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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

was i banned?

your just making stuff up
edit on 1-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk

was i banned?

your just making stuff up


if you're still here in the morning then NO
but I've asked the mods to look into it,
bye now



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk


well, i am not clear if you think i am someone else, marduk, but i havent broken any t and c to my knowledge and a cruder person than i might accuse you of misdirection
edit on 1-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: blackcrowe

well, the thing is, there is no hard evidence, as you would expect. there are recently unearthed scrolls of shipping inventories for what seems to be casing stones, but i would say the structure was renovated for the glory of khufu and its original evolution probably went through several stages like baalbek, or christian churches, always the same with new religions.
meet the new boss, just like the old boss(es)

We know Khufu's father was Sneferu. We know Sneferu built the Red Pyramid. We even have a record that allows us to estimate how long the Red Pyramid's construction took:

Rainer Stadelmann has been working at North Dashur for over a decade. In the course of his excavations of the debris at the base of the pyramid he found hundreds of pieces of fine white limestone casing. Many of these have graffiti inscribed on their rear faces by work gangs. One from a corner bears the hieratic (shorthand hieroglyphic) inscription mentioning ‘beginning to earth year fifteen’. This refers to counting year fifteen, which, if biennial, is equivalent to the thirtieth year of Snefru’s reign. Some thirty courses higher Stadelmann was able to place a casing stone dated only four years later—this gives us a very clear picture of the length of time it took to build such pyramids.
Source


originally posted by: username74there is the egyptian book of the dead
claims that the pyramid is created as a physical analogue of this work or philosophy

No such claim has been made by Egyptology. I don't know where you heard this, but whoever you got it from is not to be trusted as a source.


originally posted by: username74more likely, to me the book of the dead was compiled because of the existance of this monument they did not understand
more likely a book is written about a monument, than a monument is inspired by a book
and then there is primary evidence of the skilled builders accomodations but any extensive renovation would leave the same evidence

The Book of the Dead post-dates the Giza complex. Also, it's not about pyramids nor is it analogous to pyramid tombs.

Harte



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

so where are the lewis holes?

There are a large number of stones at Baalbek that still show Lewis holes, but these are stones that had to be lifted, which is what Lewis holes are for.
The trilithon only needed to be dragged into place - no Lewis holes necessary.
However, if you dispute this and think these megaliths were lifted, please explain to us exactly how you know there are no Lewis holes on the end surfaces of these stones.

Harte



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte


originally posted by: username74there is the egyptian book of the dead
claims that the pyramid is created as a physical analogue of this work or philosophy


No such claim has been made by Egyptology. I don't know where you heard this, but whoever you got it from is not to be trusted as a source.

well, on here i think, i cant find it off the cuff, but point taken.
it was a response to a query as to why the interior layout of the g p is so presicely what it is
the other was, the changing our mind about where we want to be dead for all eternity, theory
always a pressing question for these guys



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

"There are a large number of stones at Baalbek that still show Lewis holes, but these are stones that had to be lifted, which is what Lewis holes are for.
The trilithon only needed to be dragged into place - no Lewis holes necessary.
However, if you dispute this and think these megaliths were lifted, please explain to us exactly how you know there are no Lewis holes on the end surfaces of these stones. "

well, referring only to the three,
oohhh, did all that here www.abovetopsecret.com... and was late to the party
and had to be content that the only remaining lewis holes must be on the back of the rocks, which will hopefully remain conjecture, and no, i dont suggest they were lifted by cranes, and to boot i inquired if the rocks could have been in situ and before you get to the no lewis holes because no crane, you still need a method of attachment for your treadles and capstans and had to be satisfied with this sort of thing

"Look at photos of the site, you'll see numerous instances of "Lewis" holes. Lohmann writes in his treatise that the outer faces of the Trilithon blocks would have been abraded (having their faces taken down to remove evidence of such holes), as they are unsightly. The interior faces are the ones that they didn't bother abrading so that is where the Lewis holes remain."

so while i cant ask for proof, when it either no longer exists or would involve disecting a monument, nor can i provide counterproof, though i might choose to hold off on "abrasion" of lewis holes because they are "unsightly"



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

maybe i should read that thread again, i dont remember you putting that forward there
i look now and that thread was 25 pages long but i could have sworn it was al least 80



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

maybe i should read that thread again, i dont remember you putting that forward there
i look now and that thread was 25 pages long but i could have sworn it was al least 80

