pre pyramid plateau

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

thats the rascal !
marduk submitted that. i still have the pdf but had no link. it got wiped with his invective, is that a valid tactic or coincidence?
how am i expected to respond to such pish?
or perhaps i am not expected to.
not directed at you, obviously, harte.
thanks!

Where's the pish? Do construction engineers not know how to engineer constructions?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

well,they thought the methods might be problematic so it was not discussed in the report
in that this small detail is complicated and so dismissed

a reply to: Harte

Where's the pish? Do construction engineers not know how to engineer constructions?

Harte

well they don't do the assembly so its not their problem, so generally, no, they dont.
can they draw, yes
can they do math, yes.
can they equate the two, no
can they perform the physical tasks neccesary to construction, unlikely
can they sell themselves like whores in the boardroom to those who also carry pencils, but also have no physical experience,probably

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

Where's the pish? Do construction engineers not know how to engineer constructions?

Harte

well they don't do the assembly so its not their problem, so generally, no, they dont.
can they draw, yes
can they do math, yes.
can they equate the two, no
can they perform the physical tasks neccesary to construction, unlikely
can they sell themselves like whores in the boardroom to those who also carry pencils, but also have no physical experience,probably

According to your logic, no person who has not personally been involved in the construction of the Great Pyramid is qualified to consider its construction.
The obvious question, then, is what are your qualifications here? Have you designed and built one of the Giza pyramids? How is it that you consider your own opinion worthy of discussion, but not that of professionals?

Harte

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

well,they thought the methods might be problematic so it was not discussed in the report
in that this small detail is complicated and so dismissed

Where is this in the report? Are you making a claim about something that isn't in the report? If so, what is it and how did you get it from the report if it's not in there?

Harte

originally posted by: username74
..

well they don't do the assembly so its not their problem, so generally, no, they dont.
can they draw, yes
can they do math, yes.
can they equate the two, no
can they perform the physical tasks neccesary to construction, unlikely
can they sell themselves like whores in the boardroom to those who also carry pencils, but also have no physical experience,probably

wow, thats a new level of ignorance..
please close this thread already..
I´m outta here ..

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

Where's the pish?

I should have known you were Scottish, here's a helpful hint. stop drinking and posting

a reply to: Harte

its not MY logic.
its a assessment of what is presented.
this "report" presents NO understanding of construction.
no methods of achieving the tasks are presented.

"A process of forensic analysis that applied modern-day technology to bridge the chasm of
time provides some surprising answers to the question of how the Great Pyramid at Giza
was built."

the opening claim!

"Initially, our goal was simply to identify the major steps that a hypothetical program manager
would have undertaken to construct the Great Pyramid at Giza. We asked the team of
construction managers to visualize the work that would be required so that we could prepare
logic diagrams, schedules, and other tools of the program manager. But as the project
unfolded a strange transformation took place: Members of the team became absorbed by the
challenge. How would you build the Great Pyramid?
Engineering, mathematics, and science—disciplines necessary to execute large construction
projects—were well established in ancient Egypt. The Egyptians could predict the flooding of
the Nile, identify major stars and the position of the stellar bodies with some accuracy, and
calculate areas and volumes of structures as complex as the pyramids. In addition to having a
system of written records, they used many basic tools made of copper, including saws,
chisels, hammers, and drills, and understood the principles of the lever and the inclined ramp.
It is reasonable to assume, then, that they possessed both the ability and the resources to
undertake a project as complex as the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza."

then there is the mission statement
what the # does that mean?
its just pish.
"the ancient Egyptians had no pulleys, no wheels, and no iron tools." the first limitation in study.
not in the sense its absolute nonsence but its a lot of words, strung together, that have no conclusive meaning.
it hangs on 4000 words, probably less.
lets see how often "assume" "assumed" occur.
14 times
only 2," presumed"
and 1, "surmised"
thats pretty good!
"would have"... 30
not so good
"we" ..52
also not good.
no techniques offered.
no benchmarks included.

"
Where is this in the report? Are you making a claim about something that isn't in the report? If so, what is it and how did you get it from the report if it's not in there?

Harte"
you'll be looking for this
"While there is uncertainty as to precisely how the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, there is
certainty about the fact that it was done. The pyramid stands today as awesome testimony to
the skill and sheer determination of the ancient race that built it. We must also stand in awe of
their program management techniques, as it is equally certain that they had highly developed
administrative and planning skills. The complexity and logistical requirements of this project
are simply extraordinary."

