Giza pyramids mystery

[ShadowSot]

What does this mean, ShadowSot? Why would people on Facebook or Yahoo care about this discussion?

A sincere question, by the way. I'm just rather clueless about such things. I actually have my own Facebook page...and rarely even use it.

Look at the users along the bottom of the page. Apparently those bots we're not supposed to see but end up showing up as users.

I have a facebook, which is unfortunately active

Edited May 2, 2012 by ShadowSot

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Im cool. Only boiled blood here is sceptics. I touch their holy grail. GP. How he dare to ask that? We already answer that? There are studies, you know,

Thing is you didnt provided answer on some questions or provided some with ignorance.

Is there any research how much wood was burnt in whole Egypt as fuel? ...and many more questions I asked.

How did they put blocks near top?... Seems to me that you are not who is reading here.

You can compare me with who ever you like, that say more about you then me.

Us...Who are Us? Now that is real mystery...

That's cool we'll continue replying. I'm just disappoint.

Im not here to fill you with satisfaction.

[questionmark]

What does this mean, ShadowSot? Why would people on Facebook or Yahoo care about this discussion?

A sincere question, by the way. I'm just rather clueless about such things. I actually have my own Facebook page...and rarely even use it.

Mostly it means that somebody on facebooks "liked us" and has a link there.

[Mentalcase]

I believe I've said it before, but now I'm completely convinced.

You, sir (or madam - I'm too lazy to check,) are no mental case.

Harte

Well, my shrink tells me I should drop the Mentalcase name cuz it's negative. I disagree.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Particularly egregious here where I know it's been addressed before with you asking the same questions, but particularly when you posted the famine stela stating it dated to Djoser

lapsus linguae

[ShadowSot]

lapsus linguae

Or you don't read to comprehend, which is my suspicion.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Or you don't read to comprehend, which is my suspicion.

You dont want to know my suspicions about you after this comment.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Melo

[kmt_sesh]

Im cool. Only boiled blood here is sceptics. I touch their holy grail. GP. How he dare to ask that? We already answer that? There are studies, you know,

Thing is you didnt provided answer on some questions or provided some with ignorance.

If you're saying I have replied to your queries with ignorance, Melo, then I definitely take issue with that. Strongly. You seem to have lost your composure under the pressure of this debate. I can understand pressure, but claiming I've provided answers "with ignorance" is beyond the pale and is unacceptable.

What it actually more implies is that you're either unwilling or unable to consider and digest answers I and others have supplied. Your mocking tone about existing studies further implies you're not even willing to consider professional research, which is your right, of course, but leaves you fixed in a land of self-created mysteries. The answers are there. You're choosing not to find them.

I'm disappointed, Melo. You've never resorted to such low tactics with me before, in all the many times you and I have posted.

Is there any research how much wood was burnt in whole Egypt as fuel? ...and many more questions I asked.

This is a silly question. It's not even possible to answer. You're actually asking how much wood was burned in the 3,100 years of pharaonic history? Even narrowing it to the scope of Dynasty 4 is unanswerable. Pose realistic questions and we can provide realistic answers. We've already explained in some detail, and quite accurately, where and how the Egyptians obtained wood for fuel.

How did they put blocks near top?... Seems to me that you are not who is reading here.

Something asked and debated for years at UM, and usually under the insufferable fantasies of cladking. I personally consider it best to leave this aside for another year or two, but I understand that's not realistic on my part. I purposely tend to avoid such questions because of the years I debated cladking, and I find such questions entirely tedious at this point. Others can provide explanations. The short answer is, obviously some kind of ramp system was used. We can also conclusively state that geysers or massive cranes or levitation were not used. I don't know what answer you're hoping to hear or what you're hoping we'll all tell you, because, to be frank, I have no idea anymore where you're trying to go with this discussion. You seem to be doubting everyone's answers just for the sake of doubting.

You can compare me with who ever you like, that say more about you then me.

Us...Who are Us? Now that is real mystery...

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless it's my recent repetition of the mention of cladking. That might well be the case. It's just that some of the things you've said in this discussion and how you've been handling other posters' contributions in some cases, is reminiscent of cladking's approach. And that's an approach you should want to avoid at all costs. I think you know that as well as I.

Im not here to fill you with satisfaction.

I don't know why you're here, nor do I understand why you've become so negative all of a sudden. You've always been patient and easy going, not to mention enjoyable, before this discussion began. But if you're not even willing to consider points we have made, then why indeed are you still taking part in this discussion?

[Saru]

Also, apparently we now have facebook and Yahoo interested in this thread.

The reason this particular thread has so much interest is because it is the comment thread for a front page news story that was posted a few days ago regarding the original article in New Scientist about the alignment of the pyramids.

