Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

a reply to: peacefulpete

Any egyptologist that could prove another culture built the pyramids would become a very rich man. Between lectures and books would make millions. Another book on ancient Egyptians you would be lucky to find a publisher.

So ita almost exactly opposite what you believe.

Egyptologists (and other -ologists who study culture) DID consult not only with engineers and architects but sat down with the people and documented how they worked and how they did things. Their records and observations and photographs and films (for more recent stuff) are some of the only documents about this. They do ask other professions about how things are done

That may indeed be the case, however we are still left with questions because the answers (and assumptions) given don’t always add up to the finished result.
No real explanation for the transport of 70 tonne granite blocks 500 miles
No real explanation for how said blocks were lifted to a fair height inside the Great Pyramid
The list goes on:
No real explanation of-
Exactly HOW pyramids were constructed in the time frame given
Forensic Tooling marks relating to certain techniques they supposedly couldn’t perform
The list goes on and on including anomalous objects, some of which we’ve discussed.

If the answers were satisfactory, we wouldn’t still have experts in various fields proposing alternative and credible methods for these examples. We would have no ‘fringe’ as it is called, if all the methods decided upon so far were adequate and logical enough to not cause the development of a ‘fringe’ or prick up the ears of experts whose knowledge relates to the above.
If the ‘mainstream ‘ continues to ignore or gloss over, or even refuse to accept that there ARE anomalies, then it’s credibility will continue to dive.

What about those two giant 1000 tonne statues of a seated pharaoh ,
The 1000 tonne unfinished obelisk?
They could clearly move these wieghts, and clearly intended to in the case of the unfinished obelisk in Aswan quarry .
These are anomalies compared to their assumed methods of moving objects.
1000 tonnes? Any of us have any real concept of just how heavy that is???
a reply to: Byrd

a reply to: bluesfreak

I've never understood the obsession with the time frame for construction. You do realise that the Romans built Hadrians Wall in about 14 years right? That is 73 and a half miles long, 3m wide and 10m tall, plus vallums and circum vallums, support forts and all the other associated bits. Built by 3 Legions (roughly 15'000 men) and in hostile terrain, under attack by native tribes.

As impressive as the Great Pyramid is, it is a single site in friendly land with a constant supply of materials (building and food, etc). Frankly, the contruction of this pyramid was in a relaxed time frame. If they had put their minds to it, they could have constructed it much quicker.

Good point, but the Romans in this instance didn’t get 70 tonne slabs from 500 miles away then lift them to a height perhaps half the height of the GP?
I’m not trying to be a smarty pants on here, I only know about machining and tooling , as you may have read in my posts.
My simple statement is just that there ARE anomalous objects and methods done by the AE , and that the academics need to acknowledge this.

I’m not so sure how you believe the AE could have done the GP quicker?! Especially when nobody REALLY knows how it was done , and that AE pictograms/ drawings don’t exist for a COMPLETE understanding of the AE construction methods, tooling, lifting capabilities. Is there, for instance , AE artwork plainly showing them using a ramp to bring stone and huge blocks up to the required height on the GP? Not that I’m aware of, and yet, it is considered the ‘truth’ by ‘mainstream’ on the matter.
There is much assumption , which bothers me; especially when other, equally valid concepts and proposals are laughed out onto the ‘fringe’. a reply to: Flavian

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Good point, but the Romans in this instance didn’t get 70 tonne slabs from 500 miles away then lift them to a height perhaps half the height of the GP?

Neither did the Egyptians. The granite blocks aren't that big or that heavy. And the Egyptians were moving material up a slope, not dead lifting it.

My simple statement is just that there ARE anomalous objects and methods done by the AE , and that the academics need to acknowledge this.

The problem is you don't know what academics have said or acknowledged... you are going on what fringe websites report. You should go to the source.

Is there, for instance , AE artwork plainly showing them using a ramp to bring stone and huge blocks up to the required height on the GP?

No...but if you look, there's no engineering reports on most ancient buildings... even as late as the Middle Ages, there were no diagrams showing people building castles...or cathedrals. Architects had notes, but they were on papyri and not kept.

