The Great Pyramid and the "Plutonium Mill" Hypothesis

The v-shaped notch shown in the image above was caused by hauling up the granite slabs used in the 'relieving' chambers, using the ascending passage as a ramp.

You have to ask yourself, if these ancient people were so advanced as to be working with nuclear energy and processing plutonium, how did the technology of concrete escape them?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
The v-shaped notch shown in the image above was caused by hauling up the granite slabs used in the 'relieving' chambers, using the ascending passage as a ramp.

You have to ask yourself, if these ancient people were so advanced as to be working with nuclear energy and processing plutonium, how did the technology of concrete escape them?

Or why they stilled used spears, ground grains with stones and the grit wore down their teeth and had, at best a rudimentary understanding of medicine, hygiene and a number of important cultural requirements.

They weren't even aware that marriage between siblings was a bad idea.

Of course the point is that the idea is that the pyramids were built by a culture well before the AE, for which we have no evidence.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Hanslune


Stay tuned.

LOL

'Tuned'

I always look forward to your threads and posts!

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
The v-shaped notch shown in the image above was caused by hauling up the granite slabs used in the 'relieving' chambers, using the ascending passage as a ramp.

To be fair, that's a relatively new theory [One that I agree with] postulated by french architect Jean-Pierre Houdin.

Not a proven fact.

originally posted by: jeep3r


The brownie point is much appreciated ... thanks!

Well constructed and thought out posts are rare enough to earn praise.

On the other hand: I could imagine that in a quiet moment (when you're not thinking in terms of mainstream Egyptology) you too have certainly at some point thought about a technical purpose of the GP, I suppose?

Yes 'technically' it was probably to ensure the well being of the people by making sure the God-king was kept happy (i paraphrase greatly), I don't think it had any 'technical' purpose - one finds it purpose in the religion and culture of the AE. Its like asking what the technical purpose of the Saint's Peters is.

Whatever the case, the grand gallery indeed sometimes seems to be linked to harmonics (due to it's design, provided that it's not just artwork). But then again, the way its function is compared to how radioactive waste has been processed at Hanford in the so-called 'canyon buildings', was also very intriguing to me.

Form follows function. I really like that quote from the essay!

A modern person might think so but from what we know of the AE and it precursor cultures the technology for what you are thinking of is so beyond them as to be unfathomable.

Next time you go to Giza take a TLD or EPD with you (Thermoluminescent /Electronic Personal Dosimeter).

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

The v-shaped notch shown in the image above was caused by hauling up the granite slabs used in the 'relieving' chambers, using the ascending passage as a ramp.

You have to ask yourself, if these ancient people were so advanced as to be working with nuclear energy and processing plutonium, how did the technology of concrete escape them?

Were the granite slabs of the relieving chamber a structural necessity or were they rather the kind of "shock-absorber" as described in the OP (designed to deal with high pressures in the King's Chamber)? The diagonal slabs (upper ceiling) would certainly suffice to carry the weight of the blocks above, as is the case in the queens chamber and the entrance.

Apart from that: reconstituted limestone (what we would call 'concrete') has been used during the construction of the pyramids:

1. Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt
2. Are Pyramids Made Out of Concrete?
3. Paleomagnetism study supports Pyramid geopolymer stone

a reply to: jeep3r

Were the granite slabs of the relieving chamber a structural necessity or were they rather the kind of "shock-absorber" as described in the OP (designed to deal with high pressures in the King's Chamber)?

No one can say what there real purpose was - perhaps it was ritualistic. Perhaps it was a novice culture still experimenting with massive architecture. Egyptians could have used corbel vaulting to relieve the weight above, just as they had in the ascending passage. But if they're not 'relieving chambers,' they're certainly not 'shock absorbers.' Houdin proposed the 'rafters,' the slabs that do bear the weight of the stone above, had to be elevated so they weight they transferred into the mass of the pyramid did not bear down on the ascending passage vaulting. The rafter slabs do not connect to the granite slabs of the 'relieving chambers,' but directly to the pyramid mass. Had the northern rafter slab been placed at the ceiling height of the King's Chamber, it would have transferred it's lateral thrust directly to the ascending passage ceiling and causing serious structural problems. Therefore it needed to be much higher than the ascending passage. To be honest, this is as good as a theory over the 'relieving chambers purpose as I've seen.



