One man, One 26,000lb stone, one 2 pound hammer.

reply to post by Hanslune


Sorry but the tomb theory doesn't hold any water and there is no evidence to suggest they were tombs, the arguments by those who believe they were tombs are speculative and not consistent with accepted scientifically reached conclusions.

The Old-Kingdom stone pyramids were never actually ‘real’ tombs. The so-called tombic theory was only invented in the 19th C. to replace the earlier even more fanciful theories such as a repository of sacred measurements of the Earth, or Biblical Joseph’s storehouse for grain.

The fundamental problem is that no ‘body’ or royal mummy has ever been found in a pyramid. None! Actually none of the Old Kingdom Pharaohs has ever been found, anywhere.

Faced with that inconvenient evidence, or lack of evidence, some of the most eminent Egyptologists have been forced to prevaricate a little. Oxford physicist Kurt Mendelssohn castigated the Egyptian scholars for poor scientific method and suggested it would be more accurate to use the weasel-words ‘funerary monuments’.

Mendelssohn, K. The Riddle of the Pyramids, 35, 81-83

This is an inconvenient fact for most tomb theorists but none the less is accurate and I know what the next argument will be.

The doyen of modern British Egyptologists, Professor I.E.S. Edwards, followed that lead by dissembling with carefully equivocal terminology of ‘symbolic cenotaphs’[2] ; while Harvard Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner (in a 1997 review), hedged with, ‘no pyramid has been found archaeologically with its burial assemblage intact’, and of the ‘temples excavated, none contained obvious facilities for mummification’.[3]

The big problem is that there are no royal bodies, or mummies, or even skeletons. None! Of course the orthodox apologists claim that the ‘tombs’ were obviously robbed in antiquity – which is somewhat of a convenient circular argument. The absence of bodies proves that they must have been robbed! But even that fatuous proposition would be elegantly proved [or disproved] if there were an intact sealed un-robbed tomb or ‘coffin’, which therefore ‘must’ contain a body.

Unfortunately for the tomb theorists it turns out that even the intact sealed ‘tombs’ were empty.

Edwards, I.E.S. The Pyramids of Egypt & Lehner, M. The Complete Pyramids, 26

There are many problems with the tomb theory, many more than I can list in one post or fit supporting evidence to argue but I can tell you one thing, regardless of who built them and when, they were not tombs. This I can say with absolute certainty regarding the pyramids of Giza. Simply put, there is more evidence to suggest they were not than there is to suggest they were.

Harte

imasheep
You cannot cut granite with copper. idc if what you claim to have done...physics dictates its impossible and i defy YOU to post a link saying otherwise.

For a woo, you don't watch "Ancient Aliens" much, or you would have seen Chris Dunn himself (isn't he a hero of yours? LOL) doing exactly that - sawing a hole in a granite slab with a copper tube and sand.

Will you now "defy" us to post evidence of the nose on your face?

Harte

It's the sand that cuts the stone... not the copper.

MOH Granite = 7
MOH Copper = 3.2 - 3.5
Sand is basically SiO2 (Quartz) = MOH 7+

reply to post by AnuTyr


I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but, near every 'fact' or statistic you cite is entirely wrong, from average weight of stone, number of stones used, quarry locations, access to water, and essentially everything else.

For the pyramid site at Giza, for instance, the quarry was located just a few hundred METERS South of the Great Pyramid.
NOT miles, not kilometers.

Below is a nicely artistic overhead view rendering of the Giza site showing some of the topography, including the quarries.

clicky make bigger

Access to water?
The Egyptians established mastery over building irrigation channels, dams and levee systems in the predynastic era long before the very first megalithic site ever existed. Water wasn't a problem.
They had more than enough access to water.

clicky make bigger

They even exploited the annual floods in timing some projects such for transport of more difficult and heavier materials that couldn't be obtained from nearby, but, could be transported by boat from afar quite easily, then towed inland the very short remaining distance, still inside the boat, where then the boat is quite simply disassembled, opened like a gift box for access to the heavy load.

Helious

Sorry but the tomb theory doesn't hold any water and there is no evidence to suggest they were tombs, the arguments by those who believe they were tombs are speculative and not consistent with accepted scientifically reached conclusions.

