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.

 

The Great Pyramid's " Shafts"

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


Why could the pyramids not be built in a 20 year time span?

The Suez canal was built in a 10 year period, the Panama Canal (in a far more inhospitable location) over 34 years. Both of these, even allowing for modern technology (well, 1850's and 1880's), were far more impressive feats of human engineering than the pyramids, however impressive they are.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Notre Dame (almost 200 years) and we had much better tools then some bronze age people
Timeline of construction
1160 Maurice de Sully (named Bishop of Paris), orders the original cathedral demolished.
1163 Cornerstone laid for Notre Dame de Paris—construction begins.
1182 Apse and choir completed.
1196 Bishop Maurice de Sully dies.
c.1200 Work begins on western facade.
1208 Bishop Eudes de Sully dies. Nave vaults nearing completion.
1225 Western facade completed.
1250 Western towers and north rose window completed.
c.1245–1260s Transepts remodelled in the Rayonnant style by Jean de Chelles then Pierre de Montreuil
1250–1345 Remaining elements completed

Pyramids (the large ones), cutting and moving those large stones (from big distances), let alone putting them on eachother.
They made a calculation in this doc linked below, but it will tell you how many stones they had to cut&move in 20 years:
They only came with the number of 20 years because of the age of some pharaohs.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 23-2-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


Some of the pyramids were finished long after the intended recipients had perished though - not so much of an issue when the bodies had already been embalmed.

The Medieval period wasn't really a golden age for much to be honest. So much knowledge had been lost by this point that it isn't a comparable era to hold up as an example. In many areas of technology, results were way back on what say the Romans could achieve - look at the Antonine Wall and how long construction of that took or Caesar with the Tenth Legion in Spain - roads, aqueducts, mines, towns, etc just while he was posted there.

I honestly see many mysteries in the pyramids but not regarding the time they took to construct, that, to me, is totally plausible.

Regarding the loss of knowledge, a simple example. London had a stone bridge built by the Romans. By the time of the Anglo Saxons ( a mere 300-400 years after the Romans left Britain) this bridge had mostly collapsed and was patched with timber as they simply did not understand how to dress, cut and lay stones.

Pyramid building was actually a lucrative career in the old kingdom, even for slaves. They would often be far better fed than normal slaves. Aside form the huge numbers of slave labour, there were also thousands of artisans and craftsmen involved in the construction so the process would have been continuous rather than stop-start and this would mean that the whole construction process was quicker than would otherwise have been the case.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arawn73
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


"Explore the possibilitys or offer up a better explaination for the shafts." So basically your saying..until someone comes up with something that you feel is a better idea,that no one can challenge your theory? LOL.um-kay..heres a better idea... put an apostrophe in possibility's, then, spell explanation correctly...then we'll talk...


here i'll do it for you, possibility's and explanation. there.
now you can let us all know of your better idea, or are you just being a nasty little troll?
um-kay?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
Of course if they used any other materials, they would decade with time, especially we not really sure how old some pyramids are.


Actually we a good idea what the age is; the fringe need it to be old so they deny that evidence, but it is still there, lol


So why build them when they are dead a long time before completing a pyramid and not 1 mummy found in a ''sarcophagus'' either


I guess you have been reading to many fringe websites

Pyramid with a mummy in it

Neferu-ptah, her sacrophagus un-opened was found in the ruins of her pyramids



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Hi Hans,

Here is one photo of the southern elevation of the Great Pyramid which shows the opening in shadow;



I got this photo from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: Giza archives

 


The construction of the shafts is as follows: the floor is a flat slab, laid at the appropriate angle on specially cut packing stones. Then a u-shaped notched block is laid on the flat slab, forming the walls and roof of the shaft. Packing stones that span the shaft are also cut at an angle at each course level. These "simple" shafts took a great deal more effort and engineering than one might think.




images credit: cheops.org

The joints of these blocks are not sealed or mortared, so any liquid or gas would seep through them and the packing blocks as well, at least until such evaporated. I think this alone completely rules out the theories involving water (the pyramid as a "hydraulic ram pump") or hydrogen (the pyramid as a "hydrogen production center").

I think the difficulty of cutting these blocks at their prescribed angle (each shaft is different) also eliminates the idea of their being used as air or ventilation shafts - that could have been far easier with vertical chimneys or horizontal shafts affecting only a single course of packing stones (and since when would a pharaoh mar his perfect tomb for the health benefits of a few workers?)

