Who built the pyramids?

Unfortunately for that idea the limestone of which the pyramids are made have fossils in them and they are (especially the core stones) of irregular sizes and show cutting, and other stone working marks.

www.egyptarchive.co.uk...

Hello to all,
I’m first time here and I want to say I’m not Egyptologist or historian, just person who is interested in ancient buildings, especially in Egyptians pyramids.

That's a lot of bull! Did the Egyptians also build the pyramids found in the Atlantic Ocean

There aren't any pyramids there.

So far no pyramids in Atl. ocean

or South America or at a number of places thousands of miles away from Egypt?

They were built by the people who lived there.

Hmmm, I’m not happy with that. Why Pyramids all over the world (Egypt, South America, China), why are build in similar time, how they know that pyramids shape is the best shape for that, how they know math (Pythagoras theorem? One of the rooms in the big pyramid proves that), how they know that earth is not flat, how they know soooooo much about astronomy etc
How is possible that Pyramids in Egypt are part of line called “Mysterios Alignment” where are sooo many ancient sites exactly aligned along a strait line

world-mysteries.com...

So get real man. Analyse this and don't follow armchair historians and so called arheologists blindly.
So, in other words, I should take the word of people who "channeled" the information rather than the word of people who can READ the writings on the walls of the temples and so forth? Are you saying that I should also ignore all that I know (I can read hieroglyphics) and that the Rosetta Stone and other tanslation material is dead wrong?

If so, please give me some evidence why I should believe that several hundreds of years of measuring and digging and translating is just all nonsense and inferior to 20 minutes of "channeled information."

U r right but question for you, do you believe 100% in doctors today or sometimes you are using your common sence?

And how did they lug hundreds of tons of stone blocks hundreds of miles over desert sands from the stone quarries when the wheel was'nt even invented then?

No offense, but do you actually know anything about the site and the technology of the times?

Few days ago I was watching Discovery Civilization and Egyptologist said that big pyramid were building for 23 years, with max 22000 people and they make 5.000.000 stones. With just simple math we are getting 2 blocks pour minute???? How is that possible? Another thing is that every person who was carving stone has to have minimum one person behind him to sharp his tools and how many people were moving stones (if are build like that) to the pyramids?

They brought the stones by boat. We have the remains of the boats. We have pictures of the boats that they drew. On the captions of the boats, it talks about bringing stone and other material up and down the Nile.

Few years ago Japanese want to prove that is possible to move large stones with exact boat replica. Guess what happened? They tried with “small” stone around 1 tone. Boat starts sinking immediately.

p.s.
Pyramids are build long time ago, who build them no idea, but if you look "bigger picture" I think on planet earth we had advanced civilization with really high knowledge about architecture and astronomy (you have ancient building proof all over the world) and 10000 years ago from some reason they are disappear.
Like Maya civilization later.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Unfortunately for that idea the limestone of which the pyramids are made have fossils in them and they are (especially the core stones) of irregular sizes and show cutting, and other stone working marks.

www.egyptarchive.co.uk...

They were poured into molds. Maybe the cutting is the removal of the molds. It really is the logical answer, don't you think?

the great pyramid which is accredited to Cheops... no one knows... as the glyph that was found in the upper vaults of the king's chamber which apparently was the royal cartoche of Cheops was a fake, (it appeared on its side i.e unheard of and miraculously the night before Vyes' archeological grant was about to run out)...

there are also no markings in the great pyramid which date their builders... the step or zosar which is thought to have come first, is actually a crude attempt to copy the original... imo

on the other hand, there is "mythological" evidence to suggest that the building was done with the help of the gods with priests using a technology unknown at the time, whereby they tapped the stones with a long staff and floated them into place.... now as far fetched as that sounds, consider the millions of dollars governemnts around the world are spending to recapture that very technology i.e. anti-gravity...

I'd also suggest the great pyramids were built BEFORE the flood to house the weights, measures and seeds that would be needed to restart civilization once the waters receeded..

this one is a timeless debate....

further the remark of "trusting archaeologists", let me relay a story... as a bit of a amateur archo myself, i've had occasion to speak with others while in the field... in one very controversial excavation being done for a skyscraper (it was though to be going on ancient burial grounds) an archaeological representative from the government was on hand... it was suggested he was there to stop the digging if they found anything... anyone who has followed these kinds of stories knows how long a building crew can be held up when they do find a bit of bone etc... afterwards over beers, the government rep suggested "i'm not here to tell you when you've uncovered something... i'm here to tell you what you've uncovered is nothing!" ... and so it goes....

Howdy Deesell

Probably not the local answer. This would have the Egyptians, taking out blocks of limestone, crushing them, making concrete, pouring them into mold, taking them out of molds, reshaping them into a variety of shapes then stacking them.

The advantage of concrete is the ability to pour it as large pieces, they didn't do so.

Take a close look at pictures of the limestone blocks used in the core - they are not similar.

Using a mold also leaves an impress from the wood - no such impressions are found.

Howdy never_tell

Sorry but you have the information wrong. There are multiple 'quarry marks' on the stones in the relieving chambers, many in places impossible to now reach, if you research at non-fringe sites you will also come across other reasons these marks are geniune.

Sitchin created that distortion to promote his idea that aliens built the pyramids, it has no foundation.

