It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by LUXUS
from what you can see in the video there really wasn't a crisp clean joint like you see at the GP. I'm not saying it wasn't poured, just saying they haven't replicated the edges in the GP stones. that tells me the French guy is missing something. Also I wonder if the French blocks are as dense as the Giza ones.
Originally posted by bigrex
Wow, so it's proposed to be composed of a limestone concrete of sorts, cast in place, that would eliminate hauling huge blocks, just pour wetted smaller rock powder and pieces into a mold then let it harden in place, ingenious if true.edit on 12-6-2012 by bigrex because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by esteay812
My question would then be... If the blocks were formed using this process, would it be possible to manufacture each block, remove the forms, and once it had sufficiently cured begin the process for the next block, efficiently enough to match the specific time frame alotted for the construction of the pyramid?
How quickly would each block need to be produced, set, and repeated in order to make constructing the pyramid with this technology the most probable construction process?
Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Harte
There's the huge problem of 'shuttering' that we use in construction. They can't be waiting on one shuttered block to 'go off' before they 'pour' the other. Not to mention, they'd need a heck of a lot timber props and boarding at a time when they didn't have plywood and not much softwoods either.
Instead of folk arguing that the pyramid took decades, they'd have been needing loads of decades. Minimum 3 days per block for drying out (going off). Lot of down time for the work-force...
Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Hanslune
Hiya Hans, you might as well step away from the thread and leave it to run its course.
Davidovits has been busy over in Bosnia and you'll never guess what he found in that imaginary pyramid?
Have a guess.
More poured blocks.
Seems like he finds them everywhere. His evidence was refuted point-for-point by Dipyan Jana in this presentation. Jana's a PhD scientist and commercial engineer whose specialisation is microscopy of concrete and rock.
Then again, what does an expert have to offer?
Be VERY CAREFUL about putting blind faith in ANY EXPERT.
One they are bound by the limits of their training and (unfortunely) their indoctrination (as in one psychologist believes in young and one in freud). An excellent example is when scientist thought that the smallest particles were electrons, protons and neurons and now we have the study of quarks.
The second is a practical example of "experts" saying one thing and being PROVEN WRONG is the humble bumblebee.
Up to about 10 years ago (or so) according to all the experts in aeronautics that something with the wing size in conparison to structure type/size, wing load, thrust potential, ect that a device designed just like a bumblebee COULD NOT FLY.
Well someone forgot to tell the bumblebee that and as PROOF that they were wrong one just has to go outside and see one (or more) fly around.
It litterally took decades for "experts" to come up with (IMO a face saving) saying they "discovered after all these years (decades if one wants to be accurate)" the bumblebee had a split wing allowing more lift.
So when you say "experts say this, case closed" just remember the good old bumblebee.
Or if you REALLY NEED another example remember it was "scientists" that insisted the earth was flat, the sound barrier was unbreakable, gumans could not break the 4 minute mile, ect ect ect
Originally posted by frugal
I don't believe the pyramids are concrete blocks. Concrete cracks. All Concrete cracks rather rapidly too. All the pressure of the concrete on top of concrete with earthquakes and compression, the concrete blocks would eventually desintegrate. Nature makes things more perfectly than man made. Stone lasts longer.
My relative was killed changing a tire on a hay cart using a concrete cinder block which desintegrated and the cart smashed him. Concrete is not that strong.edit on 12-6-2012 by frugal because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by dogstar23
Wow. Now here we have an example of someone going to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I imagine years from now, an SR71 blackbird will be unearthed fully intact and operational and someone will say, "its just a glob of metal."
So, are you saying that the pyramids can fly?
What kind of half-[snip]ed argumentative tactic are you using, anyway?
Would you like to point out the "Practical Application" of this giant pile of rocks? Or just make childish assertions?
A small open notch on the outer façade of the pyramid, about 90 metres above the ground, is the main building block of Houdin’s pyramid theory. It has been previously noted by pyramid experts, but never considered of great significance. To the French architect, it's vital to proving how the ancient Egyptian builders managed to turn the great stone blocks, as they gradually shoved them up the internal ramp. In 2008, Brier and a National Geographic camera crew – together with an expert mountaineer – climbed up to the notch, squeezed inside and entered a narrow L-shaped room, which was exactly where Houdin had predicted it would be. It was in hollow corner sections such as this, he claims, that the pyramid builders spun the blocks 90° – for the ascent of the next side – using a crane
Further support for Houdin's theory had landed in his lap by chance in 2000, after a member of a French team who had surveyed the Great Pyramid in 1986 caught a presentation by the architect at a scientific conference. He shared two exciting bits of information with Houdin – firstly, that during their surveying of the pyramid, his team had been shocked to spot a desert fox in a hole next to the 90 metre-high notch. Short of scaling the steep face of the pyramid, how else could it have got there, other than by navigating some kind of internal passageway that led from the bottom of the monument up?
Even more vitally, the French surveyor presented to Houdin a microgravimetry scan of the pyramid – a measurement of the density of different sections of the pyramid that they had applied in order to try and detect hidden chambers. They hadn’t found any, but the scan did show up a baffling pattern – a hollow that appears to spiral its way up the inside of the pyramid. They had originally written-off it as inconsequential, but to Houdin this was critical proof of his hypothesis.