Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Paul Hai

Giza Pyramid construction

1,175 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Wearer of Hats
Just now, stereologist said:

What machine. You've been talking about a machine. Oh please tell me what sort of machine it is.

Are you thinking of the machine in the Transformer movie?

Oh pray tell, what machine are you on about?

A sort of Tesla power grid doodah that transmits power wirelessly.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/2/2019 at 4:38 PM, cormac mac airt said:

Because evidently Vaz isn't smart enough to figure it out it apparently needs to be pointed out that plate tectonics having only shown a movement of circa 0.72 miles in distance over 4500 years WILL NEVER support the GPs alleged position at 30N, which is 2 MILES away. 

cormac

Back in 2012 there was all sorts of 30 degree hocus pocus. Loonies preaching to the mindless were telling them that all sorts of major features in the solar system were at 30 degrees. I checked. Nothing was and most were far removed from 30 degrees north or south. I guess the loonies made a lot of money from the foolish. They traveled to mislead scores of people across the world.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/3/2019 at 2:41 AM, Vaz said:

Radio carbon dating of what?  I'm surprised you don't anticipate these responses and have evidence ready.

 

How about you posting some evidence instead of your ridiculous fantasies?

Where is your evidence?

Why don't you know about the GP radiocarbon dating? Are you really that lost?

Well if you are then ask for help. The posters here are really smart and you need all of the help you can get.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/3/2019 at 2:44 AM, Vaz said:

We still have 30N to a high precision.  If you feel it was not originally on 30N then please provide proof.  Straight and simple.  Allow me to help:

image.png.8faf55c6099aec776889c2063ccab836.png

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/grocha/plates/platetec21.htm

That's not what you stated earlier. Trying to move the goalposts?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/3/2019 at 4:18 AM, Vaz said:

So do I.  The tech just was not around to build the GP at that time.  You have to think in reverse when considering Egypt.  It devolved over a huge amount of time.  

Wow. You are actually as clueless as your posts suggest.

There was plenty of tech to build pyramids. The AE had been doing for roughly 150 years by the time they got to the GP.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

Hermione: Rolling out a new piece of software is the paradigm to which you assimilate the changes in handwriting in ancient Egypt over time  - the model on which you base your understanding of that process.

SC: Ah, so now you can read my thoughts, Hermione? You have no idea how I understand the process of rolling out a new piece of software—you’re not inside my head. If you do not understand how hieroglyphic signs changed over time into their ever more simplified hieratic forms then read Moeller or Goedicke. It’s a simple fact that cannot be disputed. Earlier forms of hieratic were generally written in columns, later generally in linear form. Do you dispute this?

 Hermione: You are basing your pseudo-palaeography on assumptions imported from another field, assumptions which are just wrong in palaeography.

 SC: There is nothing “pseudo-palaeography” about the fact that the AEs hieratic writing evolved from being written in columns to the linear form. Are you disputing this?

 

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

SC: You’re arguing against your own position here, Hermione. That Vyse felt comfortable enough to challenge Caviglia’s accusations makes us wonder why he appears to have totally ducked those made against him by Pückler-Muskau. He’s happy to challenge Caviglia but not Pückler-Muskau —yes, telling indeed.

If you think that, then, quite simply, you haven't followed the argument. 

SC: Oh I’ve followed the ‘debate’ perfectly fine. You entirely undermined your own point (above). If you don’t see the obviousness of that then, alas, there’s not a whole lot I can do to help you.

SC: You’re talking about the 1839 Athenaeum article. At best that article is ambiguous so it’s perfectly understandable why that less clear accusation wasn’t taken seriously. But not so the 1845 accusation which is wholly unambiguous and cannot be mistaken.

Hermione: It was a letter - and no more ambiguous than the book.  You are making excuses.

