Were Egypt's pyramids built using a hydraulic lift system ?

[cladking]

It looks ;like the clock is up for Egyptology.  I warned you 18 years ago this could be solved without them and this is only the beginning.  

 

They can sit in their ivory towers and dream up new ways to say "they mustta used ramps" but people are going to stop listening now.  

[jmccr8]

16 hours ago, cladking said:

It looks ;like the clock is up for Egyptology.  I warned you 18 years ago this could be solved without them and this is only the beginning.  

 

They can sit in their ivory towers and dream up new ways to say "they mustta used ramps" but people are going to stop listening now.  

HI Clad

People stopped listening to you 17 years ago

[Antigonos]

16 hours ago, cladking said:

It looks ;like the clock is up for Egyptology.  I warned you 18 years ago this could be solved without them and this is only the beginning.  

 

They can sit in their ivory towers and dream up new ways to say "they mustta used ramps" but people are going to stop listening now.  

The sum total of everything  you’ve been saying for 18 years across multiple forums:

 

[Mark_C]

19 hours ago, cladking said:

It looks ;like the clock is up for Egyptology.  I warned you 18 years ago this could be solved without them and this is only the beginning.  

Not only can it be solved without them, it can be solved in spite of them. 

Idk of you saw it but the land of chem guy made a video about the water enclosure. 

https://youtu.be/xblHl0YfU1s?si=Aq-5_zG2RisiErDb

 

[cladking]

19 minutes ago, Mark_C said:

Not only can it be solved without them, it can be solved in spite of them. 

Idk of you saw it but the land of chem guy made a video about the water enclosure. 

https://youtu.be/xblHl0YfU1s?si=Aq-5_zG2RisiErDb

 

Thank you.

Very interesting.

 

I wonder if all this water handling in the new study might be related to the removal of copper sulfate from the water.  

We're all stymied by the unwillingness of Egyptology to gather or publish data.  It's great so many more people seem to be looking at this.  When we finally get some answers to what the pyramids did and how they did it it will seem to have been obvious all along.  

[Piney]

17 hours ago, Antigonos said:

The sum total of everything  you’ve been saying for 18 years across multiple forums:

 

I warned Lee about making any mention. 🤪

[Mark_C]

20 hours ago, cladking said:

I wonder if all this water handling in the new study might be related to the removal of copper sulfate from the water. 

It could be. Eventually the mystery preservation society will decide that they used the water shaft to float the kings corpse down to the bottom. Then all these brain dead parrots will argue till they're blue in the face that its true. 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Mark_C said:

It could be. Eventually the mystery preservation society will decide that they used the water shaft to float the kings corpse down to the bottom. Then all these brain dead parrots will argue till they're blue in the face that its true. 

People have an infinite ability to believe anything at all.  Just keep saying "ancient people were highly ignorant and superstitious so had no other means than ramps to lift stones" enough times and it will become a simple fact.  There's no longer a need to even investigate the issue or consider it. It seems that the status quo has always had the upper hand but now days it has become gospel.  Never mind this study that convincingly shows there are hydraulic aspects to the entire site and region because any resemblance to water is irrelevant in a desert.  Nevermind the crackpots who talk about hydrology, hydraulics, electricity, buoyancy, nuclear, astronomy, , or little green men because this case was closed the first time some genius uttered "they mustta used ramps". 

Never before has science been controlled not by its own nature and individuals but rather by the wealthy.   Never before has anyone been able to buy reality itself.  

[Mark_C]

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

Never before has science been controlled not by its own nature and individuals but rather by the wealthy.

If you can't question it then it's propaganda not science. 

[cladking]

13 minutes ago, Mark_C said:

If you can't question it then it's propaganda not science. 

I almost never copy and paste but I just wrote a post this morning that wants to go here;

Every single Egyptologist has a litany of assumptions that are holy and sacrosanct. They will not publish, consider, or read any idea that contradicts any one of them. I am saying not only that every one is wrong but that the correct understanding is apparent and in your face.

They believe that pyramids are tombs.
They believe ancient people were superstitious, ignorant, and stumblefooted.
They believe pyramids were built with ramps.
They believe studying pyramids by studying the "cultural context" is proper methodology.
They believe sample bias doesn't apply to studying tombs.
They believe ancient people were not only the same species but just like us.
They believe that studying ancient culture only in terms of the "book of the dead" from thousands of years later is proper methodology.
They believe ancient people were not only obsessed by their belief in magic and religion but that they wouldn't know reality if it bit them on the nose.
They believe religion, culture, language and human nature never underwent any sort of fundamental change.
They believe humans have evolved.
They believe they are practicing "science".
They believe in linear human progress.
They believe we know more today than the builders.
They believe a lot of people don't make sense most of the time.
They believe there is no need to apply scientific knowledge, instrumentation, and perspective to understanding pyramids.
They believe gathering data and not allowing even other Egyptologists to see it is legitimate "science".
They believe experiment is unnecessary to create theory.