Here is a great site covering Giza topics like the shafts at Cheops.org, it includes detailed CAD views of the shafts, you'll need to let your PC open an .SWF file for the CAD viewer. The page for their Cyber-drawings has more illustrations.

Here's an image I screencapped from there:



There's more at Cheops.org - The Findings (probably the most informative site I've yet seen on the shafts, and no fringey stuff).

Someone on the Web has also gone to the trouble of calculating all the angles/math behind the shafts, in this post (Practical purpose of the Great Pyramid shafts) at Egyptologist.org (worth a look if you want to know the math behind them).

If you analyze the upper and lower shafts, you'll notice that the Queens Chamber shafts are both 45deg, and with the QC lying at the center-line of the pyramid, both these shafts would have exited the sides at the same elevation. However, both these shafts do not penetrate the QC nor exit to the exterior. Orthodox theory is that the QC was 'abandoned' in favor of the King's Chamber, it's almost certain that no one was ever entombed in there, and again, the orthodox theory is that it instead became a 'serdab' holding a ka statue of the pharaoh.

The Kings Chamber, the shafts are of different angles, but this chamber is also not along the center-line of the pyramid, and for these shafts to exit at the same elevation, then they would require an adjustment to their angle of inclination.

That would imply the exit points have more significance than does the angle of the shaft, it's length, or it's size. It seems the builders required the exit points to be in the center-line (or at least close to it) of their facades and at the same elevation.

They DON'T point to any significant points in the sky, that theory is bunk, and all the twists and turns in the shafts rule out the idea of admitting a specific star's light or pointing the way for the Pharaoh's ka to reach heaven. It's also counter-intuitive that the king's ka would require TWO passages.

Personally, I think there's one idea worth considering, and that is the use of the shafts, at symmetrical exit points on the north and south facades, for issuing smoke as part of the entombment ceremony/procession.

You would have thousands attending the procession, lining the causeway (if not the whole plateau), and as one faces the eastern facade, the smoke issuing from the north/south facades would bracket the pyramid and allow the masses to also feel like a part of the ceremonies - much like the Vatican issuing colored smoke when they elect the new pope.

Khufu's pyramid broke all the conventions of entombment (like strictly being buried below ground level). The 'abandoned' Queen's chamber and the unfinished grotto also indicate a redesign or re-thinking of their uses, and possibly the unfinished shafts at both those locations indicate that they too had possibly been intended for issuing smoke from these, at least until the final decision came down to use the King's Chamber for the final entombment.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Amazing pictures.

So it seems they didn't made a shaft later on, but the shaft was build in the stones already and some kind of puzzle work made the shafts when laying the stones on the right way on eachother?
Simply amazing.

Lets say it was high pressured water, I don't think it matters that much if some water would be leaked, as long as the main champers (king chambers) where water proof, which it seems from the picturs I have seen.

What could be the reason for this damage and or the scarcophagus has? Maybe extreme heat or water.




And if a big fire is used inside, wouldn't it be all black and would there be enough oxigen?
We never can be sure, that's for sure.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Read Christopher Dunn and Joseph P. Farrell.

Next.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Your conclusion that the shafts from the King's Chamber did not point at any stars is correct. This conclusion will be confirmed when it is revealed that there are actually two King's Chambers and associated chambers in the Great Pyramid, and it too has its shafts leaving the pyramid at the same height. As you stated, the idea was for these shafts to break the surface of the pyramid at the same height, although I don't know the purpose. I believe there was a platform on both the north and south faces of the pyramid at the height where these shafts break the surface. The shafts to the other King's Chamber have been hidden, but they are there.

However, your conclusion that the Queen's Chamber was abandoned during a redesign of the pyramid is incorrect. The Queen's Chamber was never intended to hold a body. A clue is in the shafts, which didn't originally connect to the chamber. These shafts were to guide spirits into the chamber, not out, and from two sources within the pyramid. The geometry of these shafts in relation to the chamber is incontrovertible proof that it is easier for a spirit to travel into the Queen's Chamber using these shafts than leave it using these shafts. The reason why the shafts did not physically connect was to prevent anything physical from travelling back up.

