posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:21 AM
Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Here I have a counter argument from a different source.
"That is* impressive. Still you're talking about one stone versus 2.3 million... and not to mention they had to be lifted into place whereas the
Thunder Stone was dragged into place. You're also talking about one "unfinished" stone versus stones that were finished and tightly put into place
and on top of each other. Unlike the Russians, the Egyptians didn't have Iron to cut the stones but relied on copper which was a soft metal. Finally
the Russians had plenty of trees to cut down to roll the stone on whereas the Egyptians lived in a desert and not an abundance of trees to work with.
So I mean...ya....ramps maybe? still pretty iffy.
There ain't no tree that could serve as a roller for a 2,000 ton stone.
The 2.3 million estimate for the GP dates to the 1800's and doesn't take into account the large vouids and the small hill that have been found
inside the pyramid.
Copper has been shown to be completely adequated for carving limestone, not that they needed to do much of this (limestone breaks out of the quarry as
rectangular stone, after all.)
More than half of the volume of any pyramid is in the bottom 1/3 of the structure.
Lastly, the core of the pyramid is made up of stones of wide variety in size that were just mortared in place. That is, it's not as if every stone
in the GP is a perfectly shaped rectangular prism.
Because of the situation in the pyramid core, it's more than silly to try to estimate the number of stones in the GP. Some stones in the core are no
larger than a football, some are quite large. The entire argument about how many "stones per minute" had to be laid is, therefore, vapid and