I could go on and on with their beliefs but it's not just one or two of these beliefs in error but every single one of them. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more wrong. Yet here I am with evidence these beliefs are wrong and no means to even communicate with them. I doubt they even ever read one of my eMails because the questions are so uncomfortable.

My theory will never be complete and for years needs data more than anything else but Egyptology doesn't do data, they do assumptions and "cultural context". Only believers need apply.

 

You not only can't question doctrine but at the first inkling you don't believe in doctrine you can't even communicate with Egyptology.  I once though of it as a pseudoscience but now I'm less generous.  It's mysticism.  It could be correct only through sheer coincidence.  

[Piney]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I almost never copy and paste but I just wrote a post this morning that wants to go here;

Every single Egyptologist has a litany of assumptions that are holy and sacrosanct. They will not publish, consider, or read any idea that contradicts any one of them. I am saying not only that every one is wrong but that the correct understanding is apparent and in your face.

They believe that pyramids are tombs.
They believe ancient people were superstitious, ignorant, and stumblefooted.
They believe pyramids were built with ramps.
They believe studying pyramids by studying the "cultural context" is proper methodology.
They believe sample bias doesn't apply to studying tombs.
They believe ancient people were not only the same species but just like us.
They believe that studying ancient culture only in terms of the "book of the dead" from thousands of years later is proper methodology.
They believe ancient people were not only obsessed by their belief in magic and religion but that they wouldn't know reality if it bit them on the nose.
They believe religion, culture, language and human nature never underwent any sort of fundamental change.
They believe humans have evolved.
They believe they are practicing "science".
They believe in linear human progress.
They believe we know more today than the builders.
They believe a lot of people don't make sense most of the time.
They believe there is no need to apply scientific knowledge, instrumentation, and perspective to understanding pyramids.
They believe gathering data and not allowing even other Egyptologists to see it is legitimate "science".
They believe experiment is unnecessary to create theory.

I could go on and on with their beliefs but it's not just one or two of these beliefs in error but every single one of them. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more wrong. Yet here I am with evidence these beliefs are wrong and no means to even communicate with them. I doubt they even ever read one of my eMails because the questions are so uncomfortable.

My theory will never be complete and for years needs data more than anything else but Egyptology doesn't do data, they do assumptions and "cultural context". Only believers need apply.

 

You not only can't question doctrine but at the first inkling you don't believe in doctrine you can't even communicate with Egyptology.  I once though of it as a pseudoscience but now I'm less generous.  It's mysticism.  It could be correct only through sheer coincidence.  

Absolute projectile vomit.....

[Antigonos]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I almost never copy and paste 

You should stick to that plan.

[cladking]

"Yet here I am with evidence these beliefs are wrong and no means to even communicate with them."

 

This is the frustrating part. The post was a response to someone who asked me why I didn't write an article for a peer reviewed journal or to bring it to the attention of Egyptologists. I've tried numerous times to communicate and was cutoff in every instance.  Egyptologists in some way will be responsible to eventually solving this but at this point in time they are not trying and this is why this interdisciplinary group of scientists are studying the problem. They obviously see the problem as well that Egyptology will not gather the evidence.  Of course they believe it is unnecessary and there are far more interesting things to study than something so mundane as the exact configuration of ramps that were used.  But in not gathering the evidence they are just setting the stage for all the other evidence they are not gathering or studying. Scientific curiosity of the type displayed by Petrie demands that anything that can be measured is measured and every single anomaly studied.  

It is very difficult for anyone at all to look at all the evidence dispassionately but this is absolutely critical to scientific advancement.  It is exactly this that leads to tiny and enormous paradigm shifts.  There are always an infinite number of ways that data, evidence, and experiment can be interpreted and whatever is the current interpretation has always proven to be wrong in the long term.  We all must try to look at what is known while filtering out all of our beliefs and assumptions.  Instead Egyptology simply won't even talk to people who don't share their beliefs.  If you can only study the pyramids with your backs to them then how are you going to study "cultural context" that includes pyramids?  

