How they Built the Great Pyramid of Egypt

reply to post by Mad Simian

I had found the official site you linked to before, but not the Virtual tour thing. I'll be sure to take a look at it. Thanks very much!

Hanslune-san, did someone forget to tell you this is an alt/conspiracy forum? XD

Howdy Tsurigi

Yep, but that doesn't suspend the law of physics, the need for evidence and the requirment to present the truth

For instance, what makes you so sure that the "people who actually know about the subject" are telling everything they know? This is a very basic premise in conspiracy thinking that you seem to lack

.

Because it can be verified by those who research. I've taken a copper tool and worked limestone - it works just fine, i've moved a four ton stone. I also know hundreds of people in the archaeological world - there is no conspiracy there of the magnitude many need to believe in to allow their fantasies to surivive. Large archaeological conspiracies - like Marrism, are easily noticed

You cite lack of evidence. Conspiracy people say, "How do you know the evidence has not just been concealed?" The idea that information control is a vice of the elite is something that all conspiracy theorists take for granted.

Yep and they are wrong, .........wait for it.......being wrong doesn't mean they can use their wrongness to make and qualify silly statements. Nonsense is not a basis to cancel out reality

I would point to the fact that the motto of ATS is to 'deny ignorance' and not to make ignorance the focus of fringe critical thinking skills. Websites like this serve a purpose - free flow wild ideas, and every once awhile an idea or concept comes up of merit - which I transfer back to tamer minds who need such injections!

reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe


Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.

This thread is so outstanding and interesting, it needs to be bumped occasionally to allow for new information.

One thing that has always intrigued me is the level of accuracy that the pyramid builders were able to achieve.

The stones were cut and faced with angles that were accurate to hundreds and sometime thousands of an inch.

How was that possible, given the few tools found that do not provide any where near that capability of accuracy?

Has any archaeological team been able to duplicate this facing accuracy with any of the known tools they used?

What kind of measuring devices could they have used to allow the stones to be cut to order with such accuracy?

I have never seen a satisfactory explanation for these questions, if indeed there are any yet.
Does anyone have any further information on this they they would like to share? (any new info, Slayer?)
Thanks.

reply to post by charlyv


HowdyCharlyv

Only certain parts of the various pyramids show great accuracy the vast core is just a jumble of stones

Not only are the backing stones irregular, they are also progressively smaller toward the top. Behind the backing stones, the core stones are actually even more irregular. We know this because, in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks

From

Pyramid cores

I've been on and at the pyramids a number of times; the core stone are irregular, you can also look at Menkaure's to see how the outer Tura stones were placed and then shapped (some were not finished and are still in place)

This link provides information on how they did the outer casing which IS done to a high degree of accuracy

In a few cases parts of the pyramids may be filled with sand.

The AE were expert stone masons with many generations of experience - they also worked mainly with limestone which is easy to cut and shape. For granite they had to use a lot of time, elbow grease and expertise to get those stones to the shapes they wanted.

Great thread and the recent discovery of mason marks at the other end of the so called air shaft by the last robotic search lends credence to human builders and human engineering feats lost in antiquity as to how they were performed. I wish the whom and how could be settled once and for all. Maybe one day.

I haven't read the whole thread, i will eventually.
So I just throw it in (sorry if already posted). One of the most convincing theories for me: Geopolymers.

Aka building Limestone like concrete. Using all materials which have been available at the time in egypt:
Sediments, ash and Natron. Check out the video of the Geopolymeric Institute in france.



What do you think about this ?

reply to post by Hanslune


20 years construction time which is what i have mostly read it took and 2 million blocks would mean a stone being laid into place around every 6 seconds...No way...

If it took 40 years,that would be a stone every 12 seconds..No way

If it took 80 years,that would mean a stone avery 24 seconds...No way...

thats just not working out...

Lets look at it another way...

"if" theres not 2 million blocks,lets say there are 1 million...

In 20 years,that would mean a block being laid into place every 12 seconds...Uhhhh?...No...

In 40 years a block every 24 seconds...No again...

In 80 years a block every 48 seconds...No one anywhere is going to work and slave on anything at that fast rate for that long of a time...

Its still not making any feasible sense,let alone working at a block per seconds rate for multiple decades,which doesnt make much sense either...

The stones you say that look sloppily placed may look that way after laying around for thousands of years exposed to the elements and the arabs that tried to dismantle the pyramid and stole the limestone casing blocks as well...

This Great Pyramid must also be seen as what it looked like when it was new and just completed.What we see now,especially on the outside,is a fading,withering and human damaged relic of its former glory...

Why is the world even asking the question,how did they build this pyramid? Thats a mystery in itself...

reply to post by blocula


The core stones are slopply done in all known pyramids except Cestius - and that one was built with concrete.