We do have reports of how they did things in earlier times and there are wall paintings of them moving huge statues on sledges. And Egyptologists did sit down with laborers and craftsmen still doing things by hand and asked them what they were doing and how they did it and what tools they used and how they use them and make them. This is all part of basic research in the field.

There is much assumption , which bothers me; especially when other, equally valid concepts and proposals are laughed out onto the ‘fringe’. a reply to: Flavian

Because the "equally valid concepts and proposals" aren't.

If you haven't been reading Egyptological publications (like the one that Harte linked above; the book by Petrie. Did you read it?) then you're actually not aware of what we know. You've been handed a load of ... frankly... codswallop by people who couldn't be bothered to read up on the subject and just yammered off their opinions.

Do you, as a machinist have to go (over and over again) and accept or investigate every single idea about how to use a lathe? Do you have to accept someone who says that 100 years ago they couldn't have done lathework because they didn't have high speed engines to turn the lathe? Do you have to seriously investigate whether lathes back then were turned by horse treadmills (because nobody knows how they powered engine lathes in 1780) and because there aren't any drawings of people using engine lathes? (I found this nice article on engine lathes of the 1780's)

Can you imagine how annoying it would be to be told that you weren't open minded enough and it's clear that Jesus used a steam lathe made by Heron of Alexandria and that lathes in China were powered by kites... by people who couldn't be bothered to read a book on lathes and turning?

Yeah, it's like that.

...now let me be fair, though. The books (and there are hundreds of thousands of scholarly books) are NOT easy to read as a rule. In addition, much of the work is done by Germans and French, so the number of English publications is smaller. Although Egypt is a popular topic, academic books about it with all the science in them are NOT popular. The chances of the average person coming across some of the good ones is pretty small unless you get a degree in Egyptology.

You are missing a LOT of information and what you've been handed is very poor information. Reading sites like Ancient World Online or Reshafim or publications from Oriental Institute of Chicago (this is a link to their field research reports but they've digitized and made free hundreds of books on their site) or books by Flinders Petrie (now outdated but still excellent) or John Romer (who's made films) or Joyce Tyldesley (one of my professors) or Jan Assman or James Allen (if you're into hieroglyphs)... etc, etc... will give you a much better picture of what we know and how we know it.

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Stocks cored a piece of rose granite from Aswan for a program shown on Nova. Your "1 mm tickle" was 5 centimeters deep. It was shown in linked photographs. The video can be found out there, but you appear afraid to look.

No, not afraid at all, have watched it, and just watched it again. My mistake on the 1mm, and yes, maybe 4-5 cm deep. However the exact quote given on the video that you handily omit is when they point at it triumphantly and declare “ this took us only a few days” .
Minutes before in the video , stocks himself says it should cut through the granite at 4cm an HOUR. Didn’t work, did it? It took them “ a few days” , but that could mean , say, 4 days, couldn’t it? For 4-5 cm. So again, we debate, a 6 sided cube would take how long?

Maybe you should watch again. Stocks has extensive experience cutting stone with sand.
In the video, he clearly states "4 millimeters" in an hour.
Less than one one-hundreth of what you posted.

Reposting the link so you can check me.
Stock's video

Approximately 2:23 into the vid.

Harte

Hi Byrd, you make fair points on everything, as always, and I understand your frustrations.

Neither did the Egyptians. The granite blocks aren't that big or that heavy. And the Egyptians were moving material up a slope, not dead lifting it.

I have read, and Wikipedia backs me up I think that the largest granite blocks in the Grand Gallery of the GP were 27’ long, 8’ wide and 4’ thick. And wiegh in at 70-80 tonnes.This is why I ask the question .

The ramp is still not understood, no artwork showing it, or descriptions in heiroglyphs but it is still taken as gospel that this is the method.

This Lathe thing. A lathe doesn’t have to be turning quickly to make substantial cuts or remove material, or create a bowl. Many lathes of course are extremely high powered today, but that is because we can do it, and it makes light and quick work of any material. However , slow turning is still just as effective , just takes a little longer. In fact, turning steel is often done slowly and that’s VERY hard.
A hand cranked lathe will still be very effective. A sturdy ‘chuck ‘ system to hold a workpiece or faceplate as was used way back and you really have the answer to these bowls and plates with lathe forensics.
The striations are too accurate for it not to be a lathe .

