The Giants of ancient egypt are fact

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Looking back at that post of mine I notice I must have had fat finger syndrome while typing on my phone. So many spelling errors and autocorrects that are wrong. I apologize for that. Next time ill proof read before I hit post at the very least ill reread it within the time I can edit.

[Alcibiades9]

Looking back at that post of mine I notice I must have had fat finger syndrome while typing on my phone. So many spelling errors and autocorrects that are wrong. I apologize for that. Next time ill proof read before I hit post at the very least ill reread it within the time I can edit.

No need to apologise. Most impressive if you typed that all on your phone!

Personally, I just don't see ramps working above a certain height. That they were used for lower levels, I would not doubt - they would be used in much the same way ramps would be used anyway for a variety of needs. I cannot say the idea is "debunked" - all I can say is I just don't see them working all the way up. As mentioned, I would love to see a graphic demonstration online.

I think the answer for a successful construction on this scale - and not using "modern" technologies - would be some ingenious combination of building upwards in a pattern that allows for both access and room to manoevre all the way... and perhaps using the growing pyramid as it's own set of "steps" with some form of rig system to lift blocks level by level. That's not being offerd as a theory here, just idle speculation. I have next to no engineering knowledge, I am just not convinced about ramps.

[cladking]

I think the answer for a successful construction on this scale - and not using "modern" technologies - would be some ingenious combination of building upwards in a pattern that allows for both access and room to manoevre all the way... and perhaps using the growing pyramid as it's own set of "steps" with some form of rig system to lift blocks level by level. That's not being offerd as a theory here, just idle speculation. I have next to no engineering knowledge, I am just not convinced about ramps.

Yes. This is how they actually built it. You can still see the five steps that comprise

the levels in the gravimetric scan. Ramps were never really bunked in the first place

anbd this is what makes debunking them so easy. From the very first it was "they

nustta used ramps" and then greeat effort was expended to not looking at the evi-

dence and searching for ramps. They don't care that they've never found confirma-

tion for ramps because it's always been known that they mustta used ramps so con-

firmation is as irrelevant as Herodotus' description of a counterweight system. Since

they mustta used ramps the vertical lines are irrelevant. Since rthey mustta used

ramps the tiny little workers village mustta been big enough to hold all the ramp build-

ers and stone draggers. Since they mustta used ramps then what the builders said

must be religious nonsense.

It's easy to force sparse evidence into a paradigm and to simply ignore the contra-

dictions. This is what we all do. Ancient people knew this but modern people don't.

Look at the picture. Keep looking at it until you believe it. Then we can start talking

about whether they dragged the stones from the level below ior they used ballast in

a counterweight to pull it up from the level below. Any theory that needs to ignore most

of the evidence or the gravimetric scan is almost positively wrong. Any theory that is

dependent on something that must leave huge evidence that doesn't exist must be wrong.

Ramps are ruled out by both.

People say they must have used ramps as an insult for the main part. They are essent-

ially saying that the ancients were so ignorant that the only possible solution they could

come up with to lift 2 1/2 million stones is the most primitive and savage means possible.

Ramps are simple enough even a bumpkin could do it. Since they are bumpkins it follows

they must have used ramps. It simply doesn't matter that an even more primitive means

is actually evidenced because we're stuck with ramps. If orthodoxy gives in on ramps they

will have to actually investigate the evidence because too many peoiple will start accepting

counterweights are the most logical means consistent with all the evidence. Pretty soon

the ancients might not seem so religious/ primitive/ superstitious/ ignorant/ backward and

they might need to start rewriting the textbooks or , heaven forfend, reinterpreting the evi-

dence.

[Abramelin]

Ramps were never really bunked in the first place

anbd this is what makes debunking them so easy.

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.

.

http://guardians.net...ss/pbuildrs.htm

Edited September 30, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

No need to apologise. Most impressive if you typed that all on your phone!

