I Think I Just Figured Out How the Pyramids Were Made

a reply to: Battlefresh

You might like to check out theantideluvian's post further up the page, seeing as it 'goes to source' and illustrates the techniques quite pertinently...

originally posted by: Battlefresh
...other ancient stones which have impossibly perfect inside square corners, etc.

Please name some of these "ancient stones" with "impossibly perfect inside square corners". I'd love to see them.

After all, stones are simply made of minerals and minerals are simply made of elements.

Everything is "simply made of elements".

...and knowing the great pyramids are mainly composed of granite stones...

Incorrect. The great pyramid is composed mostly of limestone and filler. Granite (including the original casing stones) would have made up about one percent of the stone used. There's over 60 times as much mortar as there is granite.

There's a lot of sand in Egypt. That would make a great material source for creating Granite don't you think?

What mechanism do you propose they used to turn sand into solid granite blocks?

Now we've got to create large granite blocks. They would have needed a large mold for that.

They would need much more than a mold.

The average granite block in the pyramids depending on where you read is 1.2m X 1.2m X .7m.

The blocks you're referring to are limestone, not granite.

The inside dimensions of the sarcophagus' is 2m x .9m x .7m which also varies between sources. I say it's close enough...

I'd say you're not an engineer or a tradesman. Call it a hunch.

You'll probably need to get the water and sand (or whatever other chemicals they used) into the chambers. Some angled shafts leading directly into the chambers would do the trick nicely.

...Or they would if the shafts weren't sealed at one end, and if the other opened to anywhere.

Of course, this theory only helps explain how so many blocks were made when the supposed quarry was miles away (before the wheel was invented no less).

No, it doesn't.

The casing stones which were limestone were quarried and polished by amazing artisans.

The casing stones were granite.

a reply to: Battlefresh

Its in interesting theory but the only plausible explanation to how they moved the stone is giAnts!

Gen 6 v 4: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

originally posted by: Battlefresh.
So, with this in mind and knowing the great pyramids are mainly composed of granite stones I wondered, what minerals is granite composed of? Turns out they're mainly Quartz and Felspar. Guess what else is mainly composed of Quartz and Felspar? Sand.

There's a lot of sand in Egypt. That would make a great material source for creating Granite don't you think?

Actually, no. Granite is notable because the minerals inside it are fairly large crystals, not tiny specks (google images of marble, or for convenience's sake you can click here: www.largostones.com... )

The larger crystals mean that rock was heated until it melted (magma) and then cooled slowly under pressure ( underground in a volcanic neck or magma chamber.) The slow cooling allows large crystals to form.

The interior chambers - and a lot of other things on Giza - are of a black basaltic granite of the types found near Elephantine (it matches it exactly in grain and composition): www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

This particular type of rock is very hard... grinding it down to produce a granite powder, transporting it, and somehow cementing it back together in a block would be extremely time consuming. That's three times the work when you could have just chopped it out of the quarry in the first place.

(objects in the Unfinished Obelisk quarry show that they were undercutting stone (as is shown in the pictures somewhere on this thread) and not pounding it to rubble.

A second problem with this is that the pyramid is not the only place where this granite was used... it was also used for statues and many other things.

Same problem exists with the limestone. The sands of Giza are derived from this limestone (and many other things) but they're not exactly the same

Now we've got to create large granite blocks. They would have needed a large mold for that. Let's see...how about the boxes in the Queen and King's chamber scholars refer to as sarcophagus'? The average granite block in the pyramids depending on where you read is 1.2m X 1.2m X .7m. The inside dimensions of the sarcophagus' is 2m x .9m x .7m which also varies between sources. I say it's close enough as perhaps more than 1 stone was made at a time, or there where other molds outside of the pyramids that have been since destroyed. Also it's possible that the original molds were removed once they weren't needed and the actual sarcophagus was put in place.

If this HAD been the process (with years to cure the stone to the right consistency), then the way of getting the thing out is through the passageways.

