Giza Pyramid construction

[cladking]

4 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

 

I don't really have a problem with your idea of small ramps.  Of course I believe they needed a highly efficient means and even small ramps don't achieve this.  And with any ramp system it would have to be torn down and redesigned to put up the cladding.

• Quote

  Wouldn’t this five-step design leave a lot of space that still needs to be filled at some point? 

 

Yes.  And this dovetails nicely with the real world need to spread the Turah Limestone Mine production out over a long period of time.  They would need to run the mines smoothly so cladding sections of lower step tops could absorb a lot of production.   

• Quote

  Where are the men who are doing the pulling located?

•      

All the work is done from the tops of steps.  Or at least it is applied from the tops of steps.   

•  

• Quote

  How high would each block need to be lifted in one go? 

  This varied from pyramid to pyramid but they are five steps so the actual step size is about 1/6th of the height On G1 that's 81' 3".

• Quote

  How long would a lift take?

  If men were doing the pulling about 30 seconds regardless of load size.  

• Quote

  How many men would be needed to achieve each lift?

  About 1 man per 100 lbs.   

• Quote

  How is this model safer than my model?

  There would be no dropping of stones.   

Quote

I also don’t understand “Show that heavily laden workers dragging stones up ramps is easier than unladen workers.”  Ramps / inclined planes allow workers to apply a smaller force (over a longer distance) than simply trying to lift the same load.  This means it’s easier!  The maths is basic and the concept has been utilised for thousands of years.  I cannot imagine the Egyptian work crews not using them.

You have no idea what I'm up against.   We have one Egyptologist who believes the men dragged their bedroom furniture around with them and others who think they worked in an easy bake oven.  They all think that if you're superstitious enough it gives you the strength to do anything.  They design one-way ramps going up and then give them sleds and ropes to drag.   Few of the designs allow for a man with heat stroke and most of them think the top is easy because it's smaller.  They think if you build the ramps the stones magically transport themselves up via bumpkins.   

Ancient math isn't understood.   I believe I have some insight to it but I don't get it either.   The stuff you see from later eras is barely understood but not even arithmetic from the PT makes sense.   

Ramps make perfect sense in some applications and they are still used today.   But we don't build skyscrapers with ramps and neither has anyone else.   

[Thanos5150]

7 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

As I said, there is a ramp-like object in the vicinity of an unbuilt pyramid contemporaneous with the GP, and there are extant ramps on a small unfinished pyramid predating the GP at Abydos. (I admit I do get the pyramid sites at Abydos and Saqqara confused) Inconclusive is not non-existent. People have been hung based on less. They may not be a smoking gun but certainly bullet casings of a similar caliber to slugs found on the scene.

Again, for convenience:

Not to mention this: Valley Temple of Unas RAMP

Here.

Here.

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Oh that's a nice and instructive view of how Cladking is viewed - here is another one - note: bad language

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?5,1206237,1209564#msg-1209564

 

30 Days of Cladking.

These are not lines from one post per day but many. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Thanos5150

[cladking]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

 

Yes, steeper ramps mean less friction and more efficiency (providing the work can be done at all.   Indeed, since they pulled the stones up 72 degree step sides  friction is almost nonexistent and only the friction of the ropes is of much concern.   A team of men pulling stones from the step tops is as much as 80% efficient and the work is comfortable since there's ample room on step tops to use as many men as you please.   

Keep in mind that since the same route is used for every stone and men aren't walking on the 72 degree side that it can be greased and smoothed.   

There is no "ramp", no word "ramp", but there was a "god" whose name meant "he who smooths".  There is no cultural context to support the idea of ramps.   This is a belief of Egyptology and they don't run systematic testing or consult scientists and engineers.  Dr Hawass has made  statements against scientists and kicks them out for releasing data.   

[kmt_sesh]

Is it just me or is this thread utterly painful? It's like a skipping, broken record that no one can turn off. Here is cladking tediously repeating the same themes over and over and over, all the while assuming we all need to see it with tedious repetition. Hasn't everyone had enough?

[cladking]

They're all painful.  

But the fact is the proof is right in front of us and no one can see it;

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

This is how the pyramid was built.   

