New research strongly suggests the Giza pyramids were constructed using artificial stone

page: 3
122
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
What about Coral Castle ???





posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
So much for the alien building it theory!

There is so much we still need to re-learn about our past.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Concrete stones?
I guess it is possible.
I'm not sure it goes a great way to solving anything either way.
As someone else pointed out, you are STILL lugging the load up a ramp. Anyone here ever worked concrete? It is a pain in the behind. Very heavy. And even the author's own work says that this was only done for the upper courses. Which means that half of the thing (200') would have been constructed the "conventional" way.

Plus, the core of the pyramid is made of granite. Extremely heavy stones. The King's chamber, for instance, is surrounded by HUGE blocks of granite and it is situated over 150' above ground level.

This is a good thread and I'll give it a star and flag on presentation and intrigue, but as I said, this does nothing to solve anything. The same problems still exist.


I worked for a small construction outfit many years back and had to mix concrete with a shovel. Even with thick work gloves the palms of my hands had blisters within the blisters within the blisters.... The Egyptians would probably have mixed this stuff the same way. It would still have been a horrendous amount of work.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Ya I just got through mixing and pouring a slab of 3500 bags of 80# each concrete and was actually thinking about this topic as I worked.Having this in mind,I noted a couple things.Most importantly was the fact that really wet concrete is about ten times easier to work with.As in,I can stall my mixer(double batches) if I add too much dry to a slurry like mix.And by too much,I;m talking about maybe a pound of dry,added to and stopping a mixer which is churning along effortlessly containing 159#of concrete plus water weight.

Since I was doing a home made slab (23'X17'X5') and wasn't getting the big batch reddi mix truck,I didn;t go to any extreme in terms of forms.So I was able to do things like using concrete itself to make an inner wall to fill with concrete the next day after it hardened a bit.A pyramid would require surprisingly little in terms of forms compared to a vertical wall.And prob. reuseable.Woulden't need rebar either as the forc acting on it would be compressive,not torsional or any real span loading.

Copper chisels could be used to correct any bumps in 'green'concrete before it hardened.

Why not build with both big stones and concrete(with little stones/rocks)infill?Still doesn't answer the three huge granite headers enigma.They coulda used the 'swarf'from cutting the limestones for these concrete batches,forget about letting limestone just dissolve in water,it hadda been ground up somehow.And mixed wet.,not allowed to just settle or there would be stratification as the smaller particles went to the bottom.I see pumping or Archimedian type lift as fastest and easiest.Without UFO's of course.They'd be easiest.UFO's didn't help me,but there were a couple people about whose function in life was a cause for wonder...no help tho



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Thank you for this excellent post.

I do not think this theory should be so quickly shot down by the establishment Egyptologists. It is very believable that multiple construction methods may have been used, this being one. I think a combination of quarry and concrete is realistic.

Perhaps tests could be run on the other pyramids and satellites to learn more about the stones. I have always believed the key to understanding the pyramids is to see them together. I think we sometimes focus too much on the Great Pyramid and loose focus of the clues that are provided by the others.

In this case, I would like to see this theory tested on the Bent Pyramid. This to me is evidence of how the builders "learned" during construction, the theory being that they did not get the angle correct and had to adjust during building.

One last comment on the pyramids: we just do not know and probably never will. Therefore, I think all Egyptologists should be open and receptive to new ideas even if it goes against a lecture they have given a hundred times or a book they wrote. How else can we advance knowledge?



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
There was the mention of the great pyramid not having been built the same way. If there ever was an Atlantis or higher culture, than when and if we ever found their city remains, than we might better understand their world influence also.

No doubt there are other threads on other structures around the world that may have been using the same building techniques. There's still the stones as others mentioned that appear to as if been various natural blocks of stone cut in a puzzle type fashion.

My best guess is that there was help from someone with a much more advanced capability.

I believe there's been mention of river roads for barges and other boat traffic near the pyramids. Really makes me think this area was their tourist destination spot as if modelled after or similar to Atlantis (vacations).....or like Vegas.


What do the remote viewers say?

Somewhere, and more than likely, that secret library possibly hidden at the top of the great pyramid, is where would find and realize these secret technologies and history. I'd still like to think this planet was colonized or recolonized in between major cyclical events. ( Noahs Ark scenarios)

Other pyramids around the world had another more obvious structure that was lofted up at the top. I think it's wrong to assume this isn't the case with the great pyramids and than more than likely an 'attic' or vault hidden near the top.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by aleon1018]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


The bronze age is generally thought to predate the dynastic period...est. 3150...if this new estimate is accurate...2400 (or so) then 6 or 700 years would have passed since the introduction of far harder bronze...so why keep talking about copper chisels?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 27-9-2009 by grover]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Wait, so you mean it wasnt aliens? reptilians? No UFOS?


