consideration.

[Oniomancer]

These are some interesting links but I didn't see that any of them were relevant to

western desert along the Nile. Even migratory animals will not often wander into an

area that recieves a scant 1" of rain annually. This is a desert.

This doesn't mean that all the land of Egypt to trhe west of the Nile was desert. There

are oases and there are some areas that recieve more raiin due to altitude or proximity

to the sea. I should think these areas are more likely to see mammals.

Check that last one again. For all intents and purposes, the libyan desert effectively spreads all the way to Giza.

Any distinction between it and Egypt's western desert is purely geographic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Desert

And as usual you're missing the point entirely. Whether they're living mainly around oasis areas or not, these animals are still living and thriving in a desert environment. You're using Questionmark's reference to imply that Ancient Egypt's ability to support populations of these animals alone meant is was some sort of well-watered grassland, which as we can see from the areas they're capable of inhabiting today is simply not true.

[Oniomancer]

Nothing one man or three hundred men can possibly do is "heavy labor".

Heavy labor is lifting 6 1/ 2 million tons to 120'.

These is much question that evwen 100,000 men working themselves to death could do so much lifting using ramps.

There are no jobs that suggest that the men must have engaged in

"heavy labor". There are no draggers of stone, no salve makers, no

basket makers. There are no jobs supportive of orthodox assumptions.

This is a fact and some worn out skeletons do not change the facts.

Kudos for managing to pull yet another semantically based argument a few pages after griping for the umpteenth time about not wanting to argue semantics.

[cladking]

Kudos for managing to pull yet another semantically based argument a few pages after griping for the umpteenth time about not wanting to argue semantics.

No.

The statement was taken out of context.

This is what I wasa responding to;

Clad, this has been shown to be Opinion on your part. Studies of bones of the workers do indicate dragging of heavy objects. The studies of the cemetaries and mastabas do not eliminate a title for ramp building. Not every laborers burial had a name and title assigned with it.

Since I was respond9ing to the assertion that there was heavy wear

on the skeletons then pointing this out can hardly be relevant to

my contention.

I never intentionally engage in semantics and refuse to be on either

end of such a discussion.

[SHaYap]

the sphinx was much buried under sands for much time as long as any cares to remember from the recorded history of the region, the pyramids too were buried well up to the half of its height.

Question is for how long and what kind of weather patterns it endured from nature within that duration.

Would the erosion patterns not differ along the exposed and unexposed areas also reflect such differences?

[Oniomancer]

No.

The statement was taken out of context.

This is what I wasa responding to;

Clad, this has been shown to be Opinion on your part. Studies of bones of the workers do indicate dragging of heavy objects. The studies of the cemetaries and mastabas do not eliminate a title for ramp building. Not every laborers burial had a name and title assigned with it.

Since I was respond9ing to the assertion that there was heavy wear

on the skeletons then pointing this out can hardly be relevant to

my contention.

I never intentionally engage in semantics and refuse to be on either

end of such a discussion.

I would call redefining "heavy labor" as you did the very definition of semantics. You're quibbling over wording as it applies to workers in question. If nothing else, that's moving the goalposts.

To that I'll add, salve and basket makers aren't liable to drop dead on the job or otherwise earn themselves a place of distinction as the representative burials have.

[cladking]

Check that last one again. For all intents and purposes, the libyan desert effectively spreads all the way to Giza.

Any distinction between it and Egypt's western desert is purely geographic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Desert

And as usual you're missing the point entirely. Whether they're living mainly around oasis areas or not, these animals are still living and thriving in a desert environment. You're using Questionmark's reference to imply that Ancient Egypt's ability to support populations of these animals alone meant is was some sort of well-watered grassland, which as we can see from the areas they're capable of inhabiting today is simply not true.

I suppose I have no choice but to give you the point since there's no

conclusive evidence that the writers of the PT were claiming the oryx

etc were at Giza. This is just my understanding of the various things

they said about the desert creatures.

The primary point is still the question of how much rain actually fell

at Giza and this point is of primary importance to Patrick Giles and

only tertiary importance to my argument.

[cladking]

...salve and basket makers aren't liable to drop dead on the job or otherwise earn themselves a place of distinction as the representative burials have.

Everyone eventually dies. Overseers of basket makers and even archetechs

die but there are still no jobs at Giza consistent with using heavy labor

to build the great pyramids.

These are facts.

