Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

reply to post by nerbot

how much mix is going up at a time? how long is this rope? is it a 400 foot twisted vine carrying five hundred, twenty pound woven buckets of slurry at a rate of a hundred pounds a minute or are we talking Bamboo Technology again?

Originally posted by SeedofAbraham


Still further evidence that the dynastic Egyptians did not construct the Great Pyramid of Giza may be found in sediments surrounding the base of the monument,

er what sediments? its built on limestone, in a desert and plagued by sand, see my note below

in legends regarding watermarks on the stones halfway up its sides,

Nope that is true, but its true for a Mesopotamian Ziggurat, in translation from German to English Ziggy came out pyramid and was leaped on by fringe folks looking for anything.....

and in salt incrustations found within.

Its limestone, limestone forms at the bottom of oceans, where there is salt, this is why water erosion is so dangerous to limestone, its loaded with salt. If you have limestone in contact with water the salt will leach out. The pyramid was also damage by the salt from moisture from tourists

Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be nearly twelve thousand years old.

oh boy, I hate to tell you but one of the things you cannot accurately date using the C-14 method is seashells, but that problem is moot....

Those nasty seashells

Secondly there wasn't 'fourteen feet of 'sediment' at the base of the pyramids, it was sand, again a quote for Mesopotamian Ziggurat is the source of your confusion

[quote[besides the radiocarbon date, the facts are concrete, the Great Pyramid was once covered by sea water, many qualified to do so have reported this concerning the sphynx - formally a Lion and the GP

...and unqualified by stating something so silly

Isaiah 19:19 The Great Pyramid was built by Enoch before the flood of Noah

Unfortunately no great biblical flood, no 'sediments', however just for fun would you care to point to the scientific study done supporting your contention? I happen to know when the sand from around the pyramids was cleared -and it way before carbon dating was available....we await the site report.......

reply to post by IpsissimusMagus


So you didn't like the closing, so how would you have done the repairs and upgrading without closing it?

Please explain, I suspect you've never been there

I've been in it before and after the repairs and improvements, before it was a moist sauna, now with the dehumifieers and fans its much better, they also fumigated it as sweat from tourists had gotten thick enough for microbes to grow and that had attracted an interesting melange of bugs....etc.


Kawika great poster and yes you are right!

So far everything I have read about the use of gypsum mortar in the building of the Giza pyramid says it was used between the “casing stones” not the limestone blocks beneath. I have also read that it was used as a lubricant on which the casing stones could be slid into position.

Originally posted by LUXUS
So far everything I have read about the use of gypsum mortar in the building of the Giza pyramid says it was used between the “casing stones” not the limestone blocks beneath. I have also read that it was used as a lubricant on which the casing stones could be slid into position.

See Mark Lehners 'The Giza Plateau Mapping Project, 1995-96

His report


[EX]
The cores of the giant Giza Pyramids were built with great quantities of gypsum mortar slopped between the stones that the builders set with far less precision than the fine masonry of the outer casing. The cores of earlier pyramids appear to have been built with less prepared gypsum and more tafla mortar--calcareous desert clay
[/EX]

If you want more Petrie says the same thing but I don't have that quote at hand.

I can also confirm to have seen a great deal of it on Khafre's and Menkaure's pyramid. I never specifically looked at Khufu tomb for gypsum mortar however.

reply to post by Hanslune


even if it is true about the mortar it wouldn't disprove alien intervention. the blocks being cast independent of one another with some kind of mortar in between points more in the direction of aliens because if the blocks were poured one on top of the others why would you need mortar? why would you need mortar anyway when a pyramid is a perfect design for free stacking. also the blocks are in staggered orientation which points away from being poured on top of one another, otherwise the blocks would press down into the seams as they were tamped down, which they obviously aren't.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

even if it is true about the mortar it wouldn't disprove alien intervention. the blocks being cast independent of one another with some kind of mortar in between points more in the direction of aliens because if the blocks were poured one on top of the others why would you need mortar? why would you need mortar anyway when a pyramid is a perfect design for free stacking. also the blocks are in staggered orientation which points away from being poured on top of one another, otherwise the blocks would press down into the seams as they were tamped down, which they obviously aren't.

Yes it is true, that nasty gysum mortar is actually there - for some nothing will ever disprove alien intervention!

No one uses gypsum mortar now and few others in earlier times other than the AE...why because its not particularly good, It not particularly strong, dissolves in water and its only good feature is it reasonably slippery. Once people had a good concrete it was used as mortar.

Sorry didn't understand your last sentence


--------------------------------------------------------------

Well no one picked up my error in this

The post with a mistake

My grievous mistake is the first image, it is of Menkaure's pyramid and shows limestone block in the background but the blocks in the foreground are granite, and I don't think anyone is suggesting they were made out of concrete!

Question for consideration

Where was the rubble from the construction of three larger tombs placed?

