The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, has turned down Houdin's request to have his theory proved. Hawass said Houdin had issued his request using an Egyptian "cover institution" that did not have the proper expertise to examine the Great Pyramid.

www.archaeologynews.org...

I just saw the History Channel show on this and wondered what ATS had to say.. and I am not surprised that Hawass won't recognize it, but has anyone heard anymore about it? Did Houdin finish his research? Why wouldn't they want the truth to be known? They let them drill a couple of holes and that was it?
The articles stop in 2007.

Originally posted by kleverone
Listen, If they are saying that this is a Limeston Granite mixture, then why couldn't they have just mixed the cement right there on the spot? They could have easily built wooden supports in the shape of the block added the mixture and the water, let it harden, take away the wood and presto, a huge block that didn't have to be moved very far.

IT would make sense but from what I learned is that concrete or other cements take a very long time to dry exspecially if they are really big forms. I read somewhere that there is still cement that hasnt hardened at Hoover dam since its construction decades ago.

In ancient asia they would build a ramps miles long and hundreds of feet high to bring large structures to the top of their temples.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by IvanZana]

If the concrete theory were true then why would there be the need for the huge quarry just south of Kuhfu's great pyramid?

According tho this site: www.aeraweb.org...

There appears to be clear evidence of the process of quarrying ther huge blocks needed for the pyramids. According to the research of the scientists. the volume of missing rock in the quarry is comparable with the volume of the pyramid.

Volume cubic meters
Khufu pyramid 2,590,000
Khufu quarry 2,760,000

Would it make sense for them to quarry out huge blocks, then pulverize them into powder/gravel, haul it to the building site and then reconstitute it into poured concrete blocks? It seems rather redundant to me.

And just to be clear, the channels & sockets needed to lever the huge blocks from the bedrock can still be seen at the quarry site.


[edit on 30-11-2008 by Sparky63]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63
There appears to be clear evidence of the process of quarrying ther huge blocks needed for the pyramids. According to the research of the scientists. the volume of missing rock in the quarry is comparable with the volume of the pyramid.

Before I actually started studying archaeology as a mature student, I spoke to a Prof that worked in the middle east about Graham Hancock and some of his stuff. The Prof gently straightened me out as to the building materials, telling me that there are partially quarried blocks in situ with the tools used to carve them out still sitting there. He had seen them.

That should resolve the issue.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Visiting Egypt and seeing the pyramids first hand is definately on my "Bucket list". I don't know why people are so quick to discount "Brute Force " as a method for moving these massive blocks. It appears that the evidece it already there to support it.

Brute force - intelligently applied works wonders.

Lots of people in the ancient world did this. Modern city dwellers do not comprehend the amount of hard labor a person who is borned to it can do.

People are tough