It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mysteries of The Great Pyramid Explored...

page: 2
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

You can try and try again to explain. All the so called explanations some scolars find will be contradicted by other scolars.

A little googling makes it clear the real rulers of this world are playing with us. We don't know what is the truth and what is manipulated.

How the pyramids were built? That's just one of the problems we are struggling to find an explanation for. That struggle alone is mysterious enough.

If you want, read some other mysteries on the following site www.evawaseerst.be...




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Harte

If you look this webpage link it shows evidence that stones were made from cement. Stone limestone in the pyramids contain fossil remains and mainstream egyptologist used their existence to try discredit Davidovits theory but he points out that the limestone used to make cement would also have fossil remains. Personally I just don't see how and why they would cut, carve and transport larger stones when it was far easier to transport the raw materials and cast the limestone blocks on top of each level of the pyramid itself. They not as stupid as today's egyptologist think they were.


I've never met an Egyptologist who thought the AE were stupid - now why would they cut out blocks of limestone (the quarries show they did this) then crushed them, carry the crushed material over to pyramid built a unique wooden frame, cast it, remove the frame then move it into position? That is a remarkably stupid way to build something. Fortunately their are numerous photos of the limestone core blocks - they are all different and to truthful rather slapped together. From a point of work done making concrete out of limestone would have been more work than just dragging the great stones - as did all the other ancient civilizations.


The, scribe, and sculptor Irtysen from middle kingdom states "I know how to make pigments, and products that melt without fire burning them and are moreover insoluble in water. Nobody will know of this except me and my eldest son, the god having ordered that he become an initiate, as I have noticed his ability to oversee works in all the precious materials from silver and gold to ivory and ebony." tells that alchemy was a well kept secret handed down from father to son. Think they could still teach us a few tricks even today.


Their mason families did the same thing and how they moved stones were recorded by the AE, their are images of their moving huge stones - why would they depict that if they used concrete?


Limestone quarry showing square stones were removed I would also note that in the 19th century when the quarries were emptied they were found to be filled mainly with limestone rubble - why would there be limestone rubble if they were using concrete (it would have been broken up and used).



AE dragging a large statue




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Harte



If you look this webpage link it shows evidence that stones were made from cement. Stone limestone in the pyramids contain fossil remains and mainstream egyptologist used their existence to try discredit Davidovits theory but he points out that the limestone used to make cement would also have fossil remains. Personally I just don't see how and why they would cut, carve and transport larger stones when it was far easier to transport the raw materials and cast the limestone blocks on top of each level of the pyramid itself. They not as stupid as today's egyptologist think they were.

I'm sorry that Davidovits can't tell the difference between limestone and cement.

Unfortunately for this "theory," every stone is of a different size, meaning if they are concrete, not only were they cast individually, but they were cast using individually unique concrete forms.

The concrete theory also requires that each block was cast and cured before it was placed, which is no different than simply dragging limestone blocks up a ramp, right?

See, if the stones were cast in place, there would be no seams between the layers, or there would be the bottoms of forms left in the structure - there is no way around it. We find no remains of form bottoms, and we find largish seams between the layers, incidentally filled with mortar - in some cases, as much as 2 or 3 inches of mortar.


Harte



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Everyone should realize that Kings and Pharoah's originally weren't human beings. Any/all references to them are simply cosmological. (Planets) Anamorphized into narratives relevant to the time period. This tradition has been carried on through the ages. Shakesphere. Count Dracula. Humpty Dumpty. Jack and the Beanstalk. Jesus. Moses. Abraham. Adam. Eve. Satan. Nimrod. Osiriis. Isis. Set. Ra. Horus. Quatzequatel - The Auroch's draw on Cave Walls - It never ends.

Kaufu is the planet Saturn - And the Great Pyramid is his tomb on earth. In other words its construction commemorates its departure from the polar configuration of planets seen in the North - to its current destination in the outer realms of solar system.

