cladking

How many people live in the Gobi or Death Valley? The deserts to the west of Egypt were nearly wholly irrelevant to the Egyptian people. By the time the great pyramids were completed there had been no migration for centuries from the west and the desert was too dry to support much life. Again I would remind you that rivers didn't flow through these deserts. The Nile was the only river in a desert and it wasn't called this even if they did bridge parts of it. The question isn't whether or not people traveled in deserts but whether there was a need for a boat or anything else to build a bridge in the deserts around ancient Egypt. The word ramp is unattested in Egypt during the great pyramid building age. This is a fact. That linguistics is a science is a matter of opinion at best. A scientist doesn't use science to eat his dinner nor can he conduct an experiment or observe the way words were used in the great pyramid building age. Did I mention not one single book survives. How can a scientist compare words when there is no writing, not even the word "ramp"? Of course they had ramps and some survive. Most look like they were walkways and when the word was finally used for the first time 200 years after the great pyramids were built it was in reference to a walkway. There are actually "ramps" in evidence that look like they could have been used to lift stones but NONE of these exist on a great pyramid. It is a virtual certainty they had at least one word for ramps and quite possibly two. But this isn't the point. It is Egyptologists who tell you this is all a done deal. They say "ramps" are the only thing that fits the "cultural context" and that the builders were highly superstitious and banded together in their belief their king was a "god" to build the pyramid "tomb". There's no basis for any of this. There's no physical evidence ramps were used. There's no physical evidence the pyramids were tombs. There's no predictive ability of understanding the only writing that survives as superstitious gobbledty gook. This means there is no cultural context. As proof there's no cultural context of any sort just consider the word "ramp" isn't even attested. Egyptology is a construct. They are completely wrong and proof is visible with the naked eye. Look at the picture above and see the horizontal and vertical lines that are artefacts of the way these were built.

When you quote me you might quote the entire response instead of picking and choosing the sentences that are easy to attack. This is just common sense as well. I don't play semantics but I sure notivce when other people do. There is no scientific method in Egyptyology just as there were no bridges in the desert that required a boat to build. That you can't see this is understandable but just keep thinking the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age. Common sense still exists it just gets caught up in a lot of confusion. Common sense says ramps are debunked and no one ever built a bridge in a desert using a boat. The only reason the bridge came up was a semantical issue concerning the meaning of the word "boat" in English. These are all irrelevancies and the only things that really matter is the physical evididence and what the builders actually said. Semantics confuse issues and distract attention from those issues. The fact is that the titles of the builders right on site are things like "Boat Operator", "Weigher/ Reckoner", "Overseer of Canals", "Overseer of the side of the Pyramid", "Overseer of Metal Shop", "Overseer of a Boat", etc, etc. There are no jobs associated with ramps or superstitious bumpkins and this is not semantics. You might claim that my understanding of the PT is mere semantics but then I can still point you to the fact ramps are debunked and to the evidence of your own eyes so long as you'll look.

I see. But this is exactly the problem and exactly the reason that Egyptology never "got it" even though it's written in plain English. I often say it's like scholars spent 150 years learning to translate heiroglyphs and then never bothering to read their own translation. The writing just isn't that alien to ours. There are reasons they didn't get it like that this older writing wasn't found until decades after they understood later writing and much of this later writing was derived from the actual texts they found. They naturally believed the older texts meant the same thing and instead this caused them to misunderstand the old text in the exact same way the writers of the later texts misunderstood it. They tried to hammer the meaning of the Pyramid Texts into the "book of the dead" despite them having nothing at all in common except that the writers of the book of the dead were trying to translate the Pyramid Texts. It's rather supremely ironic. There's no doubt that the Pyramid Texts aren't understood and even the translators say that they can only "circumscribe" the meaning. Scholars write massive tomes about the meaning of even the simplest terms from the PT because the referent is ephemeral when you try to understand the work as modern language. One time "eye of horus" means one thing and another it obviously means something entirely different. Rather than trying to simply "read" the PT they are trying to understand the many origins of every single term in it. This is a language that disappears when it's taken apart so there was never any chance they might understand it unless they went back and started from square one as I did. Add in the fact that no one could do this with any kind of specialized knowledge whatsoever and that google was required and the only surprise is it took almost a quarter century since the internet and computers. This is probably reflective of the fact that people tend to trust "scientists" and can't see that much of what we believe is actually a construct. Whatever the case the fact is that my ability to debunk ramps and show how the pyramids were built stems from a different understanding of the PT. This seems to imply there really is anoither language we used to use and it's staring us in the face everytime we look at Giza; A rose by any other name... The PT will be retranslated if I'm right but I'm not sure they'll take out the word "boat" because most of the time the writers used the Egyptian word for "boat" and merely appended a "prefix" to name a specific boat. Sometimes they added a descriptive term like "boat of re", or "two boats tied together" for the pyramid or the Bull of Heaven respectively. This is very much simply common sense. I might add that there actually was one desert road that hugged the eastern edge of the desert above the valley but the nature of rains in the desert mostly precludes the possibility that any bridge would be needed. Rain washes off the desert very quickly and would tend to destroy any bridge. A traveler could simply wait until the water was gone. And note too that the text says a BOAT was needed for the bridge girderers of the desert. This is not consistent with primitive bridge building. They claim to have a mountain of evidence to prove that ancient people were superstitious and changeless bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps. The fact of the matter is that no cultural context exists because they don't even understand the one book that actually survives. They can't prove any great pyramid was a tomb. And they can't show that the people never changed if they don't understand what they were at the beginning. It's impossible to create using supertsition and magic. Belief doesn't create. Science does. The word "RAMP" isn't even attested. Egyptology is a construct. I can't find a linguist who will swear to much of anything at all from before 2000 BC. Perhaps you can cite someone who can?

