cladking

There were no "boats" so there was no "hydraulics". The devices were called "boats" and used by "boat operators" but there were no boats used to build any great pyramid. As an aside they probably used movable sails in the so-called boat pits to make short stone movements but there is physical ecvidence other than that it might be "apparent" they did so. If you're talking about the actual "boats" used to haul stone from the quarries then almost nothing whatsoever is known and I haven't even attempted to work on assembling the tiny bit known. I suspect based on the thinking of some new theorists that the stones were stored at a 5 degree angle so they could be pulled straight off onto a funicular path but thius is still speculative. Only a few types of boats are known from the great pyramid building age and, to my knowledge, none can be used to haul large stones. That they did it is unquestionable. By some means stones did cross the Nile for use on the pyramid and others came down the Nile from Aswan. It was widely assumed they traveled by boat until very recently a ship's captain's diary came to light that specifically stated he was loading at Turah and taking stone to Giza in the 24th year of "Khufu's" reign. There is simply nothing new here at all except that the stone was inspected at an island before its final destination! I suspect this was because the port was tiny and they wanted to avoid trouble with captains over unloading order and collisions. People have the mistaken notion that there is vast and deep information about the pyramids because Egyptologists are always going on and waxing poetic about "cultural context". The fact is there is no cultural context outside interpretation of almost no evidence at all. And they aren't willing to gather new evidence. I thought it might be implied by the previous post's statement that; "The ancient language can't be directly translated into any modern human language because they are based on different formatting which is incompatible." I don't want anyone to think I said I can translate something that can't be translated. How this different formatting can be reconciled with my contention I can understand it is relevant to this statement. I wouldn't necessarily "expect" any sand at all to appear. That it does strongly suggests they either needed it for some function or that it was a byproduct of a natural process. It certainly seems that most functions that can be served by sand can be served by just about any sand so why would they haul sand from a far away desert to their own desert? This isn't to say that it mustta come up with the water merely that the gravimetric scan suggests this sand might extend all the way to the entrance as would be predicted by my theory. My theory is far more extensive than I usually let on especially among scientists. This is because it is derived from what Egyptologists believe is a book of magic. The ancient language could be highly expressive and many words were virtually sentences. Some concepts would have been almost impossible to express at all and even simple concepts could talke several sentences. By the same token some sentences could express a great deal of information and paint whole pictures. They aparently called G1 "the sandbank of horrible face bringing water" and this isn't even the ancient language but a confusion of it. There are numerous clues in the PT about what chemicals are in the 1% impurities; Copper sulfate, calcium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium decahydrate, salt, sodium bicarbonate, copper hydroxide, siderite, "silicone" etc, etc... It should be a whole cocktail of chemicals that are implied or derived from what the builders actually said. I can't prove this because the tests won't get done. The reality is there but like "amun" it can't be seen. The Egyptians couldn't see it because it was hard to see, we can't see it because we refuse to look.

The primary tool I used to solve the ancient language was by identifying the scientific terms through context. This was difficult because their scientific knowledge was extensive and deep. It required many thousands, many tens of thousands, of google searchs and some direct help. The type of scientific knowledge they possessed was made by a very foreign metaphysics which also served to mask it as well as to provide very different knowledge from a different perspective.

I looked for commonalities between the great pyramids to arrive at my theory. I speak a lot about G1 (The Great Pyramid) and Djoser's Pyramid because the evidence is best preserved at these two sites. I also speak of the Meidum Pyramid a lot because the interior can be seen and the Bent Pyramid because casing is visible. I believe Egyptology has copyrighted the interior of G1 but I'll try to find a version of the horizontal passage. http://www.wlym.com/archive/pedagogicals/pyramid.html The horizontal passage (#13) is in line with and slightly higher than #1 the original entrance. I believe this was the first leg of the "winding watercourse" that encircled the pyramid and exited at the "wdn.t-offering" in the marsh of offerings by the "knsti-canal" which was the canal hidden in Petrie's 92 word sentence. This is a good drawing and probably accurately represents the reality. Many of these drawings are high;ly speculative and are not based on evidence. There is a little problem with the drawing not showing the entire hill and other nits to pick. It is most highly artificial. The bedrock was scraped down nearly flat with small depressions carved to accept and hold firmly the imported tura limestone which was the visible portion of this "pavement". The pavement even extended under the pyramid so was the firsrt thing built. In some caces this pavement probably preceded the pyramid itself by centuries. The "pavement" is the level from which the pyramid is measured but it also was the "horizon" to the builders. They called the "pavement", "Ssm.t" which meant something like "integral apron" or perhaps "integrated water catchment device". While every word in the language had a single meaning there were various words that applied to any object. Each concept had a scientific, colloquial, and vulgar term associated with it and the choice of terms pointed the listener to the meaning. This isn't the way any modern language works. In modern languages words have many meanings and the intended meaning becomes apparenrt through context. There used to be one language spoken everywhere and carried there by humans. Then the very basis of communication changed after the great pyramids were built masking our human past. The ancient language can't be directly translated into any modern human language because they are based on different formatting which is incompatible. Because the ancient books couldn't be translated they don't survive. The Greeks had a little limited understanding of the ancient books just as did the Egyptian priests but they couldn't be translated into our "confused" languages . It's this masking and formatting as well as the inability to communicate that is continuing to hide the reality. The reality is hidden from our perspective and this is complicated by the fact that fundamental beliefs and perspectives are shown to be simply belief and perspective.

