It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Any "other" ideas on the pyramids??

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Marduk

A hole could have been dug, the sand extracted from said hole, could be used for the countering, and endup being placed back into the hole, effectively covering up.

ok so what youre suggesting is that instead of using the already proven method
dug a hole up to 450 feet deep in sand and bedrock
then they filled a bucket with 2 tonnes of sand and rigged up a pulley system going all the way to the top of the pyramid
and this in some way made things easier


I'm sure some are glad you are amused by this with your lol.

I actually watched them employ this method on a couple documentaries.

But actually this method has already been demonstrated on TV documentaries as what may have been used to set the oblysks(sp?) in their upright positions. I believe they attempted to do this in this fashion, because they had discovered evidence that this method had been used in ancient egypt.

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:33 AM
I would love to see the evidence for that. The hole used may indeed have been the foundation of the pyramid itself. In other words, and I don't if it's true, because I don't know all the facts about pyramidal construction, but it makes sense that the lower chambers would of been created first, to have something for the actual pyramid to sit on.

Thus, after completing the lower levels, the counter-weight could have been rigged to drop down the center.

Shoot, maybe they finished the lower levels to a point where it could support a few of the above ground levels, and then used blocks to counter-wieght the other blocks, effectively getting 2 or more stones to their destination. Some above ground and some below ground.

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:18 PM

With regards to the 'effect' generated by the Great Pyramid... it's widely documented.

if its so widely documented
why is it that until you mentioned it I never heard of it before
why is it that local pilots never heard of it before
why is it that you are unable to provide a link froma credible site that describes the effect

Thus, after completing the lower levels, the counter-weight could have been rigged to drop down the center.

you are incapable of learnign arent you
are you now claiming that the pyramid has a central shaft that descends to an underground chamber
its funny that no ones ever found it don't you think
they did find a ramp though
you know what a ramp is
that thing which herodotus says is the method used to drag the blocks up without using a counter weight or any of the other baloney that you have imagined so far

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Marduk]

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:48 PM
I never claimed there was a central shaft. Nor that it dropped straight down.

Is this site credible to the community?

The new passageway leads straight across and joins in with the original passage, the descending passage. The descending passage led only to a subterranean chamber. This descending passage that leads down is set at a 26 degree angle that descends down 345 feet (105m) into the earth under the pyramid.

Considering the counter-weight didn't have to fall vertically, it could have slid down this declined passageway. Since I already explained that the drop of the counter-weight could be significantly less than the rise of the building block, 345' is more than accomadating.

How the Great Pyramid was built is a question that may never be answered.

That is the very first Sentence on that page.

And just a little further down...

These stones were brought from Aswan and Tura and the water would have brought the stones right to the pyramid.

Hmm. so water may have been used in the construction. Considering of course, that this source is community accepted.

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:15 PM
reading through that page i noticed several blatant errors

How the Great Pyramid was built is a question that may never be answered

it has been answered

Herodotus said that it would have taken 30 years and 100,000 slaves to have built it

no he didnt

Another theory is that it was built by peasants who were unable to work the land while the Nile flooded between July and November

thats an untenable theory

. These stones were brought from Aswan and Tura and the water would have brought the stones right to the pyramid

the nile is five miles away. go look at a map if you don't believe me

It would have taken over 2,300,000 blocks of stone with an average weight of 2.5 tons each.

these numbers iirc are about 100 years out of date

height of 482 feet

it was actually 481ft tall

this is just the first paragraph

this site is regarded as a credible source
use it

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:31 PM
From the credible source:

Our thinking on pyramids has evolved considerably over the years. Many of us who are a bit older were taught that the pyramids were built using Jewish slave labor, which is a fabrication of immense proportions. Most of the pyramids were built long before the Jews made their appearance historically and currently, many if not most scholars believe they were not built using slave labor at all (or perhaps a nominal number of slaves).

Otherwise, we can also dismiss offhand alternative theories related to aliens or some lost culture being responsible for pyramid building. There is just far too much evidence, including tools, drawings, evolutionary changes, and even worker villages that rule these farfetched ideas obsolete.

However, some mysteries remain, even in some of the best well known Pyramids. The most famous of them all, the Great Pyramid of Khufu, continues, year after year, to give up a few more secrets, and there doubtless remains much to learn from these Egyptian treasures. There may even be one or more pyramids yet to be discovered

Now that's the attitude I would expect from a expert Egyptologist.

The first paragraph reinforces the 'fact' that theories change, and this paragraph is specifically speaking of Egyptology.

The second parapgraph only dismisses aliens and lost cultures, which are clearly not being argued here. It doesn't say anthing about alternate methods of construction.

The third paragraph should humble everyone. It DIRECTLY says that mysteries remain, escpecially in the great pyramid. My favorite... "..and there doubtless remains much to learn..."

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:37 PM
I agree with that sentiment completely
there is much to learn
what do you think the best way to do that could be
1) from looking at the facts and devising a theory and then testing it
2) from using your imagination and then finding facts that fit your hypothesis

clearly I am using example number 1 which is actually called "the scientific method"
and you are using example number 2 which is generally referred to as pseudoscience

if I were you the only way you will progress with your studies is by practicing example number 1

learn about the subject first and then come up with a theory
as you have seen countless times by now the method you've been using so far is doomed to failure

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Marduk
yes but what goes up must come down
and vice versa
to have say a 2 ton block counterweighted by 2 tonnes of sand someone first has to carry that two tonnes up to the top
so in essence you're doubling the work you need to do

That's just stupid (no offense, but it is). You wouldnt try to lift 2 tonnes of sand by yourself of course, duh. The sand would be returned to the top of the pyramid in baskets. Lifting a basket of sand up is considerably easier than try to vertically pull a 2 ton slab of rock. If 100+ workers are doing just a single stone, you'll have a constant feed of sand.

And regarding the "hole" that came up in later posts, I never thought of that... I think its useless. You only need the opposite side of the pyramid, nothing else. Counterweight starts at the top (regardless of height) and slides down to the bottom, lifting the rock on the other side.

It would still be hard work positioning it, but at least it will be relativly easy to bring it to the current layer being built.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in