There's a 20+ degree slope, and they run for over 100 meters. You can't stand upright (it's just over a meter high and two people can't walk side by side in there. Plus it's stuffy.

So they'd have to pound up fragments in Aswan, deliver them to Giza, pour the fragments down in the chambers, mix them with .... whatever... and wait... however long... until it cures and then bring it back up a steep slope with room for only one person crouched over... one block at a time.

I think they'd still be working at it.

And the blocks aren't THAT smooth, nor are they as uniform as some sites would lead you to believe.


I've been in the Bent Pyramid and I've been in the Great Pyramid -- seeing it up close and personal and touching the rocks makes a difference because you can see the oceanic layers in the rock and you can note fossils in the rocks.

How were the Pyramids built?

Well, according to the records by the people who built them, with a lot of graft and sweat. And a very healthy diet to maintain health and strength.

Of course though, we only have their word for it. With no pics to prove it, it clearly didn't happen that way!

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Actually I am an Engineer, good effort trying to insult me though. I highly doubt you'd say such things to my face in person. From what I've read granite was the primary stone and limestone was the casing stones. You've obviously never heard of Machu Picchu or Puma Punka if you've never seen these stones. The jigsaw stones at Machu Picchu are not just haphazardly put in place, it was purposeful. This is known because some of the hallways are perfectly symmetrical...whereas one wall of jigsaw rocks is mirrored on the other wall. That took a lot of planning.

Also I just want to point out for those who are mesmerized by all the pretty pictures, there are no written records of the how the pyramids were constructed. All that has been shown here is records of statues being built. Yes, we know slaves were needed to pull huge stones, this is pretty obvious, but why are there no hieroglyphics inside the pyramids? If they were in fact tombs you'd think they wouldn't forget to add some decor to their masterpiece. Most of the records that have been posted here have nothing to do with the great pyramids and that's the only thing I'm talking about. Throw in as much flair and distraction as you want, it doesn't take away from the fact there are no records of the actual pyramid construction, nor any good explanation how they placed 2.1 million stones in 20 years.

I'm just saying I believe it's possible they used an alternate construction method (forming stone in molds) to speed up this process. Manual labor (i.e. slaves) was still required!

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: Battlefresh

If they could manufacture stone on site then that would cut down the construction time considerably.

Even faster to pour a single level at a time, why blocks? Make a mold, pour, disassemble mold, remove a few mold components and you have the next mold. Repeat.

Same reason we use concrete blocks in construction the pour process is not always effective in larger scale...

originally posted by: Battlefresh
Also I just want to point out for those who are mesmerized by all the pretty pictures, there are no written records of the how the pyramids were constructed. All that has been shown here is records of statues being built. Yes, we know slaves were needed to pull huge stones, this is pretty obvious, but why are there no hieroglyphics inside the pyramids? If they were in fact tombs you'd think they wouldn't forget to add some decor to their masterpiece. Most of the records that have been posted here have nothing to do with the great pyramids and that's the only thing I'm talking about. Throw in as much flair and distraction as you want, it doesn't take away from the fact there are no records of the actual pyramid construction, nor any good explanation how they placed 2.1 million stones in 20 years.

I'm just saying I believe it's possible they used an alternate construction method (forming stone in molds) to speed up this process. Manual labor (i.e. slaves) was still required!

I'm no expert in these areas, but didn't they say to finish The Great Pyramid in 20 years, they would have to cut, move, and place a 2 ton stone every 7 seconds? If so, that alone draws all kinds questions for me.

The quarries do not match the amount of stones used.

My theory is that they had aliens duplicate the perfect stones and then they just put them in place.

originally posted by: Battlefresh
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
Actually I am an Engineer, good effort trying to insult me though.

It wasn't so much an insult as it was sarcasm, but OK.

I highly doubt you'd say such things to my face in person.

Sure I would. Lighten up, tough guy.

