Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

[cormac mac airt]

Great!

Now all you have to do is find this word used in the 4th dynasty.

"Cultural context" applies to the Great Pyramid builders not later times.

Cultural context would mean from the beginning of Khufu's reign to the end of Menkaure's. Meaning that your Pyramid Text interpretations are also irrelevant.

cormac

[thewatchman7]

Of course the problem with such a contrived idea is that it doesn't fit the cultural evidence.

There isn't even any evidence that they had the word "ramp" in the entire culture.

This is fantasy concocted by those who believe the builders were backward and couldn't

come up with something easy.

the idea that the concept of an inclined slope, later to be named "ramps" were not known to these people is ridiculous.

its pretty much the fundamentals of anything, that its easier to push anything downhill than up, but when you have to move things up, a gentle slope is easier than a step. you honestly think people capable of building these magnificent structures didnt know this?

[kmt_sesh]

the idea that the concept of an inclined slope, later to be named "ramps" were not known to these people is ridiculous.

its pretty much the fundamentals of anything, that its easier to push anything downhill than up, but when you have to move things up, a gentle slope is easier than a step. you honestly think people capable of building these magnificent structures didnt know this?

A good point—considering archaeological remains of ramps predate the Great Pyramid.

[cladking]

You ignored my entire post. All of my discussion peices were ignored. I never even came close to talking about your theme. I was talking about entirely different items for discussion. Same old. We don't need to discuss it if you don't really want to. Also kmt made a post about the word ramp. Ignore that too though. Doesn't really fly with what you want to say.

I told you I have no intention of proving my contentions in this thread.

Proof that ramps weren't used must wait for the powers that be to use 1970's technology to prove beyond doubt the route of the stones and mode of lifting. They are currently not seeking such information but a virtually air tight case can be made against ramps by observation and logic alone. While innumerable signs point away from ramps I'll try to limit the discussion to only the major points.

Historical accounts say that the stones moved to the pyramid 300' at a time after a priest attached a piece of paper to them. This is inconsistent with ramps. Indeed, there are no historical accounts until more recent times that involve ramps. Herodotus' description almost precisely matches the usage of counterweights. (they were shaped like the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper and composed of "short pieces of wood".) They were built in "battlements" (steps) and the lifting devices could be moved between them.

The culture has no word for "ramps" as applied to lifting objects. There is no such record for the use of this term. While they, no doubt, physically used ramps to lift objects the lack of the word is glaring omission. There is no "god of ramps" and not a single drawing of a ramp from the great pyramid building age.

Far more importantly is there is no overseer of ramp builders, ramp architects, or ramp dismantlers buried anywhere in Egypt. There are no overseers of basket makers, no overseers of harness makers or salve makers. There is not even a single stone dragger or his overseer in evidence. The pyramid town had equal numbers of men and women and was a tiny fraction of the size that would be required to drag stones and build ramps. The town is hardly large enough to supply such a large army with water and supplies far less do all the work themselves. It is little larger than a couple soccer fields. Indeed the builders' town was a mere 300' by 700'. By today's standards this would accomodate only 933 people in an office building. People need far more space where they live. Only about 40% of the population was men so there wouldn't even be nearly enough labor to supply food and water to the thousands necessary to build ramps and drag stones up them. You say ancient people didn't mind being cramped up. Modern sanitation and processes are more efficient than they were in 2750 BC but let's say they were willing to be jammed in cheek to jowel. This only increases occupancy to about 2800 men which is still grossly insufficient. With so many people in close contact disease would spread like wildfire. Since there were storage and production fascilities in the town as well it's highly improbable that there were numbers even approaching these levels

.