Sorry the consensus - which is part of the accepted scientific method says yes they are tombs

The Old-Kingdom stone pyramids were never actually ‘real’ tombs. The so-called tombic theory was only invented in the 19th C. to replace the earlier even more fanciful theories such as a repository of sacred measurements of the Earth, or Biblical Joseph’s storehouse for grain.

Completely wrong the AE said they were tombs and this was echo'd by (as far I remember all) ancient writers. The theory was not thought up in the 19th century - that is a very, very silly fringe idea.

The fundamental problem is that no ‘body’ or royal mummy has ever been found in a pyramid. None! Actually none of the Old Kingdom Pharaohs has ever been found, anywhere.

Lots of tombs get looted doesn't make them non tombs, one pyamid from a later period was not looted and had its mummy still inside

Faced with that inconvenient evidence, or lack of evidence, some of the most eminent Egyptologists have been forced to prevaricate a little. Oxford physicist Kurt Mendelssohn castigated the Egyptian scholars for poor scientific method and suggested it would be more accurate to use the weasel-words ‘funerary monuments’.

Oh and what did he say? Quote please

This is an inconvenient fact for most tomb theorists but none the less is accurate and I know what the next argument will be.

The doyen of modern British Egyptologists, Professor I.E.S. Edwards, followed that lead by dissembling with carefully equivocal terminology of ‘symbolic cenotaphs’[2] ; while Harvard Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner (in a 1997 review), hedged with, ‘no pyramid has been found archaeologically with its burial assemblage intact’, and of the ‘temples excavated, none contained obvious facilities for mummification’.

We haven't found any ships with their crews intact either, that doesn't make them floating potting sheds. The problem with pyramids is that they are visable and subject to looting. Mummification didn't take place at the pyramid....

The big problem is that there are no royal bodies, or mummies, or even skeletons. None! Of course the orthodox apologists claim that the ‘tombs’ were obviously robbed in antiquity – which is somewhat of a convenient circular argument.

No it's a fact

The absence of bodies proves that they must have been robbed! But even that fatuous proposition would be elegantly proved [or disproved] if there were an intact sealed un-robbed tomb or ‘coffin’, which therefore ‘must’ contain a body.

Why do the tombs contain sacrophagus?

Unfortunately for the tomb theorists it turns out that even the intact sealed ‘tombs’ were empty.

It is thought in that specific case the body had been destroyed when the earlier tomb was robbed

There are many problems with the tomb theory, many more than I can list in one post or fit supporting evidence to argue but I can tell you one thing, regardless of who built them and when, they were not tombs. This I can say with absolute certainty regarding the pyramids of Giza. Simply put, there is more evidence to suggest they were not than there is to suggest they were.

Except for all the evidence which you passed over and hope no one mentions.....lol

Why are they built in necropoli?

Why did they have mortuary temples attached?

Where did they bury all those 3rd to 13th dynasty Pharaohs?

What is the word in hieroglyphs for tomb?

etc.

Edited to add Helius didn't provide a link to his arguments which came from here

Helious postings came from here

Also one last question when the Roman Emperor's tombs were looted and destroyed by the Visigoths did their tombs cease to be tombs? Visable tombs tend to get looted.

reply to post by Hanslune


Very well, can you quote me a source or sources that claim the ancient pyramids to be tombs that date further back than around 1820?

Do you have any answer to why no mummified remains have been found outside of speculating that everyone one of them had been looted?

Can you explain to me the dynamic that took place in Egypt that turned the corner from erecting pyramids to being buried in hillsides such as the Valley of the Kings? Please don't say grave robbers, outside of Tutankhamun, very few hillside tombs have been found intact either. It's a solve everything answer.

Helious
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Very well, can you quote me a source or sources that claim the ancient pyramids to be tombs that date further back than around 1820?

Imhotep - Royal Architect

A papyrus from the ancient Egyptian temple of Tebtunis, dating to the 2nd century AD, preserves a long story in the demotic script about Imhotep.[20] King Djoser plays a prominent role in the story, which also mentions Imhotep's family; his father the god Ptah, his mother Khereduankh, and his little-sister Renpetneferet. At one point Djoser desires the young Renpetnefereret, and Imhotep disguises himself and tries to rescue her. The text also refers to the royal tomb of Djoser by which the Step Pyramid must be meant.

Hmmm. That's about 45 seconds of Google search.

Very cool OP.. At 2:20 in the video when he is showing us the crack for the first time.. He actually says "you can see the water coming out".. I found that odd.. I'm sure water is in the stone.. I never visualized it being enough to actually trickle out of a solid piece of granite..