Personally, I just don't see ramps working above a certain height. That they were used for lower levels, I would not doubt - they would be used in much the same way ramps would be used anyway for a variety of needs. I cannot say the idea is "debunked" - all I can say is I just don't see them working all the way up. As mentioned, I would love to see a graphic demonstration online.

I think the answer for a successful construction on this scale - and not using "modern" technologies - would be some ingenious combination of building upwards in a pattern that allows for both access and room to manoevre all the way... and perhaps using the growing pyramid as it's own set of "steps" with some form of rig system to lift blocks level by level. That's not being offerd as a theory here, just idle speculation. I have next to no engineering knowledge, I am just not convinced about ramps.

Which is why most Egyptologists shy away from claiming as much, preferring instead to say that ramps were used and leaving it at that. And kmt_sesh and I, among others, have said as much many, MANY times here at UM. Whereas cladking's take is that if one can't explain how ramps were used all the way to the top then they've been "debunked". One of the more ignorant statements I've come across here at UM. And all in favor of a non-existant geyser on the Giza Plateau. My personal favorite is an internal ramp, although I know that there's little support for it currently. But at least it was well within the known technological capabilities/usages of the Ancient Egyptians.

cormac

[cladking]

Which is why most Egyptologists shy away from claiming as much, preferring instead to say that ramps were used and leaving it at that. And kmt_sesh and I, among others, have said as much many, MANY times here at UM. Whereas cladking's take is that if one can't explain how ramps were used all the way to the top then they've been "debunked". One of the more ignorant statements I've come across here at UM. And all in favor of a non-existant geyser on the Giza Plateau. My personal favorite is an internal ramp, although I know that there's little support for it currently. But at least it was well within the known technological capabilities/usages of the Ancient Egyptians.

You're not thinking this through because you're too busy trying to dodge the facts.

There is no apparent or fundamental change inb the way they lifted stones from the

very first cornerstone to the capstone. This is obvious on the measurements of course

thickness and ibn the gravimetric scan. This means whatever was good enough at the

bottom was good enough for the top. We know the casing stone had to be installed from

the bottom up due to their nature and this simply eliminates ramps. Ramps were a bad

idea from the very beginning and they are a much worse idea now that we have more evi-

dence to work with. The stones were lifted one level (81' 3") at a time and this was

far more efficient than ramps could have been. It would take a small fraction of the

effort to build this way and it is even lower technmology than ramps. You don't need

no stinkin' unevidenced sledges, or unevidenced rollers. But it's not only simpler,

easier, and far practical but it's EVIDENCED and ir was even described to Herodotus.

It fits whereas ramps don't. Ramps fit so poorly that they are debunked.

I thought everyone liked to say they were simple and primitive folks and there's nothing

more primitive and simple than pulling stones up the side so what's the problem? This

should be the new paradigm already "they mustta pulled 'em straight up the side" and

then we could start talking about how they pulled them and doing the basic science to

make this determination.

[cormac mac airt]

You're not thinking this through because you're too busy trying to dodge the facts.

There is no apparent or fundamental change inb the way they lifted stones from the

very first cornerstone to the capstone. This is obvious on the measurements of course

thickness and ibn the gravimetric scan. This means whatever was good enough at the

bottom was good enough for the top. We know the casing stone had to be installed from

the bottom up due to their nature and this simply eliminates ramps. Ramps were a bad

idea from the very beginning and they are a much worse idea now that we have more evi-

dence to work with. The stones were lifted one level (81' 3") at a time and this was

far more efficient than ramps could have been. It would take a small fraction of the

effort to build this way and it is even lower technmology than ramps. You don't need

no stinkin' unevidenced sledges, or unevidenced rollers. But it's not only simpler,

easier, and far practical but it's EVIDENCED and ir was even described to Herodotus.

It fits whereas ramps don't. Ramps fit so poorly that they are debunked.

I thought everyone liked to say they were simple and primitive folks and there's nothing

more primitive and simple than pulling stones up the side so what's the problem? This

should be the new paradigm already "they mustta pulled 'em straight up the side" and

then we could start talking about how they pulled them and doing the basic science to

make this determination.

