Giza Pyramid construction

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

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. 

Cladking no one here other than Kenemet or {Windowpane redacted} - could be considered 'Egyptolgical', again your manifest delusions cloud your vision. We aren't with the exception noted 'Egyptologists'.

Stating the truth that you are a serial liar, repeat yourself endlessly, refuse to provide evidence and generally whine a lot is not 'insulting you'. You are by all definitions an 'Internet eccentric' and behave as such.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

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?  

....ah yes Tom.....note how he is trying to shift the burden of proof to you. His goal is to place himself as judge in the debate where he can dismiss all evidence and repeat (endlessly) his claims. You'll never get any necessary diagrams or detailed explanations of how any of his 'straight up the side' actually worked'.

If you'd like watch him run around a bit ask him to show you where his geyser powered funicular ran in particular ask him how it worked with G2 & G3. The orange blotches are where the limestone quarries are.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Hanslune

[Windowpane]

15 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

 ... no one here other than Kenemet or Windowplane could be considered 'Egyptolgical' ...

Just to clarify: I do not claim to be an Egyptologist.  That I leave to other people - such as Kenemet (who I know has studied the subject); and also Kmt_sesh, who, although similarly stating that he is not actually an Egyptologist, still knows a great deal more about that subject than I do ...

[Hanslune]

4 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

Just to clarify: I do not claim to be an Egyptologist.  That I leave to other people - such as Kenemet (who I know has studied the subject); and also Kmt_sesh, who, although similarly stating that he is not actually an Egyptologist, still knows a great deal more about that subject than I do ...

Noted yes Kenemet is the only one who has an official degree but you and Kmt_are 'degreed' in knowledge.

[Oniomancer]

As Windowpane pointed out, P-M goes out of his way to praise Vyse several times, if occasionally somewhat backhandedly. The question arises, if he was accusing Vyse of actual fraud, why did he only do so almost as an aside in a footnote when he presumably had ample time to correct his manuscript?

Even if he were, He clearly isn't adverse to gossipmongering where it makes for a good story, as evidenced by his amusing relation of the rumor that the consul intended to have the head of the sphinx sawed off and shipped to the British Museum. (including a dig about the elgin marbles) The pages preceding the footnote also contain a small diatribe about modern graffiti among the monuments which lend it a certain context.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Oniomancer

[Thanos5150]

13 hours ago, Hanslune said:

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.

[replaced photo with smaller version]

 

G3

On and on it goes.

You will be hard pressed to find a pyramid, either OK or MK, that does not have a stepped/tower core not to mention no pyramid, exposed or not, has shown any evidence whatsoever of any internal ramp. The satellite pyramids of G1 and G3 and the Pyramid of Meidum are veritable road maps as to how pyramids were constructed, namely with a stepped/tower core later surrounded by the true pyramid layer. I think most likely what the gravimetric scan shows is a stepped core, no different than any other pyramid the least of which the ones sitting right next to it exposed for us to see. 

For more: Rigano The Stepped Core Within p.2-7. See table 1 p4 which he has verified the "stepped" cores of the 4th-6th Dynasties. 

[Hanslune]

23 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

On and on it goes.

 

Oh yeah the pyramid may have/probably was built with steps. My point with the Bui image was that Cladking uses that image  as evidence of the steps when the actual research was to look for internal ramps. I don't think it shows a stepped core as their shouldn't be any sign of it on a gravimetric scan. If they built a stepped pyramid then 'filled it in' they would have used the same limestone - so would it look differently?  It would still be solid limestone after they finished. A point of detail.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Hanslune

[Scott Creighton]

37 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

As Windowpane pointed out, P-M goes out of his way to praise Vyse several times, if occasionally somewhat backhandedly. The question arises, if he was accusing Vyse of actual fraud, why did he only do so almost as an aside in a footnote when he presumably had ample time to correct his manuscript?

SC: Hermione raised a similar question to which I gave an answer here.

Quote

Even if he were, He clearly isn't adverse to gossipmongering where it makes for a good story...

SC: It  rather seems to me that it would have been foolhardy in the extreme for Puckler-Muskau even to publicly hint (even in jest) that Vyse had potentially perpetrated a fraud. This suggests to me that the remark was not made in jest and that the prince probably had sufficient evidence to back up his position that permitted him to feel confident enough to go public with his accusation against Vyse. That Vyse seems not to have challenged Puckler-Muskau's barely disguised charge is, well, curious. 