This is why the means used to build pyramids will be discovered by the application of interdisciplinary scientists as in this study despite input from Egyptology.  As long as no evidence is allowed to be gathered and published because Hawass says it might confuse the public then Egyptologists are far more hamstrung than outsiders who can see the facts dispassionately.  Even this group doubts there is any certainty the pyramids were tombs.  Everywhere you look Egyptology is simply failing.   They no longer have a monopoly on speculation about how the pyramids mustta been built.  Indeed, there is actually evidence to support other means rather than a need to rely on et als and computer modelling.  

[Antigonos]

34 minutes ago, cladking said:

"Yet here I am with evidence these beliefs are wrong and no means to even communicate with them."

 

This is the frustrating part. The post was a response to someone who asked me why I didn't write an article for a peer reviewed journal or to bring it to the attention of Egyptologists. I've tried numerous times to communicate and was cutoff in every instance.  Egyptologists in some way will be responsible to eventually solving this but at this point in time they are not trying and this is why this interdisciplinary group of scientists are studying the problem. They obviously see the problem as well that Egyptology will not gather the evidence.  Of course they believe it is unnecessary and there are far more interesting things to study than something so mundane as the exact configuration of ramps that were used.  But in not gathering the evidence they are just setting the stage for all the other evidence they are not gathering or studying. Scientific curiosity of the type displayed by Petrie demands that anything that can be measured is measured and every single anomaly studied.  

It is very difficult for anyone at all to look at all the evidence dispassionately but this is absolutely critical to scientific advancement.  It is exactly this that leads to tiny and enormous paradigm shifts.  There are always an infinite number of ways that data, evidence, and experiment can be interpreted and whatever is the current interpretation has always proven to be wrong in the long term.  We all must try to look at what is known while filtering out all of our beliefs and assumptions.  Instead Egyptology simply won't even talk to people who don't share their beliefs.  If you can only study the pyramids with your backs to them then how are you going to study "cultural context" that includes pyramids?  

This is why the means used to build pyramids will be discovered by the application of interdisciplinary scientists as in this study despite input from Egyptology.  As long as no evidence is allowed to be gathered and published because Hawass says it might confuse the public then Egyptologists are far more hamstrung than outsiders who can see the facts dispassionately.  Even this group doubts there is any certainty the pyramids were tombs.  Everywhere you look Egyptology is simply failing.   They no longer have a monopoly on speculation about how the pyramids mustta been built.  Indeed, there is actually evidence to support other means rather than a need to rely on et als and computer modelling.  

Keep your nonsensical ramblings confined to your thread. 

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I came back because of this article, it is a bit of nostalgia. Hi cladking! I was hoping to see you here.

Edited August 18 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[cladking]

On 8/18/2024 at 12:37 AM, Aus Der Box Skeptisch said:

I came back because of this article, it is a bit of nostalgia. Hi cladking! I was hoping to see you here.

It's good to see you back.

I'm sure you still don't agree with me but you come up with some good points.  

It seems every year I get more support from real evidence and real science.  

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

On 8/19/2024 at 7:06 PM, cladking said:

It's good to see you back.

I'm sure you still don't agree with me but you come up with some good points.  

It seems every year I get more support from real evidence and real science.  

Now I am not encouraging you, but sometimes we can be on to something before its fully realised by the archeological record. That said, we can have a vision that seems to make sense to us, that as the facts come out shift what we were seeing. I do not think CO2 geysers is the answer, but water played a role in the process. Even if it was just utilization for transport before the rivers dried up. And the latest paper has some interesting usage posits for water, but geyser, not so much. 

 

Anyways, it is nostalgic to have read the article and thought of our previous conversations. Its still noy geyser, not by evidence. Maybe in a few more years though, eh!

[cladking]

12 hours ago, Aus Der Box Skeptisch said:

Now I am not encouraging you, but sometimes we can be on to something before its fully realised by the archeological record. That said, we can have a vision that seems to make sense to us, that as the facts come out shift what we were seeing. I do not think CO2 geysers is the answer, but water played a role in the process. Even if it was just utilization for transport before the rivers dried up. And the latest paper has some interesting usage posits for water, but geyser, not so much. 

 

Anyways, it is nostalgic to have read the article and thought of our previous conversations. Its still noy geyser, not by evidence. Maybe in a few more years though, eh!