Truth to tell I'm not sure what you want to disagree about. Certainly not semantics! The Egyptians were highly dependent on the Nile River and its flood and saw things in terms of "boats" because this was what they knew. They had the most advanced boat building in the world at the time the pyramids were built. They called just about everything a boat, even the pyramid itself was the "boat of re"; 1209a. whilst thou was a soul appearing in the bow of thy boat of 770 cubits (long), 1209b. which the gods of Buto constructed for thee, which the eastern gods shaped for thee. Obviously it was impossible even for the Egyptians to build any kind of boat whatsoever over 1,000 feet long so this can't possibly be in reference to an actual "boat" as you use the term. However it is the exact measure of the pyramid enclosure around G2; They used the term "boat" extensively and the individual who loaded the dndndr-boat was known as the "Overseer of the boats of Neith". It wasn't only the counterweight called a boat (henu-boat) but the pyramid and the lifting sled as well; 445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert. This states they needed a boat to build a bridge in the desert. Need I even point out that people didn't live or travel in the desert and there was no water to bridge in a desert anyway? This bridge was the means by which the king ascended o heaven; the pyramid and the pyramid wasbuilt in the desert. Even if there were any doubt about this it is stated in another line that specifically states it was in fact Giza where they needed the boat; 445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w. R-St3.w is "Rosteau" which is the ancient name for Giza and meant "Mouth of Caves". This stuff isn't rocket science but people aren't even trying to get it. They are comfortable with superstitious bumpkins dragging stones. I'm not certain what to make of this yet but I believe it's a variable counterweight; The support structure is on the outside so it's built to support weight on the inside. People won't believe the evidence of their own eyes because Egyptologists claim to have all the answers. Just keep thinking; The word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age. This is the fact.

Even if someone doesn't believe I'm right about the existence of an ancient language that had a different way to express meaning it's still not productive to discuss semantics (ancient nor modern language). It doesn't matter what word the pyramid builders used for "bucket" and like almost every most words in their vocabulary in is unattested. The water they used to build was never "hauled out of a well", I believe. It was caught at 81' 3" as it came up through an opening in a specially built structure (mehet weret cow) through an opening (upper eye of horus) at that altitude. This structure evolved a great deal over the centuries according to the Pyramid Texts. Initially it was simply a platform at altitude designed to catch the water. They may well have used a series of "shadufs" in the grand gallery that employed counterweighted buckets to lift water between 70' and 140' but the testing to prove this hasn't been done. Very little f any sort of testing has ever been done because it is simply assumed that they used ramps to build. Perhaps now that ramps are debunked they'll do some real science but I'm not holding my breath.

Yes. Indeed! I believe confirmation bias to a large extent has its basis in language and nowhere is it more pronouned and obvious. People deconstruct everything we read or hear and it's never exactly the same as what the author intended. But when reading something so enigmatic as ancient writings or "gobbledty gook" one has to be suspicious of any sense at all which is made of it. No one should believe I'm right because I say I'm right but I'm surprised the physical evidence which I found only because I understand this "gobblety gook" doesn't give everyone pause. All these characteristics I claim are part and parcel of pyramid building still exist even if I'm wrong about the meaning I found in their words. The words of the builders ryhme with the physical evidence and reality itself. Physical evidence is the very means man has always used to determine reality and it's in agreement with their words as I understand them. Since this understanding preceded finding the evidence it ould certainly seem to follow both that the evidence is relevant to building and that my understanding of their words is relevant to th intended meaning. Don't forget I didn't use hocus pocus or some sort of divination to determine this meaning but simply learned the meaning of the terms from context. This is a perfectly legitimate means to learn the meaning of word. Indeed, using this technique is the only means to discover what a word means to the author since many words are used improperly by some people. I might add as an aside that Egyptologists believe there are numerous grammatical errors that were inscribed in stone and comprised this work. When solving it by this technique every single one of thse errors disappear. In other words my interpretation is a better fit than theirs. Ramps would not have been that hard to work with. All you would need to do is walk down using a basic pulley to translate the force. Set it up in stages so you minimize the risk of a runaway block injuring/killing people. Could have been made functionally similar to a modern conveyor belt. I can compute how much water they'd need. I was pretty naive when I started this and contacted geologists for technical advice etc. They all told me there was no such thing as CO2 geysers and I moved on. The fact is there are such processes today and some exist in limestone. I would point your attention to a picture of what is in a very real way a CO2 geyser earlier in this thread. It is on site and still growing. Egyptologists simply ignore it because it isn't consistent with ramps. If they relifted water their system of lifting stone was still highly efficient and tamed the scope of the job down to a human scale. Relifting water itself would also be very efficient. (It appears they used 28 men and 14 spell men to generate about 5 HP of effective work.) The evidence they actually lifted water is reasonably good but hardly conclusive. There are canals in evidence today that were used to transport the water on the sites. Some of the best evidence for water handling survives at Djoser's Pyramid, the first great pyramid.