SC

Edited November 9, 2019 by Scott Creighton

[Oniomancer]

13 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Hermione raised a similar question to which I gave an answer here.

SC: It  rather seems to me that it would have been foolhardy in the extreme for Puckler-Muskau even to imply in public that Vyse had potentially perpetrated a fraud. This suggests to me that the prince had sufficient evidence to back up his position that permitted him to feel confident enough to go public with his accusation against Vyse. That Vyse seems not to have challenged this is, well, curious. 

SC

Even for a "Brutus is an honorable man" spiel, the amount of praise seems out of proportion to the alleged detraction. like, "oh and by the way, he may have faked evidence okIloveyoubyebye" tacked on the end of a toast. As it stands, it could just easily be read at a suggestion of fraud _upon_ Vyse.

Nor do we know the relationship between vyse and p-m. As I said, given the amount of humor in the book,  it could be a private joke between them. Just as you took his praise for sarcasm, It's difficult at times to tell when he's kidding or not.

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Cladking no one here other than Kenemet or {Windowpane redacted} - could be considered 'Egyptolgical', again your manifest delusions cloud your vision. We aren't with the exception noted 'Egyptologists'.

Just clarifying... I have a Bachelors' level university degree in Egyptology but don't consider myself an Egyptologist (I haven't produced any papers other than class papers and haven't done any studies and certainly haven't been on a dig there.)

I am, however, certain that I haven't offered insults to Cladking.  Opposition, yes.  Insults... not my style.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Kenemet

[Windowpane]

• #996  
• (Reply to Scott Creighton)

SC: 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.

 

How is that likely?  Pückler was still on his travels when he sent his text (dated "Konstantinopel, 15 Jun.") to the paper which published it in July 1839.  Operations was published (the first two volumes) in 1840.  The only thing Pückler could have seen before sending off this text was Part I of Perring's work, which was out by April 1839, but it's highly unlikely that it reached Constantinople by June, if ever.  Pückler doesn't mention Perring once and there is no evidence of his ever having seen his publication.

 

SC: 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?

 

Where is the evidence that Pückler believed any such thing?  His footnote states merely that the “Hieroglyphen” were painted, not carved - the kind of thing he could pick up by word of mouth.  He doesn't even mention that they contain royal names.  You cannot get out of this bare-bones reference that he knew all about their orientation.

 

SC: All other points remain.

 

What they remain we shall see, if I can bring myself to repeat myself to the extent required.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Windowpane
more clarification

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

G3

On and on it goes.

You will be hard pressed to find a pyramid, either OK or MK, that does not have a stepped/tower core not to mention no pyramid, exposed or not, has shown any evidence whatsoever of any internal ramp. The satellite pyramids of G1 and G3 and the Pyramid of Meidum are veritable road maps as to how pyramids were constructed, namely with a stepped/tower core later surrounded by the true pyramid layer. I think most likely what the gravimetric scan shows is a stepped core, no different than any other pyramid the least of which the ones sitting right next to it exposed for us to see. 

For more: Rigano The Stepped Core Within p.2-7. See table 1 p4 which he has verified the "stepped" cores of the 4th-6th Dynasties. 

Charles Rigano is a genius and the first to solve how the pyramids were actually built.  But he didn't go nearly far enough and he neglected to show the step pyramid inside of G1.  He came at the solution from a logical and evidenced perspective rather than through true reverse engineering.  His was an impressive accomplishment and I wish I had found his work years earlier than I did,.  He does post but only rarely.  

Pyramids had to be stepped because it was the only means to lift stones.  All massive structures in ancient days used essentially the same techniques but none of these are apparent to the modern eye.  We start with the assumption that savage means must have been used and forget there is a very fundamental, easy, and even simpler way to lift stones than dragging them.  This means isn't savage and brutal so it destroys our beliefs about ancient people.  "Ramp technology" to build massive structures simply didn't exist until quite modern times and, of course, we have far easier ways than ramps in virtually every case.   

"Ramps" are a belief and evidence and logic clearly show they did it the easy way.  

[cladking]

Quote

Charles Rigano is a genius and the first to solve how the pyramids were actually built.  

Apparently he published this paper mere weeks before I found my own solution which also involves pulling stones straight up the sides of five step pyramids!   

https://www.egyptianstudysociety.com/sites/default/files/vol17_1.pdf

Vol 17 spring 2006 Ostracon.  