OK. sorry. Awesome thread. Great for learning my brain. To the point and well written. Thanks!



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by really

I worked for a small construction outfit many years back and had to mix concrete with a shovel. Even with thick work gloves the palms of my hands had blisters within the blisters within the blisters.... The Egyptians would probably have mixed this stuff the same way. It would still have been a horrendous amount of work.


I agree on that. The Lime used in modern concrete is the stuff that really messes with your skin. For the Egyptians, it would have been the Natron.

As for where the technology went... well, Egypt started down it's decline when the Romans (okay, preceeded by the Ptolemys) showed us... and the Romans had Concrete... which is more closely related to our modern concrete in how it operates. We still had to discover how to do it ourselves since the Roman technology was also lost to us,


Technologically... the Egyptians still quarried and moved massive hard rock... even worked Dorite to a smooth finish. Having a substance that sets to the consistency of limestone... and as such looks like limestone when examined... makes the ancient pyramid construction all th more fascinating.













[edit on 27-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   


Yes, it appears that this 'artificial limestone' technology may indeed pre-date the Romans by millenia. Quite possible it was once used extensively but over time, forgotten and slipped into obscurity.

In fact, it also mentioned that many of the stone jars/urns used by the Egyptians ... the ones with extremely narrow necks that increase into very bulbous main sections .... may also have been 'cast' rather than using a hunk of rock/stone that was hollowed out to form the jar/urn.
The main problem being that it's difficult to understand how the huge volume of rock/stone material from the inside of the jar/urn was removed if the only access was down the inside of the very narrow neck.
How would you go about grinding away that material to form the inside of the jar/urn ?


You could use a substance that would dissolve or be burned out. Maybe the Egyptians carved the inside of the mold out of wood or a hollow piece of wood (where would they get the wood?) and then once the urns were made they just set the wood on fire or chiseled it out. Did the Egyptians possess a drilling technology? They could have chiseled or drilled out the wood or stone.

On the urns/jars is there any evidence of a seam or of a seam that was sanded off? On not every casting but on a lot of castings with a two piece mold there tends to be a seam where the two pieces of the mold meet. This seam is basically a thin piece of material that sticks out of and runs the length of the molded piece. In order to get this seam out completely there would need to be a very careful sanding so that there are no indents if there is too much sanding or bumps if there are too little.

A way to prevent this is using a break away single use mold. What material would they use for this? The limestone slurry? I used plaster of paris is used for human cast molds in art school. Another thing I used was sand when i casted aluminum. The Egyptians could have also used sand by creating a positive out of wood (there I go with the wood again. Where did they get the wood in the dessert?) Packing sand on both the inside and outside of the positive, burned the positive out and poured in the concrete mix.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


What needs to be done is someone needs to physically bore into the pyramids and get core samples. Just a small hole a few inches across.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
This topic has come up before, so I'm surprised this link hasn't yet been posted in this thread:

Geopolymer Institute

It covers everything being discussed in this thread, as far as:


  • Not all blocks in the GP are "concrete", most of the base is cut stone
  • Quarry that supplied stone is undersized for the amount of stone needed in the GP, most of the rubble and remnants would have came from the ancillary works in the area (stone causeway, workers village, etc)
  • Formula for the "agglomerated stone" is codified on the "famine stele"
  • Ramp for the GP would have been excessively long to reach the top (and a greater mass than the GP itself)


Borsoum and his team published their theory on concrete blocks in the GP:

"He stressed that he believes that most of the blocks in the Khufu Pyramid were carved in the manner long suggested by archeologists. "But 10 or 20 percent [of the blocks] were probably cast in areas where it would have been highly difficult to position [whole stone] blocks," he said.

Barsoum, a native of Egypt, said he was unprepared for the onslaught of angry criticism that greeted peer-reviewed research published two years ago by himself and scientists Adrish Ganguly of Drexel and Gilles Hug of France's National Center for Scientific Research."
(source)



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
This is a neat theory and it's nice to read something coherent and entirely plausible for a change


The level of craftsmanship the Egyptians attained, at times, still amazes me to this day. Some of their statues seem impossibly smooth, even on close inspection, and completely symmetrical, I wouldn't doubt that they had the ability to do as the theory posits.