Why are people married to their beliefs?   

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

37 minutes ago, cladking said:

Keep in mind that since the same route is used for every stone and men aren't walking on the 72 degree side that it can be greased and smoothed.   

There is no "ramp", no word "ramp", but there was a "god" whose name meant "he who smooths".  There is no cultural context to support the idea of ramps.   This is a belief of Egyptology and they don't run systematic testing or consult scientists and engineers.  Dr Hawass has made  statements against scientists and kicks them out for releasing data.   

Hawass isn’t in power anymore Chief, so how come no one has leapt out of the woodwork to say “Hawass bullied me into silence!” 

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

What in his total ignorance of history, linguistics, or material science makes you think his insane ramblings about physics would be worthwhile? Nemo stultissimus repente fuit. 

—Jaylemurph 

It was a rhetorical question.....

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

30 Days of Cladking.

These are not lines from one post per day but many. 

Brilliant: His insanity shines bright!

[Hanslune]

20 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Hawass isn’t in power anymore Chief, so how come no one has leapt out of the woodwork to say “Hawass bullied me into silence!” 

Hawass has been gone from power for what 8 years and yet the more incompetent fringe haven't quite figured that out yet...the fact that he still functions in a much lesser capacity means he 'still in charge'.

[Hanslune]

45 minutes ago, cladking said:

Why are people married to their beliefs?   

Why are you married to yours?

Given your main foundational idea has been falsified why are you pretending it wasn't?

From your link: Looks like evidence for an internal ramp not five tiers.

 

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Is it just me or is this thread utterly painful? It's like a skipping, broken record that no one can turn off. Here is cladking tediously repeating the same themes over and over and over, all the while assuming we all need to see it with tedious repetition. Hasn't everyone had enough?

Painful, yes. He's used the 'mussta been ramps' 619 times in his visits here. 14 times in this thread alone I think we get the idea.......

His first use of Mustta......ten years ago

http://www.hallofmaat.com/forum/read.php?6,538678,539701#msg-539701

Yes either give him a permanent 'speculative Egyptian ideas' thread in

Palaeontology, Archaeology & History and restrict him to that thread permanently

or just get rid of him.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

Fanatic: One Who Can’t Change His Mind and Won’t Change the Subject

[Trelane]

11 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

When the evidence presented would be sufficient to convince any fair, reasonable and objective person, still you quibble. I think we're done here.

SC

 

SC

Bye Felicia....

[Golden Duck]

15 hours ago, cladking said:

Where is your scientific study that shows reversing directions every few feet make a job easier?  Prove crushed workers and ramps are beneficial to building pyramids.  Show that it's easy to drag stones on ramps.   Show that heavily laden workers dragging stones up ramps is easier than unladen workers.  Show that workers are more efficient dragging stones on steeper and steeper ramps.   Prove that stones lifted vertically have more friction than those dragged on the ground.   Prove that workers dragging their bedroom furniture and having no access to supplies in the desert heat and sun and experiencing heat stroke are more productive than workers with supplies at hand working in the shade.   .  What evidence do you have that stones falling from above is better than no stones.  Prove building two ramping systems are easier than one.  Prove tearing down two massive ramps is fun and easy.  

Prove that the physical evidence THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS has no bearing on how the great pyramids were built. 

Where is you study that says common sense, facts, and logic have no bearing on great pyramid building?   

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence and all Egyptology has for the fantastic claim that primitive people could build 480' tall structures in a desert is that "they mustta used ramps" and "superstition made them strong"!!  It is utter nonsense but anyone who challenges it is pilloried.  Egyptologists are so accustomed to discounting facts and evidence that you can't even see every word I said is an obvious tautology.  The weakest part of the evidence.

 

Why don/t you build a 6 1/2 million ton pyramid with ramps and try to leave no evidence for how it was done.  Try to leave evidence for steps but not the ramps you actually used.  

 

Egyptological beliefs are inane especially as they regard pyramid construction.  They've said "they mustta used ramps" so many millions of times all anyone can see is ramps.   "Ramps" are a modern belief that exists without evidence and without logic.  They are a belief that exists DESPITE the physical evidence that clearly shows stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids, one step at a time.  Despite all the evidence being clear Egyptology is inert, moribund, and insular so they refuse to address or study the SIMPLE FACTS AS I OUTLINED ABOVE.   

