It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 7
122
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I still maintain that perhaps some of the pyramid stones might have been concrete formations.

Most were quarried, but over thousands of years rock has a tendency to crack and erode, necessitating the need to replace them with something. I doubt that latter generations would go through the effort of carving out new stone when they could just simply replace the damaged rock with a concrete block.




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Let´s have some samples of those stones to make them undergo some
pressure tests by modern technology in comparison with the natural ones and to compare their specific weight with that of the real limestone slabs.

Let´s analyze to the last digit the material contents of those "false" slabs.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 


You know, you're right, it is hard to understand. I wrote that very late at night/ early in the morning, and I go into a trance (half way awake and asleep) when this stuff comes out. Next time I'll review it in a word processing app before posting



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I have believed for most of my life that the stones were cast in place rather than being carved and hauled up huge ramps.

I'm glad to see there is finally a scientific theory that explains how it might have been done.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Here's another reason why this wasn't poured, how in hell did they pump the concrete up to the levels (anything over 6 feet above ground) to get the height in construction. You have to pump the concrete, (just as it is done in the 20th and the 21st century). Because for one if you didn't, your mix would set before you get it to the mold that may be on a higher level (more than six feet on up). Two, you could say that it was mixed on a gantry that slowly went up story upon story upon story, but that in itself would be a feet. How to make a wooden gantry that would support the tons and tons of material that would be mixed for one and two what about the water that would be required also to be supported on this wooden gantry that is in the air surrounding the pyramid. You would have to have a reservoir of water in the tons being held in a large container, and then you would have to have it also support the thousands of individuals that would have to run up to fill the water tanks and the material that would be needed to make the pour. In essence what you would need and what that person who authored this thread and quoted the person who thinks it was poured would need is a MASSIVE RAMP that followed the building of the pyramid. This would enable the massive amount of people to bring the water and the elements to the upper levels of the pyramid to pour.

The Ramp theory has been disproved because it would have been a feat itself to construct this ramp without falling in on itself. Instead of the pyramids it would have been the pyramids and the ramp. It's the infrastructure thats needed which is destroying the pour theory. In order for it to be done as quick as they and others have said, it would have to be poured using a system to pump the concrete into the molds. And if they had pumps, they might as well have combustion engines an we would be going back to the theory of higher technology. You could say that they developed the screw mechanism that the romans used to move water first, but that isn't true, because in order to pump yards and yards of concrete with the weight associated with the yards of concrete would have required a massive screw and a strong motor to operate the screw.

There's a reason why we can't make a structure like this today, because its an engineering nightmare for one and two you could make the same structure using lighter materials and not as much stone/concrete (Pyramid in Las Vegas). Pouring points to the possibility that they had to use other technology to help in the process and that destroy the theory because of the infrastructure needed. Also as a side note and one worth thinking about, what about the unfinished Obelisks (google the name and egypt you will see the pictures) that are scattered around the quarries. It showed that they where being cut from the ground instead of poured. So the pyramids where poured with this massive infrastructure but the Obelisks (completed and not) where cut from the stone, it doesn't make sense. It would have been easier and a side note to just pour the Obelisks also since they are doing the pyramids.

No, the obvious thing to this is that the ancient people (either by instruction or side by side with the advanced beings) where able to cleave and move large blocks to do as they will with minimum of effort. It's the infrastructure and the logistics of the pour theory that destroys the theory.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


No dont delete it! I love reading about Egypt and the pyramids esp how's! You gave a lot of information. I would like to get that book
I have read many books on the pyramids and have never come across this book. Thanks for sharing! S&F!



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hoghead cheese
 


It may seem a daunting task, but before we invoke the gods, Occam's razor demands we find the simple solutions first.

I don't believe the ramp theory has been fully explored. Who says that a ramp must rise straight up the structure? A spiral ramp requires less material and has better stability, although it meanders a greater distance. And the hydraulic hypothesis allows a temporary lock to exist in the center, providing water and large stone transport to upper levels. It is complex, but not impossible.

I think there were stages where different methods were used, and concrete was one of them. When it was impracticable, other methods were employed.

I would rather think along these lines than accept the gods were responsible, whether those gods in mention were alien or advanced, I'd sooner place my bet with the humans.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Hoghead cheese makes the most sense. And nobody has mentioned the other two most important posts in this thread.....they were very subtle.............Coral Castle and an MRI machine. Magentism is VERY POWERFUL! Many theories surround the building of Coral Castle. It's FACT that he built the castle probably all by himself. Are we supposed to assume he poured all the concrete and cast all those stones himself? The poured concrete theory behind Coral Castle makes zero sense just like the GP being poured in concrete. I think the Egyptians had some sort of magnetic, sound levitating technology that helped them move these huge blocks into place. Maybe it was given to them by aliens or maybe it wasn't. Who knows. I always love the quote about electricity................human beings never knew it existed for thousands of years......but there it was all along right under our noses. I believe the same can be said about astronomy, magnetism etc. The Egyptians had an amazing grasp of astronomy like many ancient cultures. There are other forces at play in and around our planet we have yet to discover like electricity. Sound, vibration, magentism. Why are these all not plausible explanations? Just because WE, the so called more advanced civilization of the 21st century don't understand, or haven't discovered or REDISCOVERED this lost technology?