"Unit cost estimates were developed from a variety of sources,
including the team's judgment and experience. For example, our
stonecutting estimate of two man-days per block is based on our
judgment. For the average block we assumed that a team of 20
laborers was required to pull a sled up the ramp and onto the work
area. This would require four hours on average (up to level 50),
which meant that a team could move two blocks per day"

fantastically enlightening, dont you think?



the point being, in no way would anyone pay anything but the lowest tender for such a pie in the sky project or was it jobs for imhoteps cronies ?
it looks like a millenial wrote it.
presumably imohtep had some technical procedeures to offer. some undiscovered proof of concept.
just to point out that i dont take this document entirely seriously.
and neither should anyone else of a serious mind, in their professional capacity.
the reason i kick up a fuss is its presented as some kind of evidence, then ignored when analysed and questioned.

a reply to: anti72

you were outta here the last time.
didnt stop ya coming back and saying # all again!

a reply to: Marduk

not scottish.
feel like a jingoistic racial stereotype your sen?
(not that i wholly object to such guidelines)

a reply to: anti72

actually, in retrospect, you posed the relevant question in an earlier post.
"Why hasn´t a pyramid of that size and building quality ever been built again ? "

a reply to: Harte

oh, sorry, how lax of me , i failed to address (below)

" How is it that you consider your own opinion worthy of discussion, but not that of professionals?

Harte "

how is it that we reach this juncture, without discussing said material, on a discussion forum.
you ask me for my cv
can you tell me the authors' distinctions, i can. i looked.
not very convincing.
i will however, as it will always be pertinent to such subject matter, insert this.

"Working closely with leading Egyptologists in both Egypt and the United States—most
notably, Mark Lehner, an Egyptologist with the Harvard Semitic Museum—a team of
construction managers with the international architectural, engineering, and construction
management firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) performed a forensic
analysis to determine the construction methods and construction management techniques that
were employed by the ancient Egyptians in constructing the Great Pyramid."

well he just pops up everywhere, old marky boy.

a reply to: username74
"performed a forensic
analysis to determine the construction management techniques that
were employed by the ancient Egyptians in constructing the Great Pyramid."


please explain!

a reply to: username74
and i must take issue with this.

"Program management is the science and
practice of managing large private and public
projects. DMJM functions as the program
manager for projects around the globe,
managing large, complex programs for clients
in both the public and private sectors. The
logistical issues—making certain everything
comes together at the right time, in the right
quantity, with the right quality—are among the
greatest challenges of these projects and
become the major preoccupation of the
program manager."

i mean really, how does this perspective sit with archeaology?
shiang-hai ing the great pyramids theorised construction, for a corporate logistic franchises' publicity run, closely guided by markyboy through a u s university working in egypt.
Go ahead call me a cynic!

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74
and i must take issue with this.

"Program management is the science and
practice of managing large private and public
projects. DMJM functions as the program
manager for projects around the globe,
managing large, complex programs for clients
in both the public and private sectors. The
logistical issues—making certain everything
comes together at the right time, in the right
quantity, with the right quality—are among the
greatest challenges of these projects and
become the major preoccupation of the
program manager."

i mean really, how does this perspective sit with archeaology?
shiang-hai ing the great pyramids theorised construction, for a corporate logistic franchises' publicity run, closely guided by markyboy through a u s university working in egypt.
Go ahead call me a cynic!

It's an article for a trade magazine ("Civil Engineering Magazine"), not the actual report itself. As an article in an engineering magazine, it represents the area of Program Management within the Construction Engineering field with that paragraph, not some archaeological finding.

And problems stated about the use of the word "assume" are just hogwash. What would you have them do, not tell us their assumptions?
Without a time machine, it's all assumptions.
So, what particular assumptions is there a problem with? That is, make your own and fit it into the paradigm they created. Maybe it took longer, maybe it took less time, maybe 25 men per block instead of twenty?

I think the article is being criticised here for doing what it was trying to do - explain how Egyptians could have built the Great Pyramid. How is such criticism valid?