People accuse me of "waffling" but I do mean everything I say so I never say anything that isn't part of what I mean. These sentences will be deconstructed by each reader to have almost no meaning so it seems I'm using a lot of words to say nothing. I'm merely trying to leave a trail of bread crumbs and I always imagine someone will decode my words and not deconstruct them. The first paragragh was inspired from this nonsense that says nothing and was the first that turned up on a search; "The Japanese team also believed that they detected what appeared to be a cavity beneath the floor of the horizontal passage about 1.5 meters below its surface. They believed this cavity might be as much as three meters deep and that it was probably filled with sand. The sand became an issue with many alternative thinkers. Many rumors about the sand surfaced, including that it was radioactive. This was not true, but when the Japanese team examined the sand and compared it to samples in the Giza and Saqqara area, they found that is differed considerably from that material. Apparently, the sand may have been brought in from some distance. The Japanese team also believed that they detected what appeared to be a cavity beneath the floor of the horizontal passage about 1.5 meters below its surface. They believed this cavity might be as much as three meters deep and that it was probably filled with sand. The sand became an issue with many alternative thinkers. Many rumors about the sand surfaced, including that it was radioactive. This was not true, but when the Japanese team examined the sand and compared it to samples in the Giza and Saqqara area, they found that is differed considerably from that material. Apparently, the sand may have been brought in from some distance. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xm0OCN-iDUoJ:www.touregypt.net/featurestories/secretchambers4.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us The only thing you need to know is that it is quartz sand between 1 and 100 microns in size of rounded and partially rounded grains. It is 99% pure and my theory even is capable of predicting the impurities and relative concentrations but such tests have not been done. None of this is mentioned in the article even though it is therelevant information. I believe the sand came out of the north wall about 8" above the bottom of the passage and 15' west of the "great step". It apparently was laid down episodically (as also predicted by my theory) since there was debris between strikings of sand. (Think of a pile composed of sand and debris alternately being thrown on it). Perhaps a little background here will help people understand why I often sound "snide" about Egyptologists. The Japanese research team that found this sand apparently released their results without permission from the lead Egyptologist and were banned from further research and the results are simply not discussed in polite company. It took me three years of research to get the little data I have and I still get little tidbits from time to time. This is the way you have to get all hard data about the pyramids; catch as catch can. The attitude is Petrie did plenty of science and we don't need to do any more. They simply don't allow science to get done and even the data that does exist tends to be hard to access. Part of this is natural because all the experts are Egyptologists and all Egyptologists believe in ramps. But it appears to go farther than this and especially since the mid-'80's. For years I thought that Egyptologists could prove me wrong and simply preferred to leave me hanging. Unfortunately my ideas do not seem very intuitive to anybody so all I really have is my debunkment of ramps from which they are still reeling. It may seem counterintuitive but I have a great deal of respect for almost every living ands deceased Egyptologist but I still believe they are all fundamentally wrong about everything they believe as it applies to the great pyramid builders. It's almost incredible they could learn so much while being so wrong. I can't imagine how they did it. But they are still wrong. The "pavement" surrounds and lies under the Great Pyramid. The bedrock was leveled and then tura limestone imported from across the river was laid down on this leveled bedrock to form a water tight enclosure. This enclosure was surrounded by a dam to form a water catchment device. Part of this pavement on the middle of the east side is composed of sawn and fitted basalt. You can see the basalt pad on the left just below the middle; I believe this was the site of the "Great Saw Palace". I suspect they used some basalt on the working pyramid top for sliding stones as well. Most stone movement was done by machine but some were too incidental to bother so they just pushed them. The sand came up out of the ground with the water and had to be shoveled out of the "winding watercourse" on top of the pyramid. This sand ended up in the walls of the horizontal passage which conveyed the water to the storage facilities; so called queens chamber. At Saqqara about 15 miles south there was so much sand that it had to be dumped all around. There was no known use for sand in pyramid building other than irt was likely used for polishing granite and sawing. This type of sand has not been shown to be used for this purpose and logically (intuitively) it would seem unrounded grains would be needed. It is impossible (highly couterintuitive) they'd have separated spent polishing sand and shoveled it onto debris piles in the walls of the passage. Hence they imported distant sand or it sprayed up with the water and had to be intermittently shoveled out. Other explanations are improbable based on actual evidence. Some of this sand may exist in the area but it is not the type of thing that gets reported. Quartz sand of this type does compose a small percentage of the surrounding desert but there's no apparent mechanism for it to become mixed. An approximate breakdown of the volume of the pyramid; Turah Limestone casing (99.95% missing) ~2% Voids between stones ~4% Voids as passages and chambers <<.5% Gypsum mortar 1 to 2% Granite visible << .5% Granite predicted by my theory <.5% Basalt <<.1% Natural bedrock which is part of the hill it's on 5% Limestone core stone from local quarry 85+% "Missing" top <<.5% It's really not known what's inside and there is a lot of nonsense written about this subject. Much of it doesn't even agree with what can be seen. One idea that Egyptologists have is that there is a pyramid shaped hill under it and it's largely composed of this hill. This is based on my theory which holds that it is a five step pyramid as described by the gravimetric scan and that the step tops were filled in as lightly as possible to avoid excessive weight on the 70 degree step sides.