Wal Wallington did.  What did you do?

[jmccr8]

7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Is it just me or is this thread utterly painful? It's like a skipping, broken record that no one can turn off. Here is cladking tediously repeating the same themes over and over and over, all the while assuming we all need to see it with tedious repetition. Hasn't everyone had enough?

Hi Kmt

I'm sitting on broken glass to distract me from the pain.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

Why are people married

Hi Cladking

 Married what the hell are you on about being a bachelor is my greatest success.

jmccr8

[Scott Creighton]

15 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Well, if you ever present such evidence, we’ll let you know. That you literally cannot recognize others fail to share your lack of rigor speaks volumes about your “research.”

—Jaylemurph 

My "lack of rigor"? Okay - let's have a peek.

I maintain that Prince Puckler-Muskau, in his various writings, is implying that Vyse perpetrated a fraud within the great pyramid, painting the inscriptions on the walls of various chambers.

Hermione has challenged that view by asserting that:

 

Quote

Remember what Pückler-Muskau wrote about the shafts "we ourselves have of late seen undertaken by the English in these colossal monuments, though less systematically, and with inferior means?"  It's quoted above.  Pückler-Muskau thought that the ancient Egyptians did such things better.  Given that assumption, he might very well have believed that the priests "had beat[en] Vyse to it."

From here.

That's a summary of the two respective positions in this debate. So, which one is more likely to be correct? Okay - let’s apply some “rigor”.

1) The present position of mainstream Egyptology is that the painted marks on these blocks were painted, not in-situ, but at the quarries. This is how they explain the sideways and upside-down orientations of the painted marks in these chambers.

2) Hermione's position has to abandon the mainstream position in order to have Puckler-Muskau believing that some later priests painted the marks in these chambers onto the walls. They were either painted onto the blocks at the quarries or in-situ by Hermione’s supposed priests – so which is it? Hermione cannot have it both ways. The two positions /theories she supports (i.e. painted at the quarries / painted in-situ by priests) are mutually exclusive positions. So sure – “rigor”.

3) Assuming the priests painted the marks in-situ, why would they paint them onto the walls upside-down, sideways etc? Why not simply paint them upright? So sure – “rigor”.

4) Assuming these supposed priests did somehow manage to tunnel their way into the chambers, paint the marks sideways and upside-down onto the in-situ blocks, why would they have bothered resealing the chambers after having done this? Sure – “rigor”.

5) Why did they not simply paint their marks (upright) in Davison’s Chamber which appears always to have been accessible, even in remote times, and leave it at that? Sure - "rigor".

6) How did these priests reseal the chambers with replacement granite blocks? How did they manage that remarkable feat? Sure – “rigor”.

7) How did they get these replacement granite blocks into the Great Pyramid when it was presumably sealed by this time?  Did they somehow get them all down the Ascending Passage and up the Well Shaft with all its twists and kinks, that’s wide enough only for a man’s body to squeeze through? Sure – “rigor”.

8) Assuming the impossible, how then did they get these replacement granite blocks through the narrow passage (again only wide enough for a man to squeeze through) leading to Davison’s Chamber? Sure – “rigor”.

9) Further assuming the impossible, the span of these replacement granite blocks is wider than the roof of the Grand Gallery. How were they able to raise these blocks to the level and force them through the entrance of Davison’s Chamber? Sure – “rigor”.

10) Continuing to assume the impossible, how did they then get those replacement granite blocks (that are too wide for the opening to Davison’s Chamber anyway) around the 90 degree turn in that passage? Sure - "rigor".

The problems with Hermione’s contention (outlined above) so fundamentally and so severely assaults one's common sense as to be considered utter bunk and for anyone to support such an utterly ridiculous notion is, well, frankly beyond my comprehension. I can only put such support of this insanity on stilts as being nothing more than closed minds closing rank; a circling of the wagons; blind allegiance to a poster who happens to generally support your own views. In short – tribal. That isn’t being objective and it certainly isn’t scientific.