Lastly, what's with the Mark Lehner bashing?m You got a problem with that guy? What, you don't have Zahi to kick around anymore?
You should look into Lehner's background. Find out why he came to Egypt in the first place.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

ok, some fair coments.
this was presented as an argument for alledged construction.
that is the presumption . the study is not fit for purpose.
"So, what particular assumptions is there a problem with? "
well there were no assumptions thats the problem.
how will it be accomplished?
not divulged.
the use of assume or other such substitutions is only a marker for the lack of solutions to problems posed.
how can it be hogwash?
they wrote it ask them!
not me. and if its not supported, support it or disabuse it!
the problem is that it is a construction and it was constructed
it has no precedent and a frail antecedant.
"Lastly, what's with the Mark Lehner bashing?m You got a problem with that guy? What, you don't have Zahi to kick around anymore?
You should look into Lehner's background. Find out why he came to Egypt in the first place. "
well harte, i give not two #s why he got to be where he is, the point is, although he is learned in an extreme, he holds his corner.
i respect this, but this shows him to be very reactionary, in regards to the plateaux, and his established position.
not to diminish his abilities, but this becomes an academic politic.
not my bag.
and as for zawi, i have never bashed him and he lives in a different culture to our perspective, and is so much more a political animal as suits his position.
that is never a western affair!
not our place to judge, regardless of our feelings of international cultural heritage! or theft as its now called!

"So, what particular assumptions is there a problem with? That is, make your own and fit it into the paradigm they created. Maybe it took longer, maybe it took less time, maybe 25 men per block instead of twenty?"

well thats a good point, but when you build a four sided hill, there are less and less places to stand, less oppurtunity to apply mechanical advantage.
if it takes considerably longer, then you fall outside your theoretical timescale, making certain assumptions incorrect, and since alot of this philology relies heavily on said dynasties dates, this may present problems.
this is not to say that you are not on the right track, but it doesnt give a carte blanche to fit the dates to existing constructions on equally inaccurate carbon dates, say +/- 200 years.
the egyptians have no iron and yet it is within the construction.
they have no wheels or pulleys, yet must recognise pi, even if its in a different conceptual framework.

so, at this point i must assume that we do not like this document, for our various and divers reasons, so it can be cast aside, no?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

ok, some fair coments.
this was presented as an argument for alledged construction.
that is the presumption . the study is not fit for purpose.
"So, what particular assumptions is there a problem with? "
well there were no assumptions thats the problem.

So explain yourself then:

lets see how often "assume" "assumed" occur.
14 times
only 2," presumed"
and 1, "surmised"

originally posted by: username74how will it be accomplished?
not divulged.
the use of assume or other such substitutions is only a marker for the lack of solutions to problems posed.
how can it be hogwash?
they wrote it ask them!
not me. and if its not supported, support it or disabuse it!
the problem is that it is a construction and it was constructed
it has no precedent and a frail antecedant.

No precedent?
Ever heard of (for example ) the Red Pyramid?

originally posted by: username74"Lastly, what's with the Mark Lehner bashing?m You got a problem with that guy? What, you don't have Zahi to kick around anymore?
You should look into Lehner's background. Find out why he came to Egypt in the first place. "
well harte, i give not two #s why he got to be where he is, the point is, although he is learned in an extreme, he holds his corner.
i respect this, but this shows him to be very reactionary, in regards to the plateaux, and his established position.
not to diminish his abilities, but this becomes an academic politic.
not my bag.

Might not be your bag, but it is certainly your assumption about him.

He started out as a Cayce acolyte, if you know what that means. His education was paid for by Cayce's foundation - the A.R.E. and he came to Egypt with the express purpose of proving Cayce's claims about the "Hall of Records" underground near the Sphinx.
Yeah. Sounds like some dried-up closed minded academic, doesn't he.

"So, what particular assumptions is there a problem with? That is, make your own and fit it into the paradigm they created. Maybe it took longer, maybe it took less time, maybe 25 men per block instead of twenty?"

originally posted by: username74well thats a good point, but when you build a four sided hill, there are less and less places to stand, less oppurtunity to apply mechanical advantage.
if it takes considerably longer, then you fall outside your theoretical timescale, making certain assumptions incorrect, and since alot of this philology relies heavily on said dynasties dates, this may present problems.
this is not to say that you are not on the right track, but it doesnt give a carte blanche to fit the dates to existing constructions on equally inaccurate carbon dates, say +/- 200 years.
the egyptians have no iron and yet it is within the construction.