I’ve read Petrie. interesting.


I’ve shown you an alternative theory of turning the plate-like object with all the concentric walls by actually making Harte a little gift and posting the pictures. It also shows the micro striations that we see in the AE versions of bowls and plates which are the forensics of lathe work.
Seeing as it’s not generally accepted they had lathes , I think I have done a simple enough demonstration that they could well have had them .
That’s all I’m really saying. By what I know, they probably had them .

I’m not saying that Egyptologists are disingenuous , or any other negative stuff at all, but without concrete replications of how they moved, quarried and elevated huge granite pieces, it’s still assumptions and theory. This is why the ‘fringe’ exists.
I want to see men pull a 1000 tonne obelisk on a sled. I want o see them get it out of the trench in the bedrock, put it on a sledge that can withstand 1000 tonnes, then a boat that can displace enough for 1000tonnes , then I want to see it taken off the boat, sledged to where it’s going and raised upright. By men with ropes and perhaps levers, without breaking it.
This is why you end up getting frustrated and have to put up with the likes of me asking you boring questions, because the answers aren’t quite good enough, so we naturally ask.
1000 tonnes is a HELL of a wieght to move in any conditions.

a reply to: Byrd

So, I made a typo , was typing pretty quick as I always do, probably just thinking too quickly.
And anyway, Harte, it still took them a ridiculous amount of time to cut that much.”A FEW DAYS” .
I’ll ask you again, seeing as you never reply: A six sided cube would take HOW long ? ?!!

After all the logical replies I’ve given you over the last 10 pages ( discounting your lack of replies in depth to any of them regarding lathe forensics) THIS is all you’ve got to say for yourself??
I even made you a small gift which demonstrates lathe forensics that match the AE plate with the concentric ‘walls’ and THIS is all you’re throwing at me??
Get back and look in depth at what I’ve said in all my replies to you then come back to me with some SERIOUS engineering disputes , and we’ll continue whenever you like.
And the class doesn’t need “because they didn’t have them” again either.

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
So, I made a typo , was typing pretty quick as I always do, probably just thinking too quickly.
And anyway, Harte, it still took them a ridiculous amount of time to cut that much.”A FEW DAYS” .
I’ll ask you again, seeing as you never reply: A six sided cube would take HOW long ? ?!!

Going by Stocks method, 4 mm per hour. So, if the cube is 4 millimeters on a side, it would take a little over 6 hours.
Scale up from there, and realize that pounding works MUCH faster. As long as you can smooth the surface later, you'd be better of pounding flakes off than sawing.

The obelisks are very large granite constructs, and they were pounded and smoothed, not sawn.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
After all the logical replies I’ve given you over the last 10 pages ( discounting your lack of replies in depth to any of them regarding lathe forensics) THIS is all you’ve got to say for yourself??
I even made you a small gift which demonstrates lathe forensics that match the AE plate with the concentric ‘walls’ and THIS is all you’re throwing at me??
Get back and look in depth at what I’ve said in all my replies to you then come back to me with some SERIOUS engineering disputes , and we’ll continue whenever you like.
And the class doesn’t need “because they didn’t have them” again either.

a reply to: Harte

It appears that, since you know a lathe can make such an object, you believe that a lathe is the only way such an object can be made. Despite evidence of AEs enlarging existing sawn holes by sawing around them, which would result in the concentric walls that (apparently) you think can only be done on a lathe.

Same striations would result as well.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
After all the logical replies I’ve given you over the last 10 pages ( discounting your lack of replies in depth to any of them regarding lathe forensics) THIS is all you’ve got to say for yourself??
I even made you a small gift which demonstrates lathe forensics that match the AE plate with the concentric ‘walls’ and THIS is all you’re throwing at me??
Get back and look in depth at what I’ve said in all my replies to you then come back to me with some SERIOUS engineering disputes , and we’ll continue whenever you like.
And the class doesn’t need “because they didn’t have them” again either.

a reply to: Harte

It appears that, since you know a lathe can make such an object, you believe that a lathe is the only way such an object can be made. Despite evidence of AEs enlarging existing sawn holes by sawing around them, which would result in the concentric walls that (apparently) you think can only be done on a lathe.

