Pyramid = Electric Generator

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Are you saying that because they may have gotten some of the stones from this spot they saved themselves a few minutes?

I don't think you grasp the difference in distance between where the stones were quarried and where Aswan is

www.gizapyramids.org...
We started to remove sand for the erection of the Sound and Light cables north of the paved road
and south of the pyramid. During the work we found a large part of the ramp used to transport the
stones from the quarry to the pyramid base. This part of the ramp consisted of two walls built of stone
rubble and mixed with tafla. The area in between was filled with sand and gypsum forming the bulk
of the ramp (figs 3-5, pI. 3b, 4a).
On the south side of the paved road, south of Khufu's pyramid, we excavated down about 2.5 m
and found another part of the ramp. This part is in line with the eastern and western wall and is of
similar construction. This discovery proves that the ramp led from the quarry to the southwest comer
of the pyramid and was made of stone rubble and tafla.

Some food for thought... weren't there warnings at the entrances? (or was that just where mummies were found?) If so, it might be an interesting way of saying "Warning, High Voltage. Electrocution or Death May Occur. Authorized Personnel Only"

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
Some food for thought... weren't there warnings at the entrances? (or was that just where mummies were found?)

no

reply to post by Hanslune

Interesting,I only know the basics about the pyramids and always thought that the bulk of the stone for building the pyramids came from quarries a 100 or more miles away.This is the first time I've ever heard of the Giza quarries and makes a LOT more sense on the logistical side of things.Does the total amount of material (limestone) in all the local pyramids equal the amount that was taken out of the local quarries?

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Hanslune

 

1.You should have called them electric alien quarries.
2.You should have said that mainstream egyptologists are trying to cover it up

Then they would believe you.

Well, howdy David, welcome to the board

Well yeah! However I usually leave fantasy and fringe speculation to the experts....it was a nice calculation thou

Originally posted by Imagewerx
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Interesting,I only know the basics about the pyramids and always thought that the bulk of the stone for building the pyramids came from quarries a 100 or more miles away.This is the first time I've ever heard of the Giza quarries and makes a LOT more sense on the logistical side of things.Does the total amount of material (limestone) in all the local pyramids equal the amount that was taken out of the local quarries?

The bulk came from the local quarries (the AE weren't idiots - they built the pyramids on an outcrop of limestone and incorporated that stone into the pyramids themselves) only the outer cover of stone, came from tura (as it was nicely very white) and any granite used was from the quarries at Aswan I believe.

Here is one study on the building of the pyramids - he does make the mistake of not knowing how much of the pyramid was insitu however

His opinion was that there was sufficient volume, actually more than enough as they built the mortuary temples and walls around each pyramid, some of that stone came out from around the Sphinx

reply to post by Hanslune

Thank you for the link which made for some VERY interesting reading,especially the bit about if they built a pyramid today using the same techniques the Egyptians did it would cost about £358,000,000.
Also nice to see no mention of crystals,electricity,radio transmitters and energy beams.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Hanslune

 

1.You should have called them electric alien quarries.
2.You should have said that mainstream egyptologists are trying to cover it up

Then they would believe you.

Well yeah! However I usually leave fantasy and fringe speculation to the experts....it was a nice calculation thou

Yeah big difference between expert theories and "expert" theories.

Expert theory
"expert" theory

reply to post by DavidWillts
how many people and how much time do you think it would take with copper saws? those saws had to be pretty amazing to cut through stones that big. In order to cut a block say ten feet tall by ten feet in width, how big would the saw have to be? then in order to cut it lengthwise they would need to move it over to the next table saw or maybe just disassemble that one and reassemble a bigger one. I love this copper saw idea- how many teeth per inch would it have? What did they sharpen it with, a stone? Never mind the whole quarry thing because it can't address why they would go for the super hard granite. did they have different tools for the granite? Different saws? Come on let's get a few more details goin here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

p.s. I just read this:
2012forum.com...

Originally posted by Hanslune
some of that stone came out from around the Sphinx

ahh the Sphynx. what's the current bs story on the erosion of the body?

reply to post by Imagewerx

where is the quarry that built Cairo? where is the quarry in that picture with the pyramids? how do we know if it's even real? could that quarry alone provide for 2 million blocks? why would they even bother using the granite from Aswan? did they have different saws for the Aswan granite or did they use the same ones used for limestone? do you people really believe they did this in twenty years? that is called faith in mind over matter

reply to post by bottleslingguy

those saws had to be pretty amazing to cut through stones that big.

Not really, if it can cut an inch it can cut a mile. They had no shortage of manpower or time.

then in order to cut it lengthwise they would need to move it over to the next table saw or maybe just disassemble that one and reassemble a bigger one.

What are you trying to say? That makes no sense.

I love this copper saw idea- how many teeth per inch would it have?

It would not have to have any, the sand would do a majority of the cutting. You can get a modern day tile saw without teeth.

What did they sharpen it with, a stone?

