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 -

Possible Ramp Found (Great Pyramid)


LucidElement

Recommended Posts

On 11/5/2018 at 12:06 PM, The Wistman said:

I expect at some point somebody's going to use the excavation report to analyze the mechanics and speculate about the rigging.  Can't wait to see such goodies.

Perhaps the rigging was like Franz Lohner's rope roll system. 

rope-roll-station-explanation.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atalante said:

Perhaps the rigging was like Franz Lohner's rope roll system. 

rope-roll-station-explanation.gif

Thanks Atalante...it seems, according to the speculations absent the full excavation report, the scheme was probably similar to that one only with upright posts as the proto-pulleys, rather than horizontal wooden poles, as in the graphic you provided.  Here's one illustration of what is commonly proposed so far:

5be6f75b0644a_gizarampspecthesun.jpg.5d50552bd1dcf2007d0c8b0657cb4818.jpg

 

 

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another scheme, upper teams facing downward, pulling backwards and up:

5be6fb5cd7bf7_gizarampspeculationdailymail.jpg.d91a9598beb5d6c4d1a0dc05eb269822.jpg

The friction and pressure on those posts must have been considerable.

eta:  I've not seen any speculation as to how the rigging was switched to different posts/teams as the block ascended, without it slipping backwards.  Nor how the teams might have been managed to keep them from getting in each others' way.

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:42 AM, The Wistman said:

Another scheme, upper teams facing downward, pulling backwards and up:

5be6fb5cd7bf7_gizarampspeculationdailymail.jpg.d91a9598beb5d6c4d1a0dc05eb269822.jpg

The friction and pressure on those posts must have been considerable.

eta:  I've not seen any speculation as to how the rigging was switched to different posts/teams as the block ascended, without it slipping backwards.  Nor how the teams might have been managed to keep them from getting in each others' way.

All it takes is a slight forward angle to the posts and the lateral pull capacity goes up significantly. That said I don't believe that it would be effective pulling the stones up with the post ropes. The friction on the ropes would make the pulley effect a lot less effective and cause damage to the ropes increasing the likelihood of unexpected separation. You would need to oil the ropes to make them slide which could make the ropes harder to hold on to as the oil eventually wicks through the length of the rope. They could have used talc powder left over from carving up the limestone as a lubricant instead. Its possible they could have lined the center of the ramp with it to make the sleds slide better. They would have had this in abundance, but they might not have needed or thought of it.

If you notice in the above illustration the ropes from the posts go behind the block. If you apply force in that way the front of the block will dig in and be harder to move. You would pull from the front of the sled apparatus to lift the front of the block so it reduces friction and glides over the ramp surface. 

This is the same idea behind front wheel drive cars vrs rear wheel drive cars, or wagons pulled by animals or people. Pulling works better than pushing. Especially going uphill. Ever try rolling a wheelbarrow up an incline? 

I believe the posts were likely more for the braking system to maintain position than to pull up. The mechanical advantage is much like the effect of a high lift jack. There is a lift effort to move the block a certain distance using heavy force. Then there is a holding effect where the pole teams then would take up slack and hold the block while the pulling teams relax and reposition for the next pull. This would allow for smaller pulling teams which would mean more teams spread across the length of travel and more blocks in progress.

There would be redundant rope teams on the posts, two or more per side to allow the last team to rotate to the front position as the block moved upward. If you only have one rope per side there would be risk of the block falling back into the one behind and causing damage or death to the next team.

I got to thinking after you mentioned counterweights Wistman, that they could have used sand bags on sleds tied to the end of the ropes if the ramp sides were steep enough. Just fill them with sand and let them hang over to provide constant stabilizing force and also to automatically take up slack without using manpower. Obviously a situational use but it could be possible. In that scenario when 5 o'clock came and the whistle blew to go home the crews could just lay down their pulling yokes and go home without needing to secure the blocks further.

The wall painting from Djehutihotep's tomb shows them dragging a statue with a sled and no side ropes. Of course this is showing it moving across flat ground. Going uphill you just have to keep it from sliding back down, so you stabilize with tiedowns. They seemed to love to document important things, but no pictures of this being done so in my opinion it wasn't the main movement force but a secondary system needed to combat gravity.

The ramps would have gotten much longer as the layers grew higher. 20% in my opinion is rather extreme. It becomes hard to stand on a 20% incline let alone exert extreme force. Just my 2c as a part time mover of heavy things.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is zero evidence for a single ramp as they suggest for G1 or any other large pyramid .  They need to tell us how deep the holes are, spacing, angle , etc.. before any claims can be made as to their function. There are many explanations for those holes. 