Answer: back into the quarries which were no longer needed and which were cleared in modern times

What was in that rubble? limestone rubble makes up the vast majority - now wait why would they have had limestone rubble, rubble is what you make concrete out ot, why break apart and smash a recently quarried 1 x 1 meter stone when you have hundreds of tons of tiny bits of rubble about? Hmmmmmm......lol

reply to post by LUXUS


didn't they have to place a block about every 9 seconds to build the pyramids in the 20 years they stated? i think not man made the pyramids but had alot of help from the others. the writings on the walls

reply to post by Hanslune


people with more degrees than me say the mortar was added later

reply to post by robyles2

didn't they have to place a block about every 9 seconds to build the pyramids in the 20 years they stated? i think not man made the pyramids but had alot of help from the others. the writings on the walls

If you're assuming there was only one team of men placing blocks that number sounds impossible. If that number is true. Which I don't think it is. There was more than one team of men placing blocks. So if they had 5 - 10 teams of men placing blocks, along with many more teams of men delivering blocks and other teams of men cutting or creating blocks. You can see that would change the average time it takes to place a block.

Now imagine they had 100 teams or 1000 teams of men placing blocks. If it takes 1hour to place 1 block but they have 1000 teams. Then they would be able to place 1000 blocks in 1 hour.

60 minutes times 60 seconds = 3600 seconds

3600 seconds divided by 1000 blocks = 3.6 seconds per bock

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

people with more degrees than me say the mortar was added later

Please list the top three please who are stating this and their expertise

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Harte

They DO have mortar between them:



Only an idiot wouldn't have known this established and easily verifiable fact.

from this article
www.nytimes.com...

"Any synthetic material showing up in tests - as it has occasionally, even in work not trying to prove a concrete connection - is probably just slop from "modern" repairs done over the centuries, they say."

and I have a problem with this guy's theory where he says:

"Such blocks, Davidovits said, would have been poured in place by workers hustling sacks of wet cement up the pyramids -"

"wet cement up the pyramids"???? wouldn't it have been better to have the water at the pouring site? carry the dry aggregate and water up individually or otherwise you will have different curing times and issues with that. it's a very important detail or maybe they devised a pump system sorta like on Gilligan's Island?

Bamboo Technology "named for the unlikely devices that the Professor came up with on Gilligan's Island, is the use of mechanisms with a level of technology closer to the Stone Age to achieve feats usually achieved with Industrial or even Modern Age technology. In general they are not necessarily made of bamboo — the ones on The Flintstones were often made out of wood, stone and dinosaurs. What characterizes all of them is the self-evident unlikelihood that they actually work. Most likely to be seen in the more farcical sitcoms. "
tvtropes.org...

edit on 16-6-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Hanslune

see above post, you missed it the first time

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

see above post, you missed it the first time

I see your three and raise 9,000 who say they are wrong

Now are you going to continue to play the 'authority' card are try something different

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

see above post, you missed it the first time

I see your three and raise 9,000 who say they are wrong

Now are you going to continue to play the 'authority' card are try something different

edit on 16/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

The understanding is that the Giza complex was found buried by the very same people who are claimed to have built it. This is wrong. The pyramids have been restored many times and many times these restorations are getting dated,

The founder dreamt that he stopped to rest in the shadow of the Sphinx during a hunting expedition in the desert. While asleep, the Sphinx spoke to him, saying that he would become king if he cleared away the sand that all but buried the Sphinx. When he became king, Tuthmosis IV cleared the sand and erected a stele that tells the story of his dream.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Your reposted post only mentions one guy. It's Davidovits summarizing some of what his opposition is saying.

Davidovits sampled, and is concerned with, the stones themselves, and not the mortar in between.

What he's saying in your quote is that Egyptology has said that any artificial materials that may have shown up in his testing probably came from later repairs that are known to have been made with concrete.

The tests Davidovits conducted were on samples of the stones.

If you think that the mortar between the stones was somehow placed later, you would need to explain how, which is a much taller order than merely explaining how the pyramids were constructed in the first place.

Also, great gobs of mortar were found inside voids within the Great Pyramid's walls after the structure was blown open with black powder (at the time, they didn't know where the door was.)

Do you believe that this mortar was also placed there, between walls, at some later date, rather than it being leftover and used for fill, as is surmised by Egyptology?

Ask Davidovits. He'll tell your there are both very thick and very thin layers of mortar to be found between stones in the G.P., depending on the area you're looking in.

Did you see the pic I linked?

That's got to be 2 or 3 inches of mortar between the stones in that pic, some of it appearing to be bulging out due to the weight above.

Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

see above post, you missed it the first time

I see your three and raise 9,000 who say they are wrong

Now are you going to continue to play the 'authority' card are try something different

edit on 16/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

and you aren't playing a "card" with your 9,000? they could be and most likely are wrong

reply to post by Harte

I disagree with both sides of the "conventional" argument. I bet the blocks were mixed and formed artificially by a machine, spit out like a hay bailer and put in place in no time at all by alien technology with no witnesses. The following Egyptian culture grew up around them and claiming royal lineages connected to the builder(s) of the pyramids, the rulers kept the civilization in control. Anyone who claims they are just a pile of rocks has rocks in their head.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Two possibilities exist either our ancestors knew about technology that has been forgotten or they had help from someone else. The earth is millions of years old so who's to say that Atlantis type civilizations were wide spread and prosperous. Or maybe the alien theory that we got help along the way to accerlerate the knowledge of mankind. Personnally all of these things are still amazing after all these centuries.