cladking

There's a great deal we don't know about these structures and how they were built. There hasn't even been infrared imaging done on them yet. Even if we had run all the scientific tests and measurements possible a great deal of material has been removed from the Great Pyramid over the millinea. It is within the realm of possibility that it could have acted as a sort of leyden jar collecting a charge from the atmosphere or collecting lightning. Some people have suggested that it could draw it from the earth etc. Utterance #261 (PT) appears to speak of nerve impulses, lightning,and conductance all in a brief paragraph that is merely a ritual. Since they performed brain surgery we have to believe that they knew there was something moving in a conductor. This isn't enough information to make a conclusion in the absence of better evidence which is lacking. Remember though that anything of value would have been stripped out as soon as it wasn't needed any longer and anything else would be removed by treasure seekers, looters, tourists, and those trying to understand the nature of the pyramid. These structures are in ruins on the most heavily disturbed site on the planet and this disturbance continues today. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

I'm not supporting this theory so much as just trying to point out that it's not impossible with the level of knowledge they could have had. It wouldn't be neccesary to produce or store electricity if they could convert natural electricity to hydogen and then store it in the numerous caverns, caves and man made tunnels in the region.

No, this would be known. There just isn't enough contamination (other than natural contamination) to have any significant effect. Most of this melting ice some people are so fearful of is ancient ice anyway and wouldn't be contaminated by man. It's quite possible a lot of ice is being coated with soot and other colored particulate matter which absorbs heat and speeds melting but this also would be known and the effects of dimished reflectivity of heat to space caused by this would be known. The bottom line is this is all far more complicated than any human can comprehend so it's all modeled by computers and the computers have been wrong for a decade now. Computer modeling barely even works for things that are simple and most variables are known such as traffic management. To expect it to work for long range weather prediction smacks more of political correctness than science. We are performing an experiment on the planet and we won't really know the answers even when all the facts are in. Maybe we'll have a warmer planet or maybe an ice age but whatever happens we won't likely understand why. My money's on ice age, frankly (if there's any effect at all).

Indeed. Each of these pyramids is also associated with cenotes (water source) adjacent to it or other water collection devices. The Acapana Pyramid even has water tanks and weirs at the top. There's no real doubt that the Egyptian pyramids had water by some means since there is evidence for water everywhere and they sit on top of glass smooth water collection system that could only have been buit using water for level and for the purpose of collecting and channeling water. The first great pyramid is surrounded by a moat that could be filled by an overflow within the water collection device that was just below the height of the dam that surrounded it. The workmen's village that was used to build The Great Pyramid had a water system despite the fact it was above the highest level of high Nile. I like that word "hydroarchaeology". It's very likely most of the megalithic sites are intimately and fundamentally related to water, its control, and used its weight for construction. I don't know how this has been missed. Actually I could put together quite of bit of evidence for this. There are historical accounts that some pyramids were topped in metal and there are "electrodes" hanging into the air shafts in the so called queens chamber. Behind two of these electrodes there is nothing but a small vacant region so it's something of a stretch to believe this was their function. The Egyptians were masters of drilling using copper tubes so a cunductor could exist within the stone from which the copper protrudes. Vistors have reported a static charge frequently exists atop the Great Pyramid. The Pyramid Texts has a few lines about electricity and one of these could easily be interpreted to suggest that lightning actually flowed through the dead king or the pyramid. I believe there are better fit hypotheses than that the pyramid was used to produce or store electricity but it would certainly be handy for cracking water for fuel and light if it could.