 

FAKE NEWS .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BorizBadinov said:

All it takes is a slight forward angle to the posts and the lateral pull capacity goes up significantly. That said I don't believe that it would be effective pulling the stones up with the post ropes. The friction on the ropes would make the pulley effect a lot less effective and cause damage to the ropes increasing the likelihood of unexpected separation. You would need to oil the ropes to make them slide which could make the ropes harder to hold on to as the oil eventually wicks through the length of the rope. They could have used talc powder left over from carving up the limestone as a lubricant instead. Its possible they could have lined the center of the ramp with it to make the sleds slide better. They would have had this in abundance, but they might not have needed or thought of it.

If you notice in the above illustration the ropes from the posts go behind the block. If you apply force in that way the front of the block will dig in and be harder to move. You would pull from the front of the sled apparatus to lift the front of the block so it reduces friction and glides over the ramp surface. 

This is the same idea behind front wheel drive cars vrs rear wheel drive cars, or wagons pulled by animals or people. Pulling works better than pushing. Especially going uphill. Ever try rolling a wheelbarrow up an incline? 

I believe the posts were likely more for the braking system to maintain position than to pull up. The mechanical advantage is much like the effect of a high lift jack. There is a lift effort to move the block a certain distance using heavy force. Then there is a holding effect where the pole teams then would take up slack and hold the block while the pulling teams relax and reposition for the next pull. This would allow for smaller pulling teams which would mean more teams spread across the length of travel and more blocks in progress.

There would be redundant rope teams on the posts, two or more per side to allow the last team to rotate to the front position as the block moved upward. If you only have one rope per side there would be risk of the block falling back into the one behind and causing damage or death to the next team.

I got to thinking after you mentioned counterweights Wistman, that they could have used sand bags on sleds tied to the end of the ropes if the ramp sides were steep enough. Just fill them with sand and let them hang over to provide constant stabilizing force and also to automatically take up slack without using manpower. Obviously a situational use but it could be possible. In that scenario when 5 o'clock came and the whistle blew to go home the crews could just lay down their pulling yokes and go home without needing to secure the blocks further.

The wall painting from Djehutihotep's tomb shows them dragging a statue with a sled and no side ropes. Of course this is showing it moving across flat ground. Going uphill you just have to keep it from sliding back down, so you stabilize with tiedowns. They seemed to love to document important things, but no pictures of this being done so in my opinion it wasn't the main movement force but a secondary system needed to combat gravity.

The ramps would have gotten much longer as the layers grew higher. 20% in my opinion is rather extreme. It becomes hard to stand on a 20% incline let alone exert extreme force. Just my 2c as a part time mover of heavy things.

Agreed, not sure how they reached the conclusions presented re the mechanics of the site/ramp; I guess we won't know that until the final report is released.  The speculations from outside parties, including the graphic depictions of how it supposedly worked, do not really convince.

11 hours ago, M. Williams said:

There is zero evidence for a single ramp as they suggest for G1 or any other large pyramid .  They need to tell us how deep the holes are, spacing, angle , etc.. before any claims can be made as to their function. There are many explanations for those holes.

FAKE NEWS .

I don't think they declared anything about a single ramp for G1.  I saw, somewhere, some figures about the depth of the holes and diameter of the posts, but I cannot find it now; it could have been specious.   I agree with your point though that the holes may not have functioned in the way they are asserting.  However, I wouldn't call this fake, per se.  :rolleyes: 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

I don't think they declared anything about a single ramp for G1.  I saw, somewhere, some figures about the depth of the holes and diameter of the posts, but I cannot find it now; it could have been specious.   I agree with your point though that the holes may not have functioned in the way they are asserting.  However, I wouldn't call this fake, per se.  :rolleyes: 

Hi Wistman

 

Here's the teams graphic. No detail on post depth in any article, just width. The single ramp is the what the director of the dig is pushing. The egyptologist in charge is a ME poetry expert, not a stonemason, so he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I doubt he has ever moved any type of large stone, ever, but he's an 'expert'. Typical Egyptologist.

5845412-6359375-image-a-96_1541527335946.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, M. Williams said:

There is zero evidence for a single ramp as they suggest for G1 or any other large pyramid .  They need to tell us how deep the holes are, spacing, angle , etc.. before any claims can be made as to their function. There are many explanations for those holes. 

FAKE NEWS .

There are few in the field that would postulate a single ramp. Multiple remains of ramps have been found around many Egyptian pyramids though, and remains of a ramp from the quarry to the Great Pyramid was found several years ago.

I listed some in this old post.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harte said:

There are few in the field that would postulate a single ramp. Multiple remains of ramps have been found around many Egyptian pyramids though, and remains of a ramp from the quarry to the Great Pyramid was found several years ago.

I listed some in this old post.

