Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

page: 5
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


But what is the 'official' story line as to where, how far, and how did they bring the material to the Gizeh plateau? There must be a massive quarry somewhere, a route, evidence of where the material came from.




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by miniatus
 


But what is the 'official' story line as to where, how far, and how did they bring the material to the Gizeh plateau? There must be a massive quarry somewhere, a route, evidence of where the material came from.


Yes - I know what you mean.. that's why I don't really buy the official story line .. and many don't, that's why Aliens come into play.. ( which I also don't believe ) from what I understand there's no limestone quarry that is near by.. one of the books I read suggested that they hauled these blocks down the Nile on some sort of boat .. but I don't buy that either.. I also don't buy that they could lug these things on rollers across the dessert sand.. that's why THIS theory is particularly appealing to me.. it makes sense and can be demonstrated.. they made 3-4 blocks in that video in a fairly short period of time with only a handful of people .. imagine hundreds or thousands cooperating to do this at once?
edit on 6/12/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS

Originally posted by buster2010



You don't build blocks as they dry. In your way of building the blocks would crumble under their own weight. How fast do you think a block weighing tons would take to cure? Just because it is in the desert it doesn't mean it will cure in just a couple of hours.


Who said anything about hours, we are talking month to years to complete each level of the pyramid. If you started forming the blocks at the base of this pyramid in a clockwise direction by the time you get back to the first block you cast over a year could have passes...again not hours, we are talking about months and years!


But they say they built the great pyramid in 14 to 20 years. I was just saying that this wouldn't be possible to do in this time frame. Not to mention there is no way they could have moved enough limestone dust up river by barges to keep up with the building of the pyramids.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I have to re-check my math .. my brain hasn't woke up yet .. lol 3 months and 210 layers would be 630 months...52 1/2 years
edit on 6/12/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
But they say they built the great pyramid in 14 to 20 years. I was just saying that this wouldn't be possible to do in this time frame. Not to mention there is no way they could have moved enough limestone dust up river by barges to keep up with the building of the pyramids.


My math was off .. 52 1/2 years at 3 months per layer and 210 layers ( 630 days per layer ) .. keep in mind that is a cure time of 3 months in France's climate.. assuming a hotter climate you could shave a month or more off that cure time.. say it took 2 months to cure.. 35 years to complete .. say it was only a month in a half .. which could very well be true in an arid climate .. 26 1/2 years ..

You also saw in that video he had two layers of blocks stacked and the blocks had not cured completely .. they were still wet and didn't crumble under their own weight.. that could cut that time in half which would put it perfectly in line with 14-20 years ..

He also didn't say they had to go bust up limestone.. it's there in small pieces.. don't even have to travel to go get it... but even if they did.. it's far more believable they brought up limestone dust than it is to say they lugged blocks weighing tuns while also cutting them perfectly so the seams match and are water tight .. it would be MUCH faster to bring the dust and make limestone cement than to cut and carry blocks..
edit on 6/12/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I really like this theory. It doesn't require outside intervention or mysterious ancient technology. It requires sizable but not necessarily ridiculous amounts of labour. It works with simple tools that could be available in timeframe, uses products naturally found in abundance at the site and a level of chemical knowledge that was realistically within their grasp. It is also strikes me as a very practical way of dealing with the logistical and technical problems of building such a large structure. I have a personal belief that most big monuments are conceived by idealists but achieved by practical men.

If this theory is correct, that leads to a few more questions. What came first? Did they develop this technique first and then use it while building the pyramid? Or did they decide/start building the pyramid and then develop this technique?

If it was an existing technique at the time, it would seem likely that there would be other, older, smaller structures that were built using the technique.

If it was a technique developed for the pyramid, it might be that they intended to use a more traditional method (ie carve and move) and perhaps even a different smaller design, but later changed when the other method proved too cumbersome or this new method offered significant advantages. Is there anything in the construction that suggests a change of building technique or materials?

Fascinating stuff. The solution offered requires so few leaps of faith or imagination that I find it to be very persuasive - though I happily admit my ignorance when it comes to the finer details of Egyptology



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
if one were to believe that the pics of giant skeletons around the world is evidence of humankind being much larger at one point (like the animals, therefore practically logical), then i'd imagine humans twice the size of us would find building the pyramids much easier. there's no evidence at all to say how old they are, they could be a million years old for all we know. so, maybe the giants built the pyramids (in conjunction with the aliens obviously!).



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob
What came first? Did they develop this technique first and then use it while building the pyramid? Or did they decide/start building the pyramid and then develop this technique?

If it was an existing technique at the time, it would seem likely that there would be other, older, smaller structures that were built using the technique.