ROFL. Well he did find 10,000 things that didn't work (ya' couldda just asped him). That the pyramids were built as tombs is one of the best supported of the Egyptological assumptions but it has far less support than most people realize. There is no direct evidence of any sort that they were tombs. The Pyramid Texts consistently, repeatedly, and coherently say they were not tombs. It always comes down to the fact we can't comprehend the language so Egyptology dismisses the literal meaning implied in it. The best evidence they were tombs is the presence of a stone box in it which Egyptologists call a "sarcophagus". This box is larger than any entrance so had to have been sealed in as the pyramid was built. When it was apparently first opened inthe 12th century there was no "reported" body in it. Indeed, this seems typical for "sarcophogi" in pyramids (not mastabas). None of these have been found intact though sample size is very very small (three I believe). Most possible functions of these have been totally overlooked despite the fact that they did have some functions whether they were intended or not. For instance there was a covered "walkway" from the pyramid to the "valley temple" that could have transported significant amounts of cold air as air conditioning. These are eight sided structures since each side is actually slightly indented. This caused the pyramid to "eat its own shadow" (or flash) at sunset on the equinoxes. They are lined up with their south east corners to point at the setting sun on the winter solstice ("the way of twilight mounts up"). There appears to have been some sort of machine which operated in the "grand gallery" though this is much iffier. Jean Paul Houdin proposes a counterweight though I'm skeptical. This area is air tight so whatever was going on probably required this. I'd guess the pyramids were at least gnomens among other things and that they served to tell time in the river valley. There is extensive evidence that there was water on the plateau and that this water was integral to the construction and/ or operation of the pyramids. Until scientific enquiry is renewed on these sites after a more than quarter century of searching for gold and ramps, there is very little likelyhood of positively answering questions.

This gets into philosophy but I very much agree that to most individuals technology is virtually a god and science is religion. You can attach the word "science" to almost anything and the general public will accept it as established fact. We need to teach a lot more metaphysics and history of science in school.

I think there might be a lot more to being in tune with nature than our perception of its being just shorthand for "primitive". Modern people are so removed from nature that many don't even think of themselves as animals at all. We tend to think of ourselves more as "stewards of nature" than a part of it. The Egyptians, on the other hand, were animals and I believe they thought as animals. More importantly though is that I believe technology is almost solely a natural by-product of experimental science. We learn to isolate variables in the lab and simply extrapolate this to the real world as machines. I believe there was an observational science that was used by the Egyptians and they knew quite a bit about electricity. They simply couldn't extrapolate their knowledge very readily into technology because things like dynamos and steam engines don't exist in "nature". It's ironic that we think of things as "man made" rather than "natural". It's not my contention that any pyramid was designed as an ocillator or any sort of machine per se. However, until more is known it might not be a good idea to write off too much and it's never a good idea to misunderstand your ancestors. I don't so much disagree with your points as I just see them all from a wholly different perspective and from where I stand They could have had the knowledge even if they lacked the ability to handle steam. Many people might be interested to know that the pyramid was originally air tight in the chambers between 70' and 140' (+). This would have made it "steam tight" as well. Some believe the word "pyramid" came from the Greek and means "fire within". Again though, I believe it's improbable that this was the function of G1. It's more likely that the word "pyramid" came from the Egyptian "mr" meaning "instrument of ascension" and that they built themselves. Unfortunately no science has been employed in this study since 1986. Everyone is out of date.

It appears that either the ancient sources are untranslatable or they wrote things that don't make sense. The only things from before 2000 BC that make sense are lists (one word sentences). No papyrus survives and the writing that exists is chiseled in stone. There is no "cultural context" that would apply to questions like "what did they know?".

Consciousness and will must be considered as axioms. The alternative for the human race is extinction. Consciousness and free will are also experienced and become visceral knowledge.