 

But Rigano is ignored and the tests and measurements necessary to prove the theory are not being done.  Something like an infrared scan of G1 would be quite helpful.   

[Hanslune]

persecution

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Just clarifying... I have a Bachelors' level university degree in Egyptology but don't consider myself an Egyptologist (I haven't produced any papers other than class papers and haven't done any studies and certainly haven't been on a dig there.)

I am, however, certain that I haven't offered insults to Cladking.  Opposition, yes.  Insults... not my style.

Understood: So there are NO Egyptologists here so we can put that misconception to Cladking making up stuff, delusion or a persecution complex.

[Hanslune]

35 minutes ago, cladking said:

Apparently he published this paper mere weeks before I found my own solution which also involves pulling stones straight up the sides of five step pyramids!   

https://www.egyptianstudysociety.com/sites/default/files/vol17_1.pdf

Vol 17 spring 2006 Ostracon.  

 

But Rigano is ignored and the tests and measurements necessary to prove the theory are not being done.  Something like an infrared scan of G1 would be quite helpful.   

Cladking we're all here waiting for you to start providing all this evidence that your geyser powered funicular would have worked and how it would have worked

Odd all you are doing is prancing about NOT DOING SO?  Why is that?

1 hour ago, Oniomancer said:

Even for a "Brutus is an honorable man" spiel, the amount of praise seems out of proportion to the alleged detraction. like, "oh and by the way, he may have faked evidence okIloveyoubyebye" tacked on the end of a toast. As it stands, it could just easily be read at a suggestion of fraud _upon_ Vyse.

Nor do we know the relationship between vyse and p-m. As I said, given the amount of humor in the book,  it could be a private joke between them. Just as you took his praise for sarcasm, It's difficult at times to tell when he's kidding or not.

What needs to be done is look at any contemporary interviews made by P-M and see if he brings it up. Did he or didn't he?

[Hanslune]

55 minutes ago, cladking said:

Charles Rigano is a genius and the first to solve how the pyramids were actually built.  But he didn't go nearly far enough and he neglected to show the step pyramid inside of G1.  He came at the solution from a logical and evidenced perspective rather than through true reverse engineering.  His was an impressive accomplishment and I wish I had found his work years earlier than I did,.  He does post but only rarely.  

Yep he put down that Khafre and Khufu pyramids were 'unknown' and that is where the theory stands - unknown but probable/possible.

 

Quote

"Ramp technology" to build massive structures simply didn't exist until quite modern times and, of course, we have far easier ways than ramps in virtually every case.   

"Ramps" are a belief and evidence and logic clearly show they did it the easy way.  

Then shows us your studies, research and diagrams along with calculations demonstrating how your geyser powered funicular worked and where it ran. You've been running from the question of 'reality' for a decade.

Either present your detailed evidence now or

 

SHUT UP

Edited November 9, 2019 by Hanslune

[Harte]

32 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yep he put down that Khafre and Khufu pyramids were 'unknown' and that is where the theory stands - unknown but probable/possible.

 

Then shows us your studies, research and diagrams along with calculations demonstrating how your geyser powered funicular worked and where it ran. You've been running from the question of 'reality' for a decade.

Either present your detailed evidence now or

 

SHUT UP

It's well known that ramps were unknown in the Old Kingdom.

Oops.

Harte

[Scott Creighton]

2 hours ago, Windowpane said:

•  

SC: 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.

Hermione: How is that likely?  Pückler was still on his travels when he sent his text (dated "Konstantinopel, 15 Jun.") to the paper which published it in July 1839.  Operations was published (the first two volumes) in 1840.  The only thing Pückler could have seen before sending off this text was Part I of Perring's work, which was out by April 1839, but it's highly unlikely that it reached Constantinople by June, if ever.  Pückler doesn't mention Perring once and there is no evidence of his ever having seen his publication.

SC: Honestly - it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall of air with an inflatable hammer. More slippery than a slippy thing.

Let's go back a step or so. Throughout this discussion it has been your contention that Puckler-Muskau (from his somewhat ambiguous letter published in 1839) may have believed that some priests beat Vyse to painting marks in the Vyse Chambers and that the prince's remark with regards to painting the marks in the chamber in that letter were not directed at Vyse. That is what you have said Puckler-Muskau could have believed.                   

Okay, so tell me - from his later publications of 1845-47, do you continue to maintain that position, that the Prussian Prince could still have believed that some priests beat Vyse into those chambers and painted the marks therein? Hermione - Yes or no?