My guess is since the materials existed at the time and were around in the sand then if the circumstances were right.. a simple rain storm could have clued them into the process.. if everything was in the right spot and got wet, simply reaching down and balling it up in your hands might be enough to clue you into it's properties.. I really do love this theory, it's the first one that actually makes sense and is well within the capabilities of the people during the time.. The Egyptians seemed to be a highly intelligent people.. I like to think of them in the "work smarter, not harder" mentality .. I simply can't picture thousands of them lugging a block or two at a time and hauling it across the dessert .. they seem like they would be too smart for that.. not only that but it would burn a LOT of energy.. a lot more than this method.. which means they would need a large abundance of food to feed those people..



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
If this were true, would the ability to date the pyramids be affected?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
If cast in place, would it be likely that two adjacent "blocks" would stick together? If there is no gap. Maybe they greased them?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Hence, this is yet another interesting "detail" about the great pyramids that supports the information from the "Law of One, the Ra Material" in which Ra states that the stone was constructed in time/space from thought and then kind of pulled into the physical space/time. That is why the stone was not quarried.

Look, i'm not saying anything cause i know how most of you guys feel about the Law of One material but it's just too interesting to dismiss.

Check out the Law of one and think for yourselves. The website is lawofone.info

You can find it under the topic pyramids.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 

ofcourse men build the giza pyramid, but aliens did indeed gave men the tools, equipment and the knowledge to build the pyramid. DUH



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I have my doubts.....
My first thought of how the pyramids were built was pouring something like concrete into molds. It makes more sense then the conventional theory of 1000's of slaves dragging stones weighing 100's of tones on logs! Why was this not thought of before ? Do they still want the world to think that the Romans invented concrete...?

The questions that come to my mind:

Why build the stones so massive?

Wouldn't they crack? Because the stones are so big the center would stay moist for a very long time and not set properly causing movement and cracking.

Would something man made last thousands of years ?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by wycky
I have my doubts.....
My first thought of how the pyramids were built was pouring something like concrete into molds. It makes more sense then the conventional theory of 1000's of slaves dragging stones weighing 100's of tones on logs! Why was this not thought of before ? Do they still want the world to think that the Romans invented concrete...?

The questions that come to my mind:

Why build the stones so massive?

Wouldn't they crack? Because the stones are so big the center would stay moist for a very long time and not set properly causing movement and cracking.

Would something man made last thousands of years ?


The entire purpose behind the alchemical sciences as employed by these people is to study nature, and to master it by emulating it. This is what made knowledge and science a sacred endeavor...as it allowed man to become God. It also is the key behind the entire concept of human Gods, as being able to harness the power of the Gods (scientific study and emulation) is among the most holy things that a primitive people can endeavor.

In todays age we take for granted out collective knowledgbase, and misunderstand what exactly was seen as holy in the days of yore.

What process did God, or nature, take in creating limestone to begin with? It is this process that was studied, synthesized, and sped up. The limestone blocks, therefore, could be viewed as being the limestone equivalent of cubic zirconia.

To understand any of this, I think, you have to start by understanding what it is the priests were trying to achieve. And that "priest", in the case of the ancients, was actually more like "scientist" and "philosopher" mixed into the same person.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Why do some morons have it their heads that the Egyptians had some incredible super-duper technology that we can only dream of and that it's been "lost" in the midsts of time.

They lived in the equivalent of mud huts for gods sakes, lost in their battles with Rome and others, and had the bow and arrow as their ultimate military weapon.

There are no aliens involved, what the hell is wrong with the people who frequent this forum?

Are you all retarded?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


The word "retarded" is an insulting term, both to the individual you refer to and the individuals who actually are retarded.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Would retards be better?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi
They lived in the equivalent of mud huts for gods sakes, lost in their battles with Rome and others, and had the bow and arrow as their ultimate military weapon.


All of which are very good points. Extreme technical innovation in one area would surely bleed over to others.


Originally posted by Power_Semi
There are no aliens involved, what the hell is wrong with the people who frequent this forum?

Are you all retarded?


There may well be a healthy dose of that floating around but I think in most cases it is a mix of wishful thinking and being very open to alternative ideas. I don't see anything wrong with the latter per se but sometimes people get so caught up in the alternative they fail to see the mundane and simple.
edit on 12-6-2012 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I've been saying that the blocks on the Pyramids were likely poured for decades -- either that or they built a massive moat around the structure and floated them in with locks and gates (like the Suez canal).

I'm not the first with that theory -- I read a chemist who looked at the limestone structure who suggested this theory over twenty years ago. Limestone must be surprisingly easy to make a slurry and re-form a natural seeming stone.

It's surprising this theory didn't get more attention than now. Every time someone suggests it's alien technology or the hand of God -- it's usually that they are being lazy and sloppy in their assumptions and research.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Gee SH you must have missed my post

The quarries for the limestone for the bulk of the stone are on the Giz plateau

Quarries as I noted earlier in the thread

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

No the blocks were not 'poured' or they would all look alike, take a look at an image of the core stones, except for heigh they are irregular and show no signs of being 'molded' .... the amount of work to bash out the limestone, crush it then just put it into blocks would have been horrendous, just easier to move the block directly to the site a few hundred yards away
edit on 12/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join