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.

 

I Think I Just Figured Out How the Pyramids Were Made

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
You might go to such trouble were you building God's tomb. And he was watching you.

Harte


Fair enough, but the question still remains why was this so important in the old kingdom for the pharaohs and engineers (since I doubt the pharaoh himself would be that anal to check that the inner chamber dimensions were perfectly aligned), but not so much in the new kingdom a thousand or so years later? I guess in this instance I'd be willing to accept the drop off in technology and economic power similar to what happened in Europe after the Roman empire fell. Certainly in that scenario all it took was constant wars, invasions, disease, famine, etc. for society to fall apart. Therefore, no major cataclysm such as a worldwide flood or comet strike was required.

That being said, what currently boggles my mind is why does the same drop off in massive, intricately designed / constructed structures occur all across the world with the passage of time? The biggest dilemma I have is which explanation to believe. Should I go with the current thinking that each individual site should be studied separately from it's counterparts, and if carbon dating says that Puma Punku was constructed approximately 2,500 years ago or the Moai Statues are only 1,200 years old, then I should just accept these findings and move on? However, when you look at this as one giant jigsaw puzzle (with 99% of all the actual pieces either destroyed or buried), then some correlation begins to occur. 1.) Why were people constructing pyramids all across the world at different times for their leaders if they had no communication with each other? 2.) Why do we find cyclopean type construction across the cotenants? 3.) Why do statues in southeast Asia, Easter Island and Gobekli Tepe all have similar hand and finger positioning towards the navel area? 4.) Why do we find dolmans and circular type complexes in England, Malta and Turkey spanning several millennia? 5.) Why so many stories of similar ancient gods and floods all across the world? 6.) Why do most ancient societies not take credit for building these massive structures and attribute them to a time long before they arrived to the site? 7.) Why was the Fuenta bowl found in Bolivia have similar cuneiform writing to the Sumerians?

In all honesty, when I look at all these clues, in my mind it becomes easier to accept that the current dating of all these stone structures is incorrect, and that it's more likely that humans at some point had constant communication with each other across the cotenants, were advanced enough (at least Roman level) to build these massive structures for some purpose, but something happened across the globe for us to lose some of our technological and building skills. Like I mentioned before, if future humans found the Hoover Dam 10,000 years from now, would they attribute it's construction and purpose to nomads whom occupied the structure 5,000 years ago and killed animals for sustenance and left their bones all over the complex?
edit on 30-10-2015 by skybolt because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: UMayBRite!
a reply to: Battlefresh

The stone that was quarried for the pyramids is quite soft when it is first cut out. It hardens
on exposure to air. No need for cement.

The lower portion which contains the majority of the material was built with ramps.
The upper part was done with levers. There is even a hieroglyph for the lever used.

I'm just curious as to what makes you think they were 'soft' (I imagine I know what you mean by soft)..... but what makes you think that?

Softer might contain more moisture = heavier but malleable, also more likely to crumble ?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: UMayBRite!
a reply to: Battlefresh

The stone that was quarried for the pyramids is quite soft when it is first cut out. It hardens
on exposure to air. No need for cement.

The lower portion which contains the majority of the material was built with ramps.
The upper part was done with levers. There is even a hieroglyph for the lever used.

I'm just curious as to what makes you think they were 'soft' (I imagine I know what you mean by soft)..... but what makes you think that?

Softer might contain more moisture = heavier but malleable, also more likely to crumble ?


Personally, I don't see the evidence for malleable type stone at the Giza plateau as much as for instance a site like Sacshuaman. At that site the stones give the impression that they were melted together somehow along the edges. Not saying that is what I believe, but I can see someone getting that impression.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
By malleable I have a mental picture of something the consistency of "PlayDoh" , which as we all know hardens as it dries.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Everyone wants them to be molded, this would make for an easy explanation. But, geological analysis reveals it is hard natural stone, apparently machined by a technology we do not have and know nothing about. It also does not make much sense to build a mold for each and every stone since most stones are completely unique. This would defeat the purpose of using a mold in the first place. In a modern context, we use molds to make the same shape over and over again for convenience, reusing the same mold like brick molds for many bricks, but all our bricks (of a particular style) are all identical. This means you have to build and then destroy a unique mold for each and every unique stone. I think this is a non-starter. My humble opinion



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The Unfinished Obelisk at Aswan, The Serapeum of Saqqara, The Osireion, The Osiris Shaft are proof that they, the pre-dynastic Khemitians, true name for ancient Egyptians, had the technology to cut and shape the hardest stones on the Mohs scale and move weights in excess of 50+ tons.

It was easy for them, they had Lost High Ancient Technology, not chisels not ropes, not ramps.

Many other cultures achieved similar feats, world-wide, cataclysm destroyed much.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

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?


No, Because granite and sandstone are like grass and a cow. Both basically comprised of the same elements, but in all other respects very different.