I don't agree with Mr Chomsky on several particulars but do tend to agree with his conclusion(s). It's great to see him looking so healthy especially since until recently I had thought he died back in the 1960's. I strongly disagree with your extrapolation of the point, or perhaps, primarily with the definitions. Yes, new ideas in "science" in most cases need to be brought to the attention of scientists. Even if the new idea changes the axioms or definitions they are best analyzed by scientists rather than people in chat rooms. But, much of what we call "science" now days has very little rlationship to empirical data or experimentation. It has little to do with the scientific method and is more a construct based on assumption as viewed (ideally) through a scientific perspective. Certainly almost all archaeology concerning times from before 2000 BC falls under these parameters. There is a virtual vacuum of evidence so things that are known from later times are projected back to fill the void. There are endless assumptions that since later people were superstitious than the more ancient ones were as well. This applies to a greater or lesser extent to ALL of the "soft" sciences. They are necessarily founded on beliefs and assumptions and if any of these are challenged then the current practitioners are not even capable of rendering an opinion. An expert simply can't competently render an opinion on an idea outside of his axioms and assumptions. Strange ideas are forever cropping up in these quasi-scientific areanas and can last almost indefinitely with much of the reason being that outsiders don't realize how much is based on opinion and assumption. Experts are no idiots and have reasons for what they believe and most can "talk a good game". They can cite endless books of endless opinion to support their own opinion but they are still opinions based on a construct. You can't even get a new idea in front of them for peer review because it will be tossed out as nonsense. If your mind is made up then new evidence and new ideas are simply confusing. In my case I've contacted numerous real scientists for opinions on various subjects by eMail and by posts in forums. All of them have been answered with the lone exception of a question on a seldom used message board. It was a highly esoteric question and was probably seen by fewer than a dozen people. No Egyptologist has ever responded to one of my eMails and few of my posts are answered unless the responder believes the answer is detrimental to my theory. Actually, I believe some of the most important things to human beings are really questions that must be addressed by the soft "sciences" and that message boards and the internet might be the ONLY way to get them considered. I believe we don't even understand the nature of humanity and that this is much of the confusion. It's why people think planes can't take off from a moving surface or things fall faster than 32' /s/s. I might also point out that a significant amount of the real scientific opinion that has been given to me has been utter rubbish. They frequently contain factual errors that a student would note. This is the real scientists mind you. I don't want to be specific because I greatly value scientists who answer eMail even when they make errors. Everyone's a specialist and if you ask a question that doesn't fall squarely within the specialty there will be errors oftimes. Even when they fall within the specialty if it's a seldom studied phenomenon or only indirectly related to their current work it might be misunderstood or unknown. Most people are so wrapped up in their own expertise (which can be considerable) that they just don't notice. I can only imagine how much worse it is in the "sortta sciences" (and they won't even respond).

I'm sure we all know people whose greatest insights are along the line of remembering to breathe or which way to turn the steering wheel to go left. But even these people can come up with a pearl on rare occasion. It seems almost everyone has at least some minor competence in some area. Correct. There is some correlation of people with high status, great wealth or "intelligence" with arrogance but this doesn't mean that any of these cause arrogance. A priest might be holier than thou and a pauper wealthier than his neighbors but arrogance is always an attitude and way of dealing with other people. It isn't ever justified. One can be rich and evil or powerful and even stupider than average. Arrogance is simply a personality defect that almost all individuals are nearly equally "justified" in adopting. Few people have difficulty grasping my meaning. There is a problem with all communication because everyone deconstructs what he hears. Each person always takes away a different meaning than the intended one. The primary problem people have with what I say is they don't take it literally. Few people express themselves literally especially among those who use a lot of tautologies and absolute statements. I never "dumb it down" but do use more complicated phraseology on a science site than a bar. I didn't mean to imply such a thing (I don't intend to imply anything most of the time). "Intelligence" is exceedingly complicated and is composed of hundreds or thousands of attributes which each are interconnected. How can there be more than one norm? Every human is an individual animal and none can be any more "chosen" than a beaver or a termite. Our circumstances vary but not our nature. A genius can plow into another car while an idiot can come up with some improvement on some machine. The rich can be wiped out and the powerful fall from grace. Even a fool can win the lottery. I seriously doubt I'm truly relevant in a thread about genius or arrogance. The confusion individually and collectively is mostly language.

