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.

 

Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

page: 12
77
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Hanslune
 

They may have used both methods, first the hard way until they discovered the easy way. In the UK we used to build houses from stacking rough cut stone, we don’t anymore because we discovered an easier way called the brick.

You cant dismiss the microscopic examination of those blocks, if it is true that they are structurally different from natural cut limestone block someone needs to explain how the structure changed!


You may wish to look at later research instead of the dated piece you are looking at - the article you posted is a journalistic and not science



Like I said before it would be interesting if the more perfect pyramids were found to be constructed from cast blocks whilst the less perfect ones were found to be made from genuine cut limestone blocks. We also might find pyramids that started with cut blocks and then reverted to cast block when they realised how tough it was moving those huge blocks.


They aren't so that kinda ends your theory


Another thing I have noticed, you keep insisting that the limestone had to be quarried and crushed which is labour intensive…the video however clearly states that the limestone is loos bound to the surface in areas. You would not need to quarry it, you just scrape it up and use it as it is!


yawn....because the quarries where the stones came from show they were cut as stones........


Also we know the Egyptians were making fake turquoise stone so we know that they had this knowledge!


Yet they didn't use it on the pyramids - if you would take the time and just fly to Egypt and go up to the stones (which i have done of six occassions) you will quickly note that they are all slightly different......there is no evidence of a 'concrete' mixture in their chemistry from that of limestone, see the work of Barsoum and his critics

edit on 13/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by LUXUS

I have actually moved a metric ton bag of sand with the help of friends so I know how impossible it must be to lift and position a 2 ton block to the top of a pyramid every 3 minutes….there is no practically minded person who could agree with what these Egyptologists are claiming!


One team couldn't do that, but 20 teams could be moving 20 blocks an hour.



I moved a 4 tons block 100 meters with 23 grad students....


Luxus appears to be using the long obsolete and debunked figure of 2.5 million stones which was quest at long before people realized that a third of the pyramids (it various for the two big ones) were built incorporating large outcroping of limestone, ie a portion of it is a natural hill. It is probably more in the area of 900,000

Here is the study I'm sure Luxus will take great efforts in avoiding, lol

The hill inside the pyramid




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

I moved a 4 tons block 100 meters with 23 grad students....



I'd love to know your secret. I can't get that many of them to hand in their flippin' assignments on time



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

The hill inside the pyramid



I can't cut and paste from that document but if I could draw your attention to the section on geomorphology on page 20 of the report.

Would I be correct in saying that, based on this report, the locations of the monuments are actually based solely on the location of naturally occuring outcrops? Would this make the whole "Orion's Belt" configuration completely coincidental?

Fascinating read, thank you very much for the link.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

You will have to excuse me if I’m not impressed, I think you will find 6 or 7 construction workers could have done that. Now would you like to lift that load up a steep incline?

The “hill” in the pyramid according to your image is only about two tenths the height of the pyramid. I don’t think it is going to impact the number of blocks used significantly!

By any chance did you see the archaeologists team in the UK who tried to reconstruct the journey of two granite stones to Stonehenge. The aim was to show how perfectly simple it was using simple tools….they failed spectacularly and gave up. I guess it wasn’t quite as easy as they thought



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Maybe it's easier to get them to move a rock than do homework.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I got the answer, these weren't built by humans, they were built by Gigantic ants.
Sounds about as believable as the present theories.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I got the answer, these weren't built by humans, they were built by Gigantic ants.
Sounds about as believable as the present theories.


Absolutely.

Giant ants with two arms and two legs and who spoke with an Egyptian accent.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Don't forget the long skinny necks



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Its just ancient concrete ?????



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Maybe it's easier to get them to move a rock than do homework.


Or getting them to do homework is like moving rocks. (with your mind. )



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I was just going to cite this, but you beat me to it


So many things from The Law of One correlate with things that have happened and been proven. We're lucky to have such an amazing piece of literature.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ZakOlongapo
 


I believe you are on the right track, however your numbers are a hair off:



On the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, copper and bronze have a hardness of 3.5 to 4, while limestone has a hardness of 4 to 5 and granite of 5 to 6.


