I like the theory of the 'inner ramp' by Jean-Pierre Houdin which appears to have a very sound basis. A rock-penetrating x-ray appears to substantiate his theory.
However, the problem has always been the placing of a block every 3 minutes or so over 20 years as well as the placing of the final facing slabs which, when finished, had a slightly concave finish which was purportedly synonymous with the curvature of the earth. This alone is mind-boggling stuff as the facing slabs completely sealed the pyramid leaving no entrance/exit and no outlets whatsoever.
It has always baffled me when the Egyptians were so meticulous in their hieroglyphic carvings recording major events and ceremonies yet did not make any depictions of the finished pyramid (which would have shown the hieroglyphics on the outside telling us what we want to know) nor any depictions showing how it was actually built.

Originally posted by OzTiger
I like the theory of the 'inner ramp' by Jean-Pierre Houdin which appears to have a very sound basis. A rock-penetrating x-ray appears to substantiate his theory.
However, the problem has always been the placing of a block every 3 minutes or so over 20 years as well as the placing of the final facing slabs which, when finished, had a slightly concave finish which was purportedly synonymous with the curvature of the earth. This alone is mind-boggling stuff as the facing slabs completely sealed the pyramid leaving no entrance/exit and no outlets whatsoever.
It has always baffled me when the Egyptians were so meticulous in their hieroglyphic carvings recording major events and ceremonies yet did not make any depictions of the finished pyramid (which would have shown the hieroglyphics on the outside telling us what we want to know) nor any depictions showing how it was actually built.

Yes Houdin's theory may prove to be correct. You may wish to look at different calculations that lower the number of total stones.

They used a technique to avoid the appearance of the straight lines bending over distance, very clever

The covering stones didn't cover the entrance and the pyramid was entered by that way in ancient times until - at some point it was jammed

Not early on they changed their culture (just look at their abandoning pyramdis as tombs and going to rock cut underground tombs later on)

Very little has come down to us from the period of time. I don't think you'll find any descriptions of how St Peters was built engraved into that structure either

Originally posted by secretsofthesunsects
As for the mainstream view, carry on posting. It is hardly above top secret, we all know the mainstream view.

If only that were true.

I've seen the mainstream view misrepresented here at ATS (as part of the multitude of straw-man arguments here) so many times that it's almost uncountable.

It's certainly the norm here that a poster is unaware of the evidence that has led to the mainstream view. It might even be the norm that a poster here doesn't actually know what the mainstream view is.

Harte

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


Hello Hans,

I know what you asked for - evidence. The evidence I cite in my paper is considered by ALL sides of the debate, including advocates of the pyramid tomb theory (PTT).

Nope darling I asked for your list of mainstream evidence, this is a thread and list of all mainstream evidence, please go back up to the first post, read it and if you are still struggling with the concept, ask you mum for help....

It rather seems to me that what you are actually seeking from me (and others) is the presentation only of orthodox INTERPRETATIONS of the body of evidence that is available to us and are not at all interested in other interpretations of that body of evidence.

Wow Scott you finally figured it out. Congrats, your reading comphrension has gone way up since Hall of Ma'at days eh?

In short, it is not 'evidence' you seek but rather 'INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence' that agrees with your own view that you seek. As I said in my previous post to you - the body of evidence is neutral. It is the particular INTERPRETATION one places upon that body of evidence that brings about the differences and divisions.

Nope collecting all evidence which might be deemed 'mainstream', remember I created the thread I know what its about - its not about what you want....okay?

I use the SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE and present the SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE that you do but I place that body of evidence within a slightly different context; a slightly different interpretation that is at odds with the context believed by others, including ancient alien advocates, pyramid pump advocates and tomb theory advocates.

That's nice I intend to do similar, but I'm not finished yet

(snip babble)

Good science is about finding the means to falsify a particular hypothesis/theory by empirical experiment or observation. I think you might find it more fruitful to try and determine and put in place such tests and see how well the tomb theory stands up after such scrutiny.

I think it might be more useful if you paid attention to what people write and not what you make up. Hey since you are into good science, you must believe in consensus? So whats the Egyptological consensus on your ideas?

ATS is a DISCUSSION board. If you do not wish discussion and wish only to present your opinion without objection or dissent, perhaps you might be better writing a blog.

Sure its a discussion board, we are discussing, but I haven't finished my thread setup but when I do I'll promise to give your ideas first place in 'failed alternative theories', or more PC 'ideas rejected by consensus by science', so you'll just have to be patient.....lol

Wink

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


"Mainstream evidence"? There is NO SUCH THING as 'mainstream evidence'.