Einstein was most assuredly not arrogant. There's very little in this thread with which I agree. People are really stupid (at least in comparison to the typical self assesssment). All people have moments of great clarity and insight. We all have the ability to learn a great number of facts and hold them though accessing them tends to be far more difficult. Some individuals can string together lots of moments of clarity and can do it very quickly much of the time but this doesn't change their nature, they merely are called "geniuses". What we mistake for intelligence is mostly the ease of language use and learning. It is language, the very basis of most thought, which confuses us into believing we are intelligent. It is technology, the result of language, which we use as confirmation of our intelligence. It is the lack of a language we can comprehend that lead us to believe animals not only aren't intelligent but aren't even conscious. Arrogance has nothing to do with intelligence, strenght, wealth or any human attribute but is based on the belief that the individual self is better or more important than others. It is the belief that an individual is more important than other others individually and collectively. It is the belief that our needs and concerns must be kowtowed to regardless of other peoples' needs. It is very rarely based on any legitimate measure but is a personality defect. It is never appropriate.

True, except this doesn't work in all individuals. It's not my contention that the consciousness we experience is distinct from the rest of the body but quite the contrary; the mind and consciousness is the entire body. the relationship of this consciousness to the other consciousnesses in the body and the neurons of which they are primarily composed is exceedingly complex because of the interplay between all these parts and consciousnesses. Just because we aren't aware of a ganglion doesn't mean it isn't a part of our consciousness or that it lacks its own. Where we aren't conscious of such things there might still be a two way flow of information through the medula which can allow the mirror trick to work.Perhaps it works only if the sufferer can belief he's seeing the missing limb. The ganglia might respond by shutting down pain signals. The nervous systems are quite complex and not well understood. It's possible too that there is some other trigger. Pain perception is very poorly understood.

It is impressive and I share your desire to see more. It's patently obvious people misunderstand consciousness. Here we are all sharing almost exactly the same premises as everyone else but we can't agree on much of anything. No one seems able to comprehend that there are multiple modes of consciousness possible for people or that we are a product of our time and place. The deep divisions in beliefs despite the sharing of premises seems natural to us just as genocide seems natural if all our friends and neighbors are doing it (or victims of it). I once had opportunity to try to learn to do the impossible. There was a ledge deep inside a wooden structure that was about 2/3rds the width of wider lenght of a nine volt battery. My objective was to toss a battery up onto this ledge so that it would stay. It required many dozens of attempts to merely determine the best theory for accomplishing the feat. it had to reverse its spin after the first collision and then hit the ledge nearly flat and bounce off the back wall to stick. Several thousand attempts resulted in a few near misses but no successes. "I" finally got it about the 4000th attempt. Each success came closer and closer until I actually got three out of four attempts to stay and lost interest. Most people attribute this to "muscle memory" but this is nonsense. My learning stopped when I figured out how to do it very early on. The fact is each successful attempt was not identical. My position and the initial position of the hand and arm varied somewhat. "Muscle memory" could not account for this apparently learned behavior. Just as an amputee who suffers the worst possible pain "in" his missing limb is not remembering old pain. It's far more likely that the ganglia in the human body are each conscious and each capable of learning. A dinosaur is believed to have had a brain in its tail as well and this is a similar situation. The medula simply screens out all these consciousnesses to prevent us from being overwhelmed with "trivia". Your leg is very self aware and is also aware of your thoughts. Primarily it only sees the thoughts related to plans that affect it. If you think "I'm hungry" your ganglia are very unlikely to be privy to it but when you think "I'll stand and walk to the food" they are listening and preparing. We think in words primarily but we also think in "pictures" a little when it concerns activities. Some activities are also instinctive which probably means that ganglia are acting on their own in anticipation of signals. There are various disease processes that can make one more in tune with these consciuousnesses and it might be possible to do it through will or to simply be brought up aware of them. How anyone can look at nature and believe only humans are conscious eludes me. How anyone can not know anything that will happen next week and believe humans are omniscient is beyond me. How can anyone read a 120 year old encyclopedia and believe humans are even intelligent? We are all stumbling blindly into the future with the beliefs that we athletes with 20 : 20 vision.

"Genius" is greatly overrated. Intelligence itself is overrated. Arrogance is always misplaced because anyone can show sparks of genius, knowledge, or greatness. Most people who are arrogant are just putting on airs and putting off people.

