Pyramids. Are they really so technically clever?

originally posted by: Tuomptonite

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: forthelove

Easier than four walls and a roof. That's the point i'm trying to make.
Not made to represent the Ben Ben. Or , so the Pharaoh could climb to the sky. Or, to represent the suns rays.
But because it was easier than a four walls and roof construction.

4 walls and a roof is a far more simple building to design and construct than a pyramid. Any knucklehead (like myself) can slap up 4 walls and a roof. A pyramid is a much more complex building. I don't know much about the Pyramids but I'm sure their builders didn't choose the pyramid design because it was easier than 4 walls and a roof.

BZZZt... wrong answer.

A four walled building that is just a few metres tall is relatively simple to make, however if you were to try and make one that was 146m tall and the roof covering an area 230m squared I think you and the vast majority of the species would be completely stumped.

There is a common misunderstanding that because the pyramids (Great and otherwise) have a high mass, they are therefore incredibly complex structures. However compared with modern structures such as suspension bridges and skyscrapers that are 5 times the height of the Great Pyramid with the vast majority of the interior volume being usable space, as opposed to almost entirely stones and rubble, the pyramids are indeed very simple structures.

For the time that they were constructed in they are incredibly impressive, in terms of the effort involved in making them, the organisation of the workforce and its necessary support structure and for the time, the engineering involved.

But the simple fact is that the simplest tall structure to build is the pyramid and that's there reason for the shape of these wonders of the ancient world.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

Sorry. I can't.
My point is why that shape.
But. If you find a link. Put it up. It would be interesting.

a reply to: purpleivan

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: fromtheskydown

Sorry. I can't.
My point is why that shape.
But. If you find a link. Put it up. It would be interesting.

Thanks for the response.

Honestly, I have looked but cannot find anything that documents how they built them. It really puzzles me why this is the case...unless I have been looking in the wrong places or I cannot see the info in front of me.

Shape-wise, I can only think that the design had a purpose in mind.
Much like our own rooftops are pitched, rather than flat.

Regarding the rubble fill-in and loose fitting stone blocks, I suppose if the intent was to encase in tightly fitted limestone casing, then that would allow for the methods they used. I can't imagine the casing was an easy achievement.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry for my late reply to you.
I too believe they were built for permanence.
But, i stand by my theory that they were simply not clever enough to make a roof to cover such large base areas.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

I am positive i've seen what you're looking for before.
But, i have seen so many vids and docu's on the whole pyramid thing. It would take forever to find.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
I hope these links work. they do show how heavy stone can be moved easily.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: fromtheskydown

I am positive i've seen what you're looking for before.
But, i have seen so many vids and docu's on the whole pyramid thing. It would take forever to find.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
I hope these links work. they do show how heavy stone can be moved easily.

Thanks for these but I was actually looking for the Egyptian records, contemporaneous with the building of the pyramids at Giza. As far as I know, there aren't any. What puzzles me, is searching for a pyramid-shaped glyph...I cannot seem to find one, yet pyramids were so ubiquitous.

I know this is off-topic. Apologies.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

also you wil notice the methods for moving heavy stone occur on a flat concrete substrate
the short answer is there is nothing approaching a record of constuction and a huge dearth of any original information, hence these threads.
there is evidence to suggest the sphinx predates the other structures, but not by many centuries, implying that other certain structure also predate the old kingdom, but good luck with that.
theres also some parallell early construction techniques with s. america which is interesting in a prehistory (ice age scenario)

a reply to: fromtheskydown

Sorry i can't help more.
It's not something i'd thought about.
Maybe it's just not been discovered yet. But, new finds are coming up all the time and the new satellite tech is very useful.
I really am sure i've seen video of hieroglyphics showing the actual work being carried out. Maybe it was on an ancient civilizations episode.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

and for a deeper argument/perspective into the prehistory of the siting of certain massive construction you need to look at the arguments surrounding the conclusions of studies of
baalbek - where is the primary evidence that supports tne conclusion
the giza plateau - well i tried , www.abovetopsecret.com...
and of course the logical assesment of argument
philological sciences, solid sciences
and i signed up around the same time as you with a similar perspective and its been an education, some of it good an a neccesary refinement and much stonewalling and silence if you come up with a fair and controversial point.
a lot of intellectual hypocrisy and a lot of alien/magical thinking
quite entertaining in all
oh and dont forget the implications of gobekli tepe, they hate that #

a reply to: username74

Thanks for your responses.

I found ATS quite by accident whislt researching texts on the Old Testament and then I searched deeper into the forums on here, before joining as a member.

I have noticed that certain members do stonewall anything that does not fit in with conventional thinking. I have also noticed a certain amount of arrogance that exudes from their posts. Being a long-time member on here does not make anyone any more qualified to, or superior to, new members. It just means they got here before us.

But, I do not deny anyone their beliefs and opinions. It is our right to have one and to express it...rightly or wrongly. I take on board and respect every response I get to my posts. However, I will not be dictated to.

a reply to: username74

www.youtube.com...
I can't find what i'm looking for. I've seen a far better video in the past.
The block roller track can actually allow rolling heavy blocks uphill too.
I watched one where a man rolled a 1 tonne block uphill. Said it felt like weight of a television set. Wish i could find.
He could've easily pushed 3 tonne. With bigger track and more manpower. 30 tonnes doesn't actually seem impossible.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

Stonewalling and arrogance. Ha ha ha.
Someone called me an idiot. That got removed.
Someone said this was the most obtuse question ever posted on ATS.
Its like water off a ducks back.
Although i am disappointed in the lack of stars and flags for what i see as a very valid thread.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

yeah, however they who stonewall do for the most part to prevent assertations without substantial evidence which is a neccesary disciplinary approach, but if issues keep coming up, which they do, its for certain reasons.
thats what you see as suppression
however you have to research what you discuss on the trot as it were
subjects become wide ranging and deflection is a common tactic but it must be answered with fact
ive learnt much but my initial questions once refined dont get answered
theres much that cant be known but supposition is frowned upon

a reply to: blackcrowe

actually that was me , but it was a plural, there were sillier comments than yours
so they took it down eh?, erased from history for perceived offense
#ing cultural marxism!
ironic on ahistory forum, deny ignorance unless its deemed offensive by an unconnected third party
idiots

a reply to: blackcrowe
Sorry. Should be a reply to fromtheskydown.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: username74

I know it was you too.

a reply to: blackcrowe

yeah, saw the long vid years ago, i use some of these tricks at work but try and do it on grass or rock or across a river
thanks though

a reply to: username74

No worries

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

Thanks for these but I was actually looking for the Egyptian records, contemporaneous with the building of the pyramids at Giza. As far as I know, there aren't any. What puzzles me, is searching for a pyramid-shaped glyph...I cannot seem to find one, yet pyramids were so ubiquitous.

Hieroglyph is Mr3. It's about a third of the way down the page at this link.
These are in alphabetical order (in English.) Scroll down to "pyramid."

Harte