I'm not dodging anything. Its just I'm not as hung up on how they built the GP exactly, from bottom to peak, as you are. Because it does nothing to negate the facts that the Ancient Egyptians built the GP. That they incorporated a massif, regardless of what height it was exactly. That they built the GP during the reign of Pharaoh Khufu. And that it was with a technology that IS attested throughout Ancient Egyptian history. And what's on the gravimetric scan can't really be called "steps" as they are neither separate nor of the same size, but actually connect all the way around and fluctuate in size. None of which validates your assumed method of construction, which is unevidenced in AE history.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

I'm not dodging anything. Its just I'm not as hung up on how they built the GP exactly, from bottom to peak, as you are. Because it does nothing to negate the facts that the Ancient Egyptians built the GP. That they incorporated a massif, regardless of what height it was exactly. That they built the GP during the reign of Pharaoh Khufu. And that it was with a technology that IS attested throughout Ancient Egyptian history. And what's on the gravimetric scan can't really be called "steps" as they are neither separate nor of the same size, but actually connect all the way around and fluctuate in size. None of which validates your assumed method of construction, which is unevidenced in AE history.

cormac

A very good point, about the exact way the pyramid was built. No logical person can literally believe Atlanteans or aliens were involved, and some non-existent prior "civilization" is almost as ridiculous a claim. There's no doubt the ancient Egyptians themselves built the Great Pyramid.

Exactly how it was built will not change Egyptology in much of any appreciable way. It was built for Khufu in around 2500 BCE—and once Khufu was dead and buried, emphasis shifted to the next king, and then the next, and the next, et cetera. By the end of the Old Kingdom, Egyptians would've still regarded the Great Pyramid as an impressive feat, and the mortuary cult of Khufu was fading but still intact, but it was no longer directly relevant to the lives of the people and to the monarchs of that time.

And by the New Kingdom, a thousand years later, the three pyramids at Giza were no longer relevant to the state religion and the elite class. By that point they were, in all appreciable ways, tourist destinations. The one Giza monument that remained of great importance by and in the New Kingdom was the Sphinx.

In other words, the Great Pyramid was the focus of the state only during the lifetime of Khufu. Once Khufu died, attention moved elsewhere. Exactly how the pyramid was built—including silly mind-games like how many stones were brought to the site per minute—did not change that.

[cladking]

Exactly how it was built will not change Egyptology in much of any appreciable way.

This will be true if it's not giants. The problem is since everyone

believes it mustta ramps they aren't even looking for what it actually

was. Everyone believes it couldn't have been giants because ramps are

the "only" means "actually" in "evidence". Why do simple testing if we

alread know how it was built.

Ramps are debunked.

[cladking]

And what's on the gravimetric scan can't really be called "steps" as they are neither separate nor of the same size, but actually connect all the way around and fluctuate in size.

I would agree that the gravimetric scan isn't exactly what one would expect

from a simple five step pyramid. It's very close but not exact. This is what

we really should be talking about rather ramps. The means by which it was ac-

tually built can be deduced from this scan but looking for ramps for 150 years

has gotten us exactly nowhere at all.

If you look at the scan you'llsee every single step of 81' 3" is defined in it.

I consider this very strong evidence that it's a five step pyramid. To my mind

the main reason that it even falls short of being proof is that there is other

information as well for which explanations are not as certain.

[cormac mac airt]

This will be true if it's not giants. The problem is since everyone

believes it mustta ramps they aren't even looking for what it actually

was. Everyone believes it couldn't have been giants because ramps are

the "only" means "actually" in "evidence". Why do simple testing if we

alread know how it was built.

Ramps are debunked.

Nope. Everyone believes it couldn't have been giants because there's no evidence for giants. There are no giant tools left behind, nor are there giant remains, photoshopped pictures aside.