Thanks for your time. It is very appreciated. The links you provide seem to deny the likelyhood of nummulites being consistently oriented in any specific way other than in bedding planes. I was presuming that most of these died in deep water and settled to the bottom in their most aerodynamic orientation; dorsal side down. Apparently this is not normally the case and these are transported to shallower water before assuming their final orientation. Following the links did lead me to another clue and I'll add anything here if it pans out.

As an exercise in making sense of the question let me say you are mixing several different "realities". There is the reality we are taught of our place and time which is the best understanding of educated people in that place and time. This reality is probably rather capricious and erroneous in most places and at most times. This is usually the basis for most individuals' understanding to the degree they can learn and accept it. There is each individual's reality which is the sum total of his experience and learning. There is an overriding reality that is unknowable and (at least in theory) we're all trying to make sense of it. One of the things in many peoples' reality today is that this overriding reality is not only knowable but mechanistic and known. I believe this is just superstition though. One doesn't have to accept any reality exists. It's entirely within the realm of reason that we are dreams, computer programs, or some strange hiccough but pursuing the understanding of such realities has always led only to failure and in the more distant past most such theorists would end up as dinner for a sabre-toothed tiger. There are countless possibilities that reality isn't as we percieve it but I would stay far away from all odf them unless you have some means of cracking them or some solid evidence to lead to the search for more. That way lay monsters. ...And some really first rate science fiction. It seems to me that nature is sufficiently enigmatic and humans perverse to keep one busy studying the reality that is apparent forever.

At the risk of belaboring a point, here is something I just found written by E A Wallis Budge in 1911 in an introduction to one of his translations; "The Egyptian texts, whether the originals be written in hieroglyphic or hieratic characters, are here printed in hieroglyphic type, and are arranged with English translations, page for page. They are printed as they are written in the original documents, i.e., the words are not divided. The beginner will find the practice of dividing the words for himself most useful in acquiring facility of reading and understanding the language. The translations are as literal as can reasonably be expected, and, as a whole, I believe that they mean what the original writers intended to say. In the case of passages where the text is corrupt, and readings are mixed, or where very rare words occur, or where words are omitted, the renderings given claim to be nothing more than suggestions as to their meanings. It must be remembered that the exact meanings of many Egyptian words have still to be p. vii ascertained, and that the ancient Egyptian scribes were as much puzzled as we are by some of the texts which they copied, and that owing to carelessness, ignorance, or weariness, or all three, they made blunders which the modern student is unable to correct." I believe that he's translating material that was translated by older translators after 2000 BC. If the original source material were still available it would be just as incomprehensible and enigmatic as the Pyramid Texts which is essentially the only surviving writing from before 2000 BC (with the previously mentioned exceptions). The ancient translators simply would have made the same errors as we do today. This material is basically understandable in terms of a literal understanding. For instance they describe the cow that channeled the celestial waters from the perspective of the pyramid top. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/index.htm Egyptologists write entire books about their interpretations of the PT so comparing their various ideas is extremely difficult. Suffice to say even the translation of the PT has evolved so much in the last sixty years that it's literally unrecognizable in many areas. That is English translations from today don't even appear to translate the same thing as English translations from 1952. There just isn't a lot of agreement on much of anything and the general understanding of the "religion" continues to evolve. Budge, himself, who was once considered among the best Egyptologists is now excommunicated and never cited. This has happened to a lesser degree to other great Egyptologists. All of the historians are discounted.

I'm guessing that nummulites usually fossilize dorsal side down. Is this correct? I've found a line in the PT that suggests the stones in the great pyramids were usually inverted so am seeking to falsify the concept. I've been looking at this for some time as it seems likely that the concepts have been with us a very long time and might even be the origin of "heads" and "tails" for coins. Greek boys used to tar one side of these fossils to play games with them. They make up a significant percentage of the weight of G1.

