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.

 

New data suggests a design flaw on the great pyramid

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I don't buy that they couldn't get it square with primitive tools. When conducting the initial layout it is very simple to get it damn near exactly square using multiples of 3-4-5. If side one is measured to 300 feet, and side two is measured to 400 feet, then the distance between the mark on side one and side two will be exactly 500 feet. Anything else and it's not square. You can adjust your layout accordingly then. All it takes is something to make a straight line with ( easy to do with a primitive transit) and something to measure with. Either the Ancient Egyptians were not as advanced as some would like to believe, the ground shifted, or it was intentionally built out of square.




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

more the interior structure as regards the exterior perimeter and orientation would be more revealing. a structure of that form is mass centred proportionally to the centre of the base, or an philological issue, apparently



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

well, strings as good as a laser but you have to have a hell of a tension to make it run accurate over such a distance, unless you give them glass lenses or reflectors through winding sticks



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

Linen (or hemp) string stretches. The longer it is, the less reliable as a measuring tool.

edit on 6/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparta
So the west side may have been off by up to 5.5 inches (14.1 centimetres).


Even if its flaw, yay, let it be flaw, more than 200 meters wide object and only 14 cm inperfection. I shoot a Thumbsup for the execution of the design, our best engineers might have problem doing this precision on similar building i reckon.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Egoismyname

Nah. Laser levels and transits make precise layout pretty easy, actually.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Arizonaguy

well, strings as good as a laser but you have to have a hell of a tension to make it run accurate over such a distance, unless you give them glass lenses or reflectors through winding sticks


Laser levels have only been in use for about 30 years, yet there are tons of older large buildings that are wihin the margin of error for squareness.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

no good if it stretches



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

well, strings as good as a laser but you have to have a hell of a tension to make it run accurate over such a distance



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

flax i think



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

Yes, with exactly the same amount of tension.

There are other ways of measuring distances. A rod laid out repeatedly. A wheel.
edit on 6/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

well, yeah thats why i use lasers now



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

that big? that old? we wont give these guys the wheel or real metals



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Phage

flax i think
Linen is flax.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

A rod laid out repeatedly
well thats ok as long as you have a straight rod the length of your stucture and a second one for the other side and a perfect 90 degree between, but yeah



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

ok , sorry
but we are on the same page, you still gotta string it the distance in a desert



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

its got to be how they did it, with appropriate discrepancy, hence. light is the only other way. material or visual.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

someone needs to work out the angle of refraction over the distance, with 14cm diff'
if you give the 4 sides in metric i can set it out for us , but its pretty sure thats the discrepancy we are seeing. if point A is a pure 90*, leading off to B (vertical), and C (horizontal), then correlating D s location off C and B will give the result. if one side is perfectish its exactly what we would expect. bear in mind once you lay out the first blocks you can test their staightness with string again and revise. perfecting with the finish layer.
or i could just read the link like i should have done and do it myself

edit on 25-6-2016 by username74 because: metric imperial



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That was also my tough. Also what's the reason to re-measure it and why it should suddenly be longer when it's not nature impact over the time




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
It may have been off from the time it was constructed, but there is just no evidence to make that claim. It is just somebody trying to get attention for their research efforts. It is simply too old and could easily just be settling/shifting after the fact.

Again, it might not be, but any claim otherwise is pure speculation. All you have is one group's measurements that "might" show it is off in its current condition after thousands of years.
edit on 25-6-2016 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join