Logic says that on a gargantuan project that a highly efficient means must be used. Ramps not only are hugely inefficient due to the high friction and high cost of building and dismantling ramps but also because the weight of the team dragging stones to the pyramid top is simply wasted as they walk back down on already constricted and overused ramps. Getting the manpower necessary to build this requires massive ramps because 55 HP being done by men at extraordinarily low efficiency requires vast numbers of men. They couldn't even see the pyramid to build it under the amount of ramping that would be needed to project so much power. Logic says it would be far easier to just drag stones up the side from the top. Friction is reduced to almost nothing since the route of the stones can be greased. The men don't have to lift their own weight and can pull much more effectively from a level surface. The concept that they must have used ramps is absurd when there are numerous better evidenced and easier means.

Maitaining this level of efficient power with muscles alone would require massive ramps and a means for the workers to get back down. Then there is the impossibility of cladding the structure with any possibly evidenced ramping system. Anything that required cladding stones as they went would leave nothing for ramps to adhere to and any other means would require the ramps to be rebuilt to apply the cladding.

Then comes the physical evidence which just puts a nail into the heart of the ramp ideas. Perhaps most glaringly is the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for ramps on the pyramid. This wouldn’t be such a glaring void if not for the existence of numerous vertical lines visible in the pyramids. These lines tend to appear in pairs with one on opposite sides. This is consistent with counterweight operations where one line marks the counterweight and the opposite the route of the stones. It is most highly inconsistent with any ramping ideas. Simply stated ramps wouldn’t leave such lines no matter how they were configured except for ones that can be ruled out by logic such as integral ramps. The grooves on the Great Pyramid are also these routes of the stones that the builders called the “ladders of the Gods”.

Simply stated you can see the routes of the stones right up the middles and in two places above the boat museum. You can also see that these pyramids are five step (battlement) pyramids on some pictures but especially in the gravimetric scan half way down the page here;

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

And you can see them right in the sides of the pyramids as the vertical lines;

I have a truly beautiful depiction of these five steps drawn on the scan but can't get permission to use it. But this is still conclusive proof that it's a five step pyramid which is more than adequate to debunk ramps. They would not have used steps unless it was necessary and the only reason steps might be necessary is that they could lift the stones only 81' 3" at a time.

Each of the great pyramids after Djoser’s were five step pyramids. There is simply no reason to build these as step pyramids unless the height of each step defined the height they were able to lift stones. In order to lift stones to the top they must have needed to be relayed the greatest distance they could lift. Of course this could be as simple as the length of the ropes by which they lifted them up the side. No matter the actual reason it simply isn’t consistent with ramps. It is highly consistent with counterweights and using water for ballast since the geyser sprayed 80’ and this is the height of the steps. It might be consistent with locks that lifted 81' 3" at a time or any water or ballast lifting system limited by natural laws or infrastruture/ materiel concerns. It is not consistent with ramps.

Ramps can’t explain the various infrastructure all around and within the pyramid. They are inconsistent with the history, culture, logic, physical evidence, and the evidence left by the actual on-site builders.

Perhaps the greatest inconsistency is the cultural evidence right on site. In the pyramid builders cemetery is the “Overseer of the Boats of Neith”. This would be the loader on the south side in all probability but it could have nothing to do with ramps. There are canal overseers, overseers of metal shops, director of draftsmen, inspector of craftsmen, controller of a boat crew, controller of the side of the pyramid, inspector of metal workers and a host of other jobs that reflect a sophisticated and intelligent culture. Most tellingly is that there is a “Weigher/ Reckoner”. This job would be critical on a device that was said to be sensitive enough to tell the difference in weight of a “heavy heart” from a feather. They found a standard weight in the queens “air siphon” and a hook.

In point of fact there simply isn’t anything consistent with ramps. While the evidence isn’t deep it is very broad that counterweights were used and the vertical lines on the great pyramids are simply sufficient to say ramps are debunked. This scale is tipped so much you’d think there’s nothing on the ascender at all. There were no ramps. They are debunked.

ALL the great pyramids are five step pyramids (S1 is five steps built on a mastaba). These five steps are the fingers of Geb and the cow was his wing.

I can also add that the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts has led me to see these things. The literal meaning of the PT will prove to be key in understanding the pyramids and their builders in my opinion.