The only thing that's been debunked so fas is your knowledge of the Ancient Egyptians. That could change, but I'm not betting on it.

cormac

[+DieChecker]

Personally, I just don't see ramps working above a certain height. That they were used for lower levels, I would not doubt - they would be used in much the same way ramps would be used anyway for a variety of needs. I cannot say the idea is "debunked" - all I can say is I just don't see them working all the way up. As mentioned, I would love to see a graphic demonstration online.

I think the answer for a successful construction on this scale - and not using "modern" technologies - would be some ingenious combination of building upwards in a pattern that allows for both access and room to manoevre all the way... and perhaps using the growing pyramid as it's own set of "steps" with some form of rig system to lift blocks level by level. That's not being offerd as a theory here, just idle speculation. I have next to no engineering knowledge, I am just not convinced about ramps.

I also agree with your assessment, in large part. What I always try to point out is that ramps could easily have been used for 75% to 97% of the Great Pyramid. The top 1/4 is only like 3% of the volume (number of stones). So even if we say that they used lots of ramps to build the lower half of the pyramid, and they could have, and assume they did it really quick. They could/would have had 10 to 15 years to finish the remaining 20 to 5% of the construction. 10 years to finish putting on the last 5% of stones sounds like even Levering, or using small davits with ropes would still have allowed the pyramid to be contructed on time.

I believe there can be no doubt that ramps were used.

One thing that is funny about Cladking is he pulls much of his "evidence" from the timeframe 100+ years after the pyramids at Giza were built, yet if anyone else does, like to show ramps in a bas relief in a tomb, he dismisses it because it is not current with the GP construction.

This will be true if it's not giants. The problem is since everyone

believes it mustta ramps they aren't even looking for what it actually

was. Everyone believes it couldn't have been giants because ramps are

the "only" means "actually" in "evidence". Why do simple testing if we

alread know how it was built.

Ramps are debunked.

You always crack me up!

I'm still interested in this "Never collected" vital data that you are always talking about. It is true you never find what you don't look for, but what really could/did every single archeological dig at Giza not find that they should have?

[cormac mac airt]

I would agree that the gravimetric scan isn't exactly what one would expect

from a simple five step pyramid. It's very close but not exact. This is what

we really should be talking about rather ramps. The means by which it was ac-

tually built can be deduced from this scan but looking for ramps for 150 years

has gotten us exactly nowhere at all.

If you look at the scan you'll see every single step of 81' 3" is defined in it.

I consider this very strong evidence that it's a five step pyramid. To my mind

the main reason that it even falls short of being proof is that there is other

information as well for which explanations are not as certain.

Not really. As can be seen from the North side of the GP in the above picture, the red section extends to better than 1/2 the height. Which is well more than 81' 3". And by appearances the whole setup looks more like a ramp system as drawn by a first grader than anything as remotely accurate as you'd like to believe. There are unexplainable splits and deviations in height between the colors that are not indicative of any kind of step system. As least not any kind of step system that was designed by anyone who WASN'T intoxicated at the time. Congratulations, you've just found the world's first drunk designer.

cormac

[DKO]

I read through half this topic. Was going in a circle for a bit so I skipped to the end.

A few people seem to think it's totally impossible for man to move heavy blocks. Here's an example of an average man moving heavy blocks, without any machinery. Now imagine 40,000 more men, all working at the same time.

Sorry if it's been posted already.

[Harsh86_Patel]

A very good point, about the exact way the pyramid was built. No logical person can literally believe Atlanteans or aliens were involved, and some non-existent prior "civilization" is almost as ridiculous a claim. There's no doubt the ancient Egyptians themselves built the Great Pyramid.

Exactly how it was built will not change Egyptology in much of any appreciable way. It was built for Khufu in around 2500 BCE—and once Khufu was dead and buried, emphasis shifted to the next king, and then the next, and the next, et cetera. By the end of the Old Kingdom, Egyptians would've still regarded the Great Pyramid as an impressive feat, and the mortuary cult of Khufu was fading but still intact, but it was no longer directly relevant to the lives of the people and to the monarchs of that time.