I have heard the tomb theory for the great pyramids.. I don't buy it.. I don't care how great and awesomely cool of a pharaoh you are.. I just can't imagine creating such a technologically precise marvel.. Just to toss some dead guy into and seal it up... It defies logic.. I don't claim to know what they were created for but, with such precise placements to planets and solstices.. It would suggest it served a far greater purpose..

Even though the guy in the video was successful in splitting the granite.. The crack had a wicked angle to it.. I wonder what the trick was to get such straight and square splits.. I know its possible just by viewing the large pieces left unfinished at the quarry's...

Nice find S&F..

reply to post by benrl


I'm sorry, but there is a vast difference between breaking a stone into roughly equivalent smaller blocks with iron tools than making precision joined 100's of ton stone blocks into vast formations with supposedly copper tools.

I have a bigger problem with archeology's views on primitive man and earlier civilizations than I do with past man's accomplishments.

I will say that I don't believe that if the paradigm's views on early civilization and societal development are accurate, that early civilizations could have done what is attributed to them by their loansome.

Jaden

AliceBleachWhite

Helious
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Very well, can you quote me a source or sources that claim the ancient pyramids to be tombs that date further back than around 1820?

Imhotep - Royal Architect

A papyrus from the ancient Egyptian temple of Tebtunis, dating to the 2nd century AD, preserves a long story in the demotic script about Imhotep.[20] King Djoser plays a prominent role in the story, which also mentions Imhotep's family; his father the god Ptah, his mother Khereduankh, and his little-sister Renpetneferet. At one point Djoser desires the young Renpetnefereret, and Imhotep disguises himself and tries to rescue her. [color=RED]The text also refers to the royal tomb of Djoser by which the Step Pyramid must be meant.

Hmmm. That's about 45 seconds of Google search.

Really and what information did they give to actually SHOW that the step pyramid must be meant???

Sounds like rampant speculation based on the language used. Back to another circular argument...

Jaden

Helious
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Very well, can you quote me a source or sources that claim the ancient pyramids to be tombs that date further back than around 1820?

Diodorus Siculus (56 BC) From Book I, 63.4-64.14:

Herodotus, the histories vol 2 page 124, 430 BC

Strabo c. 24 BC. (Extract from (16). Taken from 'The geography of Strabo' (Trans. By H. L. Jones) (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons) Vol. III, p. 84-5).

225 A.H. (836 AD) - Papyrus of Abou Hormeis. (Extract from Ref: 24 with notes by Dr. Sprenger) (Note - Pre Al-Mamun).

Masoudi 956 AD

Etc.


[Quote]Do you have any answer to why no mummified remains have been found outside of speculating that everyone one of them had been looted?

Looted during long periods of civil war - look up the intermediary periods

[Quote]Can you explain to me the dynamic that took place in Egypt that turned the corner from erecting pyramids to being buried in hillsides such as the Valley of the Kings? Please don't say grave robbers, outside of Tutankhamun, very few hillside tombs have been found intact either. It's a solve everything answer



Expense, tomb robbers and destruction of mummies

Now answer some of my questions

reply to post by maryhinge


Thanks. Its good to actually have some people agree with me.

reply to post by smithas05


There is zero evidence for any advanced civilization prior to ours. Yet we have evidence of the dinosaurs that lived millions of years before mankind . Lots of evidence from earlier than man but none of an earlier advanced civilization. Not one shred. No tools no artifacts no bones no nothing. There is nothing to support the idea .

reply to post by benrl


That's Kitty Hawk. Not kiddy.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Egyptian building began with simple mud brick mustabas as tombs for their pharaohs. The evolution of technology is right there for us to learn but I guess it's more fun to say aliens. Kind of insulting to their ingenuity.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by smithas05

 

There is zero evidence for any advanced civilization prior to ours. Yet we have evidence of the dinosaurs that lived millions of years before mankind . Lots of evidence from earlier than man but none of an earlier advanced civilization. Not one shred. No tools no artifacts no bones no nothing. There is nothing to support the idea .

I think you're just ignoring the evidence. Or you're looking for similar "technologies" to our own. Part of the problem is that those who study these ancient artifacts are trained as archeologists, not engineers, stone masons, architects, etc... When those disciplines are brought into the mix they are left scratching thier heads looking for plausible explanations as to how a 1200 ton obelisk could be carved and moved with copper tools, rope and wooden wheels.