While ramps are debunked what we do have is evidence that water was used everywhere. The great pyramid are built right on top of water collection devices and surrounded by a cofferdam. There's one pretty obvious lock lying along the route which the western cliff face countwerweight appears to have dragged stones. There is water erosion in canals leading away from the pyramid base.

We need to do the science to determine the exact means by which the water was used to build.

[cladking]

the idea that the concept of an inclined slope, later to be named "ramps" were not known to these people is ridiculous.

its pretty much the fundamentals of anything, that its easier to push anything downhill than up, but when you have to move things up, a gentle slope is easier than a step. you honestly think people capable of building these magnificent structures didnt know this?

Isn't that ironic.

The real culture still doesn't contain ramps.

Ramps are excluded by the cultural evidence.

[cladking]

A good point—considering archaeological remains of ramps predate the Great Pyramid.

It doesn't wash.

There is no evidence that ramps were used to lift stones and the word "ramp" doesn't exist in the culture.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Well clad ol chap we know they made baskets... LOL

the rest well you kinda went out on your own....

[thewatchman7]

Isn't that ironic.

The real culture still doesn't contain ramps.

Ramps are excluded by the cultural evidence.

tell me your joking?

like... any mound of earth used to move ANYTHING could be considered a ramp.

wait... this is just silly, you think they had steps but not ramps?

[samspade]

tell me your joking?

like... any mound of earth used to move ANYTHING could be considered a ramp.

wait... this is just silly, you think they had steps but not ramps?

A mound could be considered a ramp. and steps - like in step pyramid for example makes me wonder about things,

When one looks to word egyptian word ret we see.

[ret] terrace, steps, stairway, the great stairs.

Seems like Egyptian ret and ramp could have the same meaning when thinking in terms of steps or stairs.

heres the english definition of ramp

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ramp

1. An inclined surface or roadway connecting different levels.

2. A mobile staircase by which passengers board and leave an aircraft.

3. A concave bend of a handrail where a sharp change in level or direction occurs, as at a stair landing

[cladking]

tell me your joking?

like... any mound of earth used to move ANYTHING could be considered a ramp.

wait... this is just silly, you think they had steps but not ramps?

It's about "cultural context".

We know the sun shone but that doesn't prove they had solar sails to lift stones

on the great pyramids.

Ramps as a means to lift stones on tall structures being built do not exist in the

cultural context.

Of course there were ramps and one is even mentioned in the PT as a means to

move Gods to a different level. But there's no mention anywhere of ramps for

pyramid building and no evidence for it. All we really know is what exists and ramps

do not fit.

Squeezing them in where they don't belong could give us a very warped picture of

the men and women who built G1. If you take the wholly unevidenced ideas that

these people were changeless and used ramps out of the equation then the real

picture, the real cultural context emerges. Take out the idea that these were tombs

which is denied by the PT and the last support for the idea the people were bump-

kins is removed. This is all of orthodox theory lying in a pile of dust. It opens the

door to all those fringe theories that scarce everyone so much.

It means everyone's guess is as good as everyone else's until they get out there

and do some science. But when they get out there ramps will already be debunked.

They can't be brought back to life. "Debunked" simply means they will never find

evidence for ramps because there were no ramps.

[cladking]

[ret] terrace, steps, stairway, the great stairs.

These words all exist in the cultural context (at least inthe PT which is close enough

for government work). I can't recall right this moment exactly which word "Mercer" used

for "terrace" but he did use the concept.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Yeah cladking you know there's evidence for ramps. You know about the remnants on the GP and you know about the lesser pyramid that has remnants. But since it doesn't jive you say there is no evidence... gotcha. Same old cladking ... LOL. I just realized that cladking is in my autocorrect. Nice.

[cormac mac airt]

These words all exist in the cultural context (at least in the PT which is close enough

for government work). I can't recall right this moment exactly which word "Mercer" used

for "terrace" but he did use the concept.