And by the New Kingdom, a thousand years later, the three pyramids at Giza were no longer relevant to the state religion and the elite class. By that point they were, in all appreciable ways, tourist destinations. The one Giza monument that remained of great importance by and in the New Kingdom was the Sphinx.

In other words, the Great Pyramid was the focus of the state only during the lifetime of Khufu. Once Khufu died, attention moved elsewhere. Exactly how the pyramid was built—including silly mind-games like how many stones were brought to the site per minute—did not change that.

I disagree when you say that how the great pyramids were built will not impact Egyptology greatly.I again give the same argument that why would a pharoan or anyone decide to built such huge structures and with what methodologies will greatly depend on what architectural acheivement they have made previously and also on what architectural knowledge they have gathered or learnt.The techniques to built the Great Pyramids could not have been invented over just one structure as it is a feat of high level engineering beyond any contestation.There has to be a cultural continuity from prior times.I personally feel that the great pyramids don't fit in perfectly with the mainstream timeline.

[Bignose Goon]

Of course it isn't fact, stop being a muppet

[cladking]

Not really. As can be seen from the North side of the GP in the above picture, the red section extends to better than 1/2 the height. Which is well more than 81' 3". And by appearances the whole setup looks more like a ramp system as drawn by a first grader than anything as remotely accurate as you'd like to believe. There are unexplainable splits and deviations in height between the colors that are not indicative of any kind of step system. As least not any kind of step system that was designed by anyone who WASN'T intoxicated at the time. Congratulations, you've just found the world's first drunk designer.

There is no ramp system here. What you're seeing is an optical illusion.

Ican easily prove it but this is copyrighted material and the authore specifically

forbids that the five steps are drawn on it so you'll just have to take a few min-

utes and draw the steps on yourself. They are 81'3" apart and you can see right where

they go so it's very easy. When the steps are drawn in the ramps disappear.

This scan shows only the outside of the pyramid so all you see are exterior featues

and the five steps.

[cladking]

... like to show ramps in a bas relief in a tomb, he dismisses it because it is not current with the GP construction.

It is not my contention that the great pyramid builders didn't have inclined

plane technology. They also had insense burning technology but they used nei-

ther to build any great pyramid. This is why there's ne evidence for using ramps.

I'm still interested in this "Never collected" vital data that you are always talking about. It is true you never find what you don't look for, but what really could/did every single archeological dig at Giza not find that they should have?

They should have the infrared imaging so we know how the pyramids absorb and emit

heat. Every parameter and anomaly should have been studied by now but they aren't

looking for evidence, they are looking for ramps. They've spent 150 years not find-

ing ramps because ramps were never used to lift even a single stone on any great

pyramid.

[Quaentum]

Originally the cry of ramps weren't used or ramps are debunked was because no ramps or documentation had been found. Of course, now we have the bas relief found in a tomb and actual ramps have been discovered but the cries of not used and debunked continue. Perhaps those that don't believe they were used for building the pyramids think that the ramps were for mere decoration.

Can we show evidence that the ramps were used to move the blocks? No not yet, but then again it wasn't that long ago we couldn't show that ramps actually existed.

IMO, those that continue the cries are crying because, we can now show ramps existed, we can postulate that they would have been built for use not just show, and because of that we move closer to finding they were used for building the pyramids and farther away from the serious to crackpot alternate theories of pyramid building.

[Harte]

You're forgetting my skateboarding hypothesis.

Harte

[cladking]

IMO, those that continue the cries are crying because, we can now show ramps existed, we can postulate that they would have been built for use not just show, and because of that we move closer to finding they were used for building the pyramids and farther away from the serious to crackpot alternate theories of pyramid building.

Exactly. Every single idea that doesn't involve ramps is considered a "crackpot" notion

by Egyptology. This is just another way of saying "they mustta used ramps" and a million

ways have already been invented to say this. There's no need to investigate anomalies or

to even gather basic information because all we have to do is look for ramps another 150

years and we'll find them for sure.