If this is the best that orthodox proponents can muster as a defence against Puckler-Muskau’s implied accusation against Vyse then I have little to be concerned with in regards to my own contention i.e. Prince Puckler-Muskau suspected Vyse may have perpetrated a fraud within these chambers. That’s the simplest understanding of what Puckler-Muskau wrote. No priests with super-human abilities required.

So aye – “rigor”. Hermione's position has rigor alright - rigor mortis.

SC

Edited November 9, 2019 by Scott Creighton

[Tom1200]

8 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

30 Days of Cladking.

These are not lines from one post per day but many. 

Good grief!  What is this bloke's problem?  He is adamant the Egyptian crews did not haul stones up slopes called ramps, then talks about hauling stones 'straight up' a sheer wall at 72°... which is a slope!

The main argument then seems to be - did they simply use the smooth (evidence for this?) walls they had already built at 72°, or did they construct temporary ramps at lower angles to make the job easier?  (I like the idea of the internal ramp.  I don't know what evidence there is for it, or why it should prove so difficult to verify.  Also - how did they get the final outer stones from the internal ramp to their permanent locations?  This seems the wrong way to apply the casing stones.)

I stopped reading at Day 10 - it was just too painful.  All hail Thanos for your work and endurance!

He replied to my earlier post (I guess I'm one of very few who didn't fully appreciate what a jerk he is) and quickly went off at a tangent, with the classic line "You have no idea what I'm up against."  Erm... yes, I do: it's called science, maths, archaeology, geology, engineering, logic, deduction, analysis, interpretation, some guesswork (let's be absolutely honest), common sense, reason, evidence and the humility to accept when we're shown to be wrong.

Funnily enough - I found this recently discovered image from the tomb of King Kl-d of the Twenty-Oneth Ming dynasty.  It clearly shows how strong the ancient labourers were so perhaps we need to reexamine Claddy's theories?

[Tom1200]

5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Fanatic: One Who Can’t Change His Mind and Won’t Change the Subject

I thought that was the definition of a politician?

[Scott Creighton]

Scratch my point #2 in my post above. I realise that Hermione is arguing what Puckler-Muskau himself may have believed with regards to the chamber quarry marks which doesn't necessarily impact on what Hermione actually believes with regards to those same marks. However, the other points remain. Vyse's Operations would likely have been available to Puckler-Muskau. He would likely have seen the various painted marks (and their orientations) drawn in Vyse's publication by Perring.

So my point #3 remains - Assuming Puckler-Muskau believed these priests smashed their way into the Vyse Chambers (before Vyse) and then painted the marks in-situ and resealed the chambers again (as Hermione contends), why would Puckler-Muskau believe that the priests would paint the quarry marks onto the walls in those chambers upside-down, sideways etc? Why would he have believed that the priests would have gone to all the trouble of smashing their way into these chambers to paint the marks upside-down and sideways before resealing the chambers (for Vyse to come along and break into them a second time)? How is that remotely a belief Puckler-Muskau could have sensibly adopted?

All other points remain.

SC

Edited November 9, 2019 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

“... for, after all, these rude beginnings of art, without sculpture, and without hieroglyphic writings,  were nothing more than tumuli of stone, though, at the time of Herodotus, they were again surrounded with the ornaments of art, (which had improved in the meantime) with temples, sphinxes, colossi, courts, and avenues, all of which had hieroglyphics, while the primeval monuments were left with religious awe in their original simplicity.” (Puckler Muskau – 1845).

“...for after all we cannot give any other name than tumuli of stone to these rough beginnings of art, without any sculpture or hieroglyphics, although in the time of Herodotus, they were again surrounded by the ornaments of an advanced art, with temples, sphinxes, colosses, court yards, and splendid avenues, all of which were ornamented with hieroglyphics, whilst the old monuments were left with a holy veneration in their primitive simplicity.” (Puckler-Muskau 1847).

Slightly different translation but there is little, if any, material difference in the meaning between the two passages. What we learn here (from both passages) is that Puckler-Muskau believed the primeval monuments (i.e. the Great Pyramid etc) were regarded with “religious awe” and “holy veneration” and remained “in their primitive simplicity” i.e. without any hieroglyphics. That's what he's telling us here that he believed about the Great Pyramid.