It wasn't rainfall they were catching; it was "the inundation that tosses". The writers of the Pyramid Texts make it very clear that the "cool effervescent water" on the "uplands" "sprayed" "violently" into the sky. This water was apparently seasonal and was even mentioned by Horapollo who called himself the last Egyptian priest thousands of years later. There were probably about 1.25 million people living in the delta and nearby Egypt with a few more up by Luxor and some in various oases in the area. The economy was probably not nearly so primitive as is normally believed since the PT suggests extensive trade within thousands of miles. The only other significant source for information is the Palermo Stone which also suggests trade with modern day Lebanon. It's difficult to paint a picture of the economy which was primitive yet robust and it's outside the scope of this thread anyway. Suffice to say that marshalling an army to drag stones would have been impossible and outside the defining characteristics of the economy. Such an army would consume some 20% of the economy and taxes were fixed at 10% so far as is known. Pyramid building occurred during peak growing season when no crop could be in the ground due to "high Nile". It would have been foolhardy to expend such resources with no crop and no means of knowing if there'd be a crop failure. These crop failures were common because too high of floods or too low would cause disaster. It would be like buying a new car after you get laid off. Nile water was foul before the flood which came in early summer. There were also dangerous animals like crocs and hippos in the water not to mention schistosomiasis. After the onset of the flood the water would be better but would be warm and muddy. Many people had no choice but to drink this water but it's likely it was avoided. The water of the "inundation" was "like wine" and was "cool and refreshing". It was "effervescent" because it had "imperishable stars" (bubbles) in it. It created "sky arcs" (rainbows) when it sprayed out of the earth and was the "light scatterer of the sky". The water sprayed naturally in this region that the pyramids were built ("land of horus") but humans "buried themselves in the ground" and invented a tool "to bring the phenomena forth using long claws and sharp teeth" to turn these natural geysers into something much more "stable and enduring". This device to control the water was called a djed which means "stable in four dimensions". It was a pipe with a choke at the top which protected the well from backflow; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqPFlzwWAy4 You can see a djed in operation today. This is ancient high tech. This is the source of the "I3.t-wt.t" (CO2) that made the water effervescent and fell from "osiris" when he stood in the "mouth of caves". For most practical purposes all of Egypt is a desert with a river flowing through it. Almost all the people live down in the river valley even today. They called the land up above the valley "the horizon" because it's where the true sunrise and sunset could be seen. At the time the Great Pyramid was built the "desert" at Giza was a dry savana and supported some wildlife. A river likely flowed to the east just north of Giza. Whatever you call it Giza gets less than an inch of rain annually today. D'oh. Perhaps I wasn't clear about the sand. The nearest above ground source of this type of sand found in the walls of the horizontal passage is 150 miles to the NE in the Sanai Desert. It was eithwer imported for unknown use or was a byproduct of the "horrible face bringing sand" if my theory is correct.

I'm sure I understand your perspective/ position. The bottom line is very simple; there isn't much evidence at all to determine how these were made. It doesn't matter why there isn't in this instance, there just isn't. This lack of evidence applies to everyone and every perspective. It is my contention that even though the evidence is so shallow and low quality it still exists in a very wide range if you change your perspective. For instance from the orthodox perspective sand in the walls of the horizontal passage is just unrelated data. We don't need to know why it's there because it has nothing to do with ramps or any known religious practice. All religious practices are unknown. There is some speculation of why the builders would import sand to a desert but it'd hard to imagine hauling sand from 150 miles away and then up 71' into the Great Pyramid for any purpose at all when it is already a desert. Certainly it's possible that they used this sand for some important purpose so they imported it. Certainly the high density at the entrance to the north could be caused by something other than this same sand just as the pockets of density variations along the horizontal passage might also be independent of the quartz sand. We don't know and there aren't even hypotheses to address these questions for the main part. This is considered simple irrelevancy but this is interpretation of evidence. Just because orthodoxy believes this sand is irrelevant, it does not cease to exist except to those who have their minds made up. There is still sand in the walls and quite possible this sand extends all the way to the entrance. This condition is "predicted" or explained by my theory so it becomes evidence for my theory. It is a means to test my theory. I might add that this foreign sand also exists at Saqqara, the site of the first great pyramid. Later Egyptians even referred to (apparently G1) as "the sandbank of 740' by 740' of ugly face bringing water". This applies to all of the physical evidence I've cited. Orthodox theory simply interprets it as irrelevant but it is still as real as a 100,000 ton water collection device that still exists underneath the pyramid. That orthodoxy believes it's irrelevant is irrelevant. They call it the "sacred pavement" and believe it served an unknown religious function. While it is perfectly level and perfectly flat it undulates in width so any religious usage might be exceedingly complex. I believe the builders called it the "integral apron" and it served as the starting point for the stones and defined the "3b3w" (height of heaven) (81' 3"). The apron also defines the amount of lifting that could be done by the counterweights on the cliff face. People don't believe their eyes. They believe what they know. I searched a lot to get a picture of the pyramid sitting on the water catcher but this is a very hard picture to find on the net for some reason and my last one no longer works. I found a couple but this site wouldn't allow them. It is a fact though that the so-called flat pavement were built first because they couldn't build unless they first caught the water. These sites were about water and not tombs. This shows how they leveled the site and build the water catchment first. This is highly inconsistent with any ramping system whatsoever but it is required for using water;