You just need to fill in space and no the Arab's probably didn't go around and rearrange the core stones....lol

Since you are interested in the timing here is one of many studies based on this theme:Pyramid calculator

I personally think there were are less than 1,000,000 stones and it took more than twenty years - but then I'm a radical

Edited to aadd; you might want to take a look at the volume number - it may not take into consideration that two of the pyramids were built on existing limestone outcropping which took up between 15-35% of the bulk

I thought there was going to be some proof here...
As with the PROOF, REAL, TESTED, threads, its just a collection of ideas and speculation, well ordered, but still just that.
As pointed out already, numbers, times, dont add up. Then again, Im no expert.

Originally posted by Saltarello
I thought there was going to be some proof here...
As with the PROOF, REAL, TESTED, threads, its just a collection of ideas and speculation, well ordered, but still just that.
As pointed out already, numbers, times, dont add up. Then again, Im no expert.

Well that is the problem no one is willing to put up hundred of millions of dollars to test this in real time;

A wag once suggested that the only way to really figure it out would require your grabbing a bunch of people (a few hundred thousand) reducing them a way of life equal to AE, have then build structures over a period of three generations - to gain experience, then have them to try building the pyramids - but then whose gonna do that?

All evidence points to those incredible Egyptians doing it - but how exactly is not known. I suspect that 5,000 years from now people won't believe the Cathedral of St. Peters could have been built in Rome during such a period of scientific and political chaos....

Nice thread. Very informative. I read somewhere that they're trying to replicate this technique with the tools they would have used at the time

Originally posted by TheMalacoda
Nice thread. Very informative. I read somewhere that they're trying to replicate this technique with the tools they would have used at the time

Let us know if you have a link or a name

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks for that info and the link, very informative.
If the internal core of the Great Pyramid is mostly rubble, then it certainly does shorten the time estimates to build, however it is truly a marvel of engineering however it was done. When they faced it with that white limestone, it must have been really something to see.

I found this while searching around and thought I would share it. A retired carpenter created homemade wooden devices and moved huge stone blocks and even stood some of the up like Stonehenge. The amazing part was he did it by himself showing that a little ingenuity can go a long ways. Maybe the ancients figured out a similar way to speed up the process with less labor.

Its called the forgotten technology and the video is worth a watch.

source: www.theforgottentechnology.com...

reply to post by charlyv

 

If the internal core of the Great Pyramid is mostly rubble, then it certainly does shorten the time estimates to build

"Mostly rubble"

Maybe the second pyramid [Khafri's] but the Great pyramid [Khufu's] has the Grand gallery and all the other inner precision stone engineering etc at it's core. This is one reason why "some" theorize that the larger Great pyramid was older and that the other smaller second one is a poor copy of the first which is why it shows no inner precision engineering at it's core.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

reply to post by charlyv

 

If the internal core of the Great Pyramid is mostly rubble, then it certainly does shorten the time estimates to build

"Mostly rubble"

Maybe the second pyramid [Khafri's] but the Great pyramid [Khufu's] has the Grand gallery and all the other inner precision stone engineering etc at it's core. This is one reason why "some" theorize that the larger Great pyramid was older and that the other smaller second one is a poor copy of the first which is why it shows no inner precision engineering at it's core.

Some people theorize lots of things; some plausible, much that is not. Khufu's pyramid's core despite the fancy inner works is made the same way as the other two on Giza and they like the earlier versions elsewhere

Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks

Just look at the big hole blown in the side of Khufu's by Vyse - same type of non-precision stone work look too at the 'looters tunnel'. I spent an hour there in a 'breech' in 1982 - now the claim will be the dynamite damaged the stone work - it did but towards the forward part of the blasting scar you can see uneffective tiers of stone - as a government contractor would say, 'it was good enough for contract work'....and it was

reply to post by Hanslune


I've often wondered if there were an outer and inner retaining wall of cut stones of sorts that in between was filled with some rubble. But I was addressing the notion that the "Core was filled in with Rubble" which may be the case with some of the others but not Khufus since we have the Grand gallery etc at it's core.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Hanslune

 

I've often wondered if there were an outer and inner retaining wall of cut stones of sorts that in between was filled with some rubble. But I was addressing the notion that the "Core was filled in with Rubble" which may be the case with some of the others but not Khufus since we have the Grand gallery etc at it's core.

edit on 1-12-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Howdy Slayer

Yeah that type of 'honeycomb' construction may have been done deep within the pyramids; the Romans would later make it one of their main methods of construction. There are a few indicators that they used sand as a fill also, too.

By 'core' I mean everything which is not a backing, clading, or interior passage stone. What lies one layer in from the gallery is shown (in some respects by the looters tunnel). The AE did an excellent job of making sure the tiers levels were, well, level but to what type of the construction they did around the gallery is unknown. I would speculate that they used limestone blocks faced with granite where necessary but a few courses in they may have switched back to loose crap

I think we should dissemble the pyramids and rebuild them elsewhere - or that is what I use to suggest to my horrified Egyptologist girlfriend of the time!

This is how one makes a thread.

1. I is extremely well lade out.
2. It is Informative
3. I draws the reader In.
4. It is factual.
5. Evidence has been Provided.
6.No wild theories.

Well done Slayer, show them how it's done.