This isn't really necessary. So long as they could transfer the forces through ropes they could drop the water from any altitude and lift the weight between any two other altitudes. Two things here though. For the main part they apparently dropped most loads from the height of the first step and lifted loads one step at a time. This was Imhotep's genius; when they got to the height of the geyser, the height of the mastaba, he simply shortened the ropes and built another step on top of it. Secondly is that they used various means to minimize the amount of hooking that was necessary to relay stones up one step at a time and apparently one of these means on G1 was to lift water to 320' for use in making some direct lifts. It would depend on its output. There's lots of writing in the PT about various means to increase output. It appears they also relifted some of this water to increase lifting and decrease hooking. The total amount of water might be somewhat lower than you expect. This system would have been extremely efficient and 50% easily achievable. Since the water was at 80' and the cliff face at 200' they got some 280' of lifting for caught water. This is nearly double th average height of stone that had a density of 2.7 so they needed only about 1.4 times the volume of the pyramid over the 20 years or a mere 7% of the pyramid's volume annually. Building ramps is hard work and using them a million times harder. Why not sit in the shade drinking "water like wine" instead of slaving away dragging tombs?

I've convinced myself of nothing. There are some things I take on faith, or as we modern people say "axiomatically" such as that reality exists essentially as we percieve it. I believe there is a very high probability that the Great Pyramid exists and a nearly as high of one that it is "old". I believe there is an 80% probability that it was built with the use of water and a 65% probability that this water came from CO2 geysers. It is quite obviuous ramps had nothing to do with it and they are debunked but there is still a slim possibility that they did actually use ramps. That they could only have used ramps is disproven to the degree science can disprove anything. You are mistaken about the nature of both modern and ancient language and the modern definition of "boat". 1957 Chevys don't float (long) on water and are often called "boats" because of the way they handle. A large bucket used for mixing concrete is called a "mortar boat". A long thin dish is called a "gravy boat". No doubt there are many others. Some things about language did not change. One of these is most vocabulary but another is the way things get named. And we still use scientific, colloquial, and vulgar words for things but they no longer convey the intended meaning. If anyone could just look at the ancient language and understand it then it wouldn't have become lost. 502b. The double doors of heaven are locked; the way goes over the flames under that which the gods create, 503a. which allows each Horus to glide through, in which N. will glide through, in this flame under that which the gods create. 503b. They make a way for N., that N. may pass by it. N. is a Horus. Every single person who read this before me saw superstitious gobbledty gook. But when you solve each term by context you'll find horus is stone and each stone glides over the way which is under the natural processes creating the pyramid. There's a great deal of information in most lines because the ancient language required knowledge to write and to understand. Modern language requires almost no knowledge and most statements about nature are literally false when made in modern language. You couldn't even make a false statement about nature in the ancient language without breaking multiple rules and turning your sentence into gobbledty gook. Modern language merely requires learning a few grammatical rules and no one will notice they don't understand you usually if you follow these rules. But in ancient or modern language you can modify most nouns to apply to something specific like a row boat or an oar boat. There's a world of difference between these boats even though a single letter ("a" or "w") separates them. One is 35,000 tons and carries oar and the other is little bigger than enough to carry a rower. The question isn't now and never has been what the Pyramid Texts means to Egyptologists, the question is what did it mean to the author!

