A new idea on how the pyramids were constructed

reply to post by DangerDeath


There are no historical records on either.

Too bad someone felt it necessary to set the world back ages by burning down the Library at Alexandria. I literally want to weep whenever I think about where we would be today if it weren't for that single setback.

That DOES NOT MEAN that it was built by non-Egyptians, just that we cannot say it was built by any particular Pharoah (

Hans: I would disagree partially, yes we can agree that it was the Egyptians and we can make a point of assigning it the pharaohs whose names are associated with it. The evidence from the worker's village and the writing in one of the pyramids gives us names of two we can associate with their pyramids. Herodotus is also a source but his realiability can be questioned.

Unless we find more materials its possible that x pharaoh built it but it was used by Y or not used by Z.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

There are no historical records on either.

Too bad someone felt it necessary to set the world back ages by burning down the Library at Alexandria. I literally want to weep whenever I think about where we would be today if it weren't for that single setback.

There is some evidence for the pyramids but for the Sphinx it gets a little lean until the dream stelae.

Menkaures hierogylphs are written on 'his' pyramid and you have Khufu's name written a number of times in the receiving chambers above. Circumstantially you also have the families of these people in tombs surrounding them plus in the workers village the writing of the workers. They do some name dropping of the pharaohs involved but not by pyramid.

I literally want to weep whenever I think about where we would be today if it weren't for that single setback.

People sometimes over emphasis the loss from a modern point of view, it was great but there wasn't anything terribly advanced in it, or great secrets. Most of it was Greek materials.

This site is the best for a good read on what was there.The library

reply to post by Hanslune


You are right, but it still misses the point. And this is the issue.

Without forthright evidence saying something to the effect of: "Khufu built THIS PYRAMID"... You are speculating.
I'm not being argumentive here, although it may seem it. I am trying to clarify the argument I saw... and hopefully settle it by allowing you to see the other side.

Whether you intended to or not, you weren't being honest.

There is no telling, from a modern perspective, what was actually in that library.
Hell, maybe you would have your evidence of claim there, if it weren't burned down.

You know, that a pharoah actually initiated the construction of ANY of these buildings.

the moon doesn't have a sign on it that says "built by the sun" and it's not just speculation to deduce that. archeaology differs because obviosuly the further back you go the less evidence you have. so speculation is 10 times better than anything else.

personally i don't think the pyramids were built for khufu. barring the new article i was reading about the workers camps i'd never seen that before. hwoard vyse's story wasn't convincing at all.

reply to post by Mozzy


Speculation isn't a bad thing. And I'm not saying it is. All I'm saying is that speculation still leaves an opening for something else. Something that mainstream Egyptology just doesn't want to address.
That being the fact that they may have it all wrong. This entire thread is a case in point. This article is nothing more than a moving towards the center of mainstream thought... MOVING TOWARDS alternative ideals that have stated RELENTLESSLY that the GP wasn't built in 20 years!

But they still stop short of assigning anything any value other than that which THEY have labelled it. Only time will tell. As of now, we are ALL speculating.

Oh, and still yet, not a mention of the logic of the inner-chambers theory of the GP. Not by the OP, anyhow. I wouldn't expect anyone from the alternative mindset to contest this, as even this facet of this "theory" supports the alternative mindset that the Egyptologists are flat wrong.


[edit on 11-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Sorry but when you find stones in a building with building marks with his name on it I think you move up a bit from pure speculation. There are facts and evidence which we can look at and make assumptions from. We could be wrong, but there is evidence. If it were chisel on the outside one couls just say it was added later.

Perhaps you could speculate why those pieces of evidence I pointed out wouldn't lead one to assoicate the pyramid with Khufu or Menkaure - who else was around at that time they would build a tomb for?

The queen satellite pyramids also offer more evidence, it is believe that Hensutsen and Merites ...and maybe Redjedef. These people also point to it being Khufu, as these were his wife, sister and mother- of course that could all be wrong too!

For my money until we get more definite information we can associate the pyramids with those that we have.

Long live speculation. I see the Egyptologist view as a bunch of guys with a position - they are saying (oh and amongst themselves they don't always agree) this is what they think. You're going to have to come up with something better to get them to change their minds.

In archaeology you always try to come up with some start point, some theory. You really want to avoid saying, 'we have no idea', its best to take what evidence you have and say, okay this is what we think - work from this and prove or disprove it.

[edit on 11/12/08 by Hanslune]

"to build a tomb for"...