From what I've read granite was the primary stone and limestone was the casing stones.

As I stated earlier, that is incorrect. I'm not sure what you've been reading, but if they can't even get that right, I wouldn't put much stock in anything else they have to say. There is granite inside the great pyramid, and the casing stones were granite. Everything else is limestone, mortar, and filler.

You've obviously never heard of Machu Picchu or Puma Punka if you've never seen these stones.

I'm quite familiar with both, thank you. I simpy asked what you were referring to because you didn't specify.

The jigsaw stones at Machu Picchu are not just haphazardly put in place, it was purposeful.

Of course it was. Just as any other human construction is purposeful.

This is known because some of the hallways are perfectly symmetrical...whereas one wall of jigsaw rocks is mirrored on the other wall.

Incorrect. There are areas that may appear to be roughly symmetrical to the unaided and/or untrained eye, but none are "perfectly symmetrical".

That took a lot of planning.

Yes it did. It also took some very talented craftsmen and artisans to see it realized.

originally posted by: Battlefresh
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Actually I am an Engineer, good effort trying to insult me though. I highly doubt you'd say such things to my face in person. From what I've read granite was the primary stone and limestone was the casing stones. You've obviously never heard of Machu Picchu or Puma Punka if you've never seen these stones. The jigsaw stones at Machu Picchu are not just haphazardly put in place, it was purposeful. This is known because some of the hallways are perfectly symmetrical...whereas one wall of jigsaw rocks is mirrored on the other wall. That took a lot of planning.

Post your face.

The stones you refer to at Pumapunku were never observed in place and it is currently unknown and unevidenced where they actually were, and the arrangement they were in, when the site was occupied.

The polygonal stone walls you mention, which can be found in multiple places in South America (as well as all over the world,) are only astonishing to the chronically astonished.

Lastly, you've read nothing at all, and don't try to pretend you have, if you think the pyramids at Giza are primarily constructed of granite.

Harte

originally posted by: Battlefresh
Also I just want to point out for those who are mesmerized by all the pretty pictures, there are no written records of the how the pyramids were constructed. All that has been shown here is records of statues being built. Yes, we know slaves were needed to pull huge stones,

Slaves weren't used.

why are there no hieroglyphics inside the pyramids?

In fact, there are.

In addition to gang graffiti (basically, "this stone is for this work crew"), in the 6th dynasty is when we see tomb inscriptions become more popular and the Book of the Dead being written in the pyramids of the pharaohs.

If they were in fact tombs you'd think they wouldn't forget to add some decor to their masterpiece.

You're probably thinking of the Theban Tombs -- in any case, tomb decoration was not common until after the reign of Khufu (guardians.net...) In earlier dynasties, even the coffins were undecorated or had only a line or two of inscription painted on them (this is one way that coffins of unknown provenance are dated.)

Most of the records that have been posted here have nothing to do with the great pyramids and that's the only thing I'm talking about. Throw in as much flair and distraction as you want, it doesn't take away from the fact there are no records of the actual pyramid construction, nor any good explanation how they placed 2.1 million stones in 20 years.

So (since you're an engineer), think back to ancient structures like Buckingham Palace, or Castle Maus (on the Rhine) -- I could list thousands of buildings for which we have no record of how they were built or how the stone was quarried or even how they transported the stone.

Let me turn this around, then... after 6,000 years, what sort of records would you expect to see that would survive and where would you expect to find them?

I'm just saying I believe it's possible they used an alternate construction method (forming stone in molds) to speed up this process. Manual labor (i.e. slaves) was still required!

...which would take a lot longer than actually cutting the stone.

Besides, the blocks aren't uniform in size.

And no slaves. Corvee labor, yes, but that's not the same (and they went home after a few months.)

I think we can now safely say that the title of this thread was... inaccurate.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
I think we can now safely say that the title of this thread was... inaccurate.