Thanks for the story. It does sound vaguely familiar. Transporting stones on level surface could have been extremely easy. Well greased skids or water transport would require very little power to move stones. Indeed, the granite simply flowed with the Nile current all the way from Aswan. The total lateral movement of this tonnage was nearly as great as the total pyramid yet required "no" effort at all. In the real world the Egyptians certainly needed to apply power to move core blocks horizontally. I believe these were almost ALL moved with 20 ton counterweights falling down a 40 degree cliff face. Such a drop only pulled stones 300' at a time as ancient reports say but 100 tons at a time would be moved 300' closer. But no matter how they were moved it's simply not difficult to move stones on level ground. One nearly needs to overcome friction and there's no danger of them slipping back if the friction is too low. It appears they built the pyramids as five steps because they had to be built as five steps. They needed the step tops to work. These steps were as important to construction as the stones of which they were built. This simply implies they used the easiest possible means to build; they pulled the stones straight up the seventy degree step sides. With so much room to work they could even have used a brutish means like using teams of men to drag them up the side. This would be far more efficient and far easier than dragging stones on surfaces invented by Egyptologists and which are nowhere evidenced. That they didn't use a brutish means is simply beside the point that all the evidence says they pulled all the stone straight up the side. This is Egyptology's translation and it's almost certainly apt. They simply called it "henu boat" which probably meant "counterweight which employed water". The sled which held the stone was the "dndndr-boat" which meant something like "boat which is lifted by water". Curiously the scientific concept that described this latter boat was "nephthys" which translates as "house basket" which is very apt as well since this is a feminine concept and is the basket which lifts material on the "house" (pyramid). Nephthys was also known as "the Lady of Builders" since she was instrumental in building. "Isis" was the scientific concept which was the counterweight and the location that osiris became "seker" who was he who "towed the earth by means of balance". Isis means "stone seat". To the ancients everything was in balance (maat) and it was ma'at by which seker towed the earth. It was balance or vector sum total of water pressure pushing up on floating objects that kept them up. It was the "seven arrows of sekhmet" (seven power vectors) which lifted the stone. Everything existed in pairs because there were two sexes and all of reality was anthropomorphized. Of course it would be equally legitimate to simply say the nature gave humans natural attributes and humans simply named nature. I often use the term to refer to water or using the pressure or weight of water to work. The ancients referred to "kebehwet" which is more similar to your definition as "she" was expressed in "inches (fingers) of water". However unlike your definition kebehwet was assumed to be measured from the height of heaven or the top of the first step. Kebehwet was the pressure of the water at the bottom of the weir which transferred water to the counterweight. I think I was probably referring to the north side of G2 where they excavated down through stone before building the pyramid. I believe this was necessary to have water flow on all four sides of the pyramid. It would be madness to excavate this stone and then build ramps on it twice. It's triple the work and would lead to ramps built on it being less strong. They had to level the base but there's no known reason they'd have to level around the base. If they had used ramps they would have been removed but the absense of ramps hardly proves they "mustta used ramps" as is so often said. Even after removing ramps there would likely be physical evidence surviving. There would probably be massive bases for ramps which point toward the pyramid and up toward the higher reaches f the pyramids. There would be evidene for ramps all through the culture. With hundreds of thousands of men who toiled their entire lives away on one pyramid or another there would be a "god of ramps" or a "god of not falling off ramps". There would be dozens of "overseers of stone draggers" and many other titles associated with a primitive and brutish society but nothing of this sort exists at all. They've simply been pounding square pegs into round holes. Ramps don't fit and the builders described what actually does fit in a language that can't even be translated into English.

You apparently recognize our primary differences are style and semantics rather than any necessary fundamental difference in understanding of facts and science. This is a great basis for discussion! I had mistakingly assumed you were going to relate the story of Smeaton's Tower. I haven't looked it up but will do so before returning to this thread at my earliest opportunity.

I'm actually more famous (infamous) for this than about anything else. But I did come by it naturally. Everytime the subject comes up everyone already knows the answer and I'm berated with it. Most people can't get past my absolute rejection of the subject based on logic and evidence to even look at my proposal. Egyptologists talked to me the first year or two but since then I'm a sort of pariah and I seriously doubt this theory has ever been seriously considered even for a moment. In many real ways our estimation of ancient people defines who and what we are and no ancient people are considered better understyood than the Egyptians. This makes it far more difficult for Egyptologists to take me seriously even when I point out real problems and errors in the methodology. I don't see these errors because I'm smarter than they are (far from it) I see them because the ancient language tells me where to look. Common sense says you measure and test everything you can anyway. It used to be they'd talk to me and I could use the information to fix and adjust my theory to the new facts, so they just quit talking to me. Fortunately there are still some amateurs who'll engage me. But a lot of people simply won't accept or are unaware of the debunkment so they keep using the concept as a weapon. It's not the word itself I find so disturbing as it is the power it has over peoples' minds. It's the concept that my ancestors were so primitive that they could only have used brutish means to create. But worst of all it's the concept that if you're superstitious enough and religious enough, and primitive enough then you can do anything even if it's otherwise impossible. I find these concepts personally insulting so I often take off on a rant. I suppose I interrupted your post. Sorry. This isn't much of a picture but it shows the man made limestone "pavement" was built before the pyramid; You'll see the casing stones are actually resting on this pavement hence the pyramid was built afterward. This has many implications. Even if you assume the pyramid was built almost immediately after the pavement youmust question why they would build this and then bury it under mountains of ramps. Why would they contain a volume or create a space which could hold water and is known to have contained water at some point and then buried it under ramps? It simply makes no sense to lower and improve the ground around the pyramid and then bury it. It is doing th work multiple times especially if they had to rebuild the ramps to install the cladding stones. This is most highly illogical and inefficient use of their time and manpower. How could they lift 6 1/2 million tons to 150' if they are using nonsensical and illogical techniques? They lowered the ground because they needed water to flow freely around the pyramid. People don't appreciate the sophistication of the builders. They reset broken bones and performed at least some brain surgery which the patient survived. The pyramid is eight sided and since it's perfectly aligned N/ S it would flash on the autumnal and vernal equinoxes at sunset. The ancients said the pyramid swallowed its own shadow though this might be an expression in the new langauge.