No iron was involved in the construction. A piece of iron was found that had likely fallen in during the destruction of the Tura limestone casing stones by later Arabs. The iron is of a type manufactured by methods known to have been in use around the time the pyramid was being stripped.
Besides, the pyramid was wide open to anyone with knowledge of the door (and there's excellent textual evidence that both the Greeks and Romans knew about the door) before the side was tunneled in by Al-Ma'mun in 832 A.D.
Since that time, the structure lay wide open even to people ignorant of the true entrance.

originally posted by: username74they have no wheels or pulleys, yet must recognise pi, even if its in a different conceptual framework.

They had the simple pulley, just not the compound pulley, and they did recognize pi (though not to any great accuracy.) But they didn't incorporate pi into the G.P. like a herd of con men claim.

originally posted by: username74so, at this point i must assume that we do not like this document, for our various and divers reasons, so it can be cast aside, no?

There's nothing wrong with the document at all, but cast aside whatever you want.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

hmmmm.
the document is pish!
there are presented, numbers with no foundations, no methods.
if this is disputed please present a suitable analysis.
how could i take a tender from a contract with no mission statement?
yes the red pyramid. as far as i am aware they are not directly connected, geographically, similar.
sneferu . 43 degrees.
and conflict again
"Egyptologists disagree on the length of time it took to construct. Based on quarry marks found at various phases of construction, Rainer Stadelmann estimates the time of completion to be approximately 17 years[1] while John Romer, based on this same graffiti, suggests it took only ten years and seven months to build.[2]"

well i give not two bags of wool why he is where he is, although that is quite fascinating. thank you.
"He started out as a Cayce acolyte, if you know what that means. His education was paid for by Cayce's foundation - the A.R.E. and he came to Egypt with the express purpose of proving Cayce's claims about the "Hall of Records" underground near the Sphinx.
Yeah. Sounds like some dried-up closed minded academic, doesn't he. "
i dont see how this is relevant to the topic, without discrediting him.
i am no fan of cayce or those like him.
post reconstructing, reality is complicated enough. that he had a mentor who was a psychic is not a strong starting position for an archeaologist especially if he becomes directly opposed to his mentors position.
you do in fact highlight what i poorly attempted to argue at the first.
preconceptions!
and where does private corparate interest become so interlaced with archeaological supposition that this sort of document can pass relatively unnoticed in a discussion forum?

to add
"Besides, the pyramid was wide open to anyone with knowledge of the door (and there's excellent textual evidence that both the Greeks and Romans knew about the door) before the side was tunneled in by Al-Ma'mun in 832 A.D.
Since that time, the structure lay wide open even to people ignorant of the true entrance. "
yes, quite so it appears, one of the few roman sources i read claimed the door was on swinging hinges and could be opened with a push in the correct place and was a guarded secret. i suppose i must find that for a link, but suffice to say that a secret in such times must have had acolytes to preserve such knowledge.

"There's nothing wrong with the document at all, but cast aside whatever you want.

Harte"

in any case the above statement of yours needs validation!
as in written counters to my issues with the tender
i.e. method
and i will wait for that, because if you can, then you are way ahead of your field, and no good deed goes unpunished.

all this is not to say i disagree with conventional academic theory, its just incomplete, but too much hubris in the reasoning, better to say, too much post-rationalisation.
the first findings guide the next mission.
like academic and social mission creep.

from a conciliatory perspective i find these discussions difficult to frame because, as you stated..." without a time machine..."
but thats just a cop out for all of us if we look it in the face,
so lets make the best of what we have and if this document is to be any kind of guide then my concerns must be approached or the discussion holds no validity,
the devils in the detail as ever

originally posted by: Harte
They had the simple pulley, just not the compound pulley, and they did recognize pi (though not to any great accuracy.) But they didn't incorporate pi into the G.P. like a herd of con men claim.

More importantly, they had the shadouf (lifting crane (raised lever arm)) and there are several images from ancient Egypt showing its use in construction. They also had domesticated cattle and they could pull sledges (though they had the wrong kind of yoke and animal power wasn't as efficient as it would be later.

Don't know if anyone discussed the labor force being redirected to other projects as the pyramid got near completion (because not everyone could work on it at the same time. The number of people there fluctuated with the season and with the needs of the multiple projects (boat pits, enclosures, quarries, other pyramids, other tombs, etc.)

a reply to: username74
You seem to think the article is an attempt to show how the Great Pyramid was built. I suggest you read it more carefully.
It clearly states that they considered how they think it could have been built.

Around here, this article is usually presented after a poster makes the claim that the AE's "couldn't have built" it.

Harte