S+F for you

I think this might shut up the wackos who think the ancients used vibrations to move stuff like this
Slavery was in fashion back then ..... BIG TIME ... so it seems more likely ... they just pulled em

I'm glad this was brought up. People often don't realize that just because there isn't a written record of something, it doesnt mean it didn't happen. There are written records of the egyptians moving their stones from the quarry, too. But alas, most people ignore the evidence because they want history to be exciting in their own opinion. To me th truth is exciting. People did move stones, aliens didnt. Thank you for this picture and article.

Howdy Rune spider

The illustration shows them using two windlasses - machines of a source but of course using man power. The Italians used the same type to re-raise the obelisks in Rome and the Roman's used them to move them from Egypt - one wonders who first created a windlass?

Yep the old thunderstone is a good example of what man can do when he sets him mind to. Fortunately it is well documented so no one can claim it was aliens....

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.

Let's see them drag that rock 8000 ft. up the Andes mountains with stone age tools rather than 18th century technology.

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 empty.

Harte