As such, can everyone try to keep the discussion as civil and constructive as possible - thank you.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Although first I wanted to answer you on PM there is no need for that.

I will not go back and quote you where you used "us" and in what context.

Im no negative at all. Just answer in the same tone. And Im still always was a patient person.

[kmt_sesh]

Although first I wanted to answer you on PM there is no need for that.

I will not go back and quote you where you used "us" and in what context.

Im no negative at all. Just answer in the same tone. And Im still always was a patient person.

I suppose by "us" you're referring to my earlier post (#198). Please use the quoting function on your tool bar so such things are clearer. I should think it's obvious but by "us" I was referring to me and my fellow "skeptics," as well as to anyone else who favors conventional historical research.

You usually are a patient person and are usually fun to post with, but in calling my responses "ignorant" you've gone entirely too far. I have a pretty thick skin but I take offense at that. I'll get over it, although going forward it's likely to affect how I approach you in discussions. Life goes on, and I'd be more interested in your presenting vetted material that proves my points wrong. Can you do so?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

See this is exactly what I tried to avoid.To spent 3 pages in posts about culture and who was first to slip from it. Old clever Jung said: What resist persist.

So be it. We will conitinue our discussion. I just dont have time right now.

[kmt_sesh]

See this is exactly what I tried to avoid.To spent 3 pages in posts about culture and who was first to slip from it. Old clever Jung said: What resist persist.

I honestly don't know what you're saying, specifically the reference to "culture" and the "slipping" from it. But I would agree we've spent too much time bickering.

So be it. We will conitinue our discussion. I just dont have time right now.

I hope we do continue the discussion.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

.Can you do so?

Sure I could do so. But Im not willing.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I honestly don't know what you're saying, specifically the reference to "culture" and the "slipping" from it. But I would agree we've spent too much time bickering.

I hope we do continue the discussion.

Our disscussion about bickering, sure.

Culture= In my country when someone is polite and have manners we say he have culture. I will used others terms next time.

Sliping= Slip from culture. I guess you have imagination.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I suppose by "us" you're referring to my earlier post (#198). Please use the quoting function on your tool bar so such things are clearer. I should think it's obvious but by "us" I was referring to me and my fellow "skeptics," as well as to anyone else who favors conventional historical research.

You usually are a patient person and are usually fun to post with, but in calling my responses "ignorant" you've gone entirely too far. I have a pretty thick skin but I take offense at that. I'll get over it, although going forward it's likely to affect how I approach you in discussions. Life goes on, and I'd be more interested in your presenting vetted material that proves my points wrong.

I will use quotes other time, no problem.

I never called you any names. Not here not elsewhere.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

If you're saying I have replied to your queries with ignorance, Melo, then I definitely take issue with that. Strongly. You seem to have lost your composure under the pressure of this debate. I can understand pressure, but claiming I've provided answers "with ignorance" is beyond the pale and is unacceptable.

What it actually more implies is that you're either unwilling or unable to consider and digest answers I and others have supplied. Your mocking tone about existing studies further implies you're not even willing to consider professional research, which is your right, of course, but leaves you fixed in a land of self-created mysteries. The answers are there. You're choosing not to find them.

I'm disappointed, Melo. You've never resorted to such low tactics with me before, in all the many times you and I have posted.

This is a silly question. It's not even possible to answer. You're actually asking how much wood was burned in the 3,100 years of pharaonic history? Even narrowing it to the scope of Dynasty 4 is unanswerable. Pose realistic questions and we can provide realistic answers. We've already explained in some detail, and quite accurately, where and how the Egyptians obtained wood for fuel.

Something asked and debated for years at UM, and usually under the insufferable fantasies of cladking. I personally consider it best to leave this aside for another year or two, but I understand that's not realistic on my part. I purposely tend to avoid such questions because of the years I debated cladking, and I find such questions entirely tedious at this point. Others can provide explanations. The short answer is, obviously some kind of ramp system was used. We can also conclusively state that geysers or massive cranes or levitation were not used. I don't know what answer you're hoping to hear or what you're hoping we'll all tell you, because, to be frank, I have no idea anymore where you're trying to go with this discussion. You seem to be doubting everyone's answers just for the sake of doubting.

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless it's my recent repetition of the mention of cladking. That might well be the case. It's just that some of the things you've said in this discussion and how you've been handling other posters' contributions in some cases, is reminiscent of cladking's approach. And that's an approach you should want to avoid at all costs. I think you know that as well as I.

I don't know why you're here, nor do I understand why you've become so negative all of a sudden. You've always been patient and easy going, not to mention enjoyable, before this discussion began. But if you're not even willing to consider points we have made, then why indeed are you still taking part in this discussion?