When you have given a straight 'Yes' or 'No' answer to my question above, I will deal with the rest of your post.

 

SC

Edited November 9, 2019 by Scott Creighton

[jaylemurph]

10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

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:

 

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

You do understand I’m not Window, right? I know you have trouble distinguishing what you want to be true and fact, so maybe you’re a bit... addled?

—Jaylemurph 

[Scott Creighton]

2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

You do understand I’m not Window, right? I know you have trouble distinguishing what you want to be true and fact, so maybe you’re a bit... addled?

—Jaylemurph 

Seriously? Is that the best response you could come up with? Not much "rigor" in that at all.

SC

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Charles Rigano is a genius and the first to solve how the pyramids were actually built.  But he didn't go nearly far enough and he neglected to show the step pyramid inside of G1.  He came at the solution from a logical and evidenced perspective rather than through true reverse engineering.  His was an impressive accomplishment and I wish I had found his work years earlier than I did,.  He does post but only rarely.  

Pyramids had to be stepped because it was the only means to lift stones.  All massive structures in ancient days used essentially the same techniques but none of these are apparent to the modern eye.  We start with the assumption that savage means must have been used and forget there is a very fundamental, easy, and even simpler way to lift stones than dragging them.  This means isn't savage and brutal so it destroys our beliefs about ancient people.  "Ramp technology" to build massive structures simply didn't exist until quite modern times and, of course, we have far easier ways than ramps in virtually every case.   

"Ramps" are a belief and evidence and logic clearly show they did it the easy way.  

Easier than ramps?

[jaylemurph]

7 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Seriously? Is that the best response you could come up with? Not much "rigor" in that at all.

SC

Pointing out you seemed to have confused my post for someone else’s doesn’t involve much rigor. It just makes you look like a confused, angry person streaming bile at whatever catches your attention. 

...or were you suffering from the delusion people here take you seriously?

—Jaylemurph 

[cladking]

Quote

It's well known that ramps were unknown in the Old Kingdom.

I've explained this dozens of times before but you blow it off.  

Hatnub was not a ramp.   A "ramp" as envisioned by believers is a magical flying contraption that morphs and changes to fit the desired characteristics of the moment  to deliver stones.  If it's pointed out why a specific proposal won't work it just changes shape and nature.  It simply is a surface for bumpkins to drag stones and can be at any angle and in any position high above the desert floor.  

The "ramp" at Hatnub was an excavation in the ground.  It didn't soar above the desert as a man made contraption that mustta existed despite the lack of evidence or attestation.   The "ramp' at Hatnub is merely assumed to have been the surface along which men dragged stones but the evidence shows they probably used the exact same technique here as at Giza; Stones were pulled at distance from above.  LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE NOT SILLY ARTIST CONCEPTIONS OF HOW THEY MUSTTA  DONE IT!  There is a fundamental difference between dragging stones out of a hole and dragging them into a huge pile.   

Despite my saying this you'll cite the same nonsense again the next time it comes up.   If you don't understand or are unaware of the physical evidence I'd be happy to explain and offered earlier in this very thread yet you brought it up again anyway.   It appears it's believers engaging in all the tactics they accuse me of.   The difference is I don't call you liars, insane, stupid, and ignorant.  This is the mark of believers.  I assume you just aren't following the argument because your mind is made up.  Nobody can see what they don't believe and you can't even see the clearly displayed five step pyramid in the gravimetric scan.  You see what you believe so you can't see the pyramids are stepped.  "Ramps" are not used to build tall structures and never were.  They are a figment of the imagination.   

Are you even aware there was a more scholarly work on the Hatnub ramp that says the first guy had it all wrong?   The second guy has it wrong too but he was right the first guy's idea was kindda silly.   

 

[Hanslune]

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Easier than ramps?

 

.....In all these long years Cladking has never been able to come up with a coherent detailed diagram showing how his 'straight up the side' declaration would actually work. He won't produce one now and it'll be more screaming about ramps and no presented evidence.

[jaylemurph]

2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

.....In all these long years Cladking has never been able to come up with a coherent detailed diagram showing how his 'straight up the side' declaration would actually work. He won't produce one now and it'll be more screaming about ramps and no presented evidence.

You ever wonder if clad’s Mom gets upset from the ruckus of him yelling at screens from her basement?

—Jaylemurph