SC: No excuses from me, Hermione. You’re simply avoiding the fact that the prince’s more recent comment takes precedence over his former comment and clinging desperately onto the ambiguous comment because it’s all you have. But it simply doesn’t help your position. Because you are not thinking this through logically. Consider – Vyse spoke with Pückler-Muskau at Giza in the latter part of February, 1837. Now, this isn’t mentioned by Vyse in his published account but I know for a fact (from having read Vyse’s private journal) that he discussed Wellington’s Chamber with Pückler-Muskau. As I said, this conversation took place between the two men in the latter part of February 1837, weeks before Wellington’s Chamber had finally been breached and entered for the first time since the Great Pyramid was built and these chambers sealed.

What you are effectively trying to claim is that, with this knowledge that Vyse was still trying to breach Wellington’s Chamber in February 1837, that Pückler-Muskau somehow believed that some priests had beat Vyse to it, had entered this chamber (and the others), painted marks on the walls, departed from the chamber(s) and managed to perfectly reseal the access shaft back to its original state.

Sure, Hermione. That makes perfect, logical sense. In some other alternative reality.

SC: His 1845 book makes it perfectly clear who he was targeting with his accusation, Hermione.

Hermione: Perfectly clear would be "Oberst Wyse hat die Hieroglyphen gefälscht!"  No such wording appears.

SC: The inference is perfectly clear, Hermione.

SC: It’s not a falsehood, Hermione. Go back and read the Preface in your own book. Any reader reading that Preface who was unfamiliar with the recent history of this issue would reasonably conclude  your book would not be using any material from Vyse’s private journal. There are no caveats or qualifiers to Stower’s statement. He did not go on to say, for example: “However, after some considerable time analysing Vyse’s scrawl, I was eventually able to read some of the more important pages.” But there’s nothing like that. So, as I said, any reader unfamiliar with the subject will get the impression that you gave up trying to read the private journal. Now, from my point of view, I, of course, know that Stower has been able to read a few passages from the private journal. However, my impression is that those few passages is all he has been able to read because your Preface gives the impression that you gave up trying to read any more and thus didn’t find any new important insights. So, Hermione—this is not a falsehood on my part. It’s what I have seen, what I have evidenced from you both. Perhaps making Stower’s statement clearer in your book’s Preface might help clarify your position on the private journal.

Hermione: You cannot possibly know what Martin Stower did and thought in 1998 on this subject.

SC: You’d be surprised just how much your co-author has promulgated his thoughts all over the internet over the past 20+ years. Moreover, with regards to “this subject” (i.e. Vyse’s private journal), your co-author’s thoughts seem perfectly clear in the Preface of your book. The facts of this, as they presently stand, give the impression that you and your co-author gave up on a primary source when writing your book. That’s not a lie. That’s not an untruth. That’s not a falsehood. It’s how it looks, Hermione. Now, if you have[/u] used pages/passages from Colonel Vyse’s private journal in your co-authored book, then fine. But you might want to consider making that clearer to your readers in a revised Preface that you have done so.

SC: “Have you?” This is pure deflection from my question, Hermione. I’m going to tell you right now that you haven’t any such empirical evidence to support your conjecture about Walter Allen embellishing his 1954 logbook. There—I’ve thrown down the gauntlet for you. Prove me wrong. But you won’t—because I’m right.

Hermione: There are many reasons for the various conclusions in Strange Journey.  However, if you've chosen not to read the book, you won't know what they are.

However: your "empirical" evidence warrants treating the logbook as evidence?  But of course, when you're doing it, different standards apply.

Where, for that matter, is the "empirical" evidence supporting your conjecture that the royal names are forgeries?  We were promised "recent chemical analysis of the marks" - remember?