It simply doesn't matter that ramps are illogical and unevidenced when something else is e-

videnced because we already know they must have used ramps.

I'll go ahead and update the ramp debunkment argument later so we'll all know the specific

facts being ignored by the ramp believers.

[Oniomancer]

Exactly. Every single idea that doesn't involve ramps is considered a "crackpot" notion

by Egyptology. This is just another way of saying "they mustta used ramps" and a million

ways have already been invented to say this. There's no need to investigate anomalies or

to even gather basic information because all we have to do is look for ramps another 150

years and we'll find them for sure.

And of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of those ideas and how they're presented...

It simply doesn't matter that ramps are illogical and unevidenced when something else is e-

videnced because we already know they must have used ramps.

That depends on how one chooses to define "Logical" or "evidenced".

Edited October 1, 2012 by Oniomancer

[kmt_sesh]

Not really. As can be seen from the North side of the GP in the above picture, the red section extends to better than 1/2 the height. Which is well more than 81' 3". And by appearances the whole setup looks more like a ramp system as drawn by a first grader than anything as remotely accurate as you'd like to believe. There are unexplainable splits and deviations in height between the colors that are not indicative of any kind of step system. As least not any kind of step system that was designed by anyone who WASN'T intoxicated at the time. Congratulations, you've just found the world's first drunk designer.

cormac

LOL I don't know about the first drunk designer. Ever seen photos of the Meidum pyramid, or the Bent Pyramid?

[kmt_sesh]

I disagree when you say that how the great pyramids were built will not impact Egyptology greatly.I again give the same argument that why would a pharoan or anyone decide to built such huge structures and with what methodologies will greatly depend on what architectural acheivement they have made previously and also on what architectural knowledge they have gathered or learnt.The techniques to built the Great Pyramids could not have been invented over just one structure as it is a feat of high level engineering beyond any contestation.There has to be a cultural continuity from prior times.I personally feel that the great pyramids don't fit in perfectly with the mainstream timeline.

You'll encounter problems if you're viewing the Great Pyramid as some sort of isolate. It is not. It has to be viewed, studied, and understood in context. You can track the evolution of royal tomb architecture all the way back to Dynasty 1 (and indeed, before), but even with pyramids you have an obvious starting point. That would be Djoser's Step Pyramid. Then you must progress to Sneferu's Meidum pyramid, Bent Pyramid, and Red Pyramid. You can even include Sekhemkhet's unfinished pyramid (Dynasty 3) at Saqqara, for an understanding of how the Egyptian were preparing the subterranean apartments and the foundations of the superstructure. You must examine the engineering and architecture of all of these pyramids to understand the common building principles they all share, as well as innovations seen in one or more before they were adapted into another. In total, all of this demonstrates an irrefutable cultural continuity in the building of Old Kingdom pyramids.

You must also study the engineering and architecture of all of the attendant temples and causeways. The engineering of these temples and how we can track their progress and expansion, are much more relevant to later building practices than pyramids are. After all, pyramids were basically obsolete to the culture by the New Kingdom, while temples grew ever larger and grander. The engineering and architecture of a temple complex like that at ancient Karnak are exponentially more sophisticated than that which had been used in Old Kingdom pyramids.

[cormac mac airt]

There is no ramp system here. What you're seeing is an optical illusion.

I can easily prove it but this is copyrighted material and the authore specifically

forbids that the five steps are drawn on it so you'll just have to take a few min-

utes and draw the steps on yourself. They are 81'3" apart and you can see right where

they go so it's very easy. When the steps are drawn in the ramps disappear.

This scan shows only the outside of the pyramid so all you see are exterior featues

and the five steps.

No, it's not.

I have and your step locations are nowhere near as accurate as you claim them to be. IMO above, below or in the middle of your step lines does not validate it as accurate, particularly when it's not completely one way or the other all the way around. Which is what it should be if they were steps.

cormac