Same striations would result as well.

Harte

I think his point was that the circles are perfect, hence the conclusion of a lathe.

How are you imagining they would saw perfect circles? It couldn't be so perfect if hand-sawn, right?

Going by Stocks method, 4 mm per hour. So, if the cube is 4 millimeters on a side, it would take a little over 6 hours.

Ah yes, those convenient 4mm cubes dug up all over Egypt.

Well, Stocks SAID 4mm an hour, but it didn’t work out that way, did it?
Their quote was “ A FEW DAYS” to produce a cut of 4-5cm. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree it was 5cm.
Now , what is “A FEW DAYS”? They didn’t say two, or three days , but “ A FEW” . Could be 4 days .
So by stocks method , that you cling to:
50mm (5cm) divided by 4(mm) = 12.5.
It should have only taken 12.5 hours to saw 5cm into the granite, but it took them “A FEW DAYS” to reach that depth.
Therefore , a 4mm six sided cube at 12.5 hours per side = 75 hours. Or 3.125 days for a 4mm cube.
Kind of makes a mockery of your argument, doesn’t it?

And I never said obelisks were sawn, so I don’t know why you threw that in, apart from it making you look clever and right again.

I’ll answer your lathe/saw postulations on a separate reply.
a reply to: Harte

It appears that, since you know a lathe can make such an object, you believe that a lathe is the only way such an object can be made. Despite evidence of AEs enlarging existing sawn holes by sawing around them, which would result in the concentric walls that (apparently) you think can only be done on a lathe. Same striations would result as well

Let’s go over the basics of what a lathe does, and how.
A workpiece, (wood, stone,metal) of ANY shape is fixed to the spindle by various methods.
When the spindle turns, so does the workpiece.
When a cutting or shaping tool is applied in a steady way to said workpiece, the result will produce a circular cut in the material. Therefore, a big odd shaped lump of something can be made perfectly round. This applies to the side faces of the object, the front face, and the internal section of the workpiece. It’s how truly round things are formed.

The plate with the concentric wall rings was done whereby the concentric walls are the FRONT face of the object , as it spins .
Like looking at a car wheel turning facing you .
The tool was applied from the FRONT, held steady by a tool rest , no doubt, and the resultant forms are the perfect circles you see, and the ‘walls’ are gaps where the tool was not applied. The ‘cutting’ part was the gaps in between.
The fact that it also shows a perfect centre, and also perfectly circular tooling striations are the forensic hallmarks of Lathework, im afraid.
Take a look again:


Now, seriously, SERIOUSLY, where does a SAW fit into this piece of work ?
Maybe you could get a piece of wood, let’s say, and a saw and do one for us to prove that method is feasable.
It would also prove your glib remark that the same striations would occur.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it that when striations, and/or perfect circles appear in the centre of an object, or travel toward the centre, such as these, the Lathe is the only answer. You can’t really ‘guess’ a centre by sight, it’s always far more way off than you’d think. (Believe me, I’ve tried)
A lathe will always produce, and in fact, find FOR you , the perfect centre of the workpiece.

A SAW, then, is it??
I look like Stan Laurel right now


a reply to: Harte

Therefore , a 4mm six sided cube at 12.5 hours per side = 75 hours. Or 3.125 days for a 4mm cube.

Sorry, CORRECTION, what I meant to say was
“ Therefore, a 50mm (5cm)cube at 12.5 hours per side is 75 hours, or 3.125 days “
EXCEPT——- !!!!!!!
it DIDNT take Stocks 12.5 hours for that 50 mm did it? ?? It took Stocks a FEW DAYS for that 50 mm. And that was ONE side of our cube, not 6.
We don’t want to do the maths on the 4mm cube at Stocks’ speed , really, do we?
Oh go on, then, Harte...
a reply to: bluesfreak

originally posted by: bluesfreak

It appears that, since you know a lathe can make such an object, you believe that a lathe is the only way such an object can be made. Despite evidence of AEs enlarging existing sawn holes by sawing around them, which would result in the concentric walls that (apparently) you think can only be done on a lathe. Same striations would result as well

Let’s go over the basics of what a lathe does, and how.
A workpiece, (wood, stone,metal) of ANY shape is fixed to the spindle by various methods.
When the spindle turns, so does the workpiece.
When a cutting or shaping tool is applied in a steady way to said workpiece, the result will produce a circular cut in the material. Therefore, a big odd shaped lump of something can be made perfectly round. This applies to the side faces of the object, the front face, and the internal section of the workpiece. It’s how truly round things are formed.