....yawn....

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by secretsofthesunsects
As for the mainstream view, carry on posting. It is hardly above top secret, we all know the mainstream view.

If only that were true.

I've seen the mainstream view misrepresented here at ATS (as part of the multitude of straw-man arguments here) so many times that it's almost uncountable.

It's certainly the norm here that a poster is unaware of the evidence that has led to the mainstream view. It might even be the norm that a poster here doesn't actually know what the mainstream view is.

Harte

Howdy Harte

This is to be a list of the mainstream evidence - and as noted above rarely noted or understood by alternative and fringe posters.

Originally posted by secretsofthesunsects


Hans

thanks for the confirm on the ONE pyramid with a corpse in it. If it weren't for all the lettered Egyptologists writing about the pyramids being tombs this one exception would be considered just that, the exception. That is insanely weak evidence for the academics to base their confidence on.

They don't the acceptance of the pyramids as tombs came well before that pyramid was found

As for the mainstream view, carry on posting. It is hardly above top secret, we all know the mainstream view. any kid knows it from watching kiddy shows on King Tut, who was found in a hole in the ground, but most believe he was found in a pyramid.

I never seen that claim before, but that might be true in some cases

If you have seen how the step pyramids work, which out number the geometric ones, you will have a clue how Cheops works. However, until you have felt a structure working it is almost impossible to conceive of the aim of Cheops. It took me a year to grasp something of that scale and I still have my doubts. At least it is in line with the other structures and allows for the Idiot Lord Intrusions, which so much is made of. History is written to support the views of the present, red herrings, misdirection, textbooks and nonsense. It is amazing the lengths cultures will go to to maintain its faiths.Chris

The ancient knew the pyramids to be tombs it isn't a modern view at all. I would remind you that you haven't presented your ideas yet, so referring to bits and pieces of them just leaves us going, huh?

Post up that theory of yours so we know what you point it - please

Hans


''They don't the acceptance of the pyramids as tombs came well before that pyramid was found''

Amazing how little evidence there actually was before the mainstream followed the doomed tomb view. Gotta luv them for their persistence. Did you find that shin bone, surely that would a fair percentage of the actual evidence too.

I live in Cambodia and was here when the wise of the west decided that there was a possibility that the pyramids of Angkor were tombs. When the locals stopped laughing, they pointed out that Asians cremate there dead, but it does not stop the tenacious. They still try to inflict the tomb theory onto Angkor Wat because it points west as opposed to east. Rising versus setting sun, I am sure you get the symbolism from your study of the mainstream.
Anyhoo the locals allowed the wise of the west to continue to prattle on about the tombs of Angkor for as long as they liked. It made no difference because it was a cute idea and likely to draw the usual mob of folk who are fascinated by death. Tourist dollars are always welcome, even the morbid ones.

When I showed the academics how the wats actually worked it took the Culture department two days before they threatened to deport me. I wonder why? Maybe some things are a little different if you have actual ancient working knowledge. That is the sort of thing that is above top secret, not the mundane ramblings that the orthodoxy has been spouting for years.


''Post up that theory of yours so we know what you point it - please''
I am sure you will just spend your time trying to grapple with the way stiffs fit into the premise. A bit like Scott's ideas. He has picked up on vital aspect of the ancient ''religious'' centers that has kind of been glossed over. The modern religons point to these places for their origins. It would hardly suit the spiritual to be associated with the crop processors, cooks and grain distribution of the old world. Its all about the spirit after all This is something the principled of the church initiated. The doomed tomb views and the religious mumbo jumbo that the orthodoxy spends itself mired in is a cover story to support today's faiths, what a laugh hey?.

Scott has taken a lot of flack, but essentially there were crop stores around the main sites. The ziggurats (step pyramids) of the middle east were famed storage spots. Whilst I appreciate the idea has been extended a little far into the recovery vault, it is more closely linked tot he real function of the pyramids than the absolutely pointless stiffs in the ground. Well pointless if you don't buy all the mainstream fluff. anything can be used to hold a corpse, shame the pyramids rarely did.

The Ancient solar Premise is simple enough Hans, Cheops is a little more complicated. You start there, I start with the 1000's of shrines all over the world that operate on the community scale. The step pyramids worked for a city wide area. They are the remnants of an ancient solar industry, we have a lot to learn from these people.

Regards

Chris