All the other pyramids on the Nile river delta will correspond accordingly to the configuration as well - Mars, Mercury, Jupiter etc etc. Along with every Henge, Mound, City design, cave painting, figurine crafted - in the history of Civilization.



As far as how? The worst thing you can do is apply the world we see today on the past. As all evidence in the geological record suggest significant changes though out mans history. What happens when you try to lift 300 pounds on the moon? What would happen on earth if its electromagnetic field changes even slightly? This is probably the answer - though I have no idea how they managed to quarry some of them out of the ground (as in cutting the stone away underneath).

But asking WHY and WHERE these Monuments are built is probably more productive than asking HOW.


Consult: The Electric Universe
Or for more easily understood reading: Recovering the Lost World


edit on 19-9-2014 by 131415 because: Bad link

edit on 19-9-2014 by 131415 because: Two bad links!



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Interesting thing about the iron, I had never heard of it until this, I think Herodotus said that iron was used in it's construction. But meh maybe it is a 19th century relic left by excavators.
That video was pretty decent too, reminds me of a game I played as a kid called Immortal cities.

Top post man! I used to truly believe that Khufu did not build the pyramid but it seems all throughout history most of the mentioning of the pyramid always relate to it being him who built it.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sparta

I noted earlier in thread that the Iron is probably from when the Arabs took the outer cladding.

Something to consider about the pyramids;

Before the pyramids the Pharaohs were buried in mastaba's, then after the pyramid age they were placed in rock cut tombs, so where and what did the AE do with their god kings during the pyramid era? If they didn't place them in the pyramids where and what did they do with them??

That is one of my favorite considerations!



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

You are a tough cooky to convince Harte and I am not 100% convinced either way but still think its a better answer than any I've read. He is a chemical engineer so knows the difference between portland and limestone cement. In the video he demonstrates that the limestone cement would have been premixed in large tubs at ground base and taken up to each level in small buckets or bags. The three sides for forms would be placed alongside adjoining stones and bags of thick limestone rammed into the form using wooden mallets. No bottom form is needed because its consistency is of very thick mud. The wooden forms would be re-sizable length/width to cater for the different thickness of stones required for each pyramid level. Because the stones would need a minimum of three days to cure they would have used multiple forms on each level then molded smaller length stones to join the cured stonework.

The mortar was also very fine at places, read 1/18" thick, which really doesn't mean much either way as when building earth homes in similar fashion you can add whatever to sides or bottom or levels. The mortar is reported to be gypsum or sulphate of lime link



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Here is a suggestion to end this debate.

Why don't you just go look at images of the core stones and then come back and tell us they were all made in a form?

Easy and I must ask, have you done that?

link to core image

More core

more

core

Finally here is a drawing of the top tiers of the pyramid, it is easier to see the shape of the core stones in a drawing



.......so you think these were made in a concrete using a form?

oh and edited to add a photograph of the top of Khufu's pyramid

Top tiers
edit on 19/9/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

"That is a remarkably stupid way to build something"

Soft limestone so its reasonably easy to pulverize and manhandle. Trying to cut and lift 2.5+ million stones of different tonnage from up to 500 miles away is not. Picture you show is of local coarse used for the core of pyramids which might have been too hard to pulverize.

"dragging the great stones as did all the other ancient civilizations"

The egyptians certainly did move large stones, the unfinished 1200 ton Obelisk in aswan is one but that doesn't dismiss that they didn't create most of the stones for the great pyramid.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Stop playing a smartass. Nobody really knows where the exterior stones for great pyramid came from, only latter pyramids, which is why the great pyramid is fascinating.