Im calm and okay. Thanks for worrying. Funny how you saw just mine mockering.Dont understand what low tactics I used...You are correct I doubt but not true answers. I dont hope to hear any answers from where you conclude that...

[Big Bad Voodoo]

And sorry If something hurts your feelings. Truly. I was not malicious.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

To tell you the truth I started thread elsewhere.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

and to not be continued.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Here you all answered all questions about AE several times.

Cant wait for your response.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Melo

[Big Bad Voodoo]

And seriously Im not negative. It just felt like Im raping the thread. We didnt clicked. I moved. Thats all.

See you around on others threads. And trust me it wont be Egypt.

[+DieChecker]

What kind of ramps did Egyptians used? From the earth? Would they be so solid to support 60 tones granite blocks. What kind of ropes did they used that have strenght to pull 60 tones. Hand made ropes?Maybe so. What kind of boats Egyptians have that they were able to transported 60 tones block?

The ramp would have been made of various materials, but would have included enough clays and limestone debris to bind together very strongly. Even just packed Earth would be fine for dragging 100 ton stones up. The angle could not have been very great, and some think they paved the ramp for traction and strength. Why not pave it? They had months or even years between some courses of stone. The only place the ramp would have been crazy would be on the last quarter of the pyramids height. Also, they found the debris from the Ramp in the Quarry to the south.

The Egyptians dragged many of their temple blocks up Sand Ramps. And a few of these ramps even still exist in place. And these stones were ten times as heavy.

There was no problem with an earthen ramp carrying the stones.

Building of pyramid was done with blinding speed and it was done perfectly and with great precision. No matter of thoes pictures uploaded by some members. Imagine surface stones on it. You saw picture I upload of only surface stones and how do they look like. Arabs describe them that they were fitting with great accuarace and precision.

So are you only going to accept pictures that you have found? Any picture of the base of the great pyramid shows that there are gaps all over big enough to stick a leg into. The precision was... is... not that great.

So far I dont know anyone achive to create small copy of GP, successfully even with modern age technology.

Because it is economically unpractical. When the theory can be prooven by doing 10% of the work, why insist on 100%? That is like saying you don't believe that the Great Wall of China is manmade unless someone replicates it.

Okay so if one country import big amounts of one good other country which export it must made profit. Where is that profit? Ancient Lebanon must be Atlantis for Egypt then.

Also in Egypt we will have deficit.

Its economic.

When two countries are trading with barter system, there can be no deficit, debt, profit or loss. It is always a straight trade. Lebennon had trees, Egypt had grain... they swapped X sacks of grain for Y number of ceder logs. Very simple economics.

Edited May 2, 2012 by DieChecker

[cormac mac airt]

One should also keep in mind that when offloaded materials were needed that the Nile River was only about 1/2 mile away instead of the nearly 5 miles that it is now.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

I will use quotes other time, no problem.

I never called you any names. Not here not elsewhere.

Im calm and okay. Thanks for worrying. Funny how you saw just mine mockering.Dont understand what low tactics I used...You are correct I doubt but not true answers. I dont hope to hear any answers from where you conclude that...

I was referring to your remark in Post 202, which I quote here:

Thing is you didnt provided answer on some questions or provided some with ignorance.

No, you weren't directly calling me a name, but the remark about "ignorance" is far from cultured. As well as far from correct. You can call me short, chubby, and bald, because I am all of those things, but you cannot call me ignorant. If I take the time to compose a post, it is with from my own knowledge base that I draw conclusions and answers. I don't appreciate the points and answers I contribute being called "ignorant."

I also know I'm far from perfect. I do not know everything. That's why I stressed that if you think I'm wrong, provide the evidentiary counter-argument to establish my error. I'm open minded about it. Other posters at UM have demonstrated where I've made mistakes. Live and learn. That's why I asked in an earlier post if you could presenti vetted material that proves my points wrong. Your answer to that in Post 214:

Sure I could do so. But Im not willing.

What am I supposed to make of this? You state you have the information to show where I'm in error but are not willing to show it to me. I can only conclude that you cannot present such information.

You've taken a beating in this thread, Melo. I know this. I'm sure it hasn't been fun. Still, when you asked a question and several of us provided answers, you acted as though you didn't want to hear the answers and were just waiting for us to cave in and tell you what you wanted to hear. We won't do that. Either show us where we're wrong or admit that you are wrong.

I don't know what this other discussion is that you're talking about starting, but I don't know why you're giving up on this one. I think it's a lively and productive discussion, to a point, and numerous posters would be willing to continue it, myself included. Why aren't you willing to continue?

Let me put it this way: ask a specific question that you think hasn't been answered correctly, and we'll take it from there. Let's put the acrimony aside and return to a useful dialogue. Don't abandon the discussion: develop it further.