I try to as great a degree as possible to stick to the actual facts and the direct implications of these facts. Any discussion of why these were built starts getting away from facts and toward speculation. This was the only site of fresh clean water near the population centers. Indeed, the population centers may have been produced by the water sources. Memphis (Saqara) was the capital back in the great pyramid building age and is the site of the first great pyramid. The PT suggests that there were many uses for the water from the site but lists only laundries, growing herbs, and building the pyramid. The first parts of construction was always a glass smooth and perfectly flat water collection device and a canal (causeway) down to the low lands (probably flooded at high nile). This water was likely used for all sorts of food processing and beer making in the so-called valley temple. The problem is that people aren't looking at this through the eyes of the builders. Most people see it through the kaliedascope called "egyptology". They imagine that the ancients were so primitive and superstitious that they could only build it through dragging stones up ramps. Nevermind that ramps are debunked. Nevermind that the word "ramp" isn't even attested until more than a century after the pyramids were built. They imagine that the effort required would only be expended if they were superstitious and believed the dead king could only ascend to heaven if they endangered their lives and threw away much of the prodiuctive capacity of a nation. Today we waste on such a massive scale so imagining the ancients wasting so much is easy. This is all wrong. There was little work building these beyond the quarrying. The pyramid built itself just as the primeval mound did. There would have been numerous observations that could be made only with a tall structure. Many of these would involve barometric pressure which would be useful in the determination of the atmosphere thickness and size of the earth. They would have felt their ears pop going up and sought explanations. It's also a virtual certainty that these things were used as clocks and even calenders. The ancients were keen observers and skilled at math which allowed them to invent time measurement by stellar observation. Not only is G1 oriented perfectly north and south but it has inleaning sides which causes the shadow of the setting sun to flash on the equinoxes. The shadows of the SE corners line up on the winter solstice. They no doubt had various gnomens (obelisks) spread around to tell the time of day and time of year. This is mentioned indirectly in the PT and the CT but both instances are somewhat fragmentary so I can't be absolutely certain of the meaning. 1679a. ------------------------------------- 1679b. ---------------- he rests alive in the West (or, he is satisfied in living in the West), 1679c. among the Followers of Rē‘, who make the way of twilight mount up. This is exactly the way they would describe the shadows lining up if they were speaking of this. These structures and the engineering required to build them are simply wondrous but to dismiss them as the products of barefoot bumpkins does them and us a tremendous dissservice. We deserve answers to basic questions. The builders stated in almost no uncertain terms that these structures were the steps by which the king ascended to heaven. They said that the king became the pyramid after he ascended. They said the king's mummy was burned on the incompleted pyramid and ascended as the smoke. The king was responsible for everything in life and in death he became all those things from justice (ma'at), to the pyramid (instrument of ascension), to the means by which he ascended (Seker, Atum, Osiris). Egyptologists find it very easy to sit in comfortable chairs and condemn ignorant savages to a lifetime of building ramps and dragging stones up them. This belief colors out perception so we don't see the facts like the gravimetric scan or lack of any evidence for ramps. We imagine that it must have been easy to drag about stones since that's how they mustta done it. In the real world, building the pyramids was "easy" but it was easy only because they did not use ramps. There's probably more math "encoded" in the pyramid. I personally haven't really looked for it because the easiest thing to solve is how it was built and Egyptology won't even seek to falsify ANY theory on this subject. Once some real data starts flowing in it should be fairly easy for people to make the other connections.

Most people don't realize just how thin the evidence is or how much of it has to be ignored to make the current paradigm seem reasonable. Many of the arguments against the paradigm are poorly made or based on nearly no evidence at all so there is a knee-jerk reaction to merely deal with any idea that doesn't fit the assumptions. One of the more dramatic pieces of evidence is that each of the great pyramids was built on top of a flat area surrounded by a dam which was waterproof. This is called a "religious device" by Egyptologists who claim it was necessary to religious expression. It appears to have been called "Ssmt.t" by the builders and is erroneously translated as "sacred apron". This concept doesn't apply to the device surrounding the pyramids and built even before the pyramid but is something else in Egyptology. At least one theory is that the sacred apron was worn by the gods. But the facts tell a different story. Not only is this "apron" necessary and "integral" to the operation of the pyramid and the ability to build it but there is physical evidence that it was actually used. "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." http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c6.html This is the kind of thing you have to deal with when studying these structures. ]http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4118/65616424.80/0_8e7fb_27e063ee_XXL.jpeg