I should let this pass, I know. But, if you see a contradiction it's probably caused by my trying to force a perspective by using sentence structure. Some people will see a contradiction rather than a perspective. This is one of the greatest weaknessesof modern language; perspective is never defined and is merely assumed. The ancient language defined perspective in every sentence. And it was always redefined when the perspective changed. This is one of the key properties of the language which masks it from us. I'll be happy to explain any apparent contradictions (I'd try anyway ). There are only a couple of new concepts in this whole thread and most of it is things that are well worn in my thinking. I'd have noticed contraditions in the theory. Saying the word "ramp" existed does not make it true. That the word "ramp" is unattested isn't even challenged by Egyptologists. Indeed, this is one of the primary sticking points that cause then consternation. They have long defended their beliefs by saying that alternative ideas do not fit the cultural context and they got away with this because ver few people wanted to try to learn about the actual culture as to what's actually known. To try to study this everyone simply plunged into Egyptological writings and it was like they were taken over by a pod from the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They'd emerge from years of study believing in "cultural context". My education was completely different because I didn't accept any of it so I went straight to the actual writing and translation of the actual writing. Guess what?!? There isn't any. There is virtually nothing at alland the tiny bit that exists is translated and interpreted in terms of later Egyptian beliefs that have nothing to do with the builders. The little bit of writing that exists is exactly what I say and it supports my interpretation and not Egyptological's. Even the PT are anachronistic if you want to be technical about it. This work's earliest version dates to a century after great pyramid building. The word "ramp" appears but is in reference to a walkway rather than a tool. That the word "ramp" is unattested isn't necessarily damning to orthodox beliefs because almost every single other word is also unattested because almost no writing survives. I repeat this unattestation so much not because it's important to disprove ramps but because it is important to understanding he entiure Egyptological paradigm hinges on thin air. There is no "cultural context" except the construct that has been created by the assumption that what applied to later people also applied to the builders. It doesn't matter if you repeat the word "ramp" existed or not. Frankly I have no doubt the builders had a word for ramp and it was the same word used 1000 years later but this isn't the point; the point is the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age and you can't prove it is. I've read virtually every single word they wrote and there sure aren't many of them. The bulk appear a single word or phrase at a time and sentences are fewand far between. One that comes to mind is "Nefermaat is he who makes his gods in words that can not be erased". I believe this is a mistranslation but is essentially accurate. I believe that Egyptology misunderstands the meaning of it. Like all Egyptian writing it has no meaning in English because (did I mention) the ancient language can't be directly translated. It is this inability to translate that assured the writing wouldn't survive and erased the actual "cultural context". In the last few years the "they mustta used ramps" has moved to the background a lot but it certainly still exists. Almost any source that pre-dates the debunkment will use the phrase in one form or another more than once. There used to be one short article that used it 14 times! Now it is couched in more "reasonable" terms but they still say hjust about the same thing "they mustta used ramps to build most of the pyramid". This is from the newest wiki; "Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the methods to raise the blocks, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete method that must be supplemented by another device." They're getting closer but ramps are still debunked and this phraseology doesn't recognize the fact either. Virtua;lly none of the ramp proposals can even accomplish the basic evidence such as the fact the casing stone won't support ramps asa they are usually described and most ramping methods would require that casing be applied from the top down which is impossible. Indeed, these proposals were so weak when I started that most didn't even include a means for the poor stone draggers to get back down. All of these proposals arestill highly ephemeral. As soon as you point out a fatal flaw they correct it with a different fatal flaw or a complete redesign. I describe these as "escheresque" because they change as soon as you object. Very very few of the proposals are even possible but they are all debunked. It's ironic that there are several good possible means devised in the last several years but it's too late now. None of these are well evidenced but a couple are lightly evidenced. The question is how were the stones lifted and the answer is right before our eyes but we don't see it. All the evidence that has been cast off as red herrings or was assumed to be "religious" in nature is how they built the pyramids. They used science which we mistake as religion and "metaphysics" we mistake as magic. "Words" in ancient Egypt really were powerful because they contained all human knowledge and science. They were the "words of the gods" (words of science). Science learns and science can create but superstition can not. Egyptologists are behaving superstitiously by not appying science.

The most obvious signs of how the pyramids were built is also the most widely overlooked. These are the numerous horizontal lines left by stones being sequentiually quarried and laid down on the pyramid creating horizontal banding and the vertcal lines that mark the routes of stones straight up the side of the pyramid. When the device is in place lifting stones the position where stones arrive on the individiual course can't be filled with stone or it would interfere with lifting. This creates the visible vertical lines by haviong unmatching stones straight up the side where the lifter had been. There are no (almost none) sloped lines to suggest ramps but there are vertical and horizontal lines everywhere which people can't see because we see only what we expect.

Part of "observation" is knowing there are such things as optical illusions and misobservation. The Egyptians called the ability to make good observations "heka" and what we were seeking to see "amun". The rules of ancient science are mistaken as magic (heka is translated as "magic"), and what science learned is mistaken for religion (amun is the "hidden god") . These pictures I'm posting have all been confirmed by other pictures and the features to which I'm pointing are as real as a heart attack. You can believe your eyes in some cases. The ben ben hasn't been confirmed but the author and photographer have no axe to grind and it's very unlikely to be faked. He takes a lot of great pictures and many are things other people (Egyptologists) just skip right on by.

Thank you for the article. I did glance over it. This is a point that people lose sight of; there is no more difference between the heart and mind than between your brain and your bones. The human animal is complete and each part functions in unison for every single task whether it's emotion or a calculus problem. Some parts are more closely associated or can be percieved as being more closely associated than is generally believed especially in the west. Each part also has more autonomy than people realize and while this autonomy is limited that we don't percieve it doesn't mean that the part can't independently percieve our own reality. The ancient Egyptians equated the heart and mind as well. They knew there was a difference in their heart and I know there's a difference in my bones. I percieve experience in my guts until it becomes "muscle memory" which I experience in my bones. To each his own. The world is far more complicated than science has yet begun to find. And some of the soft science is just simply wrong. I know you believe we have nothing in common but our primary differences are merely semantics and style.