SC: More deflection, trying to turn the discussion away from the question I actually asked you to answer. Won’t work. Focus Hermione. Clearly I am right with my assertion that you have not tested the ink in Walter Allen’s logbook – a process that would (if your conjecture was true) have provided you with solid ‘proof’ that your conjecture was true. Indeed, all you had to say was that you have had the ink in Allen’s logbook tested – you don;t even need to disclose the result. That would be a real teaser for folks. But you can’t even say that. It’s also perfectly evident that you don’t have this ‘proof’ because if you did have such, I know you well enough to know that you wouldn’t be slow to ram it down my throat to prove your point and shut me up.

SC: Hermione—remember when I PROVED to you (with documentary evidence) that the date in the chamber was the chamber’s opening date and not Hill’s painting date? You accepted my PROOF of that. So yes—I have proved some of my argument beyond reasonable doubt. So yes, there are points that can be proved (beyond reasonable doubt) and others where the alternative view stretches credibility to breaking point; where it breaks the bounds of simple common sense. Is it realistic, for example, to suggest that Mr Hill didn’t know what day of the week it was? Is it realistic to suggest that Mr Hill did not consult with Vyse about the inscription to be placed on the chamber wall? Is it realistic to suggest that Mr Hill could have misremembered a 6 into a 9? (Perhaps—but then this is contradicted by other evidence where he clearly didn’t misremember. Can you point to any evidence that shows Mr Hill had a poor memory?). Is it realistic that if this were a genuine mistake that it would not have been corrected? Is it realistic that Mr Hill could get this inscription wrong when he got all the others correct? Is it realistic that he would not take great care in getting an important inscription absolutely correct?

Hermione: Sorry, no.  But I see you've provided a link ...

SC: Link?? [Shrugs] Your claim that Mr Hill made a mistake in writing the chamber opening date due to “misremembering” requires you offer something more substantial than the cubed root of hee-haw to support your claim that Mr Hill “misremembered”. Then your claim would have some substance, a base upon which to stand. As you present it, it is completely baseless. Imagine a court case where a person’s poor memory was central to the defence’s case. Do you really think that the prosecution would simply accept the person’s mere word that they have a bad memory without some documentary evidence to support their claim? You can’t just make such a claim and expect it to be accepted without question, without some evidential support.

SC: Given the above then, on the balance of probability, in my opinion, Mr Hill made no mistake.

I've presented my argument to you Hermione (with supporting evidence) that, as far as I am concerned, gives "a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition." Yes, where necessary, some assumptions have been made but I don’t think any of them are unreasonable. Here's my argument, Hermione.

Hermione: So not commenting is deemed now to be acceptance?  Sorry to disabuse you, but no.

SC: Only because I know you well enough over the years, Hermione, that when you can offer an answer, you usually do. It’s in your nature. Thus your refusal to substantiate your own position here is, well, telling.

SC: To counter my argument (presented above) you make the claim that Mr Hill merely made a "minor mistake" because he was fallible, he “misremembered”. You give no supporting evidence in support of your counter-claim. Nothing.  Given what I have offered in my own argument, I have to say, what you present as an argument is far from convincing.

Hermione: What kind of evidence do you imagine there could be in such a case? 

SC: Dating mistakes in the other chambers? Dating mistakes on his facsimile sheets? Comments perhaps made by Colonel Vyse that Mr Hill forgot to do something due to him having a poor memory? That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure you’re capable enough to think of other possible avenues by which this question can be further explored. But, as I said above - to make a claim without anything to substantiate it simply means your position shouldn’t and likely won’t be taken seriously by any objective observer. Conversely, I can point to the fact the Mr Hill made no mistakes with near identical tasks, which goes to his reliability.

Hermione: A transcript of Hill's thoughts? 

SC: I don’t believe he’s written a book. A diary perhaps? You never know.

Hermione: Demanding evidence where there could be none is merely a ploy. 

SC: Except the truth, Hermione, is that there actually is evidence. But that evidence points to the complete opposite conclusion to the one you’re seeking. And because that evidence strongly suggests there was nothing wrong with Mr Hill’s memory, then that evidence is to be ignored and dismissed by you - because it doesn’t support your conjecture; because it’s inconvenient to you. But again – it won’t wash with objective folks.