This is something I've been trying to get across to people since day1.  Even if I'm completely wrong the odds say I have a lot of things right.  This exact same thing applies to this study.  It is improbable that each of their conjectures is right and that the pyramids were built in this manner.  They make giant leaps from the evidence and the logic is not entirely sound since it's so improbable that there was sufficient water to the task or that the method would save them significant work on the bottom line.  But they started with facts and evidence instead of wishes and fantasies as Egyptology did so it will hardly be surprising when it turns out that this study is right or at least far more right than Egyptology. 

I'm not married to geysers and geysers didn't exist in the earliest incarnations of my theory but rather they were added later to encompass more evidence and to increase the efficiency of the building process.  If there is anything at all I've learned about the pyramid builders it is that they wasted absolutely nothing at all and did everything in the most possible straight forward way.  Egyptology came up with different beliefs because they started with different beliefs and then searched for that instead of seeing what was there.   

 

What was there was water and it was everywhere.  The people wouldn't have been at the "Mouth of Caves" in the "Land of Rainbows" unless there was water for human needs.  We wouldn't have all this evidence for water and the use of water to build pyramids if there were no water.  

 

Water was used for everything and it is Egyptology's job to quit studying the pyramids with their backs to them and find out how they were built or get out of the way of the real scientists so they can figure it out.  

 

The best first step is to release the data from the infrared scan.  The answers are probably in plain sight in these scans.  

[jmccr8]

15 hours ago, Aus Der Box Skeptisch said:

Now I am not encouraging you, but sometimes we can be on to something before its fully realised by the archeological record. That said, we can have a vision that seems to make sense to us, that as the facts come out shift what we were seeing. I do not think CO2 geysers is the answer, but water played a role in the process. Even if it was just utilization for transport before the rivers dried up. And the latest paper has some interesting usage posits for water, but geyser, not so much. 

 

Anyways, it is nostalgic to have read the article and thought of our previous conversations. Its still noy geyser, not by evidence. Maybe in a few more years though, eh!

HI Aus

Good to see you posting again, hope all has been good with you 

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

On 8/25/2024 at 10:13 AM, jmccr8 said:

HI Aus

Good to see you posting again, hope all has been good with you 

All has been well jmc. I will try to be around a bit, and if not I will return on occasion. I don't think I can be gone forever. Too many imprinted memories. Though, I miss sesh. 

I hope to find ways to contribute more. Great seeing you.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

On 8/25/2024 at 7:56 AM, cladking said:

This is something I've been trying to get across to people since day1.  Even if I'm completely wrong the odds say I have a lot of things right.  This exact same thing applies to this study.  It is improbable that each of their conjectures is right and that the pyramids were built in this manner.  They make giant leaps from the evidence and the logic is not entirely sound since it's so improbable that there was sufficient water to the task or that the method would save them significant work on the bottom line.  But they started with facts and evidence instead of wishes and fantasies as Egyptology did so it will hardly be surprising when it turns out that this study is right or at least far more right than Egyptology. 

I'm not married to geysers and geysers didn't exist in the earliest incarnations of my theory but rather they were added later to encompass more evidence and to increase the efficiency of the building process.  If there is anything at all I've learned about the pyramid builders it is that they wasted absolutely nothing at all and did everything in the most possible straight forward way.  Egyptology came up with different beliefs because they started with different beliefs and then searched for that instead of seeing what was there.   

 

What was there was water and it was everywhere.  The people wouldn't have been at the "Mouth of Caves" in the "Land of Rainbows" unless there was water for human needs.  We wouldn't have all this evidence for water and the use of water to build pyramids if there were no water.  

 

Water was used for everything and it is Egyptology's job to quit studying the pyramids with their backs to them and find out how they were built or get out of the way of the real scientists so they can figure it out.  

 

The best first step is to release the data from the infrared scan.  The answers are probably in plain sight in these scans.  

Its all liquified rock. The geysers are the steam from within the rock. Mini exhausts of vapor. They just molded the upper stones. They carried the liquid stone up to the top and poured it all into place.

Tee hee This is just banter for fun. I could probably find support for this, but it is all conjecture regardless, and I think a more physical approach was utilized, but if you say they "to increase the efficiency of the building process.  If there is anything at all I've learned about the pyramid builders it is that they wasted absolutely nothing at all and did everything in the most possible straight forward way." Ergo they didnt waste the rock one bit and utilized efficiency. I mean, it could have happened. For now though, lets utilize the archeological record and not bring up the melted looking stairway or this https://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/interesting_stuff/pyramids_in_concrete.html

Without also quoting the last paragraph "Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

 

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples." but please jump on this "The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks." Because it keeps the dialogue of needing them scans going. 

