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: 13
77
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
CityBig wrote:
"" or what about Australia? Australia sends its immigrants back on the boats they arrived on, without medical care, surely this is worse than what Israel is doing? ""


Please do not attempt yet again to distract people from the OP or the issue. If you have proof this has ever occurred in Australian waters, please do source and show it for all to see. To my knowledge it has never happened..not once. The first naval officers on all migration boats after security sweep are medics and every center on Christmas Island and the mainland has a small hospital and open door access to Red Cross, Amnesty and visiting local doctors.



Rosha




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Sites like Gobekli Tepe are rewriting history as we know it. This site is thought to be more than 4000-6000 years older than the pyramids at Giza. Obviously the ancients had very advanced building techniques and were master stone masons.

en.wikipedia.org...

The site was most likely erected by hunter-gatherers in the 10th millennium BCE (c. 12,000 years ago)




edit on 6/13/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
In 5000 more years if humanity hasnt eliminated the sickness we now carry with us we are all surely lost,but let me say this ,if we dont stop this lieing and humanitarian manipulation right now someone will be saying the Hoover Dam was built by a bunch of hunter gatherers as well,just that statement should result in criminal charges to someone somewhere"built by hunter gatherers"my arse.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Found this perhaps interesting piece/pdf:

Microstructural Evidence of Reconsituted Limestone Blocks in teh Great Pyramids of Egypt



Summary and Conclusions
In summary, the simplest explanation for the presence of the plethora of mc’s, some of which appear to possess chemistries and morphologies not found in the natural stone, is that the various ions were in solution and precipitated or geopolymerized relatively rapidly. This comment notwithstanding, we hereby acknowledge that nature is quite resourceful and could have—however unlikely—produced all the microstructures examined herein. We believe, however, that our work presents enough evidence to entertain the possibility that crucial parts of the Great Pyramids are indeed made of reconstituted limestone; only more research will tell. The conclusions reached herein, if confirmed by others on larger samples clearly show that the Ancient Egyptians were not only exceptional civil and architectural engineers but also superb chemists and material scientists. They would also have to be credited with the invention of concrete, thousands of years before the Romans. That a lime-based cement cast and cured at room temperature would survive for 5000 years—while the best our civilization has to offer, Portland cement, which under the best of circumstances lasts 150 years or less—is both awe inspiring and humbling. Lastly, we note that the full implications Fig. 6. Photographs of (a) Vyse’s gash in Khufu’s south face. It is clear that these blocks were most probably not cast, (b) blocks just below the gash; these appear to have been cast. December 2006 Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks 3795of our conclusions to history, in general, and Egyptology, in particular, have not escaped us.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

I'm saying if it is discovered that each block was made in a mold independent from the surrounding blocks, we're on a completely different page than the "primitives were actually supermen" theory.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
Sites like Gobekli Tepe are rewriting history as we know it. This site is thought to be more than 4000-6000 years older than the pyramids at Giza. Obviously the ancients had very advanced building techniques and were master stone masons.


What I find particularly fascinating about this site is the shape of the columns. Note that although they are one-piece, there is a vertical section, and a line delineating a horizontal top section, as if it were a carry-over from earlier post-and-lintel construction. This implies a much older tradition of construction which led up to Gobekli Tepe, and implies older structures somewhere, somewhere...



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune
 

I'm saying if it is discovered that each block was made in a mold independent from the surrounding blocks, we're on a completely different page than the "primitives were actually supermen" theory.


It has been found that they haven't, again you just need to spend a few minutes looking at the existing stones to see they aren't 'common'. Even Barsoum said the vast majority of the stones were regular old limestone, and that only some of the stone were concrete made, the problem is he cannot get agreement from others that what he is seeing is concrete and not just limestone.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
always figured they had a way to make cement type molds for this stuff, but since there are quarries near by I bet the foundations of the structures are made with the real rock because its probably stronger, just like how we build houses now, then once that was laid they went over top of it with the molded blocks.

Would take a lot less time and man power to do it this way, but the only real way to find out would be to take the pyramids apart and that will never happen.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


...and the reply to the theory

The reply


Conclusion from the study above (I have introduced paragraphs that are not in the original to make reading easier)



A reliable set of data derived from comprehensive laboratory investigations by petrographers,
materials scientists, and geochemists on a range of actual pyramid samples reveals the truth
about “natural” versus “man-made” origin of pyramid blocks. We should refrain from
postulating a hypothesis based on results from limited investigation with a single study, with
no confirmative support from other studies. Selectively producing results in favor of a
hypothesis on a limited number of samples with questionable provenance from third parties,
or proposing the hypothesis first and then generating results in favor of it are not proper
scientific procedures. The typical alkali-aluminosilicate-based geopolymeric chemistries in
the binder phases of pyramid stones are yet to be discovered.

There is no foreign or manmade constituent found in the “uncontaminated” portion of the Lauer casing stone, which is identical to the quarried limestone in Tura. Detailed results on the actual mineralogy, texture,
composition, and binder chemistry of the limestone in the core blocks, constituting 80 percent
of the mass of the Khufu Pyramid are yet to be published, and should be required before
postulating them to be “man-made”. Also yet to be demonstrated by the proponents of the
“cast-in-place concrete” hypothesis is a synthetic geopolymeric limestone sample that is
similar to the casing stone not only in visual appearance and bulk chemistry but also in
texture, microstructure, minor constituent mineralogy, and especially in calcareous, alkalialuminosilicate-
free binder microchemistry.