Not hardly since it dates to about 150 years after the fact. And you've already said that cultural context only applies to when the Great Pyramids were built. But I can see your reluctance to leave your interpretations of what the PT says out of this, as otherwise you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion.

cormac

[thewatchman7]

It's about "cultural context".

We know the sun shone but that doesn't prove they had solar sails to lift stones

on the great pyramids.

Ramps as a means to lift stones on tall structures being built do not exist in the

cultural context.

Of course there were ramps and one is even mentioned in the PT as a means to

move Gods to a different level. But there's no mention anywhere of ramps for

pyramid building and no evidence for it. All we really know is what exists and ramps

do not fit.

Squeezing them in where they don't belong could give us a very warped picture of

the men and women who built G1. If you take the wholly unevidenced ideas that

these people were changeless and used ramps out of the equation then the real

picture, the real cultural context emerges. Take out the idea that these were tombs

which is denied by the PT and the last support for the idea the people were bump-

kins is removed. This is all of orthodox theory lying in a pile of dust. It opens the

door to all those fringe theories that scarce everyone so much.

It means everyone's guess is as good as everyone else's until they get out there

and do some science. But when they get out there ramps will already be debunked.

They can't be brought back to life. "Debunked" simply means they will never find

evidence for ramps because there were no ramps.

now your being deliberatly pig headed.

to culturally develop to steps, the first logical step is a mound. (ergo a ramp)

if we look at the steps, the carvings, of this culture, to assume they didnt have ramps is honestly ridiculous.

to say it didnt exist in there cultural context is rather presumtious. its like saying that everything engineers know today is shown in our art or on tv so we dont have that information? this is a flawed logic. but then you go on to mention that in one of there cultural texts, the pt that ramps are mentioned as a lifting tool.

please just be quite and sit in the corner.

[samspade]

These words all exist in the cultural context (at least inthe PT which is close enough

for government work). I can't recall right this moment exactly which word "Mercer" used

for "terrace" but he did use the concept.

Clearly one can look at glyphs prior to the GP.

And while the PT followed after the GP we cant ruled out certain glyphs or meanings.

[ret] terrace, steps, stairway, the great stairs

if we assume Eqyptian ret and ramp do mean the same thing at times, we find this interesting line in the PT.

Perhaps the reason for not finding proof for ramps was because they were destroyed.

279c. stairs for those who would ascend shall be destroyed.

A speculated suggestion, thus i used the perhaps. it may not be true,

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Lmao

[cladking]

Yeah cladking you know there's evidence for ramps. You know about the remnants on the GP and you know about the lesser pyramid that has remnants. But since it doesn't jive you say there is no evidence... gotcha. Same old cladking ... LOL. I just realized that cladking is in my autocorrect. Nice.

There are no ramp remnants on the GP. You are mistaken. I don't know why you've stated this many times.

There are ramp remnants on later and on little pyramids. This is irrelevant to the great pyramids. There is

virtually no evidence of any sort for ramps on great pyramids. We could go over it again and I think I could

get all the "evidence" in a single sentence.

But I don't see anyone addressing the fact that ramps are debunked. This is the fact.

[cladking]

Clearly one can look at glyphs prior to the GP.

And while the PT followed after the GP we cant ruled out certain glyphs or meanings.

[ret] terrace, steps, stairway, the great stairs

if we assume Eqyptian ret and ramp do mean the same thing at times, we find this interesting line in the PT.

Perhaps the reason for not finding proof for ramps was because they were destroyed.

279c. stairs for those who would ascend shall be destroyed.

A speculated suggestion, thus i used the perhaps. it may not be true,

I'm sure you're right except that I'm equally sure that they meant this literally.

That the side of the pyramid was the ramp. The side of the pyramid was the

stairs.

I can't understand why such a simple idea is so strongly resisted. It obvious

by context they mean everything went straight up the side and it is simple com-

mon sense that the shortest route is the easiest and this goes ten times over

in this specific application.