 

Dont fall for this cladking. Im having fun with the topic.

[cladking]

9 hours ago, Aus Der Box Skeptisch said:

Its all liquified rock. The geysers are the steam from within the rock. Mini exhausts of vapor. They just molded the upper stones. They carried the liquid stone up to the top and poured it all into place.

Tee hee This is just banter for fun. I could probably find support for this, but it is all conjecture regardless, and I think a more physical approach was utilized, but if you say they "to increase the efficiency of the building process.  If there is anything at all I've learned about the pyramid builders it is that they wasted absolutely nothing at all and did everything in the most possible straight forward way." Ergo they didnt waste the rock one bit and utilized efficiency. I mean, it could have happened. For now though, lets utilize the archeological record and not bring up the melted looking stairway or this https://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/interesting_stuff/pyramids_in_concrete.html

Without also quoting the last paragraph "Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

 

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples." but please jump on this "The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks." Because it keeps the dialogue of needing them scans going. 

 

Dont fall for this cladking. Im having fun with the topic.

Well, even concrete would require copious amounts of water and it would be much easier to get the ingredients up the pyramid dry so some hydraulic means of lifting them or at least having water at the top would be highly advantageous.  All we need now is for Egyptology to do their job and gather evidence.  

[Antigonos]

5 hours ago, cladking said:

All we need now is for Egyptology to do their job and gather evidence.  

Still don’t know the difference between Egyptology and archaeology, I see. 

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

[cladking]

I don't think it really matters whether it's Egyptology, Egyptologists, Zahi Hawass, or some unnamed group of archaeologists controlled by Hawass who are the problem here.  The problem is no methodical or systematic science has been performed at Giza in decades.  Indeed, this appears to appertain to every pyramid site in Egypt.  Until there is data there is no means to solve these questions.  This study took very little data and made a mountain of it.  Imagine what they could do with a lot more data!!!   

It also doesn't matter whether Egyptologists are linguists or a specialized kind of archaeologist.  The fact is not even Egyptologists are allowed to see the results of the 2015 infrared study.  If you are kept in the dark than your expert opinion HAS NO MEANING and NO RELEVANCY.  

[cladking]

 

"Another complication involves the proposed lake, says Egyptologist Kamil Kuraszkiewicz: It’s not mentioned in any ancient Egyptian writings and may never have existed.

Also, Djoser’s pyramid stones — which weighed on average about 300 kilograms each — were considerably smaller and easier for workers to transport than those used for later pyramids, says Kuraszkiewicz, of the University of Warsaw. 'To build the hydraulic device [proposed in the new model], much more effort would be needed than to move the stone blocks using just manpower.'"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hydraulic-lift-egypts-first-pyramid

 

Here's another Egyptologist who believes small stones are easier to build with and easier to lift than large stones.  It's the same argument that is used to claim G1 was easier to build because the small stones at the top of the pyramids were easier to drag up ramps.  There is no evidence these stones are smaller except that one dimension is shorter but the simple fact is that when you drag one tiny stone to the top you are only making a tiny bit of pyramid.  If stones are a tenth the size then you have to drag ten stones as well as the sled and the crew that dragged them.  You can not solve the mystery by proposing pyramids used tiny stones because the smaller the stone the more work per square foot was required to quarry it and the more work per pound to haul it up.  These are semantical games just like proposing he pyramid isn't even quarried stone but rather just a shaped mountain.  

I have some doubt that the catchment area was of sufficient size to provide water for so inefficient means of lifting the stones myself but it was wetter in those days and it did rain in the spring.  But that Egyptology wants to ignore the actual physical evidence that is in plain sight today because there is no written record is risible.  There is also no attestation of the word "ramp" or words for "belief" and not even for "thought" yet they never noticed these.  Indeed the only writing that survives from the era is "Nefermaat is he who makes his gods in words that can not be erased".  From this they have constructed a 3000 year civilization that never changed.  

The simple fact is that if they had water at altitude then there exist highly efficient methods to build pyramids and this study shows they quite likely had water at altitude.  The fact is no Egyptologist has any evidence whatsoever that they did not have water at altitude or that little stones make bigger pyramids than big stones if you drag them up ramps.  Indeed, Egyptologists whether they are linguists or archaeologists aren't even privy to the facts any longer and have never seen the infrared data.  Their opinions are no better than anyone's and certainly no better than he authors of this study.