Building great pyramids was simplicity itself. Of course they invented this process and improved on it over a 750 year period from about 3500 BC to 2750 BC. By the time the last great pyramids were built many bells and whistles had been invented to increase their efficiency and lifting capabilities. The basic concept was completed by Imhotep in the construction of the so-called "Djoser's Pyramid". Essentially they simply caught water spraying up from a geyser near the top of its trajectory and channeled it onto the pyramid top. Here it was funneled into a counterweight hanging over the side. This counterweight was attached to asled full of stones (on the ground) by a rope draped all the way over the pyramid. The counterweight filled and became heavy enough to lift the sled of stones. Over the centuries they invented many things to improve the efficiency and improve the reliability of the equipment. They built all these pyramids in five steps because they had to lift stones one step at a time. With G1 they built a high platform on the south side because the work involved in rigging and rerigging the huge numbers of stones still needed at the higher levels was onerous. With a platform at 81' 3" they could lift many of the stones 162' 6" at a time and greatly reduce rigging. They invented a handy device for loading the stones from a single point onto to the sled. This device worked by submerging floats in the water to push up on the sled. Each time they added a stone to the sled it would sink the height of a stone so they could easily just put another stone on top until it was loaded. They had various automatic signalling devices to let the workers know the water conditions. It appears that some water was lifted manually between 70' and 140' and even to 162.5' Lifting the heavier stones was not a particular ordeal simply because the counterweights could be used in tandem. I should add that the estimate of the amount of granite in G1 is probably grossly understated. It is apparent that they preferred granite for their canals and these would have been left where they lay inside the structure. The device that caught the water was dismantled and granite was likely used for the so-called king's chamber but most of it was turah limestone that was used for cladding. Once they lifted something it stayed lifted. Much of the infrastructure needed to build this was turah limestone so they could keep the quarry busy for 20 years instead of suddenly ramping production to astronomical levels. As the project wound down these structures were canibalized for stone. There were no "religious structures" and nothing was built for "religious reasons". This project was done "industrially" and very efficiently. This is what all the evidence suggests. Egyptologists append the facts to a failed paradigm. They present the tiny amount of real data available in terms consistent with their own beliefs that the ancients were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed. These assumptions are simply wrong. It's absurd to believe they never ckhanged but without this assumption they can't even read the language. Ramps are utterly debunked as a means to have raised these stones. There's no evidence that the people were religious or believed in magic other than interpretation basesd on the belief the people never changed. The writing isn't understood so it is not legitimate to make conclusions about its authors. There is some physical evidence to suggest these were tombs but it's weak evidence and the builders distinctly, repeatedly, and coherently said they were not tombs. There is no solid evidence to contradict the builders. When any of these foundational assumptions is removed the entire paradigm collapses. So far they seem to want to deal with this by ignoring it. If the builders really meant what they said then there are profound implications. It will certainly change our opinion of the ancient Egyptians and their predecessors since this knowledge would have required a very long time to accrue. The Egyptians could not possibly have started from square one and there must have been many millinea of human progress.