First of all, where is ANY evidence it was a tomb at all?!

Secondly, you are right, you COULD BE wrong.

Not only that, but the rest of your post goes on to DEFINE the fallacy of begging the question!

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't good enough.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

"We could be wrong, but there is evidence. If it were chisel on the outside one couls just say it was added later."

As for that, I could counter that by chiselling THIS www.cyberspaceorbit.com... into an interior rock of the building and the argument would hold JUST AS MUCH MERIT!

Do you not see what I'm saying?! Speculation is just that.

reply to post by Hanslune


Oh, and as for actually getting into technicalities of the subject, my questions way back on page one somewhere (as pertains to the "theory" at hand) have still gone unanswered.

I don't know guys...I gotta be honest here...I think you guys are both wrong.....I like to think the the aliens gave them the knowledge as to how to build them.....Yea..You guys make good points..but those are to boring...I'm going with the alien thing....So I win on style points

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Howdy Jay-in-AR

I wasn't born in an English speaking country so my understanding of what you mean by speculation and mine may differ somewhat.

I believe I understand your position that speculation can be wrong, but I'm saying that Egyptologists are making what you call speculations based on evidence, an educated assumption? The best solution this evidence points to is that the pyramids can be associated with the 'three stooges' until further information is arrived at.

Hey and thanks for adding some intelligence discussion to the thread!

reply to post by Hanslune


Nah, I understand quite well that speculation is accompanied by evidence. Problem is, the evidence isn't something that is congruent with anything else observed.

The field of Egyptology loves to call on "previous" examples to speculate on things found. I applaud that. However, you cannot argue that the GP flies in the face of all other buildings similar to it in the fact that it DOES NOT have any reliefs inside of it. To say, but yeah, there was this one marking, doesn't cut it.
To be congruent with other models, it needs to have similar characteristics. This building does not evidence anything. No evidence it was a tomb. No evidence it was built for anyone. None.

If you see it differently, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And my chambers rebuttal was still unanswered.
I guess all I can say is, until next time.

Hi, I would like to ask some of you what you think of the future foretelling attributes contributed to the great pyramid inner layout?

Very interesting none the less.

*Warning* You might have to speculate or use your imagination.

edit to add:

I cant help but think about the Hopi's prophecy rock and some info

Prophecy Rock is a petroglyph on the Hopi Reservation in Arizona that describes the life path of our world. It represents the prophecy connected with the return of the White Brother to the land, who should be carrying a cross within a sacred circle. If, however, he happened to return with only the cross and no circle, this could be the beginning of the Great Purification that would bring about the end of the world. The current day Hopi believe that the White Brother first returned to the land in the form of the Spanish invaders in the 1500's, who were carrying the cross but no sacred circle (they came as enemies rather than friends). Since that time, according to Hopi beliefs, we have been approaching the end of the world as we know it.

www.thewildrose.net...

oddly here is a catholic 'chart of the ages'

Nice pyramid guys.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]

Some interesting discussion in this thread.

But, in my opinion, the theory presented in the OP kind of misses the point.

Regardless of HOW the Giza pyramids were built, the most important question of WHY they were built still seems to be skimmed over here.

I have to side against Hans in this one - there really is no evidence that the Pyramids were ever tombs. Ever. As far as i'm aware, Egyptian Pharoahs and the like were mainly buried in the Valley of the Kings.

And why are we buying in to Khufu's name being written on the inside of the Great Pyramid?

I mean come on, if Barack Obama, for instance, visits the Hoover Dam and etches his name into the main control room somewhere, does this mean that in 10,000 years time, when the ruins are found, people would be correct in assuming that Barack built the dam and that it was all for him and/or his people? They would be incorrect - as, i believe, we are when we make assumptions regarding the, well, grafitti, (for all we know) found in the Great Pyramid which some say points the Khufu's hand in building the Pyramid.

And while the 'built over time' theory suggested in the OP is interesting and certainly a fresh take on how the Pyramids were built, it has some serious holes in it.