...con't Half way between the queens pyramid and the back of the Sphinx you can even see a fragment of constructed ramp but this is probably a walkway added long after construction since it's flimsy like most of the so called ramps. Alternatively it could have been used to connect the easter cliff face counterweight to the main quarry late in the project. It will require a scientific examination to make most such determinations and to date no such work has been done because they already know that "they mustta used ramps". But this predicted ramp stil lsn't established even by being mentioned in the historical record "stones flew a bowshot (300') at a time to the pyramid" or even by the water eroded canal and fill that marks the eastern CF couunterweight. Very recently I did find this; http://www.egyptstudy.org/ostracon/vol17_1.pdf At the top of the first page it specifically states that George Reisner discovered a "ramp" in exactly this place. This "ramp" points in the wrong direction to take stones to G1 but it's perfect direction to take stones to be flipped by the so called trial passages for inspection and then hauled by sails in the boat pits for processing in the mason's shop before being lifted by the min (hydraulic lifter) and main counterweight to the pyramid top. ! Science is based on observation and experiment. Egyptology won't do the science and most observation is primarily dependent on the eyes. If you reject both observation and experiment there is no science at all. There's just the politically correct belief of the day bought and paid for by the highest bidder. You are mistaken. Metaphysics has been lost in the educational shuffle.

Moist of what I'm against isn't logic, facts, or science at all. What I'm up against is the perception that Egyptology is science and that science is infalible so we can just wait until it rebunks what everyone always knew; the pyramids were built with ramps. But there are more facts I can show and more pictures I can post to lead logical people to the same tentative conclusion that I've reached. One of the biggest failures of my theory has always been that it predicts... ...nay... ...it virtually demands that a "ramp" exist between the queens pyramids and the eastern cemetery. Extensive searching for evidence to confirm this turned up nothing. It demands a "ramp" here because it's known the queens pyramids and some of the eastern cemetery including the mastaba adjacent to G1c were in existence early in the construction of G1. There were no other routes for stones to be lifted from the quarry to the G1 causeway (primary supply "ramp"). I poured over photos and maps for years trying to find it and the best I could determine was that there was a long relatively even sloped surface. Even today I can't show that the slope was constant but this in't extremely important since constant slope isn't a strong requirement. This is one of my best pictures with the ramp running up toward the middle of the picture to a point behind the Sphinx. Con't...

I am not a linguist. The software automatically combines posts to prevent people from "post padding". Geologists say there are two aquifers but I don't know the details of the depth of crust, aquifers, limestone, etc. Any limestone to 800' depth will have fissures and caves because the water table has traversed all intervening points at least twice as the river dropped and then came back up. "Edited" to add the confusion with "pavement" is arising because Egyptologists refer to the flat man made area around the pyramids as "pavement" and it is composed of limestone on limestone.

I'm aware of no limestone pavement in this area except the man made one surrounding the great pyramids. There probably is natural limestone pavement but the natural limestone at Giza is tipped approximately 30 degrees. I don't mean to insult anyone but linguistics is a soft science and this is about the evidence of your eyes. Perhaps there's a better response to this objection that is less likely to insult. I've spoken to linguists a lot and they can't ake a cogent argument against irt because 2000 BC is so far back. However they don't accept it because there is some ancient Sumerian literature they believe is comprehensible. The writing isn't extensive enough to analyze using my technique but I suspect it isn't actually comprehensible but merely misunderstood in the same way more ancient (post-2000 BC) translators misunderstood it. If I ever have the time I might try tackling it. I believe it was "enlil" who was the Sumerian "osiris" but it's been a while and Imerely started on it.

It wouldn't matter if it were an argunent that was improperly applied because it's not what I'm saying. Existing science is correct by definition at least within its metaphysics. There's nothing here that is outside of science. Indeed, it's the only theory in history that respects two different sciences!!!!! There's nothing invalid about your objections. This is why I answered them. Certainly some of these things are hardly unique. There is an enormous sinkhole just north of the Fayuum (in the "Land of Horus") whose Arab name translates as "The Anus (vulgar) of the World". This appears to be relatively recent judging from sand deposition and could be what stopped the water from spraying about 2600 BC. Getting information is impossible so this is speculative. Sand deposition in the area is about 1" annually but being north of an large irrigated area and lakes it would be much lower. While fissures and other karst features are prevalent in limestone it is unique to have these features extending to such depth at a location with two aquifers under it.