I've also always been impressed by the faience technique as it seems like an extremely advanced technology for a culture we usually associate with fairly primitive tools.

The Egyptians were much more advanced than common understanding would have us believe.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
This topic has come up before, so I'm surprised this link hasn't yet been posted in this thread:


  • Ramp for the GP would have been excessively long to reach the top (and a greater mass than the GP itself)




  • Now I find it amazing that more people have not jumped onto Kunkles Theories.

    Once you have the base perimeter of the pyramid established as long as it is water tight you can flood the whole thing. Using a system of wooden locks and channels you could build the whole ting with either cut stone or quick dry cemet or a combination of both.

    The lock and channel theory removes the need for any awkward ramp and from a logical stand point... It makes alot more sense then a ramp too.

    As for the wood itself...it may of left no trace...Coulda been scraped ,burned ,or reused elsewhere.

    Yup...if they could use water to plane the base of the pyramid Foundation then it stands to reason they had a pretty good understand of water and how to use it as a tool.

    [edit on 27-9-2009 by titorite]



    posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:08 PM
    link   
    The problem with all of this is:

    Both Davidoits and Barsoom cannot point to a single stone made of concrete.

    The core stone when examined are of very different sizes, shapes and condition - which would require separate molds

    In the wadi near the pyramids are several thousands TONS of lime stone rubble from the construction - why throw it away if they were using concrete??

    If they were using concrete why did they use gypsum mortar inbetween the blocks? Why not......concrete?

    Egyptians did have a crude form of concrete which they used for fill - there is no sign of it at any pyramid.

    The Roman Cestius pyramid in Rome is built of concrete - and it is easy to tell that it was. It is 22 by 27 meters and was built in 330 days



    posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:23 PM
    link   
    Ive never come across this theory, thank you for bringing it to my attention. It makes alot of sense, much more than the accepted theory.



    posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Hanslune
    The problem with all of this is:

    Both Davidoits and Barsoom cannot point to a single stone made of concrete.

    The core stone when examined are of very different sizes, shapes and condition - which would require separate molds

    In the wadi near the pyramids are several thousands TONS of lime stone rubble from the construction - why throw it away if they were using concrete??

    If they were using concrete why did they use gypsum mortar inbetween the blocks? Why not......concrete?

    Egyptians did have a crude form of concrete which they used for fill - there is no sign of it at any pyramid.

    The Roman Cestius pyramid in Rome is built of concrete - and it is easy to tell that it was. It is 22 by 27 meters and was built in 330 days

    /thread. The concrete theory isn't new, and has been conclusively refuted by an examination of the structure itself, as indicated. Its a neat "theory" but doesn't begin to explain how the pyramids were actually constructed.

    Is it so hard to believe that the level of technology, albeit applied in different ways, was higher in earlier epochs, and that this current society is not the most advanced in history?

    My understanding is that all of the blocks were quarried and put in position, not by ropes and pulleys, but by the application of sound to levitate huge blocks of stone, as though they were weightless. For the huge 200-ton blocks of granite found in the so-called King's Chamber, it is the only way that such sizes and weights could have been manipulated.

    I think that if we were to jump on a time machine and go back to watch the building of the pyramids, all of us would be shocked at the methods used. I don't think it involved concrete, or any artificial stone, either.



    posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:41 PM
    link   
    Concrete is a rather simple thing to make, it does not surprise me in the least that some of the stone is concrete.

    Now the date in which the concrete blocks were placed may be wrong. in 4000 years isn't it possible that during that time the Egyptians may have had to replace and repair some blocks?

    Restorations and repair especially during times of less than great economy, would make it feasible that concrete blocks were used in some of those projects.



    posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:47 PM
    link   
    reply to post by shepseskaf
     


    Are you referring to the knowledge used by Edward Leedsklalnin?

    godssecret.wordpress.com...

    I'm new to his theories but it would indeed explain Stonehenge and many other places where there is controversy regarding the explanation for the placement of massive heavy stones.

    I remember when I used to work in radiology two of the MRI techs were bored and decided to put a hammer in the room of a MRI machine They turned it on and watched that hammer float in midair. That's one magnetic resonance machine, let alone the earth and what it would be capable of lifting.



    posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:08 PM
    link   
    reply to post by whatukno
     


    I have pointed out in another thread that a lot of the monuments we see in ancient Egypt...such as Karnak are actually reconstructions done during the Ptolemic dynasty.





    top topics
     
    122
    << 1  2    4  5  6 >>

    log in

    join