Hermione: As I wrote earlier, the evidence in the case is the evidence of human fallibility.

SC: I know you said that. And it’s simply not a convincing defence. If that is to be the basis of your ‘defence’ then, as I’ve stated a few times now, you have to try and somehow substantiate it because, as the evidence currently stands, the precise opposite is being demonstrated in terms of Mr Hill’s fallibility of doing near identical tasks. The evidence elsewhere shows he was perfectly dependable and made no mistakes.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Quote

The hieroglyphics, said to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse, in the interior of the Great Pyramid, are not carved in the stone, but only traced, as with a finger dipped in paint, and have perhaps been lately pencilled on the wall. - Prince Pückler-Muskau, 1845.

SC: Notice what he has written in his opening sentence there, Hermione: “...The hieroglyphics said to have been discovered...” The short phrase “said to have” is very revealing, Hermione, as it qualifies his further comment about Vyse’s ‘discovery’. This short qualifying phrase is here to cast doubt upon what Vyse ‘discovered’. It’s like saying, “The hieroglyphics, alleged to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse...” or “The hieroglyphics, believed to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse...”  He then goes on to spell out for us precisely the nature of his doubt i.e. that the hieroglyphics said to have been (ahem) ‘discovered’ by Vyse “...have perhaps been lately pencilled on the wall.”

Hermione: We've read it, Scott, thank you  ...  Along with a great deal else besides. For instance, there's the letter published in the Athenaeum (which I see you've chosen to dismiss out of hand).  Let me remind you that in it we read of "[t]he hieroglyphics discovered by Colonel Vyse in the interior of the great pyramid": no caveat, no disclaimer.  We may be sure that at the time he was not accusing Vyse of anything.

 SC: I can see why you wish to cling onto this 1839 comment, Hermione because it is more ambiguous about the fraud accusation. Alas, however, his later, unequivocal comment in 1845 regarding the GP hireoglyphics takes precedence, I’m afraid. It’s just how these things work.

Hermione: And then in the very book you're citing, we find this (in the original German and in English translation):

 I have confidence in the gallant and worthy Colonel Howard Vyse{/quote]

 - although "the gallant and amiable Colonel Howard Vyse" would probably be truer to the original.

Is this the kind of thing one writes about someone one is accusing of serious wrongdoing? 

SC: I actually read it as sarcasm. But more seriously - it would have been natural and courteous of the Prussian Prince to extend his respect to Vyse as one military officer, one 'nobleman' to another. But that doesn't mean he has to respect everything that Vyse did--and he clearly didn't. Even today military officers make respectful remarks about their sworn enemies. I imagine this would be especially so in the early nineteenth century. It's upper class 'pleasantries' and doesn't actually mean very much. You have to look beyond such 'pleasantries' to find the truth.

Hermione: However, how credible and serious a source is Prince Pückler-Muskau himself?  He tells us here:

... as I am no learned archaeologist who looks for discoveries, I endeavour only to give the reader a true and intelligible picture of the whole, conformably [sic] to the individual impression which it produced on me, ...

He himself got no further than Davison's Chamber; he was not there when the other chambers were opened. 

SC: Indeed he could go no further than Davison's because there was simply no access to any of the Vyse Chambers at that time. And he would have seen with his own eyes that none of the other chambers had been opened at that time. Finally--we agree on something! (In 1837 he would not even have known that there were any other chambers above Wellington's - but writing in 1845 he clearly did know about the other chambers Vyse had discovered).

Hermione: He was not a witness; he has no inside information to offer.

SC: One thing at a time. His credibility as a witness is actually secondary to whether he is accusing Vyse of fraud or not. I claim he is accusing Vyse of fraud. You are claiming otherwise. Let's get that sorted first before we tackle his credibility or otherwise.