I'm not sure where to start. I suppose starting in more recent geological times is best since if you go back too far data is more speculative. People should remember that things here are unlike other places ancient people were more cognizant of things like the river flowing north and flooding in the summer. This is caused by rain patterns far away in Ethiopia and central Africa. These monsoon like rains come in the summer. They are related to sunspot activity and peak with sunspots which probably accounts for the close solar observations in ancient times (and maybe why we think they were sun addled). The drainage basin for the Nile once extended all the way to the Congo but only a mere 15,000 years ago a volcanic mountain range rose and cut off a large part of it forming Lake Kivu which is one of only three carbonated lakes in the world. It also contains vast amounts of methane and could be a ticking time bomb. CO2 often accumulates in low lying areas in this region and kills insects, animal, and people (especially children since they are shorter). The PT advises people to tiptoe. The Nile lies along the Great African Rift which is a transform plate boundary and will in the near future cause the entire Horn of Africa to take off at high speed. This process is already beginning. It appears the Nile once flowed into the Fayuum Depression only some 30 miles south of Giza. How this is possible isn't clear but geologists believe simple evaporation might account for seasonal flow into it. I'm skeptical. The river suddenly changes its course aboiut every hundred years and sevewral major tributaries have disappeared. A river called the Ur Nile probably flowed west to east just north of Giza and may have flowed even as recently as when the pyramids were built. At the Ur Nile Headwaters Libya has created what's known as the Great Manmade River Project which is pumping ancient water from deep underground and is transforming the desert. There are two major aquifers under Giza with one being a series of basin aquifers that extents all the way to Lake Kivu and the other being the Libyan Aquifer. The former is believed to contain 400 times as much water as the Nile dumped into the sea before construction of the Aswan High Dam. Further backin time the Mediteranian Sea was cut off from the oceans due to declining ocean levels. This caused the Nile to plunge 800' to the lower sea level and to carve a massive canyon all the way back to the first cataract. This may be the largest canyon ever on the planet (maybe). It was certainly huge. Since caves form from the acidic actiuon of decaying organic material near the water table and the water table at Giza went from 225' to -800' this allowed the formation of caves to great depth in the limestone. I don't know the thickness of the limestone here but the crust is among the thinnest on earth and only 20 KM deep. Three plate boundaries join at about the Sanai and earthquakes here can be massive though they are a little unusual considering. The damage to the G2 is apparently from the p-wave of such a quake in the 8th century. I believe this shows how the pyramids were completed from the top down but it's hardly convincing. The cladding was almost certainly intentionally stripped as well to rebuild quake damaged Cairo. It's unclear where quake damage begins and ends. There is carbonated water under the plateau even today as well as the percolating ben ben below the pyramid. After the canyon was complete the sea filled in creating a fiorde and this was eventually filled by sediment washing down the river. Ancient reports say water came up out of the ground and the PT specifically say that the inundation came to the uplands. It's not possible that water would come up in the river valley because it's all tightly packed sediment so along the river banks (on the horizon) is the only possibility. The ground has hardly moved apparently since the pyramids were built but the river has risen some 17' through deposition. It has also moved from the base of the pyramid to several miles away.

I could never in a million years have rediscovered how the great pyramids were built from the physical evidence alone. Little survives and it has been changed by men and time. This was the most heavily disturbed site on the face of the planet even before the Great Pyramid was built. Even geologically it is remarkable in its numerous virtually unique features. Trying to separate relevant data from irrelevant when information is so sketchy is beyond most humans and far beyond me. The important parts of the jigsaw are missing or changed. Seeing the patterns is not possible for me. There was a lot of serendipity here. But I found the key in the ancient writing. This is what told me where to look and this is how I solved it and found all the information is relevant. Some is simply less important. It would seem that if the theory is proven correct it will lend great credence to the means I used to develop it also being correct. The ancient "mustta" really been using a metaphysical language if I'm right, so we need to retranslate their words to reflect what the authors actually meant. There are some staggering implications here beyond simply what it means to be human or how we communicate or even what science is. The words contain their knowledge and I'm only citing that knowledge related to pyramid building. If the work is retranslated a great deal more ancient knowledge will emerge. You are basing your statements on your understanding of what language is. The ancient language is outside your experience. The ancient language was metaphysical so communication required scientific understanding. Modern language simply makes statements and the statements are deconstructed by the listener. When language changes from one type to another who's to make predictions about how the change will proceed? Add in the fact the vocabulary barely changed at first and it can become invisible to anyone not looking at it from the proper perspective. This isn't strictly about language at all but about the way people think and once thought. How do you propose to see something outside the way you think? You can't even see language from where you think because modern people thought themselves into existence "I think therefore I am" doesn't give any credit at all to your parents or those who taught you language so you could think. Ancient people would have said "I am therefore I think" if their idea survived the confusion in language. They took reality as a given where we take our virtual omniscience and ability to think ourselves into existence as a given. Ya' can't get there from here and ya' can't see what I mean from your thinking. You would have to change several basic premises. This is why it might be best to just stick with the evidence of your own eyes rather than anyone's beliefs or perspectives. Let's try to stick with the facts as much as possible though I do like to talk about these differences in language and the implications so I'd be happy to engage you so long as we stick to logic and facts. And, yes, I am well aware that linguists don't believe there was a different kind of language but then humans are supposed to be smarter than animals and we have an easier time teaching them English than learning even the simplest languages; http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/researcher-decodes-praire-dog-language-discovers-theyve-been-calling-people-fat.html This seems to imply that all animal languages are metaphysical just as the first complex human language was. This seems to imply that there really was a "tower of babel" when all ancient science and history were lost. It would explain how humans invented agriculture and cities and completely forgot our entire history from before 2000 BC. It doesn't matter if this all seems so strange because it all fits a pattern and we live in a single world (probably) where the the pyramids were built with water. Some implications will be resisted but over time the facts will win out. One of these facts is that we speak what our ancestors described as "confused language". When I'm around this is never in dispute.