Signing off.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

Little known Relics found inside the Great pyramid



Dixon Relics

The shafts in the Queen’s Chamber were first discovered in 1872 by a British engineer named Waynman Dixon. The ancient Egyptians had blocked them with stones, making it appear that the walls of the chamber were completely solid. Dixon, however, decided to probe all the joints in the masonry of the Queen’s Chamber with a wire to see if anything might be hidden behind them. When he discovered a hollow in the southern wall, he chiseled through to reveal the shaft. He realized that there was probably a corresponding shaft in the northern wall, and was indeed able to locate one. In the southern shaft, Dixon and his associate James Grant found a small, bronze hook.

The northern shaft yielded a granite ball and a piece of cedar-like wood. These objects became known as the Dixon Relics. Both sets of artifacts lay in the rubble at the bottom of the sloping shafts. A report on the discovery of the relics was published in the journal “Nature” on December 26, 1872, including a drawing of the items. In 1993 a search led to the discovery of the ball and hook in the British Museum, where they remain today. The piece of cedar-like wood was missing until 2001, when it was traced to the Marischal Museum in Aberdeen, Scotland.





The Iron Plate in the Great Pyramid




Great Pyramid Iron plate


In 1837, Colonel Howard Vyse, with the assistance of two civil engineers (John Perring and James Mash), investigated the air shafts in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid described by George Sandys more than 200 years earlier. A man in Vyse's team, J.R. Hill, was put in charge of clearing the mouth of the southern shaft. Vyse's methods were not subtle, and the use of explosives was employed resulting in the vertical gash that can still be seen on the south side of the pyramid.

On Friday, 26 May 1837, after a few day

It seems there were two interesting artifacts found that many people are not aware of. One is in a British Museum and has not been dated. (The Iron plate) The other seemed to have gone missing 'The Cedar' fragment then found recently which could be carbon dated and also the fact that 'Iron' was found, it's find is very controversial because we are to believe the ancient Egyptians were solely bronze age megalithic builders and nothing more.

I've read quite a few theories on how it came to be, chief among them is a very real possibility in my opinion in that it's from a Meteor. Seems plausible but testing of it in a modern metallurgical lab would answer that question once and for all.

Pyramid entrance

I also wanted to bring to some of those out there who are less than familiar with some interesting items also not discussed much. Now I'll borrow from ATS member PhotonEffect's thread Strange inscription near entrance to Great pyramid...




Here's the location of the inscription at the GP entrance:



Now, setting the Roswell/Ancient Alien angle aside, what would the source be for such symbols if in fact those were created at the time of construction? Could they be symbols of a long last age? A code for some 'Harmonic frequency'? These symbols were supposedly hidden behind the blocks that were removed during an early exploration. Were they inscribed sometime during or just after removal of the blocks during that period?

I think those are some valid questions because they don't seem to match any form of Egyptian inscriptions that I'm aware of, although to be honest I'm no expert. Maybe some of our more learned members could chime in for clarification.

If...

I know we've covered quite of bit ground on many seemingly unrelated topics, but these are questions I ask myself.

If the Iron is from the period of construction and is man made as apposed to a meteor that's a game changer. *The Egyptians knew more about metallurgy than previously thought. If the entrance inscription is as ancient as the Pyramid construction and still has not been identified/deciphered then that's something that should be explored. It implies that there may be a lost past we are not aware of. If Jean's internal ramp theory is true then not only is there a whole new winding chamber to explore in the Great Pyramid but also possibly in the Second one.

Well I hope you enjoyed the read and questions, I'm looking forward to your thoughts/opinions. I'll be posting a thread rather soon on some semi related topics involving another possible use of the Great Pyramid probably in Skunk works which many here may find interesting.

As Always
Stay tuned.





You mention the hook was found in 1872, but 1972 is written on the hook. Which is correct ?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Okeyd57

I think you might be confusing a possible Museum artifact number with a date?

