cladking

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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