Image caption: Without the relieving chambers superstructure, the antechambers would have been crushed down by the oblique load transferred by the rafters of the North side of the roof.



Image: By raising the roof very high, the architects greatly enlarged the protected zone so that the oblique load passed above the corbelling of the antechambers. Therein lies the real reason for the huge structure above the King’s Chamber. The Egyptians could not have done otherwise. The ‘relieving chambers’ served only to raise the roof of the King’s Chamber as high as possible, so that the oblique loads did not push on the corbelling of the antechambers.

Source: The King’s Chamber Relieving Compartments: The Technical Consequences of a Flat Ceiling

a reply to: jeep3r

Apart from that: reconstituted limestone (what we would call 'concrete') has been used during the construction of the pyramids

They are mistaken. What they are taking as "concrete" is mortar and agglomerated stone, the detritus of the quarry. The pyramid is far from a perfectly manicured construction. There are gaps and voids and rough hewn blocks making up the core, that the builders crammed gobs of mortar into along with any bits and pieces of stone dust and chunks of stone. This is especially true in the region of the packing stones, that lay between the core blocks and the outer casing. They couldn't allow for gaps to remain but it is to labor intensive to cut each block to fit precisely, the expeditious solution was to rough cut blocks and then fill gaps with whatever they had at hand, and mortar - lots of mortar. When the outer blocks fell away, it left the agglomerated fill exposed. Thus some people see "concrete."

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I'll assume by your thread replies that you agree with Jean-Pierre Houdin theory that there are still to be found hidden 'Antechambers' ? Not that I disagree, it would explain much in the way it was designed. Just that there is no as of yet 'Concrete proof' of such antechambers existing.

From your source.

Phenomenal OP and excellent work on the images. I look forward to reading the core papers, and I commend your efforts with a super-sized S&F.

I find the suggestion that the Egyptians were an adaption society extremely compelling, and have always considered that the GP was indeed a functional machine at some stage in antediluvial times - the handiwork of the 'gods' from an age long since lost to the mists of mythology, even by the time the pharaonic reigns began.

I seem to recall that there is a very ancient inscription on a particular stone monument which depicts a perfect white pyramid, created long before Khufu was even a twinkle in his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's eye. Sadly I don't recall the name or location of said monument, I would have to dig through my library to find the appropriate reference; however, I can say unequivocally that the argument put forth in reference to the glyph was extremely convincing in its suggestion that the GP is far more ancient than previously considered by mainstream archaeologists (who naturally have a vested interest in the status quo).

Great work, I will enjoy learning more about this particular theory.

Cheers, FITO.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Phenomenal OP and excellent work on the images. I look forward to reading the core papers, and I commend your efforts with a super-sized S&F.

I find the suggestion that the Egyptians were an adaption society extremely compelling,

Two comments:

Adaptive? Why, considering the startling lack of evidence for said 'other civ' compared to the millions and millions of pieces of evidence for the ancient civilizations we do know about. Example in all of Egypt the only sign of this lost civ are the pyramids? (Giza main three) that's it? Additionally we have a fair idea of what cultures were in the Nile valley thousands of years before the AE became the people we know- why do these folks show no sign of high technology?

Link to the known cultures prior to AE

mainstream archaeologists who naturally have a vested interest in the status quo.

Actually no they have an interest (personal) to find new things and make new discoveries; who are the archaeologists we remember? Yep the ones who find new things, who gets tenure first "Mr. finds nothing" or "Mr. major discovery"'?