I'll assume you're talking to me even though most of what I've posted so far is obvious evidence. How much more real can evidence be than 100,000 ton water collection devices that sit underneath the pyramid? That they sit underneath is proof they were built even before the pyramid. What can be better proof of the means to lift stones than a gravimetric scan that shows step tops from which men can work? It's all evidence. Just because I add a little speculation to make it easier for people to follow doesn't detract from the facts which seem to disclose the reality. I've got tons of supporting facts though they are open to interpretation. The alternative to all these facts fitting a pattern that I've identified is that there is no evidence for how they built the pyramids. All the evidence like the sand in the horizontal passage is simply dismissed as trivia by the paradigm. There's really little more to the paradigm regarding construction than "they must have used ramps". Meanwhile little FACTS like the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age are simply swept under the rug. The perfectly flat water tight and dammed volume around the base of the pyramid which could hold about 60 acre feet of water and is KNOWN to have held enough water to cause erosion in a canal ("knsti-canal) is simply ignored. How can such massive evidence be ignored and dismissed? It's not opinion this device held water and channeled it to the cliff face. It's not opinion that the builders buried people with titles like "Overseer of Canals", "Overseer of the Metal Shop", "Weigher/ Reckoner", And Overseer of the Boats of Neith". These are facts and it's also true they buried NO overseer of ramp builders. They buried no overseer of stone draggers. There were no such titles anywhere in Egypt and this is fact. Just like all the other facts like a stone growing below the pyramid from water percolating up from below. True, this last is interpreted to apply to the geology of the plateau just as the FACT that the water under the plateau is carbonated to this day. What there are no facts to support is the nonsensical idea that they must have used ramps. There are no facts to support the concept that the culture didn't change so that it must be legitimate to understand them in terms of later people and later ideas. There is no direct evidence that any great pyramid was a tomb. There is no logic in the assumption that the builders had no science and little more than stone age technology. This last is opinion only because language is a mess. People in the future will see it's obvious the human race didn't invent agriculture and cities using religion ansd magic. These are superstition and superstition can only destroy. It requires science to create and to create the technology with which to create. This was obvious to ancient people and they said such things in a language people today can't understand. That thissounds absurd is irrelevant to all the facts and logic but it does explain why it hadn't been discovered previously. Whether you accept the facts about writing and language and my interpretation or not the fact remains that all the evidence, facts, and logic support the concept of using water to build. The more important fact is that ramps are debunked. The pyramids exist and they weren't built with ramps so it's time to do the math. If the powers that be ran a few simple tests we'd have a positive answer to how they were built. We'd have proof of something instead of the mystical "they mustta used ramps". In the meantime my best guess is all the evidence really is relevant and they used waterfilled counterweights falling down the pyramid, the cliff face, and the causeway. But make no mistake; this is what the evidence, facts, and logic suggest. It is simply beside the point that this isn't yet proven.

They were called "boats" by the builders. Every word in the ancient language had a single meaning but words could be modified by appending another word to them. Machine parts were called "sceptres" but there were many kinds of machine parts and 27 different survive in the record. Neither the dndndr nor the 3nw boats had anything to do with water except the "3nw-boat" was a counterweight that was filled with water in order to lift the stones. This countrerweight was set on the side of the first step at the top where it was filled with water. When it bacame heavier that the sled full of stones (dndndr-boat and horuses) at the base of the pyramid the rope that connected these boats transferred enough force to lift the stones. These were mostly 20 ton loads and two primary systems operated almost all the time. If one was down for maintenance the other operated twice as fast. There were various other systems in place to keep these two primary lifters working all the time during working hours.

I've been distracted a lot so far by showing ramps weren't used. But the evidence for water is absolute; "From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement." A canal leading from the water catchment device surrounding the pyramid leads to the cliff face where a counterweight worked. There is a long run (ramp) straight down to the Sphinx Quarry to mark this position as well. Force, friction (static and kinetic)(.08 cu/ cu), vector of weight. It's pretty simple stuff for the main part. The definition of "ramp" is as ephemeral as the definition of all words. I say "there were no ramps" because anything less direct leaves everyone picturing men dragging stones up man made surfaces. There were surfaces for dragging stones but in every case they were dragged by machines like the "funiculars" that dragged stone on the 4.6 degree causeways. But people didn't drag stone uphill or down to build great pyramids. This romantic idea is deep in peoples' minds but it never happened. Both statements are correct. The pyramids are on top of hills so all canals lead downward from them. These canals transported water from the water catchment devices on which the pyramids were built. (with thanks to Karen H Taylor) Yes. About 97% of the mass of the pyramid is limestone quarried very nearby. Most of the rest was tura limestone imported from across the river. There are trace amounts of things like basalt that was apparently used to slide stones upon in the mason's shop on the east side. Some believe there was a little sandstone used internally and there is "foreign sand" (whispering sand) quartz sand of rounded and partyially rounded griains between 1 and 100 microns embedded in the walls of the horizontal passage and, I believe, this extends all the way through the pyramid to where the source of water existed on the north side 10' from the pyramid and 35' east of the N/ S centerline. I believe there were a few different types of derricks that were used but no trype was used tolift stone on the pyramid. It is Egyptologists who don't believe in any tool that doesn't survive in museums or tomb paintings. Are you referring to the "dndndr-boat"? This was merely a large sled that was hoisted by the counterweight on the opposite siude of the pyramid. It was composed primarily of cedar while the "3nw-boat" (counterweight) was made largely of "short pieces of wood" which composed what looked like the dorsal exoskeleton of a grasshopper and was also built on a large sled. This contrivance in its entirelt was known as the "Bull of Heaven" where heaven was 81' 3" or the height of the water pressure. ie- the first step of the five step pyramid. Here's the henu boat; This is an old concept from before I realized it was at 70 degrees. The pyramids all had to be built in steps because they needed the step tops to work and to relay stones up one step at a time; This is consistent with the gravimetric scan that shows 81' 3" steps;

Ironically I believe the primary impediment to peace has always been caused by a breakdown in communication. We believe we understand the translator and each other but we don't. Other people always have other perspectives and other ideas but we don't understand one another. Rather than trying to understand one another it's easier to send our young men to kill one another.