Item number 19727-222 ?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Harte



You are a tough cooky to convince Harte and I am not 100% convinced either way but still think its a better answer than any I've read. He is a chemical engineer so knows the difference between portland and limestone cement. In the video he demonstrates that the limestone cement would have been premixed in large tubs at ground base and taken up to each level in small buckets or bags. The three sides for forms would be placed alongside adjoining stones and bags of thick limestone rammed into the form using wooden mallets. No bottom form is needed because its consistency is of very thick mud. The wooden forms would be re-sizable length/width to cater for the different thickness of stones required for each pyramid level. Because the stones would need a minimum of three days to cure they would have used multiple forms on each level then molded smaller length stones to join the cured stonework.

I won't upload it because I'm on IE and this site won't accept an upload from IE, but read what you just wrote and then look at this picture.

Cement, thick or not, does not leave gaps like that between the upper and lower stones.



originally posted by: glend
The mortar was also very fine at places, read 1/18" thick, which really doesn't mean much either way as when building earth homes in similar fashion you can add whatever to sides or bottom or levels. The mortar is reported to be gypsum or sulphate of lime link

Yes, I know all about the mortar. However, will you explain why it was used if the stones were poured in place?

What possible reason would the AEs have for laying down a layer of mortar, and then pouring concrete over that?
Example: another linked photo

Note that this photo is from a site that is a proponent of Davidovit's theory.

They don't even notice the thick layer of mortar underneath the supposedly poured concrete stone!

Harte



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Hanslune

"That is a remarkably stupid way to build something"

Soft limestone so its reasonably easy to pulverize and manhandle. Trying to cut and lift 2.5+ million stones of different tonnage from up to 500 miles away is not. Picture you show is of local coarse used for the core of pyramids which might have been too hard to pulverize.


Haven't smash limestone have you? It was cut right out of the plateau, the quarries are only a few hundred feet from the pyramids its one reason they were placed there. The stone on the top tier is just limestone like the rest of core stones


The egyptians certainly did move large stones, the unfinished 1200 ton Obelisk in aswan is one but that doesn't dismiss that they didn't create most of the stones for the great pyramid.


Not sure what you mean there but they did dig out a whole lot of limestone enough volume to built all the pyramids (taking into account the hills they used to speed the work) actually I think they moved around 1.5 million stones.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Hanslune

Stop playing a smartass. Nobody really knows where the exterior stones for great pyramid came from, only latter pyramids, which is why the great pyramid is fascinating.

Signing off.


Exterior stones? If you mean the cladding stones they came from Tura and they know that with great certainty because a whole lot of them were left in situ especially atop Khafre's tomb.

I've had this same discussion several dozen times and the images of core stones and the top tiers pretty much ends it each times. Some previous ways posters tried to use to get around this damning evidence:

1. Egyptology rebuilt the pyramids during WW II to hide the concrete blocks
2. Concrete was used only for 'strategic' stones (whatever that means)
3. The AE went thru the effort to make each stone different, ie made a new form for each stone
4. The pyramid were built of concrete blocks but then was 'melted' by energy from aliens/Atlanteans which caused all the stones be become misshapen, or something.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte

Long, long ago on Usenet one guy explained the gypsum mortar under the blocks by the simple observation that the AE poured the concrete at the base of the pyramid, not where it was finally situated. They then let it set and then dragged it up..........



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
First of all you did an excellent job in composing this, and your previous, thread. In my time on ATS I have really come to favor threads with such substance, and appreciate the work necessary to create something that people want to read. I especially liked the included video and link, as I have often wanted a visual representation of ancient Egypt, especially where vegetation is concerned. It is easy for someone to get the impression that this area of Egypt is mostly desert, thus it was like that when the pyramids were constructed. Honestly I would bet that the area was much more lush than depicted in the visual representation.

I have always had a problem believing that the pyramids were built without the help of slave labor. First of all Josephus claimed that the Jews worked as pyramid builders, and although Biblical sources do not actually mention the pyramids, they claim the Jews were forced to construct "bricks" by the Egyptians. So Egypt, at least at certain points, did use slave labor. I don't think this is highly disputed. In Herodotus' "Histories" he claims that Egyptian officials explicitly told him that the Egyptians were "forced" to help build the pyramids.