What you are mistaking for resistance to change is typical academic conservativism; they don't go around changing theories every few days because everything they do is printed up - and people have long memories if they make a mistake; but if the evidence is there they go with it. Just take a look at what has changed in Archaeology from 1814 to now - massive change, so no your comment on vested interests is incorrect.

The only arrogance is our belief that we know more about it then the actual Ancient Egyptians. Who have told us a number of times that it was indeed a tomb. When it was built. Who it was built for. Etc Etc.

In our endless search to understand the motivations of ancient man - a number of 'Campaigns' have been created.


1. The ancients were stupid and had no idea wtf they were doing
2. The ancients were drug addicts LOL - my personal favourite
3. There was a Proto-Civilizaiton that reached great Intellictual heights - then disappear.
4. Intelligent Life Forms from >???< are both directly / indirectly responsible.
5. Egypotology is a coordinated effort to avoid "unconventional" explanations.
*** Hanslune has posted a link to some of their research and a lot of its really far out there ***

While the absence of "Evidence" to disprove any of the above - doesn't nessecarily detract from their accuracies - we should place a focus on what they themselves actually tell us about their motivations first and foremost before we invent alternative explanations.

a reply to: 131415

Howdy

Some of these types of ideas are a faint echo of the 19th European attempt (not by all) to attempt to move ancient civilizations away from their creation by non-Europeans to earlier unknown or lost proto-Europeans. It never quite worked.I'm sure Spider can tell us all about it if anyone has a question about that!

The roof beams (granite blocks) above the Kings Chamber have no structural advantage. Although this theory has been tossed around for a long time. The peaked slabs are infact completely unconnected to the flat slabs underneath.

The weight above Kings chamber is much less than above the Queens - where they only used a single set of peaked slabs. (like a house roof).

Also the design is not unique to Khufu's Pyramid - its seen at Meidum + 2 at Dashur - where it was already proven to support significantly more weight then required above Kings Chamber.




Its 100% a design motif - and it would have had to have been incredibly important.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment

I find the suggestion that the Egyptians were an adaption society extremely compelling, and have always considered that the GP was indeed a functional machine at some stage in antediluvial times - the handiwork of the 'gods' from an age long since lost to the mists of mythology, even by the time the pharaonic reigns began.

I'm glad that I managed to entertain you (and a few others on here) with yet another alternative idea regarding the construction of the Great Pyramid.

The missing evidence for AE having been an adaption society is a problem, that's true. On the other hand, I'm much in favor of an industrial & functional design of the GP. However, the fact that the architectural features of the pyramids (and other AE artifacts) are currently the only hints pointing to a different origin/explanation makes it extremely difficult for us to argue against mainstream Egyptology.

originally posted by: jeep3r


However, the fact that the architectural features of the pyramids (and other AE artifacts) are currently the only hints pointing to a different origin/explanation makes it extremely difficult for us to argue against mainstream Egyptology.

Suggestion on how to proceed:

Narrow your range to a date you believe these LC existed.

Find and read all the published reports for those cultures, especially look at the oldest reports, (if they exist) from the 19th and early 20th century, in particular look at the records from any Austro-Hungarian, German, French or Italian expeditions (in those languages). For the later reports contact the authors and ask (nicely) if there was anything puzzling or unanswered in their excavations, ask what Ph.d's were written based on those excavations,find and read them and contact those writers if the subject might be of interest. Determine if there are any PE (professor emeritus) who would be willing to talk to you - they usually want to. What you are looking for are pottery, items, etc that could not ID as to its source. Remember that older expeditions didn't have the resources in scientific tests that modern ones do today. Very often the older material has never been thoroughly looked at.

Look closely at any Arabic only language materials

Example: if you determined/guess that the LC was in the Nile valley in the years 15,000 to 10,000 BCE then you would be looking at the Sebilian, Halfan and Harifian cultures (not an exhaustive list) find those papers and the authors.