Like everyone I have a tendency to assume everyone knows what I do. Of course I've been studying all this in depth for eight years so I know a great deal more than most people. I misstook your request for such information. People should remember that Egyptologists don't care about hard facts related to pyramid building so this knowledge is all sketchy. There's also the fact that they believe it's important to gather all this information methodically and to not destroy anything relevant to their primary concerns which is to understand the people who built the pyramids. Between data being considered unimportant and the great care they take in excavation much of the plateau has not been studied to this time. The primary problem, in my opinion, is that they are looking in all the wrong places for ll the wrong things. While current research is scholarly and apt much of the previous work was primarily what I call "digging for ramps". Even today the focus is on things that are considered relevant so "ramps" are a primary focus despite the fact they are debunked and their efforts to rebunk have so far been utter failures. This is the reality. Ramps are debunked based on logic and physical evidence but the testing still isn't being done. Last year they commisioned a computer modeling study which "proved" ramps could have been used and this year there was a claim that the men lived on ramps and stones were dragged over wet sand. I actually have some sympathy for them but the evidence is still the same. There were apparently two primary quarries that supplied the vast majority (perhaps all) of the core stones in the pyramid. The primary quarry I call the "Main Quarry" (often not capitalized). It is horseshoe shaped and due south of the pyramid extending from a couple hundred feet south to a few hundred yards. The tips of the horseshoe point upward (like "ramps") to the two southern corners of the pyramid. The secondary quarry is the "Sphinx Quarry" from around and behind the Sphinx which is a couple hundred yards east of the main quarry. There is evidence of a long "ramp" which extended from here to the eastern cliff face counterweight about 75 yards east of the NE corner. This "ramp" leads to the causeway of the pyramid. Additionally two other quarries supplied a small percentage of stone. The larger was the Turah Quarry near what is downtown Cairo. These "tura" stones were shipped across the river apparently individually and they weighed an average of perhaps 10 tons. A very small percentage of the pyraimd's mass came from an unknown quarry that was almost certainly far upriver near Aswan or what the builders called the "first cataract". This was granite that came in very large pieces of 30 to 70 tons and were flattened and polished on five sides (some are likely all six sides). All the visible ones are lining passages and chambers inside but they compose well under .5% of the weight. I believe there are probably many more hidden inside the pyramid but the total weight is still insignificant. It is probable that all these tura and granite stones arrived at the so-called valley temple and were brought up the causeway. There is still no evidence that any stone was dragged by men at any great pyramid site and the word "ramp" isn't attested from the great pyramid building age. The fact I can't prove it isn't attested is meaningless to the reality that the word doesn't exist from that era. Since it doesn't exist no one can show it does. Almost nothing at all survives, least of all the word "ramp". Ramps are debunked. Unfortunately little evidence exists. It is my opinion based on the fact that the stones appear to be very close together (sometimes touching on all visible sides that the stones were mostly cut before being transported to the pyramid top. There is rubble and some gypsum between these LIMESTONE core blocks which was probably done to provide greater stability. If stone were to move in an earthquake the structure could be destroyed. The massive size (6.5 million tons) suggests to me they would never lift anything not needed and would use everything lifted. There's not nearly enough rubble to suggest they did a lot of shaping after the stones achieved their height. The culture referred to a "Great Saw Palace" which was operated by a "god". I believe this is mistaken for a "mortuary temple" on the east side. It's impossible to use canals to get stones to the pyramid site because the pyramid sites are all on hills. There is a theory (Steven Myers) that water locks were used but there are weaknesses in the theory which make me rather skeptical. It is better evidenced than "ramps" but not by a lot. According to Egyptologists this isn't true. I agree that the ancients were masters of all one part machines that could use primitive materials but Egyptologists discount anything that doesn't exist today in a museum or that isn't drawn in a perspective they understand in the Egyptian art. There's plenty of drawing of lifting stones with water all through the culture but it is interpretation. It's impossible to have built using the technique I propose and then draw it in terms an Egyptologist would recognize because of the difference in perspective, language, and thought between Egyptologists and ancient Egyptians. I don't know if this is possible or not. I tend to doubt it. But being possible or not is irrelevant because ramps are debunked because there is no evidence for ramps. Reality ALWAYS comes down to the facts. This is the nature of nature. It is what the ancients called "amun"; the hidden. The reality of nature is always hidden and it's only through logic they could come to understand it and it's only through experimentation that we can understand it. When we deviate from experimentation we are introducing concepts from language and language is confused. Just as they never used experimentation because it was a perversion of science we should never use logic or language from which it is derived because it is a perversion of science. It is our perversion blinding us to the reality. The words used to define "experimentation" are irrelevant so long as the experiment itself obeys the scientific rules and is appropriate to the conclusion and the hypothesis or theory. Actually this theory has always made more accurate predictions that "ramps". Each time a piece of information has come o light it has almost invariably supported water for construction, denied ramps, or {been wholly irrelevant to one, the other, or both}. There's a simple reason for this; my theory was built around the physical evidence which was quite easy for me to accomplish because I understood what the builders wrote and this directed me to the physical evidence. The order and type of evidence that has been found has also affected my theory so it's hardly surprising that the theory fits the facts and this goes a thouand times over if my "interpretation" of the only writing that survives is correct. But since the theory became essentially complete in 2007 all of the finds side with my theory or are irrelevant. The head of the SCA insisted there were no caves at Giza (the ancients called Giza "Rosteau" which translates as "Mouth of Caves") and then was led into one by the hand on international television in 2010. Just a couple years back there was a cistern discovered which has an inlet along a "creek" leading away from G2 (the middle pyramid). This inlet was much too small to be fill the cistern in a rain event because it has a tiny diameter and rains in the desert run off quickly. This is virtual proof of my theory by itself because the only alternative to fiulling this with running water is that the ancients preferred carrying warm muddy water from the distant river up a long incline. It's also been discovered that the builders village high above the river has been flooded. Canals and other water handling devices are being found at other pyramid sites including a massive "overflow" for the Saqqara enclosure that would have protected the walls from being overtopped. This overflow simply carries water from high inside the walls to the moat that surrounds it. I heartell a canal has been found on the east side of G2. There are a few other things which are largely dependent on interpretyation as wellas things I've probably forgotten. But all this is just in the last few years. Nothing at all has been found to support the concept of dragging stones up ramps and, in fact, nothing has ever been found that supports this concept. The presense of sloped walkways or paths for stone simply doesn't support the idea people dragged stones. This is interpretation. In light of the fact that none of these walkways point up onto a pyramid there is little basis for the interpretation beyond the belief that ancient people were highly incapable of coming up with an idea to use a simpler or more efficient method. ALL of the evidence supports the use of water.