Well, I could more readily agree if you said "all" people are superstitious but we're in close agreement. Apparently I don't. I don't see the connection between religious books and ritual. Certainly vocabulary, ritual, and icons are associated with religion but this doesn't make the Bible or any of its books "ritual". Meanwhile every single word in the PT appear to plainly be ritual and not one single incantation or prayer is involved. Egyptologists have totally misapprehended the only writing that survives from ancient times. This means they have most probably misunderstood the people who wrote them and their beliefs. It is apparent these people were scientific and used science to accomplish their feats rather than magic or religion. Shouldn't this be considered the logical viewpoint? If they said they added natron to geysers to make them erupt then why should we assume they are casting spells or praying rather than using simple observation? 1024a. His name lives on account of natron-offerings and he is divine. 765a. To say: O Osiris N., take to thyself this thy libation, which is offered to thee by Horus, 765b. in thy name of "He who is come from the cataract"; take to thyself thy natron that thou mayest be divine. "Cataract" is a poor translation and should be "cool watery region". 765c. Thy mother Nut has made thee to be as a god to thine enemy (or, in spite of thee), in thy name of "God." 766a. Take to thyself the efflux which goes forth from thee. The "efflux" is "I3.t-wt.t" which is CO2 (risings begetter) ... 767a. Ḥr-rnp.wi recognizes thee, for thou art made young again, ill this thy name of "Fresh water." This is "fresh water" that arises with CO2 when natron (sodium decahydrate) is added to it. The evidence is simply overwhelming in light of the fact that the Pyramid Texts in internally consistent and makes accurate predictions about things that exist at Giza and have existed in the past. Egyptology has simply been inventing ever more ways to say "they mustta used ramps" for over a century now. This is an absurdity and is counterevidenced. Ramps are debunked and Egyptology has buried their heads in the sand. There are several ways the pyramids could have been built and the PT is in agreement with one of them. Until there is pressure on them to do real science they will continue to stonewall and hold the sites hostage. On one hand we have "they mustta used ramps" and on the other is the evidence. The evidence says our ancestors were highly sophisticated and were not very superstitious. It suggests that it is we who are superstitious.

I believe you're assuming that modern people and modern beliefs constitute the pinnacle of human existence. We are hardly infalible and omniscient while most men lead lives of quiet desperation. We waste more resources than we use and seek ever more ways to destroy ourselves. But this is really beside the point since the point is much more that there are probably many ways to deal with nature and form societies. That we believe the ancients were superstitious doesn't affect them. These people lived and died long before we formed an opinion of them and their work. To show just how wrong our opinion of these people really is let me show some more evidence that the only work that survives is actually a book of ritual rather than magic and incantation as Egyptologists imagine. This is "spell #29" which is actually the Coffin Texts which is a "part" of the PT; "Be silent, be silent O men! Hearken, Hearken O men! Hear it, this great word..." Sometimes I'm just astounded trhat words such as these can be misinterpreted. But it doesn't end here. There are also numerous instructions to the "priest/ scientist" that are read to the crowds. Literally hundreds of these exist but I'll just show a few to make the point; 23b. To say four times, when thou goest forth justified: Libation; two pellets of natron. 51b. Osiris N., take to thyself the eye of Horus, which is united with him. Nhnm-oil. 87d. To say four times: For N., a lifting up of the offering, four times. Two baskets of npȝ.t. These all read as rituals once they are actually understood. There are no spells and no magic. There is no religion except in the minds of those who try to read these as prose. The ancients said exactly what they believed in; 1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris. The w3g-festival was held in the specific uplands called Giza (Rosteau). The inundation came at the beginning of pyramid building season and it tossed on the Giza Plateau; 1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses; 1554a. (but) the marshes laugh; the shores are become green; 1554b. the divine offerings descend; the face of men brightens; the heart of the gods rejoices. The inundation is violently tossed into the air and then descends. This stuff just isn't that complicated. That the ancient people studied nature shows exactly how they managed to invent agriculture and cities. People just aren't that smart and wouldn't have stumbled into such complexity. The nature of the language shows how the meaning was lost and still eludes Egyptologists even when you tie it up with a bow (or sky arc if you prefer) and give it to them. Everything we think we know about ancient times is probably mostly all wrong.

Of course Egyptologists think the ancients were superstitious. They won't say they think they were stinky footed bumpkins but they interpret teir words in ways that only stinky footed bumpkins would have expressed them. They won't say the ancients were superstitious and moribound with religious beliefs but they will say everything they said andf did was related to incantation and religion. Everything at Giza is said to have religious significance. Essentially they describe a duck in exquisite detail and then pronounce it a beautiful swan. The ancient people were exactly like us except they spoke and thought differently. Egyptologists project their own beliefs and their own thoughts onto the builders.