What physical things did they not want flying up the shaft? Honey bees. The corbled alcove is a good place to attach honeycombs. The Queen's Chamber held the brooding cells for the colony, whereas the Grand Gallery, with its corbled ceiling and high surface area to volume ratio, held the main part of the honey. They were kept seperate so that honey could be harvested without destroying the colony, just like beehives today. There was a machine inside the Grand Gallery which cut down the honeycombs and the surplus honey flowed down the Well Shaft and into the Subterranean Chamber.

The King's Chambers are literally about ressurrection, and I think the other chamber - the blue-granite lined chamber - still has its contents...waiting for the day.

Where's my source for this information before anyone asks? Me.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Trafalgar1805
 


Your ideas don't really have any basis in Egyptology. Egyptians used Ka doors in many tombs but they don't involve tiny hidden shafts behind them. And I rather doubt bees would take much of a liking to living in the pyramid.

The entry points to the shafts are so generic and unadorned that it's hardly fitting for this to be the path to the afterlife for the pharaoh. The abandonment of the shafts in the Queen's Chamber indicates some sort of change of plan. That's not my theory, but the orthodox view.

Again, the shafts are;
  • too small to provide adequate fresh air (without mechanical pumps, and wouldn't need to be angled)
  • too leaky for water/hydrogen (for those fringe theories centered around those concepts)
  • too crude/unadorned for 'spirit passages' (and why would you need two?)
  • too bent/misaligned for star indicators

About the only thing they could be used for is to emit something - smoke? Or sound? A symbolic wisp of smoke at the appropriate point in the entombment ceremony would have allowed the thousands of attendees outside along the causeway to also feel like participants.

Think about how many thousands of worshipers pack the sun-baked plaza in St. Peters to catch a glimpse of smoke from a chimney when the Papal enclave elects it's new pope.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I'll stick to the theory the pyramids are power sources that had a gold capstone.

So maybe, just maybe the wire theory has some practicality. But then, it wouldn't have been a wireless source of energy if it has wires



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 


So why wouldn't the shafts run straight to the "gold capstone" - instead of exiting the pyramid halfway up the face, no where near the capstone? If they had wires running through these, wouldn't it stand to reason some trace of them would still be there - maybe even the insulators that held them in place?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


My information certainly does not have basis in Egyptology. Thank you for the complement.

Bees do live in cave like structures. The pyramid has a descending passageway followed by an ascending one into the Grand Gallery. Bees would like this, and they did. Those passageways were not designed for humans. It might take a human quite a few minutes to clamber, hunched over, to the Grand Gallery from the outside, but a bee would do it in 20 seconds or less. Bees are associated with ressurrection.

Also, you have to understand that the Great Pyramid is far older than the Ancient Egyptian civilisation, I think at least 10,000 years old, and whatever religious practises the AEs developed, were developed after misinterpreting the function of the Great Pyramid, a pyramid they did not build, so your argument about "Ka doors" I don't accept. The AEs interpreted the Great Pyramid incorrectly.

There has never been any evidence to suggest that a King of Egypt built the Subterranean Chamber, changed his mind, built the Queen's Chamber, and then changed his mind again and built the King's Chamber.

I reiterate: There are two King's Chambers in the Great Pyramid.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Excellent information BM, thanks for finding that!



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trafalgar1805

Where's my source for this information before anyone asks? Me.


And why should we believe this mysterious 'me'?
edit on 27/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
There is absolutely no evidence that the Pyramids of Khafre and Khufu were designed and built as tombs... And that is a fact. What their function was is anybodies guess. But to claim, unequivocally, that they are tombs or were built exclusively by the Pharaohs Khafre and Khufu is to ignore some extremely pressing anomalies... The most glaringly obvious is the fact that, not only is there no text with their names within the monuments, but nowhere in any text outside of them does it mention that these Pharaohs even built them... And don't even mention the quarry mark "discovered" by Howard Vyse. The grammatical error used in the cartouche was lifted from a publication called the "Marteria Hyrogliphica" which had the same grammatical error. It was later corrected in another publication.
edit on 27-2-2012 by 001ggg100 because: misspellings.

edit on 27-2-2012 by 001ggg100 because: Again misspellings



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 001ggg100
There is absolutely no evidence that the Pyramids of Khafre and Khufu were designed and built as tombs... And that is a fact.


...and you obtained this fact from?