How then is it possible, after reading these two similar passages from Puckler-Musakau, can anyone sensibly ask us to accept the notion that the Prussian prince then abandoned such thoughts and, instead, came to believe the patently absurd idea that some priests would then have defiled their venerated monument (the Great Pyramid) by smashing their way through it to reach its upper relieving chambers (before Vyse) just to paint upside-down graffiti on the walls therein and then reseal the chambers with replacement granite beams on their way out? How is it possible that Prince Puckler-Muskau could have come to believe that's what took place? How?

Is there anyone buying this narrative from Hermione? Anyone at all?

SC

Edited November 9, 2019 by Scott Creighton

[cladking]

 

 

Quote

The main argument then seems to be - did they simply use the smooth (evidence for this?) walls they had already built at 72°, or did they construct temporary ramps at lower angles to make the job easier?

Again, mechanical advantage necessarily increases total work.  Even at 72 degrees sliding up greased rails there is a tiny amount of friction.  

The evidence for the usage of steps is largely irrelevant in this thread but consider any good industrialist or scientist knows that intermediate steps are never used unless they are necessary.  Cars are no longer built on chasses because this is no longer necessary and would waste effort and add to the weight of a vehicle.  By the EXACT same token NO GREAT PYRAMID IS KNOWN TO BE BUILT WITHOUT A STEPPED CORE.  Indeed, most are known to have been built with a stepped core.  This no coincidence and shows there was an architectural evolution of pyramid construction from mastabas through "stepped" pyramids to stepped pyramids without the steps showing.  All were built in the same manner because it's how they lifted things "high into the sky".  The fact that Every great pyramid also has a large ramp from its river port to the base of the pyramid shows supplies were delivered to the facility on the east side of the pyramid.  This facility processed stones and materials before being lifted straight up the first step of the pyramid.  If any other means was employed in lifting and building it would be virtually impossible to build the steps and resulting pyramid straight.  This is a problem all ramp believers handwave.  It's simply impossible to build a pyramid you can't even see.   We couldn't do it today and being primitive and superstitious would have made it not one whit easier.   

Men need room to work.  If you're going to build something at very poor efficiency they'd have needed acres and acres of room.  Ramps would be highly constrictive and highly inefficient.  By contrast pulling them up the sides opens acres and acres of nice level ground for every worker and with much greater efficiency only a fraction of the number of workers would be needed.     It even would provide shade for a few hours per day for most workers.   Having room to work is absolutely necessary.  

It should be noted that the absolute dirth of evidence for ramps does constitute evidence for pulling stones up.  There simply were no "ramp builders" , no "stone draggers", and most importantly there were no facilities for the number of men that would have been required to do it the hard way.  The evidence says they did it the easy way.      

Quote

(I like the idea of the internal ramp.  I don't know what evidence there is for it, or why it should prove so difficult to verify.  Also - how did they get the final outer stones from the internal ramp to their permanent locations?  This seems the wrong way to apply the casing stones.)

I too like internal ramps as an explanation for the physical evidence however the imaging of the pyramid completed a few years back proved beyond any doubt that no internal ramps were used.  Ultimately internal ramps had many of the same flaws as all others but additionally they had no evidence except poor interpretation.  

Even though it's obvious stones were pulled straight up the sides it is resisted.  Why do YOU think this is?   What do you think the reaction will be when this is proven?  

[cladking]

3 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

 

(I guess I'm one of very few who didn't fully appreciate what a jerk he is)

 

The only tool in the Egyptological tool kit is to insult, demean, ridicule, ignore, and gang up.  on anyone who doesn't succumb to the usual MO of citing "cultural context", burying them in irrelevant "et als", and circling the wagons.   

By the way you need "stink lines" coming up from the feet and to make the sides of the step appear greased.  This is a portrayal of my beliefs isn't it?  

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Good grief!  What is this bloke's problem?  He is adamant the Egyptian crews did not haul stones up slopes called ramps, then talks about hauling stones 'straight up' a sheer wall at 72°... which is a slope!

 

........ah sadly to say but he he's a filbert.