The story

Added link

[edit on 22/11/07 by Hanslune]

An interesting development

Evidence found of how pyramids were built

Originally posted by Hanslune
An interesting development

Evidence found of how pyramids were built

And...???

The article says it was restored and put on display already. But it doesnt say anything more about the inscriptions other than the comment "It also carries inscriptions showing the process of building the pyramids". No pictures? Not a hint? It doesnt make much sense.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by merka]

It is a bit annoying isn't it? A search for a contact in Luxor has begun! I suspect it will either turn out to be anti-climatic or the information isn't being released as the paper behind the research hasn't been published yet.

Originally posted by Hanslune
It is a bit annoying isn't it? A search for a contact in Luxor has begun! I suspect it will either turn out to be anti-climatic or the information isn't being released as the paper behind the research hasn't been published yet.

that report was three years old

I find it very dubious in any event that a sarcophagus which was made for a dead woman a long time after the pyramid age would have instructions how to build them on it when it was designed to go into a tomb

but thats just because I understand the context
if I didn't I would probably claim "aha obviously this woman was one of the abductees who had been returned to Egypt many thousands of years after the Gizamids had been built and she told the carpernter how they were built because of her alien aquired knowledge shortly before she died

fits the facts doesn't it. not that in this case there really are any but that doesn't seem to normally matter when we're inventing pseudo history

reply to post by Hanslune


my understanding is that they still haven't found a cartoche on its side anywhere else (suspect)

not suggesting they didn't quarry the stones, and im not sure how that would "date" the building... many such "dating" techniques undergo scrutiny years later...

to believe everything heroditus suggests, well.... we'd believe in giants too... do we? i do, but

though Stichen and hancock both want to sell books, i'll suggest that ancient historians may not have had the same agenda

and lastly, to me, it makes the most sense... why a pyramid encase in limestone? water tight and able to withstand the flood.... do we really believe one could go from the "step" pyramid to the "great" pyramid construction in such a short leap? why a gold cap on the top? to see it from space perhaps? why have 'air shafts" that line up with Sirius? so you'd know how to get in from the outside when the water receeds...

makes just as much sense... to me anyway...

You have to give credit where credit is due. The Hebrews built Egypt with their blood,sweat, and tears.

the hebrews didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the Egyptian civilisation
you've been watching the ten commandments haven't you

Ok Hanslun, my brain matter is in tatters now after reading thread. I would agree that the pyramids stand for a way greater thing that current populace cannot understand.

As a cultured civilization, they only went thru the growing pains of evolutionary debaucles for structural self gratification. If one ponders the "Why's" of the pyramids existance, you will only reach a point of disturbing "Or it could've been's".
The evolutionary table fort he existance of stone structure's will always be the brain child of Egypts Imohtep. A genious with structural flaws and imperfect design that led to the Great pyramids we see at the Giza plato.
As for the positioning of the shafts and the attributes incumbered in the construction of the pyramids, well, they were a devotated "Believing" race of thier culture and of thier deities of that time. I mean look at christianity, started approx. 160 B.C. and has evolved into the prestigous Vatican of today. Evolution, that is all it was.

It can be said without exaggeration that the Step Pyramid complex constitutes a milestone in the evolution of monumental stone architecture, both in Egypt and in the world as a whole. It is the beginning of an evolutionary period that would eventually see the polished, smooth faced true pyramids of the 4th Dynasty master builders.

Source:

www.touregypt.net...

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Allred5923]

Originally posted by Allred5923
I mean look at christianity, started approx. 160 B.C.

are you sure about that date ?

whats your reasoning ?

The key to understanding the Giza pyramids is to resist the temptation to remove them from the context of the ancient Egyptian culture. They only become "mysterious" when taken out of context.

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


There are skepulative suggestion for religions in the first place, even though, I would have to go with the scholars of the day for the studying of biblical assumption's. I am no scholar, and I am an athiest with book knowledged to come forth and basically believe what the religous community assumes... And that is thier take as well for dating the biblical stories and event's.
As for the "160 B.C." statement, it is in accordance to something that I had read. THough I have recently discovered that the powers that be may be inclined to date the event's and stories from 60B.C.E. to 200 B.C.E.

Guess know one out there knows for sure , but to show that I didn't dream up the dates, here's a brief explanation of the common thinking for what I was trying to get across.

There is evidence of writing from 2000 BCE but most scholars agree that the Old Testament was written between the eighth and the second century BCE, and was completed by 90 CE.

Hard to back something you can't provide absolutes for,"Sorry..."

Source I had found:

www.standards.dfes.gov.uk...

There are sooooo many justifications and assumptions to the religion part of life that there is no way it could be that confusing and unexplainable , unless of course you do what the mind does,"Ponder to the state of confussion with self."

Source:

www.theology.edu...

If you find my post in error, it is because "Nobody seem's to really know..."

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ
It has nothing to do with the old testament at all.

thats why the date now in christian countries is 2007

originally that meant it was 2007 years since the birth of christ in a double booked stable in bethlehem (yes I know about the - 5 bit thats why I said originally)

I thought the commonly agreed date of his birth was spring of 4 BC? But then I guess that is still being debated.

>>>>>D A S H>>>>>>>>

Running hard and fast from a discussion of religion!