Based on a detailed literature survey on this debate and evaluation of all published results in light of this present comprehensive study, it is the author’s opinion that we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility of a “manmade” origin of pyramid stones. It is indeed this absence of any geopolymeric signature in
the pyramid stones, which should encourage re-evaluation of apparent “mysteries” in carving
and hoisting large pyramid blocks, originally offered to support the “man-made” origin.,


edit on 14/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

It has been found that they haven't,


where's the proof of that? if the blocks can be separated without having a mirror image of the corresponding block's surface contours, then they were made independently of the other blocks. I also question the simplicity of tamping them by hand without crumbling over time and from the weight on top. Like that one person said you don't just tamp them by hand and have them last this long.
edit on 14-6-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Hanslune

It has been found that they haven't,


where's the proof of that? if the blocks can be separated without having a mirror image of the corresponding block's surface contours, then they were made independently of the other blocks. I also question the simplicity of tamping them by hand without crumbling over time and from the weight on top. Like that one person said you don't just tamp them by hand and have them last this long.



By simply looking at them. at the present time two theories are out there by Davidovits and Barsoum, consensus is not with them on this. My own experience at having observed the core stones is that they are not common and in most places rather sloppy but together.

Now please explain the tamping or link to the previous message, I'm not sure what your point is, thanks



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by scrounger

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.


Did you mean "Jung?"
Yes, science is self-correcting.

Yet, no scientist ever claimed that the above particles were the absolute smallest, so the straw is showing in your argument.


Originally posted by scrounger
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.

Your statement above is a complete and utter falsehood.
Note:


Indeed, the venerable line about scientists having proved that a bumblebee can't fly appears regularly in magazine and newspaper stories. It's also the kind of item that can come up in a cocktail party conversation when the subject turns to science or technology.

It's even the title of a book, Bumblebees Can't Fly by Barry Siskind, which offers self-help strategies for staying productive in busy, changing times. And Robert Cormier echoes the same idea in the title of his teen book The Bumblebee Flies Anyway.

Often, the statement is made in a distinctly disparaging tone aimed at putting down those know-it-all scientists and engineers who are so smart yet can't manage to understand something that's apparent to everyone else.
Source
Recognize yourself in that last sentence?

No expert ever said that bumblebee flight was impossible. The method a bumblebee uses for flight was not understood. Today it is.
Care to read about it?

From that source:


The old bumblebee myth simply reflected our poor understanding of unsteady viscous fluid dynamics. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft with their steady, almost inviscid (without viscosity) flow dynamics, insects fly in a sea of vortices, surrounded by tiny eddies and whirlwinds that are created when they move their wings (as quoted in Segelken, 2000, parenthetical item in orig.).

Ever dabbled in fluid mechanics? I have.

Suffice it to say, it's pretty complicated.

On the other hand, your estimation that bumblebee flight was finally worked out in the last decade or so is spot-on.

Harte



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS

That’s easy, you cast a block then you leave a gap the length of a block and repeat. When those cure you use the sides of the cast blocks as part of the mould to fill in the gap i.e. you just put boards on the faces and no need for boards on the sides. As for boards underneath the blocks...you don’t need them.

And yet there is space between each block and the one on top of it.

How did this happen if they were poured one on top of the other?

Harte



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


The celtic cross looks like a big pully.


So, did the Celts build their pyramids with concrete?

Harte



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
IMO, liquid sandstone concrete creation and laying / setting is more impressive than any means of how they hauled the blocks from quarries. You're talking very very sophisticated techniques to make and properly set not to mention these weathered thousands of years? I want that recipe.

That's insane to me, makes more sense than the hauling of blocks, the idea alone to think of logistically is so daunting, they had better things to do.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moneyisgodlifeisrented

That's insane to me, makes more sense than the hauling of blocks, the idea alone to think of logistically is so daunting, they had better things to do.


Not really if they worked during the flood season, their farms would have been underwater, they probably used masses of untrained labour to do the backlog of work created for them by the specialists who worked year round.

Was it logistically daunting? Yes it was and its probably why they went to smaller and easier to make tombs



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Thanks Harte, when I read that comment I knew it was wrong but hadn't had the time to look up the bumble bee myth



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Harte
 


Thanks Harte, when I read that comment I knew it was wrong but hadn't had the time to look up the bumble bee myth

You're welcome.

Figured it would add to the buzz


Harte



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Ever dabbled in fluid mechanics? I have.

Suffice it to say, it's pretty complicated.

On the other hand, your estimation that bumblebee flight was finally worked out in the last decade or so is spot-on.

Harte



Yes fluid dynamics was the most difficult part of my engineering ciriculum .



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


They probably used the Giants. The Giants got a day off when Baldr's funeral was going on, they had to push the ship with his body on it out to sea so it could be burned because it was stuck on shore.

edit on 14-6-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
77
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join