Given that the site is slightly downhill from the quarry, and that the stones were quarried at an angle so their front ends were upward, there is no need for lifting at all where these stones are involved.
There are, on the other hand, plenty of stones in the 50 ton range that were actually lifted up onto columns at the site. These stones still show Lewis holes (meaning, to me, that there never were any Lewis holes on the faces of the trilithon, since if these were "unsightly," then what about all the others.)
I mentioned the end faces here, allowing for the possibility that the stones might have needed to be tilted up, but I don't believe that is the case. It looks to me like they could have been slid it place right off of rollers.
I never posted in that thread about the methods used, I don't think. I mean, Roman artifacts have been found underneath the foundation of the site. The foundation itself is typical Roman honeycomb construction. Roman methods were used to seat several stones of comparable size at the temple in Jerusalem - and for the same purpose, as a retaining wall.
As far as I was concerned when I posted in the other thread, the thread was about who did it. Other posters there addressed the how of it.

Harte



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

yeah ok. no problem with the romans building the temple of jupiter.
it s just the three that give me reason to question. the base.
infill, any one can throw old masonry in a hole, under bigger rocks, maybe the arabs filled in an old tunnel under the block when they post-built their fortess.
in said thread it appears that as lewis holes were not on blocks so the question was the attachment of cordage.
this was answered by simply rationalising the evidence to say the lewis holes were erased because they were unsightly. well multiply the depth of lewis hole by breath ahd depth of facing against area of hole multiplied by depth and it seems rather extreme a supposition to support what is essentially a dearth of evidence.
rollers. well its tricky, the old roller theory.
the same way its tricky to build a building.
to elucidate- the structure itself may be sound on completion, but in certain stages of construction it will need reinforcement to support until loadbearing members can to added.
to put something on rollers, you must either lift it or feed it onto one roller at a time, so one tree trunk, initially must support the weight.
now wood will resist compression,we can block up locomotives with it, up to 200 tonnes. and a high coefficient of friction, so it wont slip on to you
but only in parrallel to the grain. the very concept of rollers means they turn, and the heart wood is always stronger than the sapwood.
put enough pressure on that tree and roll it between two surfaces and that high friction makes it work.
if the force is too great you will smash the bonds of the fibres, like making paper.
so assuming the subsrate is able to take it, and the roller doesnt literally explode (the sap wood anyway)
then its going to flatten the sides if the roller, then as it turns on its axis, which it wont at this point, its going to disintergrate.
so obviously its not taking 800 tonnes but the instant it starts to roll its taking up to two thirds that because contact with mother earth has been broken to move forward and all the force has been transferred, if only fleetingly.
the molecular bond moves fast or breaks.
to be honest its the substrate that gives me the #s.
you need good bedrock to do this stuff. flat and hard. thats why we still use concrete. and levels. as the famous wally on youtube demonstrates, though unintentionally.
what i see missing from alot of the academic sphere (in this respect, and understandably, i am not throwing rocks at pure academics, and i know that many academics have to get their hands dirty too) is scale and ratio.
in the same way that large animals find it hard to loose heat, because their surface area is, despite their size , proportionally small, compared to their mass-
materials have similar properties- i.e. wood and cordage- once you get to a certain size of structure or lever arm and a certain size of braided ropes to make an organic cable, then the weight of the thing itself becomes a deciding and limiting factor.
for example to build a model of a terrace hillside at say 1:72 scale and run water down it, to see what it did, you would use mercury. because water in that situation, if you were a little person, would look like jelly.
hmmm, i digress a little,
but my point is once you start wandering past 400 tonnes, say, (and thats a push) unless you start using steel , things can get very weird. if you dont have all sorts of protocol and kit and system/discipline you will make person pate all day, and move nothing
thats not a 21st century paradigm, its physics
and it seems to me that these feats are represented at times as a village outing, and, the fringe aside, when engineers tell us that we would have difficulty reproducing some of these thigs today, it is not hyperbole.
not to lay this at your door harte, for sure youve almost sold me on the diorite boulders, and been a most illuminating sparring partner.
its just a valid perspective, and shows that we are writing off much that is important.
academics building 18 foot pyramids as proof of concept is risible

edit on 3-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: username74
I'll just reply that Rome is well known for road-building and was not limited to wood for rollers.