Also go to Egyptology and Archaeological conferences and ask questions.

Good luck!

What if the Great Pyramid was actually a bomb shelter? It would make sense to make it so large if it was designed to protect lives. It would also explain the evidence of a large explosion found in the pyramid. Only the most important people of the time would have access and the sarcophagus could have contained food and water. The air shafts were for ventilation and drinking water collection. The Queens chamber perhaps held livestock. The rough tunnel at the bottom would have been the bathroom area.

Considering how in touch with the stars the ancient Egyptians were it wouldn't surprise me if they had discovered a giant asteroid and then calculated it's collision with Earth. Or perhaps there was a previous collision which scared them into building the shelter to prepare for the next one.

Building up instead of down for a shelter would make sense as well because this prevents them from being buried alive after whatever explosion/impact took place and allows them to collect rain water. It also possible they believed a stone pyramid would be stronger than building a subterrainian building.

Whatever the purpose, it certainly wasn't a tomb. The fact that there is not a SINGLE hieroglyphic inside or outside of the pyramid proves that.

originally posted by: Battlefresh
What if the Great Pyramid was actually a bomb shelter? It would make sense to make it so large if it was designed to protect lives. It would also explain the evidence of a large explosion found in the pyramid. Only the most important people of the time would have access and the sarcophagus could have contained food and water. The air shafts were for ventilation and drinking water collection. The Queens chamber perhaps held livestock. The rough tunnel at the bottom would have been the bathroom area.

Highly inefficient far easier to tunnel - and there are natural tunnels in the limestone of plateau - it was also distant from the center of population.

Explosion?

I don't believe the air shafts actually exited the pyramid, I'm sure someone will come along and let me know if I'm correct on that

Considering how in touch with the stars the ancient Egyptians were it wouldn't surprise me if they had discovered a giant asteroid and then calculated it's collision with Earth. Or perhaps there was a previous collision which scared them into building the shelter to prepare for the next one.

I would suggest they lacked the instrumentation to do such a calculation

Whatever the purpose, it certainly wasn't a tomb. The fact that there is not a SINGLE hieroglyphic inside or outside of the pyramid proves that.

So where was the single most important person in AE culture (the Pharaohs) buried then?

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Phenomenal OP and excellent work on the images. I look forward to reading the core papers, and I commend your efforts with a super-sized S&F.

I find the suggestion that the Egyptians were an adaption society extremely compelling, and have always considered that the GP was indeed a functional machine at some stage in antediluvial times - the handiwork of the 'gods' from an age long since lost to the mists of mythology, even by the time the pharaonic reigns began.

I seem to recall that there is a very ancient inscription on a particular stone monument which depicts a perfect white pyramid, created long before Khufu was even a twinkle in his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's eye. Sadly I don't recall the name or location of said monument, I would have to dig through my library to find the appropriate reference; however, I can say unequivocally that the argument put forth in reference to the glyph was extremely convincing in its suggestion that the GP is far more ancient than previously considered by mainstream archaeologists (who naturally have a vested interest in the status quo).

Great work, I will enjoy learning more about this particular theory.

Cheers, FITO.

The Great Pyramid was originally covered in a layer of white marble stones polished smooth (it would have been impossible to climb up). Then the capstone would have been made of solid gold.

a reply to: Hanslune

I don't believe the air shafts actually exited the pyramid, I'm sure someone will come along and let me know if I'm correct on that

Well the two shafts from the Queen's Chamber stop somewhere in the mass of the pyramid and don't exit. The two shafts from the King's Chamber turn horizontal just before exiting the packing stones, however it's anybodies guess if they actually exited the polished casing. Having put all that work into them you would think they did.

I've read in Lehner that the Queen's Chamber was most likely for the king, should he die early on during the construction phase, they would at least have that much ready for him. But he lived longer, and the architects were able to begin building the more grandiose chamber above, abandoning the Queen's Chamber and its shafts as they were no longer needed.