This is the vbest reason to believe my theory and cast "ramps" on the trash heap of history where they belong; my theory makes accurate predictions and "ramps" do not. Nevermind that ramps are debunked because they fail the test of making predictions.

I have nothing against the "soft sciences". Even Egyptology has great deal of scholarship and expertise. "...is a field of study which attempts to generate and test archaeological hypotheses, usually by replicating or approximating the feasibility of ancient cultures performing various tasks or feats." "Experimentation" is by definition the isolation of variables in the lab for study. What this describes is NOT experimentation.

As I said though, the lack of evoidence for temporary devices can't prove that temporary devices existed. It is still my contention that almost all of the temporary devices used to build the great pyramids are still right on site. For instance the builders extended the cliff face out about 20' just north of the NE corner of G1. This was necessary to support the foundation for the western cliff face counterweight. This counterweight is nearly as well evidenced as the eastern cliff face counterweight. There is no reason any ramping system would have needed to extend the cliff face. This is why Egyptologists don't recognize it as evidence at all; it is immaterial to the ramps that must have been used to build the pyramids. Exactly. This is thinking like a scientist. There is scant information available about the quarry because it has never been properly studied or even sampled. My understanding is that it's reported to be mostly filled with debris and tafla (clay) mixed with other materials known to have been used for ramps. However the relative quantitiers of material are not established and never been studied. There is estimated to be in aggregate about the volume of G1 somewhere at Giza. Trying to extrapolate much of anything from such information is an impossibility. No matter what method was used to lift stones on these 10 pyramids at Giza a great deal of waste would have been generated. This site was used for a millineum for various purposes after the pyramids were built. There are a few finds in this area that I believe support my contention but it is largely conjecture beacause the evidence is thin. Some interesting finds have been made that seem to support orthodoxy as well but nothing determinative.

I'm not sure I should get into how the pyramids were really built in this thread for tactical reasons. But I do hate seeing it dismissed so readily. Stones weren't lifted one at a time but many at a time in about 20 ton loads. I have great information about the counterweight because it is described in great detail in the only writing that survives. Such a lifting device appears all through the culture and written record and still is the basis for ceremony in Egypt. It was called the "3nw-boat" or "henu boat" dependent on the translator. It was shaped like the dorsal exoskeleton of a grasshopper and was about 25' long and built on skis to distribute the weight. The "carapace" was a fixed part of this device at the top known as the "I33.t-sceptre" which was a tool to funnel the water into it. The Egyptians built far more assive boats than this and th only difference is the henu boat had the support structure on the inside instead of the outside. I never said it is impossible to see anything new. I said it is very difficult to see things outside our experience. How many gorillas did you count? I didn't support this for the exact reason I previosly stated in the thread it arose; It is common knowledge that can be googled. It was shown by a man in a gorilla suit anyway.

Perhaps you can provide an example of this? Most things people respond with are not even relevant to the point I made. I guess you really are a writer then. What kind of fiction do you write? It was only twelve minutes ago I cited dozens of facts to debunk ramps and you've had time to not only read it but digest it and talk irrelevancies. This is what all "crackpots" are up against.

We are defining "experiment" differently. When it comes to science I am a purists and I don't believe true science even exists outside of its metaphysics. This isn't to say that I don't believe ancient and modern sciences can't be hybridized to study broader spectra of reality merely that no such hybridization has occured to date so the rules are undefined. Nothing from before the current moment (or the current moment in which the lab exists) can be isolated as to its variables so no experiment can be made in an historical context. However there are plenty of scientific tests, scientific processes, scientific measurements and scientific observation that can be done and Egyptology won't allow it.

