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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: SLAYER69
Little known Relics found inside the Great pyramid
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a8b58a3623a4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/239407040cf7.jpg[/atsimg]
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.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2675e4553992.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95490c62d091.jpg[/atsimg]
The Iron Plate in the Great Pyramid
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f0ac7261467.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09a8093aace7.gif[/atsimg]
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.