Harte



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

i concur, but...heavy engineering, is just that
like i said, i dont lay the unknown on peoples doorsteps, if someone had it figured we would all be doing it
hopefully our body of knowledge will continue to grow
its unlikely we grow without questions



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

You seem to be concentrating on the moving of large rectangular stones by Wally's method of the stone underneath the big stone and moving on a flat surface.
In the video. It also shows him easily roll heavy stone on a wooden track. Using the pivot point of the stone to make it easy to roll. Although in the vid. It doesn't elaborate any further on this track. This, for me is a better idea. It can be used on an incline. If it was wider. It would be able to roll rectangular blocks along it. As long as the four sides were equal.
Just a thought for you.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

oooh,look what i've found!
i have no idea about this website, so earthmilk, yeah , i know, sounds nasty, but a photo is a photo, enjoy
earthmilkancientenergy.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

Great link.
It seems to be of the opinion that water is being fed to the sites from the Nile only.
I think when more evidence is found. It will also show a sewer system out to the Nile.
Also. The elevated mounds with rectangular holes open to the sky. Looks to me like it would have been a roofed building.
Maybe some shafts and holes were used to service water to the required places. But, also might be some public toilets as well as the domestic sewage system.
Hard to tell off pics tho.
Thanks.




posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

havent really read it, but hes pointing out infrastructure, well the photos are anyway. and its gonna be water, maybe seasonal but if you can imagine the source dissapearing generations later you would be left with this redundant stuff made at great effort and for no apparent reason. free for whoever to ascribe whatever reason to it, as it suits them, as people do. like here

as for sewers, well i am sure the infrastructure could be re used for whatever, maybe tombs

but, trust me on this, if you need the toilet in a sandy desert, take a spade, dont rely on finding a flush toilet
or a sewer system in a desert. waters a bit more valuble than.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

It looks elaborate.
I think it's a complete circulatory system. Feeding fresh water to where it's needed. And returning sewer/wastewater back to the Nile. Any evidence for surface water drainage is probably long gone now.
A spade in the desert.

I think they were a bit more civilized than that. Although. I might be wrong.
It wasn't really made for no reason. They probably didn't realize that the Nile would change course.
But. i'm sure that plenty of generations enjoyed the benefits of their efforts.
But. I'm only going off a few pics and a bit of comment.
Would be good to see it all though.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I have searched the internet trying to find anything more about these wells and shafts that seem to scatter the site.
I can't find anything.
When i first saw the photo's. I instantly thought of water and sewer as the reasons.
I am hoping that similar, more intact examples will be found in the future on new find excavations.
As i could not find anything else about them. Just going off the photo's in the article. Ignoring the comments in the article. I have an idea for these.
The Giza site was going to be flooded with gangs of workers. As well as all the rest of the workforce needed to supply the gangs.
These workers were skilled and worth looking after.
Before work could start on the pyramids. The site would have been prepared.
Fresh water was needed at various places throughout the site.
Washing/bathing/laundry services would be needed.
A sanitary system would be needed.
I was searching for confirmation of 2 or more horizontal shafts oddly showing backfall from one well shaft to the other.
No information seems to exist.
I think that water either direct from the Nile. Or diverted from it to a series of wells and shafts that carried clean water around the site.
A big problem would be how to get water to points above the Nile or water table.
Water would enter a well through a horizontal shaft. Another horizontal shaft would connect that well to another well higher up the site, using backfall. The second/outlet shaft would be much higher than the first/inlet shaft. It would work by a log/tree trunk or big rock being lowered into the well from a hoist above the well opening. As the log drops down the well. The water is pushed up the well shaft and down the outlet shaft which will become the inlet shaft in the connecting well. And so on.
I have drawn the design. Simple and easy to see how this system worked.
I have uploaded it and it's apparently in my gallery. But i can't seem to put it in this post.
If anyone can help. I would appreciate it.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 14-8-2016 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
A book i recently read that seemed knowledgeable about the pyramids astronomical aspects. There are a lot of footnotes in the book. Not sure if from the original author since i found out the book was finished by another due to the death of the original. Some interesting sections later about telescopes also. archive.org...
edit on 14-8-2016 by Corruptedstructure because: wrong link



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Corruptedstructure

I don't really believe in the astronomical aspects of the pyramids.
I think too many people have a job where if the truth comes out that they are not magic. Then they're jobs are gone.
It's too easy to keep the ignorance going.




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join