Harte

Hey Harte

 

I am the world's leading expert on pyramid ramps, that's the truth. I split and move boulders every day.  I'm not debating the use of ramps, I'm saying the people presenting this newly discovered ramp are not qualified . They made up a story for funding. The French are terrible at answering pyramid mysteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was responding to your post that there is zero evidence for the single-ramp hypothesis.

The truth is, you'd have to search pretty hard to find many modern Egyptologists espousing that view.

This makes your post a straw man argument.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Harte said:

I was responding to your post that there is zero evidence for the single-ramp hypothesis.

The truth is, you'd have to search pretty hard to find many modern Egyptologists espousing that view.

This makes your post a straw man argument.

Harte

Harte, 

 

We are in agreement. There is zero evidence for a single ramp, egyptologists agree with this, which makes this group of French and English egyptologists ignorant and by extension makes this whole connection to G1 stupid . They need to give us the details of the friggin ramp and not their opinions ,which it appears are worthless when it comes to constructing pyramids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, M. Williams said:

Harte, 

We are in agreement. There is zero evidence for a single ramp, egyptologists agree with this, which makes this group of French and English egyptologists ignorant and by extension makes this whole connection to G1 stupid . They need to give us the details of the friggin ramp and not their opinions ,which it appears are worthless when it comes to constructing pyramids.

You're claiming that the leads in this dig are saying there was a single ramp.

I don't see that anywhere.

Even the graphic saying "the ramp grew with the pyramid" doesn't show it going all the way to the top (which is why the single ramp hypothesis failed in the first place,) and wasn't provided by the Egyptology team.

Multiple ramps like the one found could have been utilized along the southern side of the GP.

Can you show us where these French Egyptologists are proposing a single ramp?

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M. Williams said:

Hi Wistman

 

Here's the teams graphic. No detail on post depth in any article, just width. The single ramp is the what the director of the dig is pushing. The egyptologist in charge is a ME poetry expert, not a stonemason, so he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I doubt he has ever moved any type of large stone, ever, but he's an 'expert'. Typical Egyptologist.

5845412-6359375-image-a-96_1541527335946.jpg

I see.  Link?

btw....I don't share your scorn for Egyptologists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M. Williams said:

Hey Harte

 

I am the world's leading expert on pyramid ramps, that's the truth.

To quote yourself:

14 hours ago, M. Williams said:

FAKE NEWS .

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Harte said:

You're claiming that the leads in this dig are saying there was a single ramp.

I don't see that anywhere.

Even the graphic saying "the ramp grew with the pyramid" doesn't show it going all the way to the top (which is why the single ramp hypothesis failed in the first place,) and wasn't provided by the Egyptology team.

Multiple ramps like the one found could have been utilized along the southern side of the GP.

Can you show us where these French Egyptologists are proposing a single ramp?

Harte

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://theconversation.com/amp/great-pyramid-how-my-research-on-ancient-egyptian-poetry-led-to-an-amazing-discovery-106561&ved=0ahUKEwiDs83wtM_eAhW_HjQIHbVyCYIQyM8BCE4wCA&usg=AOvVaw3fB0yzODXO00lD1NilgVSD&ampcf=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

To quote yourself:

 

Admin, is there a "block" feature on your site ? Asking for a friend.lol 

Edited by M. Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, M. Williams said:

It says:

Quote

The Hatnub haulage ramp is also much steeper than most previous reconstructions of Egyptian haulage ramps. This is significant because one of the long-standing objections to the theory that the Great Pyramid was build using a single large ramp was the enormous volume of such a ramp (which would have had a greater volume than the Great Pyramid itself). With a much steeper gradient, the length and volume of such a haulage ramp would be much smaller, suggesting that this old theory needs to be re-evaluated more seriously.

They don't propose a single-ramp theory, just that such a straight-on ramp can now be viewed differently, due to the increase in the slope this new find indicates.

They've shown a 20% slope was used on a ramp. The old theory was based on what was thought to be a maximum of 8%.

Since a 20% slope would put a single GP ramp starting at about 1900 feet in front of the pyramid's base, it's clear that the old theory should at the very least be updated to this new slope that we know they used.

However, even if the lesser volume of such a ramp may make the old hypothesis possible, nobody would postulate that such a ramp was the only one used. Especially for the lower third or so of the GP.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M. Williams said:

Hi Wistman

Here's the teams graphic. No detail on post depth in any article, just width. The single ramp is the what the director of the dig is pushing. The egyptologist in charge is a ME poetry expert, not a stonemason, so he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I doubt he has ever moved any type of large stone, ever, but he's an 'expert'. Typical Egyptologist.