This has absolutely nothing to do with creationism and is only tangentally and incidentally related to "religion". To describe the difference in formatting is easy enough but people don't seem to readily grasp it. In all modern languages which originally appeared (perhaps by edict) about 2000 BC words acquire their definition through context. The meaning of the sentence is expressed directly. In the single ancient language which arose from a simple animal language as a result of mutation each word had a fixed meaning. But every concept or object had multiple words for which it was a referent. These words were scientific, colloquial, or vulger and their order and place in the sentence determined the meaning. Ideas weren't communicated directly but were compared to ideas already in existence so meaning was indirect. The ancient language was also metaphysical because new knowledge was incorporated right into the language and the language was internally consistent logically. As a metaphysical language it was the very basis of an ancient science based on observation and logic (language) rather than observation and experiment. To understand the language was to understand all human knowledge and this was the inherent flaw; the invention of writing caused human knowledge to explode. Language became much more complex with even little improvements in knowledge. The language became so complex that it failed. Since people think in language and modern language has a vasly different perspective this can't be readily seen. It is vaguely remembered in ancient Sumerian writing related to the tower of babel which may or may not be the basis of the Bible story. The Bible version appears to be a confused translation of the way the change would be described in the ancient language. Since the two languages are incompatable and the newer language is "confused" it can't be stated with certainty exactly what the Bible story is. I could decode it for you but prefer to distance myself from what people might understand as religious precepts here. There are several other portions of the Bible that appear to be confused translations of ancient writing. Religion itself may be a confusion of ancient applied science or what we call "philosophy". The new languages simply appeared almost overnight as each dialect of the ancient language solved communication deficiencies in different ways. Then since there was no longer any science to tie the languages together (therewas no longer science at all) these languages quickly splintered and divided in many different direction based on users and geography. The change isn't obvious to linguists because the vocabulary underwent very little change, especially at first. The ancient language needed very few words just as a computer program requires very few words since meaning is in context rather than in the words. The vocabulary was insufficient to express meaning in the new languages so many new words arose to mitigate confusion. We are left with languages in which we think but can't see that we think in them and which defines a perspective from which some things (especially human things) are very difficult to see. This perspective colors all of our thinking and perception. We simply tend to elevate beliefs to the status of reality and are blind to contradictory evidence because we see only what we know about already. Perhaps I could add that learning to understand the ancient language was far easier for me than learning to cite the ways in which it is different. One can think in Egyptian or in English but both at once is not so easy. Just as translation isn't direct, seeing the differences in how meaning is expressed isn't direct. I'm working largely from translations that are highly flawed since the translator can't see the original meaning and it is expressed inour "confused" language. Perhaps part of the reason I discovered this at all is that I've always tweaked definitions of the words in which I think to make thought easier and more fluid. This is a sort of metaphysical thought so it meshed well with the metaphysical language. Add in the fact that I pick up clues about what people are thinking from how concepts are expressed and it's pretty natural that I rediscovered the language. Of course I'm still a little concerned other people aren't picking up on this but once it's proven that water was used to build the pyramid everything will quickly fall into place. I don't know. I don't have a strong opinion. Obviously the entire ship would have to be stabilized before attempting to drag a 70 ton stone off of it. Personally I believe everything was done very highly highly efficiently or the pyramids couldn't exist at all. They appear to tell a story about improvements in man-made techniques and processes. The actual words used were scientific and scientific words are mistaken as "gods". They spoke the words of science. They had no religion, no magic, and almost no beliefs at all. "Thot"was human progress and his feminine conterpart was "seshat" which was writing. Before writing seshat was probably just oral tradition. It's a shame the language didn't fail before writing or we might not have lost our history in addition to our science.

I'm not even really sure if you consider your question answered or not. Communication is always difficult and often fails but it's more apparent and more common with me. I think intuitively almost exclusively. I see what's between the lines but it's contingent on my literal unstanding of each term. I'll assume a question exists and address the words associated with a question mark. The Nile, a tributary, or a canal connected to the Nile probably existed at every great pyramid site. There was apparently a tiny port for each pyramid right at the water's edge so called the "valley temple". For each great pyramid this port was connected by a causeway right up to the mason's shop on the east side. This causeway was very elaborate, composed of tura limestone and at some point was coverd with walls and a ceiling. Information about these is sketchy and all are in total ruin, apparently. They are no more than about half a mile in lenght. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=29.977702&lon=31.137373&z=17&m=bs Some people believe they used water operated vehicles called funiculars to unload the ships and bring the stone up the causeway. I'm not yet entirely convinced but I do believce they used some method that employed the weight of water to lift the stone up the 4.6 degree causeways. That they seem to use this angle which matches the kinetic friction of cu on cu seems to support their contention. Nothing is established here but all of my best hypotheses on this subject are thrown out the window because Herodotus said these causeways were still intact in 400 BC and all my best hypotheses use the causeway largely as a marshalling area for the tura limestone casing that wasn't applied in large quantity until the last three years of construction. If I missed something please let me know. It's never intentional. I love input. I especially like input from people with great knowledge and/ or great experience. As always opening up a dialog can be difficult.

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.