Still not explained and/or proven through this theory:

* HOW the multi-tonne blocks were placed into position.
* HOW the red granite found in the King's Chamber (and other locations) was transported to the Giza plateau from its original quarry.
* The PURPOSE of the 5 relieving chambers (placed above the Kings Chamber) - they hold ONLY their own weight and have little structural use.
* The REASON each beam of red granite (used to construct the reliving chambers of the King's Chamber) are rough and unfinished on their top, yet perfectly finished and squared-off on all other sides. Why go to such effort for areas which will never be seen?
* The chemical reactions which took place (according to evidence at the site) in the Queens Chamber. (for more on this, google 'Christopher Dunn' - some great research there).
* The seemingly overwhelming correlation between the Great Pyramid's internal design and acoustics. Every internal structure seems to have been intentionally constructed to maximise and utilize the Pyramid's acoustic resonance. (Christopher Dunn again)
* The so-called 'air-vents' or diagonal shafts which are IN NO WAY air shafts. Two terminate WITHIN the Pyramid walls, while the other two (which continue to the Pyramids external surfaces) are in no way designed for air-flow.

I could keep going. It seems the theory proposed in the OP has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

I applaud the idea and am glad to see fresh ideas still being released, but until it can explain all the above and the many more anomalies i didn't mention, it can't really be seriously considered.

Perhaps, as with many such theories, it is but ONE PIECE of a puzzle.

I doubt any one person or persons has the whole truth, so perhaps this is another piece to a puzzle we must all put together to find the reality of the Pyramids' history.

Originally posted by Hanslune


If I find an ancient burried structure and i droppped my leather wallet or another organic material and then died. 2000 years in the future when they find that old structure and my wallet, is the structure as old as my wallet? c-14 says so.

No you'd have to burn it, mix it with gypsum mortar, place it into places that were covered by other stones. Then people would have to come thousands of years later and pry it out.

Your explanation of why the C-14 dates from numerous sites around and on the Giza pyramids point to the Egyptians making them? That and all the pottery shards and everything else....so where is the evidence for these other guys?

Do you have any evidence at all or is it all denial and bluster? LOL


Well if you researched any of your radio carbon claims you would be shocked to see how cloudy your understanding of "facts" concerning the Great Pyramid are.

The dates are hundreds of years older than what was generally accepted, and the range of dates is almost a 1000 years. This seems odd due to the fact that it is currently accepted that the Great Pyramid was built over a 20 year period. Why such a large range of dates? This also caused some consternation with Mark Lehner as he admitted in an interview with the ARE magazine Venture Inward in the May-June 1986 issue:



.....you can summarize the results by saying our dates are 400 to 450 years too early for the Old Kingdom Pyramids, especially those of the Fourth Dynasty....Now this is really radical....I mean it'll make a big stink. The Giza pyramid is 400 years older than Egyptologists believe.

There is a table that will simplfy it a little for you at this link cycle-of-time.net...

The radiocarbon date of 3809BC on the top of the Great Pyramid is strong evidence that the structure was already finished by that date. Most of the other dates cluster around the 3100-2800BC timeframe. This proves then that the mortar was not used in the construction phase of the pyramid because the pyramid was already finished by 3809BC. The 300 year time span of 3100-2800BC, which dates the mortar found on the pyramid, proves that the casing stones were already removed by that timeframe. There can be no other conclusion from the data presented. If the mortar found throughout the pyramid is dated from 3100-2800BC and yet the pyramid was already finished by 3809BC, what other conclusion can you draw? The casing stones must have been removed prior to 3100BC.

Research more here cycle-of-time.net...



[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Oh yeah. The ancient Egyptians were very advanced in Medicine. Chants, prayers, rubbing mud on things that hurt, rubbing ox turd on an abcess, honey for busted ribs, tadpoles boiled in oil for leg swelling, making a woman puke to see how many children she'll bear, sprinkling crocodile crap on ailments, sweetening the mouth to get pregnant, barley/milk/honey bandages for unknown ailments, and they used a lot of lead-based products.

I'll say it again. Supposed advanced engineering skills that developed overnight, and primitive medicine?

Nah. If you want to sprinkle crocodile crap and red meat on open wounds, rub oxen crap into an abcess, then you aren't smart enough to build the Pyramids at Giza.

Who knows, maybe the pharaohs were actually grave robbers, trying to find some precious gold inside the pyramids? Why exclude such a possibility?

On the other hand, this looks pretty realistic, if we consider the cost of building such huge buildings. What would you do if you were a king: try to dig out some gold, or spend lots of gold?

The story from historians is quite an idealistic one, too bad, it would be a heresy to destroy such an idyll. Maybe Hawass is so reluctant to allow any changes in the promoted story.

There is another thing, I don't know how true it is. About those mummies in which koka and nicotine was found, a proof that Egyptians were in contact with Americas, because koka and tobacco are endemic in America... This would indicate very old connections between continents and allow possibility that pyramids are much older than Kephren.