[Oniomancer]

Everyone eventually dies. Overseers of basket makers and even archetechs

die but there are still no jobs at Giza consistent with using heavy labor

to build the great pyramids.

These are facts.

New trivia question for you, similar too the first.

Of the 120 generals who took part in the battle of Gettysburg, how many are buried there?

[+DieChecker]

These is much question that evwen 100,000 men working themselves to death could do so much lifting using ramps.

If they could drag the blocks to the base of the pyramid, they could drag them up ramps. The only point worth arguing is how big they would have been willing to build the ramp, and thus at what angle the incline was. That the simplist and technologically appropriate thing was ramps is not in doubt.

Doubt lies in what configuration of ramp would have worked best and where it was located at.

There are no jobs that suggest that the men must have engaged in

"heavy labor". There are no draggers of stone, no salve makers, no

basket makers. There are no jobs supportive of orthodox assumptions.

This is a fact and some worn out skeletons do not change the facts.

Proves nothing. You point at the lack of evidence for counterweights and say it does not matter as it is logical. Yet when other logical arguements are made, you humm and put your fingers in your ears, or just spout about Orthodoxy being the Enemy.

You claimed there was no evidence of hard labor at Giza. And I pointed to the studies on the laborer bones. Your statement was wrong. I should not have said "dragging stones" as that was simply the interpretation of many experts, so I guess it is only like 95 to 99% correct. There is a slim percentage chance you are still right.

Plus, you've already admitted many times that the blocks were dragged to the pyramid from the quarry. That was almost half the work needed right there.

[docyabut2]

But you're suggesting water was atop the plateau rather than under it.

I'm the last person you have to convince that there was water under

the plateau and I really don't even need convincing it was on top of

the plateau either but it could not physically have gotten there from

the Nile because there is no known force that can make water flow uphill.

There was water under the plateau and there probably (nearly certainly)

were connections to the Nile. But this water would flow downhill to the

river and the river couldn't flow up to the plateau. If by any means

at all water ever flooded G1 from the river or sea then it also had to

flood the entire planet. There is no evidence of such a flood since the

age of great pyramid building and this evidence would be extensive world

wide if it had occurred. This has to be considered extremely improbable.

Perhaps there really were water stains on the pyramid as are so often

reported but if there were then the water came from the pyramid as it was

being built rather than some cataclismic flood.

Yes, there are other possibilities as well such as a far greater age for

the pyramid but again these are all highly improbable and would require

significant and specific evidence for consideration.

I to do not believe in a world wide flood event or that the great pyramid was a water pump, but there is a reason Herodtous had said the egyptains builders made water canals to only to the great pyraimd to bring water from the nile and not to other pyramids, or that only the great pyramid was reported to have water lines half way up.Unless these reports were not true.

Third Eye has suggested that maybe the lines were from erosion after the pyramids and the sphinx were buried in the sand so long. However still why the islamic report that only the great pyramid had the water lines after stripping the casing stones and not of the other pyramids?

qoute -Perhaps there really were water stains on the pyramid as are so often

reported but if there were then the water came from the pyramid as it was

being built rather than some cataclismic flood.

I agree to that while it was being built.

Edited November 21, 2011 by docyabut2

[Harte]

Heh, you just have to fill Mr Harte up with bucketfuls of beer, preferably giant stone buckets...

No.

Single Malt Scotch.

Harte

[questionmark]

I almost missed your link.

It contains everything you need to know about higher rainfall amounts

in ancient Egypt in the distant past;

...many of these desert fauna was hunted for sport by royalty and nobles...

If there were oryx and gazelles then there was grass. If there was grass then there was at least a few inches of rain every year.

There are Oryx and Gazelles in Saudi Arabia...it even rains less there. So I am afraid that it would not be indicative of more rain.

[SHaYap]

No.

Single Malt Scotch.

Harte

Single malt, No problem.

But...

Will a tumble of Glennfidditch do ?

The Sesh man won't mind breaking out that pair of Scarlet ice pick heels

I'll try and score a Royally salty mummy , which would you prefer?

A Horus without an eye or a Seth without the testicles?

salted oysters or nuts?

[+DieChecker]

There are Oryx and Gazelles in Saudi Arabia...it even rains less there. So I am afraid that it would not be indicative of more rain.

So Oryx are not extinct in the wild? Humm... Well it does look like they only live in super grassy fields in Saudi right? Not.....

That is one defense shot down.