Is Pückler-Muskau inferring Vyse perpetrated a fraud? I say that he is doing exactly that. He  explored “...every part [of the Great Pyramid] which was open...” including the Well Shaft, the Ascending/Descending passages and the passage into Davison's Chamber. When at Davison's he apparently witnessed Vyse’s "inferior means" at  tunnelling to try and breach Wellington’s Chamber, writing: “...shafts are driven into the rocks, and, as we ourselves have of late seen undertaken by the English in these colossal monuments, though less systematically, and with inferior means.” As said above and of which we both agree - Pückler-Muskau would have seen that none of the Vyse Chambers had yet been breached, that there was, as yet, no path into them. They were entirely inaccessible.

So, Hermione--given the above, are you trying to suggest that Pückler-Muskau somehow believed that some priests had accessed these inaccessible chambers before Vyse & co? If so, can you explain how these priests would have managed that (in order that we can perhaps come to understand why Pückler-Muskau could have possibly believed this - as you appear to claim that he did)?

If, on the other hand, you are saying that Pückler-Muskau believed that Vyse and his team were the first into these chambers since they were first sealed, what then does the Prussian prince mean when he states that the hieroglyphics “said to have been discovered” by Vyse were “lately pencilled” onto the walls of those chambers? How exactly could these hieroglyphics have been "lately pencilled" onto the walls of these chambers by some priests if Vyse & Co were the first to open and enter the chambers since they were first sealed? Explain it to us.

SC: BREAKING NEWS: Staunch defender of Colonel Vyse rejects witness testimony accusing the Colonel of fraud.

Hermione: (Now it's back to the imaginary courtroom?  Someone on another forum did this so much better ... )

SC: We can all play that game, Hermione. This one , imo, is far more entertaining.

And Part II .

SC: Thanks for the memories. But back on topic – I’d be grateful for your answer to my question in RED above. And please, a direct, clear answer without deflection or obfuscation would be helpful.

Thanks.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

A personal amusement: For an individual so purportedly adept in the computer realm, the inability (or inattentiveness) to address font generates quite the chuckle. Which naturally reflects upon the quality of archaeological "research".

.

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
43 minutes ago, Swede said:

A personal amusement: For an individual so purportedly adept in the computer realm, the inability (or inattentiveness) to address font generates quite the chuckle. Which naturally reflects upon the quality of archaeological "research".

Well, it does make it easier for one to not bother to read it. ^_^

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Petrie (The Pyramids and the Temples of Gizeh, 1883) is the original source and confirmed by Hawass is 2001. I do not recall which chamber.  

If this interests you you could figure this out, say like by just picking a chamber, no? 

How do either of these relate to my post?

50% of any pyramid structure lies in the bottom 1/3 of the height, where materials could be hauled up and placed quite quickly by straight and wide ramps on all sides.

It wouldn't be surprising to find that the top 10 or 20% took as long or longer to erect than the rest of the pyramid. A different hauling ramp would be required for that height, probably two spiral ramps.

Harte

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Swede said:

A personal amusement: For an individual so purportedly adept in the computer realm, the inability (or inattentiveness) to address font generates quite the chuckle. Which naturally reflects upon the quality of archaeological "research".

.

There's more than one way to obfuscate a debate.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
10 minutes ago, Harte said:

50% of any pyramid structure lies in the bottom 1/3 of the height, where materials could be hauled up and placed quite quickly by straight and wide ramps on all sides.

It wouldn't be surprising to find that the top 10 or 20% took as long or longer to erect than the rest of the pyramid. A different hauling ramp would be required for that height, probably two spiral ramps.

 

Remarkable!

170px-Escher_Waterfall.jpg

Tell me more about this ramp.   

Then explain how "materials could be hauled up and placed quite quickly by straight and wide ramps".  

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
5 minutes ago, cladking said:

Remarkable!

170px-Escher_Waterfall.jpg

Tell me more about this ramp.   

