Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

page: 1
77
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+42 more 
posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Scanning electron microscope study of the blocks from which the Giza pyramid was constructed have shown that they are structurally different from natural limestone in the area.

The limestone blocks from which the Giza pyramid was constructed is amorphous unlike natural limestone. Material Scientist professor Michel Barsoum of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University concluded that the blocks could NOT have been cut from a quarry!

Professor Joseph Davidovits of the Geopolymer Institute in France had previously came to this conclusion and Michel Barsoum at first thought the idea hilarious, that was until he examined the material under a scanning electron microscope!

The conclusion…the microcrystalline structure of those blocks suggests that they are constructed from a manmade stone cast in position and not lifted into place as traditionally taught.

“At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is ironic, sublime and truly humbling that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations”
www.livescience.com...

In 2002 the Geopolymer Institute made blocks of similar size using a recipe suggested by professor Joseph Davidovits. The resulting blocks were similar in texture to those found on the Giza pyramid.





posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I have no idea about that site's reliability, but if it proves right, all that liquid rock fairytales might be true afterall.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
it's so simple yet so perfect

of course the aliens helped with the molds



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
He is vindicated - good! I read Davidovits' book years ago, and was convinced even without the electron microscopy. Davidovits quotes Herodotus, who mentioned pyramid construction using "...machines made of short planks of wood..." Concrete forms? I think so, and that explains why the blocks fit so closely - one block served as the back or side form for the next block, as it was poured.

edit on 11-6-2012 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah
edit on 11-6-2012 by Lazarus Short because: mmmmmmmm-mmmmmmmmmm-good



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
But..but..but.. Alienz!

Awesome thread, thanks for posting. =]



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


This wouldn't be surprising to me.
Just because Hawas says it's so doesn't mean it's true.

Much of Egyption history probably needs to be rewritten.
edit on 11-6-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I want to believe....but!!

Havent we always been told that we know where the blocks came from ? Havent we been shown the quarries?

I want PROOF before I give up my belief that they built these from solid stone.

Are we sure this isnt some kind of debunking trick?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


The casing stones are real, quarried limestone. So is the granite.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I want to believe....but!!

Havent we always been told that we know where the blocks came from ? Havent we been shown the quarries?

I want PROOF before I give up my belief that they built these from solid stone.

Are we sure this isnt some kind of debunking trick?


And who says what they have told us is 100% truth on how they were built?!
They don't even know how they built them, it's all theories, so how can they say for sure 100% that they didn't make the stones in this manner?

We have no idea what "technologies" the Ancient Egyptians had. Technology doesn't have to mean the same as it does today. IMO they were far more advanced than we give them credit for. We can't even replicate their structures today with the tools and machines we have.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
IMO they were far more advanced than we give them credit for. We can't even replicate their structures today with the tools and machines we have.


I agree, thats why I suggested this may be a debunking trick.

Real stone and we cant replicate it.
Also we DO know where they got the stone.

Its a mystery.

My beliefe is they had help.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
it's very interesting indeed, it certainly would have made construction a lot easier (for human or alien or whatever), i wonder if there are any hieroglyphs that relate to or hint at the process? i have japanese waterstones that have been made using a similar process.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If this is true it would not take away from the fact that the ancient Egyptians were also able to cut and lift huge granite blocks weighing several tons for example the pink granite obelisks found in Egypt. We also cant discount that these granite blocks show clear saw and drill markings.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the older pyramids were found to be constructed from this manmade block whilst the less ancient and more imperfect ones were made from natural cut blocks!

We are told that the less perfect pyramids are older then the Giza pyramid but it could turn out that the ancient Egyptians were trying to replicate the Giza pyramid but failed because they were trying to lift natural cut blocks!



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


I think it's like Heyerdahl found on Easter Island, that the oldest stonework was the best.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
We are told that the less perfect pyramids are older then the Giza pyramid


Thats what they'd like us to believe. People such as Graham Hancock etc, who have done an awful lot of research have been saying for years that the crumbling pyramids are in fact younger than those that are still intact.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Yea that says my gut feeling as well.
More ancient, better quality, more difficult.

My guess, it's like in Peru where the maya people where making their own stonework, to honor (in their eyes), gods / the older (mostly destroyed structures/walls) and so the Egyptians the same. And as you said making their own Pyramids (those little ones and very poorly build).

So the Egyptians who came there later made their own stories from what they found/see, which we later think that's the real story. When they talk about building pyramids they are talking about those little ones and the quaries we see today, used to build those little poorly build Pyramids?

2000 myth stories about a destroyed/flooded world. You don't have to believe in the bible for that..
The pyramids buried in sand, the sphinx with water damage and some pyramids, Peru with the same high tech huge granite stones, the whole place destroyed. The eastern island statues also burried many many meters, where only the heads are showing (which basicly says, those statues are there verrrrrrrrry long). And perhaps, the eastern island statues, where once standing on the top of a mountain, which is now almost complety submerged. God who knows we could find under water, burried close over there?

When I see some (old) very very nicely made Egyptian statues for me it's looking at very ancient people/rulers, made to look like gods? And the hieroglyphs, made later on, giving the statues names.

And most (old very nicely made statues), all look they had very long skulls (if you look closely you can see the skull under their clothing looks much longer? Just as the skulls found in Peru:





But yea no way that would be accepted as possible by sciene I'm afraid..
edit on 11-6-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
THis may be a very stupid question but considering how many millions of stones needed to build all 6 pyramids in gizeh, can someone show me the quarry where they had cut all these stones from?

There must be a massive open pit, something that shows that "THIS IS WHERE THE BLOCKS CAME FROM".
Anyone?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I think there would be several quarry’s rather then one big quarry. Even to make manmade blocks would require gathering massive quantity’s of crushed limestone to make these blocks.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


if there was a quarry i could only assume that it has been filled in. the possible methods of construction will always be up for debate until someone finds an ancient text that purtains to the construction in detail.
edit on 11/6/2012 by josephamccoy because: to remove a bit



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by josephamccoy
 


At least for the granite quarries we could see the stones where just cut out in 1 piece.


Same as in Peru?

How in the hell could they do this for example:

Don't think we could that even today?

Basicly the same thing with ancient Egyptian granite stone work:


But yea some things we only have left overs and speculation left sadly..

edit on 11-6-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
It is thought that there was alot more water at the time...like from the water marks on the sphynx etc...
Where I am there are springs that well up a suspended clay/ water mixture that hardens all by itself into limestone...even under water!

I suspect that the locals used this natural clay for pottery...it is almost the perfect consistancy if taken from the right part of the flow...while still maleable just before it kicks into stone.....
edit on 11-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
77
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join