And how did they get the layers and fossils into the stones used to build the pyramids, such they they enable geologists to determine exactly which quarry each stone comes from?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cyruay
Everyone wants them to be molded, this would make for an easy explanation. But, geological analysis reveals it is hard natural stone, apparently machined by a technology we do not have and know nothing about.


Not entirely. The technology is known as "hard graft". An alien concept today, to be sure.


Our problem is that we look at the past through modern eyes. No, we could not build the pyramids today. Because minimum wages, health and safety, holiday and sick pay etc would make it impossible. The Egyptians did not have our disadvantages.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cyruay
The Unfinished Obelisk at Aswan, The Serapeum of Saqqara, The Osireion, The Osiris Shaft are proof that they, the pre-dynastic Khemitians, true name for ancient Egyptians, had the technology to cut and shape the hardest stones on the Mohs scale and move weights in excess of 50+ tons.

It was easy for them, they had Lost High Ancient Technology, not chisels not ropes, not ramps.

Yeah, like dolerite pounding stones that leave behind tell-tale "scalloping" marks like these from the unfinished obelisk:


Harte



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Cyruay

Oh, good lord. No, they did not. There is literally zero evidence that points towards any ancient civilization having super advanced technology of any kind. They pounded those stones into their rough shape with hammer stones. Then they shaped them with sand and water. Why on Earth do you feel the need to put fantasy technology into this?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: obscurepanda

Who is to say the majority of stones aren't the same size? The only stones we can see are the exterior stones and some interior walls. The majority of the pyramids stones have not been seen and it's more than likely they are exactly the same size.

I still believe molding stones would be faster even if it was only used for the majority of pieces. Once the chambers were enclosed they could no longer use the molds and this would explain why the exterior stones vary in size.

Giant saws have not been found, yet this explanation is just accepted as truth? "Non-starter" concept because you believe an equally far fetched explanation?

None of us are any closer to the truth than another...and nobody ever will be until the right concepts are discussed and tested.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Battlefresh
a reply to: obscurepanda

Who is to say the majority of stones aren't the same size? The only stones we can see are the exterior stones and some interior walls. The majority of the pyramids stones have not been seen and it's more than likely they are exactly the same size.

Even the stones we see on the outside are not the same size.

In fact, they vary in size as you go up, with the smallest exterior stones higher up, and the largest ones near the bottom.

But even any two side-by-side stones are each of a different size.

So, "2.5 million" concrete forms?

By the way, there are stone count estimates out there that have been made since the early days of Egyptology, when the 2 million-plus one was made. The lowest one I've seen hypothesizes fewer than a million stones.


originally posted by: Battlefresh
Giant saws have not been found, yet this explanation is just accepted as truth? "Non-starter" concept because you believe an equally far fetched explanation?

I agree, and so does the mainstream - no "giant saw" hypothesis has been accepted by anyone but the fringe.


originally posted by: BattlefreshNone of us are any closer to the truth than another...and nobody ever will be until the right concepts are discussed and tested.

Many of us are very much closer to the truth than others.
For example, those of us that know the Great Pyramid is not made primarily from granite blocks.

Harte



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Battlefresh

I still believe molding stones would be faster even if it was only used for the majority of pieces. Once the chambers were enclosed they could no longer use the molds and this would explain why the exterior stones vary in size.



So the Egyptians would have to quarry stone, carry it to the construction site, pulverise it into dust, make moulds, fill the moulds with the limestone dust and a mixture of other minerals, allow the block to dry over a period of weeks, then stack them to build a pyramid

as opposed to cutting stone blocks in the quarry, carrying them to the construction site and stacking them to build a pyramid

Can I ask you a serious question
What planet are you from ?



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

You obviously didn't read the original post. I said nothing about pulverized stone. I specifically said they could have used sand to form stone using a lost art. What planet are YOU from? One that doesn't read apparently.

And to Harte...umm you just quoted me saying the exterior stones vary. Does anyone know how to read here?



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Battlefresh
a reply to: Marduk

You obviously didn't read the original post. I said nothing about pulverized stone. I specifically said they could have used sand to form stone using a lost art. What planet are YOU from? One that doesn't read apparently.

And to Harte...umm you just quoted me saying the exterior stones vary. Does anyone know how to read here?

And this variation means nothing to you?

Where are the molded stones?

Harte



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Battlefresh
and it's more than likely they are exactly the same size.


Come clean bro.
You're not a real engineer, are you?
edit on 31-10-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Battlefresh
a reply to: Marduk

You obviously didn't read the original post. I said nothing about pulverized stone. I specifically said they could have used sand to form stone using a lost art.

But the pyramids aren't made of sandstone.

They're made of limestone - skeletal fragments of oceanic creatures. You can't make limestone out of sand.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   


Harte



new topics




 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join