Limestone is closer to a 3 on the Mohs scale. The main minerals in granite are quartz and feldspar, both of which have a hardness of 7. Tempered steel also has a hardness of 7 and we can cut granite quite well nowadays.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Casting blocks seems silly to me. If they had the technology to do so then why build blocks at all? Wouldn't it be more structurally sound and take less time (cheaper!) if they used larger, more solid molds? Why build 30 blocks when you could build one really long one. Wouldn't that have also looked more impressive and imposing? Sorry, I think the artificial limestone theory is kinda neat, but likely false



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
There are so many reasons that the AE could not have made concrete blocks.
1) you can't just dig up a bunch of limestone and crush and call it cement.Nope not gona happen.
The base material has to be burned to form the aluminium, magnesium, or silica oxides, that combine with water to form the non soluble hydrates that make cement harden. Without these hydrates the cement will never " set" and woll always ne water soluble, like gypsm plaster..
In case you all haven't noticed there is not a whole lot of burnable material in that part of eygpt.
Wood was a precious resource for the AE, not likely to be wasted burning it for making cement.
2) it would be so much more work to crush all that mass, and transport the water than to just cut the blocks.
3) mass is mass it still take just as much energy to move that mass of concrete as it does to move the mass in a solid block. Without powered equipment it would take even more workers to make the concrete blocks than to just quarry them and move them. The Romans had block and takle and a well defined cordage tradition as well a the ability to make and move the large buckets required to move the concrete in large enough quantities to make concrete constructions practical.The AE did not have these abilities.
4) CURING TIMES. the curing times would be several weeks for a block of that size. And it would be several days before the mythical forms could be removed. It would actually take longer to build the pyramid using this method.
Also in order cure properly the blocks would have to be kept wet in the blazing Egyptian sun, to ensure proper curing without cracks or surface spalling. So even more work to haul water to wet the blocks. The Romans had pumps to move water AE's no pumps clay jars.
I'm sure ill think of more reason why this ludicrous idea wouldn't work.
But here's an awsome site that pushes the boundries of realistic possible methods of construction of the pyramids, like the Rope roll and the use of iron tools imported from the anatolian kingdoms.
www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

edit on 13-6-2012 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


The celtic cross looks like a big pully. Rock wheels are not out of the question and metal tools would have been a necessity to accomplish the massive limestone needs. Some forming and pouring were probably done but not on a great scale. Making complicated pieces or to fill in areas could have been done. The possibilities are endless but it's important to note that the techniques of moving those stones may not be comprehensible to us at this time. People are clever, so were our ancestors.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheeplearepeople
If they had the technology to do so then why build blocks at all? Wouldn't it be more structurally sound and take less time (cheaper!) if they used larger, more solid molds? Why build 30 blocks when you could build one really long one. Wouldn't that have also looked more impressive and imposing?


because they came out of a machine ala the "some other kind of technology we don't know about today" theory



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


you're absolutely right in the logistical reasoning department, so what if they still turn out to have been made in a mold? who are we left with? come on, I know everybody can say it..... where's that Tsukalous picture??





edit on 13-6-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


you're absolutely right in the logistical reasoning department, so what if they still turn out to have been made in a mold? who are we left with? come on, I know everybody can say it..... where's that Tsukalous picture??


If evidence is found, and given the extent of what we known about the pyramids, its unlikely, that the AE used concrete, it would be another feather in the hats for those who think highly of AE skills and their use of the technology they had to do great things.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Hanslune
 

You will have to excuse me if I’m not impressed, I think you will find 6 or 7 construction workers could have done that. Now would you like to lift that load up a steep incline?


I wasn't trying to 'impress' you. The AE used ramps and perhaps levering machines. You might want to research the culture your avatar is from and look at how they moved the cap stones of some of their temples to the top....can you say ramp? Here is an image from the AE I guess they didn't get the memo that you cannot drag things around

ancient guys doing it

modern guys doing it


The “hill” in the pyramid according to your image is only about two tenths the height of the pyramid. I don’t think it is going to impact the number of blocks used significantly!


Actually it does, your '20% of the greatest extend of the pyramid - care to guess what percentage of the volume that is...... but as you seem to be in deep denial why don't you tell us how they came up with the 2.5 million stone number - you do know don't you?


By any chance did you see the archaeologists team in the UK who tried to reconstruct the journey of two granite stones to Stonehenge. The aim was to show how perfectly simple it was using simple tools….they failed spectacularly and gave up. I guess it wasn’t quite as easy as they thought


I don't get your point? The pyramid builders had generations of experience in stone work and were experts the archaeologist had none-and yes it is VERY hard work, having done it myself. Here is a challenge take a professional foot ball team and put them up against a group of people who have never played the game....who will win? lol
edit on 13/6/12 by Hanslune because: Added image




top topics



 
77
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join