What their function was is anybodies guess. But to claim, unequivocally, that they are tombs or were built exclusively by the Pharaohs Khafre and Khufu is to ignore some extremely pressing anomalies... The most glaringly obvious is the fact that, not only is there no text with their names within the monuments, but nowhere in any text outside of them does it mention that these Pharaohs even built them.


You left out Menkaures which does have such an inscription. Those tomb associations were found in the mortuary temples next to them. Is it your unequivical claim that they are not tombs? If not then we'll go with the evidence we have that they are tombs. Not even considering that they were built in a cemetery....

Archaeology and science defaults to the position with the most evidence, and that points to tombs. As soon as evidence is provided that they were not then the 'default' will change.



And don't even mention the quarry mark "discovered" by Howard Vyse.



Sitchin claim has long been debunked as the desperate attempt by a fringe writer to make the pyramids older as he needed them to be marker for spaceships

You did leave out the C-14 dates and the opinions of the ancient writers plus what is the symbol in AE for tomb?




edit on 27/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The fact that there was never a body found, no funerary objects, no hieroglyphs indicating the function on said monuments and no hieroglyphs from the time stating the purpose of these monuments. You would think that the Pharaohs who commissioned these mega monuments would have at least had their names carved into the wall of their burial chamber considering they covered their monuments with hieroglyphs. Why were these left bare?

Granted, I'm not as well versed in Egyptian history as you are. But I find the tomb theory a little hard to swallow... And I am in no way claiming they were built by/for Aliens. So I do not understand the Sitchin comment. As for age, I have no idea how old they are nor am I claiming they are MUCH older then they say. Can you explain to me why the top part of the Pyramid appears to be older then the lower section? I found that to be an odd occurrence...



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 001ggg100
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The fact that there was never a body found, no funerary objects, no hieroglyphs indicating the function on said monuments and no hieroglyphs from the time stating the purpose of these monuments. You would think that the Pharaohs who commissioned these mega monuments would have at least had their names carved into the wall of their burial chamber considering they covered their monuments with hieroglyphs. Why were these left bare?


We have less than 1% of the materials left from the AE, if they recorded it, it was lost over 4,500 years of looting and chaos. Lehner also has the theory that wooden panel were put up in the those two pyramids, reflecting a tradition from the earlier mastabas. As I noted before those who would have had access to more information, the classical Egyptian stated it was a tomb. There were names found in the ruins of the mortuary temples, menkaure's had an intact sarcaphogus in it and later pyramids had burials, and the AE term for a tomb was a pyramid.





Granted, I'm not as well versed in Egyptian history as you are. But I find the tomb theory a little hard to swallow...


Why there is no evidence for any other purpose for it? If it wasn't why was it placed in a cemetery and his family buried around him? One wonders


And I am in no way claiming they were built by/for Aliens. So I do not understand the Sitchin comment.


Sitchin created the charge that Vyse faked the grafitti


As for age, I have no idea how old they are nor am I claiming they are MUCH older then they say. Can you explain to me why the top part of the Pyramid appears to be older then the lower section? I found that to be an odd occurrence...


It doesn't appear to be older you are referring to the C-14 dates one of which was much older than the average. No good explanation exist other than contamination or the use of old wood. The dating placed the Giza pyramids into the same time as the other pyramids.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Hello all, first post here...

My questions are:

- What if the outlying structures surrounding the pyramids were built well after the original construction of the pyramids? Maybe the pyramids were already there, possibly abandoned, and the Egyptians in a show of some sort of reverence built their tombs near by?

-As far as the leaking properties of the shafts go, why be concerned with leakage of fluids if there was deemed to be an unending supply of the fluid? If high pressure water was somehow forced through the shaft, what would it really matter if there was a bit of leakage? Even with Hydrogen or some other gas, if there was a bit of leakage, would it really matter? If the gas was being collected somewhere outside the structure, wouldn't it still follow the path of least resistance out of the shaft?

I see people try to explain away theories based on modern thinking and methodologies...we have the benefit of thousands of years of trial and error that they didn't have. As they were the innovators of the technology, maybe they just did what worked at the time regardless of how efficient the processes were. Just a thought.

Also, how does one C14 date stone? How can anyone be sure that just because a piece of organic material found in a structure dates to a certain age, the structure must be the same age? I've often wondered if it wasn't possible that the Egyptians "re-purposed" the structures for their uses when they figured out how to get inside.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Glipski because: Added another point



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join