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.
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:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)
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
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)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.