Hell for all we know maybe the Egyptians had a way of channeling lighting and used electricity in some way. Truth is much stranger than fiction people! Ancient peoples were MUCH more in tune with their natural world, stars, astronomy, etc. than we could ever dream of being with all our satellites, maps, and GPS systems.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


So why not place your bet that humans had some sort of advanced or lost technology like sound levitation that we don't have in these days? Just because you believe they had some sort of advanced technology doesn't invoke aliens or gods. Like I said look at how amazing ancient cultures knowledge of astronomy was.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by Matyas
 


So why not place your bet that humans had some sort of advanced or lost technology like sound levitation that we don't have in these days? Just because you believe they had some sort of advanced technology doesn't invoke aliens or gods. Like I said look at how amazing ancient cultures knowledge of astronomy was.



Very true, although I concede its possible, Im thoroughly convinced the Pyramids are man-made, we must be careful not to underestimate mans ability and ambition, that said Im also convinced that the means by which they were built has been lost to us, and I dont see this as accidental either, I see a network of suppression surrounding not just the truth of the pyramids, but in fact the entire history of the human race.

Oh and dont get me wrong, I certainly have no doubt that the Egyptians simply did not build the pyramids, I think they are a relic of a long lost pre-flood civilisation.
There are just too many anomolies to accept that history is as mundane and quantifiable as it has been so carefully presented.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Hi! I am going to say no I don't believe it. It's too fantastical.
Concrete cracks, concrete breaks down and crumbles in a decade
or so. All concrete cracks, even concrete that has been scored to crack at the score lines. If you can figure out a formula for concrete that doesn't crack you would be a very ,very, rich person. If this pyramid was built six thousand years ago, its the same time Stone Henge was created, and the ring forts in Ireland. The stone age, the time they worked with actual linestone because it lasts nearly forever. The moving of stones thus the stone age. I stood on the Sun pyramid in Mexico 25 years ago, it was
made out of actual stones, and was very steep to climb. I see it as a landing site for UFOs and creatures to decend to earth from. Alothough,
that is probably too fantastical too. The only thing that lasts is stone.
My husband thinks the reason the stones fit together so perfectly today,
is because of compression. All things compress over time, especially heavy limestone. SIX THOUSAND YEARS is an awfully long time... compression. Concrete would definitly crack under compression.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



But that's what I'm saying. MAN MADE with knowledge of sound or magentic levitation? Why not! Seems more plausible than anything.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by frugal
 


Yes very good points. I mean look at some of the most recent concrete buildings built in the last 200 years. Cracks, fissures, etc. The concrete theory holds no more water than any other theory in my opinion. I like your theory on the landing platform for aliens. That isn't too fantastic to believe. There is SOMETHING about the heavens that existed back in ancient civilizations that we tend to toss aside way to easily nowadays. And it wasn't just fear or the unknown. They knew "something" back then and were much more in tune with whatever "it" was.. At least in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I think it's funny how people are eager to discount ancient civilizations ability to move big heavy objects.For me it is easy to understand I work for a crane company and have first hand experience at moving big heavy things.With all the technology we have at our finger tips we constantly run into situations in which we need to move a heavy machine out of a building and are unable to use our advanced technology.Case in point last week we needed to move a six thousand pound milling machine outside a shop.It lay flat on the floor and on skates would not fit through the door!To get it off the floor we used grizzly bars and leveraged it off the floor.Next we put a steel plate under it and dragged it under the door with come alongs.The Egyptians would have used block pulleys.My point is we run into this sort of thing all the time, then it comes down to problem solving and pure muscle.This is why I can understand how they did it, they had all the muscle and time in the world,not to mention a well developed problem solving brain.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Christopher Dunn has uncovered amazing evidence for saws being used to cut stone and of granite blocks with perfectly drilled holes (exhibit 23) complete with the original, spiral bore marks:
www.gizapower.com...

Think the ancient Egyptians had only copper chisels? Phooey! They had MACHINERY that cut blocks of granite to any size and shape they wanted. Dunne has discovered the artefacts to prove this. Only it is ignored by Egyptologists because it does not fit the academic view of history as a state of ever-progressing technology


I read Dunn's book a few years ago with great interest. His evidence for the existence of advanced machining capability was compelling to say the least. If my memory serves me correctly, I recall him describing the complexity of some of the stone shapes. Those lining the floors, walls and roofs of the ascending/descending passages were not necessarily rectangular -- they possessed oblique faces of differing angles, yet were still fitted together miraculously closely. If there is any merit to the "concrete" theory, then I would have to wonder how complex the formwork would have been in order to create, with precision, the many irregular shapes required in the interior? Was any consideration given to this aspect of creating blocks from a fluid mixture?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


Perhaps. There was an ancient Indian culture in those days, and mainstream opinion holds they were quite advanced. As commonly known it was called Rama. During warm periods cultures sharing knowledge may have been common.

But a civilization growing up with such deep understanding of the natural world would have left more traces than pyramids and jars, don't you think? At least Rama left their mountain of knowledge, though in poetic form.

Unless of course you believe it is within the pyramids. That could be a distinct possibility too. Worth another thread.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Some white people just can't accept the fact that colored people can work their asses off day and night.

Just because you can't do it, it doesn't mean others can't.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


I don't believe it is as black and white as you say.
I think it has more to do with a lack of imagination on the part of modern thinking on how to solve simple problems.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Think about it,we are talking about shaping stones into blocks and stacking them into a pyramid shape.
If a child can do it-then why not man on a giant scale?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by reasonable
about 10yrs ago I knew someone 'in the know' on this. Their claim- Egyptian gov full well knows the stones were poured but violently fights anyone trying to prove it. They feel if this got out it would be a blow to the mystery that surrounds the pyramids and thus a blow to tourism in general.


Wouldn't that make it even MORE popular?!



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join