It really was not that kind of saw.

Never mind the whole quarry thing because it can't address why they would go for the super hard granite.

Never mind the quarry? Because granite is strong and plentiful? Sandstone does not work so well for building large scale.

did they have different tools for the granite? Different saws?

Depends on what they were cutting Sometimes they would bang away at it with diorite. Sometimes they would just make some grooves and put some wood in there and then soak the wood and that would break the granite off.

reply to post by DavidWillts
this is coming from someone who works with stone:
2012forum.com...

I really wish you would be able to give a visual representation of the kind of saws they used to cut these actual sized blocks. and regarding the assembly disassembly of saws- explain to me how they cut a six sided rectangular block from a piece of larger stock? are you saying they quarried and finished each block at the quarry and then transported the finished stone without damage mind you and then installed it? Is that how you think it went? I would think they would quarry each block using the wooden wedge technique, transport the rough block on rollers and then use saws to finish the sides to fit so precisely.

anyway, if you used the same saw to finish the blocks (how big of a saw would it take to cut blocks that big? and how many saws would it take to cut 2 million blocks?) you'd have to keep repositioning the saw in order to cut the six sides either that or move the block each time. Any idea how they cut the angles so perfectly precise? you seriously can't believe they had precision jigs and pushed the 3 ton stones through the saw. that's nuts and unless you can give me more than a few smug quips disguised as answers I'm gonna have to put you in the nutty file.

For limestone and granite they bashed out the stones using harder stones, sawing was for finishing only, look at the photo of the quarry notice the lines? Twenty years? I'd say they started quarrying years before and worked on even after the Pharo died

As noted they probably only needed about 900,000 stones

Sorry I've run out of time - will do more details tomorrow

reply to post by bottleslingguy

I haven't got a clue,like I said I'm not an expert on how the pyramids were built.The closest I ever got to any part of this was seeing Tutankhamun's burial mask when it was shown at the British museum in London in the 1970s,truly stunning doesn't even begin to describe it.

Already calculated earlier it would take 16 hours for Denys team to cut through one side of a mid-size granite block used for the Great Pyramid. We’ll say the ancient Egyptians could do it in just 10 hours since their technique was better and they had more men. The saws they used were said to be handled by 6 men and they physically couldn’t have carved more than 2 sides at any one time on a cube. So that’s 3 sets (3x2 = all sides) with 3 diff pairs of workers (with each 1 pair working a 10 hour shift).

3 sets of 10 hr cutting = 30. 6 men x 6 sides = 36. So for one granite block it took 30 hours and 36 men to carve (and then X time for polishing, leveling etc.).

If someone gives me estimates for the limestone carving rate I can calculate that too and it would be nice to see how fast a group of people can move a 10 ton block of limestone up a 1-2 mile hill (or depending on what your ramp theory is) without the use of wheels.

The ship calculation was correct but with the wrong premise that all stones were from Aswan. Also, there is no evidence the Egyptians could even transport such stones over the Nile. That's only theory (binding barges together and carrying blocks in the middle). You are giving Egyptologists too much credit. They don't test their theories if they involve too much work yet they all take it as truth anyway.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

I really wish you would be able to give a visual representation of the kind of saws they used to cut these actual sized blocks.

Here

explain to me how they cut a six sided rectangular block from a piece of larger stock?

Im not sure what to tell you. Read up?
www.reshafim.org.il...

are you saying they quarried and finished each block at the quarry and then transported the finished stone without damage mind you and then installed it? Is that how you think it went?

No, did i say that?

I would think they would quarry each block using the wooden wedge technique, transport the rough block on rollers and then use saws to finish the sides to fit so precisely.

Now you are thinking! But i think it was a case by case basis.
www.bluffton.edu...
Here you can see that they did a pretty food job at getting 2 of the sides done, but they never finished it.
Keep in mind ther term "precisely" is often mis and over used when it comes to the pyramids. People will confuse the inside with the outside.


Do those all fit precisely together? Are they all the same shape and size?

you'd have to keep repositioning the saw in order to cut the six sides either that or move the block each time. Any idea how they cut the angles so perfectly precise?

Cut the six sides??? Repositioning the saw?
I think you should learn more about ancient stone working and their tools in general.

you seriously can't believe they had precision jigs and pushed the 3 ton stones through the saw.

No... did i say anything about pushing stones through a saw?

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
The ship calculation was correct but with the wrong premise that all stones were from Aswan. Also, there is no evidence the Egyptians could even transport such stones over the Nile. That's only theory (binding barges together and carrying blocks in the middle). You are giving Egyptologists too much credit. They don't test their theories if they involve too much work yet they all take it as truth anyway

Ya, my bad, on both accounts.

reply to post by DavidWillts

the ten centimeter butter knife is not even scratching the surface of the reality of how they cut precise angles in blocks bigger than ten centimeters. that picture of the guy sawing something may as well have been wood as if you could actually do that and achieve what we see. your 'proofs' are not