The plate with the concentric wall rings was done whereby the concentric walls are the FRONT face of the object , as it spins .
Like looking at a car wheel turning facing you .
The tool was applied from the FRONT, held steady by a tool rest , no doubt, and the resultant forms are the perfect circles you see, and the ‘walls’ are gaps where the tool was not applied. The ‘cutting’ part was the gaps in between.
The fact that it also shows a perfect centre, and also perfectly circular tooling striations are the forensic hallmarks of Lathework, im afraid.
Take a look again:

Now, seriously, SERIOUSLY, where does a SAW fit into this piece of work ?
Maybe you could get a piece of wood, let’s say, and a saw and do one for us to prove that method is feasable.
It would also prove your glib remark that the same striations would occur.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it that when striations, and/or perfect circles appear in the centre of an object, or travel toward the centre, such as these, the Lathe is the only answer. You can’t really ‘guess’ a centre by sight, it’s always far more way off than you’d think. (Believe me, I’ve tried)
A lathe will always produce, and in fact, find FOR you , the perfect centre of the workpiece.

A SAW, then, is it??
I look like Stan Laurel right now

a reply to: Harte

A series of succeedingly larger tube saws creates the same effect. You know, the saws that the AE's depicted in their artwork, the saw Stocks used to core some granite.
Are you of the opinion that this can't be done for some reason?

It is practically the equivalent of working on the face of a piece with a lathe, only the tool is turned instead of the piece.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Therefore , a 4mm six sided cube at 12.5 hours per side = 75 hours. Or 3.125 days for a 4mm cube.

Sorry, CORRECTION, what I meant to say was
“ Therefore, a 50mm (5cm)cube at 12.5 hours per side is 75 hours, or 3.125 days “
EXCEPT——- !!!!!!!
it DIDNT take Stocks 12.5 hours for that 50 mm did it? ?? It took Stocks a FEW DAYS for that 50 mm. And that was ONE side of our cube, not 6.
We don’t want to do the maths on the 4mm cube at Stocks’ speed , really, do we?
Oh go on, then, Harte...

a reply to: bluesfreak
And, as I said (and meant to say,) you'd do better with pounding, pecking and smoothing stones, like the AEs used to carve obelisks.


Harte

a reply to: Byrd

Egyptologists (and other -ologists who study culture) DID consult not only with engineers and architects but sat down with the people and documented how they worked and how they did things

Thats the problem there. You could learn more about AE from the people that still live it. The Khemetic Priest Class. The Doggon Tribes of Africa. Have you had a look at what they have to say.

a reply to: Byrd

The problem is you don't know what academics have said or acknowledged... you are going on what fringe websites report. You should go to the source.

Why go to the source when the source is evidently misinformation. It is more than evident that the three great pyramids had nothing to do with the burial of Pharaohs. Why are the burial rooms above ground for these three pyramids when it is custom that the body is buried underground. Why the lack of hieroglyphs. What about the links to Orion and the other stars. Evidently of huge importance and worthy that they where built using the same design.

If you could address the links to the stars and the belt of Orion I might listen to what the mainstream say but it makes no serious attempt to do so.

a reply to: Byrd

No...but if you look, there's no engineering reports on most ancient buildings

Funny that very possible your missing something obvious then.


You might like this ancient temples dedicated to engineering and measurments. That even have depictions of lathes and gear sets and are carved out of solid rock.

Hoysaleswara Temple, India - Built with Ancient Machining Technology

a reply to: Harte

Give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. ALL Egyptian glyphs ever found have been translated.

Very evidenet in this thread that you confuse imagination with reality. If you dont provide any proof I think most will conclude that your imagination is playing out again.

Maybe you should have been a fiction writter that would have suited you so much better.

Prove it.