Thank you for the response. I provide fact after fact to support my contentions and usually support them logically and explain how they "tie together" into an interpretation. I can expand on any of it and have in many cases. But somehow people think that just repeating orthodox beliefs and how they came to believe it is a counterargument. It often seems like people are thinking they can refer me to the dictionary so I can put their argument together for them. ...Or are making the argument; many Egyptian words exist on the Rosetta Stone > Egyptologists understand the Rosetta Stone > there can be no error in our belief the ancient language is understandable despite the fact it's believed to be incantation. There's a great deal of illogic in the interpretation of the data and in our estimation of the ancients. These non-sequiturs are inconsistent with nature and the physical evidence. I'm not sure which question you consider inadequately addressed. There is a huge amount of data that supports my theory and I often say it ALL does but, of course, this isn't strictly true because what the king had for breakfast is normally irrelevant to how the pyramid was built. But my theory is certainly able to include far more of the physical evidence than orthodoxy which can't even fond the word ramp anywhere. 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 evidence they were built in steps is pervasive in the physical evidence and historical accounts. The builders referred to “battlements” in the Pyramid Texts and historical accounts say they were built in “mounds”. Herodotus says machines were moved from one step to another. 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. The word "ramp" simply isn't even attested until centuries after the great pyramids were all built. 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 600' by 900'. By today's standards this would accommodate only about 1000 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 jewel. This only increases occupancy to about 3500 men which is still grossly insufficient. With so many people in close contact disease would spread like wildfire. Since there were storage and production facilities 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. Maintaining 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; H. D. Bui 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 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 infrastructure/ 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. Ramps are not consistent with the fact that the great pyramids get progressively larger. Each of the great pyramid grows substantially with G1 having required 45 times as much lifting as Djoser’s Pyramid (the first great pyramid). There is no property of ramps that can be tweaked and improved upon until their efficiency increases 45 fold. To state it another way; it is apparent that whatever means used could be improved upon and this is not consistent with ramps. 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 stones were lifted from above making the vertical lines on the great pyramids and are simply sufficient to say ramps are debunked. 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 counterweight 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. Of course you can reinterpret every single point in this and claim that ramps were used but people not beholden to orthodoxy seem to consider this case virtually air tight. There simply is no evidence that ramps were used to lift stones on the great pyramids which is concurrent wirth the era in which they were built. They did not use ramps and the belief that ramps are the only thing they could have used is not evidence and it is insulting to the builders and to those who use logic. The question even more than how the pyramids were built is why won't Egyptologists allow real scientists to get in and gather the data that would answer the question.

I do not claim to be an expert in anything other than the literal meaning of the PT and how that meaning relates to the evidence. Egyptologists have extensive expertise in a range of different things related to the great pyramid builders. I believe all of their expertise is irrelevant to the points I make. The specific pot types made in 2400 BC simply don't matter to my arguments. The labels and other extensive knowledge of things unrelated to pyramid building and what the people believed is relevant to many things but is not relevant to pyramid building. Most people are highly misled by Egyptologists. Egyptologists continually intimate that they have a mountain of evidence for their conjectures but this simply is not true. Just keep remembering that the ord "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age and there is absolutely no direct evidence of any sort that the great pyramids were built as tombs. They believe the presense of "sarcophagi" and the absense of grave goods prove they were tombs but the former are just stone boxes (for which they refuse to do forensic examination) and the absense of evidence can't prove that evidence once existed. This is the point; there is no record before 2000 BC. There is no original fixed point because the first comprehensible writing doesn't appear until later Perhaps it would be a learning experience for me if you attacked the evidence or logic. A negative rep is just a new kind of irrelevancy to the argument. If something is "unscientific" then why not say in what way it's unscientific? No! Obviously the words can be read. I said the origin of the simplest symbols is unknown. The Rosetta Stone is irrelevant because the language was well known before any extensive writing from the great pyramid building age was discovered. People don't care about the evidence. Petrie HimSelf said that there were water eroded canals leading away from G1; This information was so surprising to him that he hid it in a 92 word sentence. But new researchers outside of Egyptology are finding evidence for water everywhere when they look at the great pyramids. I fear we just lost a very important one today to an early death. Apparently Chris Jordan has died. His primary interest started with the Cambodian artefacts and usage of solar power but like many others he found that this knowledge was widespread and applied to other places such as Egypt just as I've found weirs on top of the Acapana Pyramid in the new world and a water collection device at Machu Pichu. This is a simple concept that water was of critical importance to ancient people and the sun was available nearly everywhere. RIP, friend.

There are many types of optical illusions dependent on how you define the term. The only thing that applies to all of them is they fool the eye of at least some observers some of the time.

I should have said that there's no question to reasonable people. 397a. N. is the bull of heaven, who (once) suffered want and decided (lit. gave in his heart) to live on the being of every god, 397b. who ate their entrails (?) when it came (to pass) that their belly was full of magic 397c. from the Isle of Flame. 398a. N. is equipped, he who has incorporated his spirits. Translators by definition are people who try to put the sense of one language into another. This translator believes the author of this passage believes that a dead king lives on the essence of non-existent beings by eating their magic laden entrails. What part of the translator's belief doesn't include a superstitious person? Sorry, but no matter how you parse egyptological belief it can still be summed up as people used to believe in magic and gods but we're all better now, Now we use science to analyze ancient superstitions because we know so many things given to us by science. We may not know what a cartouche or even an ankh is but we have science so some day we will. They are wrong across the board and if they did just a little bit of simple science they would know they are wrong too. They continually make claims that lack evidential support and no one seems to mind in the least because everyone seems to know ancient people were highly superstitious, squished their toes in corpse drippings, and could only have built tombs by dragging them up ramps. When you know the answers evidence and logic are irrelevant.

It is apparent the cartouche is used to identify kings. I just happen to know that there are other theories that dispute even this but I do agree at this time the symbol identifies a king. The question is why did they use this symbol and how did it originate. The symbol means "unite" as a glyph so the king is a "uniter". You're in good company but there isn't a lot of evidence aliens did it. There's a famous guy with funny hair that seems to believe not saying aliens did it supports the idea that aliens did it. I don't watch the show but I heartell.

The fact that "falsework" is missing is mere interpretation and assumption. I believe almost all of this falsework is still there right before our eyes but Egyptologists believe it all had religious functions rather than construction functions. The causeway supported funiculared used to off load cargo. The huge bifurcated hole just east of G1 was an hydraulic leveling device called the "min". The "sacred pyramid enclosure" was the water catchment device. The "mortuary temple" was the "Great Saw Palace". It goes on and on but the infrastructure to build sits right before our eyes and there were no superstitious bumpkins. It's impossible to build a pyramid with superstition and magic. What we believe is evidence of superstition is actually a science that became too complex for words; literally. What we believe are religious artefacts are the means the ancient science devised to build. In the future this will be obvious to everyone. But it will require study, proof, and a new perspective.