Then explain how "materials could be hauled up and placed quite quickly by straight and wide ramps".  

 You are asking him so you can go into your basic obsessive - "I irrationally hate ramps rant' which you have given us several hundred times before.

Is there any particular reason you think we want to hear it all again?

Think Cladking think.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Is there any particular reason you think we want to hear it all again?

Geysers, geysers, geysers, blah, blah, blah, geysers, geysers, geysers blah,blah, blah, geysers...........blah! :o

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
7 minutes ago, Piney said:

Geysers, geysers, geysers, blah, blah, blah, geysers, geysers, geysers blah,blah, blah, geysers...........blah! :o

Actually more like: I debunked ramps, they are unattested but they existed, but I don't see them, 81'3", Bui image, Egyptologist are all wrong, I know everything, Zipf law, all of ancient Egyptian is contains within the PT,I hate Egyptology, no one will talk to me, ancient Egyptians were a different species, ancient language was spoken by animals, etc, etc and boring etc.

 

LOL a long repetitive and endless repeating of the same stuff over and over again.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

 You are asking him so you can go into your basic obsessive - "I irrationally hate ramps rant' which you have given us several hundred times before.

Is there any particular reason you think we want to hear it all again?

Think Cladking think.

 

 

Because there is a movie about accurately translating Ancient Egyptian writing due out next year.

a52aea435da306dad9b647d65f687a32.png&qua

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Because there is a movie about accurately translating Ancient Egyptian writing due out next year.

a52aea435da306dad9b647d65f687a32.png&qua

Is there? Pray tell - not another Dr. Doolittle thing or what might it be?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
19 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

ancient Egyptians were a different species

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
5 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Is there? Pray tell - not another Dr. Doolittle thing or what might it be?

Isn't that what he's, essentially, on about when he spreads the animal language "idea"?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
33 minutes ago, Piney said:

:o

 

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1201355,1209669#msg-1209669

 

Quote

Late humans (great pyramid builders) simply had a far more complex knowledge base and far more complex language than their earlier counterparts. But all humans are just alike and this applies to early humans, late humans and today's humans who are for all practical purposes a different species than the great pyramid builders because our brains are programmed by an analog language rather than our world a reflection of our own digital language.

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1206504,1206991#msg-1206991

Quote

No. "Economic collapses" have been noted. I'm talking about fundamental changes in the "religion" and "beliefs" and even the language of the people. I'm suggesting the species changed for all practical purposes from Homo Sapiens to Homo Omnisciencis. I'mn suggesting that Egyptologists don't think like the Egyptians did until the Egyptians changed in 2000 BC.

....I could go on but that should give you an idea of his 'ideas'.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Quote

Late humans (great pyramid builders) simply had a far more complex knowledge base and far more complex language than their earlier counterparts. But all humans are just alike and this applies to early humans, late humans and today's humans who are for all practical purposes a different species than the great pyramid builders because our brains are programmed by an analog language rather than our world a reflection of our own digital

Which is a load of bullscheisse since Anatomically Modern Humans have been cranio-morphologically the same for the last circa 35,000 - 100,000 years. Our brains and that of the pyramid builders ARE THE SAME. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
6 minutes ago, Hanslune said:
Quote

I'm suggesting the species changed for all practical purposes from Homo Sapiens to Homo Omnisciencis.

 

This only happened after we migrated to Asia and interbred with the giant, golden colored Denny Sovan and became something now known as "Algonquian" and "Japanese". :yes:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
9 minutes ago, Piney said:

This only happened after we migrated to Asia and interbred with the giant, golden colored Denny Sovan...

Founder of Denny's restaurant chain and the originator of the concept of "second breakfast" among the Hobbits.

He was a sly one.

Harte

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
2 hours ago, cladking said:

Remarkable!

Tell me more about this ramp.   

The most relevant fact here is that it is /far/ more realistic than proposing magical carbon dioxide geysers with no geophysical evidence. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.