[Oniomancer]

So Oryx are not extinct in the wild? Humm... Well it does look like they only live in super grassy fields in Saudi right? Not.....

That is one defense shot down.

Just to clarify, there are four species of oryx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx

The species in question is the Arabian oryx, which went extinct in the wild and was reintroduced. Another is believed extinct in the wild but the other two continue to thrive. They're all listed as primarily desert dwellers except for the East African Oryx, which inhabits semi-desert or steppes. Clad sure put his money on the wrong ungulate here.

[questionmark]

Just to clarify, there are four species of oryx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx

The species in question is the Arabian oryx, which went extinct in the wild and was reintroduced. Another is believed extinct in the wild but the other two continue to thrive. They're all listed as primarily desert dwellers except for the East African Oryx, which inhabits semi-desert or steppes. Clad sure put his money on the wrong ungulate here.

I suggested several times he should read up on his claims instead of maxturbating his brain over the rantings of a drugged priest... but he just will not listen...

[Englishgent]

It is only a minor point I know so please excuse me saying, , but the most frustrating thing I find about this thread is clad's insistance on using the word 'mustta' when refering to the building of ramps. Please clad, the words you need are 'MUST HAVE'

By the way, 'Mustta' sounds a little Egyptian to me

[Swede]

the sphinx was much buried under sands for much time as long as any cares to remember from the recorded history of the region, the pyramids too were buried well up to the half of its height.

Question is for how long and what kind of weather patterns it endured from nature within that duration.

Would the erosion patterns not differ along the exposed and unexposed areas also reflect such differences?

third_eye - The following recently presented references may prove to be of interest. Personally do understand how such references can be overlooked in regards to the pace of activity/presentation.

http://www.palarch.n...gy_1_1_2006.pdf

http://repository.up...%20limestone%22

Edit: Format

Edited November 22, 2011 by Swede

[docyabut2]

I really have to disagree with Robert Schoch dating for the Sphinx, there are to many contributing factors such as run offs, ect. I guess one can not realy date in what time or place would have had water lines and salt build ups.It would all be guessing

[cladking]

New trivia question for you, similar too the first.

Of the 120 generals who took part in the battle of Gettysburg, how many are buried there?

A better question would seem to be of all those men and women buried at

Giza, why are none of their titles consistent with how it is believed

the pyramids were built. Why is the tomb in the lower workmens' cemetery

belonging to an "Overseer of the Boats of Neith".

There is no substantiation whatsoever for the most important and fun-

damental orthodox assumption.

I don't know why this gives no one pause.

[cladking]

That the simplist and technologically appropriate thing was ramps is not in doubt.

Doubt lies in what configuration of ramp would have worked best and where it was located at.

Translation; The stinky footed bumpkins couldn't have imagined anything more complicated.

You point at the lack of evidence for counterweights and say it does not matter as it is logical.

There is ample evidence for counterweights. What do you think I've been doing here for

the last five years? Polishing my typing skills.

The vertical lines which disaprove ramps and indicate counterweights tend to appear in

pairs; one on each side of the pyramid as would be predicted by counterweights.

The builders drew pictures of counterweights; http://www.google.com/imgres?q=henu+boat&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&rlz=1I7ACEW_enUS357US357&biw=1157&bih=632&tbm=isch&tbnid=FMu_lyk7VcnWrM:&imgrefurl=http://carrington-arts.com/seshat.html&docid=qvHayFDkd4hWVM&imgurl=http://carrington-arts.com/skr3.JPG&w=654&h=392&ei=ohjLTsehLcru0gHK3OQw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=78&sig=102183499660186543239&page=1&tbnh=116&tbnw=193&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=114&ty=64

They spoke of counterweights that flew up and alit on the pyramid top;

494a. bring this (boat) to N. Which boat shall I bring to thee, O N.?

494b. Bring to N. that which flies up and alights.

They spoke of stone that flew like swallows;

1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones,

1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=37992519

They even described how to lift the stones;

1376a. The ropes are knotted; the boats of N. are tied together

They never even used the word "ramp" one single time to mean such a thing. There is no

evidence to support ramps. They had boat operators buried at Giza. They had weighers

buried at Giza. They had canal operators buried at Giza. They had a God of cool effer-

vescent water and no god of ramps. Everything is consistent with counterweights and the

only evidence for ramps is that they were too damn dumb to do anything else.

Edited November 22, 2011 by cladking