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.

 

Pyramids. Are they really so technically clever?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

i mean everyone always puts up that you tube video with the guy moving big chunks of concrete but hes on a level concrete substrate. you try that in a swampy forest. they werent transporting them across carparks




posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

String lines are very good at long distance.
eg 60m
The first pin is driven into the ground.
A mark is drawn on the pin to mark the position of the string.
String is attached by a loop shape. Not a knot. It is also important that the string is going to run at the front of the pins.
Your next pin can now be driven in at 10 m and the string is then wound round the pin over and under the main string twice. This stops the string slipping and can be pulled tighter if needed. Check for level.
Carry this on as far as you want.
Use pins in between the main pins and tie the main line to pin with a small piece of string. The main string can still run free to be tightened if needed.
The type of string can also be important. Hollow non core braided cotton was the preferred string we used. It was strong and quite stretch resistant. Maybe the Egyptians didn't have such luxury.
Very boring. But distance is no problem.

Not saying they wanted a big room. They wanted the biggest structure possible. They realized that the pyramid was a big room. They were free to do what they wanted with no pillars or supporting walls.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

"They realized that the pyramid was a big room. They were free to do what they wanted with no pillars or supporting walls. "
its not a big #ing room
its 6.#ing 5 million tons



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

Ah yes. That video.
He's showing that it is possible. Maybe not how it was actually done. But, he can do it all the same.
The Egyptians would (if they used a similar method) have probably prepared the area first. Maybe by paving in slabs. For up/down. A long ramp makes sense. They had lots of sand and mud. Again, paved.
Preparation would have been just as important. They were highly skilled and many.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

What has weight got to do with a pyramid full of usable space?



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

so how about all the other big lumps all over the globe that got moved some distance, water when we could, but?
uphill?
you need a trick. not magic



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

I put a link to a vid early on in the thread showing a large weight block rolling easily on a wooden track. This track can go uphill too. Although the link i used is not as good as footage i've seen going uphill. But. I can't find it.
The other way of up/downhill is a ramp.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

just saying its more of an artificial moumtain with holes in it. all wall running up to where the roof should be
made to have mass. and consequently massive. seismic proof
i imagine most of the hetrogeneous structures like s america and older egypt had that interlocking block style were built specifically to resist seismic shock, whether that was a serious problem still, whenever they were built, or whether it was an old technique is unclear but it certainlyimplies people expected the earth to give them a hard time



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

watched the vids, thats the guy, wally
well, the trilithon blocks are in excess of 800 tons each
riddle me that buddy



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

Are they 800t?
They can't even weigh that weight.
But. Yes.They're enormous.
My answer. Build a bigger track and use more manpower.
That's a crude answer i know. But works.
I haven't got all the answers. But, the fact that these things exist at all means they were built by someone.
The only evidence for the GP is what the Egyptians wrote themselves. Which i'm sure you already know.
But. You might be right with your theory.
It's the Egyptian governments fault that the truth is hidden. They're very selfish not letting loads of people go and dig up their country.
Until then. It's all just theory.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

i mean everyone always puts up that you tube video with the guy moving big chunks of concrete but hes on a level concrete substrate. you try that in a swampy forest. they werent transporting them across carparks

Can you cite any evidence that any large stones were moved through "a swampy forest?"
None of the Egyptian quarries would necessitate such a path.

Harte
edit on 7/31/2016 by Harte because: I said so!



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: blackcrowe

watched the vids, thats the guy, wally
well, the trilithon blocks are in excess of 800 tons each
riddle me that buddy

Those stones were quarried and placed by the Romans, using treadwheels, compound pulleys and capstans.
Roman human powered machines

Harte



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: blackcrowe

watched the vids, thats the guy, wally
well, the trilithon blocks are in excess of 800 tons each
riddle me that buddy


That's a bit of a straw man isn't it, Wally moves things completely on his own, he doesn't have a team of engineers with ropes and pulleys and a slave labour work force to call on, if he did, you bet it wouldn't be a problem



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

can you give evidence they moved them across carparks?
hence my point



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

you assume they were placed by romans
not the same thing



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

nice link by the way
some bad science in there tho
"Basically, there is no limit to the weight that humans can lift by sheer muscle power. "
for example

edit on 31-7-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

The first hand-driven Fairbairn harbour cranes were intended to lift weights of up to 12 tons to a height of 30 feet (9 metres) above the ground, and to sweep this load round over a circle 65 feet (20 metres) in diameter (illustration on the left).

Next, a 60 ton crane was built for the new docks at Keyham, which could lift loads five times heavier up to heights of 60 feet (18 metres) and over a circle 104 feet (32 metres) in diameter.

It is this "colossal crane", probably the most powerful hand driven crane ever built, that is described in detail by Fairbairn:

not a scratch on what was needed



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

It is this "colossal crane", probably the most powerful hand driven crane ever built, that is described in detail by Fairbairn:
so if above is true how is previous fit for purpose



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

it wil always be a insurmountable problem if he has no substrate




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join