There are four basic and erroneous assumptions made by Egyptologists as it concerns the great pyramid builders; that they were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never chnged. There are numerous other assumptions as well but so far as I know they are either correct nor irrelevant to this discussion. That these assumptions exist is beyond question. They translate the entire culture as being about magic and gods. This is superstition by defintion. Egyptologists don't use the words "superstitious bumpkins" but it doesn't change the fact that they are being described mgic believing gods fearing misanthropes whose only known means to lift a tomb is dragging it up ramp. Here is the most dramatic example of calling them stinky footed bumpkins; 722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through, 722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris. p. 140 723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star). Here they interpret this passage to tell a "god" not to walk through corpse drippings unless he tiptoes through it! This is in effect the Egyptological belief about these people. Elsewhere it says the corpse dripping drippings smell good. Rather thn question their beliefs about the meaning of these seemingly enigmatic words that just try to wrap their heads around a belief that these were noble people whose gods squished their toes in rotten meat. If the Egyptological interpretations are correct then these people were exceedingly superstitious. Their superstitions were so complex that 150 years of intensive study by Egyptologists has failed to even idenify any specific superstitions. Every concept as Egyptologists understand them is contradicted by the same people who wrote the words that mention any superstition. No one has a problem with this so it seems apparent they must not understand my words. These concepts must lie outside of peoples' comprehension. I have tried the tactic of showing pictures before but this will be the first time on a science site. Egyptologists have to believe in the changlessness of the great pyramid builders because nothing of the culture is comprehensible except thin slices of data that positively says ramps couldn't have been used. From these thin slices that contradict their beliefs and extrensive incomprehensible gobbledty gook (the PT) they have concluded that the pyramids were tombs. Nevermind that the PT specifically state the pyramids were not tombs and tht the kings were cremated. Later Egyptians had perfectly comprehensible beliefs which were superstitious so later beliefs are projected back onto the builders. This is done in myriad ways but the most common is to simply assign the same word meanings to ancient writing that were used in much later times. If Rennenutet was an imaginary conscious entity who controlled the ability of people to breath and recover from illness in 1500 BC then "she" must be the same "renennutet" who existed in the PT even though there is no reason of any sort to believe this. Common concepts fropm later eras are always contradicted somewhere in the PT and no one sees that the PT does have a coherent meaning. Much of this is beside the point that Egyptologists are describing people who believed magic actually worked and imaginary forces and consciousness were effective in the real world!!! ...That reality was bent by the will of many gods and all manner of magic so complex that 27 different magic wands were needed and we canb't deduce the function or origin of any of them!!!!!!!!! Ancient people are being described as sun addled bumpkins and you can use any terminology you wish but this is the fact. They had no science and used trial and error in a framework of magic and superstition. This is illogical but people speaking modern lnguage can't see it from our perspective. The word "ramp" simply isn't attested fro m the great pyramid building age because the word was so inconsequential it was never written down anywhere that it survived. This is the simple fact. The fact that later Egyptians are known to have the word is irrelevant to this argument. No, it didn't. It's not that there aren't facts that can't be construed as evidence for ramps but the fact of the matter is there is no evidence that any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using ramps. You can't find evidence to contradict this because there is none. If you read the articles suggesting ramps carefully they always say that the builders must have used ramps. They always say that the configuration is unknown and sometimes admit ramps are insufficient to the evidence but the evidence for ramps is that these Godless pagans with no science and nothing but a king who was god had no other means than to use ramps. This is DISPROVEN. They had other means and these are in evidence at "every" great pyramid. ALL of the evidence points to water as the means to build. Just ignore the evidence provided and list irrelevancies. Why no comment on the pictures that show how it was built? This is extensive evidence and data and you simply choose not to see it and maintain "it mustta been ramps". This is the literal meaning of your word here and the implications. There is even better evidence that they used water but here you are stuck on "they mustta used ramps". This means you can't possibly see anything that doesn't involve ramps. If you look at this picture you can see the excavation done on the west and north side of G2.

There's a big difference between translators being able to "circumscribe" the meaning of the language and understanding it. I couldn't understand it if they hadn't already done all the work. There's a big difference between reading the heiroglyphs and knowing what the symbols mean. For instance I've identified the origin and meaning of several heiroglyphs based on knowledge of what the builders actually meant. Some of these it's surprising that Egyptologists didn't deduce them since there was ample evidence even without understanding. For instance the "cartouche" in which the king's name was written originated with a device that was used to attach stones together which was a type of belaying loop. But their ignorance hardly stops with many of the "letters" of the language but extends to every single one of the 27 different sceptres that exist in the literature (mostly Pyramid Texts). I can identify the origin and function of most of them and they know neither the origin nor function of all of them. This situation exists because they don't understand the ancient language. They circumscribe the meaning but don't recognize that it is formatted differently so everything lies outside of their experience. The ancient language breaks down if you try to analyze it because it is a metaphysical language. I'd best get back to facts and pictures since any discussion of the PT lies outside everyone's experience. For the reasons mentioned!!! The "ramps" point at the bottom of the pyramid. Also because they removed "ramps" (natural ground) even before construction began. I can't post a picture of it right now but the entire north and west sides of the second pyramid at Giza was extensively excavated far below bedrock even before the first stone went in. This was necessary because water had to be able to flow all around the pyramid before they could lift the first stone. That water flowed around it is established throughout the physical record but let's save this.