I believe orthodoxy resists the obvious simply because they want to continue

with the idea that the builders were superstitious and backward. All the assum-

ptions are a part of a whole and they just can't give them up. When one collapses

they know the rest are tumbling right behind.

[cladking]

now your being deliberatly pig headed.

to culturally develop to steps, the first logical step is a mound. (ergo a ramp)

if we look at the steps, the carvings, of this culture, to assume they didnt have ramps is honestly ridiculous.

to say it didnt exist in there cultural context is rather presumtious. its like saying that everything engineers know today is shown in our art or on tv so we dont have that information? this is a flawed logic. but then you go on to mention that in one of there cultural texts, the pt that ramps are mentioned as a lifting tool.

please just be quite and sit in the corner.

Even if you can show they had a word for "ramp" it wouldn't prove they used ramps to

lift stones. But the fact they didn't even use the word such that it survives is pretty convincing

proof in itself that they didn't have millions of men building them and dragging stones up them.

Are you also going to calculate the weight of the Gods or how many angels can dance on the

head of a pin? Your argument just doesn't make sense. We can sit around and speculate or

we can look at the evidence. Ramps are debunked. This isn't speculation; Ramps are debunked.

Edited June 28, 2012 by cladking

[thewatchman7]

Even if you can show they had a word for "ramp" it wouldn't prove they used ramps to

lift stones. But the fact they didn't even use the word such that it survives is pretty convincing

proof in itself that they didn't have millions of men building them and dragging ramps up them.

Are you also going to calculate the weight of the Gods or how many angels can dance on the

head of a pin? Your argument just doesn't make sense. We can sit around and speculate or

we can look at the evidence. Ramps are debunked. This is speculation; Ramps are debunked.

your directly ignoring CULTURAL proof of ramps used in a lfting context.

its not about the weight, your missing the point, its that the solution they applied to lifting the god, using ramps.

ramps have never been debunked...

Edited June 28, 2012 by thewatchman7

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Depending on the pin 14 angels with 1 devil to start the dancing... of course that depending on the pin...

[cladking]

your directly ignoring CULTURAL proof of ramps used in a lfting context.

its not about the weight, your missing the point, its that the solution they applied to lifting the god, using ramps.

ramps have never been

The "ramp" mentioned in the PT is anachronistic because the PT as we know it probably

didn't exiist at that time. If the PT spoke of spiral ramps and all sorts of ramps to build pyr-

amids I'd still give you the point but it doesn't. The PT speaks of boats and flying. It speaks

of burning the king atop the pyramid.

The "cultural context" with which you are familiar is ripped from the book of the dead and im-

posed on the great pyramid builders. The real "cultural context" includes things like the tiny

workmen's village and insights that can be gleaned from the PT. The real cultural context

must be consistent with the titles and jobs of the men and women buried at Giza. You are

seeing the great pyramid builders in terms of the authors of the book of the dead and this is

illegitimate.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Who was overseer of burning the king atop the pyramid?

[lliqerty]

Hi;

A previous thread started by the L showed 2 men running while dragging a 2 tonne stone. This was achieved by short woods arranged like railway sleepers and lubed with animal fat. The clip is well worth a watch and while no one is saying that the method shown is the method used by the ancients it is a possibility;

I have said repeatedly that moving them is not the problem, it is cutting them on the bottom, and placing them accurately (meaning edge to edge with another one).

You are implying that something can be scaled up from 2 tons to 800 tons. There is no evidence for that. If it is so easy why are you showing this example with one four hundredth of the size in question? In particular, how will you remove the 'sleepers' or ropes from an 800 ton rock once it is in its location? Do you know if wood will support 800 tons and not be crushed?

Edited June 28, 2012 by lliqerty

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Lliqerty you don't really want to discuss anything so why are you so persistent ... there are plenty of ancient stones cut and moved... we just cannot say exactly without any doubt which method they specifically moved it. But there are plenty of theories. Since theories are not what you want then you already know the answer you can only take from this. Meaning your discussion is complete... yes?