5845412-6359375-image-a-96_1541527335946.jpg

Hi M.Williams....forgive me if I'm a little perplexed by what you said.  I haven't found that this graphic was provided by the excavation team (it's not where I found it for my post above), though it does seem to be based on their proposed scheme.  Out of an abundance of interest, could you please verify your statement about source of the graphic with a link, as well as link to the report re the posts' diameter?..I think I read something like 18"D, but cannot now find that page.  Much obliged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harte said:

It says:

They don't propose a single-ramp theory, just that such a straight-on ramp can now be viewed differently, due to the increase in the slope this new find indicates.

They've shown a 20% slope was used on a ramp. The old theory was based on what was thought to be a maximum of 8%.

Since a 20% slope would put a single GP ramp starting at about 1900 feet in front of the pyramid's base, it's clear that the old theory should at the very least be updated to this new slope that we know they used.

However, even if the lesser volume of such a ramp may make the old hypothesis possible, nobody would postulate that such a ramp was the only one used. Especially for the lower third or so of the GP.

Harte

They propose a 20% straight ramp.That's a new proposal that ignores the EVIDENCE , which makes them ignorant of commonly known facts and not qualified to comment on it.  I know what the REAL experts think about it. Do you know of any evidence for a 1900 ft long straight ramp ? 

 

He's also claiming first pulley system. Who needs proof, right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Hi M.Williams....forgive me if I'm a little perplexed by what you said.  I haven't found that this graphic was provided by the excavation team (it's not where I found it for my post above), though it does seem to be based on their proposed scheme.  Out of an abundance of interest, could you please verify your statement about source of the graphic with a link, as well as link to the report re the posts' diameter?..I think I read something like 18"D, but cannot now find that page.  Much obliged.

Sorry, hard to differentiate what's from the team or from tabloid rags because the team hasn't provided an actual report yet. If I come across it I'll post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious use for thes posts is to redirect the pull ropes around the turn. The evidence would be the long straight line extending from the ramp the pullers used.

 

 

45231225_2010787568966883_608611412897431552_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, M. Williams said:

They propose a 20% straight ramp.That's a new proposal that ignores the EVIDENCE , which makes them ignorant of commonly known facts and not qualified to comment on it.  I know what the REAL experts think about it. Do you know of any evidence for a 1900 ft long straight ramp ? 

He's also claiming first pulley system. Who needs proof, right ?

Depends on what you call a pulley. They did have a sort of pulley that was useless for adding any mechanical advantage, but allowed force to be applied in an opposite direction from the stone movement. Like doubling back the ropes on the poles in this hypothesis.

I've seen the claim for a wooden "rope roll" pulley having been used by the AEs. But there's no evidence for it. However, wood gets reused for other things when it gets old, things like fires.

As far as the straight ramp, the Frenchmen didn't advocate for it, they merely said it needed further evaluation in light of the slope on this newly discovered ramp. This is a true statement. The ramp itself would be longer than 1900 feet - that's just how far it would stick out in front of the pyramid (and my own calculation.) It would be much shorter if it was only for the first half of the layers going in and they changed to switchback or spiral ramps for the rest of it.

Even if it's proved out, there's not much doubt other ramps were used simultaneously - at least for the lower third of the GP, which contains half its volume.

Harte

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Harte said:

Even if it's proved out, there's not much doubt other ramps were used simultaneously - at least for the lower third of the GP, which contains half its volume.

Harte

My research leads me to believe that G1 has been massively remodeled multiple times . So, this means there would be some odd ramps approaching the pyramid. 

 

Each style (accretion,smooth,etc) has a different ramp system and none have to leave any gigantic footprint outside of the pyramid itself. 

 

The Accretion method is evident on meidum. You know the odd construction break ? There's your Accretion Layer Ramp System . 

 

The smooth,  Red Pyramid used a different method. You'll notice in the scan below the huge ramp in the thermal image. They tried to bury this and take credit for others work at the same time. This image aligns with the sand that's falling out of the side of the Red Pyramid. That's your other kind of ramp, which most likely was mirrored by an exterior spiral ramp. This method is consistent with the Bui scans which indicate G1 has a series of internal ramps and earlier structures. NOT a hallway.

 

Have you ever noticed the pyramid in the S E. corner of G1 in Bui's scan ? 

 

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Edited by M. Williams
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the earlier pyramid ? 

 

Did the Step Pyramid progress in a similar way ? Yes. It wasn't a single build. 

 

What does that do to alignment theories, etc..? Alot. 

 

Also notice how the small thermal anamoly lines up with the corner of this inner ,se corner pyramid. (The one on the right in the thermal scan in previous post)

My point is G1 was remodeled and added to many times possibly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3D view of surface density (3) (1).JPG

Edited by M. Williams
Added brilliance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.