Something else to consider is what is mentioned in the video about peasants, their fields being inundated by the Nile, had nothing better to do than come to help with building the pyramids. Their reward, it is claimed, is being fed and receiving something or other for the afterlife. Now I do not doubt that Egyptian society was religious, but I would like to know if they were religious enough to perform back-breaking work for no pay. It is quite possible, but I do have a hard time believing it. Of course there is evidence for highly-skilled Egyptian craftsmen, but the majority of the work would have been performed by non-skilled laborers in my opinion, especially considering manpower was just about the only power they had.

I do not entertain ancient astronaut theories of the pyramids for a number of reasons, but the most important is that everything the Egyptians achieved was capable of being done by man at that time. So I think we know for a fact that there were both skilled and unskilled workers present, with the unskilled workers being the majority, and the skilled workers being the minority. Now archaeological evidence has allowed historians to determine that the workers were well-fed, which seems a bit odd for slave labor I admit, especially if slaves were abundant. It has also been determined, by the numerous tombs unearthed around the pyramids, that many of the highly-skilled workers were Egyptians who held status in society. From what I've read it seems that government officials would send people out to round up Egyptians from villages all over the country, and the main question is whether they were forced to come work on the pyramids, or whether they volunteered, in which case it is likely they were paid. Or, there is also the possibility, of which there is mention, that Egyptians were taxed in labor. The rotating of workers, of which there is some evidence for if I remember correctly, could indicate that those who left had fulfilled their labor tax obligations to the government.

This is not slave labor I suppose, but it is also not voluntary. But the evidence that is available leaves room for slave labor, even if no direct evidence of such has been unearthed. I mean they are not going to bury slaves in a tomb, and only a small percentage of the overall workers, again those with higher status, seemed to be buried in tombs in the vicinity of the pyramids. And all the evidence that has been uncovered thus far is expected in my opinion. If not all of the workers are slaves, then you will have the paid workers, undoubtedly Egyptian, who had more "perks," such as good food, burial rights, etc., while who knows how many slaves there still could have been. I think part of the reason the "no slave" theory is so prevalent is because the Egyptian government and their archaeologists wanted to paint a pretty picture of the ancient Egyptians, how they worked in solidarity and accomplished such great feats all on their own. I think it would have been highly uneconomical to not use slaves on such a project, given the length of time it took to complete. Especially when you have to maintain a standing army and have money for the other aspects of government. To say that Egyptians were willing to work for free, back-breaking work, I just find hard to believe. Sorry for the long reply, and sorry I focused only on this aspect of the mystery, as there are many other important things that you have addressed. Great thread, thanks.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte


Actually they were cast in place on the structure so they didnt have to be moved. If you watch the full video they show this being done. Not saying this is how they were built, just stating how he thinks they were.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I think the term 'Slave' then vs how we in the modern world understand it aren't really the same. Today when we hear the phrase slave we think of whips, chains and beating them till they get the work done. Early Hollywood has done much to influence that idea still to this day.

Meanwhile it could have meant something along the lines as some sort of indentured servitude. They probably were not allowed to own land to farm and had to work for their meal and beer.

Having nothing else to eat and no place else to go and with the Pharaoh being the only game in town it was a no brainer for the Hebrews at the time.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
1. THE PHARAOHS WERE NOT HUMAN BEINGS
2. JESUS/MOSES/NOAH WERE NOT HUMAN BEINGS
3. QUATZEQUATEL/NIMROD/OSIRIS/SETH/HORUS/RA/NEBUCHADNEZZAR WERE NOT HUMAN BEINGS
4. THE SUMARIAN KINGS LIST WERE NOT HUMAN BEINGS.

I can't stress this enough. They are simply Anthropomorphism.



You guys will never solve anything until you come to this conclusion.







 
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join