No valid explanation has been put forth to satisfy anyone who has any practical knowledge of the actual work involved.

One example would be Harte's lack of understanding regarding stone hardness and how abrassive cutting is accomplished. You could try for decades to cut granite with copper but you wouldn't even scratch the surface. The hardness of granite is far higher than copper. Those with practical experience would know that. This is where archeology falls short....

Blarneystoner

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by smithas05

 

There is zero evidence for any advanced civilization prior to ours. Yet we have evidence of the dinosaurs that lived millions of years before mankind . Lots of evidence from earlier than man but none of an earlier advanced civilization. Not one shred. No tools no artifacts no bones no nothing. There is nothing to support the idea .

I think you're just ignoring the evidence. Or you're looking for similar "technologies" to our own. Part of the problem is that those who study these ancient artifacts are trained as archeologists, not engineers, stone masons, architects, etc... When those disciplines are brought into the mix they are left scratching thier heads looking for plausible explanations as to how a 1200 ton obelisk could be carved and moved with copper tools, rope and wooden wheels.

No valid explanation has been put forth to satisfy anyone who has any practical knowledge of the actual work involved.

One example would be Harte's lack of understanding regarding stone hardness and how abrassive cutting is accomplished. You could try for decades to cut granite with copper but you wouldn't even scratch the surface. The hardness of granite is far higher than copper. Those with practical experience would know that. This is where archeology falls short....

Actually, there is PLENTY of evidence. It's been rubbed in your face on this board alone like twenty times. You simply choose to ignore it so that you can keep telling yourself that you are smarter than those "fools" with their fancy degrees, lol.

This is why I can believe the Sphinx and the pyramids at Giza are a lot older than previously thought. This and basic geology.

I agree with a previous observation about the availability of the hardened steel tools this guy uses to pull this off though. So let's stick with supporting human ingenuity instead of spinning this to debunk monolithic conspiracy.

Regardless of where the knowledge came from it's my opinion that we've had it for a lot longer than the status quo would have us believe in order to preserve their egos.

reply to post by CajunMetal


I completely agree. I don't buy into the ancient aliens theory so it must be that mankind had technologies that we don't give them credit for.

The egyptians had access to sofisticated cutting tools well beyond copper chisels and sand abbrasives. Saw marks are found on Granite and Basalt stones in Egyptian quarries and structures. In the link below there are examples of overcuts as well. "Overcuts"... which implies that cutting stone was not a slow arduous task but easily accomplished and fairly rapid. An overcut would never occur if a stone was being cut using hand tools...

Extreme Egyptian Masonry:

The claim that Copper chisels were used to cut Granite and Basalt is ridiculous...

reply to post by jaffo


Your response is confusing... Evidence of what exactly? what are you trying to say?

One example would be Harte's lack of understanding regarding stone hardness and how abrassive cutting is accomplished. You could try for decades to cut granite with copper but you wouldn't even scratch the surface. The hardness of granite is far higher than copper. Those with practical experience would know that. This is where archeology falls short....

reply to post by Blarneystoner


I suppose I'll have to make you a video of me cutting a block of solid granite with some beach sand and a flat copper alloy block of the same copper alloy the Egyptians used for their tools. Takes about 90 minutes to cut a 3 inch channel.

All you need is high quartz content sand, a rectangular piece of copper alloy, about a 1/2 inch thick, and 16 inches longer than whatever it is you're cutting so you can get a good 8 inches of travel. It's a bit of a pain in the butt to start but once the channel gets about 3mm deep, its a pretty easy process. The heavier and flatter piece of copper the better. I found that doing a fast rough cut with a chisel on the block where Im going to make the cut makes getting it going alot easier. ( for full disclosure, I did not use a copper alloy chisel to make this rough cut channel I used a modern stone chisel from a local hardware store, but when you spend 14 hours making 3mm of progress, you tend to not want to go through that again)

I'd also recommend wrapping the "handle" end of the copper with some rope or other insulation, that stuff get HOT fast.

The copper wears down, heats up, and fractures once in awhile, it may take several "blades" to cut through a stone. But you really don't have to cut all the way through the block, you can get about 1/3 the way in and you'll find the weight of the stone can be used to split it nearly perfectly.