Agree to disagree. I love how "experts" can debunk a theory because of what's the popular explanation. Hopefully for the sake of discovery there are more people like me, than you.

originally posted by: Battlefresh

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

Agree to disagree. I love how "experts" can debunk a theory because of what's the popular explanation. Hopefully for the sake of discovery there are more people like me, than you.

Well I hope you won't take offence if I don't hire you for any of your 'engineering' services.
You should show your (undoubtedly) extensive client list this thread, I'm sure they would be most impressed with the application of your knowledge of 'engineering' and logic shown here.
Ciao.

One thing I've come to learn over time is that unless I see the actual construction plans (or illustrations) for a specific site / structure, it's hard for me to assume that all things were constructed the same way based on a few illustration samples from a much later time. Let's put it this way, what if a major cataclysm occurs and the human race is literally thrown back into the stone age? The remaining survivors stumble upon the Hoover Dam thousands of years later and decide to recreate the structure at a much smaller and cruder scale (not knowing what it was used for). Once they've achieved this fete they decide to depict the procedure used on some of the walls on this and adjoining structures. Fast forward a couple of millennia into the future where the human race has regained most of their technological skills, could the wall illustrations potentially be mistaken for how a much larger more complex structure like the Hoover Dam was constructed? My thinking is the more complex a structure is the less likely it will be for future generations to find wall paintings inside the structure or actual tools depicting how it was built. For instance, it's not like future human civilizations will find a giant crane situated inside the Willis Tower.

This brings me to my next point. I think everyone here will agree that the construction of the great pyramids involved a lot of hard work, but also unbelievable ingenuity. Are human beings capable of such fetes, of course we are. However, it boggles my mind that people are ready to accept the small amount of simplistic tools found at the Giza plateau as enough evidence that this is all the ancient Egyptians needed to construct the more complex pyramids. How can a civilization possess such knowledge and ingenuity to construct something as precise from a structural and geotechnical standpoint, but too stupid to think of inventing more useful advanced tools?! You mean to tell me that the ancient engineers sat there at the Giza Plateau and laid out the perfect construction techniques where the basalt floor was all aligned within a few inches across the entire base, small shafts constructed within the structure with precise lengths and widths, and 50 ton granite blocks positioned inside the Pyramid itself (not to mention all the mathematical complexities), but were too stupid to invent the wheel?! Do I believe the ancient Egyptians (or perhaps another human society before them) constructed the Pyramids, yes I do. However, I don't believe the wall depictions tell the full story and the tools likely used were dismantled (just like we do today) or eroded away a long time ago!

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: Battlefresh

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

Agree to disagree. I love how "experts" can debunk a theory because of what's the popular explanation. Hopefully for the sake of discovery there are more people like me, than you.

Well I hope you won't take offence if I don't hire you for any of your 'engineering' services.
You should show your (undoubtedly) extensive client list this thread, I'm sure they would be most impressed with the application of your knowledge of 'engineering' and logic shown here.
Ciao.

You're an ass. I'm sharing a theory on an open forum so it can be discussed. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to demean me. In the case of the pyramids, traditional reverse engineering just doesn't apply. There are too many contradictory variables. Being open minded and thinking outside of the box is EXACTLY what makes me a good engineer. You wouldn't believe who I was or what I've created if I told you and I really could care less if you did. You're obviously a closed minded person and shedding new light on a subject is not something you're open to. Honestly, I often wonder why people like you join such a forum anyways.

a reply to: theantediluvian
Hey Now, no posting facts and reason here =P

It must be Aliens, how else could people put blocks on top of each other and use a plum bob.

originally posted by: ShiftTrio
a reply to: theantediluvian
Hey Now, no posting facts and reason here =P

It must be Aliens, how else could people put blocks on top of each other and use a plum bob.

I think only one person mentioned aliens in this thread. The rest of us just want to piece all the missing clues together before assuming that all the critical questions have been answered. As an engineer I can't just assume that Point Z makes sense if currently Points B thru J and N thru X are missing.